Evidence-based policy-making?

The new schools minister is getting his feet under the table.  The Telegraph reports:

David Laws attacked the “depressingly low expectations” that he said are holding back children in many parts of the country and preventing them from getting ahead in life.

Even in relatively affluent parts of the country, schools and careers advisers are failing to encourage children to “reach for the stars,” instead pushing them to settle for middling exam results and careers with “medium-ranked” local employers, he said.

What justification does Mr Laws offer for this sweeping attack on schools and teachers?

Mr Laws suggested that some teachers in state schools are still discouraging pupils from targeting places at Oxbridge and other top-ranked universities.

“I still find, talking to youngsters across the country, the same depressing low expectations I found when I went to university in the 1980s,” he added.

“The students you met, who were often the first students from their school who had been to Oxbridge, said they were often encouraged by teachers and others to think that Oxford or Cambridge were not the places for them and they should think of somewhere more modest.”

Accordingly, on distinctly anecdotal evidence, based on his experiences in the 1980s, he presumes to lecture those with years of experience in the field.  Apparently, Mr Laws used to be a merchant banker; to me, he sounds like a pub bore.

 

Quote of the day

Nicola indulges herself with some clever semantics.  Pick the bones out of this:

Sturgeon told BBC Radio Scotland: "Given the fact that previously the impression had been created that we had legal advice, that we were not prepared to reveal because somehow it didn't suit our purposes, I think was an unfortunate one."

Is she saying "sorry" or is she trying to avoid saying sorry?

   

Bad karma

Do you believe in luck?  Or, more specifically, bad luck?  Until now, I have been inclined to put the Government's troubles down to incompetence, in particular to a failure to think through implications or to a premature response to newspaper headlines, as well as an arrogant assumption as to their own abilities.  There are numerous examples, from selling off forests to imposing top-down radical change on the NHS (not to mention badgericide).

But yesterday, when the Government arguably might have had one of its better days with the apparent recovery of the economy from recession, Ford had to spoil the party by announcing the closure of two UK plants.  Hard to blame the coalition for such misfortune as, by all accounts, Ford's actions are a reflection of the Europe-wide downturn in demand for motor vehicles.

But, if even the gods have chosen to throw their tuppenceworth in the scales weighing against Cameron and his chums, what future for the administration of the posh boys?

Always look on the bright side

There is little more depressing than to be in a holiday resort when the skies are grey and it is chucking it down.  And it is expected to continue like this through to the weekend.  The bars over here are really not designed for wet weather, with their minimalist interiors and their unfortunate adoption of the smoking prohibition.  Nor am I cheered up by the somewhat pathetic GDP increase, meaning that the UK economy has only managed to recover to where it was a year ago.  Better than a further decrease, I suppose.

Still.  I have been able to keep up with the ironing.  Furthermore, taking a beer from the fridge is not exactly a hardship.  I have a nice wee Spanish chicken roasting happily in the oven and I'm about to put the roast potatoes in.  And I can look forward to a double ration of Euro football this evening.  It can't be too bad.



 

Wayne plays on the left wing

So Wayne Rooney has revealed hidden depths:

They think Mitt’s all over... he is now, says Wayne Rooney.

The Manchester United striker – known more for his love of hair gel than politics – has revealed he is hooked on the US presidential election.

And after watching all three late night TV debates between Republican Mitt Romney and President Barack Obama, the England ace has put his full support behind the Democrat to regain the White House.

I have to wonder, however, what a professional athlete thinks he is doing by staying up in the middle of the night to watch the telly.  Does Sir Alex know?

Do I feel guilty?

Well not really.  But some lord thinks that maybe I should.  The Independent reports:

The former head of the benefits agency provoked uproar today by suggesting the retired should be encouraged to undertake community service – or have their pensions docked.

Lord Bichard said older people had to make “a more positive contribution” to reduce the burden they place on the state.He made the comments during a session of committee investigating the impact on public services of an ageing population.

Lord Bichard, 65, asked fellow members: “Are there ways in which we could use incentives to encourage older people, if not to be in full time work, to be making a contribution?”

He argued that the pension system should incentivise recipients to do more to help look after the “very old”.

Do I place a heavy burden on the state?  Doubtful.  I have a bus pass, but I don't use it more than once a month on average.  My prescriptions?  I don't get on with doctors, so tend to buy my drugs over the internet.  And I don't qualify for an old age pension until 2014.

Over the years, I paid my income tax and my NI contributions.  Indeed I am still paying income tax on my occupational pension.

So Lord Bichard may wish to stick his suggestions where the sun don't shine.

Climbdown alert

It's a quandary, or a dilemma, or maybe just another car crash.  The Guardian reports:

David Cameron appeared to slap down his senior law officer in the House of Commons over voting rights for prisoners as he told MPs that prisoners would never get the vote under his government.

Just two hours earlier, Dominic Grieve, the attorney general, had told a parliamentary committee Britain could be thrown out of the Council of Europe and be subject to large compensation claims if it ignored a European court of human rights (ECHR) ruling that prisoners should be allowed to vote.

But Cameron told prime minister's questions he was prepared, if necessary, to put the issue beyond doubt by staging another Commons vote to reject the court's ruling that British prisoners should be given a limited right to vote.

The prime minister told the Commons: "No one should be in any doubt. Prisoners are not getting the vote under this government." 

We'll see.  Staging another vote in the Commons will no more resolve the issue than the first vote did.

Besides, why die in a ditch over the matter?  It is not as if ECHR is demanding that the franchise is extended to all prisoners.  Would it really damage democracy so badly if some lower category prisoners were allowed to vote?

   

The red mist descends again

With friends like The Spectator, the Conservatives have no need of enemies.

No PMQs would be complete without Cameron losing his rag. Keen to whip his backbenchers into a righteous frenzy, he began to honk out a list of statistics that are moving in the right direction. ‘Crime down!’ he bellowed. ‘Inflation down! Unemployment, down! Waiting lists down!’ But instead of relishing these figures he allowed his cheeks to flush purple with indignation and excitement. ‘The opposition leader can’t talk about the real issues,’ he thundered, ‘because he’s not up to the job.

’‘Good to see the crimson tide is back,’ said Miliband coolly.

Not content with booting the Tories, the magazine has time for a glancing blow in the direction of Fat Eck:

The session ended on a harmonious as note as the three parties came together to gloat over the hallucinations of Alec [sic] Salmond. The SNP leader has been caught talking to imaginary lawyers about Scotland’s future within the EU. Like all paranoiacs, he believes he was talking to real human beings and not to figments of his fevered brain.

 

An everyday story of country folk

You might have assumed that, if you were planning a cull of badgers that incorporated a payment of a certain amount for each badger killed, it would be important to establish clearly from the outset how many badgers there were, especially where the overall number of badgers to be killed had to reach a target percentage.  Not this government.  The Guardian reports:

As the final preparations for the cull were made, a census showed there could be twice as many badgers as were originally thought. Farmers complained this would increase the cost of the cull and they could not afford to foot the bill if required to kill at least 70% – the proportion that scientists say must be achieved for the cull to succeed because escaping badgers would spread TB more widely and increase, not decrease, cattle infections.

So the government will announce today that Mr Brock is to be spared, at least for a while.  So good news if you are a badger, but bad news for our incompetent government.  How many u-turns is that?


     

Music of the week

Nostalgia is not quite what it used to be:

Auntie messes up

Some thoughts about the Savile affair:

1.  The BBC appears to have slipped up in its editorial judgements, particularly as regards the Newsnight programme.  But such things happen in all media organisations.  Indeed, if Savile’s proclivities were widely known, as seems to have been the case, one wonders why it was left to the BBC and ITV to pursue the matter.  What were all those bold, investigative journalists on the newspapers doing?

2.  The BBC is now going through an agonising process of publicly questioning itself.  Doubtless, this will blacken its reputation.  But it is essentially a healthy process; reporters, producers and management will get to argue their corners, and there is every indication that the truths will come out.  Compare and contrast a certain other media organisation which moved heaven and earth to conceal its misdoings and which, to this day, is seeking to assign responsibility to so-called “rogue” individuals.

3.  I came across Savile on several occasion when I used to run marathons and half marathons.  Savile used to start at the front of the race and, although I never even attained club runner status, I would catch up and pass him after a couple of miles.  He was unmistakable, given his attire and the fact that he would be surrounded by heavies.  I would never see him again during the race.  But, when I reached the finish, I would learn that he had completed the race some half an hour earlier.  Did I complain?  It never occurred to me;  I assumed he was running for charity and, if he cheated a little, it was no skin off my nose.

4.  With the benefit of hindsight, that wonderful facility, we can all throw stones at those who turned a blind eyes to crimes and misdemeanors.  How much easier to let sleeping dogs lie.  There can be no excuses, however, and we must all share our portion of guilt over failing to expose this nasty little man.   

Homage - of a sort

Catalonia - "like Scotland but with a better football team"  (here)

No argument from me, though the weather is also a bit better.


 

It's all so predictable

What is the next fiasco to befall our coalition government?  Well, you can take your pick:

1.  There's the latest bright idea from Cameron on crime:  "tough but intelligent" we are told.  "Weak and dumb" seems more appropriate, as the Great Leader would not appear to have thought through the financial implications.

2.  The child benefit changes are always worth a shot, as HMRC do not appear to have got to grips with how to implement the changes to the system.  And as this is an Osborne initiative, it is bound to end up in a mess.

3.  Meanwhile the proposed universal credit sinks deeper and deeper into the mire.  Leave aside the monthly   payments, the ill-fated computer system and the requirement for HMRC - DWP live updating.  Now it appears that the new system will penalise the disabled.  Oh dear ...

4.  Can anyone explain what the Prime Minister's policy is towards the EU?  Does he want the UK to leave?  If not, why does he keep half-promising a referendum?  And is Angie about to kick him in the nuts?

All this pre-supposes that Ministers will manage to keep their noses clean in the interim.  No more ranting at policemen, no revelations of illicit relations with flame-haired newspaper editors, no more fare-dodging on trains.

"Dysfunctional" is the word I'm looking for.


 

Catherine Tekakwitha, who are you?

It is not like me to know the names of Catholic saints, but the references to Catherine Tekakwitha rang a faint bell.

The wonders of Google reminded me of the link to Leonard Cohen and his second novel Beautiful Losers, a book that has sat neglected on my bookshelf for at least 40 years.  I vaguely remember reading it and thinking it quite raunchy for its day.  You can still buy it here.


 

Retribution

Seems a bit harsh.  The guy who messed up the Boat Race by jumping in the Thames gets a six month prison sentence.  Would community service not have sufficed?

I might have suggested that the judge was an Oxbridge man, but I understand that he was a she.

   

Brief encounter

And as the curtain goes down on one minor scandal, yet another erupts.  This time, it concerns Slasher's preference to sit in a first class seat on the train while paying a second class fare.

Yes, the Tories will go to extraordinary lengths to remind us that they are a bunch of posh boys who will do anything to ensure that they do not have to sit next to the peasants.


   

On his bike

So cheerio to Thrasher.  He might have thought that he could have hung on but - alas - politicians can no longer get away with berating the lower orders.

A victory for us plebs?  Well hardly:  Thrasher has been replaced by yet another Old Etonian and a baronet to boot ...

And so ends Gate-gate, with a lament for a man who apparently does not know what he said.


 

Muddled thinking?

The Attorney General has vetoed the publication of Prince Charles' "black spider memos".  The Independent reports:

The letters, thirty of them, written between September 1st 2004 and April 1st 2005 represent, according to Mr Grieve, the Prince’s “most deeply held personal views and beliefs” and “are in many cases particularly frank.” Consequently, their publication could “damage … the Prince of Wales’ political neutrality” and “seriously undermine the Prince’s ability to fulfil his duties when he becomes King.”

“The Sovereign cannot be seen to favour one political party above another, or to engage in political controversy,” Mr Grieve said, in a ten page document explaining his decision. “Any such perception would be seriously damaging to his role as future Monarch, because if he forfeits his position of political neutrality as heir to the throne, he cannot easily recover it when he is King.

Would the damage to the position of Prince Charles arise from the publication of the memos?  Or does it arise from the fact that he wrote them in the first place?  Even if we do not know the actual contents, the fact that the senior law officer of the government thinks they might "damage" the Prince's neutrality and "undermine" his ability to reign as king suggests to me that the ball is on the slates.

Can no-one save us from this meddlesome prince?  Or at least tell him to keep his political views to himself?

We're not alone

I see that the proposed referendum in Scotland has not gone unnoticed elsewhere in Europe.  The Guardian reports:

Catalonia in north-east Spain will issue a challenge to Brussels when its voters are asked to declare whether they want an independent state within the EU.

Regional leader Artur Mas said on Monday he planned to ask the question, including the reference to the EU, during a four-year term that starts after regional elections on 25 November – even though Spain's prime minister,Mariano Rajoy, has threatened to block a referendum.

A yes vote in the referendum would not just create a constitutional crisis for Spain, which has no mechanism for allowing the independence of one of its regions, but would also issue a clear challenge to the EU, which has no system for the breakup of a member state. A new entity could have future membership blocked by just one member country.

The Catalan referendum would take place around the time of a similar vote in Scotland in 2014 and could be followed by an independence vote in the Basque country, where nationalists and separatists are expected to win elections this weekend. Basque nationalists have long pursued the dream of joining the EU as a separate state on an equal footing with Spain.

"Do you want Catalonia to become a new state within the European Union?" is Mas's preferred wording for the referendum.

He told the newspaper La Vanguardia that a definitive question would be agreed by the Catalan parliament, where he can expect to renew his majority on 25 November. He said he would like to follow the Scottish example and negotiate a referendum with central government, but Rajoy's conservative People's party (PP) government has vowed to use Spain's constitutional court to declare any referendum illegal.

Life may be about to become complicated for our European overlords in Brussels.  It is not just Scotland in the frame; Catalunya and the Basque country might be heading in a similar direction.  And it is not beyond the bounds of possibility that Belgium might be inspired to take a final step towards disintegration.  Nor are certain parts of Italy immune to centrifugal forces.  In these circumstances, the EU may have to move away from its present policy of sticking its head in the sand and pretending that nothing will ever change.

The known unknowns

In two years time, we shall have the opportunity to vote for Scottish independence.  Will it be an informed choice?  I doubt it.

Essentially, we shall be deciding whether the SNP should be allowed to begin the process of negotiations leading to independence.  Both sides will tell us their version of what is likely to happen if we choose to go down the road of independence but there are likely to be huge differences in the scenarios that they put before us.

Would an independent Scotland be an automatic member of the EU or would we have to submit a formal application?  Either way, there would have to be Treaty changes, so that the outcome would be dependent upon the agreement of all the Member States.  Both sides of the independence debate will produce legal and political arguments for and against but the issues will not be resolved before the referendum.

What currency would we use?  Again, nationalists will say one thing while unionists will say another.  There might be some form of tentative agreement between the sides on the way forward but don’t bet on it.

How much of the UK’s national debt would Scotland inherit?  How much of the oil?  How much of the defence establishment?  Would Scotland be able to get rid of trident submarines?  You may ask politicians on both sides but don’t expect a clear-cut answer.

If Scotland were to remain part of the UK, would we be offered more devolution?  If so, how much more and how soon?  Would it be a UK led by a Tory or a Labour government?  Would it be a UK playing a full part in the EU or standing on the sidelines?

So, should we or should we not vote for independence?  How can we tell?