Thank you Unison

I think this picture says it all. Please join the march on November 3rd and show your love. It is a day early but still appreciated.

Which broadcaster said on air that the Tories want to exterminate immigrants?

Rupert Murdoch's Sky News. Abolish the BBC and you're still left employing journalists, most of whom have met Conservatives.

Incidentally, a Facebook search of the politically "conservative" and occupationally "Sky" in the London network got a whopping 13 results. I can only conclude that Mr Murdoch is a socialist.

Harry Potter, BBC

Conservative Home, mouthpiece for the aspiring, toilet wall for the angry, carried a fascinating analysis of Facebook yesterday under the headline "there are eleven times more liberals at the BBC than conservatives".

To establish the strictly scientific nature of this reds-under-the-bed stuff, CH carried the following stat:

"A search of the UK-wide Facebook population reveals a liberal to conservative ratio of just 2.5 to 1, that's four times less liberal than those on the BBC network: UK - 6,407,580; UK liberals - 545,240; UK moderates - 251,320; UK conservatives - 216,660."

So to clarify: only 4% UK Facebook users define themselves as conservative - yet CH is more worried about the composition of the workforce of the BBC. How often would Newsnight have to run stories like "Harry Potter is a left-winger and JK Rowling's books are a diatribe against Thatcherite Britain" to turn this cultural tide? Can Andrew Neil be on TV more often?

One down, one to go

If you've been watching the news, you will know that the Polish electorate turned out in their greatest numbers since 1989 to throw out the extremist government of Jaroslaw Kaczynski's Law and Justice party (PiS). This was a great achievement - for one thing, the Polish elections haven't made the TV news since 1989. I was in Poland for the knife-edge 1995 Presidential election when Lech Walesa, hero of Solidarity, lost power to ex-Communist Aleksander Kwasniewski by just 20,000 votes - and have followed her political fortunes ever since.

Unfortunately, the media don't follow Polish politics as closely and therefore say the most remarkable things. The BBC persistently labelled the homophobic, ultra-Catholic, xenophobic, anti-EU party as "centre-right", not just two years ago but last month, weeks after the President told Irish politicians that homosexuals threaten the continuation of the human race. Terms like left and right are tricky in Poland. In the imagination of politicians, the key divide remains ex-Communist (left) and ex-Solidarity (right). But it is gradually changing to Conservative (pro-Catholic, protectionist, inward-looking and anti-EU) and Liberal (pro-secular, economically liberal, open, pro-EU). If the victorious Platforma Obywatelska (PO) chooses the ex-Communists (LiD) as a coalition partner, a great taboo will have ended in Polish politics.

The results of the 2007 Polish elections should warm the hearts of sane, liberal types. But while EU governments, Poles abroad sick of apologising and centrists breathe a sigh of relief, the underlying divides in Polish politics are little changed. In fact, while the PiS has lost power, it leaves the election a stronger political party and the only parliamentary receptacle for the votes of those disaffected by the transition to a liberal European democracy. It could come back.

PiS burst onto the scene in 2001, cashing in on the sacking of Jaroslaw's twin brother and now President Lech Kaczynski as Justice Minister in the then Solidarity government. They cast themselves as outsiders, good Catholics and “politicians with clean hands” who would champion the poor and weak against the rich and strong, fight corruption, purge ex-communists and bring order to the streets. A disturbing 28% voted for either them or the even more extreme LPR and Samoobrona.

Let me offer a sense of how extreme the other two are.

In 2001, the front page of the LPR website was adorned with an image of Mary with child along with a patriotic poem beginning “God is born” and continuing “Lift your hands, God’s children, bless our kind fatherland”. Their manifesto had ten points: 1) defence of Polish sovereignty; 2) defence of national production, trade and services; 3) reduction of bureaucracy; 4) improving the administration of justice through electing judges; 5) limiting the inflow of foreign capital; 6) creating a dozen national concerns forming the “commanding heights” of the economy; 7) making it easier for small businesses to flourish; 8) changing agreements with the EU to ensure balanced trade; 9) diversion of national currency reserves into structural investments; 10) introduction of anti-dumping duty on foreign food imports.

I like 6) and 7) being right after each other. There was also a unpleasant reference on the website to a "large-scale offensive" on the "Jewish front" as the families of Holocaust victims try to recoup their property.

Samoobrona competed for sheer bizarre awfulness. It grew out of a rural trade union into a direct action group then a political party. Its 2001 tract "What kind of Poland do we want" made reference to "maintaining the biological purity of the nation", opposed "international finance" - a well-known code - and called for a vast extension of the welfare system to protect those losing out during the transition from Communism.

In 2005 the proportion of voters supporting these three parties rose to 46%. Since then PiS has done what it said on the tin. The western media, who - remember - insist on calling the PiS a centre-right party, were shocked to see them enter a coalition with these more extreme partners in 2006. Belligerence abroad was matched with McCarthyism at home, social conservatism and redistribution. Depoliticisation of the media and civil service meant bringing in placemen. Political opponents complained of being spied upon and suffering whispering campaigns - all in the name of cleaning up politics.

In the 2007 campaign, PiS took the credit for economic growth and falling unemployment, placing the blame for any failures on a continuing establishment conspiracy of corrupt businessmen, politicians, ex-communists and anyone else the listener might choose to add to the list. Platforma Obywatelska (PO), who won the election and LiD, the centre-left party that came third, ran a classic get-the-bastards-out campaign, with old opponents and ex-presidents Lech Walesa and Aleksander Kwasmiewski, opponents in 1995, both calling for change.

The big untold story of the 2007 election is that LPR and Samoobrona are thankfully, finally, out of parliament. These overtly nationalist, ultra-Catholic and anti-semitic parties, having touched power and been discredited by the experience, lost their credibility as outsiders.

But PiS, having turned on its former allies, has actually consolidated its position, winning 32% and 164 seats versus 27% and 155 seats two years ago. The party has established itself as the recipient of votes from the disaffected, socially conservative and those fearful of change. With the President around for 3 more years and a strong opposition force, PiS remains a formidable party capable of exerting great influence on Polish politics.

It was the leap forward by PO – to 42% and 208 seats from 24% and 133 seats – which decided the election as millions of centrists voted for the party most likely to end Kaczynski’s rule. Since the break-up of Solidarity as a political force, no party has achieved over 35% support in a Polish election. A new opportunity has emerged to create a mature party that – at last - will not resort to infighting, play musical chairs, disappear and reform under a new name with power lost.

With the third party, the LiD, grandchild of the old Communist party, transformed into a pro-European centre-left party and the fourth party, likely coalition partner PSL, a rural party up to its eyes in European subsidies, there is now a majority in Parliament in favour of co-operation with the EU.


As PO and LiD believe broadly in keeping religion out of politics, there is now a majority for a more secular approach to social policy. For example, gay teachers are unlikely to be harassed by the authorities.


The new Polish government will take a more positive approach to dealings with the European Union at the inter-governmental level. It will try to join the Euro. With a minority of MPs committed to promoting “Catholic values”, there will also be a cultural turn towards Europe with more openness and tolerance. The disastrous witch-hunt of alleged “collaborators” will come to an end. PO will change the focus of welfare from redistribution to job creation, cutting taxes on enterprise. It really is a centre-right party, whose leader, Donald Tusk, sees himself following in the footsteps of Margaret Thatcher. That might not seem so centrist to some, but, remember, Gordon Brown likes to have his photo taken with Maggie as well. For Poland, PO represents a welcome chance at normality after two years of chaotic rule.

Postcard from Estonia

I have just spent a lovely week in Tallinn and Tartu, the two least tiny cities in Estonia. Staying in a very centrally located flat, right between the brothel and the synagogue, I was checking out people and places for next year's European Debating Championships. 

 

I am happy to report that the organisational side is going splendidly. The buildings are fit for purpose, to use the modern expression; the hotel looks excellent and the walk between the two is both short and punctuated by food outlets. Your average British traveller to Tallinn is on a stag weekend, so people were pleasantly surprised by my relatively mild manners and treated me very kindly.

 

The main purpose of my visit was to train local adjudicators in advance of the tournament. Most of them were experienced in other styles of debate, especially Karl Popper, who deserves a better memorial, and American Parliamentary. As such, their big questions were about the different team roles in British Parliamentary debate and the weight given to role-fulfilment by adjudicators. I also had a chance to visit the Estonian Business School, a private university holding their first ever debate. I had to oppose the Estonian government paying the fees of students who study abroad, a position the audience reluctantly accepted. It was exciting to see 60 students attend and I hope they can build a society on the back of the event.

 

Finally, I can report that those attending Tallinn Euros will find an abundance of excellent bars, some good local beers and meet wonderful, welcoming people. Unless they are in a bar with Russians celebrating the 2:1 defeat of England. But I imagine they were exceptional circumstances.

Quote of the day

Labour's mission to become the socially illiberal, high-tax party of British politics has a new poster boy - 37-year-old Andy Burnham, Chief Secretary to the Treasury.

In the Telegraph:

“There is sometimes a metropolitan myth that Labour people are all a bit
liberal. Of course there’s a moral case for promoting marriage.”

Those metropolitan areas where the Tories haven't been able to win a seat for a decade. Yes. In case anyone thought this moral case was about helping the poorest children, perhaps by encouraging their parents to stay together when times are tough, Burnham is clear on that point:

“I don’t think the tax system is the reason people get married, nor is it the reason people stay together …but it’s not wrong that the tax system should recognise commitment and marriage.”

If the tax system is not the reason people get married or stay married, there is by definition no case for using the tax system to promote marriage. Any tax break would be a reward for good behaviour, with no effect on incentives at all. Welcome to New Britain.

Our 5-year-olds are failing us

"Less than half of five-year-olds in England meet government goals for their learning and development. Assessments of children in reception classes show only 45% have the skills ministers want them to have - up one percentage point on last year."

"Children and Families Minister Beverley Hughes said: 'This year's results show that we are beginning to make progress in the right direction.'"

No more central targets? Tell that to our 5-year-olds, who are latest under the government's magnifying glass. Thanks to the BBC website for revealing this, along with the supposedly disturbing finding that 85% of five-year-olds can write their own name and 86% know the letters of the alphabet. It is an odd report, given a government's spokesperson's claim on August 1st:

"The formal school starting age of five has served children well for decades and standards in our primary schools have never been higher".

If that is true, and our 11-year-olds are - officially - successful, what does it matter if the same kids, aged 5, do not get the bureaucrat's approving smile? It not as if 5-year-olds are the finished product, relied upon to use their advanced literacy and numeracy skills in the world.

The most disturbing finding is that the government has assumed responsibility for parenting extremely young children. In spending £21 billion on Sure Start, it buys the right to demonstrate value for money, and this is achieved by assessing children across the country in their reception classes.

The aim of Sure Start, in New Labour-speak, is to equalise life chances by focusing resources on disadvantaged people. After ten years, Ms Hughes is disappointed that the gap between these kids and the rest has not narrowed.

But that failure doesn't mean the programme will be scrapped or altered. Instead, local authorities are asked to redouble their efforts. And anyone who says Sure Start isn't working, by definition, must be an unreconstructed Tory who wants to leave our poorest kids on the scrapheap of life.

In fact, equalising life chances would require such huge control, by the state and its agencies, over the life of every child, that nobody with the slightest instinct for freedom could consider it. It is a cruel myth that it is in the power of the government, brandishing just day care centres and advice services, to overcome the massive economic forces making it relatively tough for poor people to bring up their kids: forces like the trend away from taxation of inherited wealth. In fact, the life chances phrase is used cynically, to justify spending lots of money on favoured groups and extending the power of government over our lives.

The few not the many

If one in twelve children sitting their GCSEs in 2010 raise what would have been a D to a C grade, in just one subject, and everything else stays the same, then the government will have met its supposedly tough new target for secondary education.

Would your kid have got 5 A to Cs anyway? They don't need extra help. They are doing well enough already.

Will your kid get way below 5 A to Cs? Then teachers would be stupid to try and raise their marks a long way; there are more promising students to focus on, just below the threshold.

Making this the measure of success means - forgive me - focusing on the few not the many. It means concentrating the energies of the secondary education system on the 45th - 53rd percentiles of the student population whose test results currently fall just below official acceptability. It creates a ridiculous distortion of educational priorities. It is another top-down target of the sort whose demise keeps being headlined but never actually cease.

This country needs a bonfire of official targets, a relaxation of the prescriptive national curriculum and room for innovation in education. And the Conservatives? They started this process of centralisation in the 1980s and propose, for example, forcing every primary school to teach reading using exactly the same method, so seem unlikely, on that evidence, to govern with a lighter hand.

Tax Credits again...

Why might public bodies need new powers such as open access to our telephone records? Perhaps Ann Abraham, the Parliamentary Ombudsman, has part of the answer.

Her second report into the tax credit system, released yesterday, confirms that it still overpays a third of all claims. To claim the money back from its unsuspecting beneficaries, who have already spent it, it uses a "reasonable belief test". This means that those people who have phoned up to say "I think I've been overpaid", and been told "there's no problem", then later, when the problem has been identified by the Revenue, have their honesty used as evidence to claw back the money.

Year after year, we are told that the system is being reviewed. But the complexities are inescapable and tinkering with one area creates new problems in another (see my earlier posts). The generosity of the state (giving money to people) justifies and necessitates policing their actions (to prevent fraud) so the recipients are richer at the cost of their dignity. Those too proud, confused or angry to put themselves through it pay (as do their families) a financial price for their virtue.

Beyond the unintended material poverty caused by the operation of tax credits, there is an unintended incentive to fraud, dishonesty and divorce. The minimum wage must take more of the slack for poverty reduction and the tax credit system must be scaled back.

A breath of fresh air?

Are you one of those lefties glad that Tony's gone? Perhaps you were relieved by Brown's new relaxed attitude to protests near Parliament. Are you happy all that "orange alert" terror rubbish is over?

Well, the end of the parliamentary session has revealed the PM's true colours. While everyone was obsessing about the non-election, hundreds of public bodies were awarded the right to look through your telephone records and the police have dug up an 1839 law to stop a protest in Westminster.

Good work Henry Porter for not taking your eye off the ball.

Postal strike

Business has taken a hit from the postal strike. Cheques aren't coming through, which creates cashflow difficulties. People keep phoning to check we won't throw them off courses due to delays in payment, which takes valuable time to handle. For a small enterprise, these are not trivial issues.

While there has already been some deregulation in mail handling, it doesn't extend to getting the post the last mile to our door. It's about time it did. I would happily pay more for postage and have guaranteed delivery than rely on the Royal Mail. Why shouldn't I be allowed to do so?

Tax Credits

The tax credit system isn't exciting or easy to understand, so it doesn't get a lot of newspaper coverage. But Frank Field, who spent a year "thinking the unthinkable" in 1997 and being frustrated by Harriet Harman, is a big critic of its effects.

I previously made the case for abolition, using the minimum wage instead to prevent poverty wages. Field believes an extension of the system could be the answer - and given his lifetime of study in this area, deserves to be taken seriously.

But I am sceptical. The problem with setting up a system which is complicated, creates fraud and creates injustices, is that there is a tendency to believe that extending it, giving it new powers and adding complication, will cover all those problems.. In fact you end up creating new injustices, sucking more people into the welfare system, and incurring a greater cost. Such is the story of many large-scale welfare programmes across the world.

Social mobility

There are individual teachers and schools who are ambitious for their students. But too many in the state sector underrate their kids and advise them based on prejudiced views about top universities. This was my personal experience. It continues to be my professional experience working with schools across the country. Well done Libby Purves for this provocative article.