GOVE’S ATTACK ON PRIVATE SCHOOLS AND THEIR EFFECTS

Goes for the soft target-but what exactly is he doing to narrow the gap?

Comment

Michael Gove said in his speech at Brighton College that the dominance of the public schoolboy in every prominent role in British society is “morally indefensible”. “More than almost any developed nation, ours is a country in which your parentage dictates your progress,” he said. “Those who are born poor are more likely to stay poor and those who inherit privilege are more likely to pass on privilege in England than in any comparable country. For those of us who believe in social justice, this stratification and segregation are morally indefensible.” It is impossible to justify such inequity although when politicians start talking about morality they are on dangerous ground –so its worth taking a much closer look. We are certainly an unequal society in terms of outcomes. But it is  too simplistic to blame the 7% of people who are educated here in private schools for such inequity and the lack of social mobility. The problem is deeply ingrained. Anthony Sampson in his book ‘Anatomy of Britain’ first published in the 1962, with later variants, highlighted that the establishment was dominated by the privately educated. The Sutton Trust has helpfully up-dated Sampson’s seminal analysis and findings but told us not much that is new in this respect.   The reasons for the lack of social mobility are many and varied. What happens in the home up to the age of  three is  regarded as very important  indeed, for example.    Politicians (educated in both state and private schools) in successive administrations   have largely failed to grasp the nettle to identify the nature of the problem ,let alone the policy levers that might help   alleviate it , and these levers  are not by any means all  related to education. Certainly its true that  if you fail to get good GCSEs at school your chances of doing well   in the world of work are severely circumscribed.  Bashing private schools though, even for a Tory Minister,  it seems, pays political dividends.  They are the soft target. Too many stubbornly underperforming state schools are at the heart of the problem, and it’s a difficult challenge to address. The biggest problem in our system is the long tail of our significant underachievers in school, perhaps 20% of the school population. The next big problem is  the way we treat the brightest pupils in our schools, those who have the potential to succeed but who are not being given personalised support and guidance in schools  to  enable them  to reach their  full potential. This is bad for them, and us.

But lets be clear there is nothing immoral about choosing the type of education you want for your child, a right  that happens to be enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) and those with money have every right to choose how they spend it subject  only to the law. For those like George Monbiot (privately educated) who naively call for the abolition of private schools the message is clear -it wont happen.  The Government would rightly be held to account for such an illiberal act under Human Rights law. His other solution is to remove charity status for these schools-which will marginally decrease their numbers, mainly the smaller ones, on the tightest of margins, but also serve to   make the sector more elitist ,less inclusive  and less prone, probably, to helping  the state sector. And if they lose their charity status, there will follow a major  cull of thousands of other charities  which provide less public benefit than many private schools.

Looking at the advantages provided by an independent school education, they are perceived to be many.  Which is why surveys suggest that most parents, if they had the  means, would choose a private education for their child. Of course, class sizes tend to be much smaller. Some say the teaching is better although this is difficult to prove . But many parents are drawn to these schools because of the pastoral support, extra-curricular activities (arts music, drama), sport and facilities.   Also importantly these schools tend to  support character development,  values, self-sufficiency, self-discipline, resilience, leadership skills, teamwork, sporting prowess and nurture , too, creative talent , and ultimately  more rounded and socially- confident individuals.

Rather than abolish these schools the state sector should be learning from them. Lord Adonis talked about transferring the independent sectors DNA into state schools. And it is in the area of supporting character development, positive thinking and resilience where the state system has much to learn and where there are huge possibilities.  It is not absolutely clear though how this governments reforms will help support the development of these characteristics and attributes among  our state school pupils,  and so  help  close the gap between state and private schools and promote equity. Indeed, it could be argued, and has been by Professor Tony Watts, that Gove has been personally responsible for pulling out the state-school funding for sport, music and the other performing arts (where the disparities with public schools are now particularly significant). Also the programmes for raising aspirations and improving social mobility (career guidance, AimHigher) have been halted.  How exactly are state school pupils, particularly the most disadvantaged, going to be more socially mobile if they are not  given  access to high quality, professional,   face to face advice in school  about their options and  pathways into further, higher education, training  and employment?

The Government is, of course, introducing significant reforms. The structural reforms – making schools more autonomous and giving them more freedom may well  help, providing they use this to improve educational outcomes, (some seem to have converted simply for the extra funding) . But few believe that they are sufficient in themselves to deliver significantly improved outcomes. In short, the changes are necessary but insufficient.  But the other side of this coin is what happens in the classroom, at the chalk face. There need to be improvements there in the quality of teaching. Evidence shows that improving the quality of teaching is essential to driving up standards in schools. Pupils taught by good teachers score nearly half a GCSE point more per subject than pupils taught by poor teachers. But its also, crucially, about  what children are taught , so that teachers are supporting the provision of a rounded education, and not just teaching to the test.(critics believe that exams are now the master not servant of education) .The delayed curriculum reforms and introduction of the Ebacc, might have a positive  effect. But, overall are  these  ‘ game-changers’ likely to  measurably  close the  attainment gap, to tackle the long tail of underachievement  and the widening divide between the state and independent sectors? Even after the Blair governments reforms,  Professor Barbers ‘deliverology’ and  significant new investment, the attainment gap  between the sectors actually grew (and productivity in state  education fell).  So what else is on offer? The Pupil Premium targeted at the most disadvantaged? –a possibility but unions claim that this money is being used to fill gaps arising from other cuts in school funding. Even if not, the sums involved are relatively modest and there is no guarantee that schools will use the ‘extra’ money effectively. The government has not ring-fenced Pupil Premium cash, but it will – via Ofsted and league tables – hold schools accountable for how it is spent. Unless we learn from what schools do with the premium, the money may well be wasted, and hence do nothing to narrow the achievement gap. So, what else is going to narrow the gap and improve equity? Gove deserves credit for pushing through reforms, often overcoming resistance even from within his own Department, and one would be hard pressed to name a Minister who has achieved more.  But, in terms of transforming the system, to make it fit for the 21^st Century, we are probably edging towards the end of the beginning, rather than the beginning of the end.

THE PUPIL PREMIUM – BACK CENTRE STAGE

Ofsted to look at how Premium being used in schools

More funds for literacy support for those dropping behind

Comment

Nick Clegg, the Deputy Prime Minister, said in his speech on the Pupil Premium on 14 May, that the Liberal Democrats are ‘not going to miss our chance to make Britain a better, fairer place too. For me, nothing illustrates that better than our Pupil Premium: Extra money for the most disadvantaged children in our schools.’

The Pupil Premium is ‘to equip every school to support pupils from the most disadvantaged backgrounds.’

And   it is ‘To help us build a more socially mobile Britain:  Where ability trumps privilege;Where effort trumps connections; Where sharp elbows don’t automatically get you to the front. He said  ‘for me, the Pupil Premium remains the most important lever we have – and it’s in your hands.’

Last year the Pupil Premium was worth an extra £488 for pupils on Free School Meals and looked after children.  This year it’s increased to £600… And been extended to children who have been eligible for Free School Meals at any time in the last six years. Despite an unprecedented squeeze on public spending… This year the Pupil Premium will be worth £1.25bn in total… Doubling to £2.5bn by the end of the Parliament.’ We’ll prove that teachers do best when Whitehall steps out of the way.’

Clegg makes a direct appeal to teachers in his speech  ‘ I want to strike a deal between the Coalition government and our schools and teachers: We’ll give you the cash; we’ll give you the freedom; we’ll reward and celebrate your success.  But in return, we want you to redouble your efforts to close the gap between your poorer pupils and everyone else. We won’t be telling you what to do, but we will be watching what you achieve.’

 

Parental involvement to be encouraged

Clegg said ‘All the evidence shows that, when parents play a part in their children’s learning…Those children do better.  When mothers and fathers understand how to support what happens in the classroom.  When they can pass their insights onto the professionals too. Many of the best schools already create this kind of partnership.t, where it doesn’t ,happen, the Pupil Premium creates a new way to bring parents in… To start a meaningful conversation that can last for that child’s entire school life.’

 

Extra Funds for Reading and Literacy

Clegg confirms that the Education Endowment Foundation will shortly be inviting groups of local schools most affected by poor literacy and reading  ‘To bid for extra funds for struggling Year 7s, from deprived homes… To help them get their reading and writing up to scratch: Extra “catch up cash”, if you like. The support will be for pupil premium pupils who leave primary school without Level 4 literacy – the expected level.

And we envisage that schools will want to use it for small catch up classes, or one-to-one tuition, or vouchers for literacy tuition that parents can spend.’

 

Ofsted will look at how Pupil Premium is being spent

In a key passage of the speech Clegg says that schools will be held accountable for the way they use the pupil Premium . He said ‘But schools need to know that, in assessing their performance… OFSTED will be looking forensically at how well their Pupil Premium pupils do.  Inspectors are already being instructed to look closely at how schools are spending the money… And to what effect… With plans to publish a survey early next year. And, because OFSTED understands the priority I attach to this issue…

It will be providing me with regular reports… Detailing the progress schools are making in closing the attainment gap.’

 

Prizes for narrowing attainment gap

The government will also In partnership with the Times Educational Supplement…  from next year, ‘ be introducing awards for the top-50 schools…  Who have done the most to boost the performance of their poorest pupils… And to narrow the gap with their better off peers.  That success will be up in lights in the performance tables. They’ll win publicity, acclaim and cash too – cash prizes of up to £10,000 for the best of the best.’

 

Clegg’s comments come just weeks after a survey of 2,000 schools leaders, conducted for the Press Association by the National Association of Head Teachers (NAHT), found that more than four-fifths say the premium has either equalled or not made up for financial losses elsewhere.

NAHT general secretary Russell Hobby said: “NAHT has always supported the idea of a pupil premium and is perfectly comfortable with being judged on the performance of the most vulnerable pupils – this is, in any case, already happening. The Government needs to be frank, however, that the pupil premium is not extra funding – it merely substitutes for cuts elsewhere. It is a redistribution of funds within the system, not additional funding.”

 

Note

 

For 2011-12, the Pupil Premium funding is: £488 per pupil in respect of pupils known to be eligible for Free School Meals (FSM), and for children in care who have been continuously looked after for at least six months; and £200 per pupil for those whose parents are serving in the armed forces. In 2012-13, the Pupil Premium rises to £600 per pupil in respect of pupils known to have been eligible for FSM at any point within the last six years, and for children in care who have been continuously looked after for at least six months. The Pupil Premium for children whose parents are in the armed services will rise to £250 per pupil.

http://www.dpm.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/news/delivering-education-s-progressive-promise-using-pupil-premium-change-lives

GOVES ATTACK ON PRIVATE SCHOOLS AND THEIR EFFECTS-A SOFT TARGET

GOVES ATTACK ON PRIVATE SCHOOLS AND THEIR EFFECTS

Goes for the soft target-but what exactly is he doing to narrow the gap?

Comment

Michael Gove said in his speech at Brighton College that the dominance of the public schoolboy in every prominent role in British society is “morally indefensible”. “More than almost any developed nation, ours is a country in which your parentage dictates your progress,” he said. “Those who are born poor are more likely to stay poor and those who inherit privilege are more likely to pass on privilege in England than in any comparable country. For those of us who believe in social justice, this stratification and segregation are morally indefensible.” Gove was certainly not calling  though for the abolition of  private schools to remedy the problem.  What he meant was that state schools needed to improve to private school standards, and not that private schools should be abolished.

Clearly it is impossible to justify such inequity although when politicians start talking about morality they are, as a rule, on dangerous ground –so its worth taking a much closer look. We are certainly an unequal society in terms of outcomes. But it is too simplistic to blame the 7% of people who are educated here in private schools for such inequity and crucially  the lack of social mobility. Social mobility has stalled in our country, for sure. The problem is, though, deeply ingrained. Anthony Sampson in his  seminal book ‘Anatomy of Britain’ first published in 1962, with later revisions , highlighted that the establishment and business was dominated by the privately educated. The Sutton Trust has helpfully up-dated Sampson’s analysis and findings but  in truth  have told us not much that is new in this respect.   The reasons for the lack of social mobility are many and varied. What happens in the home up to the age of three  and parental support and education  are   regarded as very important  indeed,  in influencing  social mobility. The Jesuits maxim “Give me the child for seven years, and I will give you the man” is  probably only half correct in that a child’s trajectory  may be largely determined even earlier, at least according to some experts and recent research (although there is a danger of being too deterministic about this).

Politicians (educated in both state and private schools) in successive administrations   have largely failed to grasp the nettle to identify the nature of the problem ,let alone the policy levers that might help   alleviate it , and these levers  are not by any means all  related to education. Certainly its true that  if you fail to get good GCSEs at school your chances of doing well   in the world of work are severely circumscribed.  Bashing private schools though, even for a Tory Minister, it seems, pays political dividends.  They are the soft target.

Too many stubbornly underperforming state schools are at the heart of the problem, and it’s a difficult challenge to address. It is mainly about addressing  the long tail of our significant underachievers in school, perhaps as much as  20% of the school population. The next biggest  problem is  the way we treat  our  brightest and most able  pupils  , those who have the potential to succeed but who are not being given  either the personalised support  or  guidance in schools  to  enable them  to reach their  full potential. Depending on how you measure and define this group it could  range from 5%-20%. of pupils.This is bad for them, and us.

But lets be clear there is nothing immoral about choosing the type of education you want for your child, a right  that happens to be enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) and those with money have every right to choose how they spend it subject  only to the law. For those like George Monbiot (privately educated) who naively call for the abolition of private schools the message is clear -it wont happen.  The Government would rightly be held to account for such an illiberal act under Human Rights law. His other solution is to remove charity status for these schools-which will marginally decrease their numbers, mainly the smaller ones, on the tightest of margins, but also serve to   make the sector more elitist ,less inclusive  and less prone, probably, to helping  the state sector.  It would also mean that tens of thousands of pupils end up looking for places in an already hard pressed state system .And if they lose their charity status, there will follow a major cull of thousands of other charities  which provide less public benefit than many private schools.

Looking at the advantages provided by an independent school education, they are perceived to be many.  Which is why surveys suggest that most parents, if they had the  means, would choose a private education for their child. Of course, class sizes tend to be much smaller. Some say the teaching is better although this is difficult to prove . But many parents are drawn to these schools because of the pastoral support, extra-curricular activities (arts music, drama), sport and facilities.   Also importantly these schools tend to  support character development,  values, self-sufficiency, self-discipline, resilience, leadership skills, teamwork, sporting prowess and nurture , too, creative talent , and ultimately  more rounded and socially- confident individuals.

Rather than abolish these schools the state sector should be learning from them. Lord Adonis talked about transferring the independent sectors DNA into state schools. And it is in the area of supporting character development, positive thinking and resilience where the state system has much to learn and where there are huge possibilities.

It is not absolutely clear though how this governments reforms will help support the development of these characteristics and attributes among our state school pupils,  and so  help  close the gap between state and private schools and promote equity. Indeed, it could be argued, and has been by Professor Tony Watts, that Gove has been personally responsible for pulling out the state-school funding for sport, music and the other performing arts (where the disparities with public schools are now particularly significant). Also the programmes for raising aspirations and improving social mobility (career guidance, AimHigher) have been halted.  How exactly are state school pupils, particularly the most disadvantaged, going to be more socially mobile if they are not  given  access to high quality, professional,   face to face advice in school  about their options and  pathways into further, higher education, training  and employment?

The Government is, of course, introducing significant reforms. The structural reforms – making schools more autonomous and giving them more freedom may well  help, providing they use this to improve educational outcomes, (some seem to have converted simply for the extra funding) . But few believe that they are sufficient in themselves to deliver significantly improved outcomes. In short, the changes are necessary but insufficient.  But the other side of this coin is what happens in the classroom, at the chalk face. There need to be improvements there in the quality of teaching. Evidence shows that improving the quality of teaching is essential to driving up standards in schools. Pupils taught by good teachers score nearly half a GCSE point more per subject than pupils taught by poor teachers. But its also, crucially, about  what children are taught , so that teachers are supporting the provision of a rounded education, and not just teaching to the test.(critics believe that exams are now the master not servant of education) .The delayed curriculum reforms and introduction of the Ebacc, might have a positive  effect. But, overall are  these  ‘ game-changers’ likely to  measurably  close the  attainment gap, to tackle the long tail of underachievement  and the widening divide between the state and independent sectors? Even after the Blair governments reforms,  Professor Barbers ‘deliverology’ and  significant new investment, the attainment gap  between the sectors actually grew (and productivity in state  education fell).  So what else is on offer? The Pupil Premium targeted at the most disadvantaged? –a possibility but unions claim that this money is being used to fill gaps arising from other cuts in school funding. Even if not, the sums involved are relatively modest and there is no guarantee that schools will use the ‘extra’ money effectively. The government has not ring-fenced Pupil Premium cash, but it will – via Ofsted and league tables – hold schools accountable for how it is spent. Unless we learn from what schools do with the premium, the money may well be wasted, and hence do nothing to narrow the achievement gap. So, what else is going to narrow the gap and improve equity? Gove deserves credit for pushing through reforms, often overcoming resistance even from within his own Department, and one would be hard pressed to name a Minister who has achieved more or performed better, certainly in the eyes of his own leader Tory MPs and  electors.  But, in terms of transforming the system, to make it fit for the 21^st Century, we are probably edging towards the end of the beginning, rather than the beginning of the end.  And attacks on private schools tend to deflect attention away from other areas that require urgent attention and the sustained  investment of   political capital.

A QUEENS SPEECH – CLEARLY NOT DESIGNED TO RELAUNCH THE COALITION

Comment

The Queens Speech has been described as insubstantial and dull by critics. There is, though ,  quite a lot to be said for a dull Queens speech. Too much legislation, often poorly conceived and drafted  , is  a  commonplace and busy governments may like to  be seen to  be doing a lot  but, rather too often, much of what they do is not actually very good and almost always wasteful.  But this speech, we were warned in advance, would revitalise , and relaunch the Coalition after a difficult two months. But it is unlikely to do that. Rather optimistically some commentators were saying that the UK requires urgent action to re-start economic growth and this should have been included in the speech as if a bit more legislation is the answer. Somehow I doubt it.  Critics  turn decidedly vague and non-committal  when you challenge them  on what  is missing from the statute book  that will  kick start economic  growth (or reduce the so-called  economic headwinds which  push us off- course  ie euro crisis etc). Governments are not very good at making  big economic decisions designed to breathe life into  a stagnant economy,  mainly because they have insufficient information and legislation wont do much to help.  Besides, there are far too   many variables that are   clearly  outside their control  (elections in Europe etc)  which  add to the risks.

Given that this was not a launch pad to restore confidence in the Coalition it will be interesting to see what Cameron does over the next few weeks. There must be scope for a re-shuffle. As the FT pointed out in an Editorial advising Cameron to  ‘get a grip’-  ‘ an administration that saddles the chancellor of the exchequer, George Osborne, with responsibility not only for the economy but also for the government’s political strategy and keeping Scotland in the union, is one that is too narrowly based.’

BRITAIN AT BOTTOM OF GROWTH LEAGUE TABLE

 A Safe Haven?

Comment

Geoge Osborne, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, believes that against the backdrop  the turmoil of the euro-zone that the UK economy is a safe haven. Is he right?  The Daily Telegraph’s Business section  tells us that the UK is growing at the “weakest rate of leading nations” as figures from the OECD show that the US, France, Germany, Italy, and Canada have all grown more quickly over the last year. But the picture is even worse as Britain is growing more slowly than every other EU country bar Portugal.

The Daily Telegraph reports that:

“Growth in the UK in the 12 months to June was just 0.7pc, weaker than any of the other OECD “major seven” nations except Japan, which contracted 0.9pc as it contended with the aftermath of the earthquake and tsunami.

The OECD found that over the last year, GDP increased by 1.6 per cent across the 34 rich world countries monitored by the organisation. The rate is more than twice that of the UK. But analysis from the House of Commons library released last week shows that the picture is even worse. Over the last nine months Britain has grown by just 0.2 per cent – slower than every European country for which data is available aside from Portugal, which faces a sovereign debt crisis. The average of the EU’s 27 countries is 1.2 per cent.

MURDOCH, THE MEDIA, POLICE AND POLITICS

MURDOCH, THE MEDIA, POLICE AND POLITICS

Change needed but we must be careful

We need more transparency not less

Comment

It’s been a strangely compelling week in politics.  The Murdoch media empire has in the eyes of many politicians been brought to account for years of unethical behaviour, real and imagined.  This is pay-back time for politicians of every hue many of whose reputations have been so sullied over the last couple of years, in the eye of the expenses storm. Many have had to genuflect to Murdoch over the years to ensure that his newspapers endorsed them, with varying degrees of success. The hurt was best articulated by the former Prime Minster, Gordon Brown, who blamed Murdoch for all manner of ills, including his own personal indecision. Quite why he thought he couldn’t override advice given to him by the Cabinet Secretary is anyone’s guess and merely confirms how unsuited he was for Prime Ministerial office.  The fact that he and his wife spent much time ingratiating themselves to Murdoch and his lieutenants tends to undermine   his belated efforts to take a high moral stance. Other parliamentarians share his exposed position. Murdoch will now have to account to Parliament for News International’s conduct.  We already have self-important parliamentarians with all the moral fervour they can muster sitting in judgment on a media mogul and others involved in this affair although  public trust in them as inquisitors and  arbiters on  ethical  issues has been much diminished over the last two or three years.

But it’s not just the media  and politicians who are in the frame. The Metropolitan police appear to either have been asleep on the job or actively colluding with News International.  A bit of both probably. It is deeply worrying that so many individuals at the top of their professions whether it’s in the media, politics or the police are so lacking in judgment, common sense or common decency. The only way this will improve is  through better governance and more transparency. Power must be held to account. We are not yet an open society and the Freedom of Information Act is failing to deliver in many respects, and lack of transparency is the enemy of good governance in every walk of life. Ironically, one reason  some in the media resort  to illegal methods  to get even fairly basic information is that far too much information is inaccessible to the public and unnecessarily so.That is not, though, to excuse the illegal  conduct of  some journalists  .But we must shine a brighter  light on those in authority who often seem to outsiders, ie the majority of the public, to  operate a network that looks   like a cosy cartel.

We must be very careful not to limit the ability of the press to search out information which those in power would prefer us not to see . Of course, the media shouldn’t tap phones and pay police officers for information . Its morally wrong and  against the law, and they must be subject to the law.  But we also need a more open society and that should now be top of the political agenda.

As for regulating the media ,statutory control is the least attractive option.The Press Complaints Commission has done little to inspire confidence -so we need a tougher body with financial independence  from the industry ,with  real teeth  and robust sanctions to enforce a tougher code of conduct . But  we must   also protect our free press. and not throw the baby out with the bathwater.

THE RED TORIES AND BLUE LABOUR PHILOSOPHIES

THE RED TORIES  AND BLUE LABOUR PHILOSOPHIES

Similar but different too-must rethink the market and political model

Comment

A recent debate on Australia’s ABC Radio provided a good insight into the thinking behind  the Red Tories,  led by Philip Blond of ResPublica , and the Blue Labour thinkers    led   by Lord  Maurice Glasman, of London Metropolitan University  . Their thinking it transpires  is not  that different. Blond claims that  ‘social conservatism’ is the progressive agenda now. He says   “ we need to recapitalise the poor, re-moralise the market and re-localise the economy”.

Social conservatism is at the heart of this Red Tory agenda. It involves community engagement, ownership, mutualisation and mass ownership underpinned by new trust based relationships. Blond says we must tackle monopolies both state and private,   breaking open the market with small business able to compete and ultimately out compete the monopolies.  The Localism Bill is seen by Philip Blond as the most obvious manifestation of this Governments drive to put local communities back in charge -mass mutualisation  undermines statism and  the complete dominance of the market, and places power back with the people . They are both seeking  to re-shape the centre ground in the wake of perceived  market failures and particularly the City’s  collective failure . Blond believes that Thatchers weakness was in allowing the over concentration of ownership and power in the economy, allowing us to become a  ‘rentier ‘state. We have produced a huge array of private sector monopolies and we need to totally rethink market economics. Thatcher essentially abandoned large swathes of the country and failed, he says, to nurture half of the country and give them the opportunities to better themselves. (the legacy is still there today with little Tory support in the north, or Scotland and to some extent Wales) . The new Conservative critique is that the market is important but unless well regulated and managed can be hugely destructive and Blond frequently cites the failure of city institutions-monopolistic and with their rentier (favourite word) culture.  We should ensure that markets work for all of us he says .  Glasman, though, believes that the current Government   is essentially ,if you look at its economic policies, a neo-liberal Thatcherite Government which has done little to reform the markets in the wake of the financial  crisis and its austerity programme is pure Thatcher. Conservatism is too associated, he believes, with  the failed market to offer a real vision for the future . It about the self-organised interests of working people,  agreeing the pursuit of  common ends – this is  the heart of his vision  and  this is what will take on the vested ‘money’ interests. This is about new politics-discarding the destructive elements of both state and market power. A strong sense of community and the latent power of  family  and the  work ethic is at the core of Glasmans thinking (ie similar to Red Toryism).  Blue Labour thinkers argue that love of community and respect for institutions and settled ways of life is fundamental to the concerns of organised labour, which was originally represented by the Labour Party.   The Common good should, he says, be constituted in every institution in the land. Glasman has complete contempt, by the way, for Gordon  Brown  and his approach to Government  as he allowed  the absolute concentration of power in the few with no interest  whatever in empowering communities and the  localism  agenda. He says that the “Big Society hasn’t got a word to say about the market” and that “we might agree about ends but we definitely don’t agree on the means”.

Both thinkers agree that we, as a country, are essentially broke not just in economic terms but in the way we approach politics. We need a radical rethink.  Whether one is from the left or right we have to rethink the way our markets operate and the role of state as they have largely failed and are monopolistic and are not  serving  ordinary peoples interests or meeting their expectations . Instead, we need  active engaged communities   which feel they have a real stake in the way forward. We must deliver a  new fair and popular form of  capitalism. Britain is ready to build a new political economy in the interests of the many, founded on local renewal which can deliver prosperity. Both the Red and the Blue corners are committed to family and community and the work ethic and understand the importance of relationship’s, harnessing and exploiting their power whether its within families, neighbourhoods or within the broader community.

It would be wrong though to see the ideas of both camps as new. They are simply drawing together ideas that have been around for a while recasting and rebranding them. This is the poetry of politics. The prose is turning ideas into an effective  programme of action , taking on vested interests, which is an altogether different challenge and one in which recent governments have a poor record.

http://www.abc.net.au/cgi-bin/common/player_launch.pl

THE SPIRIT LEVEL-IS IT A DELUSION?

The Spirit Level sees unequal societies as the unhappiest

But Spirit level Delusion says its hypotheses  are just  plain wrong

Comment

The left have been animated for a while by the incredible popularity and ubiquity of The Spirit Level. This tract from  Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett   claims that more equal societies do better at  just about everything, backed by much data and graphs comparing variables between countries and drawing conclusions from them.  On almost every index of quality of life, or wellness, or deprivation, there is a gradient showing a strong correlation between a country’s level of economic inequality and its social outcomes. Almost always, Japan and the Scandinavian countries are at the favourable “low” end, and almost always, the UK, the US and Portugal are at the unfavourable “high” end, with Canada, Australasia and continental European countries in between.  The authors  give themselves a huge challenge in making sense of so much data, which is impressive, although critics  such as Christopher  Snowden in The Spirit Level Delusion’ claim they have failed and  that the way they have used data produces many absurdities and false linkages. Nick Cohen of the Observer however   has said that Labour is energised by “The Spirit Level, a book which is turning into a cross between a manifesto and a call to arms. At one Left-wing meeting recently, a speaker wished everyone in the country could read its argument that societies more equal than Britain enjoy better physical and mental health, lower homicide rates, fewer drug problems, fewer teenage births, higher maths and literacy scores, higher standards of child wellbeing, lower obesity rates and fewer people in prison.( Although Wilkinson and Pickett concede that suicide rates are higher in more equal countries). If they could just grasp that, he said, then they would see that combating inequality was good for everyone.” His was not a lone voice. David Miliband and other senior Labour politicians have declared their admiration for its authors and their take on inequality.

One  possible problem with The Spirit Level is that you  can’t really, with much conviction, separate out all the variables when comparing statistics from different countries (just how reliable are these statistics anyway-are they collected and collated  to a uniform standard?). To demonstrate, the author of the Spirit Level Delusion, Christopher Snowdon, shows a scatter graph that proves recycling causes suicide. By fact-checking the book’s statistics and reviewing the scientific literature, Snowden argues that in fact there is no correlation between income inequality and a country’s health, happiness and well-being. In short, the hypothesis in The Spirit Level is, he says, based on selective evidence and flawed reasoning. A report from Policy Exchange  Beware False Prophets re-examines the empirical claims made in The Spirit Level and finds that of the 20 statistical claims made in it, 14 are spurious or invalid and in only one case (the association internationally between infant mortality and income inequality) does the evidence unambiguously support their hypothesis.

Given the fact that well- being and the pursuit of happiness appears to be  moving up the political agenda perhaps it is worth looking at both books before coming to your own conclusion.

BLUE LABOUR-AFTER THE RED TORIES WHAT WOULD YOU EXPECT?

BLUE LABOUR

After the red Tories-what would you expect?

Miliband and Glasman-sketch out a new direction?

Comment

Politicians are constantly on the look- out for new themes and ways of thinking that will unlock voter apathy and which will define them in relation to their opponents. Politics has moved to the centre ground and it’s just a bit crowded there, so new ideas are needed, and often, to help differentiate political parties and to give them a reason to exist beyond being technocratic  electioneering machines.  They are after all not just a bunch of mainly middle class Oxbridge graduates from privileged backgrounds. They are men and women ( still not many of the latter in the higher echelons it has to said)  of vision, marking out a new political  landscape fit for the twenty first century, which  voters  can buy into, or not, as the case may be. Blair had the Third Way, which never quite caught the imagination of the electorate –it’s not socialism, it’s not capitalism- it’s the third way (remember Professor Giddens?).  The Tories or rather a group of Tories warmed to the themes articulated  by Phiilp Blond ‘the Red Tory’, until quite recently a little known academic, who is now one  of the major thinkers behind the Big Society and leads the progressive think tank Respublica. Now Ed Miliband, (sorry he is now to be called Edward) who doesn’t seem that different in the eyes of some electors to Cameron or Clegg, is busy articulating the Blue Labour agenda. At the heart of it is a growing realisation that the leadership might just have lost touch with the core Labour voter and the issues that get them animated   (remember Gordon Brown on the campaign trail and what he referred to as that ‘bigoted’ woman up north). The idea is informed by the proposition that New Labour was more a methodology than a political philosophy and it was unable to build a genuinely different conception of society than the one that’s been on offer for the last thirty years.  Blue Labour is the creation of an academic named Maurice (Lord) Glasman.  He is social activist who was ennobled by Ed Miliband in the New Year’s Honours List. And Mr Miliband used some of Lord Glasman’s ideas in an important speech to the Fabian Society in January, as it happens.  Essentially what Miliband said was that things could not go back to how they were before the Great Crash where Britain had been in thrall to an economic ideology that put money ahead of pretty much everything (including presumably Brown and his sidekick Ed  Balls) The result was damage to “the values, institutions and relationships that people cherish the most”. The attraction of Glasman is that he thinks that the haemorrhaging of Labour support   can be stopped.  His research interests focus on the relationship between citizenship and faith and the limits of the market .As founder and director of an enterprise called ‘ the Faith and Citizenship Programme’  Glasman, a Jew, has been trying to help establish, among other things,  a civic practice of interfaith scriptural reasoning, in which Jews, Christians, and Muslims explain their holy books to each other. So, he doesn’t lack ambition  Glasman has  been trying to nudge the Labour Party back toward its historic roots as a social movement based on a genuinely communitarian (and not exclusively statist) form of politics.  The Guardian reported in  late 2010  ‘The Labour party was born out of civil society groups organising against power, and he thinks Labour needs to return to that, weaning itself off a reliance on the state as the sole organising force of leftwing politics. Through his work with London Citizens, Glasman used those techniques to help organise people into persuading Ken Livingstone to agree a living wage when he was the capital’s mayor.’

The term Blue is not referring, of course, to  Thatcherism or implying that the right have won the ideological argument. It is  about conservative socialism, about the primacy of democracy over capital, society over the market and human relationships over commercial transactions but rooted in the past. It seeks to protect and revitalize social cohesion, solidarity, a moral order, and the “mediating structures” of social life. In talking about mediating structures there is something here too of the Big Society.

What really matters in people’s lives doesn’t often correspond with what is preoccupying the media and the  Westminster village and the expenses scandal has merely reinforced the sense of alienation of voters and the feeling that no party or political leader understands them or is currently truly representing their views and   interests and what actually matters most to them  . This Blue Labour shift is about reconnecting and reengagement, rather easier said than done in these straitened times when electors are less trusting of politicians generally blaming them not unreasonably, it has to be said, for the mess they find themselves in . Watch how Blue Labour thinking develops over the next few months and how the Red Tories respond.  The big question is whether this will capture the public imagination and that remains to be seen.

IS TUPE AN OBSTACLE TO REFORM?

 

TRANSFER OF UNDERTAKINGS (PROTECTION OF EMPLOYMENT) REGULATIONS

Is TUPE  doing the business?

Comment

TUPE the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations is a piece of legislation that protects your terms and conditions of employment if the responsibility for the work you currently do is taken over by another employer.   Employees of the previous owner when the business changes hands automatically become employees of the new employer on the same terms and conditions. In short, its as if their employment contracts had originally been made with the new employer.  The legislation gives specific protection to:  length of service; salary and  hours of work

The terms and conditions detailed in your contract of employment including for example, your holidays Any collective agreements (for example your pay scale)

The TUPE legislation excludes protection for your pension.  However, if you were  employed by Local Government and you transfer to another employer there is separate legislation which will protect your pension.  The TUPE legislation also places an obligation on your current employer and the employer you will transfer to, to consult with you about the changes. And TUPE protection is not time limited.  This means that your terms and conditions remain protected whilst you remain in the job that has transferred. So for employees TUPE is important. For employers though it is double edged. Indeed it has been described as thorn in the side of all lawyers and companies involved in mergers, acquisitions or  indeed outsourcing.  A  survey found that 77 per cent of employers had difficulty in deciding when Tupe applied. When it did apply, 77 per cent of employers highlighted difficulties with matching terms and conditions of employment and 81 per cent complained of difficulty in changing terms and conditions. The figures also showed that 20 per cent were in fear of equal pay claims from their existing workforce, who might compare themselves to transferring employees with protected terms. And 55 per cent of employers recounted difficulties in the pensions field. It is clear that TUPE experts are unlikely ever to go out of business.  In a recent article, Camilla Cavendish of the Times  related a story about TUPE. A London neighbour of  hers ,she called Mr B,  ‘ runs a small business that is doing well. Last year he took over an insolvent company where the staff were about to lose their jobs. He was amazed to discover that under the 2006 TUPE regulations, he could not change the contracts of any of the staff if he took them on, although they were paid more, had longer holidays and different hours from the people who were already working for him. If he took on Mary in customer services, he would have to pay her more than his longtime faithful employees Mabel and Sue. But if he didn’t take on Mary, he would have to justify, under redundancy law, why he was jettisoning her, instead of Mabel or Sue. He had to pay off Josie, Mary’s colleague who had worked only a few months before taking a year’s maternity leave, even though she would have received nothing if the company had gone bust.’ Mr B  understandably perhaps almost gave up .Cavendish said that in  many ways it would have been easier for Mr B to stay small rather than to double the size of his company. In the end he did hire most of the new staff for which they were grateful. But it has cost him thousands of pounds in legal advice, and in paying the new staff more. And now, because of the TUPE rules, he fears that he has fallen foul of Harriet Harman’s Equality Act, which says that people should be paid equally for doing the same job. Only a politician, Cavendish  concluded, could have created such a Catch 22.

Another way of putting  it is that TUPE, while sound in principle, and protecting sometimes vulnerable employees, has had unintended  consequences  and rests uneasily with any attempts to reform public services , acting  as a  constraint and drag anchor on   the development of the supply  market, while deterring, also, companies from effecting rescues of other potentially profitable companies, and others from pitching for public service contracts  and can mitigate against job creation.  Last November the Government said it had no intention of revisiting TUPE  but, if it doesn’t , it is hard to see how its proposed  reforms for public services that will be published in a White Paper shortly  can possibly work.

Significantly, perhaps, today the Times in a Leader   calls for TUPE to be revisited saying   ‘It (the government) will find, in due course, that in education, health and welfare in particular, the new suppliers are scarce, even when services are opened up to competition. The regulatory barriers need to be removed.’