Friday, January 01, 2010
A straw man
After 13 years of government and reams of legislation, you would have thought that having come to power promising to tackle crime and the root causes of crime, Labour might have cracked it by now. Alas that is not the case and the frustration is beginning to show.
That is evident in the remarks of Justice Secretary, Jack Straw who has decided that he is going to blame the police for his own failure to deliver on Labour promises.
In today's Guardian, Mr. Straw puts forward the view that some police officers prefer staying in the warmth of the police station than getting out on the beat. That is a gross slur on the professionalism of a hard-working but under-resourced profession.
The Justice Secretary is undoubtedly right when he says that good leadership can be the difference between a top-performing police force and one that is failing to meet all its targets but Simon Reed, vice-chairman of the Police Federation, also has a valid point.
He said that Mr. Straw's remarks were irresponsible and inflammatory: "It wasn't police officers who brought in 3,000 new laws. It wasn't police officers who brought in a 30-page prosecution file. And it wasn't police officers who brought in multiple forms and authorities to use a pair of binoculars." Exactly!
That is evident in the remarks of Justice Secretary, Jack Straw who has decided that he is going to blame the police for his own failure to deliver on Labour promises.
In today's Guardian, Mr. Straw puts forward the view that some police officers prefer staying in the warmth of the police station than getting out on the beat. That is a gross slur on the professionalism of a hard-working but under-resourced profession.
The Justice Secretary is undoubtedly right when he says that good leadership can be the difference between a top-performing police force and one that is failing to meet all its targets but Simon Reed, vice-chairman of the Police Federation, also has a valid point.
He said that Mr. Straw's remarks were irresponsible and inflammatory: "It wasn't police officers who brought in 3,000 new laws. It wasn't police officers who brought in a 30-page prosecution file. And it wasn't police officers who brought in multiple forms and authorities to use a pair of binoculars." Exactly!
More Plaid Cymru nonsense
Plaid Cymru AM, Nerys Evans leaps into action in this morning's Western Mail with a load of old nonsense that belies her intelligence.
In many ways her view that allowing Welsh MPs to serve as Government ministers in Whitehall with responsibility for England-only affairs is “unaccountable, undemocratic and unfair” is a natural position for a separatist, but her justification for this position demonstrates a surprising ignorance of the constitutional settlement we are working with.
Nerys believes that the three Ministers she cites are examples of an outdated system that is yet to catch up with devolution. In reality though devolution has yet to catch up with the world that she believes she is inhabiting.
The fact is that we have an asymetric devolution system in which Wales does not have full responsibility for many areas that appear to be devolved and under the terms of the Government of Wales Act 2006 is unlikely to do so. Kevin Brennan may be Minister for further education, skills, apprenticeships and consumer affairs for example but many aspects of his work are cross-border. The same applies to Ian Lucas, (parliamentary under-secretary of state in the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills) and Ogmore MP Huw Irranca-Davies (minister for marine and natural environment at the Department for Environment and Rural Affairs).
Secondly, the idea of accountability Nerys advocates is a peculiar one that does not fit with reality. Just because somebody is a Minister does not mean that they cease to represent their constituents on the whole range of UK government responsibilities. Equally, they act as Ministers through the mechanism of collective responsibility. They are accountable not just to their own constituents for their decisions but to the whole country. Because they represent the government then if people do not like what they do then they vote out the administration not the individual Minister. But then Plaid Cymru have never fully grasped the meaning of collective responsibility in a government context.
Thirdly, having experience of representing a constituency in a devolved country can actually bring benefits to the government, enabling a better understanding of policy differences and responsibilities and enabling them to consider new ideas, already tried out in different governments. The 40 Welsh MPs serve in the UK Parliament therefore they should be able to also serve in the UK Government. Where is the problem with that?
Finally, I am astonished that Nerys fails to pinpoint the real democratic deficit at the heart of the UK Government, Ministers such as Mandelson and Adonis who are not just unelected but are not members of the elected chamber and thus cannot be properly held to account for their decisions. Their position reflects the great unfinished business of constitutional reform, the creation of an elected second chamber. Together with voting reform maybe that is something we need to concentrate on achieving in the new decade.
In many ways her view that allowing Welsh MPs to serve as Government ministers in Whitehall with responsibility for England-only affairs is “unaccountable, undemocratic and unfair” is a natural position for a separatist, but her justification for this position demonstrates a surprising ignorance of the constitutional settlement we are working with.
Nerys believes that the three Ministers she cites are examples of an outdated system that is yet to catch up with devolution. In reality though devolution has yet to catch up with the world that she believes she is inhabiting.
The fact is that we have an asymetric devolution system in which Wales does not have full responsibility for many areas that appear to be devolved and under the terms of the Government of Wales Act 2006 is unlikely to do so. Kevin Brennan may be Minister for further education, skills, apprenticeships and consumer affairs for example but many aspects of his work are cross-border. The same applies to Ian Lucas, (parliamentary under-secretary of state in the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills) and Ogmore MP Huw Irranca-Davies (minister for marine and natural environment at the Department for Environment and Rural Affairs).
Secondly, the idea of accountability Nerys advocates is a peculiar one that does not fit with reality. Just because somebody is a Minister does not mean that they cease to represent their constituents on the whole range of UK government responsibilities. Equally, they act as Ministers through the mechanism of collective responsibility. They are accountable not just to their own constituents for their decisions but to the whole country. Because they represent the government then if people do not like what they do then they vote out the administration not the individual Minister. But then Plaid Cymru have never fully grasped the meaning of collective responsibility in a government context.
Thirdly, having experience of representing a constituency in a devolved country can actually bring benefits to the government, enabling a better understanding of policy differences and responsibilities and enabling them to consider new ideas, already tried out in different governments. The 40 Welsh MPs serve in the UK Parliament therefore they should be able to also serve in the UK Government. Where is the problem with that?
Finally, I am astonished that Nerys fails to pinpoint the real democratic deficit at the heart of the UK Government, Ministers such as Mandelson and Adonis who are not just unelected but are not members of the elected chamber and thus cannot be properly held to account for their decisions. Their position reflects the great unfinished business of constitutional reform, the creation of an elected second chamber. Together with voting reform maybe that is something we need to concentrate on achieving in the new decade.
Thursday, December 31, 2009
No more predictions
On the first day of this year I foolishly sucumbed to the blogger's disease of seeking to make predictions for the year ahead. I do not intend to repeat the exercise tomorrow. However, in the interests of neatness I have assessed my performance below:
1. There will be a General Election in 2009, most probably in the autumn. The Liberal Demorats will slightly increase their number of MPs, holding on to all four of their Welsh seats. Gordon Brown will emerge from the election with a single figure majority - OK, that was wrong. I no longer believe that Gordon Brown will hold onto power but I am sticking to my predictions for the performance of the Liberal Democrats in Wales.
2. The Swans will finish comfortably in the top half of the Championship but will miss the play-offs - a hit but scant consolation in that. I am hoping for a play-off place this year. Swansea to beat Cardiff in the play-off final would make many people happy around here but if David Jones' team are to make that stage they will need to stop throwing away four goal leads.
3. Rhodri Morgan will resign as Welsh Labour Leader on schedule and will be succeeded by Carwyn Jones - bang on the button.
4. Nick Bourne will survive the year as Welsh Conservative Leader - again a hit despite the best efforts of some in his group.
5. Wales will win another Grand Slam - well, moving on...
6. I will seek to lose weight and fail miserably once more - these predictions are just too easy.
7. Vaughan Roderick will write something nice about the Welsh Liberal Democrats on his blog - actually I am sure that he did, it is just that I cannot find it at the moment. So, we will take that as a hit.
8. The Labour-Plaid Cymru One Wales coalition will survive a major crisis over the Welsh Language LCO and limp on throughout the year - another hit, though it seems that the biggest wobble was over the referendum date.
9. The Ospreys will win the Magners League and the EDF Cup - no more sporting predictions. I just don't get it do I?
In all I make that six out of nine. It really is best to quit while I am ahead.
1. There will be a General Election in 2009, most probably in the autumn. The Liberal Demorats will slightly increase their number of MPs, holding on to all four of their Welsh seats. Gordon Brown will emerge from the election with a single figure majority - OK, that was wrong. I no longer believe that Gordon Brown will hold onto power but I am sticking to my predictions for the performance of the Liberal Democrats in Wales.
2. The Swans will finish comfortably in the top half of the Championship but will miss the play-offs - a hit but scant consolation in that. I am hoping for a play-off place this year. Swansea to beat Cardiff in the play-off final would make many people happy around here but if David Jones' team are to make that stage they will need to stop throwing away four goal leads.
3. Rhodri Morgan will resign as Welsh Labour Leader on schedule and will be succeeded by Carwyn Jones - bang on the button.
4. Nick Bourne will survive the year as Welsh Conservative Leader - again a hit despite the best efforts of some in his group.
5. Wales will win another Grand Slam - well, moving on...
6. I will seek to lose weight and fail miserably once more - these predictions are just too easy.
7. Vaughan Roderick will write something nice about the Welsh Liberal Democrats on his blog - actually I am sure that he did, it is just that I cannot find it at the moment. So, we will take that as a hit.
8. The Labour-Plaid Cymru One Wales coalition will survive a major crisis over the Welsh Language LCO and limp on throughout the year - another hit, though it seems that the biggest wobble was over the referendum date.
9. The Ospreys will win the Magners League and the EDF Cup - no more sporting predictions. I just don't get it do I?
In all I make that six out of nine. It really is best to quit while I am ahead.
Targeting the innocent
And just to prove that we are leaving 2009 on a low, the BBC report that the controversy over Police holding the DNA of innocent people looks set to rumble on into the new year. In fact, even civil liberty breaches appear to be subject to a postcode lottery these days.
They say that some forces delete the profiles of most of those innocent applicants who ask, but others refuse to remove any at all. The average removal rate is only 22%, with six forces not removing any.
The forces that did not remove the DNA profiles of any applicants were Nottingham, Dyfed Powys, Cambridgeshire, City of London, Humberside and Gloucestershire. Those most likely to remove the information were South Yorkshire and Wiltshire, with 80% or more of requests granted.
Last year the European Court of Human Rights ruled that the DNA records of people who had not been charged or convicted cannot be held indefinitely however the Government's response was wholly inadequate and fell far short of the Scottish system where most profiles are deleted if there has been no charge or conviction.
It has now become evident that the Government cannot even get agreement amongst the various police forces to take a consistent approach to their flawed guidelines.
They say that some forces delete the profiles of most of those innocent applicants who ask, but others refuse to remove any at all. The average removal rate is only 22%, with six forces not removing any.
The forces that did not remove the DNA profiles of any applicants were Nottingham, Dyfed Powys, Cambridgeshire, City of London, Humberside and Gloucestershire. Those most likely to remove the information were South Yorkshire and Wiltshire, with 80% or more of requests granted.
Last year the European Court of Human Rights ruled that the DNA records of people who had not been charged or convicted cannot be held indefinitely however the Government's response was wholly inadequate and fell far short of the Scottish system where most profiles are deleted if there has been no charge or conviction.
It has now become evident that the Government cannot even get agreement amongst the various police forces to take a consistent approach to their flawed guidelines.
Labels: ID
Standards of living fall below 2005 levels
After yesterday's leak of the Prime Minister's New Year message in which he declared that the recession is over, that unemployment will start falling within a year and promised that a “decade of shared prosperity” lies ahead it is interesting to note from today's Guardian how big a hole he has dug for us.
They report on the conclusions of Oxford Economics that the recession has pushed living standards in Britain to below the 2005 general election level. They say that Gross Domestic Product per person is £225 lower than in 2005, whilst UK living standards trail those in US by 25%:
Its findings are the latest to show that Gordon Brown's previous claims to have ended "Tory boom and bust" were wide of the mark. In his pre-budget report this month, the chancellor, Alistair Darling, acknowledged that the economy was likely to have shrunk by 4.75% this year – the worst performance since the 1920s.
Darling thinks the economy will expand by a modest 1.25% in 2010 before accelerating sharply to post an expansion of 3.5% in each of the following two years.
Oxford Economics says that gross domestic product per person has fallen to £22,700 on average in 2009, down from £23,000 in 2005 after adjusting for inflation – a fall of 1.3%. In Labour's first two terms GDP per head grew 12.6% and 8.3% respectively.
Even allowing for some recovery in economic growth in 2010, Oxford Economics expects GDP per head to be £22,775 next year (measured in 2009 prices) – a reduction in living standards equivalent to £225 per person compared with 2005.
It is not a pretty picture. These facts will make it even more difficult for Labour to portray itself as a party of economic competence over the next four months, in the lead up to the General Election.
They report on the conclusions of Oxford Economics that the recession has pushed living standards in Britain to below the 2005 general election level. They say that Gross Domestic Product per person is £225 lower than in 2005, whilst UK living standards trail those in US by 25%:
Its findings are the latest to show that Gordon Brown's previous claims to have ended "Tory boom and bust" were wide of the mark. In his pre-budget report this month, the chancellor, Alistair Darling, acknowledged that the economy was likely to have shrunk by 4.75% this year – the worst performance since the 1920s.
Darling thinks the economy will expand by a modest 1.25% in 2010 before accelerating sharply to post an expansion of 3.5% in each of the following two years.
Oxford Economics says that gross domestic product per person has fallen to £22,700 on average in 2009, down from £23,000 in 2005 after adjusting for inflation – a fall of 1.3%. In Labour's first two terms GDP per head grew 12.6% and 8.3% respectively.
Even allowing for some recovery in economic growth in 2010, Oxford Economics expects GDP per head to be £22,775 next year (measured in 2009 prices) – a reduction in living standards equivalent to £225 per person compared with 2005.
It is not a pretty picture. These facts will make it even more difficult for Labour to portray itself as a party of economic competence over the next four months, in the lead up to the General Election.
Wednesday, December 30, 2009
Global warming warrior of the year
Has to be Paris Hilton, who is reported in great detail in yesterday's Daily Mirror on how she spends Christmas in her Beverly Hills mansion:
On her best Christmas celebrations ever, Paris says "I’ve had a lot of great Christmases, but last year’s one was pretty amazing. I had a huge party at my house, and the front and back yards were covered with real snow I had shipped in. We built a mini-mountain in the garden so we could go sledding; it was really festive and so much fun."
I suppose we could now have a debate as to whether more CO2 is expended shipping the snow in or jetting off to an area where it occurs natuarally.
On her best Christmas celebrations ever, Paris says "I’ve had a lot of great Christmases, but last year’s one was pretty amazing. I had a huge party at my house, and the front and back yards were covered with real snow I had shipped in. We built a mini-mountain in the garden so we could go sledding; it was really festive and so much fun."
I suppose we could now have a debate as to whether more CO2 is expended shipping the snow in or jetting off to an area where it occurs natuarally.
Make it so
Gordon Brown's New Year message is apparently going to set an optimisic tone. According to The Times, the Prime Minister will declare that the recession is over, that unemployment will start falling within a year and promise that a “decade of shared prosperity” lies ahead.
If all it took was his say-so then why didn't he do it earlier?
If all it took was his say-so then why didn't he do it earlier?
Under investigation
This morning's Guardian reveals that the Taxpayers' Alliance is under investigation by the Charity Commission after allegations that it may have used its charitable status to gain tax relief, normally reserved for good causes, on donations for political research:
The Charity Commission has stepped up its scrutiny of the campaign group's funding by opening a regulatory compliance case into the Politics and Economics Research Trust. Earlier this month it emerged that, in order to benefit from gift aid, the alliance asked private Midlands businessmen to channel funds through the trust for research into policies which may damage their commercial interests. Organisations may not be charitable if they have political purposes, according to commission guidelines.
"The scope of the investigation is to address the allegations relating to the charity's relationship with the Taxpayers' Alliance," a spokesman for the commission said. The regulator opens such cases when "available information indicates misconduct or mismanagement has occurred" and where trustees' actions "may have been improper".
The investigative powers invoked by the commission cover occasions where charity funds have been misapplied and irregular fundraising activity. Matthew Elliott, chief executive of the Taxpayers' Alliance, denies any wrongdoing.
Often in politics the fact that somebody or some organisation is 'under investigation' is taken as a sign of guilt, that is of course not the case. However, the outcome of this particular inquiry will be watched with interest.
The Charity Commission has stepped up its scrutiny of the campaign group's funding by opening a regulatory compliance case into the Politics and Economics Research Trust. Earlier this month it emerged that, in order to benefit from gift aid, the alliance asked private Midlands businessmen to channel funds through the trust for research into policies which may damage their commercial interests. Organisations may not be charitable if they have political purposes, according to commission guidelines.
"The scope of the investigation is to address the allegations relating to the charity's relationship with the Taxpayers' Alliance," a spokesman for the commission said. The regulator opens such cases when "available information indicates misconduct or mismanagement has occurred" and where trustees' actions "may have been improper".
The investigative powers invoked by the commission cover occasions where charity funds have been misapplied and irregular fundraising activity. Matthew Elliott, chief executive of the Taxpayers' Alliance, denies any wrongdoing.
Often in politics the fact that somebody or some organisation is 'under investigation' is taken as a sign of guilt, that is of course not the case. However, the outcome of this particular inquiry will be watched with interest.
Tuesday, December 29, 2009
Twitter at large
When somebody said that Twitter would take over your life they may well have been joking, however if this advert is anything to go by then it has certainly entered the job market place:
While the eye-grabbing headline is asking for a “Twitter Genius” in Greenwich Village, the actual role is an “expert” social media marketer for some sort of e-commerce startup. “I need someone who tweets in their sleep and updates their fb status before calling their mom on Mother’s Day,” the description reads. And it gets better.
Background, education, references? Nah, these people don’t care about that stuff. All that really matters for getting this job is to follow the six little rules perfectly. Those are:
1) Email me two tweets. The first should be about your experience. The second should by why you’re perfect for this job. If you exceed twitter’s allotted character count, you’re done.
2) Email me your Twitter name in link form (e.g. http://www.twitter.com/YOURNAME)
3) Tell me how many followers you have and how many people you follow.
4) Tell me who’s the best person you follow and why (in tweet form).
5) Tell me what’s the best way to get more followers (in tweet form).
6) Specific salary requirement.
So basically, if this application is more than 600 characters or so, you’re done. And you better be damn well ready to talk briefly about how you can best self-promote, or you’re done. Also, it’s probably better if you don’t want too much money. But don’t say why, keep it short.
I suppose it will ensure that they can keep staff meetings short. Will the interview be conducted in 140 character chunks as well?
While the eye-grabbing headline is asking for a “Twitter Genius” in Greenwich Village, the actual role is an “expert” social media marketer for some sort of e-commerce startup. “I need someone who tweets in their sleep and updates their fb status before calling their mom on Mother’s Day,” the description reads. And it gets better.
Background, education, references? Nah, these people don’t care about that stuff. All that really matters for getting this job is to follow the six little rules perfectly. Those are:
1) Email me two tweets. The first should be about your experience. The second should by why you’re perfect for this job. If you exceed twitter’s allotted character count, you’re done.
2) Email me your Twitter name in link form (e.g. http://www.twitter.com/YOURNAME)
3) Tell me how many followers you have and how many people you follow.
4) Tell me who’s the best person you follow and why (in tweet form).
5) Tell me what’s the best way to get more followers (in tweet form).
6) Specific salary requirement.
So basically, if this application is more than 600 characters or so, you’re done. And you better be damn well ready to talk briefly about how you can best self-promote, or you’re done. Also, it’s probably better if you don’t want too much money. But don’t say why, keep it short.
I suppose it will ensure that they can keep staff meetings short. Will the interview be conducted in 140 character chunks as well?
MPs keep their propaganda on taxpayers
This morning's Times reports that the House of Commons Commission and the Leader of the House, Harriet Harman have carried out a u-turn over the MPs' communications allowance:
Last month Harriet Harman told the Commons that from the new year the allowance, a fund for sitting MPs to publicise their constituency work through leaflets and websites, would be scrapped.
Limits on spending by political parties come into force on January 1, until the general election. Public money for political purposes is more tightly controlled during this period.
“The proposal is that the use of the communications allowance should end on December 31, after which the new election expenses limits will come into force,” Ms Harman, the Leader of the House, said.
Now, after pressure from furious MPs the House of Commons Commission, whose membership includes the Speaker, Ms Harman and Sir George Young, a member of the Shadow Cabinet, have agreed to continue to make the fund available, according to minutes. The scope of what can be covered by claims will be restricted from January 1.
Personally, I have never liked this allowance. It effectively uses public money to reinforce incumbency. The fact that it will be available to be used in the run-up to a General Election will give sitting MPs an unfair advantage.
This decision is not a surprise but the wider signal that it sends out needs to be noted. The fact that this u-turn has happened at all indicates that the House of Commons is not serious about reforming its allowances system. There are too many vested interests and the will does not appear to be there to overcome them. If that is the case then it will be a sad day indeed for democracy in this country.
Last month Harriet Harman told the Commons that from the new year the allowance, a fund for sitting MPs to publicise their constituency work through leaflets and websites, would be scrapped.
Limits on spending by political parties come into force on January 1, until the general election. Public money for political purposes is more tightly controlled during this period.
“The proposal is that the use of the communications allowance should end on December 31, after which the new election expenses limits will come into force,” Ms Harman, the Leader of the House, said.
Now, after pressure from furious MPs the House of Commons Commission, whose membership includes the Speaker, Ms Harman and Sir George Young, a member of the Shadow Cabinet, have agreed to continue to make the fund available, according to minutes. The scope of what can be covered by claims will be restricted from January 1.
Personally, I have never liked this allowance. It effectively uses public money to reinforce incumbency. The fact that it will be available to be used in the run-up to a General Election will give sitting MPs an unfair advantage.
This decision is not a surprise but the wider signal that it sends out needs to be noted. The fact that this u-turn has happened at all indicates that the House of Commons is not serious about reforming its allowances system. There are too many vested interests and the will does not appear to be there to overcome them. If that is the case then it will be a sad day indeed for democracy in this country.
Monday, December 28, 2009
Cameron's potted plants underline the difference
David Cameron has been at it again, claiming that differences between Conservatives and Liberal Democrats are now "a lot less than in the past". He said: "Let's be honest that whether you're Labour, Conservative or Liberal Democrat, you're motivated by pretty much the same progressive aims: a country that is safer, fairer, greener and where opportunity is more equal. It's how to achieve these aims that we disagree about and indeed between the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats there is a lot less disagreement than there used to be."
For me one of the chief differences between the Liberal Democrats and the Tories is that we want take 4 million people on low incomes out of income tax altogether, whereas the Tories are proposing to raise the inheritance tax threshold to £2 million, saving 18 millionaire members of the shadow cabinet up to £520,000 each as well as benefiting many other wealthy people. That shows that we understand what fairness means, whilst the Tories do not.
We are also committed to individual liberties and human rights, an agenda the Tories only pay lip service to as is evidenced in their proposals to ban extremists from broadcasting their views and engaging in protests.
However for anybody who is still confused here is a video that demonstrates the difference vividly. It is of a key Conservative candidate who reflects the views of many in his party that he is a member of the ruling class with a God-given right to be in Government and that as far as he is concerned the rest of us are just potted plants.
For me one of the chief differences between the Liberal Democrats and the Tories is that we want take 4 million people on low incomes out of income tax altogether, whereas the Tories are proposing to raise the inheritance tax threshold to £2 million, saving 18 millionaire members of the shadow cabinet up to £520,000 each as well as benefiting many other wealthy people. That shows that we understand what fairness means, whilst the Tories do not.
We are also committed to individual liberties and human rights, an agenda the Tories only pay lip service to as is evidenced in their proposals to ban extremists from broadcasting their views and engaging in protests.
However for anybody who is still confused here is a video that demonstrates the difference vividly. It is of a key Conservative candidate who reflects the views of many in his party that he is a member of the ruling class with a God-given right to be in Government and that as far as he is concerned the rest of us are just potted plants.
Another sex scandal - age no obstacle
The Daily Telegraph reports on the astonishing case of the 86 year old Indian State Governor who has resigned after a video emerged apparently showing him in bed with three young women.
They say that N D Tiwari, 86, a member of the ruling Congress Party and the senior representative in Andhra Pradesh state, quit after a television channel aired the compromising footage. He said the footage was doctored, but an embarrassed Congress party asked the governor to resign. He did so, on health grounds.
If the video turns out to be genuine then there doesn't seem to be that much wrong with his health.
They say that N D Tiwari, 86, a member of the ruling Congress Party and the senior representative in Andhra Pradesh state, quit after a television channel aired the compromising footage. He said the footage was doctored, but an embarrassed Congress party asked the governor to resign. He did so, on health grounds.
If the video turns out to be genuine then there doesn't seem to be that much wrong with his health.
Sunday, December 27, 2009
Bidding starts on tuition fees
Once you have accepted the principle that education is no longer going to be free, then you have turned a place of learning into a marketplace.
Then it is just a matter of setting the price and the consquence of that is a bidding war. Hence in this morning's Observer we have David "Danny" Blanchflower, a former member of the Bank of England's monetary policy committee calling for students from well-off families to be charged the "market rate" of up to £30,000 a year to go to university.
He believes that universities should be able to charge the richest students large fees while providing financial aid to the less well off. In this instance the target of his ire are familes who already opt out of the system by paying huge sums of money to send their kids to private school. Is this a natural extension of Gordon Brown's class war?
The fact is that even with such large sums of money at their disposal university bursary schemes often miss their target and poorer students remain deterred from higher education by the debts they will accrue during their studies.
Professor Blanchflower uses as an example Dartmouth College in New Hampshire, an American university that is a member of the Ivy League, where he teaches. He says half the students there receive financial aid. However, most of those students still need to do jobs to pay their way, undermining their studies. Moreover, if we were to adopt this system we would be in danger of creating colleges that are effectively full of haves and have-nots, in which those whose parents cough up the full tariff for their education might expect gold star treatment.
Professor Blanchflower earned a B.A. in Social Sciences (Economics) at the University of Leicester in 1973 and a Postgraduate Certificate in Education at the University of Birmingham in 1975. He received an M.Sc. (Economics) at the University of Wales in 1981 and his Ph.D. in 1985 at Queen Mary, University of London. Do we think that he paid his own tuition fees for his undergraduate degree? No, of course he didn't. Perhaps he would like to make amends by sending a cheque for £90,000 to the Chancellor of the Exchequer straight away. I am sure we can negotiate the price for all those postgraduate qualifications later.
Then it is just a matter of setting the price and the consquence of that is a bidding war. Hence in this morning's Observer we have David "Danny" Blanchflower, a former member of the Bank of England's monetary policy committee calling for students from well-off families to be charged the "market rate" of up to £30,000 a year to go to university.
He believes that universities should be able to charge the richest students large fees while providing financial aid to the less well off. In this instance the target of his ire are familes who already opt out of the system by paying huge sums of money to send their kids to private school. Is this a natural extension of Gordon Brown's class war?
The fact is that even with such large sums of money at their disposal university bursary schemes often miss their target and poorer students remain deterred from higher education by the debts they will accrue during their studies.
Professor Blanchflower uses as an example Dartmouth College in New Hampshire, an American university that is a member of the Ivy League, where he teaches. He says half the students there receive financial aid. However, most of those students still need to do jobs to pay their way, undermining their studies. Moreover, if we were to adopt this system we would be in danger of creating colleges that are effectively full of haves and have-nots, in which those whose parents cough up the full tariff for their education might expect gold star treatment.
Professor Blanchflower earned a B.A. in Social Sciences (Economics) at the University of Leicester in 1973 and a Postgraduate Certificate in Education at the University of Birmingham in 1975. He received an M.Sc. (Economics) at the University of Wales in 1981 and his Ph.D. in 1985 at Queen Mary, University of London. Do we think that he paid his own tuition fees for his undergraduate degree? No, of course he didn't. Perhaps he would like to make amends by sending a cheque for £90,000 to the Chancellor of the Exchequer straight away. I am sure we can negotiate the price for all those postgraduate qualifications later.
Saturday, December 26, 2009
Lost in marketing
Today's Times contains the news that the Labour Government's celebrations of the NHS's 60th birthday cost a little bit more than they should have done thanks to the change in the logo that accompanied the event.
I think that it is reasonable to argue anyway that, whatever the merits of the anniversary celebrations they were designed as a party political event with the sole objective of promoting Labour as the party of the health service. This completely ignores the fact that the concept of the Health Service was thought up by a Liberal Party member, even if it was implemented by a Labour Minister, who later resigned due to a change in policy direction by his own party, when they introduced prescription charges for dental care and spectacles in 1951.
In this context another £12,000 on top of the bill taxpayers have already incurred for this party political propaganda seems small, but the principle is important as are the choices Ministers make as to how to spend our money. Once again the Government seems to have had the wool pulled over their eyes by marketers.
I am shocked, but not surprised that in adding the number 60 to the NHS logo especially for its anniversary the government employed two designers who took ten days and then sent taxpayers a bill for £12,000. As the paper points out projects like these cost tens of thousands of pounds and yet one department admitted that it could produce logos in-house for £648:
Spending revealed under the Freedom of Information (FoI) Act includes £153,522 on branding and logos to launch FERA, an agency that inspects plants and bees, and a £21,090 rebrand that changed the colours of the HomeBuy programme’s logo only months before one of its key schemes ran out of money.
Many departments refused to respond to FoI requests for branding and logo design costs over the past five years or withheld details relating to subsidiary agencies. But even with full disclosure from only three departments, the bill is more than £1 million, a fraction of the true total. Thousands more were spent on printing updated stationery.
In the current economic climate, minding the pennies becomes more and more important. That is a lesson that Government Ministers and their top civil servants need to learn when authorising these rebranding exercises. Maybe next time they will follow the example of the Ministry of Defence and do it in-house.
I think that it is reasonable to argue anyway that, whatever the merits of the anniversary celebrations they were designed as a party political event with the sole objective of promoting Labour as the party of the health service. This completely ignores the fact that the concept of the Health Service was thought up by a Liberal Party member, even if it was implemented by a Labour Minister, who later resigned due to a change in policy direction by his own party, when they introduced prescription charges for dental care and spectacles in 1951.
In this context another £12,000 on top of the bill taxpayers have already incurred for this party political propaganda seems small, but the principle is important as are the choices Ministers make as to how to spend our money. Once again the Government seems to have had the wool pulled over their eyes by marketers.
I am shocked, but not surprised that in adding the number 60 to the NHS logo especially for its anniversary the government employed two designers who took ten days and then sent taxpayers a bill for £12,000. As the paper points out projects like these cost tens of thousands of pounds and yet one department admitted that it could produce logos in-house for £648:
Spending revealed under the Freedom of Information (FoI) Act includes £153,522 on branding and logos to launch FERA, an agency that inspects plants and bees, and a £21,090 rebrand that changed the colours of the HomeBuy programme’s logo only months before one of its key schemes ran out of money.
Many departments refused to respond to FoI requests for branding and logo design costs over the past five years or withheld details relating to subsidiary agencies. But even with full disclosure from only three departments, the bill is more than £1 million, a fraction of the true total. Thousands more were spent on printing updated stationery.
In the current economic climate, minding the pennies becomes more and more important. That is a lesson that Government Ministers and their top civil servants need to learn when authorising these rebranding exercises. Maybe next time they will follow the example of the Ministry of Defence and do it in-house.
Friday, December 25, 2009
Merry Christmas
Thursday, December 24, 2009
Santa is coming
As they have done on-line for the last 12 years Norad are traking Santa's progress across the globe here. At time of posting he is on Christmas Island. Here he is passing through Sydney, Australia.
I blogged on the history of this tracking endeavour last year.
Update: you can track Santa on Twitter too.
I blogged on the history of this tracking endeavour last year.
Update: you can track Santa on Twitter too.
Financing the Tories
The Guardian reports that David Cameron is facing pressure to explain whether the Conservatives have complied with the spirit of electoral law after the party accepted £100,000 from the British wing of a company controlled by a multibillionaire Lebanese former arms dealer.
They say that the party accepted two donations of £50,000 from the British arm of Future Pipe Industries, controlled by Fouad Makhzoumi, an ally of the disgraced former Conservative cabinet minister Jonathan Aitken. Future Pipe Ltd donated £50,000 to the Tories one month before the 2005 general election. A second donation for the same amount was made in August:
The Tories said the donations were legal. A spokesman said: "Our compliance unit applies two strict tests to all company donations in accordance with Electoral Commission guidance. They are: is the company UK-registered and is the company carrying on business in the UK? These donations met those tests and were therefore legal and permissible."
Of course all parties have gone through this sort of controversy and will continue to do so whilst the rules on donations remains as they do. The fact is that many donors believe that they can buy influence and whilst parties rely on them for funds then they will continue to operate in that belief.
The state funding of political parties may not be popular but at least it would reduce the reliance on donors considered to be involved in unethical activities and bring greater transparency to the political process.
They say that the party accepted two donations of £50,000 from the British arm of Future Pipe Industries, controlled by Fouad Makhzoumi, an ally of the disgraced former Conservative cabinet minister Jonathan Aitken. Future Pipe Ltd donated £50,000 to the Tories one month before the 2005 general election. A second donation for the same amount was made in August:
The Tories said the donations were legal. A spokesman said: "Our compliance unit applies two strict tests to all company donations in accordance with Electoral Commission guidance. They are: is the company UK-registered and is the company carrying on business in the UK? These donations met those tests and were therefore legal and permissible."
Of course all parties have gone through this sort of controversy and will continue to do so whilst the rules on donations remains as they do. The fact is that many donors believe that they can buy influence and whilst parties rely on them for funds then they will continue to operate in that belief.
The state funding of political parties may not be popular but at least it would reduce the reliance on donors considered to be involved in unethical activities and bring greater transparency to the political process.
Wednesday, December 23, 2009
Badger Trust to apply for judicial review of Government cull decision
The Badger Trust has confirmed that it is to apply for a Judicial Review of the decision made in September 2009 by the Welsh Government to include the killing of badgers in its bovine tuberculosis eradication scheme. The Badger Trust has effectively challenged the legality of the decision:
David Williams, Chairman of the Badger Trust, said: “It is with some reluctance but nevertheless firm resolve that we must, as an organisation dedicated to the welfare and protection of the badger, enter into these proceedings at the highest level. The decision is unjust and goes against the scientific evidence, and the law affords us this opportunity of challenging the legality of the W.A.G.’s intention to kill badgers, and we are now taking it”.
David Williams, Chairman of the Badger Trust, said: “It is with some reluctance but nevertheless firm resolve that we must, as an organisation dedicated to the welfare and protection of the badger, enter into these proceedings at the highest level. The decision is unjust and goes against the scientific evidence, and the law affords us this opportunity of challenging the legality of the W.A.G.’s intention to kill badgers, and we are now taking it”.
Labour hit universities with savage cuts
Although Peter Mandelson's decision to slash University teaching budgets by millions of pounds only applies to England it is likely to have an impact on Wales by reducing the amount of money we receive through the Barnett formula.
Colleges over the border will now lose £135 million on top of £180 million in savings they alteady have to find over the next 18 months. In addition a review of tuition fees began last month and will conclude after the general election. It is expected to recommend that they be raised considerably from the current £3,225 a year. That will certainly lead to pressure on the Welsh Government to follow suit, especially now that Plaid Cymru have abandoned their principles and agreed to introduce top-up fess in Wales.
The decision is especially bizarre during a time of recession as surely we should be investing in education and training not cutting it. This is an argument that we have made in the Assembly where Labour and Plaid Cymru have imposed real term cuts of 5% in further and higher education.
One thing is certain, the days of rapid expansion of higher education and targets of getting 50% of all A-level students into a University are behind us. It is that policy that has driven the tuition fee agenda. There clearly needs to be a major rethink on admission targets and the strategic future of the HE sector. That should go hand in hand with the principle of free access to education and training as an essential investment in the future of this country.
Colleges over the border will now lose £135 million on top of £180 million in savings they alteady have to find over the next 18 months. In addition a review of tuition fees began last month and will conclude after the general election. It is expected to recommend that they be raised considerably from the current £3,225 a year. That will certainly lead to pressure on the Welsh Government to follow suit, especially now that Plaid Cymru have abandoned their principles and agreed to introduce top-up fess in Wales.
The decision is especially bizarre during a time of recession as surely we should be investing in education and training not cutting it. This is an argument that we have made in the Assembly where Labour and Plaid Cymru have imposed real term cuts of 5% in further and higher education.
One thing is certain, the days of rapid expansion of higher education and targets of getting 50% of all A-level students into a University are behind us. It is that policy that has driven the tuition fee agenda. There clearly needs to be a major rethink on admission targets and the strategic future of the HE sector. That should go hand in hand with the principle of free access to education and training as an essential investment in the future of this country.
Which Davies?
This blog post from Matt Withers has to be the story of the day and is worth reproducing in full. That is twice in one week I have been nice about Matt. It must be Christmas.
I phoned Conservative Central Office this morning to seek a reaction to this interview, in today's Daily Mirror, in which Doctor Who writer Russell T Davies warns the BBC will be dismantled by the party if they get into power next year.
They wouldn't comment on it, I was told, because "Mr Davies is a backbench MP and, as such, his opinion isn't necessarily party policy".
Hmm. You are aware Russell T Davies is the writer behind Doctor Who, and not actually one of your MPs?
(Silence)
"Give me your e-mail address and I'll get back to you."
Do you think that Tory Party Central Office thought that they were being asked about David TC Davies, the MP for Monmouthshire?
I phoned Conservative Central Office this morning to seek a reaction to this interview, in today's Daily Mirror, in which Doctor Who writer Russell T Davies warns the BBC will be dismantled by the party if they get into power next year.
They wouldn't comment on it, I was told, because "Mr Davies is a backbench MP and, as such, his opinion isn't necessarily party policy".
Hmm. You are aware Russell T Davies is the writer behind Doctor Who, and not actually one of your MPs?
(Silence)
"Give me your e-mail address and I'll get back to you."
Do you think that Tory Party Central Office thought that they were being asked about David TC Davies, the MP for Monmouthshire?
