tag:www.civitas.org.uk,2009:/blog//1 2009-02-22T11:12:56Z Classical liberal comment on the news and current affairs Movable Type 3.33 tag:www.civitas.org.uk,2009:/blog//1.1006 2009-02-22T11:08:07Z 2009-02-22T11:12:56Z

This blog has been discontinued. The new one is at this link....

David Green this link.]]> tag:www.civitas.org.uk,2009:/blog//1.1005 2009-02-13T15:55:41Z 2009-02-13T16:00:31Z

Professor Adrian Smith, a civil servant who is currently director general of science and research, has found himself in hot water – ostensibly for expressing his true assessment of the new Diploma courses....

Anastasia de Waal Professor Adrian Smith, a civil servant who is currently director general of science and research, has found himself in hot water – ostensibly for expressing his true assessment of the new Diploma courses. Times Educational Supplement journalist as saying that: ‘In core subjects like maths and physics we already have a shortage of qualified teacher cover. Are we wise in adding different bits of curricular offerings, each of which will require additional teacher input? Are we thinking in a joined-up way when we plan curriculum developments and new programmes, whether we have the teacher power, planning and recruitment? Might we not be better getting GCSEs and A-levels right first?’ The Diploma has not got off to a good start, largely to do with a questionable design and a questionable purpose. The first five Diplomas were introduced last September but have managed to draw a much smaller take-up than the government predicted. By 2013, the aim is to have rolled out a further 14 Diploma areas, with three additional ‘academic’ ones in the humanities, languages and science. As well as lacking appeal for pupils, the Diploma has not been particularly well endorsed by educationalists. The greatest problem with the Diploma is that, essentially, its raison d’être is to elevate the status of vocational qualifications and status of weaker-performing pupils without actually improving either vocational education or real achievement. Instead the approach has centred on giving material tenuously linked to vocational training, an academic veneer. Professor Smith, however, has retracted his own criticisms of the Diploma, expressing ‘deep regret’ in letters of apology to both the secretary of state for the Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills and the Department for Children, Schools and Families. A government spokesperson issued a startling response saying that: ‘[Professor Smith] comments were made as part of a wide-ranging and open discussion and were never meant as a criticism of government policy.’ And most worryingly of all: ‘Professor Smith took up his government post late last year and his remarks do not reflect the advice he has given to the secretary of state.’ We can conclude therefore that the advice Smith is being paid for by the government by no means necessarily reflects his true views. As a well-regarded expert, this is alarming. If only advisers would be critical of poor policy - identifying disastrous initiatives rather than trying to work around them - education would stand a much better chance. That this appears to be categorically at odds with the role of expert advisory is deeply regrettable. ]]> tag:www.civitas.org.uk,2009:/blog//1.1004 2009-02-12T17:57:32Z 2009-02-12T18:21:11Z

Today, the HSJ reports on the departure of two chief executives recently deposed of their positions at two of London's biggest trusts - Barts and the London, and West Middlesex University. Here are some of the quotes from its sources:...

James Gubb Today, the HSJ reports on the departure of two chief executives recently deposed of their positions at two of London's biggest trusts - Barts and the London, and West Middlesex University. Here are some of the quotes from its sources: 'I think there's a Stalinist culture among SHAs that isn't helpful. You need to be able to make a mistake'. - Sir Peter Dixon, Chairman of UCLH 'It feels as though there's a new intolerance in London and that some excellent, talented leaders are being forced out or being put under so much pressure they leave'. - Anon chief executive 'If someone asked me for views as to whether they should apply for a chief executive's post, I'd say I wouldn't touch it with a bargepole.' -NHS London insider Such a culture will not only be incredibly damaging for NHS organisations, but also directly impinges upon the Department of Health's current quest for clinical leaders. Who wants to step up to the plate in such an environment? SHAs would do well to recall the wisdom of the former CMO, Sir George Godber, who sadly passed away earlier this week. One of the members of the 1940 planning group that led to the founding of the NHS, he had this to say: "The NHS is comprised of very many services rendered daily by physicians, nurses, dentists, pharmacists and others. The content of these services is defined, not by planners, but by essential professional knowledge and skills. Change in method and practice is brought about by intra-professional exchanges; it may be abrupt because of a scientific development such as the advent of a new drug, or it may occur gradually with experience." Bravo. A point, incidentally, that the architect of the NHS, Nye Bevan, would no doubt have concurred with. This is an extract from a speech he made shortly after 'stuffing doctors' mouths with gold': ‘I conceive it the function of the Ministry of Health to provide the medical profession with the best and most modern apparatus of medicine and to enable them to freely use it, in accordance with their training, for the benefit of the people of their country. Every doctor must be free to use that apparatus without interference from secular organisations’. Who, in the government and NHS organisations that so worship his name, is following this pledge through?]]> tag:www.civitas.org.uk,2009:/blog//1.1003 2009-02-10T09:19:34Z 2009-02-10T09:36:24Z

The recently appointed head of a primary school in Sheffield has just tendered her resignation after unsuccessfully seeking to end the separate weekly assemblies for its thirty odd Muslim pupils she found on arrival being organised there. She sought to...

David Conway resignation after unsuccessfully seeking to end the separate weekly assemblies for its thirty odd Muslim pupils she found on arrival being organised there. She sought to end them in the belief they were divisive. Instead, her attempt to do so raised a firestorm of protests from angry Muslim parents who accused her of racism. ]]> 1998 and 2005) had consistently commented on just how harmonious and cohesive the school was. This is presumably in spite of these separate assemblies which, in any case, only took place weekly on days when 20 minutes were devoted at the main assemblies to hymn-singing. While, as I say, I am sure the head’s attempt to end the separate assemblies was well-intentioned and anything but racist, it does display a certain insensitivity not to have realised just how alert religious groups are, especially minorities, at any perceived attempt to wean their children from their faith, especially those made by the authorities. Community cohesion is not the same as, nor does it demand, religious uniformity. It is a shame that an attempt to promote it has back-fired in such a spectacular and with such tragic costs having exacted as the price of its failure the resignation of someone who seems to have been in all other ways a talented, dedicated and popular head. Nonetheless, if any lessons are to be drawn from this sorry saga, one surely is that it does not do well to try and fix what ain’t broken. Another is that, if community cohesion is not to become just a code-word for the covert secularisation of schooling, there is need for the local education authorities to come to terms with religious diversity in ways more judicious than by merely attempting to impose religious uniformity on schools. ]]> tag:www.civitas.org.uk,2009:/blog//1.1002 2009-02-09T17:45:57Z 2009-02-09T17:57:22Z

If last weeks’ British wildcat strikes were redolent of protectionism, comments evoking similar feelings made by the French President have proved inflammatory to Prague, writes Lara Natale. Czech Prime Minister/incumbent EU President Mirek Topolánek has suggested that they may even...

Claire Daley writes Lara Natale. Czech Prime Minister/incumbent EU President Mirek Topolánek has suggested that they may even end up contributing to the Czech Republic’s existing disinclination to ratify the Lisbon Treaty. ]]> Nicolas Sarkozy made a speech on Thursday 5th February suggesting that the decolonisation of French car companies should be stopped and the companies relocalised: “If you build a Renault plant in India to sell Renaults to Indians, that's justified, but if you build a factory, without saying the company's name, in the Czech Republic to sell cars in France, that's not justified”. (Carmaker PSA Peugeot Citroen has a plant in the Czech Republic.) This was President Sarkozy’s attempt to appease French people, who took to streets in their masses in late January, by proving he is taking action to protect their livelihoods in the face of the global economic crisis. Sarkozy had already implied he thought the Czech EU presidency was being too passive in its reaction to the current economic climate and its impact upon the manufacturing industry; as redundancies continue to be made across the European Union, member states are beginning to let their marriage to the EU take a back seat and are reverting to an every-man-for-himself approach, holding on to as much sovereignty as EU legislation will permit so as to limit the impact of the recession on them. Topolánek’s riposte: “If someone wanted to really jeopardise the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty, he could not have chosen a better way and a better time”. Of course, the Czech Republic has yet to ratify the document (a parliamentary vote will take place on 17th February), hence were Sarkozy to go ahead with his plans, it could very well undermine Czech MPs’ already fragile support thereof. Prague took the matter even further by taking the unusual step of making an official statement: “The attempts to use the financial crisis to introduce such forms of protectionism and protective measures may slow down and threaten the revival of the European economy”. It cannot be forgotten that in addition to the Czech Republic, the other two countries on whom a decision on the Lisbon Treaty is pending are Ireland and Poland. Poland has said they will take whatever stance Ireland adopts in its second referendum, due this summer, so Ireland is widely seen as the key decision maker. An editorial in European Voice argues that "It would be wrong to use the financial crisis to scare the Irish into approving the Lisbon treaty, using Iceland as a frightening example." European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso identified similarities between the two countries’ situations, citing Ireland’s saving grace as the euro which had acted as a “very important shield”. Other cynics have taken the comparison further by proclaiming there is little more to differentiate Iceland and Ireland than one letter and six months. Evidently, in light of such multifaceted tensions, the future of the Lisbon Treaty is still anything but certain. In the event that the Lisbon Treaty is ratified according to plan, the Mail on Sunday reported yesterday that Tony Blair is poised to become the first President of the EU after it emerged that President Sarkozy is determined to help him win the post. A senior aide to Sarkozy - Alain Minc - told a private gathering of senior British and French politicians: "When the Lisbon Treaty is ratified, Europe will move into a new phase. Europe will need a strong leader and Nicolas Sarkozy will nominate Tony Blair for the position. We have to unite and say to Mrs Merkel that we cannot afford not to have Tony Blair, who will be a strong figurehead, is entirely respected around the world and will be a commanding leader at the helm of Europe." Mr Minc seems to suggest that in the present rough-patch member states are going through in their marriage with the European Union, the re-taking of vows under the guise of unanimous ratification of the Lisbon Treaty and the appointment of a permanent figurehead to represent them collectively, might provide a more solid base upon which to build a future, more harmonious relationship. However, reality is rarely so romantic. In an ironic twist of fate the man in pole position for this new role presiding over what hopes to be a new world ‘superpower’ is a former Prime Minister of Britain, a country so eurosceptic that it was the only member state that the Entropa artist left it out of his artwork altogether. All the same, you could argue that the United Kingdom with its four factions- and the omnipresent tensions between them- is the only member state that structurally speaking can be considered a microcosm of the European Union. Yet, it was Blair who brought devolution home to Britain. tag:www.civitas.org.uk,2009:/blog//1.1001 2009-02-05T17:24:01Z 2009-02-05T17:49:09Z

As has been argued on this blog and in numerous other places, endless restructuring in the NHS with little if any scientific or other rationale has caused immeasurable harm and come at huge cost. And so we go again. The...

James Gubb pages of the Financial Times to the House of Commons Health Committee - is proving both costly and hugely disruptive. ]]> pages of the HSJ reveal the handover is now rated 'red risk': 400 redundancies have come unannounced (cost: £6.1m); the complaints system is pretty much defunct; a number of projects are 'not yet defined, resourced or initiated', with 'the constantly changing CQC transition programme communications team…continuing to prove difficult'. And this is to say nothing of the cost to NHS trusts, primary care trusts and social care organisations of having to gear up and register with the new regime; a regime that is replacing two that had, for what it’s worth, actually built reasonable reputations. What a waste.]]> tag:www.civitas.org.uk,2009:/blog//1.999 2009-02-03T06:55:34Z 2009-02-03T21:46:17Z

‘Food Glorious Food’ sing fellow inmates of the workhouse in which the young Oliver Twist finds himself incarcerated at the start of Lionel Bart's musical named after the hero of Dickens' famous novel similarly named after him. A half a...

David Conway ‘Food Glorious Food’ sing fellow inmates of the workhouse in which the young Oliver Twist finds himself incarcerated at the start of Lionel Bart's musical named after the hero of Dickens' famous novel similarly named after him. A half a century on, the same startling discovery seems once again to have been made by the tv chef who also bears that same name. study of the effects of the meals that Jamie Oliver devised has seemingly found them to have dramatically improved the performance of children attending the schools which introduced them. ‘Academics [at Essex University] analysed the key stage 2 results of more than 13,000 children in Greenwich from 2002-7 to gauge the impact on performance of Oliver’s healthier meals… and after… adjusting for an upward trend in pass rates, they found the number of pupils reaching level four or five had risen by 8 per cent in science, and six per cent in English. There was also a small improvement in maths results.’ Many schools initially resisted taking part in Oliver’s ‘Feed Me Better’ campaign due to the extra cost of the healthier meals. It seems that their resistance might well have been a false economy. As the head of one participating school explained, ‘Because the children aren’t being stuffed with additives, they’re much less hyper in the afternoons now.’ During the campaign, Oliver hired nutritionists who analysed the nutrients in ordinary school meals and who found that ‘most school meals contained less than half the daily recommended amount of iron, a mineral that improves children’s cognitive development and concentration.’ Since school meals were partly introduced because it was known that, for many children, they are the only square meal they have each day, it seems that Oliver could well have found one part of the solution to engineering a much needed improvement in pupil performance in state schools. In light of the dramatic improvement Jamie Oliver has seemingly engineered by his culinary innovations, I feel almost tempted to break out into a rendition of ‘If I ruled the world…’ ]]> tag:www.civitas.org.uk,2009:/blog//1.997 2009-02-02T17:53:46Z 2009-02-02T18:50:23Z

As the snow casts a thicker blanket over Britain than it has done in twenty years, thousands of sympathetic UK workers are joining walkouts over building jobs, which unions claim are being assigned to workers from other EU Member States......

Claire Daley writes Lara Natale]]> In the highly-publicised case of power plant Total in Lincolnshire, work was subcontracted to an Italian firm, IREM, after a tender process in which five UK and two European contractors responded. IREM will be using its existing permanent Italian and Portuguese workforce for the job and Total claim no UK redundancies will be made. Nevertheless, given the depth of the current recession -the worst in decades in an ironic parallel with the day’s snowfall- the enlisting of foreign workers, whether from the EU or further afield, for manual labour is proving seditious. The dispute is especially pertinent in light of recent forecasts that the UK will be especially badly hit by the global economic downturn. However, Gordon Brown’s memorable 2007 speech promising “British jobs for British workers” is coming back to haunt him, because his hands are tied by EU law. Freedom of movement in labour is central to the EU's Common Market and when the UK joined in 1973, it accepted the right of other member states’ nationals to automatically live and work in Britain. So, do the protesters even have a leg to stand on? Unions have claimed that suitably qualified unemployed UK contractors are available, but that a loophole in the EU working directives is illegally ruling out UK workers from even being considered for job vacancies. Unions therefore propose a new EU directive to overturn a ruling by the European Court of Justice in 2007 that made it easier for companies to circumvent pay deals by hiring foreigners on lower wages. Government ministers were press-ganged into an embarrassing U-turn yesterday after Alan Johnson, the Health Secretary, suggested that the Government was preparing to bow to union demands to push for measures in Europe to protect British jobs. This was firmly rebuffed, however, by Lord Mandelson, the Business Secretary and ex-EU High Commissioner, who said that it would be a huge mistake. He urged workers to call off the industrial action, for “The law is not being broken and it will not be broken and I hope this message is now carried across all those workforces that have been understandably concerned.” He stressed that under EU law companies had the right to sub-contract work to those companies "best suited" for the job. The European Union itself said it had "sympathy" with workers, but "the internal market is actually our best platform to maintain a high level of employment." A spokesman for the European Commission continued: "All the evidence from past crises shows that the moment you enter a spiral of closing borders to each other, at the end of the day all will be poorer and will have less employment." In other words, promoting protectionism as a reaction to the economic problems will only further damage economies. Ultimately, most of the strikers don’t appear fully aware of the EU working legislations. Most apparently also don’t know how much power has already moved from Westminster to Brussels: between 60 and 80% of our laws now come directly from Brussels. Nigel Farage, leader of the UK Independence Party, responded to Gordon Brown’s now infamous declaration by saying: "'British jobs for British workers' will only happen when Britain is run by and for Britons." Yet apathy for European politics is rife in the UK, where turnout for European elections is consistently the lowest across the European Union (just 24.0% voted in 1999 and 38.9% in 2004, both times the lowest rate of participation of any non-new member state). Are today’s strikes another example that people’s ears only prick up at mention of EU when it gets in their way? As Britain shivers in this current blizzard, the snowballing legislation from Brussels is only adding to the nation's woes. tag:www.civitas.org.uk,2009:/blog//1.995 2009-01-30T15:34:57Z 2009-01-30T15:38:04Z

As education secretary Ed Balls announces the further rolling-out of the government’s flagship academies, resisting ‘calls for a slow-down’, a significant hidden cost of the programme has been revealed....

Anastasia de Waal As education secretary Ed Balls announces the further rolling-out of the government’s flagship academies, resisting ‘calls for a slow-down’, a significant hidden cost of the programme has been revealed. Times Education Supplement reveals that millions of pounds are being spent on compensation packages for teachers whose jobs have been lost (as they haven’t transferred to the replacement Academies) because of the introduction of academies. Westminster local authority, for example, has spent over £1 million on redundancy payments. Liz Walker, of Dudley in the West Midlands local authority is quoted as saying: The Government has moved the goalposts and made local authorities responsible for transfer of staff costs, redundancy costs, project management. The bill could be anything up to £3m at each academy.’ The question is whether these costs, on top of the costs of the expensive academies are worth it? The best thing about the academy, and why its closest counterpart in the United States, the Charter School has been so successful at impacted on disadvantaged achievement, is the relative freedom that the schools are allowed. In principle, academies are freed from the shackles of Whitehall diktat and allowed to respond, both pedagogically and management-wise, to the pupils in front of them and their context. In theory. Under Balls, who is much less keen on autonomy-generating than his predecessors (and why we saw Andrew Adonis bumped off to transport), that very freedom is being clawed back. The bit that really matters, the curriculum, is being increasingly centrally determined. If this approach is to continue, then the associated costs of academies are certainly not money well spent. Balls’ reclaiming of control aside, arguably the more important question is whether we ever really needed academies at all, with their pricey buildings and their matched funding, to reap the benefits of greater school freedom. The most probable answer is no. Improve accountability mechanisms for schools (to remedy currently distorting target-driven ones), raise the bar for teacher-entry, and revise Ofsted’s remit, and these freedoms would work very effectively in your bog standard comprehensive. ]]> tag:www.civitas.org.uk,2009:/blog//1.994 2009-01-29T16:53:42Z 2009-01-29T17:00:46Z

On the basis of a report by the CMO, Sir Liam Donaldson, the government has recommended that no child should drink before the age of 15; and that children between the 15-17 years should only drink under the supervision of...

James Gubb a report by the CMO, Sir Liam Donaldson, the government has recommended that no child should drink before the age of 15; and that children between the 15-17 years should only drink under the supervision of adults. ]]> entered into elsewhere on this blog concerning public health issues, and the implied lack of trust in the ability of parents to do what’s best for their children, the basis for this announcement is unclear. The key reference here is chapter 5 of the CMO’s report, an ‘Epidemiological review of harms to children’ through the use of alcohol. First, it is only heavy drinking in children that is linked to an adverse effect on brain development and other physiological processes; as well as crime and what is termed ‘risky behaviours’ (drugs, unprotected sex etc.). Second, while many studies have found a positive correlation between starting to drink at an earlier age and the subsequent development of alcohol abuse, there are caveats. In one study, for example, the odds of lifetime alcohol dependence and abuse were reduced by 14% and 8%, respectively, with each increasing year of age at first use. This sounds like a fantastic decrease, but it should be remembered that, here, risk reduction is expressed in relative terms. In absolute terms the difference is much less marked: the prevalence of alcohol dependence was greater than 40% among participants who initiated alcohol use before the age of 15, but still 39% for those who started drinking at 15 years and 31% for those that started drinking at 16 years. There are many children who did drink before the age of 15 and have not suffered from alcohol abuse. Moreover, most of the studies cited are from the U.S., a different social context, where drinking in most states is banned until the age of 21. Third, as the report acknowledges, there are a huge number of factors underlying both alcohol abuse and alcohol abuse in children that are independent of age: impulsive and aggressive personality traits, depression, anxiety, psychiatric diagnoses of conduct disorder, school-related problems, family breakdown, parental and/or peer alcohol abuse and parental attitudes. Maybe the lower binge drinking in many European countries compared with the UK, for example, has to with a more mature attitude to drinking on the part of parents? In fact, at least two studies cited in the CMO’s report have shown that young drinkers who are supplied alcohol by their parents are likely to drink less than those who obtain it from friends or older siblings. Alcohol abuse is a complex social problem; a problem that issuing strong guidance against children drinking a watered-down shandy on their 14th birthday is not likely to tackle. Again, the government persists on a quick fix rather than a meaningful analysis of root causes. ]]> tag:www.civitas.org.uk,2009:/blog//1.993 2009-01-27T12:19:46Z 2009-01-29T12:00:00Z

I read the news today, oh boy/About a lucky man who made the grade And though the news was rather sad/ Well, I just had to laugh, I read the paragraph. He blew his street-cred as a peer/ By being...

David Conway I read the news today, oh boy/About a lucky man who made the grade And though the news was rather sad/ Well, I just had to laugh, I read the paragraph. He blew his street-cred as a peer/ By being willing to make laws for cash. And though the bribe was rather small/ He didn’t notice it was just a trawl By 'papermen on look out for those to appall/ Their readers with from the House of Lords. Schadenfreude that has led me to bowdlerise the Beatles song. Last week’s exposure by Sunday Times reporters of the apparent willingness of several Labour peers to abuse their positions in return for cash has brought back into public prominence the question of reform of the Second Chamber, and I have a serious proposal about how it could be reformed for the better. With hindsight, of course, it can now be seen more clearly that a system of hereditary peerages was designed to insulate members of that Chamber from susceptibility to bribery. By abolishing hereditary peers and filling the Chamber instead with political apparatchiks, the present Government has no one but itself to blame for the disgraceful state of corruption into which the Sunday Times scoop has seemingly shown it to have fallen. It is not, in my view, a coincidence that the only peers whom the journalists pretending to be lobbyists found willing to accept cash for favours were Labour ones. This is not a party-political point, and I am sure that dishonesty and susceptibility to corruption are not the prerogative of any one party. As a (if not quite, the) good Lord once said: ‘All power corrupts…’ However, it strikes me that those whom Michael Oakeshott accused of what he called the vice of ‘Rationalism' in politics are far more likely to be found among the ranks of Labour politicians than of Conservative ones. While there is no direct correlation between susceptibility to corruption and this political pathology per se, it is nonetheless political Rationalists who are least likely to have internalised the ethos of a political culture upon which the viability of an unelected chamber such as House of Lords depends. As Oakeshott explained so well: ‘The particular quality of Rationalism in modern politics derives from the circumstance that the modern world succeeded in inventing so plausible a method of covering up lack of political education that even those who suffered from that lack were often left ignorant that they lacked anything. Of course, this inexperience was never, in any society, universal: and it was never absolute. There have always been men of genuine political education, immune from the infection of Rationalism (and this is particularly true of England)… Still, [general experience of the world on which the new man, lately risen to power, often relies]… is not a knowledge of the political traditions of his society, which, in the most favourable circumstances, takes two or three generations to acquire… ‘Like a foreigner or a man out of his social class, he [the rationalist] is bewildered by a tradition and a habit of behaviour of which he knows only the surface; a butler or an observant house-maid has the advantage of him. And he conceives a contempt for what he does not understand: habit and custom appear bad in themselves… Consequently, the rationalist is a dangerous and expensive character to have in control of affairs… and he does most damage, not when he fails to master the situation,… but when he appears to be successful: for we pay the price for each of his apparent successes is a firmer hold of the intellectual fashion of Rationalism upon the whole life of society… ‘Rationalism... amounts to a corruption of the mind; …. it dries up the mind itself… In short, the Rationalist is essentially ineducable; and he could be educated out of his Rationalism only by an inspiration which he regards as the great enemy of mankind. All the Rationalist can do when left to himself is to replace one rationalist project in which he has failed by another in which he hopes to succeed. Indeed, this is what contemporary politics are fast degenerating into: the political habit and tradition, which not long ago, was the common possession of even extreme opponents in English politics, has been replaced by merely a common rationalist disposition of mind.’ [from Michael Oakeshott, ‘Rationalism in Politics’] In recalling these passages from Oakeshott’s rightly famous essay, I do so not so much with the Labour peers in mind whose corrupt ways were seemingly exposed in last week’s Sunday Times. It is rather with Tony Blair in mind, and the other bunch of constitutional vandals of his party who, in 1999, decided to remove hereditary peers from the Second Chamber and replace them with largely political appointees. The country is now paying the price for such a wilful and misguided act of Rationalism. From that moment on, poor old Walter Bagehot must never have stopped turning in his grave. For he had seen full well the inestimable value of a hereditary peerage such as Britain had in its Second Chamber. In his 1867 classic The English Constitution, he observed: ‘The use of the House of Lords… is very great… The function of an order of nobility is to impose on the common people… what otherwise would not be there… The order of nobility is of great use, too, not only in what it creates, but what it prevents. It prevents the rule of wealth – the religion of gold. This is the obvious and natural idol of the Anglo-Saxon. He is always trying to make money; he reckons everything in coin; he bows down before a great heap and sneers as he passes a little heap… From this our aristocracy preserves us…. Money is kept down, and so to say, cowed, by the predominant authority of a different power.’ Still, a century and a half on from when Bagehot wrote, the democratic genie is well and truly out of the bottle. There can surely be no return to a Second Chamber whose members are drawn from an hereditary aristocracy. Granted the need for such a Chamber, what can be done to rescue the House of Lords from the present plight in which it and the country have been placed by the 1999 reforms that have seen it now become filed with largely acquiescent political placements? An elected Second Chamber would not remedy the problem at all, only compound it. Daniel Hannan once made a very sensible proposal in connection with House of Lords reform. He proposed that the present murky and unsatisfactory system by which peers are appointed be replaced by a system that involves seconding ‘city and county councillors, chosen in proportion to their party strengths in each authority… Such a chamber would sit for three or four days each month, so that its members would remember that their primary responsibilities were in their own localities; they would not, in other words, go native in the metropolis.’ There is a lot of merit in Hannan’s suggestion which is well worth serious consideration by a future Conservative administration. However, for my taste, it still has too much of the party political system about it wherein the players (professional politicians) and amateurs (voters) are still kept at arms length from each other, and the amateurs denied any real say in what goes on. In the spirit of direct democracy which seems so much in the air at the moment, and out of recognition there is no way back to the good old-bad old days of a hereditary Second Chamber, I should like to make an alternative proposal. My proposal is that we should take leaf out of the book of ancient Athens and appoint peers by lot from the general electorate. Unlike jury service, there would be a right of refusal, but like it terms would be strictly fixed limit. To inject the needed element of authority to which Bagehot averred, and to preserve an element of greater than average wisdom gained by experience that life-peers supposedly provide (but which sadly some have all too conspicuously been seen not to), I propose that only those above 60 years old should be eligible for selection by lot. I must say that I am rather taken with this idea, and find myself warming to it the more that I think about it. One reason it appeals to me is that such a system would do something to redress the terrible ageism that continues to afflict society in general and the labour market in particular and about which Help the Aged and Age Concern have taken out a full page advertisement in today’s newspapers. Another reason is that I have turned sixty and am rather partial to the idea of a spell on the red leather benches of the Lords and all the other perks associated with being a member of the House of Lords. Being impecunious, I am unable to bribe my way into the Chamber as some have been claimed to have done. I do not even have enough spare cash to play the National Lottery in hope of winning a sufficient sum to bribe my way in. With my proposal, I would effectively get to play in such a lottery, but without having to venture a stake. More seriously, I do think the present kafuffle about cash for laws has raised the question of House of Lords reform back up the political agenda, and that my proposal genuinely seems as good as any as I have seen on the table. If anyone can spot flaws with the proposal, please do let me know. I would be genuinely interested to learn what they are. ]]> tag:www.civitas.org.uk,2009:/blog//1.991 2009-01-26T17:22:02Z 2009-01-26T17:34:38Z

More foreboding. The run-up to the summer European Parliamentary elections has officially started. Some disquieting new findings were released last week (courtesy of YouGov): writes Lara Natale ......

Claire Daley YouGov): writes Lara Natale ... ]]> - 64% of the population demand radical change in Britain's relationship with the EU, including an end to political integration and the supremacy of the European Court. 48% of those favour a looser relationship based on trade and voluntary co-operation, whilst a further 16% support withdrawal from the EU. By comparison, only 22% of the population supports Britain remaining an EU member on current terms. A majority lack of satisfaction with the current relationship status shows that either the benefits of EU membership aren’t palpable or tangible enough to the lives of the British public, or that we are still somewhat averse to the very notion of being involved with the EU. The fact between 60-80 % of our laws now come directly from Brussels could be perceived as threatening to our sovereignty and this is inexorably linked with our resistance to joining the Euro. - 64% of the public would vote no to Britain joining the Euro, compared to only 24% who would support Euro membership. The economic crisis has made people less likely to support joining the single currency - with 27% made less likely to support adopting the Euro, compared to 18% who are more likely to support adopting the currency. Even though the Pound has weakened considerably against the Euro, a considerable majority still do not wish to join. At the present time it is unlikely the Eurozone would want us to join it either, as having an economy the size of ours gaining entry would have a negative impact on the Euro itself, one of heavy destabilisation. The UK has been disproportionately hit by the Credit Crunch given its reliance on financial services, with the precipitous decline of Sterling now coming from the fact that, having engaged in recapitalisation of the banks and the VAT cut, the UK is adding to its debt pile (it borrows this money by issuing more Government Bonds) very quickly and in large measure at a time when the revenue base is threatened. It is said that the UK’s debt-to-GDP ratio has effectively doubled from something around 40% to 80% (Brown always trumpeted the fact we had a low debt-to-GDP ratio by international standards - not any more). The debt will have to be paid back, by the next generation -by this we mean beyond the life of this Government- and the markets are spooked by the possibility that the UK will have to a) pay more to borrow {i.e. investors will demand to be paid a higher interest rate in return for lending to the UK Government}, making things even more uncomfortable and may, however unlikely, b) request assistance from the International Monetary Fund, and c) it will not be able to pay its debts as they fall due (i.e. become "insolvent"). Ken Clarke QC MP, who last week returned to frontbench politics as Shadow Business Secretary, later said it would be the "worst time" for Britain to consider joining the Euro. "Politically, it's not going to be on the agenda in this country for many years. It's not real and it's probably not going to be a political issue in this country during my political lifetime," he said. Writing in the Independent the leader of the Liberal Democrats, Nick Clegg, argues that "The euro should never be introduced in Britain without public consent confirmed in a referendum", but that Britain must be ready to "think anew" about answers to the current financial crisis. - 59% of the population believes the British Government should disregard the EU’s VAT rules, should they feel that a further cut is necessary in the 2009 Budget to combat the recession. Only 25% believe the Government should obey the EU's rules. Perhaps these statistics are unsurprising, given that the UK is not part of the Single Currency. We are fiscally wired to think of ourselves as a separate economy and thus it is difficult to think of EU VAT rules and other Brussels tax legislation as suited to our needs. -45% of the public feel that none of the main parties adequately represent their views on Britain's future relationship with the EU, whilst only 29% believe that any of the main parties represents their view. Among Conservative supporters, only 35% feel that any of the main parties adequately represents their view on Britain's relationship with the EU. - First Poll of EU Election Voting Intentions: It found that the Conservatives lead the poll on 35%, followed by Labour on 29%, Lib Dems on 15% and UKIP on 7%. Notably, 10% of Conservative voters at a General Election would switch to UKIP at the European elections, compared to 2% of Labour voters and 1% of Liberal Democrat voters. Similarly, 10% of Lib Dem voters are planning to lend their vote to the Greens at the European elections. These findings indicate that when it comes to European Parliamentary elections, people are prone to making voting choices based on specific EU issues, rather than just abiding by broad party lines, and if they feel strongly enough, will transfer their votes to single-issue parties. The UK political parties have relatively complicated and confusing positions when it comes to Europe, a fact highlighted by the re-emergence of Ken Clarke: we now witness the juxtaposition of eurosceptic David Cameron and pro-European Ken Clarke in the Conservatives and last year the Brown-Mandelson clash vis-à-vis the Euro was also well documented. In similar vein, the Liberal Democrats are something of an undefined quantity when it comes to a univocal opinion on Europe (although they are perceived as being slightly eurosceptic) and they obtain lower support in European elections than in national ones. Environmental issues do seem to inspire activism: environmental legislation is ever-present in the agenda of the European Parliament and where previously the Green Party was seen to embody the essence of environmental activism, now parties beyond the Greens have taken up similar campaigns. Hence it will be interesting to see whether we will continue to register similar swings between parties in the forthcoming election. The discontent and confusion towards the EU that emerge from these recent statistics are undeniable. What’s needed to make progress is clarity and understanding of where the British political parties stand when it comes to Europe, not to mention of what the European Union really is and what the European Parliament actually does. The availability of balanced information and education are fundamental to achieving these aims. The Civitas EU Education Project provides factsheets on the EU and will be holding its annual EU conference on Thursday 12th March 2009. In amongst the many talks and debates tailored to the curricular needs of sixth-form and university students, there will be the chance to cross-examine London MEP candidates from all four major parties, as well as to question Ken Clarke himself on the Lisbon Treaty. A talk on business regulation will elucidate students on the credit crunch and the situation as per UK versus EU interests. The economics talk will discuss whether financially speaking the EU can henceforth work as a bloc to help pull Member States out of the recession, as opposed to pulling against each other as seems to be the case thus far. The European Union is increasingly pervasive in British politics, and as the only directly elected institution, the European Parliamentary elections provide the public’s best opportunity to influence the Union for the next five years; educating and informing people for that vote is crucial. ]]> tag:www.civitas.org.uk,2009:/blog//1.990 2009-01-23T17:06:45Z 2009-01-23T17:12:39Z

Last week education secretary Ed Balls called on schools to take more responsibility for low achievement amongst pupils from disadvantaged backgrounds. Part of the reason for a relationship between low performance and socio-economic disadvantage, he argued, is low expectations on...

Anastasia de Waal Last week education secretary Ed Balls called on schools to take more responsibility for low achievement amongst pupils from disadvantaged backgrounds. Part of the reason for a relationship between low performance and socio-economic disadvantage, he argued, is low expectations on the part of teachers. Although this approach garnered media interest as a new strategy for severing the link between background and performance, ‘poverty is no excuse for underachievement’ has been a long-time mantra of both this government and the previous one. ]]> New York Times, 22.01.09) ]]> tag:www.civitas.org.uk,2009:/blog//1.988 2009-01-22T18:12:33Z 2009-01-22T18:16:03Z

So, the NHS Constitution has been released after almost a year of negotiations, at a reported cost of around £1 million of taxpayers’ money. Was it worth it? Will it really make a difference to patient care?...

James Gubb NHS Constitution has been released after almost a year of negotiations, at a reported cost of around £1 million of taxpayers’ money. Was it worth it? Will it really make a difference to patient care? ]]> the comments of Katherine Murphy of the Patient’s Association: “We do not expect this document to make any difference to the care patients are receiving. The [Healthcare Commission's] annual health check was supposed to drive up standards, and yet we see the same trusts rated as weak year after year. The hygiene code was supposed to ensure cleanliness standards in hospitals, but over 50% of trusts assessed in 2008 failed to meet the required standards. There are, however, no penalties for failure. Patients need to know what the duty in the new health bill, requiring NHS organisations to "have regard to the NHS", will really mean in practice. For the NHS constitution to be effective, trusts need to do more than "have regard" to it. The time for NHS management to manage as if their jobs depended on it is long overdue. The time for words like safety, quality, choice and, in this case, constitution to have the meaning they have elsewhere in life is also long overdue.” What is of more concern, however, is the way in which Alan Johnson chose to sell the document. ‘The end of the era of doctor knows best’. This makes no sense. I know what he’s getting at; and, of course, it is vital that doctor’s involve patients in decisions, take account of their personal circumstances and respect their concerns and preferences. As the GMC guidance says. But, I’m sorry, if I’m sick and go to the doctor, I’d like to think that through years of training in medical school, the Foundation Programme, run-through training and the duty to keep professional knowledge and skills up-to-date, they might just know best about medicine and the diagnosis and treatment of illness. In reality ‘the end of the doctor knows best’ serves as a convenient rationale for ‘government knows best’. There is no meaningful ‘patient power’ in the NHS; and nor will there be while the government controls the purse strings. ]]> tag:www.civitas.org.uk,2009:/blog//1.987 2009-01-20T18:59:47Z 2009-01-20T23:47:00Z

‘Making sure children are safe, well and receive a good education is our most serious responsibility… However, there are concerns that some children are not receiving the education they need. And in some extreme cases, home education could be used...

David Conway said Children’s Minister Dame Morgan of Drefelin. ]]> newspaper reports that many secondary schoolchildren now turn up for school wearing stab-proof and bullet-proof vests. It also comes not more than a few days since release of the 2009 School League Tables for England and Wales. These showed that almost 400,000 schoolchildren, half the relevant age-group, failed to obtain 5 GCSE’s, including maths and English, at grades A* to C. That level of attainment is the Government’s own benchmark of a satisfactory education. Over half of the country’s state secondary schools are reportedly failing to ensure the majority of their pupils leave with such grades. In light of these facts and figures, it would seem that, if Dame Morgan sincerely wishes to take her ministerial responsibility seriously to ensure the country’s children are both safe and in receipt of a good education, the review she urgently needs to institute is not that of the monitoring of home-schooling arrangements. It is rather a review of arrangements for ensuring the safety and education of children attending its publicly-maintained secondary schools. Fat chance. ]]>