Labour, opposing, in opposition an unpopular policy does not mean they would not have implemented it in power.
Pre-election Labour's policy on Higher Education and fees was to wait for the outcome of the Browne Review. The policies being discussed regarding fees are not ConDem policies, they are the recommendations of an independent inquiry.
Here is my position. In my local area the candidates were asked to sign a release saying that fees would not go up under their party. The only candidate to refuse was the Labour candidate. It made her unpopular. It made her honest. She is my local MP and I like her a lot for that.
Right next thing along, public spending cuts. You can say "no ifs, no buts, no public spending cuts" all you want but what is your viable alternative? Whoever was in power was going to make cuts. There was fat to be trimmed. The main way that public money is wasted is through poor purchasing and procurement practices, a fact that was brushed under the carpet by Labour and is being brushed under the carpet by the ConDems now they are in power. Why? Well it makes less splashy headlines and it takes more hard work.
I'll lay my political beliefs on the line here. I am definitely left wing and I am almost certainly a Labour supporter, but not necessarily a Labour fan. So if you say if Labour in power things would be better, I'd like to ask you to stop and think. I believe that cuts brought in under Darling would have been more progressive in nature than those brought in by Osborne. I believe that the focus on child poverty which I really truly believe in would have been retained. I also believe that deeply unpopular decisions would have had to be taken. I believe that lots of people would have been hurt. I believe that a recession always hurts no matter who is in power.
People are losing their jobs and that is genuinely awful. Every day people are having to face the fact that there are 5 job seekers for every job, or more in some places (where I am it is about 30). These are tough times. Families are suffering from this. Spending from individuals is going to drop. The economy is going to struggle more.
Sticking your head in the sand and pretending it is not happening is not a good move. But then neither is pretending that there would have been no recessions, no cuts, no Browne review under Labour.
Wake up! The world is changing. We need to work to ensure that it changes for the better. And if we want that we need to speak together about what the priorities are. And we need to think carefully before we do that. Any knee-jerk response will get us nothing. If we want change we need to speak and think clearly. What are our priorities?
Thursday, 11 November 2010
Monday, 27 September 2010
Miliband of Brothers
I was far too excited about the Labour Leadership Announcement. Saturday at 3pm you would have seen me (had you been in my house, which I am rather glad you were not) doing a little song and dance about the announcement.
And then the announcement happened. I was glued to the TV (well not literally) and watched it all as it happened. Ed looked like he was going to cry. David looked really happy. The results did not seem to reflect that. As a rsult I was forced to picture Ed and David Milliband doing a version of Poker Face a la Lea Michelle and Indina Mendel in Glee. I don't want to be the only one with that mental image so here is the video. I like to think of David as Indina and Ed as Lea. And by like, I mean am forced to by my subconscious.
At the moment I am choosing to reserve judgement. My brother was planning on throwing himself under a bus if David won, my sister seems gutted that Ed won. I am mostly just waiting to see how it pans out. But quite concerned, I am scared that this whole thing might shake my belief that flawed though it is, the British political system works with the opposition tending to fight the best fights.
We shall see. In other news though (and related to my last post) what I think we need more in british politics is DOOM - particularly if riding a unicorn through a rainbow.
And then the announcement happened. I was glued to the TV (well not literally) and watched it all as it happened. Ed looked like he was going to cry. David looked really happy. The results did not seem to reflect that. As a rsult I was forced to picture Ed and David Milliband doing a version of Poker Face a la Lea Michelle and Indina Mendel in Glee. I don't want to be the only one with that mental image so here is the video. I like to think of David as Indina and Ed as Lea. And by like, I mean am forced to by my subconscious.
At the moment I am choosing to reserve judgement. My brother was planning on throwing himself under a bus if David won, my sister seems gutted that Ed won. I am mostly just waiting to see how it pans out. But quite concerned, I am scared that this whole thing might shake my belief that flawed though it is, the British political system works with the opposition tending to fight the best fights.
We shall see. In other news though (and related to my last post) what I think we need more in british politics is DOOM - particularly if riding a unicorn through a rainbow.
Wednesday, 15 September 2010
Thank you!
Thank you for the comments on my last post. I work in education so get a bit riled about it.
I have lots to say at the moment but am not finding time to say it because the big public spending cuts seem like they might be about to hit me personally. I am,of course taking it in a calm collected manner, so for now I would like to leave you with the following picture and comment
We're Doomed
I have lots to say at the moment but am not finding time to say it because the big public spending cuts seem like they might be about to hit me personally. I am,of course taking it in a calm collected manner, so for now I would like to leave you with the following picture and comment
Friday, 10 September 2010
I believe the children are our future
I wrote this a few weeks ago and found it today - as the new free schools have now been published (and sadly and annoyingly supported my worst fears about them) and as Blair's awful personality show is on the road it seemed a good time to post.
I think the next post here will be post Spending Review and once I have time to digest it a bit. This is one about big society, education and Blair's legacy where is worked (as he did some good stuff in there - stuff he seems determined to overshadow with his recent interviews and exploits).
So a while ago I got angry about Big Society and now it is coming in. The reason I am angry is because it is a lie. Basically "Big Society" is a wolf in sheep's clothing, claiming to empower communities, but acting instead as a return to Thatcherite "No such thing as society, only individuals and families" policies.
Basically this will work through choice.
Choice is a difficult thing and tends to empower only those who are already empowered but there are examples of it working well. Direct Payments were brought in under Labour, and while some users found the opportunity to employ their own staff, empowering, others found it a burden. And it could be a burden to manage paperwork, if you have never had to before, particularly if severely physically disabled with limited energy resources.
Then came a more flexible system as piloted by Simon Duffy and In Control. This did give people choice which they could exercise. Turning Point did interesting work on this area too. When it comes to some parts of state provision choice can be useful. People working in the community can drive change and it can be beneficial. It has led to some interesting innovation, and to better spending of public money.
Allowing charities to engage in the debate about how to commission services has been proven to have some benefit too. Again this was done under Labour with a major project to improve the commissioning of services, and the links between the public and third sectors.
But then there is the next level (and most of this has been in place since Blair) where an individual can choose which hospital they have their operation in, or choose which school their child goes to. The argument here is that the choice drives up quality, but does it really? Surely to drive up quality there would need to be a surplus of providers and a fair amount of capital spread between them. In both these cases I can't see that happening. We don't have a surplus of schools or hospitals, and we certainly don't have the capital to invest in them.
The Building Schools for the Future programme has turned into a fiasco, and Gove's attempts to rush further policies through on education don't really inspire confidence. If I believed choice would drive up quality, I'd be all for it, but education needs investment, particularly in schools.
Recently there was a furore about the salary paid to a head teacher in a state school, but it shows how short people's memories are. The reason salaries for many head teachers went up, was because there was a shortage of quality head teachers, particularly working in deprived schools. How do we expect to drive up the quality of teaching and care for those who need it most?
This is where I start saying things like "I believe the children are our future" because I do. I think the cuts have the potential to leave us with a lost generation. That might sound a bit overblown but it really is what I feel. We are cutting school meal provision, which means the children who are from the socio economic backgrounds least likely to perform will have another barrier to learning.
Some of the better teachers may be lured to "free schools", which will probably have better facilities, smaller class sizes and more generous resources provided by the (almost certainly) overwhelmingly middle class parents who set them up. Local authorities are being asked to make cuts, they are cutting advice and guidance services, which means that even if those children were able to learn while undernourished, with larger class sizes in unsatisfactory buildings they would not know what to do with it. Or at least would not know the full range of options available.
The other place where this information could be found in the past was from Universities, but as they are making cuts, many are cutting their widening participation provision, which further reduces the chances that these children have the chances of thinking of their options. Of course if they do choose to go to university it is really unclear what the options will be for them by then too.
The whole thing seems like a kick in the teeth for social mobility, and though not everyone wants social mobility, it should be an option. I do believe in meritocracy, and I don't believe that is going to be the system we have.
But there is hope. There is always hope. And that is how I leave you today.
I think the next post here will be post Spending Review and once I have time to digest it a bit. This is one about big society, education and Blair's legacy where is worked (as he did some good stuff in there - stuff he seems determined to overshadow with his recent interviews and exploits).
So a while ago I got angry about Big Society and now it is coming in. The reason I am angry is because it is a lie. Basically "Big Society" is a wolf in sheep's clothing, claiming to empower communities, but acting instead as a return to Thatcherite "No such thing as society, only individuals and families" policies.
Basically this will work through choice.
Choice is a difficult thing and tends to empower only those who are already empowered but there are examples of it working well. Direct Payments were brought in under Labour, and while some users found the opportunity to employ their own staff, empowering, others found it a burden. And it could be a burden to manage paperwork, if you have never had to before, particularly if severely physically disabled with limited energy resources.
Then came a more flexible system as piloted by Simon Duffy and In Control. This did give people choice which they could exercise. Turning Point did interesting work on this area too. When it comes to some parts of state provision choice can be useful. People working in the community can drive change and it can be beneficial. It has led to some interesting innovation, and to better spending of public money.
Allowing charities to engage in the debate about how to commission services has been proven to have some benefit too. Again this was done under Labour with a major project to improve the commissioning of services, and the links between the public and third sectors.
But then there is the next level (and most of this has been in place since Blair) where an individual can choose which hospital they have their operation in, or choose which school their child goes to. The argument here is that the choice drives up quality, but does it really? Surely to drive up quality there would need to be a surplus of providers and a fair amount of capital spread between them. In both these cases I can't see that happening. We don't have a surplus of schools or hospitals, and we certainly don't have the capital to invest in them.
The Building Schools for the Future programme has turned into a fiasco, and Gove's attempts to rush further policies through on education don't really inspire confidence. If I believed choice would drive up quality, I'd be all for it, but education needs investment, particularly in schools.
Recently there was a furore about the salary paid to a head teacher in a state school, but it shows how short people's memories are. The reason salaries for many head teachers went up, was because there was a shortage of quality head teachers, particularly working in deprived schools. How do we expect to drive up the quality of teaching and care for those who need it most?
This is where I start saying things like "I believe the children are our future" because I do. I think the cuts have the potential to leave us with a lost generation. That might sound a bit overblown but it really is what I feel. We are cutting school meal provision, which means the children who are from the socio economic backgrounds least likely to perform will have another barrier to learning.
Some of the better teachers may be lured to "free schools", which will probably have better facilities, smaller class sizes and more generous resources provided by the (almost certainly) overwhelmingly middle class parents who set them up. Local authorities are being asked to make cuts, they are cutting advice and guidance services, which means that even if those children were able to learn while undernourished, with larger class sizes in unsatisfactory buildings they would not know what to do with it. Or at least would not know the full range of options available.
The other place where this information could be found in the past was from Universities, but as they are making cuts, many are cutting their widening participation provision, which further reduces the chances that these children have the chances of thinking of their options. Of course if they do choose to go to university it is really unclear what the options will be for them by then too.
The whole thing seems like a kick in the teeth for social mobility, and though not everyone wants social mobility, it should be an option. I do believe in meritocracy, and I don't believe that is going to be the system we have.
But there is hope. There is always hope. And that is how I leave you today.
Friday, 13 August 2010
Friday the 13th? Well it's a massacre at the Audit Commission
So today it was announced that Eric Pickles is scrapping the Audit Commission. The Audit Commission was flawed but this seems a bit much. Surely reform would be a better option? Well it would be but Eric Pickles is a man with a mission and that mission is revenge against an organisation he has long had a problem with.
What better way to deal with your personal issues than to abuse your position and ruin the lives of more than 2000 people? There really is nothing like someone letting his power and his own personal vendettas interfere with his professional judgement. This means that now there is yet another member of the cabinet I no longer have any professional respect for.
Laving all that aside this is still a worrying move. The Audit Commission worked as a national body to look at the efficiency and performance of local authorities particularly with regard to the rather thorough by Gershon Review.
The new plan appears to be for a range of private providers to run this efficiency review service at a time when we need to be more efficient in our public service provision.
EDIT: Since I wrote this I found out that the plan is for individual authorities to get in auditors. This is even worse than I thought. That means no unified benchmarking system, no follow through required on recommendations and additional costs as each time the provider used will have to do extensive research in order to do each piece of work (ploughing through old reports, looking at comparable authorities to get an idea of recent events and so on). This plan also means that authorities may be able to get away with not publishing the reports in full, at least not straight away, as though an FOI request can be processed some may choose to wait until one is received to publish. Of course that is not the only way a local authority can conceal and spin the report - if a local authority if commissioning someone to do their audit they can influence what is and is not reported and how the report is written. The local authority having this much control over the reporting cna mean that say closing many services for old people can be reported as a saving, even if the result is only a short term gain, for a long term rise in spending for emergency services.
This means the new system proposed is more expensive, less transparent and less accountable. Way to go Eric Pickles you have just created a great opportunity for Local Authorities to cut corners and spend too much money anyway. Its the stupidest short term cut with long term financial implications yet from the Con-Dems. Now we juts need to see if someone can trump it.
What better way to deal with your personal issues than to abuse your position and ruin the lives of more than 2000 people? There really is nothing like someone letting his power and his own personal vendettas interfere with his professional judgement. This means that now there is yet another member of the cabinet I no longer have any professional respect for.
Laving all that aside this is still a worrying move. The Audit Commission worked as a national body to look at the efficiency and performance of local authorities particularly with regard to the rather thorough by Gershon Review.
The new plan appears to be for a range of private providers to run this efficiency review service at a time when we need to be more efficient in our public service provision.
EDIT: Since I wrote this I found out that the plan is for individual authorities to get in auditors. This is even worse than I thought. That means no unified benchmarking system, no follow through required on recommendations and additional costs as each time the provider used will have to do extensive research in order to do each piece of work (ploughing through old reports, looking at comparable authorities to get an idea of recent events and so on). This plan also means that authorities may be able to get away with not publishing the reports in full, at least not straight away, as though an FOI request can be processed some may choose to wait until one is received to publish. Of course that is not the only way a local authority can conceal and spin the report - if a local authority if commissioning someone to do their audit they can influence what is and is not reported and how the report is written. The local authority having this much control over the reporting cna mean that say closing many services for old people can be reported as a saving, even if the result is only a short term gain, for a long term rise in spending for emergency services.
This means the new system proposed is more expensive, less transparent and less accountable. Way to go Eric Pickles you have just created a great opportunity for Local Authorities to cut corners and spend too much money anyway. Its the stupidest short term cut with long term financial implications yet from the Con-Dems. Now we juts need to see if someone can trump it.
Monday, 31 May 2010
A sad day
I have never condemned the Israeli government for their actions in the Gaza strip. I think there is a lot wrong on both sides, with both sides acting in fear and I can't imagine how it would feel to be there. I take no sides in that and never will. I can never understand what it would be like and would never pretend that I could.
Today though I think there is no choice but to condemn the Israeli government (not Israelis) for their attack on a group of unarmed humanitarian aid workers. Unaffiliated journalist who were there, have reported that the Israeli military attacked before they even got to the boat. I cannot understand how a group of unarmed humanitarian aid workers could ever be described as a legitimate military target.
Those people have now been "arrested" by the Israeli government. I have no idea what crime these white flag carrying aid workers might have been arrested for. Maybe they were arrested for trying to get aid into an area that the Israeli military have blockaded? Maybe they were arrested for raising awareness and leading the UN to condemn the blockade?
I know people who are affiliated to the aid convoy, and, for the most part, they are not pro-Palestinian or anti-Israeli, they just don't like to see people with insufficient food or medical supplies. These murdered aid workers just care about human life, in great contrast to the army who classed them as a military target.
This is a sad day. We don't know what has happened to those who survived the brutal attacks. We don't know if there will be a full investigation, or if anyone will be held to account for this awful act in international waters. We don't know if governments will stand up and say that this was truly unacceptable behaviour, and call for the release of those "arrested" and a full inquiry into how this decision was made.
I hoped the days when things like this were allowed to happen were over. The flotilla gave me hope. People who cared about human life were willing to take huge risks to help others. People who cared have been punished for caring in the most brutal way imaginable.
This is a sad day. There are no words left for it.
Today though I think there is no choice but to condemn the Israeli government (not Israelis) for their attack on a group of unarmed humanitarian aid workers. Unaffiliated journalist who were there, have reported that the Israeli military attacked before they even got to the boat. I cannot understand how a group of unarmed humanitarian aid workers could ever be described as a legitimate military target.
Those people have now been "arrested" by the Israeli government. I have no idea what crime these white flag carrying aid workers might have been arrested for. Maybe they were arrested for trying to get aid into an area that the Israeli military have blockaded? Maybe they were arrested for raising awareness and leading the UN to condemn the blockade?
I know people who are affiliated to the aid convoy, and, for the most part, they are not pro-Palestinian or anti-Israeli, they just don't like to see people with insufficient food or medical supplies. These murdered aid workers just care about human life, in great contrast to the army who classed them as a military target.
This is a sad day. We don't know what has happened to those who survived the brutal attacks. We don't know if there will be a full investigation, or if anyone will be held to account for this awful act in international waters. We don't know if governments will stand up and say that this was truly unacceptable behaviour, and call for the release of those "arrested" and a full inquiry into how this decision was made.
I hoped the days when things like this were allowed to happen were over. The flotilla gave me hope. People who cared about human life were willing to take huge risks to help others. People who cared have been punished for caring in the most brutal way imaginable.
This is a sad day. There are no words left for it.
Tuesday, 11 May 2010
Con-dem Nation?
Today Cameron has become Prime Minister.
I'm staying optimistic but I still have one big problem with "Big Society".
I am very pro democracy. I believe that we vote for representatives to act for the good of society. I believe that they read the research, crunch the numbers and come to the best conclusions they can.
I know this is idealistic but it is what I believe.
I believe that big society goes against this. It is a return to the concept of "there is no such thing as society, only individuals and families" in disguise. It is saying people should all act in their own interest. And that to me is anti society, anti community and anti democracy.
I think Cameron's first speech was encouraging. I think Brown was dignified. But I am dispirited right now as I have no idea how this is going to work.
Interesting times. Yes. But big society? I want real society. I want real community. I want real democracy.
We'll have to wait and see if we get it.
I'm staying optimistic but I still have one big problem with "Big Society".
I am very pro democracy. I believe that we vote for representatives to act for the good of society. I believe that they read the research, crunch the numbers and come to the best conclusions they can.
I know this is idealistic but it is what I believe.
I believe that big society goes against this. It is a return to the concept of "there is no such thing as society, only individuals and families" in disguise. It is saying people should all act in their own interest. And that to me is anti society, anti community and anti democracy.
I think Cameron's first speech was encouraging. I think Brown was dignified. But I am dispirited right now as I have no idea how this is going to work.
Interesting times. Yes. But big society? I want real society. I want real community. I want real democracy.
We'll have to wait and see if we get it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)