The Best Laid Cuts of Mice and Men: The Met Police Goes Middle-Class

Good morning all.

Regular readers (yes, both of you… hi Katie and Donna) might remember that I blogged here about the threat posed to social mobility and democratic legitimacy by the practice of employing unpaid interns as a first step on a political career path. This is a bad thing, I argued, because only the members of the middle and upper classes who have parents wealthy enough to support them can afford to live in London whilst doing so. Well now, it appears that the Metropolitan Police have decided to follow suit.

The Met Police are considering a budget cut of monumental stupidity- to cut the payment during training for new officers. Now, this may save £50m, at a time when money is definitely tight. But, forget about paying political interns, if this were to be cut, then the consequences for law and order and even counter-terrorism could be severe.

The British model of policing, when it works well, is rightly seen throughout the world as one to be emulated, since to a large degree it relies on the consent of the governed. I have been to countries- such as Syria and Egypt- which do literally have a policeman on every street corner, but in these countries, soldiers seem and behave, at times, more like an occupying power than an agency of law. While, of course, the UK police are not always blameless- ask Ian Tomlinson or the Climate Camp Protesters– in their day-to-day work, the vast majority of officers are honest in their public dealings, and crucially are supported by the vast majority of the great British public.

But what if most or all of the police officers in, say, a housing estate, came from middle-class families with no experience of living in that part of town? What, indeed, would happen, if officers patrolling a poor Pakistani Muslim area were largely white, and had very few non-specialist officers who had grown up in the area? You can see where this is heading. It might be unfair and illogical to do so, but you can see how this could give rise to an idea of ‘us and them’- both from the police, and the policed. All you have to do is look at inner-city LA to guess what kind of attitude towards law enforcement that could foster.

So please, in the drive for cuts, don’t cut payment for police recruits. Nothing less than the basis of the British model of policing is potentially at stake.


Neo-Conservatism: the Michael Myers of Political Ideology

You just can’t them down, can you? Just when you thought the advocates of war with Iraq had lost the intellectual battle, it turns out that the UK’s Education, Culture and Universities secretaries are signatories to an organisation which denied the legitimacy of the UN, and called for the forcible imposition of democracy on foreign countries.

Of all of the varities of democratic political thought to emerge over the last 50 years, perhaps none has been as controversial as neo-Conservatism.  Seen by some as a world-wide conspiracy to enslave the world in an American empire, and by others as the only honest manifestation of the liberal commitment to democracy, over the last ten years in particular, the neo-Conservatives have been the focus of raging argument. But in general, it would appear that, in the aftermath of the disastrous attempt to bring democracy to Iraq via tank tracks, neo-Conservatism is in retreat.

If you were to think that, you’d be wrong. Just take a look at the Henry Jackson Society.

The academic surroundings of Peterhouse, Cambridge (as in UK Cambridge) might seem like an unlikely HQ for the latest manifestation of the neo-Conservative project. But what has occurred here is nothing less than the transmigration of large sections of the staff of that most infamous of neo-Conservative think-tanks, the Project for the New American Century.

Now, just to make it clear, I do not think that the PNAC was part of some grand conspiracy to control the US government and the world, and set up an American empire (although that term is not mine, but that of one of the HJS’ patrons) . Essentially, the principles behind neo-Conservatism, in my opinion, are naive, callous of human life, and are largely detached from the realities of the real world- but I do at least consider most of their proponents honest. Neo-Conservatism, at its heart, considers that democracy is the best form of government, as it allows individual freedom to a far greater extent than any other. This is a statement most liberals would agree with.

Where Neo-Conservatives are different, however, is their insistence that a free-market democracy is the best form of government, right now, for all places, and without regard to pre-existing conditions. Moreover, it is not only the right, but the duty, of democratic nations, notably the USA, to bring democracy, by force if necessary, to others.

It is this combustible mix of willingness to use military force, and ideological rigidity, which has led to the catastrophe of Iraq. Essentially, the best description I can come up with for neo-Conservatives, is ‘democratic extremists’- those who shape the facts of the world around this ideology, rather than the other way round.

So what of the Henry Jackson Society? Well, suffice to say that its list of international patrons is a rogue’s gallery of who’s who in neo-Conservatism. Prominent members include:

Richard Perle: The grandaddy of the neo-Conservatives. One of the chief members of the PNAC, Perle’s career has embraced calling for pre-emptive war with Iraq, working to undermine nuclear arms reduction talks with the Soviet Union, calling for the abandonment of all Israel-Palestine peace processes, and the erection of a domestic surveillance state in the US in order to “win the war on terror”, as he puts it.

William Kristol: Editor of the Weekly Standard, the most neo-Conservative of all major US newspapers, and co-founder of the PNAC. Another longstanding member of the hard core of neo-Conservatives, Kristol co-signed with Perle a 1998 letter calling for regime change in Iraq, and calls for pre-emptive military action against Iran.

Clifford May: A former senior member of the Committee on the Present Danger, a lobby organisation set up to talk up the threat from the USSR, May has stated his support for waterboarding and other such forms of ‘enhanced interrogation’, called Hilary Clinton a “vaginal-American”, and joked that Guantanomo Bay prisoners should be released and then killed by a missile strike.

General Jack Sheehan: a US marine corps general who recently was forced to resign after claiming that the Dutch army was unable to prevent the Srebenica massacre because their soldiers were too gay.

Max Boot: a neo-Con academic who has called for an “American Empire” as a response to 9/11.

Michael Chertoff: The former US Secretary of Homeland Security, responsible for the building of a 700-mile fortified border wall to stop Mexican immigration into the US.

Robert Kagan: The other co-founder of the PNAC, and co-signatory of the letter to Bill Clinton calling for the overthrow of Saddam Hussein.

Bruce Jackson: Former Chairman of the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq, a lobby group linked to the PNAC which called for Saddam Hussein’s overthrow.

Joshua Muravchik: a self-described neo-Conservative who once wrote a newspaper article simply entitled “Bomb Iran”.

Natan Sharansky: a former Israeli cabinet minister who resigned in protest at the withdrawal of settlements from the Gaza Strip.

R. James Woolsey: a former head of the CIA, who has claimed that not only was Iraq responsible for 9/11, but also for the 1995 Oklahoma bombing and the 1993 World Trade Centre bombing.

So a pleasant bunch, then.

But surely all this is in the past, right? Er, no. For a start, a number of these statements listed above- like Sheehan’s comments on Srebenica and Max Boot’s call for an American empire have been made in the past year. Moreover, the Henry Jackson Society’s statement of principles says that, “any international or regional organisation which admits undemocratic states lack the legitimacy to which they would be entitled if all their members were democracies.” In other words, the UN, which does admit undemocratic states, does not have the legitimacy of organisations such as the EU, for example. This is at least an improvement on what the statement of principles used to say. Until 2009, the HJS’ signatories called for the use of the “sticks of the military domain” to bring democracy to foreign countries, and called the UN “fundamentally flawed”.

Some of the recent articles on the HJS’ website are pretty scary, too. There’s this one, for example, which claims that the recent Gaza flotilla, on which peace activists were shot in the head by Israeli commandos, was a “provocation” aimed at “caus[ing] an international incident”.

But you know what’s really scary? Some of the people who are the signatories to the statement of principles. There’s David Willetts, the universities secretary. And Ed Vaizey, the culture secretary. And Michael Gove, the education secretary. Now, I’m not sure whether these guys signed when the society still officially called for the use of “sticks of the military domain”. But is this really the kind of organisation members of the UK government should be involved in? With British troops still dying in foreign wars, isn’t it time we put this disastrous ideology to bed, once and for all?

Come on England!

Here’s a confession: I feel really quite sorry for people who don’t like football. For the next month, it’s inescapable. We have now entered the four-yearly month-long period when football emerges out of its pop culture bubble, and becomes the dominant theme of media and social life. But for those of us, like your dear author here, who like nothing better than listening to a South Korea v Greece group game as they type, the next month is as close as it gets to heaven on earth.

This evening, of course, is the biggest day of all- England’s first game against the USA. But thinking about this has led me on to a slightly different tack- the curious relationship between being a Liberal Democrat, and being a British nationalist. The two may seem like an unlikely combination, but the fact is, I consider myself to be both. And furthermore, I personally think that by not emphasising this, I think we are scoring an own goal as a party.

Considering the reaction of the majority of people you meet who fly the Union Jack over the house to you when you say you belong to ‘that bunch of  multiculturalist traitors’, this may seem like an odd combination of political beliefs. But the thing is, I see no incompatibility between loving my country, and accepting the multitude of cultures which now comprise it. After all, we have had a multicultural country- with English, Welsh and Scottish cultures (and Manx and Cornish and Irish) ever since the 1707 Act of Union. What difference does it make if that cultural mix now includes Pakistani or Polish or Nigerian? Britain is a country whose culture has been changed fundamentally by waves of immigration in the past, from the Angles, Saxons and Jutes, to the Huguenots in the 17th century and East European Jews in the 19th. What always gets me about the ‘nationalist’ demand for cultural uniformity, is the fact that the people making those demands don’t speak ancient Brythonic, the language similar to Welsh spoken before the Roman occupation. Even the words in which Nick Griffin speaks and the Daily Express writes are largely imports brought in by immigrants.

So essentially, in my opinion, the majority of people who call themselves ‘nationalists’ or ‘patriots’ are nothing of the sort. They do not love Britain as it exists today; they simply love a fraction, or a mirage, a dream of what it never was. If people truly love their country, they would love it all- green fields, grey cities and all. Certainly, don’t agree with everything that happens there; but love it all the more for that.

This may seem a controversial point of view- I accept this. But the fact is that liberals, and the Liberal Democrat party, have effectively conceded the argument over British national identity. Part of this is down to the internationalist principles of some of our members; these are their beliefs, and if they are strongly-held, that’s fair enough. But there also, with many people, a genuine embarrasment about expressions of nationalism- since these are instantly associated with Eurosceptic Toryism, or worse. This is perfectly understandable; but it is also very damaging. We have effectively allowed people like Bill Cash, Nigel Farage and Nick Griffin appropriate the symbols and rhetoric of our country!

And I personally think that this is not only damaging culturally, but damaging in a more tactical, political sense. People who identify themselves as patriotic are far more likely to vote Conservative by default, even if they disagree with large amounts of what the Conservative party say or do. One of the great surprises to me in political life is the phenomenon of the working-class Tory. The party he or she supports, after all, is one which fought the election campaign on a pledge of cutting inheritence tax for millionaires, and often has a disturbingly fetishistic attachment to money. But the reason why hundreds of thousands or millions of people vote Tory, against their economic interests, is because the Conservative MP or candidate will be unafraid of standing in front of a flag on their election posters. I’m not saying that the Liberal Democrats should instantly become a populist, anti-EU party- but I am saying that we are missing a trick here.

So, in short, be proud of all you are- be liberal, be tolerant, but also shout “Come on England!” this evening all the louder.

Published in: on June 12, 2010 at 12:30 pm  Leave a Comment  
Tags: , , , , , ,

David Willetts: Two Brains and No Clue

I must admit that one of my vices is to fulminate at newspaper articles that annoy me. I am generally a placid person, but I can only describe my reaction to certain articles as ‘the red mist’. The best thing I can compare it to are the scenes in Kill Bill where Uma Thurman sees an enemy of hers, and the screen flashes red with alarm-like music playing in the background.

This was my initial reaction yesterday to an article in the Guardian, reporting an interview with David Willetts, our new Education Secretary, and a man best known for his legendary nickname, ‘Two Brains’. Essentially, Willetts has called the system of student loans unsustainable, and dropped some pretty unsubtle hints that he would like to see the current loan system scrapped- and, by implication, replaced by a system where students have to take out support loans at commercial rates, and start paying them off immediately, rather than the current system, where they get a (slightly) lower rate, and only start to pay off loans after they start to earn £15,000 a year. I don’t need to tell you that the net result of this would be to drive out poorer students from the university system.

But on re-reading the article- with a little less anger in my veins- my more reasoned response was, “Eh?” Willetts says, “The so-called debt [students] have is more like an obligation to pay higher income tax.” I must admit, my student loan debt feels awfully like a debt to me. Sure, it doesn’t take cash out of my paycheck, but that’s for the very simple reason that I don’t currently have one. Moreover, my student loan is not accruing any interest- but that’s because it’s linked to interest rates, currently near zero per cent, not to what I earn. What Willetts means is that because the repayments of loans are linked to earnings, it sort-of-resembles an income tax bracket. But the logical solution to this, surely, is not to make a tax more regressive!

But the fact remains that, whilst Willetts’ logic has got extremely muddled, there is a problem with our university system. For what we have now is a mess of a university system, with no clear idea as to what it’s for. If Willetts really wanted to sort out university finance, there’s a number of fundamental questions he should look at first.

1) What is University for?

This may sound like a silly question, but there’s no agreed answer. Is university’s purpose to train students for work? Is it to give them a broad, ‘liberal’ education and the skills to live their lives? Is it even neither of the two, but simply a mechanism to teach 18-year olds how to live and work independently? I don’t have an answer to this, to be honest. I just don’t know enough about education policy to form an informed opinion. But in time, we do need to have a debate about this. But until then, we have two questions which do have more definite parameters and solutions.

2) Who should go?

Traditionally, UK universities were largely composed of the upper and upper-middle classes- and frankly, abolishing the current student loan system will bring this back pretty sharpish. This is probably the easiest question, in my opinion, to answer. In a stratified, 19th century style society, where a division of labour between classes was the norm, this system made more sense. But frankly, the ideal, if not the reality, of social mobility is one which is generally agreed to be beneficial, by all the major UK political parties. But if we can agree that, in theory, university should train the brightest people from any background, we come to the hardest question of all.

3) How many people should go?

This is the real sticking point. The Labour government entered power with the laudable aim of expanding access to education to people from poorer backgrounds. However, their solution was to try to widen the number of people going to university, up to their much-derided target of 50% of school leavers. The problem with this, of course, is that the government is saddled with millions of pounds of unrepaid loans- which in this time of fiscal crisis, is a major burden on the department, and which Willetts is quite right in trying to cut.

Willetts’ problems do actually come from the failures of the Labour government. You see, what they failed to recognise and implement, is that social mobility doesn’t just mean talented people rising up; it also means untalented people falling down the income and social scales. And frankly, this is something that we have a major problem with in this country. My upbringing is one of middle-class respectability; I went to a county grammar school. At the school, there was no argument about whether we should go to university once we left- the only question was where we should go. For example, one friend of mine who had his heart set on going into the army was still made to complete a UCAS form, even though he had no intention of going to university. The fact is, for social mobility to work, and for the number and therefore the cost of university students to be cut, middle-class parents and teachers have to realise that some people simply are not cut out for university, and will not benefit from it.

Can you really imagine a Tory education minister saying this? Er, maybe only if one of Willetts’ brains got a screw loose. Can you imagine a Liberal Democrat saying it either? I’d like to think so, but I don’t think that’s terribly likely, either. But if we were really honest about tackling the deficit incurred by education, in a way which didn’t turn back the clock on university access, this is what we would have to say.

A Pernicious Barrier to Social Mobility- as Advertised on

They’re everywhere. They’re all around us. Unnoticed by most, they hang their heads, working in dingy back rooms all over the country. We all know the system couldn’t operate without them, but we can’t see a way around the problem. They are… the unpaid interns.

Unpaid internships are a fact of modern political life, and indeed in other high-performing, competitive sectors, such as publishing. Evolving out of work experience programmes in school or summer holidays, the system of unpaid internships is now a semi-official part of the political career path. It is generally accepted that being able to walk in off the street and ask for a job, even with a relevant degree, is a model which is an outdated one. But at a time when criticisms are repeatedly raised of the unrepresentative nature of the UK Parliament, this system now represents a high and almost unnoticed barrier to entry to aspiring politicians and political workers.


Having worked myself as an unpaid intern for some months, I can honestly hold my hands up and say that without the generosity of my parents, I would not have been able to survive. This simple fact, that parental support is necessary to be able to complete an internship, effectively excludes the 70-80% of the population whose parents or partners are not well off enough to support their child or partner.

Do not think, however, that this is simply a disgruntled intern’s rant against the system. For this system now represents a major threat to the representative nature of the UK parliament. Like it or not, the old ideal of the ‘gentleman politician’, who would make his name in something else and then get elected, is on the wane. Instead, a large proportion of our MPs have worked for the majority of their working lives within the political and public affairs spheres- for example, David Cameron and George Osborne. The rights and wrongs of this are for another day. However, when the first step to a career in politics (or in related careers, such as public affairs or journalism) is usually an unpaid internship, this provides a huge barrier to entry to anybody who is not from a well-off background. The dangers of an unrepresentative parliament, and of the perception of a political ‘class’ unrepresentative of the population at large have been demonstrated time and again- most recently by the incomprehension of many MPs at public anger over their expenses.


In recent months, however, it has become clearer that not only is the practice of unpaid internships damaging, it’s actually illegal. In December 2009, an employment tribunal ruled that an intern at a film company was entitled to minimum wage law protection, despite the post being advertised as expenses-only. The law differentiates between a worker and a volunteer, and states that whilst the former is entitled to minimum wage protection, the latter is not. The line between the two is nebulous- however, a House of Commons commission concluded that as soon as interns: “are expected to be at work at specific times or to complete specific work, they are no longer volunteers but employees and some employment legislation will apply, such as the minimum wage.”

What surprises me, however, about these cases I’ve cited above, is that they ever came to be noticed at all. As an intern, you are effectively working for a reference, and as such, almost entirely dependent on keeping the goodwill of an employer. If you make trouble, the chances you will get a good reference or another internship diminish rapidly. So there are no doubt dozens or hundreds of cases of interns being mistreated, denied holidays, or working unadvertised hours, without any prospect of them ever coming to anyone’s attention. There’s a very good reason why the main lobbying forum for paid internships is called Interns Anonymous.


So what’s to be done? Many MPs and employers deny that a problem even exists. Recently, Philip Hammond (then Shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury, now Transport Minister) wrote in an email:

“We are all under intense public pressure to cut the cost of politics and I am trying to reduce my total expense and allowance claims (out of which staff are paid), NOT increase them. I would regard it as an abuse of taxpayer funding to pay for something that is available for nothing and which other Members are obtaining for nothing.”

But the thing is, while he puts his point very crudely, I actually have some sympathy for Hammond’s position. Any increase in MPs’ expense allowances is almost certain to make its way on to an election leaflet; and the idea of paying interns from central party funds is a non-starter (paying for an intern for every Lib Dem MP would cost around £600,000 a year, which is around one-seventh of what the party spent on the 2005 election campaign).

So is there an answer? I believe there is. I believe that a centrally administered pot should be created, for the sole purpose of providing paid, minimum-wage interns to every MP, for perhaps six months of every year, with a presumption that candidates from lower socio-economic backgrounds would get these posts, where that were possible. I calculate, very crudely, that this will cost around £2.8 million per year, after the number of constituencies has been reduced. Where is this money to come from? There is enough development money sloshing around to widen access to lower socio-economic groups- and in this case, we know that the money would be going to a direct cause, rather than to a cause which may help widen access. The cost would be relatively low- the consequence, could be the representative UK parliament all parties have worked towards.

You Know You’re a Liberal Democrat When… (Part 1)

  • Somebody has sworn at you over a) Europe b) Immigration c) Nuclear Weapons. Double points if somebody has sworn at you about all three at the same time.
  • You can explain the d’Hondt system.
  • You have engaged in a discussion over the worst injury you have ever received from a letterbox.
  • Hearing a sentence including the phrases, “The problem with Proportional Representation” and “strong government”, has an effect akin to the scene in Kill Bill where Uma Thurman sees the red mist before she kills someone.
  • You know who Sara Scarlett is (N.B this does not count if you actually are Sara Scarlett).
  • You have abandoned all pretence of going to conference events for any other reason than the quality of the canapés.
  • You know that a tough gig of elderly activists can always be calmed by the magic words, ‘Jo Grimond’.
  • When a little tired and emotional, you have a moment when you realise you’ve spent the last 20 minutes talking about social housing policy.
  • You have met Alan Belmore (see comment about Sara Scarlett).
  • Your abiding memory of election night was that look on Lembit Opik’s face.

More to follow!

Published in: on June 7, 2010 at 12:44 pm  Leave a Comment  

“I Agree with David”

After a while spent following politics, you are occasionally presented with a dilemma. One of these comes when, as happens on occasion, one of the other people (you know, THEM. THOSE PEOPLE. THEY WHO SHALL NOT BE NAMED) come up with an actually rather good idea. Is it disloyal to say, “I Agree with David?” Do you put your immortal soul at risk by listening to the siren words of our dear Prime Minister, and actually agreeing with him?*

Such a situation presented itself to me in the run-up to the election campaign, and was presented to me in the unlikely form of that eminent British actor, Mr Maurice Mickelwhite Esq., otherwise known as Sir Michael Caine. Last seen starring in “LOCK YOUR DOORS! THEY’RE COMING TO GET YOU!”-fest Harry Brown, Sir Michael announced his sudden conversion to the Conservative party by promoting their new big idea: “Bring back National Service!”

Now, considering what I’m usually like about such authoritarian solutions and the vilification of young people in our current society, it might seem unusual for me to agree with statements like, “We’ve got three and a half million layabouts laying about on benefits and I’m 76 getting up at six o’clock in the morning to go to work to keep them.” But the thing is, I actually think that reintroducing a (non-military) form of National Service is a rather good idea…


One of the major problems we are facing in our society today is the breakdown in social cohesion. I think just about everyone would agree that people do not talk to their neighbours as much as they used to, and are often even afraid of them- just look at the number of gated communities which are springing up all over the country. However, it’s also a general rule that if you don’t actually meet people from a different social, ethnic or national background, then you’re more susceptible to rumour about them- for example, the bedrock of BNP support is young white men who have heard things about immigration, but are from areas where it is not high. One of the reasons why Polish immigration into this country has not aroused the same passions that, say, Caribbean immigration did in the sixties, is the “oh, we got some Polish builders in, they can’t speak a word of English but you should just see how hard they work” effect. Simply put, Polish immigration has been much more evenly spread out around the country than Caribbean has, making it much more likely that someone will have actually met a Polish plumber than a British Caribbean one. It’s also a general rule that the earlier people mix with other cultures, the more used to them they get- kids under the age of four, for example, see no difference between black and white people, or so I’m informed.

So why not mix people, from different backgrounds, from different parts of the country, at a relatively young age?

You can see where this is heading, can’t you?

Traditionally, in countries which had conscription, this function would be performed by the one or two years of compulsory military service. Often, in countries like Italy which had recently been unified, recruits from different areas and backgrounds would be deliberately mixed to create a sense of national unity- and so, when people went home to Sardinia or Puglia or wherever, they could say, “Oh, those Sardinians aren’t bad- you remember the night when me and Vicenzo…”

So why not use a form of non-military National Service to address the same problem as the Italians faced, that of a country divided into many small regions, distrustful of each other, and which often would not mix otherwise? This wouldn’t have to be for a year- it could just take place during the summer holidays, where, from my own experience, I can say that boredom can reach quite monumental heights when you’re 16. If you can give kids the (voluntary) choice of spending six weeks doing some socially useful work a long way away from their parents, then going back to the camp and meeting girls/boys in the evening, do you think they might be interested? And who knows, maybe they might actually do some useful work in the process- clear up some grafitti, tidy up parklands- things like that.

So yes, I can say, I do agree with David- though maybe I wouldn’t put it in the same terms as he would. Don’t hate me, please!

* For the record, I reckon that if politicians occasionally could say, “Fair play, that’s actually a really good idea”, people might be a bit less cynical about the whole merry dance.

Published in: on June 3, 2010 at 11:53 am  Leave a Comment  
Tags: , , , , ,

If there’s a gravy train, where’s the station?

We are living in the age of austerity- or so we are repeatedly told. And sure enough, one of the first groups of people to come under fire are those back-scratchin’, swill-eatin’, money-wastin’ “faceless bureaucrats”. Yes, scourge of Daily Mail and Middle England (apart from Julian up the road, “yes I know he works for the Department of Something-or-Other, but his wife does a simply delightful casserole”), the public sector is under fire. At the moment, the Telegraph and Mail have taken it upon themselves to trim down the fat cats, to put a bit of slimming drug in the bowl of taxpayer-provided milk. But the question which nobody seems to be asking is, how did they get that way in the first place?

The defence which is usually put forward by aforementioned fat-cats and their trade groups is a very revealing one- take this example, of the Telegraph going after housing association bosses. The obligatory right-of-reply statement, buried halfway down the article, says that the bosses declare that these large salaries are necessary to “attract and retain chief executives of the highest calibre.”

This leads on to two points:
1) Public sector salaries are set in order to keep pace with private sector salaries. Public sector salaries reflect the trend of the last 30 years in this country, where top-level pay has risen dramatically, whereas, in real terms, average pay has stayed at roughly the same level. Income inequality, as measured by the Gini Coefficient, has risen dramatically since 1979- a trend which has been most pronounced under Thatcher, but has also continued under the Labour government.

BUT the more significant point is this:

2) The Public Sector feels the need to keep pace with the private. One of the major trends of the last 20 years has been the blurring of the line between the private and public sectors. Just look at how many of the services around us are now provided by private or semi-private companies- everything from street cleaning, to schools, and housing. One of the logical consequences of this, is that it’s often assumed that “what works in the private sector, must therefore work in the public”. Whilst in things like, say, managing your team, this might be true, this also means that, by this logic, someone who does well in the private sector must also do well in the public. And how do we measure doing well in business? Well, you make a lot of money.

You can see where this is going, can’t you?

The logic runs: management techniques that work well in one place, must work well in another. People who are good managers, are successful businessmen. Successful businessmen, are highly paid. Therefore, if we are to get good public sector managers, we have to pay them a lot!

OK, I’ve perhaps been oversimplifying a bit. But what you can see is that this process takes a lot of logical jumps. And it overlooks one MAJOR problem.

The point of the private and public sectors is different.

It’s Business 101 that the purpose of a company is to make money, and deliver profits to its shareholders. By contrast, the point of a taxpayer-funded public sector organisation is obvious- to serve the taxpayers who fund it. The purpose of a public service organisation, is public service.

And this is where the modern logic of public sector management gets it wrong.

The kind of people that should be recruited by the public sector, are people who are not as financially motivated as people who say, become city headhunters or corporate lawyers. Instead, the ethos of public service should be serving the public! In the kind of environment where the altruistic nature of a public sector job is its main selling point, then we can get away from situations where a housing boss can earn £400,000 a year, while most of his staff earn £16,000. But until we see why this situation has come about, then we cannot do anything to make long-term solutions to it.

Published in: on June 2, 2010 at 11:08 am  Leave a Comment  
Tags: , ,

What the Hell Happened?!

It was supposed to be so easy…

Being a Liberal Democrat is simple, for the most part. You don’t expect much. You get used to people giving you a patronising nod, whether you’re in the pub or on their doorstep. It’s the political equivalent of “Oh, that’s nice…”

And then there was Cleggmania.

All of a sudden, our nice-but-not-very-controversial leader was political hot property. Myself and the candidate for whom I was working genuinely considered walking around Chelsea (!) wearing yellow rosettes, and basking in the appreciation. The Labour party were going into meltdown; the Conservatives were panicking; and Liberal committee rooms up and down the land were thick with the sound of people desperately, desperately trying not to invoke Sod’s Law.

Not that it did any good. I may have succumbed to the urge to smugness when I confidently declared, “We’re going to hold the seat, with an increased majority.”

The seat I was working in was Richmond Park, where British-enough-to-be-an-MP-but-not-enough-to-pay-tax eco-Sloanie Zac Goldsmith won the seat for the Conservatives, by quite a considerable margin.

So what happened? Nobody seems to know. Nobody seems to care, moreover. For out of the wreckage of Cleggmania came the strange creature known as Cleggeron.


For days after the formation of Britain’s coalition government, tabloid sketch writers were searching around for a suitably sinister acronym, abbreviation or simple term of abuse for the first government to feature Liberals since the Second World War. The problem is that neither ‘Cameron’ nor ‘Clegg’ lend themselves to easy parody. Our Dear Leader is notably the only world figure who Rory Bremner says he can’t imitate. Eventually, it seems that ‘Cleggeron’ has been settled on- a strange, robotic sort of word, which Daily Mirror cartoonists will no doubt depict as some sort of double-headed Dalek, armed with the pair of shears which will no doubt become the defining motif of the next five years (or less).

So what do we do now? The truth is, we Liberals are in a state akin to shell-shock. The only thing we expected less than being taken seriously, was actually getting into government. So at the moment the grassroots- whom I will address in further detail later- are very pleased to be taken somewhere, anywhere, by the leadership. But it won’t last. Getting Liberals to co-ordinate anything is rather like herding cats, and soon enough the voices of doubt will be raised.

We do indeed live in interesting times.

Published in: on June 1, 2010 at 4:35 pm  Leave a Comment