Tag Archives: Conservative Policies

Conservative Policy Forum Launch

The last time I heard Baroness Warsi speak her big thing was to make sure the Conservative party was “a political party, not a dining club”.   The sentiment was spot on.   New members (like myself), will have realised the party is good at getting money out of you, good at getting you to post leaflets, good at organising social events – but not so good at giving you any sense of voice or influence.   It’s not unreasonable to suppose that many people who might feel motivated to join a political party may have as much or more of  an interest in policy as they do in giving money, stuffing leaflets or attending BBQs.


Today Warsi took a step to address this by re-launching the Conservative Policy Forum.  100+ activists from across the UK gathered at the old Custard Factory in Birmingham.  The event got off to a bit of a stilted start, the morning session was a succession of speakers (Warsi, Jeremey Middleton, Fiona Hodgson and Natalie Elphick) who were individually good, but unfortunately had very repetitive content.   The gist was:

  • they were encouraging local associations to set up groups to discuss policy (all under the framework of ‘The Conservative Policy Forum’. )
  • This is intended to mirror the history of member involvement in the old CPC/CPF.  It is recognised the forerunner got broken somewhere over the last couple of decades and this initiative is about putting that right.
  • To  help facilitate these new groups they would share discussion papers each month
  • they had agreed clear channels to receive feedback on the discussion papers from the local groups .
  • They then have a process to consolidate all feedback and get it to the relevant Ministers
  • They’re also looking at launching a website to solicit similar input for those who cannot attend the meetings..

It needn’t have taken more than 10 minutes to tell us all that:  It took an hour and half.  The irony in launching something  to enable members to talk, rather than be talked to, by  lecturing the same message four times wasn’t lost.  It contributed to a little frustration in the audience which bubbled over into the first question and answer session.  I actually quite felt for Baroness Warsi – here she was launching a sincerely positive initiative yet was getting criticised for the ‘lack of democratic involvement’  – as a flavour she was asked:  “who elected the regional co-ordinators?  Who elected the forum council?  Who elected you Madam Chairman?  Why is this kick-off the first I’ve heard about it?”.    Leadership in a voluntary organisation is an exercise in herding cats and I don’t envy anyone who has to perform that role.  Warsi handled the more direct comments with self-deprecating aplomb and just about managed to stop the moaning minnies from sapping the energy out of the room.

Oliver Letwin came after lunch and did a sterling job in properly positioning the intended focus of the CPF.  He was crystal clear that the CPF must not become a forum to critique current policy implementation – that’s the opposition’s job.   Current policy is current policy and it is the Government’s job to properly implement it.  The CPF is there to inform the 2015 manifesto and respond to the needs of Britain as it will be then.   Letwin comes across as a bit of a policy wonk on TV and his manner on the box is not everyone’s cup of tea.  In the flesh he was very convincing in his narrative.  He talked about the eyes-wide-open choices the current government has made, the strategic reasoning for doing the more ambitious stuff early in the Parliament and why there will be no respite in this current pace of policy implementation until mid 2012 (“After 13 years preparation, I don’t know why people find it surprising that we actually had a well prepared plan we’re putting into play”).    For me, the gold of the day came when he put up a straw-man of the possible priorities for the 2015 government – the CPF is expected input to a manifesto that will help:

  • Rise to the challenge of an ageing population and other demographic changes,
  • Keep our nation and citizens safe amidst the new security challenges at home and overseas,
  • Make the most of changes in technology and innovation, and support enterprise
  • Ensure we have an adequate skills base to meet the future demands of the market
  • >Respond to increasing pressures on our natural resources and changes to our global climate
  • Meet the economic challenges and opportunities of emerging economies
  • Ensure policy takes account of geographical differences in our nation
  • Strengthen the family, help the vulnerable and poor in our society, and tackle the causes of poverty; and,
  • Support ‘big citizens’ and the ‘big society’

I found it reassuring in the age of the 24-hour-news cycle that at least some politicians still do some forward thinking.  It’s not a bad first stab at what challenges we will face in 2015– he was also at pains to express this list was not exhaustive, and the CPF could well add to it.

Launching something is not the same as delivering on it – but I have high hopes for the CPF.  It is absolutely a step in the right direction for letting ‘membership’ of the party mean more than the right to be mugged for more cash.   The instinct that solutions and great ideas need not come from smoke-filled rooms in Whitehall, but can come from the collective wisdom of the huge pool of motivated, bright people outside the Westminster bubble is something that could really differentiate Conservatives from the heavily centralised Labour Party.  We’ve always claimed to be different in that way – if we can make this work – then we can make that claim demonstrable.

Advertisements

4 Comments

Filed under Centre Right, Politics

Student Tuition Fees: The Weird Thing

When tuition fees were introduced in Labour’s first year in office I actually marched on Parliament in protest.  At the time I had just completed my Masters and was clinging on for one last year as my University’s Student Union President (still the most fun ‘job’ I have ever had).

Every press release I sent out, every letter of protest that was written, every person who gave me the opportunity to bend-their-ear got the same message.  It seemed to me to be self-evident that the introduction of student fees could only:

  • Lead to lower take-up of Higher Ed across the board
  • More worryingly – lead to even greater social exclusion for those from poorer backgrounds
  • Lead to University closures and a diminishing of Britain’s academic standing

The only crumbs of comfort I could think of was that if students were paying they would become far more fussy and demanding which would drive up the standard of tuition.

Here’s the weird thing:  I’ve never been more wrong with a set of predictions in my life.  The take up of higher education went up and up.  This includes an increase in take-up from people from disadvantaged backgrounds.  Far from closures the number of higher education institutions and overall capacity increased.  I was wrong on every count.  The anecdotal evidence I have is that even my certainty that tuition standards and one-on-one teaching time would improve was  off.  I still find just how wrong I was quite sobering.

I obviously mention this now, because with today’s announcement that fees will increase to between £6,ooo and £9,000 per year the current crop of Student Union Presidents up and down the land are making the very same points as the once fresher-faced me.

Despite being proved spectacularly wrong on this issue in the ‘90s, to be honest I am still as nervous this time around.  I can’t sit here all smug that I got through the system with fees paid for and a maintenance grant because  I now have to worry about how my own two kids will afford the opportunities I had.  At some point we surely must hit the tipping point?  There has to be a cost that will put people off?  The headline £27k for a degree before living costs does sound overwhelming.

This prompted me to dig a little deeper into the detail of what is proposed.  As is so often the case the reality of the detail isn’t quite as alarming as the screaming headline – but it is still scary.  The proposals have students only repaying their loans at 9% of their income at a real rate of interest when they earn £21,000, up to inflation plus 3% for those earning £41,000 or more.   Any outstanding loans are written off after 30 years.  If you don’t end up in employment, you don’t pay anything back.  In terms of the technicalities of repayment and pressure to repay these proposals are actually a step forward from the current arrangements – though of course the overall amount to be repaid is much higher – but a step forward nonetheless.  A kind of ‘no-win, no fee’ arrangement.

It is still a whopping burden though.  I really do pity the kids who start life with that kind of debt, on top of already silly marginal tax rates to pay for the excesses of their parents’ generation.

Of course, Labour will oppose these moves.  That’s the nature and job of opposition.  There is no need to put forward an alternative, you can just yell ‘nay’.  The media will ignore that it was the Labour Government (actually Mandelson) who commissioned the Browne Report in 2009 that led to these changes.  In many ways this is history repeating itself.   In 1996 the then Conservative Government appointed Ron Dearing to do an ‘independent’ report knowing full well the recommendations that Blair and Blunkett would inherit and which led to the first tuition fees.  This time Mandelson and G. Brown knew full well what would be recommended by Lord Browne and that whoever won would have to go with it.  One silver lining for the loser of this last election was always going to be not having to catch and deal with being lobbed this particular ticking grenade.

The Coalition have actually watered down Browne’s recommendations a bit.  There is a cap on fees (albeit a quite high one), and there is more money for bursaries for the poor and early repayment levies so that the richer folk can’t get out of paying their share by paying off their loan early.

It is what it is.  The choice was always either to revisit student funding or cut back on HE provision.  Access to Higher Ed benefits the whole of society and so it was the right choice to revisit funding.

The changes are necessary but still depressing.  All I can do is hope that the weird thing happens again and that effects of student financing policy continue to be subject to counter-intuitive economic freakery that prove me, and all those earnest fresh-faced student union presidents, totally wrong.

7 Comments

Filed under Centre Right, Economy, Education, Uncategorized

Sir Philip Green: Great Report – Wrong Conclusion

We don’t need a Ministry of Paper-Clips, Open Data is the Answer.

Sir Philip Green’s report on government spending  is now online.  Unlike most Government reports it’s a succinct thirty page slide deck in big print that can be read in five minutes.   If that’s too much then I’ll give you the gist:  he finds the government wastes money then concludes we must centralise buying.

I’ve no issue at all with his findings.  The examples he cites confirm everything we already suspected about wasteful and lazy Government procurement.  Some of the examples are jaw-dropping.  I’ve also no issue with his central theme that the Government has failed miserably to take advantage of its scale or credit rating.  On that he’s right.  He  obviously knows a trick or two about keeping hold of money so I feel a bit cheeky calling him out here –  but  I have to:  The findings might be good, the theme sound, but his conclusion is wrong.

It is nuts to propose that a problem of poor or lazy administration will be solved by more bureaucracy.   The Coalition Government is rightly extolling the virtues of localism at the core of its agenda.  There is an obvious intellectual contradiction between pushing localism and enforcing centralised procurement.  The last thing we need to do now is set up yet another Government Agency that would literally be the ‘Ministry for Paper-Clips’.  No matter how well intentioned it would fail.   I’ve spent long enough working with big business watching the pendulum swing back and forth from localised  business models to centralised models to know that the prize of lower procurement costs will come at the expense of agility and innovation.  It is in this agility and innovation that the very biggest prizes lie.

The diversity of Government activity is not comparable with running a chain of identical Top Shops.  If the proposal goes ahead you can imagine the scenario – a nimble cost-cutting  government department identifies a new way to deliver a service at a fraction of the cost of the existing way.  The project to implement it will need new kit.  Being new stuff, the central agency doesn’t have it on its catalogue – cue a tedious process to get into the approved kit list, another process to approve possible vendors, another process to then raise the purchase orders.  All these no doubt delayed because the new ministry is dealing with back-logs from every department and school and council and prison in the country for their regular stuff.  At the same time you would also be crushing the ability of SMEs to tender for government business as there is no way they would have the scale to operate at a whole government level rather than at a smaller niche.  Hurting that part of the British economy is not something we should be engineering.  Instead, we’re supposed to be marching into a brave new post-bureaucratic age and Green’s proposal runs counter to that end.

No, the answer to all the issues that Green has identified can be solved by removing the veil of bureaucracy  and accelerating proposals for complete transparency of  Government data on-line.   Every single contract and purchase order for more than £500 should be there for everyone to see.   It is our tax money so the spend data is our data.  Arguments by vendors about contract  ‘commercial sensitivity’ are a sham ,they don’t want it exposed they are ripping us off.  The public has a right to see that vendors are not charging the government more than they charge in the high street.  Overnight, by publishing all this data you would free-up departmental procurement officers to see what is the going-rate or a fair price.  More importantly you would allow commercial competitors to see the price they need to compete with. This more than anything  would continually drive prices downwards.  Rather than a procurement officer going to a vendor and saying “I need 10,000 of x what is our agreed price?”  You would have vendors ringing procurement officers and saying “I see you bought 10,000 x and paid y – in future I can do it z cheaper”.   You would stop at once the procurement officer who buys the slightly more expensive stuff because he gets more air miles or because the vendor sent him on a nice day-at-the-races during the bid.  The armchair auditors (or the press) would not allow it.  Transparency is to everyone’s advantage.  It will retain our localism agenda and leave space for agility and innovation in departments.  It will also mean we don’t need to waste time or money setting up a Ministry of Paper Clips.

6 Comments

Filed under Economy, Politics, UK, UK Politics, Uncategorized

Conference Day 2: The Child Benefit Anomaly

Every single cut is going to hurt someone.   And nobody likes the ones that hurt them.  I have a daughter and another child on the way.    At conference today we got the news that the Child Benefit of 80ish quid we get each month is going to be stopped.  We’re far from rich but as a top tax-band family we are certainly very comfortable – I couldn’t look anyone in the eye and say that we either need or deserve that money.  It’s one we’ll just take on the chin in good spirit.

I suspect I’ll be in the minority in my acceptance though.  The Government is living its promise to do the right thing rather than the popular thing – and I suspect that this will be wildly unpopular.

One genuine issue that people have been quick to highlight is that there is one group who this will impact more than others:   This is single income families who earn just over the threshold.  They lose the benefit whilst families with a double income of salaries just less than the upper threshold retain the benefit.   In the very worst case example a couple who both earn 43k and so have a family income of £86k will keep the benefit, the single income family earning a fraction more the £44k will lose the benefit.   This anomaly is manifestly not equitable.

That said, people who are getting on some very high horses about this need to take a step back and reflect – this same anomaly has existed for years (including the entire 13 years of Labour rule) in that marginal rates already led to the same unfairness via income tax.  In the exact same examples above the couple with the single income has already been walloped at 40% for every extra pound they bring in, while the double income couple have only been banged for 25%.   I make the point to give context rather than as a justification.  Two wrongs don’t make a right – and obviously this new anomaly adds insult to injury for those people.

The anomaly aside (and by very definition any anomaly is an exception to the norm) George Osborne has still done the right thing.  He was between a rock and a hard place – to correct the anomaly and move to a solution that took total house-hold income/means-testing into the equation would have added an administration nightmare  – more forms, more IT systems, more opportunities for fraud all of which would eat away at the savings to be made – and the savings after all are the whole point of the move.   The solution adopted is pragmatic rather than perfect.  It can be very easily be implemented with existing tax data.  Those people with double incomes  just below the threshold should think of themselves as accidental winners rather than single income families just above it thinking of themselves as targeted losers.  The principle that high income earners do not require welfare support from the state is sound.

7 Comments

Filed under Center right, Centre Right, Conservative Conference 2010, Economy

Backstage at the Leaders Debate

It’s not often you get to elbow the Secretary of State for Defence. OK, it was an accident, but let me revel in the glory anyway… Bob Ainsworth was behind me worming his way towards Kay Burley to demand an interview, my mobile was glued-to-ear, I turned round quickly and my elbow clipped him. “Sorry”, I said, as recognition instantly made it a polite lie. Disappointingly, he brushed on past leaving my minor assault wholly unacknowledged – he was so desperate to get on the goggle box it left him oblivious to pain. The media circus was in town and nothing was going to stop Ainsworth playing his role as a clown. For Bristol yesterday this circus was the only show in town.

I was on a blag as a guest of Sky TV with a ring-side seat to the razzmatazz. A picture-postcard sunny day saw the troupe rock up, pitch their tents and bring the place to a standstill. The venue was amongst Bristol’s newish waterfront development and so the whole area was ringed by shirt-sleeved machine-gun-toting policemen, grubby looking students with obligatory anti-war placards, fancy-dressed attention-seekers and stressed looking TV crews rigging up kit. Pubs opposite the venue were packed to the rafters, the lager taps flowing which added to an atmosphere seeped in anticipation. Bristol was buzzing. By the time the Prime Minister arrived the mob was well oiled and it was briefly more pantomime than circus as they made their feelings about him known.

I’ll not dwell on the debate itself – every utterance and mannerism has already been scrutinized to the nth degree by every journalist and blogger in Britain. I’ll just share my general impression that all three raised their game from the first debate, it was more compelling to watch and I would ‘score’ it in terms of public perception roughly the same: Clegg first. Cameron second. Brown third. Albeit I’d have Clegg not as far ahead and Brown not as far behind as last time. Brown wins the sound-bite of the night for his ‘Big Society – Little Britain’ jibe. Despite a good performance I’m not sure the debate has helped bolster David Cameron. The Conservatives should be able to put the Lib Dem surge to bed on a Foreign Policy centred debate but it didn’t happen. I know there are a multitude of instant exit polls which will either contradict or support that view but I can only call it as I saw it and I trust my gut-instinct on these things more than I trust any paid-for poll.

For me though the real education of the evening was watching up-close the dance between the media and the politicians. When you first arrive at the media centre the scale of the operation seems huge. Banks of desks, loaded with wi-fi laptops showing the journo’s twitter accounts, big screen monitors showing various feeds from around the building. Camera men. Sound men. Print men. News Anchors. Everyone looking earnest and busy. At the side of the room the politicians and their minders wait. The politico’s blackberries purr right through the debate with every statement by the opposition instantly fact-checked, whenever the opposition scored a perceived hit the blackberries again buzzed with quickly crafted rebuttal phrases to get out to the press later. And then the debate ended and the madness began…

All parties know that the immediate spin after the debate can define public perception as much as the debate itself. Getting to the big hitter media straight away is everything. Suddenly, as you watch you realise that what seemed such a huge operation and a mass of media is really quite a small cliquey affair. Fundamentally, on camera we have BBC, SKY and to a lesser extent ITV. That’s it. The print journos that matter are the Times, Telegraph, Guardian, Sun and Mirror (to a lesser extent the Independent) and that’s it. Get to those people and every other commentator simply feeds off their output. In a nod to the blogosphere Will Straw (from Left Foot Forward) and Tim Montgomerie (from Conservative Home) were both afforded the same access as the key newspapermen. So really even the blogs have gone mainstream! There used to be an expectation that the blogosphere would mean that these few key news organisations would lose their prominence and importance. Not a bit of it – the blogosphere feeds off their output – true there is wider comment nowadays and the relationship is symbiotic – but it’s the old media who are still the daddy. The politicians worked the room on their unspoken rota, mentally ensuring they got to each of that hit-list of folk to talk to. The traditional image of the journo chasing the interviewee and begging for them to be granted the great favour of a quick line is turned on its head here. Instead, the key journos stay in place and the politicos come to them and beg for the interview. It was a sight to behold. We had Ashdown, Milliband (Snr), May, Ainsworth (oblivious to his new bruise), Campbell, Huhne and Gove to name-drop just a fraction of those in the room fighting to get on camera. Brown, Clegg and Cameron would by now be on the way home but make no mistake that round two was continuing with brutality in the Media Centre. And so it went on….

I went back up to the Sky Party and watched the last of the interviews in the bar. There was a healthy mix of people with different voting intentions discussing it. Of those who would confess to a clear party allegiance unsurprisingly everyone (except me) saw their man as the clear winner. The interesting thing was the undecided lot – none of them would pin their flag to a clear winner. Perhaps then it wasn’t as bad as I feared.

For a party activist these debates are nerve-wracking. You know that all those thousands of leaflets you stuff through letter boxes, all the door knocking, and all the other local campaign stuff is only ever really worth, at most, about three percent of your local vote. It’s the national stuff that counts most and we’re helpless to control that. Here in one hour your leader can wipe out all that good work with one poor phrase. Cameron did not do that. But he didn’t land any huge punches either. Am I nervous? A little. Am I losing any faith that he is the right man for the job or he has the right vision for Britain? Not a bit of it. Do I wish we didn’t have the debates? The pragmatic campaigner in me says yes – they haven’t helped us and have risked damaging us – but the democrat in me over-rides that. These debates have helped re-engage the public after a full-on collapse of trust in politics. The debates are healthy for our democracy and frankly that’s more important.  Roll on the next one.

9 Comments

Filed under Election

Why George Osborne is an Optimist – and Why He Needs to Be

at Birmingham Uni

The knives are well and truly out for George Osborne.  The Observer reports that Labour are going to target him as the shadow teams ‘weakest link’.  The polling data (referenced in the Observer article) confirms that the public are averse to him – and I’ll add to the evidence with a less scientific straw-poll of my own ‘vote undecided’ mates all of whom see him as a liability.   To pick out the key words from their objections to him he apparently lacks ‘experience’, ‘credibility’ and ‘gravitas’.

It is maddening there is any doubt in the electorate’s mind  who is the safer pair of hands for the economy.  The economy should be an ‘Open Goal’ for the Tories but somehow they seem intent on blasting over-the-bar from close range.  Osborne is finally realising that he’s got to turn this public perception around.  There is no room on the front bench for someone who wants to be a back room strategist – if he wants one of the ‘Great Offices of State’ he has to get out there  and land his message in the minds of the public.    Is he really up to the task?

I like to judge politicians in the flesh so on Friday I went along to the University of Birmingham to listen to him deliver a speech there.   He spoke with only hand scribbled notes, not quite a sharp as Cameron who can manage these things without any reference material, but certainly better than most current politicians who wouldn’t dare step up to a lectern without a fully typed speech and/or autocue.

He spoke of three central themes the Tories wish to land:

  • That they have a credible plan for the deficit.  He delved into some of the detail making clear that it is the structural deficit he has to target and that we are in the bonkers position that the State is still spending £4 for every £3 it receives.  That we need to make the cuts ‘not on the backs of the poorest in society’.  He hinted any tax cuts would come from NI before he aimed at the 50% tax band – and indeed the NI cut seems to have been made official policy this morning.  He was more open about where he would cut income than where he would cut expenditure and I know that annoys people.  They do have to add this detail to the public domain soon.
  • That there are plans to ‘get business’ going again.    He gave some detail on the help to be given to small businesses.  As the owner of a small business myself there is real gold in these proposals.
  • To create a more balanced economy.  Again, he delved into a little detail on how Tory policies on education reform, welfare-to-work, energy policy and broadband infrastructure would pull together to achieve that end.

All the content of the speech was fine – he certainly pushed all the right buttons for me.   If there was a problem it wasn’t the content – it was the delivery.

It is hard to put your finger on what is ‘wrong’ with the delivery.    Some people are blessed with a presence , voice and stature that commands an audience to cling to every word .  They could frankly read out the dry text of a European Directive and keep an audience fully engaged.   George Osborne is not one of those people.  Politics should not be like that, it harms our democracy that it is.  To make the leap from manager to leader you need this X-factor.   I guess the point of the phrase ‘X-factor’ is that the ‘X’ is impossible to define.  Whatever it is: he hasn’t got it.

I guess the plan was always that he could cling onto Cameron’s coat tails to get the job then the missing ‘experience’, ‘credibility’ and ‘gravitas’ would grow by default as he made the job his own.  The calculation must have been that whilst he isn’t an electoral asset he wouldn’t be a liability and would be good at the job.  That ‘wouldn’t be a liability’ part of the assumption is now being tested.

We did get a five minute glimpse that it is within him on certain themes to strike the right chord.  In response to a question about the possibility of a double –dip recession he suddenly went a bit off-piste and talked about his personal optimism for Britain.

His point was that despite the global woe when you look at the global business cycle, and you look at the surge of economic activity in India, Brazil, Turkey, Russia, China and so on, as the manufacturing and service base they have created over the last few years settles down (which has been to a certain extent at our expense) so their new middle-class begins to embed middle-class spending habits.  When we look at the industries Britain still excels at – pharma, aerospace engineering, media, financial services, prestige brands, tourism etc – these are all things that this new global middle-class will push their new found wealth into.   We are poised to be big benefactors of that shift.  With the right policies to support our economy whilst the global cycle swings to this next stage – there can and should be great hope for the UK.

As he warmed to his optimistic theme he relaxed, his shoulders visibly dropped an inch, he smiled, his hands moved – there was passion there.  He had a compelling, well articulated narrative which he believed in.  In response the audience sat up straighter, leaned forward, listened closely – they were with him – they were engaged.  The moment ended as quickly as it had started when he then fielded a question about his role in managing both fiscal and monetary policy.  The spell was broken.

Cameron isn’t going to change horses this close to the finish line.   Osborne is the man and he has to drag himself out of this rut where he is being cast as a liability.  He needs to find something else on top of the depressing detail of what needs to be done to get us out of the economic hole – if you’re asking people for pain now, you have to have them believe that there will be less pain tomorrow.  The optimistic message is key – he should develop it and shout it from the rooftops.

1 Comment

Filed under Economy

New Schools Network/Centre Forum Conference

Yesterday I attended the New Schools Network/Centre Forum Conference at the Commonwealth Club in central London.  There was cross-party representation looking at the big issues on school reform whoever wins the next election.  There was also a sample of guests from other countries to share their experiences of similar journeys.  I’ll not bore you with the reason why I was there – I suspect that will be a whole blog post in its own right soon.  Nor will I summarise what the New Schools Network is all about – you can find out all about them here.

What was interesting for me was listening to the three keynote speakers.  We had (Baroness) Sally Morgan from Labour, David Laws from the Lib Dems and Michael Gove from the Conservatives.  There was a surprising amount of consensus between the three.  I don’t think I am misrepresenting any of the speakers if I pick out the following common themes:

  • The Academy Programme has broadly been a force for good.  As with any programme there are known exceptions but they should not distract from the overall picture.
  • Whoever wins we will see a development/evolution of the thinking that went into Academy approach in the way we consider new schools
  • Whoever wins we can expect to see more disparate groups – including possibly ‘for-profit’ organisations and more parent-led collectives – joining the roster of providers
  • School Autonomy is a good thing.  Nobody on the panel said it directly but the implicit flip-side to this is that Local Authority meddling can be a hinderance to good school governance.

The disagreements between the parties were more around the implementation details than the ‘big idea’ of letting more schools run themselves.

The thing that really struck me though was Sally Morgan’s seeming reluctance to press ahead with new schools unless the capital was identified to support them with best-in-class building provision.  She hated the idea of schools opening in ‘converted office buildings where children cannot enjoy the richness of the broad curriculum that only a properly equipped school can offer’.   This bugged me at the time, and having reflected on it for 24 hours it bugs me even more now.  It is as if Labour believe that you cannot possibly be solving a problem unless you hurl money at it.  Her argument boils down to that she would rather have kids in adequate buildings so they can have a wide curriculum albeit with the crumby teaching, poor leadership and sapped morale that is present in failing schools; rather than have a narrower curriculum in less ideal temporary buildings that do at least have quality teaching, strong school leadership and a sense of mission and purpose in the institution.   Actually Sally, I would rather my children went to the second and how dare you and your lot deny me that choice.  Quality of teaching is far more important than the shiny new facilities.  Don’t get me wrong – ideally we aim for having both, but if the capital isn’t there now then let’s just get the quality of teaching and leadership up and get moving – the shiny new toys can follow as institutions start to prove their success.  Gove gets this.  You could see him bursting to just get on and get started.  So whilst there may be consensus on the overall direction of educational reform, there is difference about the appetite for the pace and depth of it.  This whole area is too important to pussyfoot about with for fear of hurting teaching union sensibilities.  My vote is going to the chap with the hunger and sense of urgency to tackle this head on: Michael  Gove.

13 Comments

Filed under Education, UK, UK Politics