The website "Burning our Money" recently calculated that the public sector is losing nearly 1 million working days each year to industrial action. The comparable figure for the larger private sector is 25,000 days. "Burning our Money" points out that an average public sector worker therefore goes on strike 100 time more frequently that his private sector counterpart.
This may be partly due to the fact that public sector "firms" are usually much larger, and therefore easier to unionise and then to organise.
It is probably slightly due to the fact that the public sector unions have a closer relationship with the Government, and they have votes! Some even sponsor MPs. Most of all it is due to the fact that their jobs are more secure. If a private sector firm has a strike, its very future is threatened and employees know this.
There used to be a trade-off, that public sector jobs were "for life", and as a consequence they had slightly poorer pay and less good pensions. The jobs are still more secure, the pensions generally better and, with exceptions, the pay has caught up.
We now have a very large public sector, including medical and care staff, teachers, and police. Recently the number and salaries of civil servants and local council staff have risen strongly. At a time when private sector unions have struggled to maintain membership, employment in the public sector has risen.
Wednesday, 30 April 2008
Undeserved profits?
BP and Shell have both done well in terms of revenue and profits over the last three months. Already there are voices raised in disgust, and the early suggestions of the need to tax away those windfall profits.
(Strange isn't it, that H.M. Treasury has also done well, as at least 60% of the retail price is tax of one sort or another, and yet there are no voices raised in protest about that? It should also be pointed out that the retailer's profit margin is only one or two per cent.)
Observers have a very unbalanced view of profits. If an industry makes spectacular profits from forces outside its control, these are represented as so many million pounds per hour or day, or whatever. There is seldom a reference to how much capital is employed, or what future investment needs will be to maintain output. Nor is there any sympathy if the industry suffers falling profits and prices from forces outside their control. There is no suggestion that they should be compensated for their loss.
(Strangely, as well, this applies only to industry - pop stars and groups, high paid footballers, and others may enjoy vast sums from forces outside their control, but there is never any suggestion of windfall profits tax.)
Bottler will come under pressure to claw back some profit from oil and petrol by the retrospective taxation of the windfall profits. His Government has been gorged on it in the past and has overspent, and nobody would bet against BP and Shell being the latest victims if the high prices continue.
Despite his new refrain "taking decisions for the long-term", the need for income could become so large that he sacrifices the future for the present.
(Strange isn't it, that H.M. Treasury has also done well, as at least 60% of the retail price is tax of one sort or another, and yet there are no voices raised in protest about that? It should also be pointed out that the retailer's profit margin is only one or two per cent.)
Observers have a very unbalanced view of profits. If an industry makes spectacular profits from forces outside its control, these are represented as so many million pounds per hour or day, or whatever. There is seldom a reference to how much capital is employed, or what future investment needs will be to maintain output. Nor is there any sympathy if the industry suffers falling profits and prices from forces outside their control. There is no suggestion that they should be compensated for their loss.
(Strangely, as well, this applies only to industry - pop stars and groups, high paid footballers, and others may enjoy vast sums from forces outside their control, but there is never any suggestion of windfall profits tax.)
Bottler will come under pressure to claw back some profit from oil and petrol by the retrospective taxation of the windfall profits. His Government has been gorged on it in the past and has overspent, and nobody would bet against BP and Shell being the latest victims if the high prices continue.
Despite his new refrain "taking decisions for the long-term", the need for income could become so large that he sacrifices the future for the present.
Monday, 28 April 2008
Mr. Transparency is now at Blair levels.
When he became Prime Minister last year, Gordon Brown promised that his premiership would be different, - "a different type of politics - a more open and honest dialogue". His deputy, Harriet Harman, promised that there would be "no spin".
It now emerges that Bottler is spending as much on personal advisers as his predecessor did. The total now stands at £1.75 million a year, and he has appointed about one adviser every week on average since the beginning of 2008. The annual spending has risen by £500,000 in 2008.
These appointments are all to "improve" his image and message and to try to avoid blunders, but does anyone not believe that they are to also to conceal information or to present it in a misleading way?
We, the tax payers are paying all this, of course, and at the same time when teachers, policemen and nurses are being told that there is no money and the poorest taxpayers are paying considerably more since the beginning of April.
It now emerges that Bottler is spending as much on personal advisers as his predecessor did. The total now stands at £1.75 million a year, and he has appointed about one adviser every week on average since the beginning of 2008. The annual spending has risen by £500,000 in 2008.
These appointments are all to "improve" his image and message and to try to avoid blunders, but does anyone not believe that they are to also to conceal information or to present it in a misleading way?
We, the tax payers are paying all this, of course, and at the same time when teachers, policemen and nurses are being told that there is no money and the poorest taxpayers are paying considerably more since the beginning of April.
The sick one of Europe
We have become used to, and fear, the danger of hospital acquired infection from MRSA, the bacterium which has become very resistant to antibiotics.
Now experts of warning us of the even more dangerous "Clostridium difficile" (Cd). About 6,500 people die from the bug every year in our hospitals.
About 50,000 patients caught the bug in our hospitals last year, more than 10 times that of any other country. Among the over 65s the death rate is also 10 times that of any other country.
Why is our figure so bad?
Leading experts have told the Government that hygiene must be improved and that there must be isolation and rapid testing procedures to slow the spread of the infection.
The Libdems have discovered that more than half of all hospital trusts do not put infected patients in their own rooms and only one in five has dedicated isolation wards ready for outbreaks. Norman Baker, their Health spokesman, said, "The brutal truth is that if (the) advice had been followed many of thousands of lives could have been saved."
Medical staff have reported that there is overcrowding, with beds too close and allowing easier passage for infection. Patients are discharged much earlier, with new patients ready to fill their beds while they are still warm. There are even suggestions of sheets not having been changed. Bed occupancy rates are frequently above the standard of 85% which is thought by many to be the maximum safe level.
So why is all this happening? There is still a shortage of nurses, despite the high levels of spending. There is still a culture of targets which leads inevitably to the practices mentioned earlier. Part of the cause is undoubtedly the over-centralised top-down management of the service.
Now experts of warning us of the even more dangerous "Clostridium difficile" (Cd). About 6,500 people die from the bug every year in our hospitals.
About 50,000 patients caught the bug in our hospitals last year, more than 10 times that of any other country. Among the over 65s the death rate is also 10 times that of any other country.
Why is our figure so bad?
Leading experts have told the Government that hygiene must be improved and that there must be isolation and rapid testing procedures to slow the spread of the infection.
The Libdems have discovered that more than half of all hospital trusts do not put infected patients in their own rooms and only one in five has dedicated isolation wards ready for outbreaks. Norman Baker, their Health spokesman, said, "The brutal truth is that if (the) advice had been followed many of thousands of lives could have been saved."
Medical staff have reported that there is overcrowding, with beds too close and allowing easier passage for infection. Patients are discharged much earlier, with new patients ready to fill their beds while they are still warm. There are even suggestions of sheets not having been changed. Bed occupancy rates are frequently above the standard of 85% which is thought by many to be the maximum safe level.
So why is all this happening? There is still a shortage of nurses, despite the high levels of spending. There is still a culture of targets which leads inevitably to the practices mentioned earlier. Part of the cause is undoubtedly the over-centralised top-down management of the service.
Friday, 25 April 2008
When will he learn?
The OECD has recently issued a report which shows that Britain lags well behind comparable countries and competitors in devolving power to local groups and agencies in the effort to get long-term unemployed back to work.
We have known for some time of the Wisconsin "experiment", where the Federal Government concluded that centralised top-down solutions do not work. The result is local initiative which has led to dramatic reduction in unemployment levels.
The secret is to transfer funds and policy making to individual states. For politicians and bureaucrats, it is hard to let go control. In this country we even have quangos, nationally controlled replacing local councils.
Bottler needs a Damascus Road change, to throw away his convictions from days when things were simpler. Now everything is too complicated, as the OECD suggests. Nearly everybody, except Bottler and his fellow travellers, can see it.
We have known for some time of the Wisconsin "experiment", where the Federal Government concluded that centralised top-down solutions do not work. The result is local initiative which has led to dramatic reduction in unemployment levels.
The secret is to transfer funds and policy making to individual states. For politicians and bureaucrats, it is hard to let go control. In this country we even have quangos, nationally controlled replacing local councils.
Bottler needs a Damascus Road change, to throw away his convictions from days when things were simpler. Now everything is too complicated, as the OECD suggests. Nearly everybody, except Bottler and his fellow travellers, can see it.
Thursday, 24 April 2008
From panic, and not thought through
Those millions who will lose because of the abolition of the 10p tax band by Gordon Brown will not have been heartened by yesterday's fiasco. The rushed change of mind, just minutes before Prime Minister's Non-Answers probably was born of desperation to avoid a feared public dissection by Cameron.
The problem is that if all losers are fully compensated for deterioration in their position the extra stealth tax from the sleight of hand last year will be gone, since those people were the only losers and higher income groups all won.
Worse, there does not seem to be any adjustment, short of reversing all last year's changes, which will not cause further loss of tax. To raise personal allowances, for instance, will benefit all income groups and not just the poorest. To reverse last year's changes will mean lost of face, and "as you were " will mean wiping out the gains expected by higher income groups.
The lower income groups and their protectors will have noted the phrase "For this year", with the thought that it may be one-off, and the mention of backdated compensation in November means that poorer people will have a small cash-flow problem until November at a time when indebtedness is already causing problems.
In addition, perhaps reflecting what I have written above, there is talk of using the tax credit system or minimum wage to help them. If the tax credit system is used some may well not be eligible, because they are working or because they have no children. If, unbelievably, the minimum wage is raised we shall have the situation of all employers of people on low wages finding that all their cost planning has been in vain, having taken on workers at one level and discovering later in the year they must pay more backdated. Any rise in minimum wages could well have an upward pressure on wages immediately above and all differentials.
It is not surprising that after many days of discussion and sleepless nights no solution could be found which did not have very unwelcome implications for the Government.
I almost feel sorry for the Prime Minister and his puppet, - almost but not quite.
The problem is that if all losers are fully compensated for deterioration in their position the extra stealth tax from the sleight of hand last year will be gone, since those people were the only losers and higher income groups all won.
Worse, there does not seem to be any adjustment, short of reversing all last year's changes, which will not cause further loss of tax. To raise personal allowances, for instance, will benefit all income groups and not just the poorest. To reverse last year's changes will mean lost of face, and "as you were " will mean wiping out the gains expected by higher income groups.
The lower income groups and their protectors will have noted the phrase "For this year", with the thought that it may be one-off, and the mention of backdated compensation in November means that poorer people will have a small cash-flow problem until November at a time when indebtedness is already causing problems.
In addition, perhaps reflecting what I have written above, there is talk of using the tax credit system or minimum wage to help them. If the tax credit system is used some may well not be eligible, because they are working or because they have no children. If, unbelievably, the minimum wage is raised we shall have the situation of all employers of people on low wages finding that all their cost planning has been in vain, having taken on workers at one level and discovering later in the year they must pay more backdated. Any rise in minimum wages could well have an upward pressure on wages immediately above and all differentials.
It is not surprising that after many days of discussion and sleepless nights no solution could be found which did not have very unwelcome implications for the Government.
I almost feel sorry for the Prime Minister and his puppet, - almost but not quite.
Wednesday, 23 April 2008
How do they define failure, then?
On Monday the figures for last year's GCSE results were announced. There was no great fanfare, from which you would be right to infer that there was little progress, if any, to report.
Concentrating on differences achieved between pupils on free school meals, whom I shall call "poor" as a shorthand, and others, a number of things stand out.
Among these poor children 21% obtained the Government benchmark of five passes, grade A to C and including maths and English. This compares with 49% for other children. This is a very large difference, and only a slightly smaller difference than in 2002, when the vast sums of money were beginning to arrive in education.
At age 11, that is when leaving junior school, the two groups had different achievement levels in reaching the required standards in English and maths. In 2002 the poorer group results in the two subjects were 26 percentage points and 16 percentage lower than in the other group. When that cohort took their national curriculum tests at 14 years, the gap was 27 points in each subject. They poor actually deteriorated in achievement.
Some other statistics may explain this. In secondary schools in areas of recognised social deprivation 12% of pupils are likely to be classified as persistent truants, while in the least deprived the figure is 2%. ("Persistent truancy" means a pupil who has missed at least one fifth of the school sessions in a year, or 63 sessions.)
A similar result arises in calculating suspensions for physical assaults on adults. In the 10% of schools with most poor pupils in 2006 there 1,700 such suspensions, while in the 10% with fewest school meals there were 210 assaults.
The picture arising is of schools with higher concentrations of poor pupils producing proportionately many more unsatisfactory outcomes than other schools in the two core subjects, and that in secondary education high concentrations make the gap even wider. The possible reasons are the incidence of truancy and the atmosphere of assault, both of which could also be a result of under-achievement.
Clearly so far large sums of money and frequent policy initiatives have had little effect. It is surely time to apply the two recent principles of Conservative thinking.
1) Discipline at school must be improved. This could be done by making exclusion trigger expensive attention to offenders, rather than by reinstating them after appeal, either in the same school or another.
2) Societal breakdown comes largely from family breakdown, - a finding associated with Ian Duncan Smith. This is much more difficult to deal with, and will take longer to achieve, but unless family life styles, attitudes and behaviour change the problem will be largely intractable.
Concentrating on differences achieved between pupils on free school meals, whom I shall call "poor" as a shorthand, and others, a number of things stand out.
Among these poor children 21% obtained the Government benchmark of five passes, grade A to C and including maths and English. This compares with 49% for other children. This is a very large difference, and only a slightly smaller difference than in 2002, when the vast sums of money were beginning to arrive in education.
At age 11, that is when leaving junior school, the two groups had different achievement levels in reaching the required standards in English and maths. In 2002 the poorer group results in the two subjects were 26 percentage points and 16 percentage lower than in the other group. When that cohort took their national curriculum tests at 14 years, the gap was 27 points in each subject. They poor actually deteriorated in achievement.
Some other statistics may explain this. In secondary schools in areas of recognised social deprivation 12% of pupils are likely to be classified as persistent truants, while in the least deprived the figure is 2%. ("Persistent truancy" means a pupil who has missed at least one fifth of the school sessions in a year, or 63 sessions.)
A similar result arises in calculating suspensions for physical assaults on adults. In the 10% of schools with most poor pupils in 2006 there 1,700 such suspensions, while in the 10% with fewest school meals there were 210 assaults.
The picture arising is of schools with higher concentrations of poor pupils producing proportionately many more unsatisfactory outcomes than other schools in the two core subjects, and that in secondary education high concentrations make the gap even wider. The possible reasons are the incidence of truancy and the atmosphere of assault, both of which could also be a result of under-achievement.
Clearly so far large sums of money and frequent policy initiatives have had little effect. It is surely time to apply the two recent principles of Conservative thinking.
1) Discipline at school must be improved. This could be done by making exclusion trigger expensive attention to offenders, rather than by reinstating them after appeal, either in the same school or another.
2) Societal breakdown comes largely from family breakdown, - a finding associated with Ian Duncan Smith. This is much more difficult to deal with, and will take longer to achieve, but unless family life styles, attitudes and behaviour change the problem will be largely intractable.
Monday, 21 April 2008
They have not learned...
Conservatives nationally seem to have learned nothing from past attempts to encourage defection from other parties. They announced names in advance, thus giving the leadership of other parties warning of what they were up to.
Defectors from the conservatives, such as Shaun Woodward and Alan Howarth were sweet talked and encouraged secretly before the Conservative hierarchy was aware of it.
The conservatives have done it again, mentioning names of prominent Blairites. It may be unconnected, but one who was not mentioned, - Kate Hooey who has had problems with her party on a regular basis, pulled out of a Boris Johnson meeting, pleading sickness.
If contacts suggest that someone in another party is unhappy and might welcome a change, the mature and safe thing is to make contact with them quietly and secretly, and not blazon their names publicly.
Defectors from the conservatives, such as Shaun Woodward and Alan Howarth were sweet talked and encouraged secretly before the Conservative hierarchy was aware of it.
The conservatives have done it again, mentioning names of prominent Blairites. It may be unconnected, but one who was not mentioned, - Kate Hooey who has had problems with her party on a regular basis, pulled out of a Boris Johnson meeting, pleading sickness.
If contacts suggest that someone in another party is unhappy and might welcome a change, the mature and safe thing is to make contact with them quietly and secretly, and not blazon their names publicly.
Bigger and better?
What they did with hospitals, making them bigger and more remote, it seems that the Government is now doing with GP practices.
Super-practices, called polyclinics are to be brought into being by amalgamating GP practices. (I presume that this will not happen in remote rural areas, where there could be 20 miles between one doctor practices, on the grounds that travel problems for doctors if not for patients will eat into time and costs.) Communities which have lost, or fear to lose, their post office, police station and shops, will again feel devastated at the possibility of losing their doctor to some distant location.
It is possible to see how patients in some urban areas could gain from the process - having under one roof doctor, nursing and social care services, although travelling difficulties could even there be an issue for elderly patients.
Lord Darzi, the health minister foresees 150 of the new polyclinics in London, or about one for every 25 square miles. The impetus is from a Government completely out of touch with rural areas, as shown by their decision on post offices. At the very least their policy will require that every patient drives, or has access to public transport, or increasingly to private voluntary schemes.
Super-practices, called polyclinics are to be brought into being by amalgamating GP practices. (I presume that this will not happen in remote rural areas, where there could be 20 miles between one doctor practices, on the grounds that travel problems for doctors if not for patients will eat into time and costs.) Communities which have lost, or fear to lose, their post office, police station and shops, will again feel devastated at the possibility of losing their doctor to some distant location.
It is possible to see how patients in some urban areas could gain from the process - having under one roof doctor, nursing and social care services, although travelling difficulties could even there be an issue for elderly patients.
Lord Darzi, the health minister foresees 150 of the new polyclinics in London, or about one for every 25 square miles. The impetus is from a Government completely out of touch with rural areas, as shown by their decision on post offices. At the very least their policy will require that every patient drives, or has access to public transport, or increasingly to private voluntary schemes.
Bailing out the Banks
The announcement today, just over a week before important elections, that the Bank of England will advance up to £50 billion on collateral of varying risk, raises a number of questions.
1) The timing cannot be ignored. If such a scheme had been advanced in the autumn Northern Rock could have been saved intact, and its shareholders would not have suffered . The delay was entirely due to the Government indecision, -the decision on collateral is not an internal decision of the Bank.
2) There is unfairness here. It is true that the Board and shareholders of Northern Rock did risk their company by their business strategy, but others also did and they are now being bailed out. Other banks recognising their mistakes have begun to make arrangements, for example the RBOS decision to urge shareholders to subscribe to a rights issue, thus diluting the capital.
The result is that some shareholders have lost, some will now gain. No saver has lost, taxpayers are now risking more.
3)In the autumn the Governor of the Bank of England was clearly concerned about the message that bailing out would give. There is the problem of moral hazard - if the penalty for failure is reduced because the Government "will bail you out" imprudent policies are encouraged in the future.
The saga rumbles on, with confusion and dithering. What happens if the £50 billion is not enough? Will taxpayers have to accept more risk (already £150 billion)? This has not happened in other countries so long after the initial crisis. What is different here, with our greatest chancellor since the office began?
1) The timing cannot be ignored. If such a scheme had been advanced in the autumn Northern Rock could have been saved intact, and its shareholders would not have suffered . The delay was entirely due to the Government indecision, -the decision on collateral is not an internal decision of the Bank.
2) There is unfairness here. It is true that the Board and shareholders of Northern Rock did risk their company by their business strategy, but others also did and they are now being bailed out. Other banks recognising their mistakes have begun to make arrangements, for example the RBOS decision to urge shareholders to subscribe to a rights issue, thus diluting the capital.
The result is that some shareholders have lost, some will now gain. No saver has lost, taxpayers are now risking more.
3)In the autumn the Governor of the Bank of England was clearly concerned about the message that bailing out would give. There is the problem of moral hazard - if the penalty for failure is reduced because the Government "will bail you out" imprudent policies are encouraged in the future.
The saga rumbles on, with confusion and dithering. What happens if the £50 billion is not enough? Will taxpayers have to accept more risk (already £150 billion)? This has not happened in other countries so long after the initial crisis. What is different here, with our greatest chancellor since the office began?
Thursday, 17 April 2008
When will they admit failure?
This week the BBC published findings by the LibDems on the progress of students in the GCSE exams.
We are familiar with the dumbing down, low marks for passing and the general dissatisfaction with the exam. Now comes the news that almost one in ten pupils in England sat fewer than 5 GCSEs last year.
In other words almost 60,000 did not even attempt enough subjects to help towards achieving the Government's target of 30% of students in each school achieving 5 good passes, that is with grade C or better, by 2012.
This is yet more evidence of the failure of our schools to help all pupils to leave school with basic skills with which they can achieve their full potential. There is little surprise that so many are on benefit and on the streets. Nor is is surprising that British employers regularly report that skills among immigrants are generally higher than among many British school leavers.
We are familiar with the dumbing down, low marks for passing and the general dissatisfaction with the exam. Now comes the news that almost one in ten pupils in England sat fewer than 5 GCSEs last year.
In other words almost 60,000 did not even attempt enough subjects to help towards achieving the Government's target of 30% of students in each school achieving 5 good passes, that is with grade C or better, by 2012.
This is yet more evidence of the failure of our schools to help all pupils to leave school with basic skills with which they can achieve their full potential. There is little surprise that so many are on benefit and on the streets. Nor is is surprising that British employers regularly report that skills among immigrants are generally higher than among many British school leavers.
A good time not to release things?
We are all familiar with the NuLabour phrase, "A good time to bury bad news".
Today the Metropolitan Police announced that the report into the shooting of Mr. De Menezes would be delayed because of "political sensitivities". It is assumed that these sensitivities refer to the coming elections, and the especially the London mayoral election.
The guessing is that Sir Iain Blair comes out badly, and that this would tend to wound Ken Livingstone. We shall not know until after the election, or whenever the report is published.
Perhaps we are ultra-suspicious after the blatant electioneering by Home Secretary Jacqui Smith, when she announced very recently that 300 extra terror police are to be added to the force engaged in the prevention of terrorism, which was not mentioned even a few weeks ago when she had the opportunity.
There is supposed to be a moratorium on such announcements in the period immediately before elections, and the Tories have already protested.
Now it seems possible that the Police announcement of delay could actually be observing the convention, but conveniently for the Government and its cronies.
In which case the Government seems to obeying the convention when it suits, and flouting it otherwise. Time for the convention to be given some legal force, I think.
Today the Metropolitan Police announced that the report into the shooting of Mr. De Menezes would be delayed because of "political sensitivities". It is assumed that these sensitivities refer to the coming elections, and the especially the London mayoral election.
The guessing is that Sir Iain Blair comes out badly, and that this would tend to wound Ken Livingstone. We shall not know until after the election, or whenever the report is published.
Perhaps we are ultra-suspicious after the blatant electioneering by Home Secretary Jacqui Smith, when she announced very recently that 300 extra terror police are to be added to the force engaged in the prevention of terrorism, which was not mentioned even a few weeks ago when she had the opportunity.
There is supposed to be a moratorium on such announcements in the period immediately before elections, and the Tories have already protested.
Now it seems possible that the Police announcement of delay could actually be observing the convention, but conveniently for the Government and its cronies.
In which case the Government seems to obeying the convention when it suits, and flouting it otherwise. Time for the convention to be given some legal force, I think.
Wednesday, 16 April 2008
Big brother is watching.....
The Police Review recently reported that officers within the Metropolitan Police will soon be tagged, so that senior officers can track their positions and their movements. The APLS (-Automated Personal Location System) will return details of where all officers are.
It may be, as claimed, to improve officer safety and also to enable nearest quick response to any incident, but many officers will probably suspect that it will be to keep tabs on them primarily.
At the very least it could reduce the need for individual judgement and initiative, "Leave that incident and proceed three streets away where...". Officers could become "pawns" moved around by a supervisor in the control room.
Presumably the tags will be removable at the end of each shift, unlike prisoner tags, which in theory are not removable. But they will be compulsory.
This may be something of a "red rag" to a police force already feeling under-appreciated and cheated in last years wage negotiations. They may need some convincing!
It may be, as claimed, to improve officer safety and also to enable nearest quick response to any incident, but many officers will probably suspect that it will be to keep tabs on them primarily.
At the very least it could reduce the need for individual judgement and initiative, "Leave that incident and proceed three streets away where...". Officers could become "pawns" moved around by a supervisor in the control room.
Presumably the tags will be removable at the end of each shift, unlike prisoner tags, which in theory are not removable. But they will be compulsory.
This may be something of a "red rag" to a police force already feeling under-appreciated and cheated in last years wage negotiations. They may need some convincing!
On the cheap?
Today's Independent newspaper quotes an answer given to Michael Gove in parliament recently. It concerns the growing tendency for head teachers to fill vacancies with "unqualified teachers, lacking "qualified teacher status".
In 1997 there were 2,940 teacher without QTS. In 2007 there are 16,710! This is still very much a small proportion, but it is now more than 5 times what it was in 1997.
These figures do not include teachers qualified in the European Economic Area, - the EU plus Iceland, Norway and Lichtenstein. Their qualifications are accepted as equal to those of this country. Otherwise teachers from overseas are permitted to work for four years before they have to obtain QTS. Last year 1,562 teachers from the EEA were awarded QTS.
To these must be added the number of classroom assistants, who may be admirable people but who are not qualified teachers.
Why are there vacancies? The answer is probably due to a morale problem - that would-be teachers who could not earn more elsewhere are deterred by the teaching environment. It may also be that qualified graduate teachers can usually earn more elsewhere.
The end result is a possible deterioration in teaching effectiveness and in the quality of education. For the Government there is the advantage of saving money, by not having to pay the "going rate" to produce a fully qualified teaching force.
Could it be rather like the Police Community Support Officers, - less qualified, fewer powers and lower paid, and in the end however good their qualities not a real substitute for the police officers whiling away their time in form filling and report writing?
Despite the vast sums poured into education and police, we are still reduced to "doing it on the cheap".
In 1997 there were 2,940 teacher without QTS. In 2007 there are 16,710! This is still very much a small proportion, but it is now more than 5 times what it was in 1997.
These figures do not include teachers qualified in the European Economic Area, - the EU plus Iceland, Norway and Lichtenstein. Their qualifications are accepted as equal to those of this country. Otherwise teachers from overseas are permitted to work for four years before they have to obtain QTS. Last year 1,562 teachers from the EEA were awarded QTS.
To these must be added the number of classroom assistants, who may be admirable people but who are not qualified teachers.
Why are there vacancies? The answer is probably due to a morale problem - that would-be teachers who could not earn more elsewhere are deterred by the teaching environment. It may also be that qualified graduate teachers can usually earn more elsewhere.
The end result is a possible deterioration in teaching effectiveness and in the quality of education. For the Government there is the advantage of saving money, by not having to pay the "going rate" to produce a fully qualified teaching force.
Could it be rather like the Police Community Support Officers, - less qualified, fewer powers and lower paid, and in the end however good their qualities not a real substitute for the police officers whiling away their time in form filling and report writing?
Despite the vast sums poured into education and police, we are still reduced to "doing it on the cheap".
Tuesday, 15 April 2008
Clouds with silver lining?
The floods last summer not only cost residents their homes for many months, the Government some £86 million in grants towards repairs and insurance companies massive payments, they also produced a bonus for taxpayers.
It now seems that in the repairs undertaken, on average the VAT bill for each house was somewhere between £5,250 and £7,000. In many cases the VAT bill will have been met by the insurance companies, and not by householders, so that's alright then. The bills will result in higher insurance premiums, so we shall all lose ultimately.
The one gainer, the one silver lining, is for the Treasury and the Chancellor. If the Taxpayers Alliance calculation is correct the Treasury gained £525 million from VAT on the costs of repairing and refurbishing houses damaged by the floods. So even allowing for the £86 million grants, the Treasury still gained by well over £400 million. This is not to mention the VAT on reinstatement of damaged household goods.
There is a silver lining, - for the Chancellor, who can offset the VAT receipts against the massive sum he will have to borrow this year to balance the books.
It now seems that in the repairs undertaken, on average the VAT bill for each house was somewhere between £5,250 and £7,000. In many cases the VAT bill will have been met by the insurance companies, and not by householders, so that's alright then. The bills will result in higher insurance premiums, so we shall all lose ultimately.
The one gainer, the one silver lining, is for the Treasury and the Chancellor. If the Taxpayers Alliance calculation is correct the Treasury gained £525 million from VAT on the costs of repairing and refurbishing houses damaged by the floods. So even allowing for the £86 million grants, the Treasury still gained by well over £400 million. This is not to mention the VAT on reinstatement of damaged household goods.
There is a silver lining, - for the Chancellor, who can offset the VAT receipts against the massive sum he will have to borrow this year to balance the books.
Gordon's friends telling porkies now?
There's another excellent post by Fraser Nelson on the Coffee House blog this morning. Fraser refers to the treatment of George Osborne by Jon Snow on the 7 p.m. news on Channel 4 yesterday. Snow asked him to comment on the IMF statement that even if the UK growth rate is only 1.6% this year, it will still outstrip the USA and every European country. The statement was repeated twice more, once to claim that the UK will come out top and then to claim that 1.6% will be the highest in the developed world.
Two things are strange.
The first is that the statements are bunk. The IMF in fact forecasts in its World Economic Outlook in April 2008, that if the UK grows at 1.6%, the following countries will out-perform it, - Greece 3.5%, Norway 3.1%, Finland 2.4%, Sweden 2%, Austria 1.8%, Spain 1.8% and Ireland 1.8%. In fact of the 31 countries considered developed by the IMF 19 are expected to outperform the UK.
If Snow knew all this, he was either inviting Osborne to demolish the statements or he was promoting the Government. If he did not know, then his back room staff are incompetent.
The other strange thing is that Osborne did not challenge the statements. This suggests that he did not know. Admittedly, the IMF report is very recent, but as the Tories have save decided to attack Brown's economic record, you would expect them to use every opportunity to discredit any statement which actually claims more than Brown has said. Very strange!
Two things are strange.
The first is that the statements are bunk. The IMF in fact forecasts in its World Economic Outlook in April 2008, that if the UK grows at 1.6%, the following countries will out-perform it, - Greece 3.5%, Norway 3.1%, Finland 2.4%, Sweden 2%, Austria 1.8%, Spain 1.8% and Ireland 1.8%. In fact of the 31 countries considered developed by the IMF 19 are expected to outperform the UK.
If Snow knew all this, he was either inviting Osborne to demolish the statements or he was promoting the Government. If he did not know, then his back room staff are incompetent.
The other strange thing is that Osborne did not challenge the statements. This suggests that he did not know. Admittedly, the IMF report is very recent, but as the Tories have save decided to attack Brown's economic record, you would expect them to use every opportunity to discredit any statement which actually claims more than Brown has said. Very strange!
Monday, 14 April 2008
The "bonfire" a damp squib?
In 1997 Gordon Brown promised a "bonfire of the quangos", because they were "government in secret, free from public scrutiny".
The Cabinet Office has recently released figures on the spending on quangos. For once the total spending has been reduced. This was only because one quango, the "Strategic Rail Authority" has been wound down and its work transferred to the Department of Transport. There was thus a notional saving of £2.5 billion. The remaining quangos, increased in number, required an increase in spending of £1.7 billion.
The amount of money passing through the quangos has risen almost every year, - see an earlier blog message. There has also been a relentless growth in staff. In 2007, for instance, staff at the Home Office quangos rose by 1,671, while those in Health Department quangos rose by 600 or so.
The Cabinet Office figures revealed that 13 out of 16 Whitehall departments failed to reduce their spending on quangos in 2007, with 7 actually creating new ones. More are due to arrive in 2008.
The bonfire has failed to materialise. Money and staff are increasingly located in the quangos, which in some cases are coming to resemble regional government.
The broken promise is annoying - John Major also failed to reduce them, but it is their significance which is worrying - the unelected, un-transparent bodies with cronies on board, and unaccountable domination of much of local government must be of concern to those who love democracy.
I have written it before, but is there any surprise that election turnout is so low, when unelected Brussels, Downing Street sofa and quangos make the decisions that dominate our lives. Democracy is not merely having the right to vote, - they have that in Zimbabwe in name, rather it is having a say in the way your community and country are run.
The Cabinet Office has recently released figures on the spending on quangos. For once the total spending has been reduced. This was only because one quango, the "Strategic Rail Authority" has been wound down and its work transferred to the Department of Transport. There was thus a notional saving of £2.5 billion. The remaining quangos, increased in number, required an increase in spending of £1.7 billion.
The amount of money passing through the quangos has risen almost every year, - see an earlier blog message. There has also been a relentless growth in staff. In 2007, for instance, staff at the Home Office quangos rose by 1,671, while those in Health Department quangos rose by 600 or so.
The Cabinet Office figures revealed that 13 out of 16 Whitehall departments failed to reduce their spending on quangos in 2007, with 7 actually creating new ones. More are due to arrive in 2008.
The bonfire has failed to materialise. Money and staff are increasingly located in the quangos, which in some cases are coming to resemble regional government.
The broken promise is annoying - John Major also failed to reduce them, but it is their significance which is worrying - the unelected, un-transparent bodies with cronies on board, and unaccountable domination of much of local government must be of concern to those who love democracy.
I have written it before, but is there any surprise that election turnout is so low, when unelected Brussels, Downing Street sofa and quangos make the decisions that dominate our lives. Democracy is not merely having the right to vote, - they have that in Zimbabwe in name, rather it is having a say in the way your community and country are run.
An expensive gesture?
"Dr. Crippen" posted on Conservative Home over the week-end. As usual, his points were to the point.
On 1st April, 2008, the Countess of Chester Hospital announced proudly that it had completed its deep-cleaning programme. You will remember that the Government set aside £57 million to deep clean all our 1,500 hospitals.
On 3rd April, 2008, the Countess of Chester Hospital was reported in the local newspaper as having closed down two wards due to an outbreak of Clostridium Difficile!
We take no delight in the experience of the hospital, and level no criticism. We have realised for some time that the initiative announced by Bottler, just before he bottled out of the Autumn election, was just a scam to tip fortunes in an election.
It has become apparent since that nearly half of the money was to come from the hospital trust themselves, (at a time when they are making severe cut backs to meet their budgets.) There has also been administrative bungling at various levels, so not all the £30+ million that Government has promised to actually pay has been used.
The Countess of Chester Hospital is to be congratulated on the speed with which they undertook their deep-clean. Many other hospitals are well behind.
As Dr. Crippen reminds us, many doctors were sceptical that the initiative would produce anything worthwhile and saw it as a pre-election gimmick. To reduce the incidence of dangerous germs in our hospitals, - elimination completely seems a dream, will require much more money and over a long period of time. Above all it will require re-organization of hospital services, and the removal of outside encumbrances such as targets. A small amount of money thrown at the problem was always going to be pathetic.
On 1st April, 2008, the Countess of Chester Hospital announced proudly that it had completed its deep-cleaning programme. You will remember that the Government set aside £57 million to deep clean all our 1,500 hospitals.
On 3rd April, 2008, the Countess of Chester Hospital was reported in the local newspaper as having closed down two wards due to an outbreak of Clostridium Difficile!
We take no delight in the experience of the hospital, and level no criticism. We have realised for some time that the initiative announced by Bottler, just before he bottled out of the Autumn election, was just a scam to tip fortunes in an election.
It has become apparent since that nearly half of the money was to come from the hospital trust themselves, (at a time when they are making severe cut backs to meet their budgets.) There has also been administrative bungling at various levels, so not all the £30+ million that Government has promised to actually pay has been used.
The Countess of Chester Hospital is to be congratulated on the speed with which they undertook their deep-clean. Many other hospitals are well behind.
As Dr. Crippen reminds us, many doctors were sceptical that the initiative would produce anything worthwhile and saw it as a pre-election gimmick. To reduce the incidence of dangerous germs in our hospitals, - elimination completely seems a dream, will require much more money and over a long period of time. Above all it will require re-organization of hospital services, and the removal of outside encumbrances such as targets. A small amount of money thrown at the problem was always going to be pathetic.
Saturday, 12 April 2008
The Coils family in Harlepool
The Hartlepool Mail this week illustrated yet again the state of educational arrangements in this country.
The family were denied their first choice secondary school for their daughter. In fact they were denied second and third choices as well. (They were required to rank their first three choices, but they actually gave a fourth choice.)
Their fourth choice school is five miles away from their home, on the other side of town, and needing two buses in each journey between home and school. Catchment areas seem to have gone, but been replaced by something worse!
They were advised that they could appeal, and have done so. If the appeal fails, they will consider transferring the guardianship of their daughter to her great aunt, who lives in the catchment area of their first choice school. This is a drastic step, but illustrates the idiocy which they feel they face.
The whole issue shows the the failure of Government and local authorities to get to grips with the problems of school failure and over-subscription at successful schools, with the consequent bureaucratic and secret rationing of places at more desirable schools. It is the product of ideology and a refusal to recognise the damage that it is doing to our educational system.
We must learn from other countries that a monolithic state education system ruled by Whitehall and managed by local authorities has failed, if indeed it ever succeeded.
The family were denied their first choice secondary school for their daughter. In fact they were denied second and third choices as well. (They were required to rank their first three choices, but they actually gave a fourth choice.)
Their fourth choice school is five miles away from their home, on the other side of town, and needing two buses in each journey between home and school. Catchment areas seem to have gone, but been replaced by something worse!
They were advised that they could appeal, and have done so. If the appeal fails, they will consider transferring the guardianship of their daughter to her great aunt, who lives in the catchment area of their first choice school. This is a drastic step, but illustrates the idiocy which they feel they face.
The whole issue shows the the failure of Government and local authorities to get to grips with the problems of school failure and over-subscription at successful schools, with the consequent bureaucratic and secret rationing of places at more desirable schools. It is the product of ideology and a refusal to recognise the damage that it is doing to our educational system.
We must learn from other countries that a monolithic state education system ruled by Whitehall and managed by local authorities has failed, if indeed it ever succeeded.
National Interest and private justice
The court has ruled that the Government/Serious Fraud Office was wrong to end investigation into the "arms to Saudi Arabia" case.
I can understand what was at stake. What we call bribes, others might call facilitation payments. If now such payments became public, we could lose valuable future sales (probably to a neighbouring country which has no scruples about using these payments.) If the investigation proceeds, and if bribery is uncovered then we could lose nationally.
But now the Government, supported by the Conservatives, is preparing to give powers to the Attorney General to override international agreements we have made not to use bribery, as well as other issues, if it is in the interest of national security.
Who defines national security? I suspect it could easily come to mean, "Anything which would embarrass the Government if it all became public". The precedent is the legal advice which told Blair it would be legal to invade Iraq, advice which Blair has always refused to publish in full.
Quite apart from inconvenience to the Government, there is the issue of private justice. The arms to Iraq question emerged when British manufacturers, encouraged by the Government, exported materials and later were threatened with prosecution. Government embarrassment or private punishment?
If, as a private citizen, I have a legitimate claim to a righting of an injustice but this is not allowed to be prosecuted because someone somewhere judges that it would not be in the national interest, how near are we to some of the abuses of Marxism as we have seen it practiced?
Two thousand years ago some Jewish leaders prosecuted and helped towards the crucifixion of the man from Nazareth, because it was "expedient that one man should die.... for the nation."
What on earth are the Conservatives doing, in supporting a permanent principle that the Government of the day can simply, by declaring it to be in the national interest, suspend the working of the legal system? This seems a slippery slope to something not nice.
I can understand what was at stake. What we call bribes, others might call facilitation payments. If now such payments became public, we could lose valuable future sales (probably to a neighbouring country which has no scruples about using these payments.) If the investigation proceeds, and if bribery is uncovered then we could lose nationally.
But now the Government, supported by the Conservatives, is preparing to give powers to the Attorney General to override international agreements we have made not to use bribery, as well as other issues, if it is in the interest of national security.
Who defines national security? I suspect it could easily come to mean, "Anything which would embarrass the Government if it all became public". The precedent is the legal advice which told Blair it would be legal to invade Iraq, advice which Blair has always refused to publish in full.
Quite apart from inconvenience to the Government, there is the issue of private justice. The arms to Iraq question emerged when British manufacturers, encouraged by the Government, exported materials and later were threatened with prosecution. Government embarrassment or private punishment?
If, as a private citizen, I have a legitimate claim to a righting of an injustice but this is not allowed to be prosecuted because someone somewhere judges that it would not be in the national interest, how near are we to some of the abuses of Marxism as we have seen it practiced?
Two thousand years ago some Jewish leaders prosecuted and helped towards the crucifixion of the man from Nazareth, because it was "expedient that one man should die.... for the nation."
What on earth are the Conservatives doing, in supporting a permanent principle that the Government of the day can simply, by declaring it to be in the national interest, suspend the working of the legal system? This seems a slippery slope to something not nice.
Wave an ASBO at them!
This week the Taxpayers Alliance reported on an increase in youth crime.
Rather, they reported that the number of persistent young offenders in England and Wales had increased from 9,868 in 1997 to 16,512 in 2007. A persistent young offender is one aged between 10 and 17 who has been sentenced by any criminal court in the UK on three or more occasions.
So in eleven years the number of such offenders has increased by 67%.
When you add to this the number of young people in our large cities but especially in London, who have been killed by other young people, and even adults who have suffered at juvenile hands as well, it is easy to explain the perception of people.
Mealy mouthed politicians who spout about a reduction in crime, on the small technical offences which police use to bolster conviction rates, do nothing to convince.
Many, and not just older people who feel their frailty, are hesitant to go out on to the streets at certain times of day. Gangs of young people have gained controlled. While much of their aggression may be directed against other youth gangs, the fact remains that their presence, their willingness to indulge in alcohol and drugs and their need to obtain money by theft, have blighted the lives of so many families.
Family failure has led to educational failure and now to social failure. There is a deep-seated malaise in our society which passing laws has done nothing to relieve. When an ASBO is regarded as a badge by some offenders, any successful solution must go much deeper.
Rather, they reported that the number of persistent young offenders in England and Wales had increased from 9,868 in 1997 to 16,512 in 2007. A persistent young offender is one aged between 10 and 17 who has been sentenced by any criminal court in the UK on three or more occasions.
So in eleven years the number of such offenders has increased by 67%.
When you add to this the number of young people in our large cities but especially in London, who have been killed by other young people, and even adults who have suffered at juvenile hands as well, it is easy to explain the perception of people.
Mealy mouthed politicians who spout about a reduction in crime, on the small technical offences which police use to bolster conviction rates, do nothing to convince.
Many, and not just older people who feel their frailty, are hesitant to go out on to the streets at certain times of day. Gangs of young people have gained controlled. While much of their aggression may be directed against other youth gangs, the fact remains that their presence, their willingness to indulge in alcohol and drugs and their need to obtain money by theft, have blighted the lives of so many families.
Family failure has led to educational failure and now to social failure. There is a deep-seated malaise in our society which passing laws has done nothing to relieve. When an ASBO is regarded as a badge by some offenders, any successful solution must go much deeper.
Big Brother Borough
Most were shocked to hear of the antics of Poole Council.
It seems that a family who have a child at a particular school wished to have a second child at the same school. But they also wished to move. They explained their situation to the council and were told that so long as they still lived in their present home at the end of January both children could attend the school in September.
The family claims that they passed over at least one attractive house in the autumn in order to meet the residential condition.
They discovered, in further discussion with the council subsequently that the council had been mounting a surveillance operation on the family for nearly three weeks, to check that they still lived at their original address. One or more watchers followed the family car to school in the morning and from school in the afternoon, and then subsequently returned in the evening to watch the house until it seemed the family had retired for the night. The watcher(s) kept logs of all comings and goings and all signs of activity within the house.
The council authority for this was the 2000 Regulation of Investigatory(or investigative) Powers Act, which was brought in in part to improve national security. Any evidence obtained under the act may be used in criminal prosecution.
This morning the Daily Telegraph publishes evidence which suggests that activity such as that at Poole may be by no means exceptional. Last year, as revealed by the Surveillance Commissioner, local councils and government departments made 12,494 applications for "directed surveillance". This compares with a reduced figure of 19,000 from the police and other law enforcement agencies.
(Councils have admitted that they are using the Act for issues such a dog fouling, and anything else to which the term "illegal" may be attached.)
Whether this is a proper use of powers under the act is doubtful, as far as the act was intended, but the Poole case demonstrates something important.
If we no longer had a monolithic education system which is failing in large areas of the country, and an ideology which insists that every child must begin and end equally, many such problems would disappear.
If we had a Swedish-type education service, then popular schools would drive out failing schools. The latter would be replaced by new schools run on a better and different basis. Catchment areas and lotteries would be unnecessary. Snooping by councils, concerned about parents wanting to have all their children at the same (successful) school, would be unnecessary.
It seems that a family who have a child at a particular school wished to have a second child at the same school. But they also wished to move. They explained their situation to the council and were told that so long as they still lived in their present home at the end of January both children could attend the school in September.
The family claims that they passed over at least one attractive house in the autumn in order to meet the residential condition.
They discovered, in further discussion with the council subsequently that the council had been mounting a surveillance operation on the family for nearly three weeks, to check that they still lived at their original address. One or more watchers followed the family car to school in the morning and from school in the afternoon, and then subsequently returned in the evening to watch the house until it seemed the family had retired for the night. The watcher(s) kept logs of all comings and goings and all signs of activity within the house.
The council authority for this was the 2000 Regulation of Investigatory(or investigative) Powers Act, which was brought in in part to improve national security. Any evidence obtained under the act may be used in criminal prosecution.
This morning the Daily Telegraph publishes evidence which suggests that activity such as that at Poole may be by no means exceptional. Last year, as revealed by the Surveillance Commissioner, local councils and government departments made 12,494 applications for "directed surveillance". This compares with a reduced figure of 19,000 from the police and other law enforcement agencies.
(Councils have admitted that they are using the Act for issues such a dog fouling, and anything else to which the term "illegal" may be attached.)
Whether this is a proper use of powers under the act is doubtful, as far as the act was intended, but the Poole case demonstrates something important.
If we no longer had a monolithic education system which is failing in large areas of the country, and an ideology which insists that every child must begin and end equally, many such problems would disappear.
If we had a Swedish-type education service, then popular schools would drive out failing schools. The latter would be replaced by new schools run on a better and different basis. Catchment areas and lotteries would be unnecessary. Snooping by councils, concerned about parents wanting to have all their children at the same (successful) school, would be unnecessary.
Friday, 11 April 2008
Have they no shame?
Caroline Spelman, chairwoman of the Conservative Party, has apparently made an interesting suggestion about the treatment of young people who are unruly.
She told the Western Mail that parents of youngsters who are given community service sentences should be made to undergo community service as well.
The more liberal will doubtless claim that this is the "stocks and pillory" in modern form, but in part these progressives have caused the problem by being soft, albeit in a well-meaning way.
It could be argued that parents who have failed in their responsibility and allowed their children to behave in an antisocial way, even though legally responsible for their offspring, should try to help belatedly to accept their responsibility. The act of picking up litter, or cleaning up damage, or whatever, when done as a family could even bring families closer together.
Caroline used the words, "We think it's quite important....". It will be interesting to see who are "we", because a Party spokesman has stressed that the plan was not official policy(yet?).
She told the Western Mail that parents of youngsters who are given community service sentences should be made to undergo community service as well.
The more liberal will doubtless claim that this is the "stocks and pillory" in modern form, but in part these progressives have caused the problem by being soft, albeit in a well-meaning way.
It could be argued that parents who have failed in their responsibility and allowed their children to behave in an antisocial way, even though legally responsible for their offspring, should try to help belatedly to accept their responsibility. The act of picking up litter, or cleaning up damage, or whatever, when done as a family could even bring families closer together.
Caroline used the words, "We think it's quite important....". It will be interesting to see who are "we", because a Party spokesman has stressed that the plan was not official policy(yet?).
Who wants the Olympics?
We have seen the spectacle of the progress of the Olympic torch. The symbol of unity became the object of protest and demonstration. In the USA, after London and Paris, the torch disappeared from view for a long period when the route was changed suddenly to avoid confrontation. The procession to show it to the people became a private progress that nobody saw.
A January opinion poll for "Inside Out", and summarised by the BBC in early March, had some startling findings. Three quarters of us have no intention of attending, 73% of us can foresee no benefit to our own area and 80% said that the games will not inspire them to greater fitness or participation in sport.
Even within London 60% indicated that the games held nothing for them.
The projected cost of the games rises remorselessly. Original estimates of about £3 billion, or about £400 per household, have already been adjusted to £9 billion, and some observers such as the Taxpayers Alliance are thinking in terms of £20 billion or about £800 per household.
The TPA offers an alternative calculation. If the cost were spread over the 25% of us who will or might attend, they would pay about £1,600 each. They will be heavily subsidised in the event!
So are the respondents wrong? Will there actually be more benefit for them than they expect, - perhaps a swelling of national pride? Otherwise we shall be holding the games for reasons of (governmental) prestige and for a relatively small group who have hi-jacked the process.
"Government for the people, by the people, of the people." Certainly the last is true, the other two are more open to question.
A January opinion poll for "Inside Out", and summarised by the BBC in early March, had some startling findings. Three quarters of us have no intention of attending, 73% of us can foresee no benefit to our own area and 80% said that the games will not inspire them to greater fitness or participation in sport.
Even within London 60% indicated that the games held nothing for them.
The projected cost of the games rises remorselessly. Original estimates of about £3 billion, or about £400 per household, have already been adjusted to £9 billion, and some observers such as the Taxpayers Alliance are thinking in terms of £20 billion or about £800 per household.
The TPA offers an alternative calculation. If the cost were spread over the 25% of us who will or might attend, they would pay about £1,600 each. They will be heavily subsidised in the event!
So are the respondents wrong? Will there actually be more benefit for them than they expect, - perhaps a swelling of national pride? Otherwise we shall be holding the games for reasons of (governmental) prestige and for a relatively small group who have hi-jacked the process.
"Government for the people, by the people, of the people." Certainly the last is true, the other two are more open to question.
That 10p...
Some NuLabour MPs have seen what was obvious to many of us just 2 days after last year's budget, - that those on low incomes were the most likely losers, indeed the only losers from Bottler's rabbit out of the hat in 2007!
In other words the result is that on those liable to tax at all, many of the lowest paid will qualify for more benefits, although having to pay more tax, those earning under about 18,000 who do not qualify for credit, - single and childless for example, will be worse off, while those earning over £18,000 will pay less tax.
We have a supposed Labour Government increasing inequality.
There is more. Within one day of recently gaining independence from Treasury control, the head of the Office for National Statistics, Karen Dunnell, published a report on British Society.
Concentrating here merely on the income situation, her conclusion is staggering. During the period when Gordon Brown was chancellor the income gap between rich and poor did not narrow.
Average incomes of all income groups rose, but in percentage terms each percentile* gained the same share of total income as before.
This was despite all the cumbersome and complicated measures brought in by Brown. The 2007 budget did nothing to change the inequality, on the contrary....
*A percentile is a group of incomes representing 10% of income recipients when they have been ranged by size of income. So the top percentile has the top 10% of incomes, the ninth is the next 10%, and so on.
In other words the result is that on those liable to tax at all, many of the lowest paid will qualify for more benefits, although having to pay more tax, those earning under about 18,000 who do not qualify for credit, - single and childless for example, will be worse off, while those earning over £18,000 will pay less tax.
We have a supposed Labour Government increasing inequality.
There is more. Within one day of recently gaining independence from Treasury control, the head of the Office for National Statistics, Karen Dunnell, published a report on British Society.
Concentrating here merely on the income situation, her conclusion is staggering. During the period when Gordon Brown was chancellor the income gap between rich and poor did not narrow.
Average incomes of all income groups rose, but in percentage terms each percentile* gained the same share of total income as before.
This was despite all the cumbersome and complicated measures brought in by Brown. The 2007 budget did nothing to change the inequality, on the contrary....
*A percentile is a group of incomes representing 10% of income recipients when they have been ranged by size of income. So the top percentile has the top 10% of incomes, the ninth is the next 10%, and so on.
Dithering is understandable
Gordon Brown has a difficulty without any of the mistakes he made as chancellor or blunders since.
He became prime minister as a Scotsman representing a Scottish seat, at a time of growing nationalism and English resentment at the perceived injustice of the Barnett formula and over-representation by Scotland. His recurring repetition of "Britishness" somehow gave the game away.
Lord Barnett has recently admitted that the so-called formula was little more than than a "back of the envelope" calculation based on the rough sizes of population of the parts of the UK in the 1970s.
If so, why not merely adjust the formula for the present population sizes? Three possibilities could arise with any change:
1) The Scottish benefit could be reduced and the English increased, which would certainly go down well with the English, but would not go down well in Scotland.
2) The situation stays roughly as it is now. This would do nothing to reduce English anger.
3) Scotland could emerge with even greater benefit. Apoplexy could well up in England.
Brown has two major fears.
i) The threat to the union and movement towards independence would go a long way to removing Labour hegemony, because Conservatives are much stronger in England than they are in Scotland, and Labour traditionally needs Scottish MPs in order to rule at Westminster. If the Scottish influence is removed or weakened, then Labour would find it harder to be the Government in London.
ii) The power base of the SNP in Scotland. Movement away from Labour in Scotland is not now usually to the C0nservatives or the LibDems but to the SNP, thus reducing the Scottish contingent at Westminster.
It is difficult to know which of the three possibilities above is the most and which the least attractive to him. This situation he inherited. You can almost feel sorry for him, - almost, but not quite!
He became prime minister as a Scotsman representing a Scottish seat, at a time of growing nationalism and English resentment at the perceived injustice of the Barnett formula and over-representation by Scotland. His recurring repetition of "Britishness" somehow gave the game away.
Lord Barnett has recently admitted that the so-called formula was little more than than a "back of the envelope" calculation based on the rough sizes of population of the parts of the UK in the 1970s.
If so, why not merely adjust the formula for the present population sizes? Three possibilities could arise with any change:
1) The Scottish benefit could be reduced and the English increased, which would certainly go down well with the English, but would not go down well in Scotland.
2) The situation stays roughly as it is now. This would do nothing to reduce English anger.
3) Scotland could emerge with even greater benefit. Apoplexy could well up in England.
Brown has two major fears.
i) The threat to the union and movement towards independence would go a long way to removing Labour hegemony, because Conservatives are much stronger in England than they are in Scotland, and Labour traditionally needs Scottish MPs in order to rule at Westminster. If the Scottish influence is removed or weakened, then Labour would find it harder to be the Government in London.
ii) The power base of the SNP in Scotland. Movement away from Labour in Scotland is not now usually to the C0nservatives or the LibDems but to the SNP, thus reducing the Scottish contingent at Westminster.
It is difficult to know which of the three possibilities above is the most and which the least attractive to him. This situation he inherited. You can almost feel sorry for him, - almost, but not quite!
Wednesday, 9 April 2008
Jobs for the (Party) boys from the South East.
We have known for quite a few years that NuLabour friends are getting the bulk of the well paid posts on Quangos. These are rewards for those who retire from parliamentary seats at the bidding of the leadership to find a safe seat for a favourite, or consolation for those who lost their seat in the elections, as well as promotion for reliable or long-serving officials.
What emerged a few weeks ago in an investigation by the New Local Government Network and reported by the Guardian is that the vast number of these patronage appointments tend to be concentrated in London and the South East. Perhaps this is not so surprising, in that NuLabour was a metropolitan construct which took over from traditional Labour.
The Boards of these quangos, which spend £123 billion a year, or about 21% of all public spending compared with 15% spent by local authorities, are concentrated in the South. Just four relatively prosperous inner London boroughs, - Camden, Westminster, Islington and Kensington and Chelsea, have 15 % of the national total of board members. This compares with 2% in the whole of the North East, 5% in the North West and 5% in the West Midlands. More than half of all board members are resident in London and the South East.
In some important Quangos the vast majority of board members live in London, - National Portrait Gallery 93%, the British Council 80%, Channel 4 75%, and the British Museum 70%.
A cabinet Office spokeswoman claimed that people appointed to these boards are appointed solely on merit. This may be the case but the boards certainly lack much input from vast areas outside London and NuLabour.
(The study considered the main residence of a sample of 1,000 board members drawn from 78 Quangos across all policy areas. The fact that they were able to select 1,000 from less than 10% of all quangos gives an idea of the all-pervading influence of these bodies.)
What emerged a few weeks ago in an investigation by the New Local Government Network and reported by the Guardian is that the vast number of these patronage appointments tend to be concentrated in London and the South East. Perhaps this is not so surprising, in that NuLabour was a metropolitan construct which took over from traditional Labour.
The Boards of these quangos, which spend £123 billion a year, or about 21% of all public spending compared with 15% spent by local authorities, are concentrated in the South. Just four relatively prosperous inner London boroughs, - Camden, Westminster, Islington and Kensington and Chelsea, have 15 % of the national total of board members. This compares with 2% in the whole of the North East, 5% in the North West and 5% in the West Midlands. More than half of all board members are resident in London and the South East.
In some important Quangos the vast majority of board members live in London, - National Portrait Gallery 93%, the British Council 80%, Channel 4 75%, and the British Museum 70%.
A cabinet Office spokeswoman claimed that people appointed to these boards are appointed solely on merit. This may be the case but the boards certainly lack much input from vast areas outside London and NuLabour.
(The study considered the main residence of a sample of 1,000 board members drawn from 78 Quangos across all policy areas. The fact that they were able to select 1,000 from less than 10% of all quangos gives an idea of the all-pervading influence of these bodies.)
Sinking, sinking...
Two articles in the Telegraph this week are worrying.
On Sunday it was reported that at university lecturers are under increasing pressure to ignore poor course work and to pass students who "cannot string a sentence together". A survey of 300 academics showed fears that weaker students are being admitted from funding pressures. Comments made by some of them are revealing.
One said, "Students cannot cope with intellectual debate and cannot succeed without spoon-feeding." A law tutor said that high failure rates had produced new rules, - "We are no longer required to pass course work and exams."
Many blamed government funding formulae and targets. ... and.... (penalties) for high drop-out rates."
On Tuesday the newspaper reported on plans to make GCSE easier to pass, in fact in their headline "impossible to fail".
GCSEs will become modular, with re-sits for any parts, and students will be able to complete 60% of their exams before the end of the course.
The suspicion is that some schools will be very happy to improve their results by this means. It is an established finding that modular courses lead to higher results. It also fits the Government ideology that no-one should be seen to perform less well than others, and it will make discriminating between students much more difficult. Is grade "A" to have different numbers of stars, 1,2,3, etc, in order to show the more able students?
Do the words "dumb down come to mind? In the survey of academics, one replied "There are students with good A-levels and Scottish Highers who cannot string a sentence together."
The two Telegraph reports are obviously connected. If primary and secondary education are failing so much that exams need to be made easier, then there will be a high drop-out rate at university, especially as the Government tries to reach 50% entry, and then pressure to reduce standards in universities.
We are already in the situation when neutral international observers rate our educational system as one of the worst in the developed world. Evidence for this exists also in the ease with which immigrant workers gain jobs that native applicants are not up to despite their paper qualifications.
Whatever the cause of failure in primary education, failure persists despite dumbing down. When we have students with "good" A-levels, and results higher every year, yet producing graduates lacking command of even basic English, we have to ask where it will all end. Government interference in the name of social engineering is also making the whole problem worse.
When the immigrants go home, what will happen to this country?
On Sunday it was reported that at university lecturers are under increasing pressure to ignore poor course work and to pass students who "cannot string a sentence together". A survey of 300 academics showed fears that weaker students are being admitted from funding pressures. Comments made by some of them are revealing.
One said, "Students cannot cope with intellectual debate and cannot succeed without spoon-feeding." A law tutor said that high failure rates had produced new rules, - "We are no longer required to pass course work and exams."
Many blamed government funding formulae and targets. ... and.... (penalties) for high drop-out rates."
On Tuesday the newspaper reported on plans to make GCSE easier to pass, in fact in their headline "impossible to fail".
GCSEs will become modular, with re-sits for any parts, and students will be able to complete 60% of their exams before the end of the course.
The suspicion is that some schools will be very happy to improve their results by this means. It is an established finding that modular courses lead to higher results. It also fits the Government ideology that no-one should be seen to perform less well than others, and it will make discriminating between students much more difficult. Is grade "A" to have different numbers of stars, 1,2,3, etc, in order to show the more able students?
Do the words "dumb down come to mind? In the survey of academics, one replied "There are students with good A-levels and Scottish Highers who cannot string a sentence together."
The two Telegraph reports are obviously connected. If primary and secondary education are failing so much that exams need to be made easier, then there will be a high drop-out rate at university, especially as the Government tries to reach 50% entry, and then pressure to reduce standards in universities.
We are already in the situation when neutral international observers rate our educational system as one of the worst in the developed world. Evidence for this exists also in the ease with which immigrant workers gain jobs that native applicants are not up to despite their paper qualifications.
Whatever the cause of failure in primary education, failure persists despite dumbing down. When we have students with "good" A-levels, and results higher every year, yet producing graduates lacking command of even basic English, we have to ask where it will all end. Government interference in the name of social engineering is also making the whole problem worse.
When the immigrants go home, what will happen to this country?
Tuesday, 8 April 2008
Good for Mohammed?
Last week Mohammed Anwar was found to have driven at 64 m.p.h in a 30 m.p.h. zone in Glasgow. Such an offence would require instant disqualification from driving. Instead, he was fined £200 and had six points on his licence. He continues to drive .
How did he achieve such leniency?
His lawyers claimed that he needed his licence to run his restaurant in Falkirk, and clinched the argument that he needed his car to travel between his two wives in Motherwell and Glasgow. He is allowed up to 4 wives by his religion, and has only two. He "visits" them on alternate nights, and so fulfills his matrimonial duties.
A number of questions arise:
1) Had he been disqualified, could his wives not have visited him, or could he have spent three days with each in turn to minimise travel? Could he not have been faced with the penalty of finding a temporary chauffeur, or used taxis or public transport?
2) What would have happened if he had been involved in an accident, or even worse if somebody had been injured? Is the offence less serious because others, as it happened, were not involved?
3) All sorts of brilliant excuses are thought up by defending lawyers. So if you can afford to employ the best you are more likely to escape punishment.
4) Does punishment fit the crime, or the situation of the offfender?
The last point may be the most important. If there is an uncertain link between an offence and subsequent punishment, what happens to its deterrent effect? Deterrence depends on at least two factors, the punishment involved and the likelihood of being caught. Given the number of speed cameras, likelihood may have increased, but if people are going to be able to wriggle out of responsibility to some extent......?
If you have a business to run and employee's jobs, an elderly mother to visit, two wives to care for, and any number of imaginative excuses, the objectivity of the law is reduced. Worse, the law-abiding will feel cheated and decide to risk things.
How did he achieve such leniency?
His lawyers claimed that he needed his licence to run his restaurant in Falkirk, and clinched the argument that he needed his car to travel between his two wives in Motherwell and Glasgow. He is allowed up to 4 wives by his religion, and has only two. He "visits" them on alternate nights, and so fulfills his matrimonial duties.
A number of questions arise:
1) Had he been disqualified, could his wives not have visited him, or could he have spent three days with each in turn to minimise travel? Could he not have been faced with the penalty of finding a temporary chauffeur, or used taxis or public transport?
2) What would have happened if he had been involved in an accident, or even worse if somebody had been injured? Is the offence less serious because others, as it happened, were not involved?
3) All sorts of brilliant excuses are thought up by defending lawyers. So if you can afford to employ the best you are more likely to escape punishment.
4) Does punishment fit the crime, or the situation of the offfender?
The last point may be the most important. If there is an uncertain link between an offence and subsequent punishment, what happens to its deterrent effect? Deterrence depends on at least two factors, the punishment involved and the likelihood of being caught. Given the number of speed cameras, likelihood may have increased, but if people are going to be able to wriggle out of responsibility to some extent......?
If you have a business to run and employee's jobs, an elderly mother to visit, two wives to care for, and any number of imaginative excuses, the objectivity of the law is reduced. Worse, the law-abiding will feel cheated and decide to risk things.
Mote and Beam?
Recently Bottler Brown ended a press conference by stating that the IMF, the International Monetary Fund, needs complete re-structuring, to enable it to act as an "early warning system".
He obviously has a poor memory. Since 2003 on six occasions the IMF has sounded warnings about the level of debt, Government finances or the UK housing market overheating.
Just how many warning does it take? It is now clear that the IMF were right in all their warnings, and that Brown as chancellor was wrong to ignore them all.
It's Bottler's thinking and policies which need re-structuring!
He obviously has a poor memory. Since 2003 on six occasions the IMF has sounded warnings about the level of debt, Government finances or the UK housing market overheating.
Just how many warning does it take? It is now clear that the IMF were right in all their warnings, and that Brown as chancellor was wrong to ignore them all.
It's Bottler's thinking and policies which need re-structuring!
Saturday, 5 April 2008
Nanny will tell you what you must eat...
It was announced recently that the School Food Trust, a Government funded body, has recommended that the law be used to prevent pupils leaving school premises at lunch time and buying from local fast-food outlets. The trust has researched areas surrounding a number of schools and counted types and numbers of outlets near the schools.
Is this yet another example of parents falling down on their duties to encourage their offspring to eat and exercise towards a healthy life style? In a survey of 1000 parents, the vast majority were acquiescent. But what of the minority who wish to eat with the family in the evening, and would prefer a sandwich type lunch. Are lunch boxes to be allowed? Will they be searched? What of contraband? What of parents, as in South Yorkshire in 2006, who insist on feeding illicit substances like fish and chips through the school fence?
There are other problems. Who will supervise the large number of pupils eating on school premises, both inside and outside? And who will face the extra cost? (In our local comprehensive in the 1970s, the lunch hour was suddenly shortened to about 40 minutes. When we asked, it emerged that there had been a stabbing somewhere in the playground in the free time after lunch, so pupils were "rushed" back to lessons so that it was not repeated.)
Nanny is taking over more of life, perhaps well-meaningly, and it may have some affect on obesity and later ill health, but there are still evenings and week-ends...(There are 7 x 3 meals in the week, apart from nibbles in between , and Nanny is thinking of controlling 5 x 1 only.)
Rather than control, could there not be education about healthy living and incentives and disincentives? Self discipline is always better than external discipline which is resented. The problem is that the present Government, perhaps having no ideas, always falls back on law and coercion.
Is this yet another example of parents falling down on their duties to encourage their offspring to eat and exercise towards a healthy life style? In a survey of 1000 parents, the vast majority were acquiescent. But what of the minority who wish to eat with the family in the evening, and would prefer a sandwich type lunch. Are lunch boxes to be allowed? Will they be searched? What of contraband? What of parents, as in South Yorkshire in 2006, who insist on feeding illicit substances like fish and chips through the school fence?
There are other problems. Who will supervise the large number of pupils eating on school premises, both inside and outside? And who will face the extra cost? (In our local comprehensive in the 1970s, the lunch hour was suddenly shortened to about 40 minutes. When we asked, it emerged that there had been a stabbing somewhere in the playground in the free time after lunch, so pupils were "rushed" back to lessons so that it was not repeated.)
Nanny is taking over more of life, perhaps well-meaningly, and it may have some affect on obesity and later ill health, but there are still evenings and week-ends...(There are 7 x 3 meals in the week, apart from nibbles in between , and Nanny is thinking of controlling 5 x 1 only.)
Rather than control, could there not be education about healthy living and incentives and disincentives? Self discipline is always better than external discipline which is resented. The problem is that the present Government, perhaps having no ideas, always falls back on law and coercion.
Going Green
The Government has announced a shortlist of sites, from 50 submitted by property developers, to become "eco-towns". None are in the green belt, it is claimed, which is a relief to many, but some undoubtedly are "green field". Ultimately 10 successful sites will be chosen. Five will be built by 2013 and a further five by 2020.
The Conservatives have protested that 12 of the 15 sites are in constituencies they currently hold. This is not surprising, given the Conservative predominance in rural areas. More weight of protest came from the Campaign for Rural England, complaining that areas of outstanding natural beauty would be affected, especially by views being blocked.
Some ecologists see these sites as pathfinders, with their zero-carbon homes, sustainable transport and green space, as models of what all communities will become in the future.
The towns, with between 5,000 and 20,000 people, would have to be self contained, with jobs created and a full range of schools and shops, recreational facilities, etc., or travel will involve extra carbon emission.
In one case and old and established village community will be overwhelmed by a close eco-town, and while no-one would suggest the NIMBY principle is sacrosanct, some thought must be given to the nature of the hybrid community which is being proposed.
There must be adequate provision for an ageing population. Immigration could reverse, families split up less frequently, both far from even possible, but a growing elderly population seems very likely. Talk of cycle-friendly paths and roads, jobs and recreational facilities, should not blind planners to the fact that the one almost certain thing is that the retired population will grow larger, despite the contribution of the birth rate among the recent younger immigrants.
The Conservatives have protested that 12 of the 15 sites are in constituencies they currently hold. This is not surprising, given the Conservative predominance in rural areas. More weight of protest came from the Campaign for Rural England, complaining that areas of outstanding natural beauty would be affected, especially by views being blocked.
Some ecologists see these sites as pathfinders, with their zero-carbon homes, sustainable transport and green space, as models of what all communities will become in the future.
The towns, with between 5,000 and 20,000 people, would have to be self contained, with jobs created and a full range of schools and shops, recreational facilities, etc., or travel will involve extra carbon emission.
In one case and old and established village community will be overwhelmed by a close eco-town, and while no-one would suggest the NIMBY principle is sacrosanct, some thought must be given to the nature of the hybrid community which is being proposed.
There must be adequate provision for an ageing population. Immigration could reverse, families split up less frequently, both far from even possible, but a growing elderly population seems very likely. Talk of cycle-friendly paths and roads, jobs and recreational facilities, should not blind planners to the fact that the one almost certain thing is that the retired population will grow larger, despite the contribution of the birth rate among the recent younger immigrants.
Friday, 4 April 2008
25,000 with little to go on
The new border force, sorry agency, is up and running. Now the 71 international airports, 27 major seaports and 10,500 miles of coastline will be a major barrier to would-be illegal immigrants.
Ahem. Despite Bottler's promise last summer that the force would have "police powers" to investigate and detain people suspected of immigration, customs or criminal offences, it seems that they will not be able to do very much of this.
Although the Government is denying the claim that they will only be available on weekdays, the force of 25,000 may be able to meet planes and ships on arrival 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, but spread them among the nearly one hundred international airports and seaports, not forgetting the channel tunnel, marshalling yards bonded warehouses and inland investigations, on a 24/7 basis they will be very thin on the ground.
But never mind, they will provide some bite which is lacking at the moment. No, they will have no powers of arrest for people caught in possession of drugs or a gun. They may detain a suspect for only three hours, and must by then have arranged for a constable to attend. They have only a limited jurisdiction, over immigration and customs offences.
The Government has admitted that it is not a police force. It doesn't parallel the border police in other countries.
David Davies, the Shadow Home Secretary, commented, "Labour's much-hyped border service is simply the same ineffective border control dressed up in a different uniform" with "no new powers and the new agency will contain no police representation."
Their status in general is about like that of the Police Community Support Officers. These are well-meaning people who may exert some moral influence but who lack threat or power.
Ahem. Despite Bottler's promise last summer that the force would have "police powers" to investigate and detain people suspected of immigration, customs or criminal offences, it seems that they will not be able to do very much of this.
Although the Government is denying the claim that they will only be available on weekdays, the force of 25,000 may be able to meet planes and ships on arrival 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, but spread them among the nearly one hundred international airports and seaports, not forgetting the channel tunnel, marshalling yards bonded warehouses and inland investigations, on a 24/7 basis they will be very thin on the ground.
But never mind, they will provide some bite which is lacking at the moment. No, they will have no powers of arrest for people caught in possession of drugs or a gun. They may detain a suspect for only three hours, and must by then have arranged for a constable to attend. They have only a limited jurisdiction, over immigration and customs offences.
The Government has admitted that it is not a police force. It doesn't parallel the border police in other countries.
David Davies, the Shadow Home Secretary, commented, "Labour's much-hyped border service is simply the same ineffective border control dressed up in a different uniform" with "no new powers and the new agency will contain no police representation."
Their status in general is about like that of the Police Community Support Officers. These are well-meaning people who may exert some moral influence but who lack threat or power.
Thursday, 3 April 2008
Then why not have more categories?
Bottler Brown has landed himself in it again!. He has gone on record as saying that he wants cannabis restored to category B drugs, with cocaine and others, but he also decided to invite a drug advisory committee to reinforce his conviction.
The committee decided that although the drug was now more dangerous because some strains are far stronger than the traditional, it should not be included with the category B drugs. Perhaps he should also have asked those families where a younger member has encountered serious mental problems from using the drug?
I can understand that increasing the mandatory prison sentence from the present two years to the five of the hard drugs might be worrying for some experts, but the concern among many workers among drug users that cannabis is now more dangerous could be met either by having category 2(i) for the hard drugs and 2(ii) for drugs like cannabis.
The experts have suggested an educational programme to keep young people off cannabis. Exhortation has not worked before. Arguably we need the threat of longer imprisonment, perhaps 3 years?
The committee decided that although the drug was now more dangerous because some strains are far stronger than the traditional, it should not be included with the category B drugs. Perhaps he should also have asked those families where a younger member has encountered serious mental problems from using the drug?
I can understand that increasing the mandatory prison sentence from the present two years to the five of the hard drugs might be worrying for some experts, but the concern among many workers among drug users that cannabis is now more dangerous could be met either by having category 2(i) for the hard drugs and 2(ii) for drugs like cannabis.
The experts have suggested an educational programme to keep young people off cannabis. Exhortation has not worked before. Arguably we need the threat of longer imprisonment, perhaps 3 years?
Now we understand...
The Daily Telegraph today reports that one in four children lives in a family with only one parent present. That's a quarter of all children.
We have known for a few years that in many families both parents work. When they come home, tired at the end of the day they have to do household chores and also find time for their children. It is possible to understand why in this situation, with the best will in the world they are likely to appreciate anything which keeps the children occupied and quiet while parents get meals and do other duties. They rely on television, videos, computer games and computers. Later on the young will roam the streets....
But imagine yourself as a single parent. You have to do all yourself, somehow keep order while you are getting tea, getting the children to bed, etc. You are likely to make even more use of videos, TV and computing. You will have even less energy, and be even more relieved when the children are safe in bed.
Both situations operate against parental encouragement in things like reading and writing, creative art work, role playing and parental involvement in games.
We do not blame teachers for the number of pupils who leave primary school ill-equipped for secondary education, and who will probably emerge as educational failures. In some cases there does seem to be a problem from pre-school days.
There may be some parents who are slavishly devoted to pursuing their own pleasures heedless of their responsibility as parents. There may be some who are ill-equipped to understand how they can help their children in their education. In either case the children will suffer.
There are certainly many situations where both parents work, in order to have a decent living standard and buy a house, and a growing number where only one parent is present with the children. We can understand that sheer pressures may reduce them to doing less than they ought. Some perform heroically and sacrificially, trying to do the very best they can. But things are stacked against them.
Every researcher who has ever looked at the question, even those who ideologically wanted a different conclusion, has concluded that children from families where there are two parents present do better than children from families with one child. It is almost axiomatic.
About half a century ago, and probably meaning something slightly different to what I am suggesting, someone suggested, "No nation can rise above the quality of its family life."
We have known for a few years that in many families both parents work. When they come home, tired at the end of the day they have to do household chores and also find time for their children. It is possible to understand why in this situation, with the best will in the world they are likely to appreciate anything which keeps the children occupied and quiet while parents get meals and do other duties. They rely on television, videos, computer games and computers. Later on the young will roam the streets....
But imagine yourself as a single parent. You have to do all yourself, somehow keep order while you are getting tea, getting the children to bed, etc. You are likely to make even more use of videos, TV and computing. You will have even less energy, and be even more relieved when the children are safe in bed.
Both situations operate against parental encouragement in things like reading and writing, creative art work, role playing and parental involvement in games.
We do not blame teachers for the number of pupils who leave primary school ill-equipped for secondary education, and who will probably emerge as educational failures. In some cases there does seem to be a problem from pre-school days.
There may be some parents who are slavishly devoted to pursuing their own pleasures heedless of their responsibility as parents. There may be some who are ill-equipped to understand how they can help their children in their education. In either case the children will suffer.
There are certainly many situations where both parents work, in order to have a decent living standard and buy a house, and a growing number where only one parent is present with the children. We can understand that sheer pressures may reduce them to doing less than they ought. Some perform heroically and sacrificially, trying to do the very best they can. But things are stacked against them.
Every researcher who has ever looked at the question, even those who ideologically wanted a different conclusion, has concluded that children from families where there are two parents present do better than children from families with one child. It is almost axiomatic.
About half a century ago, and probably meaning something slightly different to what I am suggesting, someone suggested, "No nation can rise above the quality of its family life."
Wednesday, 2 April 2008
Better and better?
Recently Alan Johnson, the Health Secretary, announced that adults all over 40 were to have the possibility of a free NHS health test - "M.O.T." He was echoing the words of Bottler Brown in January.
Most of us would welcome this, on the basis that prevention is better than cure, and often less invasive and traumatic.
The trouble is that we have heard all this before. The Daily Telegraph "Three Line Whip" blog yesterday recalled that we have heard it all before.
In fact we heard it first from Alan Milburn in 2000, for all pensioners, and from John Reid in 2004. Charles Kennedy announced it as LiDem policy in 2005, only for Patricia Hewitt to announce it at the 2005 Labour Party Conference and again in a 2006 White Paper.
It would be easy to regard this quite cynically as a means of giving a struggling government some "momentum", and an attempt to regain voter favour.
But let us give them all the benefit of the doubt, for once, and assume that they all wanted to achieve the situation. If so, after so much time, it is to be hoped that they have considered fully all the problems and issues, and that unusually they will produce a policy that works well from the outset and does not have to be subsequently revised because of unforeseen problems.
Most of us would welcome this, on the basis that prevention is better than cure, and often less invasive and traumatic.
The trouble is that we have heard all this before. The Daily Telegraph "Three Line Whip" blog yesterday recalled that we have heard it all before.
In fact we heard it first from Alan Milburn in 2000, for all pensioners, and from John Reid in 2004. Charles Kennedy announced it as LiDem policy in 2005, only for Patricia Hewitt to announce it at the 2005 Labour Party Conference and again in a 2006 White Paper.
It would be easy to regard this quite cynically as a means of giving a struggling government some "momentum", and an attempt to regain voter favour.
But let us give them all the benefit of the doubt, for once, and assume that they all wanted to achieve the situation. If so, after so much time, it is to be hoped that they have considered fully all the problems and issues, and that unusually they will produce a policy that works well from the outset and does not have to be subsequently revised because of unforeseen problems.
A measure of success?
Last week Michael Gove gave an assessment of the state of the education in this country.
Dotted among the words were various statistics. Arm yourself with a strong drink before attempting to read further.
500,000 pupils are in schools where less then 30% get 5 A to C grades in GCSE including English and Maths.
The actual number of pupils failing to achieve this standard is 356,000 each year.
350,000 pupils are excluded, temporarily or permanently each year year. Of these 150,000 are excluded for violence and disruption. (93,806 youngsters aged 10 to 17 were sentenced to custodial sentences in 2006.)
44,106 pupils were not entered to do both English and Maths at GCSE.
In 2007 128,000 did not get a single C grade in GCSE, 28,114 did not achieve a single GCSE G grade, and a further 9,881 achieved just one grade G.
Can you take any more? These figures were calculated by the Taxpayers Alliance recently: (14th March 2008)
A quarter of all 11 year-olds leave primary school with insufficient ability in reading and writing to cope with the secondary school curriculum.
Almost 30% of 14 year-olds fail to reach the expected levels in English, Maths and Science to tackle GCSEs.
In the GCSE examinations, (age 16) almost 60% fail to achieve a C grade pass in all the core subjects - English, Maths and Science. 40% fail to achieve it in English.
As the TPA point out, after spending about £75,000 on each child over 11 years, a significant proportion leave school functionally illiterate, innumerate and unskilled.
This is not the fault of NuLabour alone. The situation has been poor for some time, - hence the stressing of a national curriculum under Margaret Thatcher, and testing from her time on.
The TPA gives indications of problems with adults:
About 7 million adults in England could not locate a particular service in the alphabetical index of Yellow Pages and 47% would not be capable of achieving a G grade pass in Maths at GCSE. (The G grade mark is so low as to demand not much more than writing your name at the top of the paper.)
Michael Gove's statistics are frightening, and combining them with the TPA figures for 11,14, and 16 year-olds, the suggestion is that too many pupils arrive in secondary education with inadequate academic foundation, and that their progress is regression.
It is not that English children are naturally less well endowed, but Britain has the second highest level of low-skilled 25-34 year-olds among the 30 members of the OECD, at twice the level of Germany and the USA.
There are all sorts of reasons behind this - failures in family life, fundamental lack of (self) discipline, a failure to get to grips with disruption in class, and so on.
The Government, from its ideology, is convinced that some have poorer opportunities and so is levelling down. They are tinkering with aspects. It really needs a thorough reformation of many familial and societal problems simultaneously.
Dotted among the words were various statistics. Arm yourself with a strong drink before attempting to read further.
500,000 pupils are in schools where less then 30% get 5 A to C grades in GCSE including English and Maths.
The actual number of pupils failing to achieve this standard is 356,000 each year.
350,000 pupils are excluded, temporarily or permanently each year year. Of these 150,000 are excluded for violence and disruption. (93,806 youngsters aged 10 to 17 were sentenced to custodial sentences in 2006.)
44,106 pupils were not entered to do both English and Maths at GCSE.
In 2007 128,000 did not get a single C grade in GCSE, 28,114 did not achieve a single GCSE G grade, and a further 9,881 achieved just one grade G.
Can you take any more? These figures were calculated by the Taxpayers Alliance recently: (14th March 2008)
A quarter of all 11 year-olds leave primary school with insufficient ability in reading and writing to cope with the secondary school curriculum.
Almost 30% of 14 year-olds fail to reach the expected levels in English, Maths and Science to tackle GCSEs.
In the GCSE examinations, (age 16) almost 60% fail to achieve a C grade pass in all the core subjects - English, Maths and Science. 40% fail to achieve it in English.
As the TPA point out, after spending about £75,000 on each child over 11 years, a significant proportion leave school functionally illiterate, innumerate and unskilled.
This is not the fault of NuLabour alone. The situation has been poor for some time, - hence the stressing of a national curriculum under Margaret Thatcher, and testing from her time on.
The TPA gives indications of problems with adults:
About 7 million adults in England could not locate a particular service in the alphabetical index of Yellow Pages and 47% would not be capable of achieving a G grade pass in Maths at GCSE. (The G grade mark is so low as to demand not much more than writing your name at the top of the paper.)
Michael Gove's statistics are frightening, and combining them with the TPA figures for 11,14, and 16 year-olds, the suggestion is that too many pupils arrive in secondary education with inadequate academic foundation, and that their progress is regression.
It is not that English children are naturally less well endowed, but Britain has the second highest level of low-skilled 25-34 year-olds among the 30 members of the OECD, at twice the level of Germany and the USA.
There are all sorts of reasons behind this - failures in family life, fundamental lack of (self) discipline, a failure to get to grips with disruption in class, and so on.
The Government, from its ideology, is convinced that some have poorer opportunities and so is levelling down. They are tinkering with aspects. It really needs a thorough reformation of many familial and societal problems simultaneously.
Tuesday, 1 April 2008
Quite Right!
"The biggest question....is why our constitution is over-centralised, over-secretive and over-bureaucratic and why there is not more openness and accountability. The real alternative is a bonfire of the quangos and greater democracy." - Gordon Brown, Shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer, 1995.
My, how things change!
My, how things change!
Should be strangled at birth
How many of them are there, it is difficult to keep track of the new ones? Quangos, those non departmental public bodies of such variety and power, seem to grow like some disease. They dispense Government (taxpayers') money and they regulate and control.
The Government used to publish details of each, but now the annual publication is a very slim volume which reveals little. (So much for a Government dedicated to transparency!)
It seems that these bodies, stuffed with cronies in many cases, employ 95,000 people and cost £31 billion in 2007. Collectively they are a large player on the political and economic stage.
The latest Quango is the Waste Quango. They are often wasteful, but this one is to oversee waste collection. They are to take over the rubbish collection functions of the local authorities. "Pay as you throw" fees will be set by them. The Government intends that local authorities will form groups to take over the functions in their areas.
They will supervise or manage dustcarts, wheelie bins and municipal tips. They will police the behaviour of residents, and hand out fines for any who offend, - wrong bins out, wrong contents, etc. They will be given responsibility for control of littering.
The intention may be a good one, - to try to raise the level of re-cycling, as part of our environmental commitment, but there are worrying elements.
1) Those who control the "Waste Boards" will be appointed by the local councils. They will not therefore be answerable or accountable directly to electors. Rebellions like the "weekly collection" protest, which was probably responsible for a change in political make-up in 30 councils in 2007, will be less effective. The waste bureaucrats will not be subject to electoral change.
2) These unelected bodies will be able to impose and collect taxes or fees, - the first time ever in this country. There will be "taxation without representation ".
3) There is every incentive, as with all bureaucracies, to raise costs (taxes), and to pursue their own objectives. How long would it be before amalgamation and merger is proposed, and even bigger empires are built?
The Government used to publish details of each, but now the annual publication is a very slim volume which reveals little. (So much for a Government dedicated to transparency!)
It seems that these bodies, stuffed with cronies in many cases, employ 95,000 people and cost £31 billion in 2007. Collectively they are a large player on the political and economic stage.
The latest Quango is the Waste Quango. They are often wasteful, but this one is to oversee waste collection. They are to take over the rubbish collection functions of the local authorities. "Pay as you throw" fees will be set by them. The Government intends that local authorities will form groups to take over the functions in their areas.
They will supervise or manage dustcarts, wheelie bins and municipal tips. They will police the behaviour of residents, and hand out fines for any who offend, - wrong bins out, wrong contents, etc. They will be given responsibility for control of littering.
The intention may be a good one, - to try to raise the level of re-cycling, as part of our environmental commitment, but there are worrying elements.
1) Those who control the "Waste Boards" will be appointed by the local councils. They will not therefore be answerable or accountable directly to electors. Rebellions like the "weekly collection" protest, which was probably responsible for a change in political make-up in 30 councils in 2007, will be less effective. The waste bureaucrats will not be subject to electoral change.
2) These unelected bodies will be able to impose and collect taxes or fees, - the first time ever in this country. There will be "taxation without representation ".
3) There is every incentive, as with all bureaucracies, to raise costs (taxes), and to pursue their own objectives. How long would it be before amalgamation and merger is proposed, and even bigger empires are built?
Wow, we've got our own police!
The Government has launched their new policies with which to fight the May elections.
Prominent among them is the arrangement for every community in England to have its own police team, contactable by phone. On the face of it, although Newport has a police station we can never be sure when it will be manned and open, and that out of hours it is normal to have to contact Telford, some 10 miles away. We actually have designated and named officers, but...
Newport is a fairly large town, but surrounding villages to which crime is spreading are much more remote.
David Davis, the Shadow Home Secretary, has considerable doubts. "These contracts will mean nothing to areas swamped with drugs and plagued with violence. As for giving out phone numbers, our police already spend less than a fifth of their time on the beat...... The public wants them on the streets, not on the phone."
Prominent among them is the arrangement for every community in England to have its own police team, contactable by phone. On the face of it, although Newport has a police station we can never be sure when it will be manned and open, and that out of hours it is normal to have to contact Telford, some 10 miles away. We actually have designated and named officers, but...
Newport is a fairly large town, but surrounding villages to which crime is spreading are much more remote.
David Davis, the Shadow Home Secretary, has considerable doubts. "These contracts will mean nothing to areas swamped with drugs and plagued with violence. As for giving out phone numbers, our police already spend less than a fifth of their time on the beat...... The public wants them on the streets, not on the phone."
The copers and the struggling
Evidence is arriving daily that many people are struggling to manage their household finances.
Everyone knows by now that the CPI, the Government's preferred and low measure of inflation, seriously underestimates the true rate of inflation. The CPI currently yields average price increases of 2.5%, while the RPI, the older measure which includes housing costs and council tax, is showing over 4%.
What is happening is that most public sector wage and pension increases are linked to the CPI. So if they are facing just the inflation in costs of the RPI, their real income has gone down by about 1.5%. (In the private sector wage increases are averaging 3.5%, so their real incomes have also fallen.)
In fact most of us will also be facing tax increases, especially those on low incomes who have lost the 10% tax band.
The impact falls heavily on the poorest and the elderly because of the rise in basic items such as food and fuel and power costs. The RPI is calculated for an average family, and not for those for whom housing, fuel and food costs represent a major part of their income.
Items which have risen rapidly in price over the past year include:
The average weekly shopping bill for a family of four has risen by about £12 (- £572 annually from the Daily Mail calculation.)
Fuel costs have risen by about 30%.
Milk, cheese and egg prices have risen by approaching 20%, those of butter and other fats by 16%, while bread and cereal prices have risen by approaching 10%.
Recent calculations by the Conservatives and released last week, indicate that an average family
will pay £1,400 more in bills this year than before. Pensioners and others on low incomes will find their increase smaller than this, but on their incomes their bills will be proportionately higher.
When he introduced the (Nu)Labour campaign for the May Elections, G.Brown described his party as being "on the side of ordinary people".
With friends like this, who needs enemies?
Everyone knows by now that the CPI, the Government's preferred and low measure of inflation, seriously underestimates the true rate of inflation. The CPI currently yields average price increases of 2.5%, while the RPI, the older measure which includes housing costs and council tax, is showing over 4%.
What is happening is that most public sector wage and pension increases are linked to the CPI. So if they are facing just the inflation in costs of the RPI, their real income has gone down by about 1.5%. (In the private sector wage increases are averaging 3.5%, so their real incomes have also fallen.)
In fact most of us will also be facing tax increases, especially those on low incomes who have lost the 10% tax band.
The impact falls heavily on the poorest and the elderly because of the rise in basic items such as food and fuel and power costs. The RPI is calculated for an average family, and not for those for whom housing, fuel and food costs represent a major part of their income.
Items which have risen rapidly in price over the past year include:
The average weekly shopping bill for a family of four has risen by about £12 (- £572 annually from the Daily Mail calculation.)
Fuel costs have risen by about 30%.
Milk, cheese and egg prices have risen by approaching 20%, those of butter and other fats by 16%, while bread and cereal prices have risen by approaching 10%.
Recent calculations by the Conservatives and released last week, indicate that an average family
will pay £1,400 more in bills this year than before. Pensioners and others on low incomes will find their increase smaller than this, but on their incomes their bills will be proportionately higher.
When he introduced the (Nu)Labour campaign for the May Elections, G.Brown described his party as being "on the side of ordinary people".
With friends like this, who needs enemies?
Are the natives friendly?
Today's Daily Mail carries a photograph of Harriet Harman, deputy leader of you know what, touring her constituency in London.
She is shown with three police officers, - well she doesn't visit her constituency very often and she could get lost! She and the constables are all wearing kevlar-reinforced jackets, which are knife and gun proof.
Why, when accompanied with three armed policemen with radios, and in broad daylight, did she need to wear the protection? She tried to claim that she was merely experiencing its lightness and the ease of movement it gives.
Or could it be due to the fact that overnight there were two more stabbings in the area, and this is yet another example of how the Government and the Mayor have lost the battle in London?
She is shown with three police officers, - well she doesn't visit her constituency very often and she could get lost! She and the constables are all wearing kevlar-reinforced jackets, which are knife and gun proof.
Why, when accompanied with three armed policemen with radios, and in broad daylight, did she need to wear the protection? She tried to claim that she was merely experiencing its lightness and the ease of movement it gives.
Or could it be due to the fact that overnight there were two more stabbings in the area, and this is yet another example of how the Government and the Mayor have lost the battle in London?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
