Why the Young Might be Rioting

The British Social Attitudes Survey was released this month and although much of the coverage focused on attitudes to benefits and inequality, it is striking that the section on age groups has not had much attention given its relevance to the university fees protests of recent weeks.

For what this summary of the chapter tells us is that the young (people in their 20s) feel both discriminated against and that they have more in common with each other than with people in other age groups.  For example, this bar chart shows incidents of age discrimination by age group and is quite telling:

I wonder how far this feeling of being discriminated against, perhaps even 'picked on' by wider society, contributes to feelings of a lack of fairness in public policy aimed at the young.  I suspect it does, and I also suspect the young are not wrong to feel this way - after all, their votes are much less important to politicians than those of the older generations.  The older we are the more certain we are to vote, and therefore the more our interests matter to those making public policy decisions:

I am about to reach David Willetts' book 'The Pinch', about the power of the 'baby-boomer' generation and the benefits they have accrued to themselves thanks to their sheer demographic weight of numbers.  I hope this will illuminate the issue further and I will bring you thoughts about this in future posts.  In the meantime, here is David Willetts' presentation about the book to the Royal Society of Arts: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V30AHLKKn3A (the first 30 minutes).

The key point that strikes me is whether the social contract between the generations is being visibly strained by the public spending cuts. The young, rich and poor alike, face rising tuition fees for university, fewer jobs/higher unemployment and rising mortgage deposit requirements.   Meanwhile the old receive free bus travel, free TV licences, help with fuel bills, sight tests etc. and more generous pensions under changes brought in by the government - no matter their need and no matter the spending cuts and higher taxes that are being implemented in order to pay down the public debt.

What implications does this brewing conflict between the generations have?  For businesses and communicators, this is something to ponder as the young get older and become consumers for products and services that have previously been provided to a richer, less burdened and more privileged generation.  How will their attitudes affect the public mood over the next several years?

Letter in PR Week

This letter from me has been published in PR Week this week.  It is in response to this 'soap box' in a previous issue.

Blogging will be light...

...due to heavy work commitments for the next fortnight or so.

Good news for the sisterhood

It is good to see Cameron adding some more women to the list of Britain's business ambassadors (see list here at the FT).  More recognition for such role models should help to encourage more women to reach the heights of the business world.

A former client of mine, an American businesswoman, told me that in the States successful women are called 'Sheroes'.  I won't dwell on the irony of the name Hero being hijacked for use by men...

A shero?

Audrey recommends

A very good post by Iain Dale on how No.10 failed to media plan its big policy announcement on welfare this weekend.

I wonder if this is a result of poor management or a sign of the leadership's continued isolation from backbenchers?

Woolas and Election Campaigning

There seems to be some hand-wringing over at the FT that the way election campaigns are run will have to change significantly as a result of the court's decision that Phil Woolas is guilty of corrupt practices under the Representation of the People Act.

Contrary to being a 'bizarre' precedent, I think many in the business world, who must be honest with the City and consumers when trying to gain money (as dictated by laws and regulations galore), will find it amazing that politicians are not subject to similar restrictions when trying to gain votes.

Smears are nothing new, but I think it is entirely fair for politicians to be obliged not to deliberately lie about someone else's character.  The idea that this is alright because it is 'normal practice' in politics does the business of politics no favours at all.

Not lying for personal advantage is a fairly basic starting point for ethical behaviour. Indeed, many industries have imposed such rules on themselves without needing an external body such as a court to make them do so.  The communications industry and the pharmaceutical industry are two such that have Codes of Conduct promoting ethical practice, and the public affairs industry has just launched the UK Public Affairs Council to do the same.

To be clear, I don't mean my argument to apply to policy positions or promises, on which politicians must be allowed to alter their views.  Governing is a reality which simply can't be prejudged and Parliamentary sovereignty means that Parliament cannot be bound by pre-election promises.  The electorate are pretty savvy about this anyway, so I'm not sure people are really misled when a politician goes back on a policy pledge.  Smearing your opponent is quite another matter - and outside election campaigns would be libel.  Which begs the question - why should it be OK to libel someone in order to get yourself elected?

UPDATE: This article at Conservative Home confuses policy issues with the point of this judgement that campaigners can't lie about the other candidate: http://conservativehome.blogs.com/centreright/2010/11/robert-halfon-mp-the-implications-of-the-phil-woolas-case.html


UPDATE 2: The public agree with me (how gratifying!)

The LGA's bleeding stumps

The Local Government Association is putting up vulnerable old people as the first to suffer from local council spending cuts, as reported by the BBC here.

The government provided an extra £2bn for social care by 2014-15 in the Spending Review, though there are fears that not all of it will reach the people who need it (if councils choose to spend it on other things).

A fairly clear 'bleeding stump' being proferred by the LGA and therefore I doubt they will have much luck with their campaign - it is too obvious.

However, I do wonder how much of the burden will end up on the NHS instead, which will be undergoing its massive transformation and unable to cope with such a significant additional demand.  If I were the NHS Chief Exec, David Nicholson, I'd want a chat with the LGA...

The Government's Plan for Growth

Apparently the expected White Paper on Growth has been delayed until the end of this year. Two things are wrong with this:

1) Governments don't drive economic growth.  As I've said before, they can only create the conditions for it. The idea of having such a paper comes instead from the need for a narrative on growth, and instead of getting on with creating one the government is going to give us this red herring of a White Paper.

2) Policies and decisions affecting economic growth are being made all the time - a specific White Paper is unnecessary and represents a fruitless attempt to capture at one moment in time the vast wealth of government policy that is relevant to the economy. Yet until it is published, everyone will be waiting for it and uncertainty will remain in the air.  Uncertainty is not good for growth.

So I think this is the wrong thing in terms of government communications and in terms of what is needed to drive growth.  The government doesn't need a White Paper on Growth. What it needs is a clear set of priorities - the most common challenge for leaders of every kind of organisation - and a large dose of common sense, one of the greatest virtues a Minister can have. This is already evident in some areas. Look at transport, where 15% cuts are being made to help trim the deficit but investment in those transport schemes that most help economic growth is going ahead. A sensible compromise that meets the government's priorities.

Where is this not happening?  I've already mentioned a few things in my earlier post, but let me just set out three areas where I am most keen for some sensible thinking and action:

Planning: lots of uncertainty and delay, which impacts on growth far more widely than just the housing sector. Obtaining planning permission with some degree of certainty and within reasonable timescales is key to many domestic and international investment decisions.

Regulation: when was the last time you heard Vince Cable even talk about the need for more effective, streamlined regulation? In his speech to the CBI he only refers to regulation that is specifically to do with enforcing competition rules - ignoring the swathe of other regulations businesses, including SMEs, have to keep up to date with. The BIS website section on regulation doesn't have anything new to say on the topic either.

RDAs/LEPs: Uniting the CBI and TUC at this moment in time is quite an achievement and shows what a mess this area of policy is at the moment. I have some sympathy on this one, because really it is an illustration of what happens when central government leaves something local up to local authorities and local businesses to sort out among themselves. Local authorities are not yet equipped to take up this role, but they never will be if central government always steps in. Having said this, there is still a need for regional and national co-ordination and that is properly BIS' job.

What is happening with the Downing Street e-petitions?

Screengrab taken today, 31 Oct 2010

The Downing Street website is no longer accepting petitions, with the site saying an improved petitions system will be launched later this year.  Given that the government has been in place for over 5 months now, there are only 2 months of 2010 left, and there was no great need for a new system, I hope there is no unnecessary delay and that people can submit petitions again soon.

Apart from anything else, it is good fun to see what the British public come up!

On a serious note, from a communications point of view once this system was launched it was always going to be tremendously difficult to go back on it without incurring a lot of unnecessary criticism.  So, the no.10 communications team may as well make the best of it.  Hiding from the public is unedifying.  If the new system is delayed for too long, people may start to suspect that is what is really happening and it would send a bad message that the PM and his team don't want to listen to the people.  I have to say, I'm surprised that there hasn't been more fuss about this already - the only thing I can find is this BBC article.

Audrey recommends

The FT's Philip Stephens has a well-judged post on the proposed reforms to the NHS.  It is a few days old  now, but doesn't go out of date that fast!  It is well worth a read and poses the question on many people's minds: why?

Plus ҫa change

This Spectator blog post gave me a strong sense of deja vu - Cameron is a leader somewhat apart from the mainstream of his party taking a bold course of action in the face of a lack of international consensus on what should be done, and at the same time morally absolutely certain that he is right to do it.

Plus ҫa change...

Spending Cuts: a couple of observations

1. The Cabinet Office sees a 20% increase in funding over five years.  I can't understand what this will be spent on, can you?   Actually, this is a large % increase but a small actual rise (in government spending terms), from 0.4 to 0.5 billion.  So probably not much happening there.

2. The security and intelligence services see a 6.6% decrease.  This is risky considering the continued high terrorist threat to the UK - the Prime Minister will be called to account if there is a terrorist attack on the mainland that, arguably, could have been prevented.  Of course we would never know if it could have been prevented with an extra bit of money or not, but it would be a very uncomfortable time for the PM nonetheless.

By the way, this table over at the FT is very handy indeed.

NHS Atlas of Risk

This tool is fascinating!  It tells you what are the things that are most likely to kill you - and puts into perspective all the newspaper warnings about allergies, chemicals etc.  Highly interesting and will definitely make me eat more vegetables.

What I found scary was personalising it to 'Female' and 'age 20-44' and then out of curiosity changing the sex to 'Male' - the 2nd cause of death suddenly becomes suicide, in a great big grey circle.  It is easy to forget how big an issue this is for young men.

The second scary thing was adding that I'm in London - suddenly the murder circle got bigger!

Ed's First PMQs - or Dr Cameron and Mr Brown

This is late, I know, but I have to comment on this week's Prime Minister's Questions.

When pressed on child benefits, David Cameron's answer was basically that Ed had no alternative policy on deficit reduction.  He didn't answer the question or acknowledge that some people will lose out (as some always will when policies are changed), so his good points about the less well-off paying taxes to fund child benefit and the deficit being paid off had no impact.

This sort of argument is depressingly familiar - it used to be Gordon Brown's favourite line when challenged by David Cameron at PMQs : 'he has no policy on the economy...'  It was weak then, and it's weak now.  I earnestly hope that Cameron isn't going to turn into Brown at PMQs and that his team will prepare him better for next week.

My advice: be human and honest.  Accept that there will be some losers and the policy isn't perfect, then people will actually listen when you go on to explain that those on low incomes should not be taxed to help middle income families look after their children.  How to deal with the losers is a problem: means testing is not practicable.  Either promise to look into it if you are prepared to compensate them, or accept that it just can't be helped.

The Role of Shadow Chancellor

The commentariat is divided: one side thinks Alan Johnson's background and political skill make him a worthy opponent to George Osborne, the other side thinks his lack of knowledge and expertise in economics put him at a disadvantage.

As usual, there is some truth in both points.  The defining political argument of our times is about the economy and Labour need to present a cogent alternative to the government if they are to win over voters.  A Shadow Chancellor who understands economics would seem to be a good idea.

And yet...

In opposition, the trump card is not subject matter expertise but political skill and acumen - the Opposition can play politics when it is to their advantage, it is one of the benefits of their position and allows them to boil their arguments down to a couple of key points or criticisms.  They do not have to have a fully fleshed out alternative policy (as Cameron proved by winning the election!)

A further point, that so far does not seem to have been aired, is that the Shadow Chancellor is not the key person to put forward Labour's economic case - that role falls to the Leader of the Opposition as the foremost figure in the party.  Naturally enough, opposition parties don't get as much media attention and find it hard to set the agenda (this is a disadvantage of opposition).  The leader therefore tends to do most of the running and despite Alan Johnson being a known figure this will still be the case here.  Ed Miliband as the new leader also needs to boost his public profile and convince people that he is a potential Prime Minister.  Given the country's situation he must do this on one key battlefield - the economy.  His Shadow Chancellor will provide back-up.  And that is a role Alan Johnson is perfect for.

Seen at Conference

• Iain Duncan Smith surrounded by young ladies who seemed very pleased to see him.
• Toby Young, author of How to Lose Friends & Alienate People, and one of a group of parents behind the West London Free School project, lurking at the back of a fringe meeting on autonomy in schools with his sunglasses on through the whole meeting!
• Menzies Campbell sitting in an inconspicuous corridor of the conference centre, just before the footbridge to the Hyatt Hotel - I would say he also was lurking, but he looks far too distinguished to lurk.
• Eric Pickles holding court with the media.
• Fraser Nelson, Editor of the Spectator, generally looking dishy.
• Tony Blair's autobiography in the conference bookshop, heavily discounted already.
• Jeremy Paxman looking (surprisingly) old - or perhaps just very worn out by all the conference-ing.

Cameron's Speech: National Interest vs Self Interest

This is what stood out for me in Cameron's speech to the Conservative Conference today.  He was clear that his party is acting in the national interest, as is Nick Clegg's, and in his call to the public to join in the work - to volunteer, set up a business, engage with their public services etc.  Together in the National Interest - the words were said so many times it was almost too much, but that is how to get a message across (we can all learn from Brown on that point).

Of course the unsaid comparison is with the Labour party - the party of vested interests (the unions) that acted against the national interest (the large public debt the country now has) and even, in Ed Miliband, perhaps a selfish leader?  A man who sacrificed his brother for his own ambition and who is 'too busy' to put his name on his child's birth certificate?

A clear message then, but are the voters listening?  I can't wait for the next polls to come out.

Getting Business Going

According to the FT small businesses are starting to find it easier to access credit, which has got to be good news for the economy.  Now the government needs to help create conditions that encourage investment - key to this is certainty and confidence.

I suggest a few policy areas that need some serious attention to help with this:

1) Transport - investment in the country's transport infrastructure is vital for business; lots of cancelled projects will cause jitters (possible - Transport Secretary Philip Hammond understands this)

2) Planning - this doesn't just affect the housing industry.  If you are a foreign investor and you need to build a factory or plant, the uncertainty and cost of the planning process in the UK is a disincentive (not likely)

3) Energy - a big sector in its own right and also part of the UK infrastructure.  We need a big 'Invest Here and Now' sign to be put up by the Department of Energy and Climate Change (not likely)

4) Tax - some moves have already been made on this; they should be shouted from the rooftops over and over again to ensure everyone gets the message that the UK is a good place to do business (likely)

5) Regulation - the cost to business of regulation is gigantic and while not adding to it is a good start, government could also look at simplifying or cutting back on some of what is there already. (not likely)

Teaching Unions - Clever Words?

At the previously mentioned meeting I attended on school autonomy, Christine Blower of the NUT said something that I think is highly important for the coalition government and Michael Gove.  She described public sector schools as 'community schools'.  This very deliberate and brazen attempt to hijack the term for schools where parents only get a say if they are one of a few to join the governing board, and then find they have almost no room for manoeuvre anyway, is in its own way quite brilliant.  And it contrasts with the government's own poor communications on the issue.

This redefinition of the public sector to mean the same thing as community confirms David Cameron's point that the left seems to think that the state and society are the same thing.  Ideologically debatable, but in communications terms it's a great move - cutting through the government's attempt to differentiate between communities' interest and that of the public sector that serves them, boosting the 'fluffy' factor of the public sector schools and trying to paint the government's plans as being against rather than for local communities.

This boldness with language and messages goes to show just how tough the union opposition to the coalition's plans will be for Michael Gove to overcome.

Audrey recommends

This post from Alistair Campbell is excellent - he clearly tells us what No.10 is doing wrong in its communications and tactics on the child benefit issue.

It seems to me (and the polls confirm) that most sensible people agree with the policy and its aims, but a completely unnecessary fuss has been created due to poor communications.

Schools - mission impossible?

I am just returned from the Conservative Party Conference in Birmingham - more on that later.  The thinktank Policy Exchange held a meeting on whether school autonomy would improve school performance.  The single point that struck me most forcefully was made by a Swedish 'free schools' expert, Anders Hultin, who argued that although politicians needed to leave the 'how' of education to teachers, pupils and parents, there is absolutely a need for political leadership in defining what education IS - the 'what' question.

Teachers, heads, parents and children need to know what they are striving for and aiming at - what is their mission?  It has been discussed elsewhere that the previous Labour government widened the purpose of schools from educating children to reducing inequalities, improving health and other social purposes.  Some argue that a focused remit on excellent education for children would yield better results.  This thinking goes down well with Conservatives, particularly those of a traditional bent.

So far so good.  However at another meeting sponsored by the RSA and this time on the topic of the Big Society, the point was made that if the government wishes to encourage people to be active in their communities, schools are essential points of interaction.  This is particularly so in very deprived communities where structured charitable and social organisations are rare.

So - in pursuing the Department for Education's core mission, the role of schools as lightning rods of the Big Society might well be undermined.  Those two strands of current Conservative thinking seem to clash in a way that highlights the contradictions between the traditional wing of the party and the leadership's more 'progressive' tendencies.  Political leadership will be needed to address this and make a choice if schools are to understand what their mission is.  After all, that is what leadership is for.

Trimming the Quangocracy

I was sceptical that the new government would be able to make much headway with its promise of a 'bonfire of the quangos'.  Vested interests grow up around such bodies and every single one, I thought, would defend itself with vigour.

Instead the process has been remarkably quiet, with consultations and discussions taking place within Whitehall rather than causing much public fuss.  A list of 177 bodies, agencies, committees and quangos to be abolished has now emerged at the Telegraph, along with two other lists: a list of bodies still under review and a list of bodies to be merged.

Two things strike me:

First, the astonishing number of advisory committees, which I'm certain are completely ignored when their advice isn't what the Minister wants to hear.  I don't think this means their expert advice will no longer be heard - rather the opposite, they were muffled inside the tent and now they can speak loudly and openly.  Scientists may need a bit of help lobbying government in the right language, the right way and at the right time (as do businesses) but setting them loose from government itself may prove to be a good thing in the long run.

Second, the cuts under consideration go much further than I thought they would.  Even executive agencies such as the Environment Agency are still under review for example - this would be a very big move.  The EA was formed in 1996 by a Conservative government and employs over 10,000 staff.  I rather suspect this one will  be merged or moved into the Department almost wholesale.  But the point is that nothing has been taken for granted, it really has been a root-and-branch review.

I applaud the effort and believe this is a worthwhile exercise.  However, much like the cuts to the Building Schools for the Future programme, I hope the people in charge have done their homework properly and aren't rushing things...

Audrey recommends

Read James Delingpole's amusing take in the Telegraph on why New Labour isn't dead...

How the public sector voted

I'm just catching up with Ipsos Mori's Labour Conference briefing pack.  An interesting fact on page 12, which I had not appreciated before, is that only 34% of public sector workers voted Labour in the 2010 General Election, compared to 46% in 2001 and 52% in 1997.

Given the Conservatives' clear message about cuts, I find this surprising.  What do you think?

Communicating on the voters' priorities

The coalition wants to talk about spending cuts and reform of the public services, especially education and the NHS.  Its narrative, as many others have pointed out, is not yet clear and compelling.

However, the Economist (11th September issue) points out that for the public, the overwhelmingly most important issue facing Britain is the economy - concern about the NHS and education is at its lowest point for 25 years, having started to decline as important issues from 2002.  Their source is IPSOS Mori.  The Economist removed immigration and unemployment from their graph for clarity, but the full one is still interesting:

So, what does this mean for the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats in the coalition government?  That as well as communicating their narrative effectively, they need 'a plan for growth' to be part of that narrative, exactly as Ed Miliband and Ed Balls have been pointing out.  The government needs to show it understands people's concerns for their jobs and the state of the economy, and that they are doing what they can to help.  Measures announced in the Emergency Budget have already been forgotten and could do with being repeated ad nauseam. What else?  Well, often, the best thing the government can do for business is to get out of its way!  So deregulation or streamlining how regulations work would help take some of the burden off business without spending much public money.  

Which reminds me of Reagan's famous quote on the government view of the economy: 'if it moves, tax it, if it still moves, regulate it, if it stops moving, subsidise it'!

Ed Miliband

Over the last couple of days I have heard Ed Miliband say 'as the leader of the party, I...' several times.  He sounds slightly unsure or incredulous at his own position and I would advise him to change his language so that he simply assumes the authority of leader without referring to it.  He would come across as a bit stronger and more confident.

Is Whitehall Listening to Business?

A couple of years ago there were mutterings that BIS might be abolished altogether should the Conservatives come to power.  Certainly pre-Mandelson it was widely viewed as not up to much.  Mandelson's political power and proximity to the PM changed that.  With its destiny so closely linked to its Secretary of State, what is Cable's anti-business stance doing for the department's role within Whitehall?

How can the department champion business while its Secretary of State criticises capitalism en masse?  How can it retain credibility with either side - business or government?  I understand that Vince Cable 'doesn't believe in sectors' when it comes to the department's work.  That is mind-boggling, and leaves civil service teams supporting particular sectors nowhere.

In this situation, the 'back-up' that BIS represents to big business' relationships with government is no longer what it once was (though many were already sceptical of its ability to influence colleagues in Whitehall).  This can present specific problems for some, where the departments they engage with are unreceptive and need encouragement to consider business issues as part of their agenda.  A more creative use of wider communications tools will be needed to open up some of those attitudes; the same messages from the same people should not be expected to change matters.

For smaller business, the BIS situation is a much bigger problem as they find access elsewhere in Whitehall much more difficult.  For them, trade bodies will be the key to such access and they should invest their time in making such collaborative efforts work.  Success may also require smaller businesses to put pressure on their trade bodies to up their game in communications and public affairs and, indeed, their general leadership.

A lesson from Eurostar

Image from the Sydney Morning Herald, who sourced it from AFP 

Last year I was badly delayed on my way to Christmas in France by the Eurostar trains debacle.  Due to travel on the Monday, we heard that weekend passengers were to travel on that day and we were to travel on the Wednesday, but getting hold of any information was like squeezing blood from a stone.  In outer space, while rubbing your tummy and patting your head for good measure.

Customer services were only open 9 'til 5, as if nothing had happened, and so were virtually uncontactable.  Eventually, it was the company's Facebook page that came to the rescue.  Hundreds of people had joined it - ironically making them 'fans' of Eurostar - and someone started to answer their queries.  As many of these were very similar, people could read previous answers and find useful information.  Users also helped each other by passing on information from staff at the main terminals (on both sides of the Channel).  Slowly confusions were cleared up and people helped.  A 15 year old girl alone in Brussels was successfully repatriated - with Eurostar's efforts in full view of hundreds of customers looking at the page.

It wasn't at all perfect (answers from Eurostar tended to come at 2 or 3 hour intervals), but a PR tool intended for no such thing had suddenly become the only responsive customer service channel available.

Ever since, I have offered this example to colleagues, employers and now potential employers in my interviews as an illustration that customer relations and corporate communications should be linked up.  Customers need to be considered part of the communications team's remit as intimate stakeholders of the organisation (I don't say 'key' stakeholders because the word is overused).

Customer relations teams may be unhappy about this and see it as a land-grab by Comms Directors.  I don't think this needs to be the case - Comms teams are well used to working in partnership with internal colleagues  and a great deal could be achieved simply by establishing relationships and working together.

An Early Christmas Song from the Lib Dems

See this Spectator post for an amusing Lib Dem song - who says Lib Dem Conference is dull?

What is happening to policy making?

The processes that supposedly underpin policy making in this coalition government appear to have completely broken down during the summer break.  The milk 'U-turn' and graduate tax double 'U-turn' are cases in point - Ministers and No.10 are completely unco-ordinated, ideas are being floated willy-nilly only to be slapped down only to be resurrected.

This is pandemonium!

The country needs better government than this; I hope things calm down ahead of the Spending Review.  The government appears to be campaigning rather than governing and we risk the same 'non-debate' over spending cuts that we had during the election.

Businesses need immigration

The ever-reliable FT yesterday posted this article highlighting how the implementation of the government's immigration cap is causing businesses real headaches.

It appears that in an effort to prevent a rush of applications a temporary cap has been put in place and work permits allocated based on companies' applications last year.  Last year, of course, was a terrible year for business and is an entirely unreasonable year to base calculations on for a year when the economy is beginning to grow again.

(image from Guernsey Post website)

Now, of course companies should make use of home-grown talent where they can.  But that is clearly not always possible, especially for those competing for the best of international talent in science, technology and financial services for example.

The government should be encouraging growth and the competitiveness of British industry.  It needs some joined-up thinking on this issue, pronto.

This is the sort of thing the Business Secretary should be able to tackle through the Economic Affairs Cabinet committee of which Vince Cable is Deputy Chair (the Chancellor is the Chair).  Businesses seeking to resolve this issue could do worse than to ensure they brief each Minister attending that committee and the Department they represent on why this needs a re-think.

Cutting back the state

I've just caught up with the news that Eric Pickles has announced in principle the abolition of Government Offices in the regions of England.  This was one of the low-hanging fruit in terms of cutting quangos and offices.

Some raise concerns about economic development in the regions - but for places like the North East where this matters most the development agency is likely to remain, and in other regions councils are perfectly able of co-operating on issues of economic development.

A no-brainer and a good move for the country's finances without impacting economic development.

Science funding

The FT covers the story of the emerging spat between Lord Browne and the science community here.  I want to start by saying that I do think it important for politicians and others not to meddle too much in science, which is a very uncertain field that often throws out unexpected results - and benefits.

But I think scientists would do themselves a huge favour with the public and politicians if
a) they stopped asking for and receiving funding for research projects of evidently no value to society.  Private Eye does a good job of identifying the worst culprits, from their own press releases.
b)  if they want to ensure the public knows and understands the value of what they do, they need to communicate and engage far, far better.  And by that I don't mean press releases, visits to schools, and lobbying for funding.

These aren't particularly original points but the fact that they still need to be made shows that scientists, on the whole, have not yet grasped the perception challenge that they face.

Public to comment on Bills?

Not much attention has been given to this proposal among the fuss about voting systems and the number of MPs.    But members of the public having the right to comment directly on legislation as it is going through the Houses of Parliament is incredibly radical.  It is an attempt to bring direct democracy to the UK - and I am entirely against it.

Give the right to random individuals to amend laws governing us all and you invite the crazed ('passionate') about single issues to rule over the moderate, and silent, majority.  That is what representative democracy is there to avoid.  I elect my MP to debate and amend legislation and given that they are a member of a political party that is made up of a broad coalition of interests in the country, they will tend to represent a broad section of the electorate quite successfully.  Who does my neighbour represent but him or herself?

More importantly, who do the RSPCA represent?  Greenpeace?  These kinds of interest groups have a very strong tendency to authoritarianism - if individuals don't behave the way they want them to, they reach for the tools of the state (legislation and taxes) to force them to do so.  I shudder at the thought of giving them power over legislation.

I can't really see what safeguards could be built in to avoid such undue influence by interest groups though.  One could perhaps filter out the sort of copy-and-paste 'grassroots' campaigns that so burden MPs' secretaries now.  But more importantly how can one ensure that the much larger number of people that are impacted by legislation but not passionate about the issue at stake have their voice to counteract such lobbying efforts?  

Or will MPs simply overrule the public amendments?  In which case how will the public react?  What is the point of allowing the public to have an input and then ignoring it?  That will fuel yet more cynicism about politics.

On all counts, this proposal fails.  It will not yield better legislation or better democracy.

Fortunately, this reform will be of the slower kind and will afford the opportunity to learn from mistakes - there will be 'pilots' only in November 2011.

*image found on Nuclear Power Gallery 

Political Reform

I'm going to be making a few comments about the government's political reform agenda.  Keep checking back for new posts.

Voting and all that jazz

The anti-AV camp is already limbering up, with a few good posters being designed and featured on Tom Harris' blog.  This latest attempt makes its point about the complexity of AV very effectively and will play on people's fear of things they don't understand.  It also succeeds in presenting First Past the Post as a fair system, thereby reinforcing the message that the coalition is trying to change things to put themselves at an advantage.

Clever.

Growth and the power of Chancellors

Good news on the economy today, with provisional figures showing 1.1% growth in Q2.  The BBC reports George Osborne saying this proves he was right to deal with the deficit.

I do wonder how omnipotent Chancellors think they are when they say things like this.  Osborne's actions as Chancellor won't have had such a strong and immediate impact in June that they could possibly have affected figures for April, May and June together to this extent.

This kind of bluster in the media does no favours for honesty or transparency.  Spin was never going to go away, but I am still a bit disappointed...

The Weakest Link

This post on Political Betting is an excellent counterweight to the current body of opinion that holds the coalition will last for more than 2 years.  At a Policy Exchange event not so long ago around 3/4 of the room (full of professional politics-watchers) - said they thought the coalition would last 4 or 5 years.  I was in the minority that thought it would be less than that.

The coalition is undoubtedly being given the benefit of the doubt at present and the public and media seem to want it to succeed.  The mood, and media narrative, will change at some point however and I wonder just how far the Lib Dems will go.  Are they, as Henry Manson argues, the weak point that might bring down the coalition?

That seems likely to me.

PMQs - 21 July 2010

Nick Clegg was measured and confident at his first PMQs.  He made several spirited and well-argued attacks on the Labour government's record and legacy.  I should think David Cameron will have no concerns about leaving him to hold the fort again in future.

Opposite him, Jack Straw took the role of Shadow Deputy PM and made really dreadful attempts to attack the Liberal Democrats - claiming they have no influence on government policy when it is as plain as the nose in the middle of Jack Straw's face that huge amounts of influence have been exercised - the referendum on our voting system, the rise in capital gains tax, the protections for the lower paid that were evident in the Emergency Budget, and many more.

Labour are not only still in denial about the UK's debt mountain, but also about the coalition itself and the very nature of politics as a result of this year's election result.  Wiser heads than I have commented that Labour needs to have an eye to a future in which coalitions are the norm and they need the Lib Dems - better to make up and be friends again sooner rather than later...

On Defence...

At an event on Monday evening, I got into conversation with someone in the defence industry and we reflected on the challenges facing this remaining giant of British engineering and manufacturing.  The Defence Matters campaign has focused on raising the profile of the defence industry's importance to the UK, particularly economically.  But perhaps this has just had the effect of saying 'we're big and rich'.

There is almost no communication about the industry's purpose - its products.  These are taken as given and not communicated to wider audiences outside the defence world.  Partly this is because of the controversial nature of those products of course.  But I believe it is necessary to explain why these things are important to the UK if the industry wishes to avoid having a conversation only with itself at a time of huge public scrutiny.

In terms of our security, military success and international power and influence, the defence industry is part and parcel of the UK's place in the world.  It is one of our remaining strengths in the face of US hegemony and the rise and rise of China and India.  What kind of country do we want to be?  Perhaps reviving a sense of pride in Britain is the real point that should be made to the public if the industry is to receive the support it would like.

Welcome

If you need a helping hand in the world of politics and need someone you can trust, please get in touch for a confidential and commitment-free chat about your business or organisation.

Call me on 07917 727 802

Or e-mail me on ayvernault@gmail.com