POLITICS CORNER

[Tardis]

As the Today programme advocated, I agree with the sentiment of a full investigation into the machinations of the Civil Service and the interactions with ministers. They have the power to engage suitably educated people for the tasks given them and they carry out their feasability studies beforehand. If the accountability needs strengthening, then lets ensure that it is put in place.

Far too easy to blame a minister if the department has poor leadership covering incompetance, and surely it would be the job of the minister to expose that and put it right.

During Bliar's outburst he did also skewer Ed's position on the vote

[Stanley]

Tiz. I read the clip from the Guardian. Thanks for the heads up. He would do well to keep quiet. Does he really think that anyone places any weight on his opinion on the matter? Give Godron his due, he did the right thing and emulated Profumo, keep your head below the parapet.

[Stanley]

I wouldn't like to be in Ed Milliband's shoes when he addresses the TUC. He should take note of the way that the Australian equivalent of Labour have booted themselves out of office by forgetting what they were in office for and indulging in internecine strife. He has forgotten what the basic roots of the Party are and abandoned those principles in a craven attempt to divert criticism from the Tories who have wanted to break the link between the Unions and the party for almost 100 years. Mind you, this could have unforeseen consequences. Party funding is a mess and neither the Tories or the Liberals are squeaky clean. If this move triggers further examination of a failed system it could result in some very embarrassing facts being exposed.
Osborne decides to go for broke and announces that we have an economic recovery. At the same time he admits that there are more cuts to come and they will have to continue after the next election. In many ways this is the Milliband syndrome, no account has been taken of the damage done to 50% of the electors on the way to a marginal improvement in the 'economy'. This will please his paymasters in the financial sector but the question has to be asked, what has it done for the country as a whole? I fear that the damage done to society is going to cost us dear for at least the next twenty years. I doubt if I will see any improvement in my lifetime. The only conclusion I can reach is that our system of governance is inadequate. It does not address the aspiration of the greatest good for the electorate as a whole. We have not learned any lessons and in effect the Tory aspiration of a return to laisser faire policies of the 19th century is on track. He is wrong when he says that the opponents to his policies have lost the argument. He will regret saying that as inequality becomes the spearhead of opposition in the country.
Instead of indulging in self-centred matters like reforming links with the unions Labour should either go flat out to campaign for the next election on inequality or change the name of the party. The rumbling you hear in the background is the sound of the old social democrats turning in their graves.
HS2 is in trouble, that's the problem with 'flagship projects' aimed more at PR advantage than proper policies.

[hartley353]

Very well put Stanley, I see no sign of any economic recovery, maybe the view is better in london.

[Tardis]

Obama being called the great procrastinator. That could well be his legacy. A wasted opportunity

Ed is in a position of his own making, because he is vacuous and unable to make a decision without first consulting. His performances are not even 2D and many within the party are now saying that he is a "standby leader". Only 15 of over 60 Unions within the UK are affiliated to the Labour Party, something has already gone seriously wrong if the Labour Party claims to represent the working man. To be fair Len McClusky may have acted within the rules, but so did all those MP's claiming expenses. The damage has been done, because in a democratic system history can show what happens when power is concentrated in the hands of some individuals and Len McClusky has not been shy about his intentions.

A party interested in the wages of the local man would not have allowed unrestricted immigration, as all those people are likely to have higher skills and thus disenfranchise those with less skills to offer. Nor would it have allowed cheap imports to swamp our own industries such that a minimum wage worker here can only afford to buy imported produce. A country where the working man is unlikely to be able to afford to buy his own property. A re-introduction of serfdom, in all but name, which stifle innovation and aspiration.

I still believe that some people expect employers to pick up people coming out of state education, whatever the quality. This is wrong and simply not holistic enough.

The economy is better than it was, has been for over 18 months, and absolutely nothing to do with George Osbourne. Whilst the banks still reduce the overdrafts of 1 in 10 of our SME's their expansions are being funded by other forms of capital. The major issues are still the Eurozone and the growing crisis in India. George could help all industries here if he looked at Business rates properly

Meanwhile we have Vince Cable waving a magic wand and saying everything will be better soon without actually doing anything, and Cameroon leaves red boxes on trains apparently

[Stanley]

Don't be too quick to judge Obama. If the US hadn't waved the big stick of military intervention there would not have been the level of debate we have seen over the last two weeks. Consider the result, Putin has modified his stance (and his foreign minister says the initiative for the new policy came from Kerry). Asad has responded positively. The UN will doubtless swing into action to put the inspection regime in place. What we need to see now is progress but as Obama said last night, what we need to see now is specifics. Put cynicism aside and recognise that the world is a safer place today than it was last week.
The 'economic recovery'. See this LINK for the latest estimate of empty shops on the High Street and recognise the North/South divide. Then take account of the number of pay day loan outlets, pawn shops and betting shops that have opened. It's not simply the numbers but the mix of businesses that is important.
Nice to see that Hune's Guardian article and his radio interviews blaming Murdoch for his downfall have received almost universal derision. Good!
Looking at the Labour funding predicament following Milliband's unilateral action on union contributions my mind goes back to Blair's attempt to modify the funding structure of the Party when he removed collection of membership fees from the local parties and centralised it in London. At a stroke he largely destroyed the power and activity of the grass roots and Labour would do well to look at this and make some attempt to revitalise local party organisation.

[Tardis]

I'm not convinced by Obama's positioning, and Putin's intervention speaks more of wanting to be seen on the international stage as the one with the power to be able to intervene. Putin wants to appear as the statesman. All part of the Great Game

Either way, it is the UN which is powerless to intervene

News this morning that reforming the Unions and their affiliation fees could actually bind Labour closer to the Union paymasters simply because of the precarious nature of their funding and debts.

[Tizer]

Put cynicism aside and recognise that the world is a safer place today than it was last week.

Hear, hear! And perhaps it was ultimately the Commons vote that precipitated this new initiative. Good old Britain points the world in the right direction. I like it!

[Stanley]

And I think it's important Tiz to recognise that the driver behind the refusal to endorse force was public opinion. Contrast this with how Blair handled the Million March, he just ignored them. What a mistake that was. What saddens me is that in the politically exciting grandstanding nobody has mentioned the plight of the refugees. Governments are quite happy to advocate expensive and destructive military intervention but aren't as quick to put money where it would do the most good.
I see that Vince Cable isn't necessarily 100% behind Osborne's claim that the economic problem has been cracked. Very wise for several reasons, the first is that all this is based on statistics and reinforced by local labour shortages in very skilled manufacturing. The acid test in the long run is the financial health of the whole country, not selected high end pockets. All the evidence is that 50% of the population are worse off and facing at least another ten years of economic pressure. There will be social consequences from this and I get the feeling that this is completely outside the analysis we are seeing applied at the moment.
In a way, Milliband's problems with party funding are another facet of ignoring public opinion. The root of his changes was a panic over-reaction to criticisms on party funding. He never consulted with the unions but issued a diktat. Now he is having to reconsider. If he had been closer to the roots of Labour and aware of the growing criticism of the gap between politics and reality he would not have chosen this course. It's another example of the disconnect between Westminster and the grass roots. If there is to be any improvement in this relationship it has to start with a reality check about the bottom end of society. There has to be less massaging of individual egos and more old-fashioned public service. In the end, all politics is local not the Westminster Bubble and the connection can only be repaired by old fashioned principle. Labour is essentially a movement based on social democracy, it has moved too far to the right and it's time for some serious thinking about the next election. The root of success will not be found in economic nit=picking but recognition of deprivation at the grass roots. The electorate would respond to a thrust like that but no signs that Labour are seriously addressing this.
Nigel Evans hits the news again (LINK) and is reported to have said that if charged with more offences he will resign "in order to concentrate on my defence". Wrong reason Nigel, you should have resigned when the first suspicions were raised in order to avoid tarnishing the image of your office. I have no knowledge or opinions about the veracity of the charges but I do know that mud sticks and clinging on to office with fingertips is not the honourable way to deal with this.

[Tardis]

Hmm, Putin's offer was made at the G12 and rejected. It doesn't seem to have many wheels on it and Obama is frantically waving the threat of his missiles which don't 'pinpoint'

I'm still of the belief that the Syrian case is not proved and I would rather say that the Cameroon is a pragmatist rather than a warmonger like Bliar. Recognise the grave implications from intervening in a situation where you can not carry the whole world. I also recognise that with each passing day the civil war in Syria kills many more innocent people, but it those people who have the power to stop the conflict.

Ed's speech yesterday was weak and confused and some of the baracking from the members in the questions just displays the amount of disconnect.

Vince the Cable knows that he has to have a go at Georgie because his own department is failing to stir the necessary investment. The fact that he attacks the coalition demonstrates that he has very little in the way of solutions to offer, or innovations to radically alter and rebalance the economy.

[Tripps]

Young Nigel seems to be having difficulty with the difference between incredulous and incredible. Poor show from a former Deputy Speaker.

Incredible means "hard to believe," literally "not able to be believed."
Incredulous means "skeptical" or "unbelieving." It refers to a person's response.

[Tardis]

Sometimes I wonder why Ed goes to PMQ's.

To be so openly mocked, I do wonder how long he does actually intend to hold onto the position:

went to Bournemouth and he completely bottled it’ and that ‘he told us it was going to be Raging Bull, he gave us Chicken Run

No economic policy, no foreign policy and no leadership, he promised us a blank sheet of paper and 3 years later he has delivered

Plus the 'living standards' line may have evaporated as the ONS and ASDA release statistics to show that families have lost almost £900 since 2009

[Stanley]

Ed Milliband made a valuable point yesterday which deserved more attention than ya-boo replies from Cameron. He pointed out that unemployment was not universally falling, in fact it's rising in parts of the country away from the South. This goes to the heart of using national statistics to prove a point and is a very old tactic. Go back to Charlie Webster's "Healthy or Hungry Thirties" and recognise that the manipulation of statistics to 'prove' a point is a cynical use of the data. In the 1930s case it became obvious that this was indeed naked politics but this wasn't provable until after the event. We would do well to regard the present case as political manipulation of the data which takes the national average but ignores the local hot spots which are where the problems are. This is not only shallow and dishonest but bad politics which, in the end, will rebound on the users.
Consider the stated policy of the BofE to leave interest rates alone (Barring other factors such as inflation) until unemployment falls to 7%. It will be the national average which governs this, not local variations. It follows that increases in interest rates will bear down more harshly on local pockets where unemployment is still above the 7% average. One thing is certain, there will be no locally based levels of interest, one size will fit all. So, a policy which sits well with the more affluent parts of the country will further damage the less fortunate. This is plainly a case where fairness dictates that measures should be taken to cushion the impact on those hardest hit but don't hold your breath!
Have a look at this LINK for the reaction of Grant Shapps to the UN report on the Bedroom Tax (Yes, that is what everyone calls it!). This is automatic rebuttal of any criticism no matter where it comes from and is an extension of the ya-boo politics of PMQs. The right course is to take it as a contribution to the debate, not to rubbish the researcher. This applies to Ed Milliband's evidence about local unemployment rates as well. We are short of rational debate!
By the way, Shapp's comment that the lady comes from a 'slum-ridden' country was gratuitous and betrays his mental attitude towards any criticism.
See this LINK for a perfectly reasonable letter advocating that children should be allowed more time for play. Rubbished by Gove's department. I know I'm old-fashioned but we deprive our kids of too much childhood as it is. I learned by play, why can't today's children do the same. Or is this adults imposing disciplines on children influenced more by market economics than what is best (and most enjoyable) from their point of view.

[Bruff]

Personally, I don't find the yah-boo of PMQs an edifying spectacle and I often find that the 'open mocking' of anyone rather reflects on the mocker than the mocked.

It's also not clear to me what the ONS's '£900' refers to. The average family? The median family? The most common family? It would be helpful to know as without one can't judge the merits of this lesser as opposed to the somewhat larger figure the Leader of the Opposition uses. Which of course requires there is a clarity from the Opposition on the origin of their figure. Part-related, I note the PM again used the 'statistic' that food banks expanded 10-fold under the previous administration. This is of course true. However, this was from a very low base, and within the context of current usage, basically meaningless. It's the sort of sleight of hand for example, that our more ridiculous red tops use to hand out their daily diet of concern to the gullible. I note the Education Secretary appears to suggest those using food banks do so because they are bad at managing their finances. Of course.....

I think I may be right in noting that the starting of formal education at 4 years old here is a legacy of earlier times where it was felt that six years of education or thereabouts was enough to get you reading and writing and so ready of the world of work at about 10 years old. Fair enough. We are though pretty special in still persisting with 4 years of age - 90% of countries start (often) much later, including almost the whole of Europe. I can only imagine how ill-prepared and educated for their futures the children of France and Germany and Sweden and Finland and so on are. I mean, they must be surely? I jest. The DfE's response was odd, banging on about the real need for children to develop the ability to tackle complex problems with calculus, become poets, engineers etc, as the reason for starting as early as we do. I think the point of the letter from the academics etc was that a later start would make us even better at these things. And the response could rather suggest other countries don't produce poets. Dear me. The only future this country has is what sits in our heads and how we use it. Imagination, creativity, critical-thinking are the way forward. We can never compete with building the ships but we can develop the better designs, so to speak. But this needs time for quiet thought and concentration (all of which our history would suggest we are quite good at). But the direction of Mr Gove seems to me the polar opposite of this.

Do we know whether Mr Shapps was 'Grant Shapps' yesterday? Are we sure he wasn't Michael Green? Or Sebastian Fox? That cheap jibe aside, given what I say above(!), it is well known the UN Rapporteur's home country is slum-ridden. One reason why one of her earlier reports was taking the Brazilian Government to task over it's treatment of the favelas, in particular with respect to the Olympics and World Cup work. I might also note, for Mr Shapps/Green/Fox's benefit, that talking to one person will give you an anecdote; talking to a few more will give you a selection of anecdotes. But when you speak to 50 upwards you are beginning to get some qualitative data which can be used.

Richard Broughton

[Tizer]

Good stuff Richard, but I have a question. I'm aware that many other countries choose to start their children's education years later than we do but I don't know what they do with the kiddies in the years leading up to that point. Are they not `in education' but in nurseries and thereby gaining what might be called practical training for life? Or do the parents in those countries not both work and still have the traditional system whereby one stays at home to look after the kids? Or are all the children with child-minders? When I was a wee sprog my parents were both working shifts, one in the factory the other in the mill and therefore the early school entry was a godsend. In the holidays I spent time with Grandma. Maybe the difference is that the UK pioneered the industrial revolution and as well as getting some of the best out of it we got some of the worst - slums, poor diet...and kids starting school so early. It would be interesting to see a TV programme showing us how these other countries bring up their kids.

[Bruff]

I don't think the suggestion is that you do not attend an 'educational' establishment until say age 6. Rather, it's what you expose children to, and how you do it, when they are at nursery or school, call it what you will. The crux of what the letter writers' argue it seems to me is that children mature with respect to their capacity for formal learning at very different rates and there are benefits - both educational and importantly for their more general well-being - in recognising this. In Germany for example, I understand that children are assessed for their maturity to start their formal education. Further arguments are that via play, children develop their natural enquiring, cooperative, social skills as well as wonderment and these become embedded. Play can be enormously educational when managed and delivered well - it is not dossing about. Start formalising learning too early for everyone, and structure it where you are seen as simply a vessel for soaking up knowledge (which is rather different to skills), strikes me as a very narrow view of what 'education' is about.

Problem is, that all wishy-washy stuff. Repeat after me: 2x7 is 14, 3x7 is 21. Henry the Eighth had 6 wives. Important stuff in it's way - particularly the first and the second well, a good general knowledge always impresses grandma at Christmas. But we should look for rather more than that I'd have thought.

The problem I have with the current Education Secretary is that he seems to be of the view that a strongly expressed opinion or belief is a self-evident fact. You could see how he may arrive at this view as in his journalist days, his Opinion pieces in The Times were knocked off, published, read and subject to no direct challenge at all. It must be galling when your similar expressions of belief and opinion in his current role are now suddenly subject to comment and critique from many and varied quarters. A mature, shall we say. individual would reflect on this. The Education Secretary's tack is to either take umbrage, or suggest such 'experts' need to be put right on the error of their ways. I admire the chutzpah, if nothing else.

Richard Broughton

[Stanley]

Good solid stuff from both of you. I like that last paragraph Richard, pity Gove won't read it..... Is it Gove who has the attack dogs on social media?
During the war children started at my primary school as soon as possible. The idea was to free mothers up for war work. The first things they taught us were tidying up, dusting and sweeping the floor.Then we moved on to the three Rs. I still believe that my reading and spelling was massaged by reading Hotspur, Wizard, Rover and the other one which has escaped me. They were text only and on reflection they took great care over grammar, spelling and punctuation. I make no claims for the grammar, spelling and punctuation but I am pretty certain that this was the genesis of my ability to read fast with good comprehension. I get the impression these days that this is an area where many people fail miserably. I can't resist the story about the man who stood up in a parent teacher meeting at Gisburn primary school and asked if it was really necessary for his son to be taught to repeat, parrot-like, things like 8x7 is 52.... Later in my education I was taught by men who were way beyond retirement age (the young were away at war) and still taught using what I suppose were 19th century methods, including the awe inspired by gowns and mortar boards! Funny thing is that I don't think it was a catastrophe. It may be that there is more to education than what can be quantified (can we detect the hand of McKinsey here?). The quality and attitudes of the teachers?

Something is puzzling me. Why should the government be selling off a public service that is at last shaping up and produced a £400million profit?

[Tizer]

I do believe that how we nurture very young children is critical to the future development of the human race. We've got to get it right at that very early stage and - with regard to nutrition - at the stage of the foetus too. So much is defined in those first years, even first months, and remain for life. It's not just a matter of getting right for the individual but for each individual's contribution to society. We have to place more value on our children. I know many people would think I'm barmy to say that - surely we all value our children? Not so. Just look at how we let them be manipulated by advertisers for example, how we let many of them be exposed to too much TV and Internet (and even bad stuff on the Internet).

One of our neighbours, Les, has stomach cancer and now can't walk far. There's a system in this village where dispensed prescriptions can be sent to the village shop for collection to save people having to go into town. He has collected his from there but now finds it difficult. But the postman now picks it up when he visits the shop and delivers it to Les with his post. I wonder if that will continue when Royal Mail is privatised?

[I've called in the `village agent' to see if she can arrange some help for the neighbour. He was discharged from hospital after an operation and told what he should eat in order to put on weight so they can operate to remove the tumour. But he can't cook and they didn't offer him any carer to give him a good meal each day. His wife is now also ill and can't cook for him. Let's hope he can be given some help.]

[Tardis]

Ed Milliband made a valuable point yesterday

Maybe, the point I made was that no one is listening anymore, as credibility ebbs away. Politic's can be very cruel, and you only have to look back to the shenanighan's of Bliar and Brown in the house to see equal dismissal's

Plus latest Yougov poll, still states that 81% believe that the problems with living standards were created on Labour's watch

[Bruff]

''Plus latest Yougov poll, still states that 81% believe that the problems with living standards were created on Labour's watch''

On the one hand, this could be read as folk blaming Labour for their circumstance(s). On the other, this could be a simple confirmation that what we are having to endure is due to events, which as matter of record occured 'on Labour's watch', but actually the 'blame' lies elsewhere. I don't know without more context which it is, and so do not know whether is bad news or well.....inconsequential news I guess, for Labour.

Mr Blair managed to win an election with a significant majority after the Iraq debacle and his reputation in the toilet. So I'm not sure what we can read in to approval ratings, dismissals, folk taking whatever's said with a pinch of salt and so on. I'm not so naive as to think personality doesn't play a part in elections, but I do sometimes think is over-played. Mind you, increasingly we are 'liking' things these days - thumbs up on Facebook, counting your Twitter followers and so on. Maybe, this desparate need to like and be liked means 'personality' is increasingly important.

Richard Broughton

[Stanley]

Richard, I think you are close to a truth in your last para. Long ago I decided that blame didn't interest me, that is water under the bridge, it's the consequences that are important and have to be addressed. That's why I have always been opposed to the speed and targeting of the present government's economic strategy. We are building great problems for the future which could conceivably cancel out the purely monetary gains they are aimed at. Governments are happy to claim responsibility for any seemingly successful policy but any faults or blame are always 'the others'. Politics is very bad at basing policies on proper cost benefit analysis. They have to farm it out to qualified people, it takes too long and they can't control it.

[Tardis]

Very difficult to inflate away all that debt and try to deflate asset prices too without stoking demand, I imagine

[plaques]

I always get concerned when I hear that parliament is being asked to push through some urgent bill. Invariably this urgency is for the good of the country and without question is the right thing to do. The accompanying rhetoric usually contains phrases such as-
The question is… (ie: the question I would like you limit yourself to)
It is only fair that the working man.. (don’t start to think about the super rich )
The fact of the matter is.. ( I like my idea best so end of debate)
Its good for the country and its good for you.. (just take my word for it)

Normally these fast track bills are a recipe for disaster. More often than not the end result doesn’t turn out like the initial promise. Without a proper balanced debate any flawed logic or unintended consequences are simply brushed to one side. Recent examples are. NHS reforms, Bedroom tax, Universal benefit payments, Military intervention in Syria, High speed trains, and the latest, Royal Mail privatisation. This is democracy by dictatorship.

[Stanley]

There is much in what you say P. Look at the last two governments. Both out of office for over ten years, both quite sure they had the answer and both, on the whole, wrong. Blair smashed principled Labour and Cameron reverted to 19th century Tory DNA. Add the Thatcher Government and you have almost forty years in which, for long periods of time, one person had almost uninterrupted power. The results have not been edifying. Some of us think that one of the most productive modern governments was the 1945 Labour administration. It's instructive to recognise that they were brought to power by a spontaneous wave of public revulsion against division on a continental scale, the Second World War. Nobody who voted for them could have known what seismic changes would happen in society, the driver was the need for a new way. Being an historian, I am essentially an optimist and believe that when our system of governance gets too far out of balance there is an automatic check and what I see at the moment is enormous imbalance, perhaps the greatest being the gap between the Two Nations, the Rich and the Poor. Given men and women of adequate calibre in Opposition, the result 'should' be a rebalancing of governance.
But there's the rub. I can't for the life of me see the politicians of principle that are necessary for this to happen. It may be that I am wrong and they are lurking there waiting to step forward. All I can say is that they will not be professional 'one-trick' politicians. If they exist they will come from lower down in the social order.
One other cloud on the horizon to watch out for. There is nothing more dangerous or headstrong than a Tory administration staring defeat at the polls in the face. Look at the gallop to Rail privatisation under Major in his last days. Nobody knows what the next election will hold but the evidence at the moment is that there could be a reaction against the Tories and this might trigger another destructive gallop.

[Stanley]

The Lib-Dems conference isn't going well. Nick Clegg is desperate to persuade the membership that by joining in the coalition the party has been able to influence policy and is citing the 'economic revival' as evidence of this. Unfortunately Vince Cable is evidently not convinced and is sounding warnings about getting too excited. This is grist to the mill for Clegg's critics and the commentators are loving it, headlines like 'The Lib-Dems are Revolting' Not good news for Nick and of course it will be even more serious if the party doesn't make a reasonable showing in the European Elections. Add to this the fact that they have lost a third of their members and prospects of any revival are looking remote.