Archive for March, 2007
It’s not even social engineering – just counterproductive interfering
Posted by David Conway in Education on 16/03/2007
According to The Times interpretation, splashed across their front page today, ‘middle-class pupils face losing out on university places if their parents have degrees and professional jobs,’ after the University and College Admissions Service [UCAS] announced land-mark changes to the university admissions system. Prospective students will now be asked to declare both whether their parents went to university and what type of job they are in. The Times’ assertion that this move could potentially lead to middle-class pupils being discriminated against is tied to UCAS’ confirmation that the underlying motive is to ‘support the continuing efforts of universities and colleges to widen participation.’
An affluence for good
Posted by James Gubb in Civil Liberty, Tax and Spend on 14/03/2007
Before long, many of us will be sitting on Adam Smith. The Bank of England has just launched a new £20 note bearing an image of the Scottish philosopher and inventor of economics, writes Dr Peter Heslam.
It isn’t clear whether the Chancellor, Gordon Brown, had anything to do with the decision. He is a Smith enthusiast who is proud to share his birthplace of Kirkcaldy. In any event, it is a remarkable choice, given the way Smith’s ideas are often associated with precisely what is wrong with the global economy today: its relentless, unethical pursuit of the free market, to the detriment of humanity.
Perhaps if the truth were known we wouldn’t be so surprised. After all, Smith argued that the economy could function in the interests of all only if it was held in check, both by the state and by morality. In fact, he insisted that it could not thrive apart from a culture steeped in virtue.
He was also the first serious thinker to suggest that there was a solution to global poverty. It was not charity, philanthropy, state power or any other top-down or paternalist strategy; it was the freedom of the individual to pursue their own economic self-interest. Only this directed as it was by the invisible hand of Providence had the capacity to unleash the human creativity necessary for economic prosperity.
Smith went further. The very aim of human society, he said, should be universal affluence through the creation of wealth. This would put the economy at the service of human beings, rather than vice versa, liberating people from the prison of poverty and scarcity that was the inevitable consequence of the subsistence model that had dominated human history.
It was not the Make Poverty History campaign of 2005, therefore, that first inspired the public to think that something could be done about global poverty. It was Smith’s book The Wealth of Nations, published in 1776 a time when, even in the West, most people were poor.
Smith’s own hand in economic affairs may now be invisible, but if we are to address contemporary global poverty, the ideas he articulated are worth revisiting. The new £20 in our pockets will be a reminder to do so. In this way, it may exert a greater influence for the good of humankind than through its purchasing power alone.
Dr Peter Heslam is director of Transforming Business at Cambridge University (www.transformingbusiness.net)
68% of 16-18 year-olds say no to re-introduction of EU Constitution
Posted by James Gubb in European Union on 13/03/2007
In a survey conducted last Thursday (8th March) at the annual Civitas Sixth Form Conference on the European Union, 68% of 16-18 year olds revealed that they would vote against ‘a Constitutional treaty that gives the EU legal personality’ (i.e. the power to make international agreements by itself, or on behalf of member states).
Significantly, 54% of students also responded that ‘the UK should stay in the EU, but push for a looser relationship, based on free trade and intergovernmental cooperation’, when asked which of the following statements came closest to their own view:
a. The UK should support further EU integration, giving more power to EU institutions. (19%)
b. The UK should stay in the EU and push for a looser relationship, based on free trade and intergovernmental cooperation. (54%)
c. The UK should support maintaining the status quo in the EU. (8%)
d. The UK should withdraw from the EU. (13%)
e. Don’t know. (6%)
Replacing the Whitehall council?
Posted by David Conway in Education on 09/03/2007
‘Every school in England should set up a council so pupils can have a voice in the appointment of teachers and running the school, a Commons committee says,’ reports the BBC News website today under the headline ‘School councils a must, say MPs.’ Based on research done by London University’s Institute of Education [where, notably, most government-used policy evidence seems to come from] the Education and Skills Select Committee are advising that the government should make school councils compulsory.
No jobs? Let them have prizes!
Posted by Nick Cowen in Health on 07/03/2007
The NHS remains in crisis. More catastrophes barely make an impression on the British public. They no longer seem to make a difference: the NHS limps on with the efforts of the doctors and nurses that still treat medicine as a vocation. Some targets are hit, others are missed, and amid the crushing burden of admin and the monthly crop of scandals, hospitals and surgeries force through some limited health provision.
Actions speak louder than words
Posted by James Gubb in European Union on 06/03/2007
By Will Thavenot
David Cameron is set to make a speech today outlining his vision for Europe, calling for Europe to focus on the ‘three-g’s’ – globalisation, global warming, and global poverty. He has also published a joint letter with the Czech Prime Minister, Mirek Topolanek, saying that Europe should be underpinned on three basic principles: commitment to open markets, commitment to a Europe of strong nation states, and a strong Trans-Atlantic alliance.
Everything in these statements is about looking outward, with Europe as a representative body, in a wider global community. This is all well and good. Europe is undoubtedly stuck in a rut, from which it is finding it hard to extricate itself. The same problems just will not go away, such as member states unable to reach a consensus on the constitution, the issue of Turkey and enlargement, energy and the environment – to name but a few. Something needs to happen, one way or another, or the European Union is in danger of gradually grinding to a halt.
But is David Cameron’s vision the way forward? Is it even a feasible proposal, or is it just pie-in-the-sky rhetoric from someone who has proved himself to be masterful in manipulating his audience, but has yet to cut the mustard and back up his wonderful and ambitious dreams with hard hitting realistic action?
