"How much difference may depend on how well Labour impressed on voters and future policy-makers the necessity of Sure Start and the need to make them all as good as Carousel." The Verdict p166
It is ironic that when I come to talk about one of New Labour's successes, Blair barely mentions it in his memoirs at all. The announcement that the coalition intend to extend Sure Start to allow the poorest 20% of families to receive 15 hours of free pre-school education a week from the age of two (rather than three) is to be applauded. It was also a labour Party manifesto promise. Given the sweeping cuts across the public sector it is a thorough endorsement of one of New Labour's early initiatives.
In a book about leadership, perhaps a straightforward success story is simply too undramatic to warrant much attention, but, Sure Start represents New Labour making a real difference by embarking on some old fashioned social engineering. Research indicated that less intelligent children from well-off backgrounds had overtaken brighter children from poor backgrounds by the age of six. Sure Start aimed to bring under 5s from poor backgrounds up to the same educational standards as their contemporaries from better off backgrounds at the point they started primary school. The success of the programme is best indicated by its popularity with middle class parents.
Childcare provision has doubled in Britain, with a mixture of private provision and 3500 state centres in the most neglected areas. This also allowed many parents to get training or a job for the first time. In 2008 a team of researchers from Birbeck University concluded that the programme was working. “In [Sure Start] areas children showed better social development, with more positive social behaviour and greater independence, and parents showed less risk of negative parenting and provided a better home-learning environment.”
The test, of course, is to see how well they do through school.
Friday 15 October 2010
Thursday 14 October 2010
Tuition Fees
"But he suffers [Ed Balls] from the bane of all left-leaning intellectuals. As I have remarked elsewhere, these guys never 'get' aspiration. They would deny it of course, but they see the middle class - apart from the intellectual part of it - as an unnatural constituency...they would think that a person worried about their tax rates was essentially selfish, and therefore by implication morally a little lost." p484
I admit I have more than a little sympathy with the Ed Ball's school of thought. It is not that I don't 'get' aspiration. I am aspirational. However, as somebody who came from a working class background with none of the advantages of educated parents or friends to guide me, I saw what a lottery life was. Aspiration was all very well, but in the face of enormous cultural pressures and even opposition, my friends looked, almost entirely to the state for our opportunities and, in providing good schools and free universities they gave us the chance to pursue our ambitions. The aspiration to build a better life needs to be nurtured with opportunity. It should not be a lottery and barriers to opportunity need to be removed. Opportunity brings with it the weight of a social agenda. You are being backed by the state. It provides individuals with a legal and material framework to succeed in their goals and, in exchange, those individuals should recognise their debt and pay appropriate levels of taxation.
The problem is, that aspiration in one generation can quickly become privilege in the next generation. The private school, the foreign holidays and the enormous opportunities that money can buy. Is there anything worse than the self-made man who pontifcates about how he did it all by himself and other people should try doing the same. Often these people don't seem to recognise their own immense achivement. They are often exceptional people and have achieved what would be extraordinary in any walk of life but more so given their own circumstances. Luck, of course, can also play a big part in anyone's life, but rarely in the story of the self-made man. Nor is luck recognised by the most privileged groups in our society. The luck of being born rich and in a country where their inherited privileges are protected by the state should place a heavy social responsibility upon that person.
Blair wanted his legacy to be a new tradition that would create a permanently electable Labour Party. But can you build anything by pandering to the market driven aspirations of people only interested in material wealth and by extension self-indulgence. It may have been where "the people were heading" (p485), but that doesn't mean you couldn't have tried to change their direction. This was not leadership but following the crowd. This lack of ambition is best illustrated by his rebuff of Ball's suggestion that tuition fees be repaid with a progressive graduate tax dependent on income. Blair argues, "I didn't like this at all. It broke the essential link between what a student got and what they gave back." When did paying tax turn into a retail transaction where you only pay for the goods you consume? Can you really claim to be a progressive politician or party if you don't believe in a progressive tax system?
We have to be more ambitious than this. As the banking crisis has shown, we can't afford to simply pander to the self-interested anymore.
I admit I have more than a little sympathy with the Ed Ball's school of thought. It is not that I don't 'get' aspiration. I am aspirational. However, as somebody who came from a working class background with none of the advantages of educated parents or friends to guide me, I saw what a lottery life was. Aspiration was all very well, but in the face of enormous cultural pressures and even opposition, my friends looked, almost entirely to the state for our opportunities and, in providing good schools and free universities they gave us the chance to pursue our ambitions. The aspiration to build a better life needs to be nurtured with opportunity. It should not be a lottery and barriers to opportunity need to be removed. Opportunity brings with it the weight of a social agenda. You are being backed by the state. It provides individuals with a legal and material framework to succeed in their goals and, in exchange, those individuals should recognise their debt and pay appropriate levels of taxation.
The problem is, that aspiration in one generation can quickly become privilege in the next generation. The private school, the foreign holidays and the enormous opportunities that money can buy. Is there anything worse than the self-made man who pontifcates about how he did it all by himself and other people should try doing the same. Often these people don't seem to recognise their own immense achivement. They are often exceptional people and have achieved what would be extraordinary in any walk of life but more so given their own circumstances. Luck, of course, can also play a big part in anyone's life, but rarely in the story of the self-made man. Nor is luck recognised by the most privileged groups in our society. The luck of being born rich and in a country where their inherited privileges are protected by the state should place a heavy social responsibility upon that person.
Blair wanted his legacy to be a new tradition that would create a permanently electable Labour Party. But can you build anything by pandering to the market driven aspirations of people only interested in material wealth and by extension self-indulgence. It may have been where "the people were heading" (p485), but that doesn't mean you couldn't have tried to change their direction. This was not leadership but following the crowd. This lack of ambition is best illustrated by his rebuff of Ball's suggestion that tuition fees be repaid with a progressive graduate tax dependent on income. Blair argues, "I didn't like this at all. It broke the essential link between what a student got and what they gave back." When did paying tax turn into a retail transaction where you only pay for the goods you consume? Can you really claim to be a progressive politician or party if you don't believe in a progressive tax system?
We have to be more ambitious than this. As the banking crisis has shown, we can't afford to simply pander to the self-interested anymore.
Wednesday 13 October 2010
Page 480-7 - Tuition Fees
'We had a manifesto commitment not to allow top-up fees, it was true, but frankly it would have been absurd to postpone the decisions necessary for the country because of it.'
No, it's not Cable and Spineless, ditching yet another manifesto promise. It is Tony Blair justifying his own about-turn on tuition fees following the 2001 election.
The 2001 Labour manifesto stated that, 'We will not introduce 'top-up' fees and have legislated to prevent them.' That is about as clear a declaration as you ever get in politics, but, as Blair explains, the promise had only been put into the manifesto because 'worries that we were planning to do this [introduce tuition fees] had been circulating among the PLP and NEC and, David [Blunkett] felt that we had to kill the story.' Quite right too, it would have been extremely inconvenient for Labour supporters to know the truth that they were planning to introduce tuition fees. So, what we are being told is that Blair was considering introducing fees but it would have been extremely awkward to admit it with an election coming up. After all, they didn't want to upset the membership because somebody needed to deliver the leaflets and it wasn't going to be Tony.
Remarkably, considering the excellent economic conditions during the time, 'shortly after the election the challenge for our universities became clear.' I must have missed this sudden and inexplicable 'run' on our universities, but, following the Labour victory, Blair started formally exploring the introduction of fees. He argued that the success of American universities was 'due to their system of fees...their bursary system allowed them to help poorer students and their financial flexibility meant that they could attract the best academics.' For Blair, our economic well-being relied on world-class universities producing a competitive level of 'human-capital.' This may be true, but, while fees might produce a few institutions that can attract the best in the world, it is not entirely relevant to the largely parochial aims of most of our universities.
There is nothing intrinsically wrong with churning out over-qualified admin staff. Education should not all be about career opportunities and all education enhances our life and in turn our society. If you have read Ulysses you may want to punch James Joyce but you are not likely to go around punching old ladies. However, with 59% of graduates in the last two years failing to find a job in a field related to their degree and with graduate unemployment hitting 44%, one must question the wisdom of encouraging young people to begin their adult lives with debts up to £30,000 that will take up to 30 years to pay off. Inevitably, it will encourage students to consider the job prospects of their degree courses, but what a grubby country we will have when the arts and humanities have disappeared from out universities and we are left with only sensible vocational degrees. Who knows, old ladies beware, perhaps gangs of literature students will soon be roaming our inner-cities with an eye to feeding their modernist literature habit.
No, it's not Cable and Spineless, ditching yet another manifesto promise. It is Tony Blair justifying his own about-turn on tuition fees following the 2001 election.
The 2001 Labour manifesto stated that, 'We will not introduce 'top-up' fees and have legislated to prevent them.' That is about as clear a declaration as you ever get in politics, but, as Blair explains, the promise had only been put into the manifesto because 'worries that we were planning to do this [introduce tuition fees] had been circulating among the PLP and NEC and, David [Blunkett] felt that we had to kill the story.' Quite right too, it would have been extremely inconvenient for Labour supporters to know the truth that they were planning to introduce tuition fees. So, what we are being told is that Blair was considering introducing fees but it would have been extremely awkward to admit it with an election coming up. After all, they didn't want to upset the membership because somebody needed to deliver the leaflets and it wasn't going to be Tony.
Remarkably, considering the excellent economic conditions during the time, 'shortly after the election the challenge for our universities became clear.' I must have missed this sudden and inexplicable 'run' on our universities, but, following the Labour victory, Blair started formally exploring the introduction of fees. He argued that the success of American universities was 'due to their system of fees...their bursary system allowed them to help poorer students and their financial flexibility meant that they could attract the best academics.' For Blair, our economic well-being relied on world-class universities producing a competitive level of 'human-capital.' This may be true, but, while fees might produce a few institutions that can attract the best in the world, it is not entirely relevant to the largely parochial aims of most of our universities.
There is nothing intrinsically wrong with churning out over-qualified admin staff. Education should not all be about career opportunities and all education enhances our life and in turn our society. If you have read Ulysses you may want to punch James Joyce but you are not likely to go around punching old ladies. However, with 59% of graduates in the last two years failing to find a job in a field related to their degree and with graduate unemployment hitting 44%, one must question the wisdom of encouraging young people to begin their adult lives with debts up to £30,000 that will take up to 30 years to pay off. Inevitably, it will encourage students to consider the job prospects of their degree courses, but what a grubby country we will have when the arts and humanities have disappeared from out universities and we are left with only sensible vocational degrees. Who knows, old ladies beware, perhaps gangs of literature students will soon be roaming our inner-cities with an eye to feeding their modernist literature habit.
Monday 11 October 2010
Page 4 - Through the Eye of a Needle
...'every waking moment had been bent to eliminating the challenges, making sure the vehicle was fit for the voyage, the engine sparking, the passengers either on board or shouting impatiently from behind us, not barring the way ahead.'
Who are the passengers? Ineffective members of the team? I don't think so, I think he is referring to us, the Labour voters! Whichever way you consider it, it's not a flattering description and suggests, in Blair's world view, something contractual, a rather vague and transient relationship. We are to be managed and herded onto the 'vehicle', an odd choice of word - very New Labour to not want to be too specific about what type of transport we'll get, although voyage does suggest a boat doesn't it, or at a push, maybe a camel? It would be appropriate as there is an old Middle East joke which says a camel is a horse designed by committee.
At least these passengers have got 'on board' and want to take 'A Journey' (a bit (New) laboured Tony). His full contempt is for the other 'passengers' who are left behind to shout impatiently but most importantly not block Blair's rise to power. Now, my first question is, can they be passengers if they are not on board? Do you become a passenger the moment you buy a ticket? Is it possible that they bought a ticket but became upset when they realised they were expected to take an alternative route to the one originally advertised (geddit? - painful isn't it?). Yes, I think Blair's greatest contempt is for the traditional Labour supporters and members. It leaves me with an image of Blair speeding away with those he has duped fading in his camel's rear view mirror.
It's at this point he begins to sound like a slightly manic evangelical preacher. 'Hadn't we fought a great campaign?' Well, yes. 'Hadn't we impaled our enemies on our bayonet like ripe fruit?' What bayonet? No, I don't think so and if you don't mind me saying so it's slightly disturbing to hear you speak like this. Enemy? Considering the campaign aimed to win over Tory voters, it seems a little strong, especially when 'enemy' was John Major - hardly an evil tyrant. Although, I suppose, by then the Tories were rotten and pretty inanimate. Perhaps he is referring to the old left wing of the Labour Party, that really had been a bloody rout. 'Hadn't our strategies, like something derived from destiny, scattered the proud in the imagination of their hearts?' What? Now you really are scaring me. 'Derived from destiny'? Hadn't they been derived from opinion polls and focus groups in marginal Tory seats? 'Scattered the proud'? Neil Hamilton? 'Imagination of their hearts'.
If anyone has any idea what he is talking about, please let me know.
Who are the passengers? Ineffective members of the team? I don't think so, I think he is referring to us, the Labour voters! Whichever way you consider it, it's not a flattering description and suggests, in Blair's world view, something contractual, a rather vague and transient relationship. We are to be managed and herded onto the 'vehicle', an odd choice of word - very New Labour to not want to be too specific about what type of transport we'll get, although voyage does suggest a boat doesn't it, or at a push, maybe a camel? It would be appropriate as there is an old Middle East joke which says a camel is a horse designed by committee.
At least these passengers have got 'on board' and want to take 'A Journey' (a bit (New) laboured Tony). His full contempt is for the other 'passengers' who are left behind to shout impatiently but most importantly not block Blair's rise to power. Now, my first question is, can they be passengers if they are not on board? Do you become a passenger the moment you buy a ticket? Is it possible that they bought a ticket but became upset when they realised they were expected to take an alternative route to the one originally advertised (geddit? - painful isn't it?). Yes, I think Blair's greatest contempt is for the traditional Labour supporters and members. It leaves me with an image of Blair speeding away with those he has duped fading in his camel's rear view mirror.
It's at this point he begins to sound like a slightly manic evangelical preacher. 'Hadn't we fought a great campaign?' Well, yes. 'Hadn't we impaled our enemies on our bayonet like ripe fruit?' What bayonet? No, I don't think so and if you don't mind me saying so it's slightly disturbing to hear you speak like this. Enemy? Considering the campaign aimed to win over Tory voters, it seems a little strong, especially when 'enemy' was John Major - hardly an evil tyrant. Although, I suppose, by then the Tories were rotten and pretty inanimate. Perhaps he is referring to the old left wing of the Labour Party, that really had been a bloody rout. 'Hadn't our strategies, like something derived from destiny, scattered the proud in the imagination of their hearts?' What? Now you really are scaring me. 'Derived from destiny'? Hadn't they been derived from opinion polls and focus groups in marginal Tory seats? 'Scattered the proud'? Neil Hamilton? 'Imagination of their hearts'.
If anyone has any idea what he is talking about, please let me know.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)