CentreRight

Just tell us the truth Alistair

As the details of today's Pre-Budget report emerge, amid the leaks and pre-briefings, one thing is already clear: Alistair Darling will be more concerned with scoring political points than telling us the truth about the dire state of public finances. With less than 6 months to go before a general election, this is not surprising. But as John Kay points out in a thoughtful FT column today, this Government has a long record of turning Treasury forecasts into political constructs. Instead of "objective, technical affairs" which used to provide important, if complex, information, background papers to Budget statements are now "written in the style of the corporate PR executive." I have blogged here before about the importance of truth-telling to restore trust in politics and, in my CPS report The Reality Gap, identified the technique which Kay describes - Labour's relentless manipulation of data to present the best case scenario. A too-credulous, or plain lazy, media (most notably the BBC) too often presents government material as fact. The result? Opposition parties need to work harder than ever to extract the truth, and should at all costs avoid conducting the argument on the Government's terms. This afternoon, the Conservatives need to be ready to pull apart the Chancellor's claims and make the case for an entirely different approach to handling - and communicating - the state of our public finances. And if anyone thinks that taxing bankers' bonuses will get the British economy growing again, let's hear some economic forecasts to support that contention.

Under Labour, poverty has grown

The Joseph Rowntree Foundation has just published its 2009 report on poverty and social exclusion and it’s a bleak indictment of the Labour years. Whilst you would expect jobs and incomes to shrink  in a recession, the most shocking fact highlighted in this report is that unemployment (especially youth unemployment) and child poverty were rising well before the onset of the downturn. A few key facts:

• The unemployment rate among 16- to 24-year-olds is now higher than at any point since the series began in 1993.
• Unemployment has been rising since 2005, and the young adult unemployment rate stopped falling as long ago as 2001.
• The number of children in low-income households where at least one adult works is, at 2.1m, the highest it has ever been.

So in all those years of plenty, when Labour claimed it was closing the gap between rich and poor, as well as pouring money into public services, the underlying rate of poverty and its causes were actually growing. The Foundation says that the report is not all bad news, citing a recent decrease in the number of children attaining fewer than 5 GCSEs. Leaving aside the question of whether this is simply due to easier exams, it’s clear that this increased ‘attainment’ is not resulting in greater employability – so the reported 65% increase in education funding since Labour came to power cannot be judged a good investment, by any stretch of the imagination.

Anyone still believe the Government’s pledge – now enshrined in law – to “end child poverty”? Does Gordon Brown think that a record number of NEETs represents a good outcome for twelve years of Labour rule?

The power of positive thinking

Does belief in smaller government make you a heavy breather? It's no surprise that Dave Aaronovitch wants to characterise those who favour less state intervention as slash-and-burn, salivating rightwingers. In much the same spirit over at the FT Philip Stevens frets that David Cameron mustn't show too much zeal for downsizing the state, and the Indy's Steve Richards laments the end of Tory 'pragmatism.'

But what about the positive arguments to be made for reducing the size of the state? Do we all have to sound like bloodthirsty axe wielders? David Cameron must surely hope not - and there are plenty of reasons for him to be optimistic about winning over the public to a new way of governing, that doesn't rely on state action at every point in our lives. Aaronovitch may favour of the Government's latest 'database state' initiative - the Independent Safeguarding Authority - yet public reaction to it has been so negative that even Ed Balls is wondering how to back off. Big government has lost its shine, so let's hear it for the alternative.

As Reagan (always a positive thinker) put it "Government is not the solution to our problems, government is the problem." So why be nervous of cutting it down to size?

Localism - or postcode lottery?

One of the most able and articulate members of the Shadow Cabinet, Grant Shapps has been an enthusiastic proponent of localism. His radical proposals for housing policies, giving local people the final say on how and where new houses should be built, provide a practical example of how power can and should be transferred out of Whitehall and into local communities. But today Grant finds himself arguing passionately against localism, dismayed by the results of his own research showing how different NHS trusts are making different decisions about eligibility for IVF. As a spokesman for one PCT puts it "We commission services within allocated funds based on priorities set to meet the needs of our local population." In other words, localism in action.

As every politician knows, attaching the words "postcode lottery" to a news story will garner far more media coverage than "victory for local decision making." Has Grant just illustrated the limitations of Tory localism?

Help the dying - or build a Next Stage Review?

A news item in today's Times provides a textbook example of the reasons why this Government has failed us so badly. A year ago Health Secretary Alan Johnson announced £286m extra health spending for palliative care (to honour a manifesto commitment).But nearly all the local health trusts surveyed recently by Help the Hospices said they not seen the money and that it had been lost in the system. If you want to know what happened to it, take a look at the Department of Health's first annual report on the 'End of life care strategy'' (62 full colour pages) which asserts that the initiative is off to a great start: it is establishing a National Implementation Advisory Board and a National Coalition to raise public awareness, has published a set of Quality Markers and core competencies, built monitoring into Operation Finance Guidance, tendered for a pilot of a national survey and begun the process to set up an Intelligence Network. It has also published no less than four separate strategic frameworks for SHAs, who have, the report claims, spent the first year "establishing the infrastructure which will support activity in the context of the Next Stage Review."

Does that sound to you like a good way to spend taxpayers' money? If the Government had given £286m - or even a quarter of that money - direct to the hospice movement, wouldn't that have been a better way to improve the lives of the terminally ill? As I pointed in a report last week for the Centre for Policy Studies, the "reality gap" between government rhetoric and real life in Britain today is dangerously wide, and nowhere more so than in our public services. Indeed, as this latest example shows, it's a matter of life and death.

Truth v lies: the stakes are high

Today George Osborne sets out the Conservatives' claim to be the party of truth in the great public spending battle, laying down the dividing line for the general election. Honesty looks set to be the dominant theme in all political discourse from now on. It's a theme I exploited to the full on Any Questions? last Friday, because it seemed to me the thread which linked the biggest issues raised. And Trevor Kavanagh in the Sun today challenges the Tories to nail the 'Big Lie' that the Government has become. If the Conservatives can get on top in the battle of truth and lies, they will stand to gain not only a big majority but also a mandate to govern. It's not going to be easy: politicians of all parties (with a few brave exceptions) have lost the habit of providing direct answers to direct questions. If David Cameron and his team can break the trend, and surprise the public with a different style of politics, they really will 'be the change' the country needs.

Just how much is Mandy enjoying this?

There's a neighbourhood cat that comes to hunt his prey in our garden and the other day from my window I saw him toying with a fieldmouse. The mouse, part-chewed, was trying to get away; the cat would allow it to run a short distance before picking it up again, roughing it up and then putting it down again, allowing it to run a little further. Unhurried, the cat had an air of composure betokening absolute control over his victim. If cats could smile, the resemblance to Lord Mandelson would have been complete.

No more cuddly capitalism

If, like me,you didn't have the appetite to read about Julie's home life in today's Times, you might have turned to Carl Mortished's explanation of why it's all over for corporate social responsibility - as well as profligate government spending. In the age of austerity, he argues, newly-assertive shareholders demand a return on their investment and don't want their businesses spending money on environmental and diversity initiatives. The new imperative is to stay slim and efficient. It sounds tough, but it's a change in culture that might be welcomed by Britain's engines of growth: the small businesses and new start-ups who don't have the resources to pay for these kind of extras. A point picked up by that scourge of CSR, Irwin Stelzer in today's FT, who detects a shift in US policy away from protecting the big corporations and towards tougher anti-trust enforcement. As Stelzer has long argued, big business can live with heavy regulatory burdens, but if we want innovators to succeed, we have to give them a break or two. And surely the same goes for our public services - if we want to encourage innovative schools and healthcare providers then we mustn't saddle them with pointless bureaucracy and box-ticking. Lean doesn't have to be mean - in business or in government.

Respect!

As Michael Martin concedes that the game is up, attention shifts to the list of his potential successors. One thing is clear: the personal qualities of the new Speaker, especially his or her attitude to expenses (the new proxy for decency and integrity) will override all party political considerations.

 Rachel Sylvester in today's Times believes that the balance of power has shifted away from organisations and towards individuals, because we've lost faith in institutions and will no longer defer to elites.Certainly Michael Martin has discovered to his cost that he cannot rely on the protection afforded by deference to his office. But Sylvester omits an important point: that the reason why we are reluctant to accept the authority of institutions is because the holders of office have abused their position. This is not about institutional failure, but personal failure. Institutions which still command popular respect do so because of the personal qualities of those who represent them, the Queen being a conspicuous example.

Rebuilding public trust in politicians will be dependent on their personal conduct. But the ultimate objective of those politicians must be to gain respect for Parliament, rather than the pursuit of individual success. The health – indeed, the survival - of a free society depends on the strength of its institutions. Yes, the new Speaker should have a clean expenses record. But he (or she) must first and foremost believe in the institutional significance of the office of Speaker and the sovereignty of parliament.

Loss of moral authority

In the think-tanks of Westminster, especially on the centre-right, the big question driving much of our work is this: what are the practical policy recommendations which will enable a future government to reduce public spending and public debt, and get the nation's finances back on track? In other words, planning for austerity government.

But as Anthony King points out in today's Telegraph,  for austerity government to be successful its ministers must have the confidence of the nation. This is why the latest twist of the MPs' expenses story is so depressing. We are facing, in King's words, "British political leaders' loss of moral authority during a time of dislocation and recession when – more than for many years past – moral authority is badly needed. Whichever party wins the next general election, millions of Britons are going to have to make personal sacrifices during the coming decade.

It would be hard enough for a Winston Churchill or a Clement Attlee to persuade them to accept those sacrifices with good grace. It will be far harder, perhaps impossible, for the present generation of leaders to achieve the same effect."

If David Cameron is to gain the moral authority he will need to govern austerity Britain, he needs to act boldly now to restore trust in his colleagues. Let us hope there are enough capable Tories with modest expenses records to enable Cameron to make a few strategic appointments.

Talking of trilemmas

At what point does a technical word or phrase acquire the critical mass (a case in point) to make the transition from specialist usage to common parlance? Yesterday saw the first appearance in the British media of the trilemma, a concept formerly confined to Christian apologetics or monetary theory. Harvard professor and telly-don Niall Ferguson brought the term to light in a dazzling lecture to the Centre for Policy Studies last night. Not only did Ferguson establish his credentials as the most compelling intellectual of the centre-right, he may also have succeeded in bringing the trilemma into mainstream political language, where it looks set to be widely adopted (and adapted). Michael White puts it on a high-wire in today's Guardian; in the Indie  Deborah Orr applies the device to the 'Daily Mail problem' of rights and responsibilities. At the Centre for Policy Studies we'll be tracking the trilemma's progress over the coming weeks and months - trilemma-spotters welcome, email blog@cps.org.uk - or tell me here at Centre Right.

Thatcher and Geldof discuss post modern government

Baroness Thatcher was on top form at the Centre for Policy Studies last night for the annual Keith Joseph Memorial lecture. Engaging Sir Bob Geldof and CPS Chairman Lord Saatchi in animated conversation over drinks afterwards, it was clear she was enjoying herself far too much to slip away quietly.

Peter Oborne, who gave this year's lecture, delivered some harsh criticism of today's political classes, especially the 'truth-creating, post modern' approach of the Labour government, and concluded by quoting the great Lady on the importance of honesty when facing the electorate. ‘In politics' she declared 'integrity really lies in the conviction that it’s only on the basis of truth that power should be won — or indeed can be worth winning.’  Words spoken thirteen years ago, at the first Keith Joseph lecture, but very timely advice for politicians of today.

And as he paid tribute to Sir Keith as a man who engaged in truth telling even at the expense of his own political advancement, Peter threw down a challenge to the Conservative party of 2009. If they are to to govern effectively in a bleak economic climate, they must 'not only dismantle the apparatus of postmodern government but also reclaim the truth, and look back to their own roots in the British empirical tradition.'

One question remained unspoken: are today's politicians held in such low regard that the British public is no longer prepared to believe any of them?

So, Harriet, are you sorry for the wasted years?

A shamelessly cheerful Harriet Harman was the keynote speaker at today's breakfast launch of the Joseph Rowntree Foundation "definitive" report on poverty, inequality and policy in the Labour years; Nick Timmins gives a pretty fair summary in today's FT .

Put briefly: as Labour poured money into welfare spending during its first term, the resultant redistribution shrank (modestly) the numbers of pensioners and children in relative poverty; by 2004 child and pensioner poverty started rising again, and wages were stalling. And as we already know, a plethora of expensive intitiatives made no impact whatosever on the NEETS (16-18 year olds not in education, employment or training) - despite a buoyant economy with no lack of of jobs.

As we stare into the pit of a plunging labour market, there is not much for the Government to be proud of. While she wages war on Mandy, staking out her place as the true champion of equality, Hattie would do well to apologise - on behalf of all her colleagues and especially her erstwhile friend and mentor Gordon Brown - for the wasted years, the wasted billions and the wasted opportunities. Opportunites to create a pro-work, pro-family welfare system with reduced dependency and genuine (not grade-inflated) educational opportunities for all. It's no good telling us you cared, or asking us to let you try more of the same. You had your chance (and our money) and you blew it. You might at least say sorry. 

Hardest lesson of the new politics

Quote of the day - and a mini-manifesto for all of us on the centre-right - is from Frank Field in the Indie:

"We are caught up in believing that it is the State that ensures social progress. History teaches otherwise. Secure social advance has been achieved by freeing up the basic impulses of human beings to do good, and to improve the conditions of their families and friends. For politicians to learn that getting off the back of families and communities might be the best way to drive a social advance may be the hardest lesson that the new politics demands."

Gordon's hubris to nemesis

Those who do not learn from (economic) history are condemned to repeat it. One of the conclusions offered by IFS Director Robert Chote at this morning's Green Budget was that the path of the public finances over the last twelve years and predicted over the next five is 'uncannily similar to that trodden by the Conservatives from 1979 to 1997.' In other words, from deficit to surplus in the first three years in office, then eight years of 'fiscal drift masked by economic overconfidence.' In year 12 'hubris gave way to nemesis' as the country plunged into recession. Despite the attempts at even-handed comparisons, however, Chote's presentation went on to show significantly higher levels of public sector net debt under this Government than in the Conservative years (higher, in fact, than at any time since the inter-war years) - and that's without Northern Rock and all the other 'off-balance sheet liabilities' such as PFI and public sector pensions. The overall message was clear enough: Brown's hubristic claims to have re-invented the economic cycle and abolished 'boom and bust' has led this country to the biggest bust of all.

Big Brother government by stealth

You might think that the Government's record on losing our personal data would have made ministers more cautious about sharing that data across govenrment departments and agencies. No chance. Take a look at the provisions tucked away in small print of the Coroners and Justice Bill in yesterday's Queen's Speech , supposedly a bill to put the interests of victims and the bereaved at the heart of the justice system. The bill includes provisions to "remove barriers to effective data sharing to support improved public services and the fight against crime and terrorism." Under the guise of strengthening the powers of the Information Commissioner, the Bill will in fact reduce parliamentary scrutiny, providing ministers with a "fast-track" procedure for sharing personal data wherever they consider it appropriate. As I warned in my CPS report earlier this year, the Government is hell-bent on managing and controlling our every interaction with public services through the accumulation and transfer of personal information. What's more, they don't want us to see it happening. If they have any concern for privacy, or for keeeping big (Brother) government in its place, Conservatives and Lib Dems should be all over this Bill.

Death by multi-agency meeting

Bureaucracy kills. According to Haringey Council, the decision to send Baby P home - to undergo six months of unspeakable torture ending in a painful death – was made at a ‘multi-agency meeting.’  The entire child protection structure post-Climbie is designed on a ‘multi-disciplinary’ model. The theory is that if all the public agencies with a role in child protection (social services, health, education, police) are brought together to make decisions, the right outcome will be reached. However, it’s just as likely that the wrong outcome will be arrived at, as in Baby P’s case, because the ‘partnership’ structure dilutes accountability. Everyone – and no-one – is to blame. Or as the DCSF puts it:

"The pitfall to watch out for is 'collaborative inertia', in which the process of integration actually gets in the way of effective service delivery, leading to negligible outputs and slow, often painful, progress."

There are so many things wrong with the current structure I won’t attempt to list them here; I have written extensively on the subject for the Centre for Policy Studies and (on a case dismaying similar to Baby P) in the Sunday Times.

All I will say is this: the death of Baby P is the bleakest indictment yet of the colossal and expensive failure of Every Child Matters, so often  trumpeted by this government as evidence of Labour compassion.

Was that the tax cut?

I’m sure I’m not alone in hoping that the NI holiday for new jobs announced by David Cameron yesterday will represent only a small part of the Conservatives’ new recession-beating tax cuts.  Because there is certainly a sense of anti-climax after the intense press and media build up at the weekend. It’s hard to disagree with David Frost of the British Chambers of Commerce when he says that this is a welfare reform suited to better economic times, rather than a tool for the downturn we are now experiencing. With the announcement of 4,000 jobs lost in the UK in just one day, it’s clear that the overriding concern of most businesses is whether they can stay afloat and how many jobs may have to be cut in order to survive – not the prospect of creating new jobs.

These are extreme circumstances which call for extreme measures, and it is a bitter irony that one G Brown, prime architect of Britain’s economic crisis, is now garnering praise for the urgency and gravity with which he responds to the crisis, the shameless abandonment of his own golden rules being presented as  just more proof of his ability to do “whatever is necessary” to get  Britain through the crisis.

So the Conservatives need to show that they do indeed grasp the scale of the downturn, and that they are prepared to move out of the narrow political confines in which they are in danger of being trapped. There is a route open to them which is entirely consistent with their pre-recession narrative of the “post-bureaucratic age.” It is to reduce the size of the state, because it is increasingly obvious that a shrinking private sector cannot support – and will not continue to tolerate - the bureaucratic public sector which so far remains impervious to economic reality. Removing entire layers of government, cancelling billions of pounds worth of useless (and damaging) databases, radical reform of public sector pensions and bonuses, ending the daily diet of pointless and self-defeating government initiatives , not to mention culling a few ministries and more than a few quangos. There has never been a better time to make the case for lean government – so what are we waiting for?

Don't blame capitalism, it's failure of trust

As the markets give their daily, desperate verdict on the banking collapse and on the lack of urgency in the Government's response, journalists and commentators are torn between prescribing solutions and deciding who, or what, to blame. And as Ruth Lea points out here on Centre Right, collapse of trust between banks is key to the current problem. But collapse of trust in government is also a huge factor.

Perhaps the most damaging inheritance of the Blair/Brown years has been the death of trust in politicians. In the aftermath of the 'dodgy dossier' days, we thought that the the failure of trust would most jeopardise a future government's ability to uphold confidence in times of war. Now we know that the death of trust can jeopardise our economic future. And trust, once lost, is the hardest quality to rebuild.

Mandy: We're all different now

If you haven't already had a surfeit of Mandy coverage, do see the FT's interview today, in which the new Secretary of State for Business explains how he - and Gordon, and Alastair - have undergone remarkable personal transformation. Mandy is now, by his own account,"'mature" and "collegiate" as a result of his European experiences; Alastair has "regenerated" and is "a different person." Gordon has, amazingly, needed only a short break over the summer to achieve his own metamorphosis (must have been all those chats with Mandy): he has not just lost physical weight but so much baggage that he can now "see the wood for the trees." Well I never.

Try counting the first person pronouns in the interview, however, and you'll see that in one respect Mandy is the same old Peter. Contrary to Brown and co's feeble claims all weekend that personalities are irrelevant, the return of  Mandelson to front line politics ensures that it will (up to an including the next fall from grace) be "all about me."

Gordon gets desperate

The beleagured Gordon Brown is playing a last desperate card in his bid to regain the respect of his party and the public, claiming that his personal expereince of adversity makes him the man to lead Britian through its economic woes. According to today's Times front page, Brown says he will confront current problems in the way he has dealt with his own troubles, making a reference to the death of his premature baby daughter and the loss of an eye in a school rubgy accident.

This is not a show of strength, Prime Minister, it's a naked bid for sympathy. The loss of a child - or an eye - is life-changing. The experience of such tragedies can make you stronger and more determined - or weaker and more susceptible to emotion. They can make you more obstinate - or more vulnerable. But they do not equip you to lead the country. Right now, your decision to trade on tragedy just looks like another bad call.

Whose life is it anyway?

If we lose our privacy, do we also lose our humanity? It might seem an odd question to ask in the week when Max Mosley looks set to win his case against the News of the World for their lurid allegations about his sexual activities. Yesterday the Centre for Policy Studies held a seminar to examine the right to a private life; noted human rights lawyer Jonathan Cooper OBE explained the history of privacy law, a concept largely neglected by the English legal system and now reliant on the European Convention on Human Rights. As the law gradually develops a more detailed definition of privacy rights, clearly we need a balance between legitimate public interest and the right of public figures to a private life.

But what about the rest of us? We might not be at risk of paparazzi intrusion, but the 'surveillance society' requires ordinary citizens increasingly to surrender their privacy to agencies of the State. Is it alarmist to care about this? I don't think so. The more data the government collects, the more it seeks to define and manage our identities, the less we are able to call any part of our lives our own. In Cooper's words "It is the everyday quality of the right to private life that makes its protection so important within the human rights lexicon." And maybe it's one of those things you don't think about much - until you lose it.

Divorce, children and the role of stigma

Does reducing the stigma of family breakdown make its consequences any easier to bear? A short item in   today's Telegraph reports on the latest data from the National Child Development Study , which tracks the lives of children born in 1958 and compares them to those born in 1970. One of the biggest social changes in that period was the explosion in divorce and family breakdown. Those of us now hitting 50 had just a 9% chance of parental break-up, but for today's thirty-somethings, the rate more than doubled (21%). As sociologist Kathleen Kiernan comments in her report on the NCDS data, one might expect that the increased prevalence of divorce would have reduced its impact on children - after all, if break-up is 'normalised', wouldn't the consequences would be less disruptive?

Not so, says Kiernan: the damaging effects (such as poor educational outcomes, unemployment and depression)  are just as prevalent in the 1970 generation. As the children of the millennium face an estimated 1 in 3 risk of family breakdown, this conclusion is disheartening. It certainly underlines the need for policymakers to find ways to increase family stability, and to reduce the number of children exposed to parental divorce and separation. Taking away the stigma is not the answer.

Less dependency = less government = lower tax

Speaking at a Centre for Policy Studies seminar yesterday David Cameron acknowledged that the best way for government to help people struggling with higher living costs is to reduce their tax burden. To achieve that reduction, government must do less. And the way to ensure that government does less is to place fewer demands upon it.

Hence the virtuous circle which a Conservative government would seek to create in the 'post-bureaucratic age.' The aim is that voluntary, private and social enterprise organisations will be given much greater freedom to provide services currently in the public sector. Dismantling the bureaucracy which at present inhibits this freedom is a huge task. As Eric Pickles explained in the same seminar, public services today are dominated by the requirements of 'structure' rather than 'function.' 

This series of seminars continues to wrestle with the difficulties inherent in moving to the 'function-led' approach. The goal is worthy  - to create a stronger society in which fewer individuals depend on the state. The dangers are that the project can sound too daunting (how many governments have tried and failed to reduce bureaucracy?) and that the language can be too esoteric. David Cameron's remarks yesterday succeeded in bringing the discussion down to earth. Less dependency= less government= lower tax.

Marriage freaks and social norms

"The reason I'm a marriage freak is because I'm a commitment freak." David Cameron, answering a question this morning at his lecture to Relate, deftly explained why he thinks marriage is deserving of special treatment not accorded to other relationships (and why he includes civil partnerships but not cohabitation in the deserving category). And certainly Cameron has shown real commitment to supporting marriage, in contrast to many other politicians of recent years, both Tory and (especially) Labour. 

Today's lecture aimed to put that support in the wider context of  'family-friendly' policies, like affordable childcare, the right to request flexible working for all parents (of children up to 18), and 'corporate social responsibilty' (aka the chocolate orange offensive). It was delivered with passion, a few (but not too many) personal comments, and a very welcome name-check for Dr Wade Horn, whose credentials for promoting marriage as the basis of family stability are impeccable.