A very interesting couple of blog posts in the New York Times here and the follow up here.
On first impressions this seems like a very sensible plan. It still taxes carbon but only if we start recording warming point forwards. If the sceptics are right and man’s influence is irrelevant then we don’t pay any tax. However if warming is recorded an (what seems to be) exponential tax rate kicks in. There are fair criticisms of the scheme but most are answered pretty well by Dr McKitrick.
The defeat of X-Factor winner Joe McElderry in the race for the Christmas number 1 was amusing in its own right, but could it be the first sign that people are ready for a more liberal Government?
The estblished all-conquering two nights of prime time telly a week machine created by Cowell for the specific purpose of selling 500,000 records at Christmas was defeated by a couple on Facebook in their bedroom urging people to buy what they believed in, not what they were told to. If we apply the same logic to politics then is it so unreasonable to expect that people faced with increased taxes, failing public services, mountainous National debt, rising unemployment, dying soldiers and a resurgence of spin will vote not for the free spending and legislation happy political parties, but rather for individuals who have become frustrated with the size and ineptitude of the Governmant and want to see its role cut? In this scenario all the main political parties would get bloody noses as the electorate make it clear that the centre (Cameron, Brown, Clegg, Salmond) cannot act in an oligarchic and must instead respect the underlying priciple of a representative democracy that local MPs will vote in the best interests of their constituents and not just how they are told.
The main political parties have consistently peddled the idea that it is the Government’s role to solve any problems in the economy, but maybe the defeat of another seemingly invincible foe (Cowell – not Joe) can convince the public that any solution lies with them and that any political party advertising a cure-all driven by the state in the next few months is pushing nothing better or more helpfull than a Hannah Montana cover.
If my dream scenario of local MPs having to take a stand against their party does not materialise in the run-up to the election then lets hope that the Rage campaign has at least shown Brown et al that they must first ask the people of the UK what it is they want, rather than telling us.
Matthew d’Ancona writing in GQ focuses on one of David Cameron’s big ideas – the post-bureaucratic age (I cannot find a link to d’Ancona’s article but Cameron writes about it here).
The Cameroons are a much more ideological bunch than previous generations of Tories and are much more likely to read outside the traditional conservative texts and, when they come across an attractive idea, jump upon it. In recent years, as well as PBA (as, I believe, policy wonks are supposed to call it) the Tories have jumped on such ideas as liberal paternalism* and flat taxes. However, unlike these other ideological dalliances Cameron’s desire to see a Post-Bureaucratic Age is turning into a fairly lengthy affair – indeed,Steve Richards noticed this in 2007.
If we are to assume that this isn’t a gimmick (and I think that we should do so) this is (a) something that those who describe themselves as either big L or small L liberal is should welcome (b) potentially a sea-change idea in British political life.
The Cameroons want to attack Whitehall aggressively and, as a result of this, decentralise power. Labour have traditionally talked about the redistribution of wealth whereas the Conservatives are proposing a redistribution of power – they argue that the heavily centralised state of the 20th century is not necessarily appropriate for the 21st. This should be music to liberal ears and, indeed, some will wonder if Cameron hasn’t stolen their hymnbook. Michael Gove sums it up characteristically well here:
‘In every area of life the future rests not with the exercise of massive power from one central point but the enabling of growth through constant innovation and adaption. We can no longer control society as a diplodocus controlled its tail, from one tiny brain that is immeasurably distant from the action’
Many academics now talk about ‘Monitory Democracies’. A Monitory Democracy is how some other democracies around the world organise themselves. Power-monitoring and power-controlling devices (or ‘checks and balances’ to use old fashioned terminology) spread both across and through the entire political system.
This hasn’t happened in Britain. Look at Australia and see their integrity commissions which can ruthlessly expose corrupt politicos, civil servants and, even, the police. Canada has the Federal Accountability Act. I’m not sure if Cameron intends to go down these particular routes but ripping the power from central bureaucracy seems to be the heart of this philosophy.
So what does that mean?
This will mean more City Mayors with more powers, local control over schools, housing, hospitals and policing. The more radical plans would see the end of nationalised state benefits to localised welfare-to-work schemes. This will not get the pubs and bars of Liverpool and Gateshead chattering but it is a fundamental and mammoth shift from the status quo. If Cameron pulls it off, quite simply, Britain will be changed beyond recognition.
What are the problems? Firstly, ripping the power from the mandarins will be problematic. Secondly, as d’Ancona points out, will people buy it? Whilst we all moan about centralised power, ”too many bureaucrats and too much red tape” and many people instinctively like the idea of local provision and power in local hands, there is the nagging doubt that this is false bleating. When actually offered the chance to run a local school (or play a part in running it) many will say ‘too busy’, ‘don’t know how’, ’someone else can’ and so forth. As a society we are very used to having many things free at the point of use with no concomitant effort on our part – will we rise to such a challenge?
If PBA needs the people of Britain to stand up and be counted, to start taking an active part in the provision of the services that matter to their lives and to overhaul an out-dated system, it will also need a change in politics. If a local school isn’t performing, the Education Minister will need to keep his or her sticky beak out even if that means some negative headlines. If the public are to be encouraged to run schools and are trusted to do so they must be allowed to make some errors.
This, I believe, may be the big battleground in the coming years and one that will come to dominate political discourse in the UK. So, are we with the bureaucrats or with the post-bureaucrats?
Big L liberals may be annoyed that the Tories have nicked their localism ideas. The question that always occurs to me here is: If it is a good idea, why does it matter?
RCM
* And a critique of liberal paternalism here.
Longer posts from all of us will follow this week, I’m sure, but in the meantime a link to this piece from Bill Jamieson (also covered by Massie). This is how the national debt must be communicated:
Next year, we will be paying £44.4bn in debt interest alone – never mind debt falling due for repayment.
That debt interest in 2010-11 will absorb the entire proceeds from capital gains tax, inheritance tax, stamp duty, tobacco duties, wine and spirits duties, beer and cider duties, betting and gaming duties, air passenger duty, the climate change levy, the aggregates levy and Customs and Excise levies – and still leave £1bn to find.
That is extremely frightening.
RCM
Since 2002 Teach First, an independent charity, has brought many people who had never considered teaching before into schools across the England (the scheme, to the best of my knowledge, has not extended North of the border). Generally, these people were placed directly into challenging secondary schools.
The overarching mission behind TeachFirst is to address the various disadvantages that some schools and pupils have by bringing exceptional graduates into their schools. These graduates, usually from the Russell Group universities, are trained to become teachers very quickly. These young graduates are intended to lead and inspire their pupils and, furthermore, help break down social barriers. Now, we can all pick holes in this but, by and large, this is a pretty good idea.
Teach First teachers have some initial teacher training combined with volunteer coaching. This gives graduates the chance to teach for two years before going into a profession or into business (or, indeed, stay in teaching). The whole point of Teach First is to raise educational standards and to instil, in a generation of graduates, a motivation to understand, and desire to end, educational disadvantage. A second benefit is that many of these graduates would not normally consider a career in teaching and Teach First networking power can help them into business after a two-year stint.
Everyone benefits in TeachFirst – the teachers, the schools and the pupils.
I think this system can be twisted and improved. In the same way that talented young people can inspire school pupils, I am convinced there is some way that experience can do the same thing: Teach Last.
At present, it is very difficult for someone with a lifetime of experience in a given subject to teach that subject. Indeed, as the General Teaching Council makes it harder and harder for people who do not have a teaching qualification to teach in Scottish schools. I can understand their reasoning for doing this but believe that a slightly more flexible policy would be beneficial.
Each year, thousands of people across the UK and across Scotland retire in their 50s and early 60s. Many of these people have been massively successful within their own careers. I think that society should seek to utilise their experience where it is most needed – in our schools.
I also believe that many (although not all, obviously) of these people would like to put something back into society after a career. TeachLast gives them the opportunity to do so. Like Teach First, everyone benefits.
The idea behind TeachLast is very simple. Upon retirement, those retiring in certain fields should be given the option to teach in challenging secondary schools for one to two years.
Why is this good?
It connects subjects to the real world and all too often maths and science are taught in the abstract. Quite simply, not enough young people are studying maths and science. We aren’t producing enough engineers, scientists or mathematicians. Indeed, there are shortages in science and mathematics teachers largely because the graduate salaries graduates of these subjects can command will mean teaching is well off their radar. This has a huge detrimental effect on our society over the long-run. Gordon Brown, in a speech at Oxford University:
We all understand that science is fundamental to the future of our society and that disciplines where an understanding of science is important (engineering, energy) are equally important. At present, there are many science teachers teaching a subject with no degree in that subject or even if they do no real world knowledge of application.
I do not agree with Brown on many issues but the idea that people are teaching science with no real world knowledge of it is bad, the idea that people are teaching science with no degree in a science-subject is totally bonkers.
I think retiring engineers, pharmacists, chemists or physicists could show pupils in challenging areas that the sciences can lead to real-world careers and real-world success in fields like energy, engineering, pharmaceuticals and myriad others. In business studies, people who have run businesses would be of huge use. In maths, those who have used maths in their daily business – as economists, for example, again would be massively useful.
These people would (a) bring a level of expertise that is lacking (b) link academic subjects to the real world (c) give retirees the opportunity to put something back into society.
Now, of course, there are problems with this scheme:
a) Long time away from classroom/classroom has changed – yes, but I think this can be gotten around with Fast Track training or by watering down the scheme and having them in the class with other teachers.
b) Classroom teaching isn’t easy and people need training – see above.
c) Money is an issue. Will this calibre of people want to earn £23,000 per annum? Sure, some wouldn’t want to do this. Some would. If it was linked to a pension boost maybe more would.
d) Just because…. Just because some people are great at their jobs doesn’t mean they’ll be great teachers. I’m not saying just because someone has excellent subject knowledge they will be an excellent teacher… however, many will be and this can be assessed.
There are many strong teachers in the private sector with no formal Teacher Training – this doesn’t undermine teachers and neither should it. Obviously, the vast majority of teachers would still be those who have undertaken an undergraduate degree and then a PGCE or PGDE. That’s good.
I can’t see Teach Last doing any harm and can see it doing some good. So why not do it?
Alex Salmond’s plea for Alistair Darling to accelerate capital spending from 2011-12 into 2010-11 in tomorrow’s pre-budget report and to provide extra funds in order to complete a new Forth road bridge by 2016 represents Keynesianism at its very worst.
Scotland’s unemployment rate stood at 7.2% between July and September of this year and a staggering 32% (claimant count measure) of those had been unemployed for more than the critical length of 6 months. The worst areas were North Ayrshire, Glasgow City and West Dunbartonshire. The reason for this is simple: these areas were based around industries which have now been rendered uncompetitive by the access firms in developing and newly industrialised countries have to cheap labour and raw materials. Furthermore, it is unrealistic to expect these areas to improve in the future as the national minimum wage and lack of skilled labour deters potential investors.
The classic policy to deal with long-term structural unemployment is to increase spending in education and thus develop a more skilled and flexible labour force that allows entrepreneurs to capitalise on areas of potential comparative advantage within the economy, but the Scottish Government’s attempts to follow this path are undermined by the proposal of accelerated spending now and subsequent fiscal cuts over the next 20 years. Salmond and Swinney plan to spend the extra money on building affordable housing to help the long-term unemployed, but this reduces labour market flexibility by providing a disincentive to relocate and, given that Britain’s strengths are in financial services and that potential investors in this field are not interested in areas of economic depravation, compromises any educational schemes designed to increase the occupational mobility of Scotland’s workforce.
This is also the worst possible time for any Government to be embarking on a major spending plan, as the possibility of misallocating resources is so great. The absence of private sector demand means that the Government will be choosing the areas for investment, and not consumers and producers. The wrong choice, as shown above, leads to public debt without the increase in productive potential necessary to justify it, and the consequences of increased public debt are currently much more severe than usual. Britain is in grave danger of losing its triple AAA debt rating, and if that happens then interest rates will have to rise in order to attract the funds from abroad necessary to service our monumental current account deficit. Higher interest rates will deter private investment within the economy and thus lead to economic stagnation. The Scottish Government’s fiscal response would be handcuffed by the deal made over the Forth road bridge ensuring a reduced budget for 20 years.
The solution to the nightmare outlined above is to allow a private firm to construct a bridge and then let them charge a toll and keep the profits. If no firm deems this to be profitable then the project should not go ahead and the Government should continue to dry out the cables on the old bridge and thus prolong its life. The Scottish Government should also cut back its spending on affordable housing and instead promote more flexibility in the labour force which would encourage investment, reduce unemployment and lead to a long term increase in residential construction stimulated not by the Government, but rather by demand for houses.
There aren’t too many commentators asking the question that the BBC Scotland’s political editor Brian Taylor posed in his recent Blether with Brian blog, is the SNP policy of reducing class sizes in primary schools to 18 or fewer a sensible one?
This is a pertinent question to ask as it does not immediately follow that reduced class sizes, at any level be it primary, secondary or tertiary will result in the level of raised attainment often discussed by the media and our national politicians.
As it happens evidence from the USA would suggest that as pupils progress from early to middle to senior education levels that the impact of reduced class sizes diminishes. There is a need for more study into this effect but it would certainly call into question the merits in spending large amounts of money for small gains in academic achievement.
There has to be a full debate in Scotland on this issue, including a detailed look at the many factors which would impact upon any decision to reduce class sizes. Would there be extra funding to invest in the training necessary to educate teachers on how best to utilise the changes and work effectively with the smaller groups of pupils? Do we have the classrooms to support smaller class sizes within the current school estate provision? (I would think not, given the number of schools in need of replacement across Scotland). Also should such a policy really only be targeted to areas of acute social deprivation where benefits could and should be delivered?
Instead of these questions being discussed we have a populist argument that class sizes should be lowered or standards won’t improve. In fact even with a lowering of class sizes in Primary schools standards may still not improve, unless we start to look deeper into the issue.
At secondary level the Scottish Executive has already ensured a reduction in class sizes in S1 and S2 for Maths and English (bringing them in line with practical subjects such a Science and Technical) but crucially there has been an agreement, despite Union objections, that there would be an average class size of 20 and not a maximum. Pupils of higher ability can work in groups larger than 20 but for some, of lower ability, it is important to bring the class size down considerably, even as low as 10 or 12. It is this kind of flexibility which must be built in to any system for lowering class sizes in Scottish schools.
Evidence supports the idea that individual teachers, school managers and Head Teachers should be given the freedom to make these decisions within a framework of clear guidelines and adequate investment in the key resource required, namely teachers.
In a recent talk given at Cambridge University, Dylan William (University of London) outlined the arguments for investing in teacher education against reducing class sizes on the grounds not only of cost but also effectiveness.
He points out that reducing class sizes is expensive and limited in its impact. Investing in teacher training however, through initiatives such as Assessment is for Learning and Formative assessment techniques, can cost much less and deliver better results in raised attainment and pupil engagement. Better teachers create the conditions for learning to occur much more effectively than smaller classes ever can.
Why then in Glasgow and across other local authorities has there been a reduction in investment in education at classroom level? There has been a tendency to lower recruitment of teachers in some authorities resulting in a national scandal over teacher numbers and the resignation of the Education Minister. Local authorities clearly have a great deal of responsibility here as they have allowed the situation to develop at least as much as the Scottish Government have.
Should we take schools out of their control? The answer has to be no. If we wish to preserve the all important element of accountability then we must retain the democratic link which local government affords. A greater deal of devolution to individual schools, though not under a trust school model as in England, would be a positive move, allowing local decisions to be made for the benefit of local schools.
Returning to the original question - yes we should consider lowering class sizes but only on the basis of strong research and evidence supporting it and with the necessarily concomitant extra investment in teachers to make it work.
Welcome to our new blog where we hope to discuss Scottish politics through a liberal prism.
There is a dearth of informed political debate and new ideas in Scottish politics. The growth of Scottish focussed blogs and a range of think tanks, represents the evolution of devolution – from its early unsure days to a new and growing confidence. As the Scottish people and politicians begin to understand the opportunities and limits of our devolved parliament, it is of vital importance that principled ideology starts to play a part. One such ideology that is yet to be clearly articulated is Liberalism.
Liberalism has long held a place in Scotland’s history and politics. David Hume and Adam Smith were the leading liberal thinkers of their day in the 18th century. In the 19th century the Free Church was established and the Crofters’ Holdings Act officially recognised crofters and established the right of tenure, protecting the crofters way of life. In the 20th century the liberal principle of subsidiarity was demonstrated through the re-establishment of Scotland’s parliament.
As Scotland plots its route in the 21st century - the philosophically robust theory of liberalism needs to be clearly defined and articulated in today’s terms.
We hope to play a small part in that process.
© 2010 Liberal Scotland · Proudly powered by WordPress & Green Park 2 by Cordobo.
Valid XHTML 1.0 Transitional | Valid CSS 3
