This blog might change your life!

Lord Young's remark that most Britons 'had never had it so good' received a great deal of criticism last week and saw him resign from his role as a government advisor. Given the current economic circumstances and the depth of the Coalition's cuts even David Cameron called the comment 'insensitive and inaccurate'. Insensitive, yes, but inaccurate? 

Rolling news has a habit of picking up on these gaffes, cranking up the hyperbole and making more of them than is really necessary. "Tory makes insensitive remark about the the poor shocker!" "Cameron makes a dig at a man for being short!" It is not really news, is it? The problem with this sort of reporting is that it may fill airtime but it also generates a slightly fraught atmosphere. It betrays a tendency to play to the mob. 

The trouble with Young's remark is that from a historical perspective it may be true. Like a Don in Tom Sharpe's 'Porterhouse College' - historians (sorry real historians who read this) tend to find that 'current economic circumstances only last ten years or so'. From this perspective, even making allowances for the mirage of wealth during the highly inflated house-price boom - most of us really have never had it so good. Now calm down and let me explain. During my lifetime we have seen our country transformed. The grey, conservative world of my childhood has disappeared. Never again will tinned mushrooms be regarded as a rather sophisticated addition to a meal or orange juice be seen an acceptable starter in a restaurant. 

Our society has been transformed. A huge proportion of lives have been changed for the better. Sexual equality, racial equality, gay rights, a huge increase in the standard of living for the vast majority and, of course, the advent of 52 inch plasma TVs. As this blog testifies, I think there are still huge problems but the advent of the minimum wage, statutory housing responsibilities, free pre-school education demonstrates how successive governments have attempted to address the barriers to social inclusion to varying degrees. Yes, it's a work in progress but please don't get caught up in a sentimental vision of Britain. Have you read any of David Peace's novels?

Please don't take away my TV

Yet the sting in the tale is that despite all the improvements we are more unhappy than ever. In the highly respected Legatum Prosperity Index, which annually measures well-being across a range of eight indicators from economic to social cohesion, the UK came 13th but 20th in terms of life satisfaction. Compared to most 'developed' countries: we are more scared of crime, work longer hours, have an older retirement age and despite a very high level of political stability, a very low regard for our politicians. One of the saddest statistics was that only 35% of the population believed they could trust other people. In the top country, Norway, 74.2% felt they could trust others and even the USA beat us.

Since 1990 Richard Layard, now Baron Layard, has been promoting an alternative view of economics in his role as Programme Director at the Centre for Economic Performance at the LSE. Layard's work has become known as 'Happiness economics'. Briefly, he argues that relative rather than absolute income is the best indicator of happiness. People compare themselves to their peers and judge their 'happiness' accordingly. Increased purchasing power may make us unhappier if our position compared to others is worse. This effect may nullify any positive effects of economic growth and simply drive people to work harder in order to bridge the relative wealth gap. He calls this the rat race effect.

Richard layard

This research, however may seem like a debate that can only relate to the few very rich developed countries. It is no accident that the happiest countries are some of the wealthiest. At he very least it would be simplistic not to recognise that there is a minimum level of income that allows people to stop subsisting and instead start living. However, even leading free-market organisations have begun to advocate 'sharing the wealth'.

Layard's conclusions are supported by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). Their 2010 report demonstrates the happiest countries also have the least inequality in income between rich and poor. Meanwhile the significantly less satisfied Brits and Yanks have a much great divergence in wealth. The OECD also concludes that in order to maximise worldwide economic growth, policy-makers should address levels of income inequality. Economic growth is not enough. It is a win-win situation because they note, as an aside, that there may also be a 'poverty reduction dividend' attached to these measures.

David Cameron's announcement that the Coalition will spend £2 million in an attempt to measure our  happiness has been met with derision. The rolling news juggernaut has got to work already and the mob are at the gates. Let's hope he has the political courage to see this through. I think he may be onto something. Despite the 'historical' trend of growing wealth we are less happy. Making 'happiness' rather than purely economic growth the goal would could have a profound effect on the assumptions of our policy-makers. It's an exciting thought.

Pure economic interests might drive a foreign policy that lands us in Iraq, but would a policy based on broader outcomes like social cohesion do the same? We are constantly warned that our top bankers will flee to other countries if the government dares to regulate their activities. Well, according to the OECD, it is in virtually everybody's self-interest to let them go.

To think that Ken Dodd was right all along...

"To me this old world is a wonderful place
And I'm just about the luckiest human in the whole human race
I've got no silver and I've got no gold
Just a whole lot of happiness in my soul"




Please sign up for my circulation list. No details will be passed on.
canthingsonlygetbetter@googlemail.com

Anyone for dessert?

Like most revolutionaries I am a big fan of 'Just a minute' and 'Test match Special'. But are my guilty bourgeois pleasures under threat? Enjoy guest

 blogger 'Mr X' and his view from inside the BBC... 

An old BBC hack once advised that the Corporation should be thought of as a large jelly, the type one sees on documentary television during a demonstration of what Edward VII thought acceptable for his elevenses. A large, ornate, establishment jelly. The learned hack continued to explain that every so often someone comes along with a new-fangled idea and gives the jelly a really good shake. The jelly then wobbles vigorously on its moorings; the odd goblet may fly off in an unexpected direction, but, after some time has passed, the wobbling subsides, life carries on and one is left with a jelly virtually unchanged.

The hack in question is long dead, but I wonder how he would view the very significant wobbles at the BBC of recent years?

We’ve been shocked by Russell Brand, Jonathan Ross and Carol Thatcher. Miriam O'Reilly is taking action after being dropped from Countryfile and the NUJ have been on strike over pensions. But perhaps the most astonishing, and seemingly little noticed event of recent weeks is the TV licence fee settlement. Frozen for the next six years at £145.50 the licence fee will now also fund the BBC World Service and BBC Monitoring (both previously funded through direct taxation), whilst contributing more to Welsh language TV group S4C. So in practical terms what is the upshot of this deal? A 16% budget cut in real terms for Auntie and a £340m saving for the Exchequer over six years.

A little further analysis indicates that some very big changes are on the way. The BBC has been selling bits of its self for years, a privatisation of publicly owned assets worth over £1billion that has also gone largely unnoticed. Obviously all those bits and pieces that have been sold off did actually serve a purpose. The BBC does need to have access to some transmitters; it does need some computers, people to run studios, outside broadcast trucks, satellite dishes, buildings, security guards and cleaners. To this end the BBC has entered into various long term, fixed cost, service contracts that tie up over 30% of the BBC’s expenditure for years to come. Suddenly a 16% cut in income becomes a 23% cut as all the savings must be made from only 70% of expenditure.

Apart from cutting the website expenditure even further – welcomed almost universally – the current settlement probably means the end of one or more domestic service and the BBC World Service ceasing to be anything more than a brand with the consequent loss of several thousand jobs. The big bad Tory chancellor jumped the Director General, Mark Thompson and somehow left him feeling relieved that he didn’t have to fund TV licences for the over 75s or have his income top-sliced for C4.

Greg Dyke resigns over Kelly Affair

But why were the Tories so bold and the BBC so timid? The answer to this question lies back in the heady days of 2003 under Tony Blair’s administration - namely the Hutton Enquiry. In fact almost all the ills that have befallen the BBC in past years stem from that deeply flawed analysis of the BBC’s role in the death of David Kelly and the ensuing hours of madness that afflicted the then Board of Governors. The sudden decapitation of Chairman and DG has so traumatised the BBC management that they have lost all confidence to take the right decisions. Like an out of form batsman they have the knack of playing at all the wrong balls and, to mix my metaphors the poor old jelly just keeps on wobbling.

Spot the difference?

The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which."

- George Orwell, Animal Farm, Ch. 10

 

The Coaition has announced that it will cap the number of non-EU skilled migrants allowed in the UK 43,000. It represents a cut of 13% from the 2009 figures. The announcement is the start of a process by which the government aims to reduce overall immigration from hundreds to tens of thousands.

The target is yet another compromise between the Lib Dems and Tories, by which I mean the Lib Dems have compromised themselves entirely. In their 2010 manifesto he Conservatives promised an annual limit on immigration, new curbs on unskilled workers, and “transitional controls” on new European Union members. The Lib Dems policies were aimed at beefing up our border controls and they promised to 'introduce a regional points based system to ensure that migrants can work only where they are needed.' I'm not sure how they intended to police that one.

Back in those youthful Spring days, Clegg criticised the Tory proposals for ignoring the fact that the vast majority of the country's immigration comes from the EU and we have no right to stop that. He was correct. The current measure will contribute only 20% to the government's target. The other 80% will have to come from student and family migration which in 2009 stood at nearly 600,000.

A report in early November by the Commons home affairs select committee says the proposed annual cap on immigration "will make little difference to overall immigration and may do serious damage to Britain's knowledge economy." In the Guardian, Keith Vaz, chairman of the home affairs committee, said: "The government should direct its efforts to tackling those who abuse the system – bogus colleges and visa over stayers – rather than penalising legitimate students."

The committee also quoted evidence from eight Nobel prizewinning scientists of the potential damage to Britain's science base. They told the MPs that it was "a sad reflection on national priorities that the cap would exempt international footballers but not elite scientists or engineers."

Tim Finch, of the Institute of Public Policy Research, said the report blew huge holes in the idea of an annual cap: "The cap is a policy constructed to win an election, not to run an efficient immigration system."

Literacy and the HIV Crisis

"If you want to stop HIV spreading in Africa - stop teaching the people to read." That is the startling conclusion from Professor Grabaheadline at the University of Bathavonton. The controversial announcement follows Pope Benedict XVI decision to break with tradition and speak some sense about the use of contraception.  The Pope's comments were made in a series of interviews given to a German journalist, Peter Seewald, for a forthcoming book 'Light of the World: The Pope, The Church and the Signs of the Times.' 

Pope Benedict was asked whether the Catholic Church was not opposed in principle to the use of condoms. The Pope said that in the case of a male prostitute using a condom to reduce the risk of HIV infection could be the first step in the "direction of moralisation, a first assumption of responsibility...". He continued that the Church "does not regard it as a real or moral solution, but, in this or that case, there can be nonetheless, in the intention of reducing the risk of infection, a first step in a movement toward a different way, a more human way, of living sexuality."

The Damascan conversion follows Pope Benedict's statement during his visit to Cameroon last year when he said the use of condoms could endanger public health and increase the problem of HIV/Aids rather than help to contain the virus. The comment confirmed the Church's traditional teaching on contraception which states that Catholics should only use 'natural' birth control by which it means only having sex during the infertile period of a woman's monthly cycle. Artificial methods of contraception are banned. 

The comment attracted a lot of criticism, particularly in Europe and rightly so. The statistics are shocking. According to the World Health Organisation there are over 34 million people infected with HIV worldwide with 23 million of them in Sub-Saharan Africa. This represents an astonishing 5.5% of the Sub-Saharan population and the epidemic is causing 1.4 million deaths a year in that region.

I should come clean and admit I am a member of probably the largest Church in Western Europe, the 'lapsed' Catholics. However, once in, never out' and over the last few months I have repeatedly found myself in the unusual position of defending the Church. Like everyone I have been truly appalled by the stories that have emerged about child abuse and the astonishing cover-ups. There is much to criticise and the recent scandals have rightly discredited Catholic clergy and institutions. However, it seems that to many commentators the Catholic Church is enemy number one.

This step towards a more humane teaching on the subject of contraception, no matter how small, should be applauded. There is no doubt that the refusal to accept condom use threatens people's lives, but that is not the whole picture. Africans are not dying simply because of Catholic teaching. Of the eight largest (%) Catholic populations in sub-Saharan Africa five have HIV infection rates well-below the average. Two, Lesotho and Swaziland have extremely high rates of infection and Uganda, is just above average. The picture on the ground is different to the 'official' teaching.

In the USA an estimated 95% of practising Catholics have used contraception. Individuals find a way to reconcile the practical aspects of life and faith. Why should African Catholics be different? It is slightly patronising to suggest that they would be more in thrall to the Church than the 'sophisticated' western Catholics. In fact the evidence suggests that countries that have embraced education programs teaching the Catholic emphasis to late start of sexual activity, abstention and faithfulness in relationships have seen a dramatic fall in the rate of new cases.

Giuseppe Caramazza, a Catholic Missionary commented to the Guardian in 2009, "I spent 17 years in Kenya as a missionary for the Catholic church. The condom might work in Europe; perhaps it does in Latin America. It certainly does not in Africa. Those countries that have chosen to popularise use of the condom – like many nations in southern Africa – are now fast changing policies." Countries such as Lesotho and Swaziland.


The point is that it is far too easy to blame the Church. The situation is much more complicated than Catholic teaching about condoms. Poverty? Clearly that has a role, but of the eight worst affected countries only four are in the lowest quartile for poverty and Botswana and South Africa are above many European countries. Ironically, the most consistent link to high HIV infection seemed to occur with high literacy rates. Seven of the countries with the highest infection rates also have the highest literacy rates. With an average literacy rate of 58% across sub-Saharan Africa, all except Malawi (58%) have substantially higher rates; between 71% in Zambia (infection rate of 14.3%) to 87% in Zimbabwe (infection rate 18.1).


Should we condemn the Catholic Church for teaching people to read?

Please sign up for my circulation list. No details will be passed on.

canthingsonlygetbetter@googlemail.com

Are they us or are they them?

How much should public servants earn? Even during the boom years, public sector salaries and work conditions were under immense scrutiny and that has increased in the current economic circumstances. A recent survey showed that 9000 people in the public sector now earn more than the Prime Minister. The Coalition's cuts will mean a huge number of jobs being lost across the public and private sector, whilst public sector entitlements like pensions are under threat. So it was with some interest that I watched Local Government 'fat cats' come under the microscope on Newsnight.

Given his £300,000 salary (including pension) - I thought it was very brave of John Ransford, Chief Executive of the Local Government Association, to step into the debate. How often do we find that Government ministers are not available under similar circumstances? But, at a time when councils were being forced to make thousands redundant, could he justify his salary?

Grant Shapps, Housing Minister, argued that he would expect the Chief Execs to "lead by example", he pointed out that MPs had accepted a pay freeze. The fact that our 'Austerity' Cabinet has 18 millionaires means they are probably in a position to get through these hard times. However, his general point seemed a good one. Phillip Blond from the think-tank Res Publica suggested there was no evidence that "higher pay will lead to higher performance. " He continued, "What public services need is ethos led, mission statement driven  leadership." He also concluded that, "The role of the state is to lead by example."

So on one hand the public sector has to accept market conditions but on the other it must somehow set itself higher standards? Ransford's argument that the market rate for getting people with the right skills and experience had increased with the rigors of public scrutiny and improving performance is plausible. However, for Chief Executives not to be taking some of the pain themselves seems, at the very least, politically naive and lacking in leadership qualities. At first glance it does seem strange that Chief Executives earn twice as much as the Prime Minister. However, the Prime Minister will have a place in history. Westminster Council is is a £800 million organisation that provides services that people depend upon. It's a big job but no Chief Executive will be remembered for long. It's a market. Aren't we all in thrall to the market these days?

Well no. On 1st Nov, BBC reported that FTSE-100 directors saw total earnings increase by 55%  on average over the year, while the average increment for the FTSE 350 as a whole was 45%? 2010 city bonuses are predicted to hit £7 billion. At the same time the Institute of Directors survey showed the majority of directors across the private sector received a pay cut in 2010: 46% of directors either had a pay freeze or pay reduction in cash terms in 2010; the 54% who had a pay rise received 2.5% in 2010, which is equivalent to a cut when inflation is taken into account. 

Why is the debate always framed as the private sector versus public sector? Most of us should be on the same side. Big business and the City are playing on the fears of small businesses and its employees off against the interests of the public sector and reaping the benefits in huge payouts, whilst everyone else does the paying. Isn't it time to taget the real 'fat cats'.

What can the Wombles teach us?

I find it very easy, as you may have noticed, to moan. I am aware that a relentless stream of criticism might tax everyone. So today I wanted to talk about some good news. Bathwick St Mary's, my childrens' school has just been voted the best primary school in the country and for once it seems like the accolade is well deserved. Now it might not be to everyone's taste but in my experience the school sums up a lot about what I think is important about education and teaching. So what makes a good school?

Bathwick won the award for it's exceptional record at Key Stage 2 exams over a number of years, however, Mr Burnett, the Headmaster told The Sunday Times: “We celebrate achievement and academic results but what matters every bit as much is that our children leave us as well-rounded individuals on course for happy, fulfilled lives. I live and breathe this job – it is a privilege because what we are doing here can change a child’s life for the better for ever.” I agree, the results are great but their focus on producing independent young people who have learnt to learn is a harder task and a greater achievement. That is a real education.

When I was looking for a school for my children, I asked Mr Burnett, what was Bathwick's secret? He told me he believes a school should be a learning environment for everyone: children, staff and parents. It was inspiring stuff. The expectations on performance therefore extend across the whole school and there is certainly a bearable but conscious pressure for everyone in the school community to do just a little bit more. The school sets high standards.

When I was a young boy, my mum set high standards as well. The standards of the 'genteel' working class. High expectations about behaviour, a spotlessly clean house, smart clothes for public appearances and a slightly patronising attitude to anybody she knew who did not match up. This did not extend to anybody from a 'posh' background. In mum's eyes, they set their own rules - rules that she could never fully understand but that she knew, with every aspirational breath, were superior to her own. A confident, gossipy woman when chatting to other women on our street - just a word from a teacher or a doctor, pretty much the poshest people we ever met, would reduce her to a state of awed subservience.


Unfortunately, my house is a mess and my general appearance is unruly to say the least. However, her standards gave me a good start and I did take to heart two things from my mum's prejudices. 'Posh' people got an education and ''posh' people got away with more stuff because they were educated. Instead of calling it anti-social, you could call it bohemian or relate it to something Evelyn Waugh had once written. My long-term lesson, for good or bad was that 'posh' people had more fun, experienced more things and had more variety in their lives. Whatever my motive that became the focus of my aspirations.


Education, therefore, has always been close to my heart. In one way or another I have spent my whole life 'in education'. From the first inspiring Topsy and Tim stories, through school, several universities, LEA and political jobs, a period as a school governor and currently working for exam boards, I have had almost pathological attachment to education. 20 years ago, despite being at a Grammar school, expectations were low and I didn't set myself high enough standards. For a naturally bright but incredibly lazy boy with parents who had never taken a public exam, it was far too easy to coast. Many talented and bright kids fell out of the system completely. What a waste.

So, how is Bathwick St Mary's award good news to anyone not related to the school? My limited experience of schools meant that I thought Bathwick was setting truly exceptional standards. However, in the last month or so I visited a large number of schools, from private to bog standard comps in different parts of the country. Schools facing a much greater variety of challenges than a Bath primary school. I've had the opportunity to observe classes, talk to staff and pupils and even take part in some lessons. It struck me that the things that had grabbed my attention when I visited Bathwick were actually evident in all the schools I visited. Nowadays,  it seems, there are less places to hide.

Things have changed a lot in the classroom since my day. I observed extremely well-trained and committed teachers using a variety of traditional and IT methods to relate their knowledge. The structure of the lessons and the syllabus' seemed to engage the children. Despite the large numbers of pupils in some classes, teachers kept everyone on their toes and the children seemed engaged and capable of performing an impressive level of analysis for their age and 'ability'. High standards were being set and they seemed to be underpinned by the national curriculum, excellent teaching and consistently high expectations.


Now class please don't be cynical. Poor mistreated schools. No matter what they achieve, there are always Cassandras predicting tales of educational woe due to easier exams and falling standards. They simply can't win. Of course there are still massive problems, especially within some big cities, but there is a lot of very good work going on out there. Polly Toynbee's book 'The Verdict' concluded that education had been one New Labour's genuine success stories. You can't make children succeed but if a child wants to succeed they probably have a much better chance than 20 years ago.

Education unlocks doors. For some children it is the only key they will ever have.

(Answers on the comments board about what the Wombles can teach us)


Please pass this on to all your friends!

Arise Queen Posh and King Becks

The news that Prince William is engaged to be married to Kate Middleton has sent ripples of indifference through the nation. Long gone are the days when the bunting would be out on every street. After 30 years of sordid marital betrayal only the deluded can believe in fairytales anymore. Cameron's statement that the Coalition cabinet members were cheering and thumping the table with glee should give us all pause for thought. 

Even the BBC's Royal Correspondent Peter Hunt, who must have given a sigh of relief given the cuts the BBC are facing, found it hard to summon-up any enthusiasm. It is hard to believe his claim that, "I know many people who are actively thinking about where they will place their picnic tables and chair once they have a date." Really? Yet in our supposed meritocratic and classless age, perhaps the decision of our future, next-in-line to a feudal symbol of hereditary privilege and entitlement - or king, if you prefer - to marry into 'trade' should be a signal for all of us to celebrate.

Many aristocratic families over the centuries, facing financial difficulties, have sought to marry into money. I'm sure that the choice of Ms Middleton, the daughter Carole and Mike - successful children's party entrepreneurs, must have pleased the whole family, especially the Duke of Edinburgh who's famous for his common-touch such as asking a Edinburgh driving instructor, 'How do you keep the natives off the booze long enough to get them through the test?'

Despite the regal smile, getting the begging bowl out must be particularly hard on the Queen. To many she has been a beacon of our nation's dignity, rising above the grubbiness of modern life. Only in September we learnt of her dignified attempt to tap into a £60 million poverty fund earmarked for schools, hospitals and low-income families. In these tough times how can the the world's largest landowner with a personal fortune of £349 million and an annual contribution of £7.9 million from the state make ends meet? She is a lesson to us all.

The eight years 'living in sin' have given the Middleton's a long time to prepare for the news and they have needed it. Universities are not what they used to be and your children can easily get involved with the wrong types. William actually seems like quite a nice young man. However, it must be trying for these middle Englanders to accept that Kate will be marrying into to a immigrant family characterised by immorality, unemployment and welfare dependency. 

Like an embarrassing dad in 'Shameless', Prince Charles' comment that the couple had been 'practising' for long enough must have sent shivers down their spines. It is only to be hoped that the Middleton's influence can help the Windsors reach the higher moral standards set by Daily Mail readers. Family occasions could be particularly trying. 

It is to William's credit that he has tried to avoid many of the pitfalls that his family have fallen. Although, I do wonder how Kate felt being given his mother's ' The one to rule them all' engagement ring given the luck it brought Diana? The Royal Family are on the offensive with a wedding and then the jubilee to galvanise support. However, I think the tide is against them although it is seldom recognised. Even the Tories refused to increase the Civil List this year - the 20th year in succession it has stayed the same - and in the long run do we need a monarchy that has the air of a provincial door-to-door salesman? Doesn't the monarchy need a touch of glamour? Will's attempt to 'do' ordinary may just be another nail in the monarchy.

I hope that Will and Kate have a long and happy marriage but if we have to have a monarchy, couldn't we keep the palaces and install Posh and Becks, just think what that would do for tourism?