I’ll be coming back to why I think it’s a very stupid idea, and evidence that New Labour really has caved into a resurgent neoliberal narrative, but for starters let me say I broadly agree with Giles analysis, both of this plan and the Tories proposal for an Office for Budget Responsibility, which ‘far from ‘transforming government’, would in fact neuter Parliament and allow Conservatives to force fiscal hawkishness on future generations.‘
Tonight let’s focus elsewhere.
Grace Fletcher-Hackwood is correct to identify the proposals in Brown’s speech for ‘all 16 and 17 year olds who get support from the taxpayer’ as the most immediately controversial aspect of the speech, and of course it is at the centre of my comrade-in-blog Dave’s tirade earlier this evening, as well as getting an immediate makeover in troll-land to become the plan for ‘gulags for slags’.
Here, just for much needed clarity is what that part of the speech says:
‘And I do think it’s time to address a problem that for too long has gone unspoken, the number of children having children. For it cannot be right, for a girl of sixteen, to get pregnant, be given the keys to a council flat and be left on her own.
From now on all 16 and 17 year old parents who get support from the taxpayer will be placed in a network of supervised homes. These shared homes will offer not just a roof over their heads, but a new start in life where they learn responsibility and how to raise their children properly. That’s better for them, better for their babies and better for us all in the long run.’
The battle lines are easily drawn.
For Dave, this is evidence of ‘the utter bankruptcy in the face of right-wing aggression on social issues’.
For our old friend Tom Harris, at the other end of the party, it’s an opportunity to crow ‘I told you so’ about the newly announced policy, and await the loving embraces of his trolls, blissfully forgetful of the fact that the post in which he told us so is simply an attack on the immorality, and actually states: ‘This post isn’t about policy.’
The reality is a little more complex.
Whatever the trolls may be saying about new institutions in which to lock teenage mothers away, and however much they want to compare this speech to what the BNP have set out in their dross, that is not what the speech says.
The speech talks of a ‘network of supervised homes’.
That is precisely what we have at the moment up and down the country. We often call them ‘foyers’ and the foyers have their own well-established federation.
In other places, they may be called hostels, but the aims are broadly the same, and many or most of them work with young parents to get them into employment and training and help them move into ‘sustainable tenancies’. Many are run by the voluntary sector.
In other areas where there is no such provision, the voluntary sector works with young parents to get them their own place, and then support them when they get in there. In the homelessness charity I used to work for, these people are called Floating Support Workers, and the ones I worked with were brilliant at their job.
All of these options fit the description of ‘a network of supervised homes’. What the speech is about is about firming up this offer to ensure that all 16 and 17 year old parents get the support they need. It is actually about building on good stuff that’s been happening.
It is a desperate shame, indeed shameful, that plans for this perfectly reasonable and laudable extension of provision towards a universal service, of which the government should be proud, has been masked by what Dave rightly suggests is a rhetorical pandering to the right on social issues, and that what in practice could be genuinely socially useful is being sold as a response to ‘tough social questions’.
Sensible social housing policy wonks in Whitehall, who will have advised the government on the practicalities of implementation, must be tearing their hair out at what the spin doctors have done to their plans and to the prospects for the universalisation of this decent service being rolled out.
Of course, I’m concerned about the implied threat of compulsion in the new scheme, though in practice I suspect that this would be no more compulsory than the current ‘compulsory’ attachment to a Connexions/careers advisor for young people who are not in education, employment or training (NEETS) (indeed it might be that the job of a careers advisor might have elements of parenting supervision built into job roles to cope with the new requirements at no great extra cost).
There is one problem with implementation, and that’s where Dave and Tom Harris come back into the equation.
Dave has already set out the problems caused by the end to ringfencing of the £1.6bn Supporting People (SP) grant paid by central government to councils.
This means that in some places – Dave quotes Coventry and Canterbury – homelessness and accommodation services of the type envisaged in Brown’s speech and which are currently largely funded through SP monies, are coming under threat, as council use the new flexibilities to move money away from the most vulnerable and towards ‘sexier’, vote winning spending.
Dave’s key concern in with Coventry is the Cyrenians, and their counterparts in Tyneside have put the problem very well in their Select Committee evidence:
‘We believe that removing the ring fence from SP and transferring funding without criteria or restriction to Area-based Grants fails to mainstream services for the socially excluded, does not improve joint commissioning or planning, places short-term supported accommodation at risk (whilst also removing emergency access and withdrawing funding for supervision), and that an alternative model is required.’
Now, I am a charitable man at heart.
I have therefore left a fullish comment on Tom Harris’s blog, despite his own inappropriate self-acclamation, setting out the facts as I see them – that the proposals set out are not actually as his trolls interpret them, but actually have a basis in sound and progressive policy, but that the current problem with funding needs to be sorted out before they can be implemented. I then invite him to join in lobbying both on this matter of detail around ringfencing, and around the wider issue of the Tories’ plans for General Power of Competence legislation, which would set in train cuts in services to the most vulnerable up and down the country.
If Tom Harris really cares about young people, he’ll get involved. He will at least get back to me with his views on what I am suggesting.
He has returned with comments to some of his trolls, who commented after I did, but has not responded to me. He may still do so. I genuinely hope so. But it seems to me he’s in the last chance saloon.
“So we will raise tax at the very top, cut costs, have realistic public sector pay settlements, make savings we know we can and in 2011 raise National Insurance by half a percent and that will ensure that each and every year we protect and improve Britain’s frontline services”
From Gordon’s speech, this encapsulates best what was said. Take a moment to parse the words. If cost cutting means anything like Ed Balls suggests, it could be disastrous. Public sector pay restraint? Yeah because that’s where people are earning too much. As for raising national insurance, probably the most regressive tax in Britain, well the less said the better.
Yet these suggestions were about the most concrete from Gordon on how Labour would fund continued public expenditure whilst miraculously slashing the deficit in half in four years’ time. There were a few other ideas kicked around, but many of them ring hollow. House of Lords reform rang particularly so, bearing in mind that Labour have had 12 years and have done little enough.
Talk of free education was sickening because there can’t be a student left who doesn’t know that the cap is coming off tuition fees, by hook or by crook.
Equally bad was the trumpeting of Labour’s achievements. If half of what Gordon said was actually true, and relevant to the experience of the individual worker, Labour wouldn’t be getting hammered quite so badly in the polls. Protecting business, limiting unemployment etc is all very well – except for the several million of us unemployed, those of us with it looming over our heads and those of us earning crap wages anyway.
Worst of all was the utter bankruptcy in the face of right-wing aggression on social issues:
“And I do think it’s time to address a problem that for too long has gone unspoken, the number of children having children. For it cannot be right, for a girl of sixteen, to get pregnant, be given the keys to a council flat and be left on her own.
From now on all 16 and 17 year old parents who get support from the taxpayer will be placed in a network of supervised homes. These shared homes will offer not just a roof over their heads, but a new start in life where they learn responsibility and how to raise their children properly. That’s better for them, better for their babies and better for us all in the long run.
We won’t ever shy away from taking difficult decisions on tough social questions.”
Buying into right-wing stereotypes is bad enough, but ‘a network of supervised homes’ doesn’t begin to address the real issue. Brown’s attack on ‘welfare dependency’ and promise to ‘cut crime’ is moralistic at best. It treats these things as personal foibles, which individuals can be educated or bullied out of.
Except there are two and a half million people out of work, of which 1 in 6 are young people. Areas of high unemployment are often areas of low skill, low education and low motivation to do better. With few opportunities to succeed, crime and anti-social activities are a natural recreation and means of subsistence.
Which is why tragedies like that of Fiona Pilkington are going on in South Leicestershire, victim of deindustrialization, and not in South Kensington.
Whither Gordon’s social democratic sensibilities while he was reading out his promises that police would be ever more vigilant, punishments ever stricter and more carefully enforced? All this against people who can hardly pay fines and who are not served by being in (overcrowded, undermanned, unreconstructive) prisons. And who, when they emerge, return to their former circumstances, if not to worse ones.
About one thing did Gordon’s words ring true: the next election is a big choice – but it’s not between “prosperity” and “hope” on the one hand, and “austerity” and pessimism” on the other. Our choices are simply between “bad” and “worse”. Labour and Tory. What a mess.
Some other takes from the Labour and Left blogospheres: Hopi Sen, Harpy Marx on Sarah Brown’s intro, debate and individual reactions on Socialist Unity, Random Blowe, new ‘evidence-based’ fightback blog Left Foot Forward, NuLab rottweiler Luke Akehurst praising loads of the stuff everyone else condemns and more drab loyalism from Will Pomroy. Also see AVPS, who is Browned Off.
Attacks spin? Check. Says a few nice things about ‘old’ Labour? Check. Is a rat bastard snake oil salesman? You better believe it. Yes folks, it’s conference season again and that means turning the Guardian into a mouthpiece for people like James Purnell to hold up to their arse for whatever noises issue forth, from a cavern whose only rival is the space between their ears. Purnell’s argument? That there’s no real difference between New and Old Labour, and that we shouldn’t attack New Labour because really our principles are all the same, we’re just applying them in different eras.
It’s easy to take this view when the only thing you’re willing to admit as evidence are the headline achievements; “The minimum wage and the New Deal. The Human Rights Act and being tough on crime. The windfall tax and the numeracy and literacy hour.” The enmity of the Unions for attempting to undermine firemen, postmen, prison wardens and local government workers. Outsourcing everything in sight. Living in the same anti-immigrants paradigm as the Tories. Attacks on civil liberties, party democracy and young people.
The difference between “New” and “Old” Labour was not simply one of rhetoric. Each had a programme behind them. The rhetoric was not a self-consciously adopted device separate from the programme; the two were interconnected. The thing that allowed New Labour to play well in the media were the concessions Labour made to media owners, and the promises made to business. New Labour did define itself against Old Labour, and did define itself against the party membership, except where the membership did what it was told, conformed to what was expected.
In simple terms, Purnell is also wrong that the two Labours share the same principles. ‘Old’ Labour, retrospectively defined, is essentially Bennism; this was what Kinnock and subsequent modernisers fought against. Committed to a fundamental and irreversible shift in the balance of wealth and power in favour of working people. New Labour – no matters its achievements – was never in favour of this. One set out to be on the side of workers, of organising on democratic principles from the ground up – the other was a masterful rejigging of Fabian paternalism for neo-liberal times.
These two organisational principles created and were created by the demands of each platform within the Party. Yet they are fundamentally opposed; which is why this Labour leadership has had less scruples about seeking support from the Tory opposition to pass laws than it has about negotiating with the ranks of its own MPs. So incompetent has the unquestioning support of people like Purnell been that even when doing the right thing, such as nuclear disarmament, the Party leadership has managed to look utterly craven and opportunistic.
For further examples of such opportunism, we need look no further than Purnell’s claim that we should neither cling to nor criticize the ‘New Labour’ tag. Though Paul makes an interesting case to the contrary, Purnell has only recently begun his apparent transition towards the Left – and this attempt to save something from the wreckage of New Labour carries a strong element of self-justification. It also plays to Jon Cruddas’ idea that New Labour only went sour after 2001 and that it can be repeated: which surely rules out the idea that Purnell is left-wing.
We have seen the path New Labour walked. The best that New Labour’s theorists can do is propose that things might have been different had different people been at the top, had the individuals at the top not forgotten their historical mission, had Labour adopted some different organisational form (though interestingly never including such a power as could stymie and overthrow its leadership). Such philosophic idealism is the wave that will carry Cruddas, Purnell and others like them to power in Labour, as the bureaucracy fears for its future.
The question is, how soon will the rest of us forget their behaviour hitherto whenever their charm and promises begin to be played up by the Toynbees, Kettles, Ashleys and the rest of the commentariat and its goldfish-like memory?
Here’s Paul Richards, New Labour spin doctor, laying into Compass for giving a platform to Caroline Lucas of the Green Party at the Labour conference:
‘The left-wing grouping Compass have caused a row by inviting Green Party MEP Caroline Lucas to the Labour Party conference fringe tonight. It’s not just that the Greens are our enemy, or that the other speakers include party chair Harriet Harman, who wasn’t told. What’s really annoying Labour activists is that Caroline Lucas is the Green’s candidate for the parliamentary seat of Brighton Pavilion. This is the seat that Labour’s Nancy Platts hopes to hold for Labour.’
Actually, and like Don Paskini, I don’t disagree.
But would this be the same Paul Richards who is ex-chair of the Fabian Society, the group which has just hosted both Iain Dale, Tory PPC for Bracknell, and a certain Caroline Lucas, in Brighton, and who hasn’t mentioned that at all?
We just thought we’d give a quick summary of where we’re at stats-wise, thoughts-wise, and what blogposts are in the pipeline, so that readers can either keep an eye out for them or avoid them like the plague.
While topical stuff will inevitably crop up and require a word or 2,000, planned posts for the short term include:
- A review of James Purnell spouting crap in the Guardian;
- Assessing New Labour achievements (1): Children’s Centres;
- The German and Portuguese elections;
- Assessing New Labour achievements (2): the National Minimum Wage;
- Hannah Arendt and totalitarianism, in which Dave and Paul may come to blows;
- Miller vs Roberts: ringside report of bloggers actually nearly coming to blows over the platform/no platform debate;
- Engels’ Anti-Duhring, and how an understanding of same may help you fix your bike;
- Patronising atheists;
- Almost certainly something taking the piss out of Paul Richards, Polly Toynbee, or Tom Harris, or all of them;
- The future for the Labour Left (part 4 of 6), in which Chantal Mouffe gets battered again in the interests of socialism, and a cunning plan for the revival of the labour movement at local level is revealed.
We hope you’ll stick around. We’ve always been pleased with the level and quality of the comments threads, and as authors we always try to respond. We believe this commitment to such engagement is, in part, what marks us out from other blogs.
That and the fuckin’ swearing.
Evidence of the growing profile of TCF lies in our recent blogstats, which show a fourfold increase in page views since June.
We’re also on the look out for like-minded collaborators, so give us a shout if you think you’d like to post at TCF.
Clearly we’re not going to allow rightwing crap to be posted, but if you think your style and substance would fit well with what we’re trying to be and do, then feel free to give us a shout. Your stuff might get plenty of readers, or we might tell you to fuck right off.
But life’s a gamble, eh?
It’s 10am on Monday morning, and I thought I should just take a couple of minutes away from spreadsheeting to predict the kind of outraged fury that will spread across the rightwing blogosphere and media today, as the story about two police officers being told they can’t share childcare gather momentum. It’s already on the BBC website news headlines.
My predictions are for headlines/commentary including ‘nanny state gone mad’, ‘Labour invasion of homes’ blah blah blah. You know the kind of thing.
The key message will be that this is the fault of the Labour government and its ridiculous lawmaking, with the fact that no-one picked up the possible ramification of the wording of the Childcare Act, as it passed through parliament, quietly ignored.
There will be little or no mention of the fact that the Children’s Minister has got straight on the case and ordered a review of the particular case.
The rightwing press /blogosphere will not let any inconvenient facts get in the way, that’s for sure, but it’s worth setting out briefly what is REALLY going on here.
Essentially, Ofsted officers, in an agency (the childcare part of Ofsted) that was set up primarily to issue strict guidelines and ensure that they are enforced, have pushed their desire to see guidelines adhered to strictly just a bit too far, and are interpreting the Act in the way it was never intended to be interpreted.
That’s the whole culture of the childcare part of Ofsted, and lack of flexibility/strict interpretation is actually what it’s there for, whether we like it or not.
I run an after school club as part of a wider childcare business, and we often have less than eight children in because of the small school roll and other activities going on. The childcare ratio is set at 1 to 8, but I still have to employ two staff because the rules say that’s the minimum, even though there are teaching staff about 10 yards away.
Yes, that grates sometimes because I have to cross subsidise this essential extended schools services from the surplus on the nursery provision (though I’m also happy to employ an extra person). But I accept it, because I know Ofsted simply can’t just say to me ‘oh well, that’s a bit different so we’ll let you off with one staff member.’
If you’re going to have regulation like this, it’s got to be tight and it’s got to be tightly enforced.
The alternative – which I’d be more than open to personally - is to more or less do away with such regulation, and you know what the rightwing blogs would say the first time there was a serious incident….’Labour’s let down our children’,’the government’s got to act’ and so forth.
Of course this interpretation by Ofsted in one case is over the top, though by making it they force it to the top of the agenda and make sure the interpretation of the Act is clarified, exactly as is now being done under the review ordered.
In a nutshell, the system’s necessarily strict, but it’s working in the way everyone said it should, right down to the necessary clarification of the single word ‘reward’.
But such a stance won’t sell the Daily Mail, or keep Dale’s trolls happy. You look and see.