Labour Discovers Localism?

Labour have come up with one good idea over the benefits cap- the Shadow Work and Pensions secretary Liam Byrne has proposed setting local benefits caps to meet the needs of different regions with different costs of living.

This is a great idea, it does not make sense to have the same limit in London as in Doncaster where property is much cheaper. Has he considered following through the logic of his idea into other areas though?

If taking account of the different costs of living is the right thing to do when setting a benefits limit- then surely it also makes sense to take different costs of living when setting pay scales for public sector workers. Also the minimum wage should be set for local conditions- very few jobs in London will be extinguished at £6 an hour but many jobs in Wrexham might be.

Good Idea, Bad Idea.

The new Conservative schools policy combines a very good idea with a very stupid one.

Michael Gove, the shadow schools secretary, has said that a Conservative Government would close down the worst-performing schools in England.

The good part is that he recognises that schools exist for the benefit of their pupils, there should be no sentimentality about the disappearance of schools that aren't very good.

The bad part is that he is taking it upon central government to decide which schools close down despite the enormous distance between a school and the Schools Secretary. Trying to micromanage services from Whitehall inevitably leads to government by target setting. It also runs in complete contrast to the proposals of David Cameron to devolve more power down to local government through elected mayors.

Government By Targets

Figures released by the Department for Children, Schools and Families today showed that Conservative-controlled Kent County Council had the highest number of schools failing to reach the Government’s target of 30 per cent of pupils getting five A* to C grade passes at GCSE including maths and English.

This target of is meaningless, ridiculous and counter productive, because it focuses on the number of schools achieving certain targets rather than the numbers of pupils.

The Independent highlights Kent because it has a selective system* (although the report mentions Leeds & Suffolk too) Obviously Secondary Moderns will have lower than pass rates at GCSE than Comprehensives, all things being equal, and the Grammars will have higher pass rates.

However what matters in not what pass rate a school has, but what actual real flesh and blood children get. It is quite possible that the average child in Kent has a higher than average chance of achieving 5 or more GCSEs in Kent than in a non selective area, I don't know if this is the case because that data does not appear to be available. If this is the case then Kent could end up simultaneously reducing the number of failing schools but increasing the number of failing pupils.

It creates perverse incentives for education authorities, by forcing them to focus on schools rather than pupils, it becomes more beneficial to them to restrict parental choice so that failing schools aren't deprived of fresh victims rather than allowing successful schools to expand.

The use of arbitrary and unhelpful targets isn't simply the result of the personal failings of Ed Balls, it is an inevitable consequence of trying to run every school in the country from the ministry.


* See here for previous thoughts on Grammars and Comprehensives. In short neither system is ideal and they are not the only two options.

Decentalising Britain.

I've written before about how Britain is over centralised and run through quangos. So here are two posts elsewhere in the blogosphere on the democratic deficit in local government in the UK. First James at "What's That Smell" who is a duel US/UK voter compares what positions and propositions he gets to vote on in the UK compared to the USA:

UK: 1 MP, 1 MEP, 1 Local Councillor, 1 County Councillor.

USA: 1 US President, 1 US Senator, 2 State Public Service Commissioners, 1 US Representative, 1 State Senator, 1 State Representative, 1 District Attorney, 1 Probate Court Judge, 1 Superior Court Clerk, 1 Sheriff, 1 Tax Commissioner, 1 Chief Magistrate, 1 County Commission Chairman, 1 County Commissioner, 1 County Board of Education, 2 State Supreme Court Justices, 3 State Court of Appeals Judges, 5 County Superior Court Judges, 4 County State Court Judges, 2 County Soil and Water Conservation Supervisor, 3 State Constitutional Amendments, 1 County Sales Tax to fund development.

Now personally I don't agree with electing judges, but is there any reason why we couldn't have locally elected education boards over here?

Elsewhere Tony Sharp takes an anti-Tory blogger, the Tory Troll, to task for criticising Conservative proposals to devolve more power down to a local level. I am overjoyed, because I had assumed that Cameron was just spouting platitudes when it came to devolution of power. Let's face it some of his proposals have in the past suggested an urge to micro manage Britain (see denouncing the sale of Chocolate Oranges at WH Smiths) but if his opponents believe that he is really going to go through with decentralising the country then that is great.

Over-Centralised Britain.

Much as I dislike traffic wardens can someone explain why councils need specific permission from Westminster to recruit them?

Shut Up & Do What You're Told.

Labour Councillor Bob Piper, decries the lack of member participation in his own party. Given his demonstrable lack of judgment this might seem like a good thing in his particular case. However in general it highlights the lack of accountablity of the upper echelons of the political class. The Conservative Party is no better than Labour in this regard, for instance earlier this week the Party pretended to allow its members to choose the candidates for the next European elections.

This seems like a simple enough task, send out forms to members and let them put a cross next to the names of the candidates they support and then count the votes. However the leadership decided to make the process so byzantine in complexity that the authors and commentators over at Conservative Home's 'Seats and Candidates' blog find it to be highly dubious:

The exclusion of the whole membership from vetting incumbent MEPs, restrictions on hustings, the preferential treatment of women candidates so that they have leapfrogged men who won more votes, the confusing nature of the voting process that has led to large number of ballot papers being spoilt.

Now when the writers of a Conservative supporting blog dedicated to covering candidate selection don't understand the process by which the Conservative Party 'elected' their MEP cnadidates then this is a clue that something is up. Unsurprisingly the Europhiles did rather better than might have been predicted by an observer. The man who oversaw the process was John Maples, a keen Europhile.

Both parties are baffled by declining interest in politics and membership of political parties.


This lack of accountability would be bad enough if it just concerned how they managed their internal affairs but this is not the case, Wellingborough Councillor Tony Sharp explains over at his blog how local government works in England:

Wellingborough can choose up to 35 local priorities from a long list of actions on which money can be spent. However 28 of the priorities are being imposed on us. That leaves seven priorities we can identify. But even then, the money is shared around the county, so Wellingborough's needs may not be addressed as money could be allocated to somewhere in Corby or Northampton as a 'more deserving case'.

In other words local councils don't represent their constituents' wishes but instead largely administer tasks that are set for them by unelected Quangos who are accountable to no one. Both parties are equally mystified by the low turnouts for local elections. Iain Dale also points out the increasing use of faux 'Consultations' which end up 'consulting' a few hand picked lackeys who approve of whatever schemes the Quangos which to push through. In this case it involves the minor matter of allowing several Norfolk villages to be flooded, I guess all those webbed toes will come in handy now.

The end result of all this is that Britain is run by bureaucrats who are too distant to run things well and have little or no incentive to listen to the public and a select group of politicos who are willing to dedicate their whole careers to climbing up the greasy pole high enough so that they can actually be the ones to appoint the bureaucrats. There is little or no role that concerned citizens can play in how the country is run. In fact British citizenship consists of shutting up and doing what you're told.

Micromanaging Britain.

The government has changed its policy once again on the issue of casinos. Having first announced a massive launch of Super Casinos, then reversed that idea and they have now announced that there will be 16 regional casinos. This seems like the worst of all worlds to me as the casinos won't be large or concentrated enough to attract tourism but will be readily available to encourage gambling.

The actual decision though is less important than how it was made, the Department of Culture decides that a fixed number of casinos will be built and then local authorities beg for the rights to host one in the deluded belief that they will endow their god forsaken towns with a Las Vegas stlye glamour. The decision making reeks of 1940s style central planning:

Casinos with up to 150 slot machines and prizes of up to £4,000 are expected for Leeds, Southampton, Great Yarmouth, Middlesbrough, Solihull, Hull, Milton Keynes and Newham in London.

Smaller sites are also expected for Somerset, Dumfries and Galloway, Scarborough, Wolverhampton, Swansea, Luton, Torbay and East Lidsey.

It is noticeable that none of the current world famous resorts which have used casinos to transform themselves into entertainment centres (Las Vegas, Sun City, Atlantic City, Macao or Aruba for instance) have followed the UK approach of government allocated regional gambling monopolies almost designed to stifle innovation and instead have come about by local governments introducing more relaxed entertainment laws than the rest of the country or region that they are and allowing a wide range of venues to compete for business. Is it likely that Andy Burnham, the culture secretary is a better judge of what is suitable for a community than those communities themselves?

This approach of Westminster taking decisions that simply should not be in the purview of National Government can also be seen in the fiasco over licensing laws, which has followed a similar pattern of the government's position changing on an annual basis. It seems quite obvious to me that there are some places where 24 hour drinking will cause a large increase in public disorder (Scotland for example) but equally there are other areas where a more relaxed approach is beneficial. Instead the government implements a one size fits all approach that doesn't account for local differences.

Most of the wealthiest countries on the planet that don't rely on oil revenues are either very small or highly decentralised which ensures that most decisions are taken taken by people close enough to see what the results are. It's fair to say that Mr Burnham or his successors won't be losing sleep if the casino in say Luton doesn't have the desired result a local council would be bothered. The over centralised nature of Britain isn't just a result of Labour policies, it is the path that governments of both parties have pursued at least since the end of World War II and neither party seems willing to change that path.