On 9th June this was the official Labour line:
Labour will not support Jean-Claude Juncker as a candidate for President of the European Commission. Should Mr Juncker be put before the European Parliament, Labour MEPs would vote against him.
Yesterday, Maryhoneyball MEP said:
While I fully understand why David Cameron opposes Juncker (the Labour Party was also against him becoming Commission President)…..
Judging by the “was”, it now looks as though Labour MEPs have changed tack from a silly counterproductive gesture in the European Parliament, and will now vote Juncker through to the presidency. This is a welcome shift, as it now allows Labour to work within the SPD group to hold Juncker and his Commission to task on delivery of the ‘Van Rompuy’ agenda, delivered through the good work of other member states – notably France and Italy. It allows for a better reasoned campaign for a vote of censure later on if Juncker drags his feet, in a way which allows the will of the Council to converge with the will of the Parliament. Of course it also allows a differentiation from the Tories over the next few months, rather than allowing Labour to be portrayed as Torysceptic-lite.
I don’t know what caused the shift, but I know that some Labour MEP are quite readers of this blog, though its maverick status means that they don’t link publicly to it. So while I should in a fair-to-me world have been an MEP myself by now, arguing the case for a proper Labour role within the MEP in the open, I like to think I’ve had some quite influence.
So Cameron has lost, hook line and Juncker.
That’s a good thing, because as Jon notes it embeds the Sptizenkandidat process as the legitimate one. If the UK is in the EU in five years time, it is likely that the press will engage at least to some extent with the internal European Parliamentary Group elections and that the subsequent European elections will be much more about choosing between those group candidates.*
But the even better thing – at least for the short term – is that away from the spotlight of the Juncker row, the left in Europe has been quietly getting on with shaping Juncker’s Commission agenda. This is most clearly evidenced in the ‘strategic agenda’ paper being put to the European Council this afternoon by its own President, Hermann Van Rompuy.
This paper, which may be edited a little before it”s signed off, more or less set the heads of states agreed priorities for the next five years, and there will be an institutional expectation that Juncker, as President of the Commission, should do the detail and deliver on it. If he doesn’t, then a pincer movement between the European Parliament and the European council can be brought into play, with the ultimate sanction being invocation of article 234 by the parliament, which forces his and his Commission’s resignation. Junker knows this, even if Cameron doesn’t.
And the papers not half-bad. It’s very clear that Van Rompuy has listened to centre-left governments in putting it together, and while some lip service is paid to the relatively unimportant stuff around welfare benefits, the bulk of the paper focuses on the EU’s role in investment and employment (as well as energy policy). I like this bit especially as one of Van Rompuy’s stated priorities:
help ensure all our societies have safety nets in place to accompany change and reverse inequalities, with social protection systems that are efficient, fair and fit for the future; indeed,investing into human capital and the social fabric is also key to the long-term prosperity prospects for the European economy.
Now that’s easier said than done, although some words about ‘flexibility’ in the ridiculous fiscal compact (and paralley six pack) to allow fiscal expansion policy also help), but it’s certainly a step away from the ‘competition is all we need’ approach of recent years, and it chimes with UK Labour’s developing message around social investment, so it’s something Labour MEPs can really get behind with their colleagues in parliament should Juncker’s Commission not do the right thing (if they and Labour generally start to show some common sense, that is).
So all in all, a pretty good day for the EU: Cameron humiliated, Hollande and Renzi actually doing their jobs.
* It strikes me as odd that, with Cameron banging on about how no-one knows what the process is about or who Juncker is etc., nobody reminds him that when the Police Commissioner elections in 2012 got a 15% turnout (and no voters at all at one polling station), he talked about the time it would take, and that the process was perfectly legitimate:
Look, turnout was always going to be low when you are electing a new post for the first time. But remember, these police and crime commissioners are replacing organisations that weren’t directly elected at all.
Wonga has apologized for sending letters demanding repayment under the cover of made-up solicitor names.
Prima facie, Wonga’s acts would seem to be an infringement under Section 40, paras 1 (c) and (d) of the Administration of Justice Act 1970:
(1) A person commits an offence if, with the object of coercing another person to pay money claimed from the other as a debt due under a contract, he—
(a) harasses the other with demands for payment which, in respect of their frequency or the manner or occasion of making any such demand, or of any threat or publicity by which any demand is accompanied, are calculated to subject him or members of his family or household to alarm, distress or humiliation;
(b) falsely represents, in relation to the money claimed, that criminal proceedings lie for failure to pay it;
(c) falsely represents himself to be authorised in some official capacity to claim or enforce payment; or
(d) utters a document falsely represented by him to have some official character or purporting to have some official character which he knows it has not
The fine for such an offence is minimal, but a criminal record for the person or persons who authorised these activities would perhaps not go amiss.
I hope someone with more clout than me might take this up, but I’ll do the necessary with the police if need be.
According to a sweary leaked tape Jacek Rostowski, ex-finance minister for Poland, said:
No Polish government could agree to Cameron’s renegotiation proposals except in return for a mountain of gold.
The whole thing is being seen simply an attack on Cameron’s judgment, but I think this might just evidence that, behind the scenes, one or more of the EU accession and/or southern states might be be prepared to strike a deal of the type I’ve set out previously:
I can’t help feeling there’s a much bigger deal to be done with other states which would actually stop migrants from the southern and accession states from coming here, if that’s what people really, really want. Here it is:
In return for the UK and other Northern European countries getting to stop people from further away places coming over here, taking our jobs or whatever, the further away places get to put some stops on things that the Northern European keep on selling to them, so that the further away places stay poor. In time, the further away places would be less poor, and less of their people would want to come to UK to take our jobs.
In technical terms, that would mean a temporary trade off of restrictions on freedom of movement of people for restrictions on freedom of movement of capital and goods, until an agreed point of current account convergence and/or of GDP per head were reached via a process of artificial devaluation and import substitution – or, if you want to conceive of it thus, the creation of a massive virtual European Structural Fund aimed at the fastest possible reduction in structural disparities between all 27 EU states (and joiners).
That would be Rostowski’s mountain of gold, although there might also be a real Structural Fund deal to be done.
As I’ve made clear, none of this requires treaty change, as it’s all allowed under articles 30, 32 and 45. It could be done quite quickly if the political will were there, and the price was right.
Now Rostowski is not in government anymore, but it might just be he knows something Cameron doesn’t.
Which isn’t hard.
Last week, Adam said that the key reason that children in London’s schools have done much better than the rest of the country in the last 10-15 is mostly down to the “difference [in] the quality of the schools”.
Today, in the light of a new IFS/IoE research report on this same matter, Stephen refines this position, arguing that the differential between the cities of London, Birmingham, Manchester and other areas is principally down improvements in primary schools in the late 1990s and early 2000s:
The most common explanations cited are the successes of London Challenge…..Teach First….. and the academies programme…. Also high on the list are immigration….higher per pupil funding…..and greater competition among schools (owing to London’s urban density and easy transport links).
The report painstakingly works through all these explanations and a handful of others. What it finds is that, though many of those explanations are contributory factors, they are not the main driver of why London’s schools have improved so much, so fast.
The single biggest explanation of the ‘London effect’ is… what happened in its primary schools more than a decade ago. In essence, London’s primary schools, particularly in English, achieved great success between 1999 and 2003, which – years later – fed through into improved GCSE results.
I’m not convinced. The Stephen main thrust of Stephen’s post is less an examination of what the biggest drivers are, more an analysis of how “the correlation is not causation” rule in social science can be ignored in the face of political imperative, but I do wonder if he’s committing the same kind of error himself.
My own reading of the report suggests that the jury is still very much out on this new account of causation:
We cannot completely dismiss other potential explanations, however, such as increasing levels of school competition or unobservable changes in pupil cognitive ability or teacher quality over time. The increasing proportion of non-white pupils and those with English as an additional language may also explain part of this phenomenon. Ongoing work by Simon Burgess examines the role of these factors in more detail. More research is needed to understand whether the National Literacy and Numeracy Programmes were indeed an important source of London’s improvement p.35)
And my own partly informed hunch is that it is these (hitherto) “unobservable changes in pupil cognitive ability” that will turn out to be very important, and the cause of this heightened cognition level will be, as the report suggests it might be – immigration. I’ll certainly be looking out for Simon’s new research. In particular I’ll be interested to see whether there’s evidence that these purported changes in cognitive ability are actually causing the higher primary school achievements in the first place (as opposed, say, to better literacy strategies).
This hunch has two sources: a) quite a few years of close involvement with primary and secondary education; b) some reading of the wider relevant literature about culture, cognition and achievement.
As a link governor in a secondary school for almost exclusively white working class children, one thing that has really struck me is when English teachers tell me about the main obstacle to getting children writing creatively. The main obstacle, they tell me, is that some children simply don’t have any experience to write about. They live on their estate, they go to school, and they go back to their estate.
Some 15 year olds in my school have never been on holiday, never seen the sea, never done anything exciting.* How on earth can we expect them to write interesting essays about the world around them, when that world is grey and monotonous?
Compare this to the experiences of a child who arrived in the UK just three or four years ago, who is now both bilingual and bi-cultural, participating in the life of a school where the majority of the children have all had a rich set of experiences (though some if them may well have been traumatic), and whose current material circumstances may be poor but whose prospects just feel richer. Is it any great surprise that these children do better, and especially in English.
This is borne out by the empirical research too. I’ve written before of how children who have to translate for their parents actually do better at school, and reflect with pride on their status as bridge of cultures. I’ve also written of how. at wider economic level, how it is the very meltingness of the melting pot of an immigrant city which drives economic growth and well-being. There’s also evidence, utilizing the Bourdieu concept of habitus as a theoretical (but heuristic) frame, that migrants’ social and cultural capital go beyond the social scale imagined on their behalf by others, in a way which may well contribute to children’s achievements, but in a way which indeed has indeed remained largely “unobservable” to date.
It’s great that the research into what actually helps children learning is now seriously underway, alongside an apparently growing consensus that the factors are many. If my hunch does turn out to be correct, one thing I’d like to see under the (silly) fiscal-neutral plans is for the extra cash schools are given for each child with English as an Addtional Language (EAL) to be shifted towards investment in giving experiences to children who won’t otherwise get them. To a significant extent, this will be about investment in schools like mine, where the concept of a school trip-of-a-lifetime to China or South America, now commonplace in middle-class areas, doesn’t simply seem like a pipe dream.**
In time, too, I look forward to seeing how evidence that immigration is good for us all, in ways we hadn’t spotted earlier, might be used to push the case for a more sensible immigration policy. However, given what Stephen rightly says about political imperatives and confirmation bias, I don’t expect much movement on that soon, at least from the top (it might be different if people in small towns start demanding more immigrants to help boost their schools).
* Separately, I was astonished, in the days I helped run our local music festival, how many 15 year olds, coming three miles out into the countryside from Skelmersdale, were staying in a tent (£9.99 from Aldi) for the very first time, and for how many this was their first trip to the countryside.
** Such trips are designed for 15/16 year olds, and I recognise that the best value per educational buck may come from opening up lifetime experiences to younger children e.g. on what we used to call outward bound courses.
To mark the early release from Whitehall of poet-economist Giles Wilkes, the Though Cowards Flinch board has decided to run its second poetry competition. This follows on the highly successful inaugural competition of 2010, held prior to Wilkes’ unfortunate incarceration, and won by Tom Freeman’s masterpiece An Ode to Quantitative Easing.
QE was indeed the subject matter this time, but poetry competitions must stay relevant, and for the 2014 competition submissions must be on one of two themes:
a) The problems with getting through the fog of political necessity with sound economic policy;
b) The extent to which the notion of public service reform has become synonymous with public sector cuts rather than way of delivering better stuff for people, and why (tip: see a) above)
As an example, Giles has kindly donated a sample of the kind of thing we’d like to see:
The SpAD to the BisSec Vince Cable
Having found out he just wasn’t able
To make anyone see
We need more NGDP
Departed the Cabinet Table
Rules for the competition:
1) Submission deadline when we feel like it but probably at the end of the world cup so people who don’t give a monkey’s about football have something else to do.
2) Any verse form allowed, apart from sonnets. we fucking hate sonnets at TCF.
3) Submissions can be made in the comments here or at another blog with a link to here and a note on the submitting blog, saying:
Though Cowards Flinch is essential reading for people who want to get to the bottom of: a) The problems with getting through the fog of political necessity with sound economic policy; b) The extent to which the notion of public service reform has become synonymous with public sector cuts rather than way of delivering better stuff for people, and why (tip: see a) above).
The main bloke there, Paul, should be paid quite a lot of money by a wealthy organisation or individual to allow him to focus full-time on writing with such acumen and attention to detail.
To be supplied by organisation or individual at 3) above, and worth quite a lot.
When it comes to today’s IPPR Condition of Britain report, most of the focus in the media and on social media has understandably been on the three big policy announcement from Miliband at the launch, and of those three the most controversial one has been the proposal to create a youth allowance, backed by investment in Further Education and a Future Jobs fund-style programme, at the expense of Jobseekers’ Allowance for 18-21 year olds. For what it’s worth, I think the plans have some merit, but can only be properly assessed when we know a) how much the youth allowance might be; b) what level of discretion and autonomy the newly empowered personal advisers will have. I will come back to this, not least as I think Chris is wrong to pre-define it as managerialism rebooted, when there is still so much to play for when it comes to implementation.
But here I want to focus on the most interesting bit of the report, chapter 10 on ‘Crime and Exclusion’.
The first thing to say that this is a very bad title chapter, as it suggests that people who are excluded from the mainstream tend to be criminals. In fact, some are, but most aren’t; they just live excluded lives. The chapter is at is because it focuses a lot on how to develop the Coalition’s Troubled Families programme into a new Troubled Lives programme, but fails to notice that only of the four current criteria by which Troubled Families are to do with crime (the others are to do with education, work and other “costs to the public purse”). Very poor.
But this unfortunate kowtowing to Coalition prejudice aside, there are interesting proposals. This is the key one:
Local authorities already control some of the budgets that could contribute to a Troubled Lives programme: drug and alcohol treatment services, for instance, together with the homelessness prevention grant.91 We argue that councils should be given five-year allocations for these budgets in the next spending review. This would give them the confidence, and the financial incentives, to invest upfront in innovative support and services to help people turn their lives around. if successful, this would enable councils to realise savings in later years that could then be reinvested in effective interventions.
This specific proposal reflects a wider one made earlier in the report:
[I]f, in the next parliament, there is to be a serious redistribution of powers and resources, it must be driven through the spending review, so that all departments and ministers are bound into it. For local areas themselves, five-year budgets, spanning the whole of the next parliament, would give local leaders and citizens more freedom to plan and invest upfront in projects and services that are likely to reduce needs or generate future savings (p51-52).
The report is unclear on the precise mechanics for this kind of upfront investment, and I am not sure that IPPR yet know how exactly, let us say, a 30%, 25%, 25%, 10%, 10% prevention-focused spend profile over a five year period can be accounted for on local authority and central government books.
Will local authorities simply be asked to use reserves, with an explicit or implicit bail out promise from the centre if the (evidence-based) relational prevention work does not realise the profiled savings? Will there be some kind of accrual mechanism, whereby the centre accrues notional savings back onto its own national accounts (or allows local authorities to defer payment on business rates). How will these plans be integrated with the NHS/social care integration also being planned?
Until we get the detail, we won’t know to what extent all this can actually be delivered, and the difficulty in working it all out may be why Miliband preferred to focus on three areas where there is more detail. Understandable maybe, but not great for PR.
Nevertheless, I remain encouraged, though not as encouraged as earlier in the week. It provides some evidence that Labour really is thinking through public service reform which produces good (preventative) public service outcomes first, and less downstream spend as a happy consequence.
No, my worry about Paul’s piece is that he seems to be saying Labour’s reform programme will remove the need for tax increases and/or cuts to public services. The redesign of the state will achieve more with less – or maybe the same with less. This, of course, is just what the Coalition has been claiming for the past four years. If you can just make the public sector more efficient, then no-one needs to worry about service cuts or tax rises.
Now clearly I’ve explained myself badly*, if he thinks I was just on about efficiencies, rather than on about preventative investments reducing the need for spending on problem-solving for good (as in our detailed submission in my specialist area about how investment in locality-based family support and a return to proper social work will create massive downstream savings on picking up pieces by courts and children’s homes).
I hope this post, and the bit of the IPPR report I refer to, clarifies what I’m on about, although I appreciate Rick won’t buy the idea that the level of savings that can be made by prevention-focused reforms can come anywhere near the overall budget reduction he says is needed. Nor can I know for sure – and I’ve nowhere suggested that such savings can match the overall ‘gap’ he projects. Of course, if I ran IPPR (or even worked for it), I’d use its resources to find out quite quickly (and yes, that is a hint).
Of course, everything above is written in terms of the need to balance the budget. I fundamentally dispute that on the basis that it’s a total crock of shit, but I’m working on that premise for now because it allows thinking on relational, preventative public services to proceed (and arguably for that thinking to be prioritised).
Overall, then, I give the IPPR report a C+. It can’t get an A because it fails to deal with the fundamentals of the need or not for a balanced budget so is for ever intellectually restricted. it doesn’t make a B because it makes unwarranted assumptions about ‘troubled’ families, but it pushes above a C because at least in outline it provides a roadmap for proper social investment.
* I think my main error was to be elliptic about the difference between efficiency and reforms that mean services end up simply not being needed. I should have challenged Giles’ sarcastic deifintion of what he sees as the main obstacle to honest policy making more explicitly.