Well that's it then, in spite of prophecies to the contrary the world has not in fact stopped turning. Not yet anyway. Although if it's any comfort it may well do so next month.
In a slightly tongue-in-cheek manner I am of course referring to the fact that the Scottish Government's budget has been rejected at Holyrood, albeit by just a fraction (64 votes each with the casting vote going against).
The SNP clearly thought they had managed to win through, securing the support of the Tories and Margo MacDonald. And although the Greens weren't yet onboard a last minute offer to increase the amount to be spent on home insulation was expected to win the day. The Greens however were unhappy with the details of this and the manner in which it was announced and so voted against.
So where now then? Well there are two issues, the political fall-out and then the actual budget itself. Turning to the latter first there is still time before the end of March to bring forward new proposals before the budget is due to be implemented. I would suspect that it will be passed this time.
If however it wasn't possible to achieve this then the status quo would win out i.e. this year's budget would simply carry forward into 2009-2010, but this would obviously mean that there would be no inflationary increases available, which obviously has notable implications.
But as I say I don't believe this will ultimately happen. Although what it might mean is a higher price to secure Green support than was the case before today. It’s also possible that Tories could scent blood and demand more than they had agreed, although this would almost certainly be seen as irresponsible and so is a line the Tories will likely and sensibly avoid.
The political fall-out is much less clear.In terms of the SNP it's yet another example (following Glenrothes) that the air of invincibility which seemed to characterize the SNP's early period in office has now gone. The silver lining may yet be that the nationalists can try and portray opposition parties that voted against as irresponsible. Equally if they have to provide extra funds to win through next time this may be a get-out clause if they fail to meet other pledges.
They have a challenge about how to play this, and there are mixed signals about what this will be. The BBC line – getting on with government, willing to compromise, etc is a good one that shows some statesmanship. However the Herald story – about a furious Salmond threatening elections – doesn’t look good. Time will tell on this.
For the opposing parties (Labour and the Lib Dems) it's a slightly mixed picture. On the one hand, especially in Labour's case, it's an improvement on how things went last year and it's an obvious political triumph. However the battle now will be to see who can explain why their actions were the most responsible; certainly Labour have a huge amount of work to do in this regard.
The Lib Dems are in a similar position although it's still not clear how they expected their Budget demands to ever be met. You also wonder if they are currently backing themselves into a corner should they ever be in government again: the sheer number of policy ideas and tax cuts they have demanded are surely undeliverable by any government?
And for both these parties there’s a debate about whether a political triumph i.e. one in which you win in a political setting is also a victory outwith this environment. The public will of course tire of yet more political bickering but that will be the extent of it if a budget is passed before the end of March. However if this was to result in service cuts then it becomes a bigger problem.
Ultimately all this could feasibly lead to an election, if the SNP government were to resign. In this scenario there would be the opportunity to elect another First Minister, which is possible. Labour and the Lib Dems could resurrect their coalition, if the Tories would agree to some form of (non-formal) support. Although again this raises the problem of what the Lib Dems would want in exchange.
However given that it’s unlikely that the next budget plans will be rejected the next question is who the public will blame? Most people will not follow the nuances of the debate so will be persuaded by fairly simple arguments; either they’ll think it’s the government’s responsibility to get a budget (in which case the SNP get the blame) or they’ll by the line that other parties have contrived to undermine the SNP (in which case they’ll blame the Labour and the Lib Dems). Although again all of this is less important if the next budget is actually passed.
So for now the public can get back to real life. There is no effect on budgets anytime soon and all the parties can talk and fight amongst themselves until the end of March before there’s a real problem. So it now falls to each party’s spin doctors to articulate their case over the coming weeks, whilst background work goes on. The voters of course will be waiting with baited breath…
But either way at least the world will almost certainly keep on turning.
29 Jan 2009
28 Jan 2009
Don't get caught
For all the impression to the contrary it's amazing how rarely politicians in this country genuinely lie.
What they can be guilty of is at times exaggerating or seeking to present certain facts in a light which is of most benefit to them. This really isn't lying, although it can be very frustrating to the public and other politicians alike.
However the one rule of this is that if you are going to exaggerate or such like make sure you don't get caught in the act, especially not at the same time as there is political coverage on the veracity or otherwise of your answers (even if that's not what's actually being investigated).
The Scottish Government's claim that former UN Secretary General Kofi Annan was visiting Scotland because of the Homecoming is something that appears to be an example of exaggeration at its very best. The case seems to centre on the point of whether Annan is just visiting Scotland or because of the Homecoming.
Judging by the comments from Annan's staff it's the former and nothing to do with Burns' 250th anniversary. But given that the First Minister announced the exact opposite this is obviously embarrassing for him and the wider issue of Homecoming.
It's now being described by the Scottish Government as an example of 'wires being crossed' and that may be the case; it's fair to say that the various letters which were exchanged between the groups could be construed in a few ways. Mr Annan's office is also downplaying the whole issue. However it's still obviously embarrassing for the Scottish Government given that the initial announcement was clearly designed to deflect recent criticism of how successful Homecoming is likely to be.
This is still a fairly small political issue, fixated on by politicians by largely passing the public by. The same goes for the Holyrood probe into the veracity of politicians' statements when in parliament. And as a general rule negative one (or two)-off stories really don't do politicians too much harm.
However when it becomes a theme, when it's something that is spoken about regularly in the media, that's the point that the politician or government in question begins to have problems. In other words if the Scottish Government want to avoid this blowing up into something they are going to have to go to massive lengths to ensure nothing they say in the next few weeks is anything other than 100% accurate.
And how simple do you think it is for politicians to do that?
What they can be guilty of is at times exaggerating or seeking to present certain facts in a light which is of most benefit to them. This really isn't lying, although it can be very frustrating to the public and other politicians alike.
However the one rule of this is that if you are going to exaggerate or such like make sure you don't get caught in the act, especially not at the same time as there is political coverage on the veracity or otherwise of your answers (even if that's not what's actually being investigated).
The Scottish Government's claim that former UN Secretary General Kofi Annan was visiting Scotland because of the Homecoming is something that appears to be an example of exaggeration at its very best. The case seems to centre on the point of whether Annan is just visiting Scotland or because of the Homecoming.
Judging by the comments from Annan's staff it's the former and nothing to do with Burns' 250th anniversary. But given that the First Minister announced the exact opposite this is obviously embarrassing for him and the wider issue of Homecoming.
It's now being described by the Scottish Government as an example of 'wires being crossed' and that may be the case; it's fair to say that the various letters which were exchanged between the groups could be construed in a few ways. Mr Annan's office is also downplaying the whole issue. However it's still obviously embarrassing for the Scottish Government given that the initial announcement was clearly designed to deflect recent criticism of how successful Homecoming is likely to be.
This is still a fairly small political issue, fixated on by politicians by largely passing the public by. The same goes for the Holyrood probe into the veracity of politicians' statements when in parliament. And as a general rule negative one (or two)-off stories really don't do politicians too much harm.
However when it becomes a theme, when it's something that is spoken about regularly in the media, that's the point that the politician or government in question begins to have problems. In other words if the Scottish Government want to avoid this blowing up into something they are going to have to go to massive lengths to ensure nothing they say in the next few weeks is anything other than 100% accurate.
And how simple do you think it is for politicians to do that?
27 Jan 2009
Slip of the keyboard
It's unlikely that in addition to Barack Obama holding the office of US President he also has time to be a writer for BBC Online. But if so he'd be guilty of something a Freudian slip.
Reflecting on the new president's latest press conference the BBC reported that he said "America's reliance on foreign oil and global warming posed threats". Presumably the author didn't actually mean that America relied on global warming, rather that it was a notable threat.
However a quick reconsideration of that statement may mean that it's not too far off the mark. There is no question that a huge part of the American (and indeed Western) economy is based on over-consumption, which is clearly strongly linked to global warming, whether in terms of the excessive use of natural resources or fossil fuels.
This is just the sort of challenge that will determine whether or not Obama's presidency is truly a momentous one or merely the triumph of rhetoric and hype. The issue of tackling global warming was alluded to in Obama's inauguration address and it's a positive sign that he has returned to the topic so soon.
The manner in which he is presenting his case is also worth noting. President Obama has not chosen just to lecture people on the need to change their lives but is framing it (at least the issue of over-use of foreign oil) as national security issue. This is an interesting tact which may make it harder for opponents to present his actions as somehow opposed to the American way of life.
Furthermore the fact that Obama is also using the cover that his political honeymoon provides also bodes well. By raising this issue regularly and right from the start it makes it easier for him to articulate how important this matter is without fear of it introducing the concept at a later stage when it may have a bigger impact on his presidency. The longer he is in power the more important this approach will be.
As a general rule the idea that something must be done to tackle climate change seems to be generally accepted - particularly as we see significant emerging markets in the form of China and (to a slightly lesser extent) India. However agreeing that something must be done and actually doing it are then two different things.
This is particularly the case during these troubled economic times. It can be argued that in recent times our (the west's) fixation with material goods has harmed us; that as we have more we want more, leading to a cycle of negativity. If we were incapable of breaking free from that mindset during positive economic times might the modern economic scenario make this even harder as people strive to preserve what they have against opposing economic forces?
Of course the opposite could yet be the case. As most people have to scale back their spending this could be the chance for a re-evaluation of what is actually important, possibly even bringing a recognition that as a general rule we are generally very wealthy in this country and in the west. With or without a new wide-screen TV or second foreign holiday each year.
This is the obvious dilemma which faces all Western and indeed world leaders, including Obama. And again it's part of the success criteria that the new president will be judged. It is of course too much to realistically hope that within four or eight years America's gluttonous relationship with oil will have been resolved but at least we have to see progress on this.
That means, and not only for the US, less of a reliance on private transport and air travel, new types of technology (including to power the aforementioned vehicles) and a re-appraisal of our use of natural resources; witness the sheer number of plastic bottles bought and thrown away each day for a perfect example of this.
None of this is simple and, just like Obama's first speech alluded to, it cannot all be down to him. Every American, every person in the west and indeed across the world has a role to play in tackling climate change. But those that already have and use the most must lead on such efforts, and that's where America must be at the heart of this.
Obama himself has set this issue as one of the big challenges of his presidency. History and indeed the world today must hope that the idea of America relying on global warming really is something which proves to be nothing more than a typo.
Reflecting on the new president's latest press conference the BBC reported that he said "America's reliance on foreign oil and global warming posed threats". Presumably the author didn't actually mean that America relied on global warming, rather that it was a notable threat.
However a quick reconsideration of that statement may mean that it's not too far off the mark. There is no question that a huge part of the American (and indeed Western) economy is based on over-consumption, which is clearly strongly linked to global warming, whether in terms of the excessive use of natural resources or fossil fuels.
This is just the sort of challenge that will determine whether or not Obama's presidency is truly a momentous one or merely the triumph of rhetoric and hype. The issue of tackling global warming was alluded to in Obama's inauguration address and it's a positive sign that he has returned to the topic so soon.
The manner in which he is presenting his case is also worth noting. President Obama has not chosen just to lecture people on the need to change their lives but is framing it (at least the issue of over-use of foreign oil) as national security issue. This is an interesting tact which may make it harder for opponents to present his actions as somehow opposed to the American way of life.
Furthermore the fact that Obama is also using the cover that his political honeymoon provides also bodes well. By raising this issue regularly and right from the start it makes it easier for him to articulate how important this matter is without fear of it introducing the concept at a later stage when it may have a bigger impact on his presidency. The longer he is in power the more important this approach will be.
As a general rule the idea that something must be done to tackle climate change seems to be generally accepted - particularly as we see significant emerging markets in the form of China and (to a slightly lesser extent) India. However agreeing that something must be done and actually doing it are then two different things.
This is particularly the case during these troubled economic times. It can be argued that in recent times our (the west's) fixation with material goods has harmed us; that as we have more we want more, leading to a cycle of negativity. If we were incapable of breaking free from that mindset during positive economic times might the modern economic scenario make this even harder as people strive to preserve what they have against opposing economic forces?
Of course the opposite could yet be the case. As most people have to scale back their spending this could be the chance for a re-evaluation of what is actually important, possibly even bringing a recognition that as a general rule we are generally very wealthy in this country and in the west. With or without a new wide-screen TV or second foreign holiday each year.
This is the obvious dilemma which faces all Western and indeed world leaders, including Obama. And again it's part of the success criteria that the new president will be judged. It is of course too much to realistically hope that within four or eight years America's gluttonous relationship with oil will have been resolved but at least we have to see progress on this.
That means, and not only for the US, less of a reliance on private transport and air travel, new types of technology (including to power the aforementioned vehicles) and a re-appraisal of our use of natural resources; witness the sheer number of plastic bottles bought and thrown away each day for a perfect example of this.
None of this is simple and, just like Obama's first speech alluded to, it cannot all be down to him. Every American, every person in the west and indeed across the world has a role to play in tackling climate change. But those that already have and use the most must lead on such efforts, and that's where America must be at the heart of this.
Obama himself has set this issue as one of the big challenges of his presidency. History and indeed the world today must hope that the idea of America relying on global warming really is something which proves to be nothing more than a typo.
Using dictionaries
Why is it that many politicians seem to have little more than a passing relationship with a dictionary? I only ask because of the political tendency to make bold statements which sound valid and yet make no sense in practice.
Health Secretary Nicola Sturgeon has announced plans for a "zero tolerance" approach to NHS staff who fail to wash their hands, in a bid to stop hospital-acquired infections. As a policy aim stopping infection is entirely laudable.
However as an actual statement it's meaningless. Unless I'm mistaken 'zero tolerance' means just that; no tolerance whatsoever. So for this to actually qualify for the given title it would have to mean that any member of NHS staff caught not washing their hands would have to be fired, with no second chances.
Of course that's not actually being proposed, and rightly so. It would be madness to fire someone that the NHS has trained and given huge experience simply for one mistake. Therefore the approach being taken - education campaigns with the ultimate threat of sanctions - is legitimate enough.
But why then use this extreme and ultimately meaningless language? Well no surprise that it's to try and attract publicity for this initiative. And whilst there is some validity to this it's also worth asking if this ultimate gap between rhetoric and reality is what puts people off politics.
I'll be honest - exaggeration like this makes it likely that my head will explode...
Health Secretary Nicola Sturgeon has announced plans for a "zero tolerance" approach to NHS staff who fail to wash their hands, in a bid to stop hospital-acquired infections. As a policy aim stopping infection is entirely laudable.
However as an actual statement it's meaningless. Unless I'm mistaken 'zero tolerance' means just that; no tolerance whatsoever. So for this to actually qualify for the given title it would have to mean that any member of NHS staff caught not washing their hands would have to be fired, with no second chances.
Of course that's not actually being proposed, and rightly so. It would be madness to fire someone that the NHS has trained and given huge experience simply for one mistake. Therefore the approach being taken - education campaigns with the ultimate threat of sanctions - is legitimate enough.
But why then use this extreme and ultimately meaningless language? Well no surprise that it's to try and attract publicity for this initiative. And whilst there is some validity to this it's also worth asking if this ultimate gap between rhetoric and reality is what puts people off politics.
I'll be honest - exaggeration like this makes it likely that my head will explode...
23 Jan 2009
Snookered
The Snooker Masters has been on this week and is a tournament I always enjoy. But there is much anguish going on in the game with fears that the sport is increasingly irrelevant.
The debate was started by Ronnie O'Sullivan who said that the game was "dying", a statement which sparked some debate in the snooker world with many agreeing and bemoaning the lack of 'characters' available to enliven the game and attract fans and sponsors.
Anyone without an interest in snooker can safely read on just now because the point of this article isn't really to talk about snooker, rather what it represents about wider society.
The claim of a lack of characters and interest is not something which is confined to snooker, it's something which is evident in most aspects of society - from sport to politics. How often do you read or hear commentators claim that people have a diminishing interest in a particular subject because the people associated with it lack the glitz of years gone by?
Whether it's that football no longer has people like George Best, snooker needs an Alex Higgins or politics lacks a modern Winston Churchill there are numerous examples of this. And yet what does this all really mean?
The irony of all this is that many of the 'characters' that people wish were more evident in our society simply could not exist nowadays; there is no prospect that the media would ever allow it.
George Best was a fabulous player but equally a man with an extreme drink problem who was no stranger to the company of various women. Alex Higgins was obviously another man with a drink problem. And what to say of Winston Churchill? We can probably generously summarise him as having problems with alcohol (including during parliamentary debates) and openly admitting having mental health problems.
In our modern media age does anyone seriously believe that these people - regardless of their undeniable abilities - could possibly hope to survive trial by 24-hour media, not least the tabloids? It is simply inconceivable; instead their personal character would be savaged and claims that their example was destroying the country would not be far behind.
Churchill in particular is the best example of this hypocrisy. There are numerous stories of him being drunk and abusive when speaking in Parliament, something which would automatically rule him out of serving today. Yet he still tops polls for the greatest British politician and often the Greatest Briton ever.
Modern politicians are usually kept in an impossible position. On the one hand they are decried for being dull, for having no life or 'history', for plotting their entire life to reach high office. But in spite of this there is still nothing the media likes more than attacking a politician who has done something wrong, even if it was in their past (see questions about drug taking when at university for proof).
The same people that would lead these charges are also the same that decry how politicians, sportspeople and indeed anyone in the public eye somehow isn't as interesting now as in the past. Is it really any surprise - if you knew that the only way you could reach the pinnacle of your given profession was in generally keeping a low-profile then isn't that just what you would do?
We also have to ask ourselves what we actually meant by characters in the past. A quick look at the three examples above links one theme: alcohol. Particularly in the case of celebrities (i.e. excluding politicians) quite often what was meant by 'character' was being a big drinker: witness the adulation given to Oliver Reed for instance.
So it's not intrinsically a bad thing that we no longer celebrate this definition of 'character' (even if alcohol obviously still plays a massive role in the UK today). But can something else replace it? That's a much harder question and one likely without a positive answer.
This is because the problem isn't simply how modern celebrities and public figures are treated by the media - it's the actual media itself. Little over two decades ago in this country there was still - for the bulk of the population - only three TV channels available to watch. Now with the advent of digital TV most people would have access to easily ten times this, and probably more.
Equally whereas in the past newspapers and magazines had their deadline and outwith this time there was limited news we now have rolling 24-hour media, including the Internet (itself part of this information explosion). However does anyone really believe that there is more news now (that's genuine news) than there was 20, 30 or 40 years ago?
The reality is no, which means that in fact we now have a massive industry whose job it is to create news - even if it's not actually worthy of this definition. And in this cacophony of informative noise it's no surprised that genuine characters or people of stature or worthwhile political initiatives get drowned out.
Instead we're left with the scenario whereby it's not those that most deserve coverage but rather those that can shout the loudest and in the most simple manner that grab our attention. And if this was only confined to the entertainment industry then there is a case for saying 'who cares'? After all it's not life or death stuff.
But that's not the reality; the sheer scale of media which fights for attention and demands that everything be sensational and simple does us all harm. I doubt there's ever been a time when the entire population took an active interest or national or global politics, and certainly not the intricacies of it.
However a media culture which demands the same glitzy nature from its politicians as it does its entertainers has real problems. So instead we now have a political climate where the best ideas don't necessarily win through, instead it's the people that can best build relationships with media owners and come up a gimmick and a soundbite. And at that point it hurts us all.
Ultimately this leaves us in something of a paradox. We will no doubt continue to hear that modern society somehow lacks the spark of years gone by; yet the only people that can change this would never be allowed to develop in this society. And in any case given what 'character' often meant it's debatable that's a bad thing.
But it doesn't help snooker. Or politics. Or anything trying desperately to grab a public's attention which has long since been diluted by a frenzied, sensationalist and enormous mass media. In other words, anyone who wants to change this is pretty much snookered.
The debate was started by Ronnie O'Sullivan who said that the game was "dying", a statement which sparked some debate in the snooker world with many agreeing and bemoaning the lack of 'characters' available to enliven the game and attract fans and sponsors.
Anyone without an interest in snooker can safely read on just now because the point of this article isn't really to talk about snooker, rather what it represents about wider society.
The claim of a lack of characters and interest is not something which is confined to snooker, it's something which is evident in most aspects of society - from sport to politics. How often do you read or hear commentators claim that people have a diminishing interest in a particular subject because the people associated with it lack the glitz of years gone by?
Whether it's that football no longer has people like George Best, snooker needs an Alex Higgins or politics lacks a modern Winston Churchill there are numerous examples of this. And yet what does this all really mean?
The irony of all this is that many of the 'characters' that people wish were more evident in our society simply could not exist nowadays; there is no prospect that the media would ever allow it.
George Best was a fabulous player but equally a man with an extreme drink problem who was no stranger to the company of various women. Alex Higgins was obviously another man with a drink problem. And what to say of Winston Churchill? We can probably generously summarise him as having problems with alcohol (including during parliamentary debates) and openly admitting having mental health problems.
In our modern media age does anyone seriously believe that these people - regardless of their undeniable abilities - could possibly hope to survive trial by 24-hour media, not least the tabloids? It is simply inconceivable; instead their personal character would be savaged and claims that their example was destroying the country would not be far behind.
Churchill in particular is the best example of this hypocrisy. There are numerous stories of him being drunk and abusive when speaking in Parliament, something which would automatically rule him out of serving today. Yet he still tops polls for the greatest British politician and often the Greatest Briton ever.
Modern politicians are usually kept in an impossible position. On the one hand they are decried for being dull, for having no life or 'history', for plotting their entire life to reach high office. But in spite of this there is still nothing the media likes more than attacking a politician who has done something wrong, even if it was in their past (see questions about drug taking when at university for proof).
The same people that would lead these charges are also the same that decry how politicians, sportspeople and indeed anyone in the public eye somehow isn't as interesting now as in the past. Is it really any surprise - if you knew that the only way you could reach the pinnacle of your given profession was in generally keeping a low-profile then isn't that just what you would do?
We also have to ask ourselves what we actually meant by characters in the past. A quick look at the three examples above links one theme: alcohol. Particularly in the case of celebrities (i.e. excluding politicians) quite often what was meant by 'character' was being a big drinker: witness the adulation given to Oliver Reed for instance.
So it's not intrinsically a bad thing that we no longer celebrate this definition of 'character' (even if alcohol obviously still plays a massive role in the UK today). But can something else replace it? That's a much harder question and one likely without a positive answer.
This is because the problem isn't simply how modern celebrities and public figures are treated by the media - it's the actual media itself. Little over two decades ago in this country there was still - for the bulk of the population - only three TV channels available to watch. Now with the advent of digital TV most people would have access to easily ten times this, and probably more.
Equally whereas in the past newspapers and magazines had their deadline and outwith this time there was limited news we now have rolling 24-hour media, including the Internet (itself part of this information explosion). However does anyone really believe that there is more news now (that's genuine news) than there was 20, 30 or 40 years ago?
The reality is no, which means that in fact we now have a massive industry whose job it is to create news - even if it's not actually worthy of this definition. And in this cacophony of informative noise it's no surprised that genuine characters or people of stature or worthwhile political initiatives get drowned out.
Instead we're left with the scenario whereby it's not those that most deserve coverage but rather those that can shout the loudest and in the most simple manner that grab our attention. And if this was only confined to the entertainment industry then there is a case for saying 'who cares'? After all it's not life or death stuff.
But that's not the reality; the sheer scale of media which fights for attention and demands that everything be sensational and simple does us all harm. I doubt there's ever been a time when the entire population took an active interest or national or global politics, and certainly not the intricacies of it.
However a media culture which demands the same glitzy nature from its politicians as it does its entertainers has real problems. So instead we now have a political climate where the best ideas don't necessarily win through, instead it's the people that can best build relationships with media owners and come up a gimmick and a soundbite. And at that point it hurts us all.
Ultimately this leaves us in something of a paradox. We will no doubt continue to hear that modern society somehow lacks the spark of years gone by; yet the only people that can change this would never be allowed to develop in this society. And in any case given what 'character' often meant it's debatable that's a bad thing.
But it doesn't help snooker. Or politics. Or anything trying desperately to grab a public's attention which has long since been diluted by a frenzied, sensationalist and enormous mass media. In other words, anyone who wants to change this is pretty much snookered.
21 Jan 2009
And now for the hard bit
New Presidents must curse predecessors such as John F Kennedy or Franklin D Roosevelt, if only for the way that the oratory from their inauguration speeches lives on to this day.
"Ask not what your country can do for you but what you can do for your country" and "we have nothing to fear but fear itself" have lived on down the ages as testimony to the poetry that those in public life are capable of achieving.
And in the aftermath of Barack Obama's first presidential speech no doubt much of today's commentary will focus on how his speech compares to those from years before. But rather than consider the rhetoric it's worth looking beyond the words to the reality.
Most people (although certainly not all) would find it hard to argue with the sentiments expressed; there was indeed some lofty ambitions. That America must assess its global role - whether in relation to working with other countries or how it uses precious finite resources - is surely beyond dispute.
And as the hundreds of thousands of people that lined Washington's streets yesterday rose in acclaim at these words it was hard not to be swayed by such idealism and the hope that perhaps yesterday really was the start of a new dawn; not the conclusion by any means but an important first step.
However as the streets empty, the supporters return home and those in charge in Washington prepare for the actual work part of governing how easy will it be to maintain such support? As the credit crunch bites how many of those same people that cheered yesterday will baulk at what those fine words may mean in practice?
The disposable culture that so characterises our lives - in the UK just as in the US - cannot go on if the legacy for our "children's children" referred to by President Obama is to be realised. The continuing over-reliance on certain resources that could in fact damage that very future must be tackled, and yet who will support higher charges for gasoline?
Equally the claim that a successful country cannot simply focus on the rich is one that many must pay heed to. Such actions in fact prevent a country and a people from ever fulfilling their full potential and the ambition of equality for all. But when it comes to the sacrifices that many will have to make to achieve this will those cheers fade into obscurity?
The one thing that Obama has already achieved is make more people - if only for one day - actually listen to a political speech. The reality is that most times people hear politicians it's little more than a quick soundbite, and no doubt dismissed just as quickly.
What President Obama has done is remind people of the power of oratory; of how great men in the past signalled a call to arms which we remember to this day. And yet still the doubts linger; not in the intent of the new president but rather the ability of anyone to actually deliver such aims.
We undeniably live in a more cynical world than years gone by. Whilst we may celebrate the words of Kennedy, Roosevelt or Lincoln (regardless of our particular country) it is doubtful that even they could have had their words met with such universal acclaim and then remembered for posterity if they were given today.
In their own way all inauguration speeches aim high. They are designed to grant the victor their chance to shape out a vision and goals, to remind people of the challenges ahead and to take the first step on the road to a memorable presidency. But then the hard work begins and reality bites. Or as Mario Cuomo put it, "we campaign in poetry but govern in prose".
The optimism of today can only be a good thing but it carries with it a curse; namely that on Obama's shoulders lie the hopes and dreams of millions, and not just in America. Yet it is worth remembering - and again turning back to his speech - that in fact it's not one man that can change a country. He may lead but it's others who will deliver it.
So for those that cheered yesterday - whether on the streets of Washington DC, whilst watching across America or indeed joining in around the world - that's where the challenge really lies. There is no sense in celebrating this new dawn if it simply means business as usual from today. In other words what will you do differently now that might help achieve this better world?
Now for the hard bit. Let's hope that everyone - and not simply President Obama - is up to the task and challenges ahead.
"Ask not what your country can do for you but what you can do for your country" and "we have nothing to fear but fear itself" have lived on down the ages as testimony to the poetry that those in public life are capable of achieving.
And in the aftermath of Barack Obama's first presidential speech no doubt much of today's commentary will focus on how his speech compares to those from years before. But rather than consider the rhetoric it's worth looking beyond the words to the reality.
Most people (although certainly not all) would find it hard to argue with the sentiments expressed; there was indeed some lofty ambitions. That America must assess its global role - whether in relation to working with other countries or how it uses precious finite resources - is surely beyond dispute.
And as the hundreds of thousands of people that lined Washington's streets yesterday rose in acclaim at these words it was hard not to be swayed by such idealism and the hope that perhaps yesterday really was the start of a new dawn; not the conclusion by any means but an important first step.
However as the streets empty, the supporters return home and those in charge in Washington prepare for the actual work part of governing how easy will it be to maintain such support? As the credit crunch bites how many of those same people that cheered yesterday will baulk at what those fine words may mean in practice?
The disposable culture that so characterises our lives - in the UK just as in the US - cannot go on if the legacy for our "children's children" referred to by President Obama is to be realised. The continuing over-reliance on certain resources that could in fact damage that very future must be tackled, and yet who will support higher charges for gasoline?
Equally the claim that a successful country cannot simply focus on the rich is one that many must pay heed to. Such actions in fact prevent a country and a people from ever fulfilling their full potential and the ambition of equality for all. But when it comes to the sacrifices that many will have to make to achieve this will those cheers fade into obscurity?
The one thing that Obama has already achieved is make more people - if only for one day - actually listen to a political speech. The reality is that most times people hear politicians it's little more than a quick soundbite, and no doubt dismissed just as quickly.
What President Obama has done is remind people of the power of oratory; of how great men in the past signalled a call to arms which we remember to this day. And yet still the doubts linger; not in the intent of the new president but rather the ability of anyone to actually deliver such aims.
We undeniably live in a more cynical world than years gone by. Whilst we may celebrate the words of Kennedy, Roosevelt or Lincoln (regardless of our particular country) it is doubtful that even they could have had their words met with such universal acclaim and then remembered for posterity if they were given today.
In their own way all inauguration speeches aim high. They are designed to grant the victor their chance to shape out a vision and goals, to remind people of the challenges ahead and to take the first step on the road to a memorable presidency. But then the hard work begins and reality bites. Or as Mario Cuomo put it, "we campaign in poetry but govern in prose".
The optimism of today can only be a good thing but it carries with it a curse; namely that on Obama's shoulders lie the hopes and dreams of millions, and not just in America. Yet it is worth remembering - and again turning back to his speech - that in fact it's not one man that can change a country. He may lead but it's others who will deliver it.
So for those that cheered yesterday - whether on the streets of Washington DC, whilst watching across America or indeed joining in around the world - that's where the challenge really lies. There is no sense in celebrating this new dawn if it simply means business as usual from today. In other words what will you do differently now that might help achieve this better world?
Now for the hard bit. Let's hope that everyone - and not simply President Obama - is up to the task and challenges ahead.
19 Jan 2009
How easy is it to answer questions?
This is presumably one of the strangest blog topics of all time; the answer is surely very simple?
Person A poses a particular query to Person B. Person B then considers the question before providing the required information. Problem solved, end of blog. Except this isn't true of course and especially not in politics.
This topic has been prompted by the inquiry announced by the Scottish Parliament's Presiding Officer Alex Fergusson into the veracity of answers provided in the Chamber. This is following various complaints from opposition parties that ministers (notably the First Minister) are at times less than truthful in their responses.
It's fair to say that if ever there was an issue which will bring partisan divisions and fervour to the fore it's this. But what is this ultimately likely to lead to?
Well the first problem is that of what the actual complainants really want. There's no question that at times ministers will not provide the answer the opposition wish they would (a point valid at Westminster as much as Holyrood); indeed there is a public stereotype that politicians can never answer the question posed to them.
This isn't even just about politician-to-politician exchanges. It's perhaps the media's biggest complaint that whatever question they pose to elected officials their interviewee will instead respond on whatever topic they so wish; anything other than provide a straight answer. Jeremy Paxman's exchange with Michael Howard is probably the best example of this.
But in spite of the public (and clearly also political) perception of evasion from those being questioned it's actually not nearly as simple as this.
In the first case there is a difference between not answering the question and lying. Clearly if you're asked if 2+2=4 and answer no then you're either lying or woefully out of your depth when it comes to answering questions. And it's obviously the former charge that many are currently making against the First Minister.
But if you were to instead answer the 2+2 question by saying that this was not the key issue and in fact what is important to note is that it's only because of the actions of your government that we have 2+2 in the first place then that's not lying. It might be completely ignoring the question and thus enormously frustrating to your questioners, but it's still not a lie.
The obvious retort to this is that as a publicly-elected official you shouldn't be obfuscating in this way in the first place. If you're asked a question (especially a simple 'yes or no' one) then you should reply clearly and honestly. Except even this is slightly simplistic.
There is an old joke that neatly sums up the problem of 'yes and no' questions, namely this: Have you stopped beating your wife? Now how you can you possibly answer that without conceding that at some point you have beat your wife? In other words it's not always as simple as saying people should simply answer the question in front of them.
Politicians and the media are not friends of other politicians; therefore the questions they ask are more often than not designed to force the person being questioned into saying something which will make them appear wrong or foolish. If this then creates a media controversy lasting a few days at least then so much the better. So it's no surprise that politicians are wary in such circumstances.
It's very easy for the opposition or media to focus in on one or two small issues and in doing so ignore the genuine big picture. No government in the world ever gets every single policy 100% correct so it's more than possible that - for example - you could have a world class education service (which I'm not saying we have) but one or two minor problems. Of course it's these points which would be focused on in an attempt to embarrass the government. In this case there is surely then some legitimacy in ministers seeking to defend their overall record?
You can also look at the furore caused last week when Baroness Vadera made her comments about seeing 'green shoots' of recovery in the economy. If you actually read her full comments she was clearly talking about one small aspect of the economy but that didn't step a media and political frenzy into how she and the government were out of touch, etc.
It's a fair bet that whatever the outcome of the Scottish Parliament inquiry into how ministers choose to answer in Parliament no-one will be completely happy. Ministers themselves will be less than pleased if they are forced into answering certain questions (although this is ultimately then a dilemma which will face the current Opposition when they are next in government).
Equally the Opposition aren't going to get everything they want. Even if the inquiry finds that ministers who are proven to have mislead or been less than honest should face some sanction there is still no way to force them to answer the question in the first place. The only way this will happen is if public pressure is to grow on them - by which I mean the media holds them more strongly to account when they are seen to just ignore legitimate questions.
So it seems that there's no simple solution to this perpetual problem. Do you agree? Come on, it's a simple yes or no answer...
Person A poses a particular query to Person B. Person B then considers the question before providing the required information. Problem solved, end of blog. Except this isn't true of course and especially not in politics.
This topic has been prompted by the inquiry announced by the Scottish Parliament's Presiding Officer Alex Fergusson into the veracity of answers provided in the Chamber. This is following various complaints from opposition parties that ministers (notably the First Minister) are at times less than truthful in their responses.
It's fair to say that if ever there was an issue which will bring partisan divisions and fervour to the fore it's this. But what is this ultimately likely to lead to?
Well the first problem is that of what the actual complainants really want. There's no question that at times ministers will not provide the answer the opposition wish they would (a point valid at Westminster as much as Holyrood); indeed there is a public stereotype that politicians can never answer the question posed to them.
This isn't even just about politician-to-politician exchanges. It's perhaps the media's biggest complaint that whatever question they pose to elected officials their interviewee will instead respond on whatever topic they so wish; anything other than provide a straight answer. Jeremy Paxman's exchange with Michael Howard is probably the best example of this.
But in spite of the public (and clearly also political) perception of evasion from those being questioned it's actually not nearly as simple as this.
In the first case there is a difference between not answering the question and lying. Clearly if you're asked if 2+2=4 and answer no then you're either lying or woefully out of your depth when it comes to answering questions. And it's obviously the former charge that many are currently making against the First Minister.
But if you were to instead answer the 2+2 question by saying that this was not the key issue and in fact what is important to note is that it's only because of the actions of your government that we have 2+2 in the first place then that's not lying. It might be completely ignoring the question and thus enormously frustrating to your questioners, but it's still not a lie.
The obvious retort to this is that as a publicly-elected official you shouldn't be obfuscating in this way in the first place. If you're asked a question (especially a simple 'yes or no' one) then you should reply clearly and honestly. Except even this is slightly simplistic.
There is an old joke that neatly sums up the problem of 'yes and no' questions, namely this: Have you stopped beating your wife? Now how you can you possibly answer that without conceding that at some point you have beat your wife? In other words it's not always as simple as saying people should simply answer the question in front of them.
Politicians and the media are not friends of other politicians; therefore the questions they ask are more often than not designed to force the person being questioned into saying something which will make them appear wrong or foolish. If this then creates a media controversy lasting a few days at least then so much the better. So it's no surprise that politicians are wary in such circumstances.
It's very easy for the opposition or media to focus in on one or two small issues and in doing so ignore the genuine big picture. No government in the world ever gets every single policy 100% correct so it's more than possible that - for example - you could have a world class education service (which I'm not saying we have) but one or two minor problems. Of course it's these points which would be focused on in an attempt to embarrass the government. In this case there is surely then some legitimacy in ministers seeking to defend their overall record?
You can also look at the furore caused last week when Baroness Vadera made her comments about seeing 'green shoots' of recovery in the economy. If you actually read her full comments she was clearly talking about one small aspect of the economy but that didn't step a media and political frenzy into how she and the government were out of touch, etc.
It's a fair bet that whatever the outcome of the Scottish Parliament inquiry into how ministers choose to answer in Parliament no-one will be completely happy. Ministers themselves will be less than pleased if they are forced into answering certain questions (although this is ultimately then a dilemma which will face the current Opposition when they are next in government).
Equally the Opposition aren't going to get everything they want. Even if the inquiry finds that ministers who are proven to have mislead or been less than honest should face some sanction there is still no way to force them to answer the question in the first place. The only way this will happen is if public pressure is to grow on them - by which I mean the media holds them more strongly to account when they are seen to just ignore legitimate questions.
So it seems that there's no simple solution to this perpetual problem. Do you agree? Come on, it's a simple yes or no answer...
16 Jan 2009
A wake-up call to whom exactly?
"Now is not the time for decisive action, now is the time for bland meaningless statements which sound good but will achieve nothing."
There's no need to do a quick Google search for this, no-one (to the best of my knowledge) actually said it. However it does largely echo the comments made by Education Secretary Fiona Hyslop today.
A major new report has been launched which takes an in-depth look at all aspects of Scottish education. You can find the full report here but some of the document's major findings include:
However there would appear to be one very obvious group missing from this: that of national politicians including the Education Secretary herself.
Now I may be wrong. It may be that Ms Hyslop and the Scottish Government did in fact talk extensively about the role they must play in this process but that no newspaper or media outlet has then subsequently carried this message.
However what's more likely is that this response is really bland rhetoric, the sort of sentiments which are expected to be expressed and are thus forthcoming. But will this same wake-up call be evident in national government's financial planning?
Whilst teachers and head teachers should be expected to play a major part in doing things differently (although incidentally that doesn't mean just asking schools to implement new initiatives whilst at the same time continuing to do everything currently required of them) of course this ultimately boils down to money.
It goes without saying that we live in trying financial times; even those living under rocks are well aware of that. And equally every government department and function will argue for the need for them to be given much more money.
Nevertheless at what point following rhetoric about education being a national priority, need to do more, etc will we ever see actual action? If improving education (particularly in the context of some of the report's recommendations) is our top priority then this is going to require serious and massive prioritised investment.
Stretching the most able; helping those whose family backgrounds excludes them from educational achievement; tackling the very real problem of indiscipline requires a massive investment in staff, resources and facilities. Simply continuing to spend broadly the same amount of money as now but asking if people can maybe do a little more is never going to be enough.
Of course there is also the issue about who decides what is spent on education. The Scottish Government would no doubt argue that as a general rule - and especially under the concordat they have with local councils - they cannot stipulate exactly how money is is spent. But that's simply nonsense, unless in future we can expect these same politicians to refrain from campaigning on education pledges during national elections.
No country in the world spends every penny they have on education; nor could they or should they. But we are also told that Scotland wants to be a world leader and as such surely has to aim to do more? The world our children will be living and working in in 10 or 15 years time will be massively different; just how much are we doing and spending to prepare them for this?
As the report itself notes it's far too early to say the alarm bells are ringing; there are actually some very positive aspects to be found in the document. But in many ways it's a pity there isn't a ringing of sorts; maybe then the Scottish Government would realise that this wake-up call extends to them too.
UPDATE: Having just watched the lunchtime news it seems the Education Secretary is even more entrenched in her views, saying that "steady improvement is not good enough". Great, I'm happy to agree with that. So in addition to these strong words can we therefore expect to see radical plans and investment brought forward from the government to address this?
NB: I do intend to blog about the content of the report itself but thought this was long enough already. Therefore more to follow, hopefully tomorrow although possibly into next week.
There's no need to do a quick Google search for this, no-one (to the best of my knowledge) actually said it. However it does largely echo the comments made by Education Secretary Fiona Hyslop today.
A major new report has been launched which takes an in-depth look at all aspects of Scottish education. You can find the full report here but some of the document's major findings include:
- A need to tackle the 'wasted' 9-14 years when the purpose and value of education is less than clear.
- Much more needs to be done to improve literacy and numeracy amongst all pupils
- Boys overall do less well than their female counterparts
- Exam results must be improved (ironic given the complaints about falling standards which usually follow any increased exam success)
In response to this Education Secretary Fiona Hyslop's response (the fullest I can find) was:
"This report is a wake-up call to every local authority, director of education, head teacher and school teacher.
"We need the very best leaders throughout the profession to work together to motivate and inspire, raise standards, increase consistency and provide the support and challenge needed to improve outcomes for all of our young people."
These are worthy sentiments which are entirely true. If improvements are going to be made in education then each of these groups (especially those actually working in schools) has to do more to play their part.However there would appear to be one very obvious group missing from this: that of national politicians including the Education Secretary herself.
Now I may be wrong. It may be that Ms Hyslop and the Scottish Government did in fact talk extensively about the role they must play in this process but that no newspaper or media outlet has then subsequently carried this message.
However what's more likely is that this response is really bland rhetoric, the sort of sentiments which are expected to be expressed and are thus forthcoming. But will this same wake-up call be evident in national government's financial planning?
Whilst teachers and head teachers should be expected to play a major part in doing things differently (although incidentally that doesn't mean just asking schools to implement new initiatives whilst at the same time continuing to do everything currently required of them) of course this ultimately boils down to money.
It goes without saying that we live in trying financial times; even those living under rocks are well aware of that. And equally every government department and function will argue for the need for them to be given much more money.
Nevertheless at what point following rhetoric about education being a national priority, need to do more, etc will we ever see actual action? If improving education (particularly in the context of some of the report's recommendations) is our top priority then this is going to require serious and massive prioritised investment.
Stretching the most able; helping those whose family backgrounds excludes them from educational achievement; tackling the very real problem of indiscipline requires a massive investment in staff, resources and facilities. Simply continuing to spend broadly the same amount of money as now but asking if people can maybe do a little more is never going to be enough.
Of course there is also the issue about who decides what is spent on education. The Scottish Government would no doubt argue that as a general rule - and especially under the concordat they have with local councils - they cannot stipulate exactly how money is is spent. But that's simply nonsense, unless in future we can expect these same politicians to refrain from campaigning on education pledges during national elections.
No country in the world spends every penny they have on education; nor could they or should they. But we are also told that Scotland wants to be a world leader and as such surely has to aim to do more? The world our children will be living and working in in 10 or 15 years time will be massively different; just how much are we doing and spending to prepare them for this?
As the report itself notes it's far too early to say the alarm bells are ringing; there are actually some very positive aspects to be found in the document. But in many ways it's a pity there isn't a ringing of sorts; maybe then the Scottish Government would realise that this wake-up call extends to them too.
UPDATE: Having just watched the lunchtime news it seems the Education Secretary is even more entrenched in her views, saying that "steady improvement is not good enough". Great, I'm happy to agree with that. So in addition to these strong words can we therefore expect to see radical plans and investment brought forward from the government to address this?
NB: I do intend to blog about the content of the report itself but thought this was long enough already. Therefore more to follow, hopefully tomorrow although possibly into next week.
15 Jan 2009
A last resort
There has been notable coverage today of the news that exclusions have been reduced by 25% in Glasgow schools.
This change is being assigned to different ways of dealing with children that have behavioural problems, including one-to-one teaching in seperate rooms in each school.
This is a commendable achievement and a worthwhile effort. Having problem children in classes hurts them and other pupils - and it only stores up problems for later in life.
But there's also a danger that the fall isn't just down to such changes, rather simply the enforcement of a policy. There's no doubt that headteachers in the city (and elsewhere) are being told to avoid exclusion at all costs.
This means that there are still schools with notable problems aren't getting better at dealing with difficult pupils - simply that there's less evidence of it in terms of exclusions. And that is bad news for teachers, pupils and overall schools.
So whilst it's worth noting some progress no-one should fool themselves that enough is being done - especially on a day when it was revealed that schools in the city have been told not to buy more books as financial pressures are dealt with.
Exclusion should be a last resort. But it should absolutely be a resort which schools can enforce without any centrally-set policy telling them otherwise.
This change is being assigned to different ways of dealing with children that have behavioural problems, including one-to-one teaching in seperate rooms in each school.
This is a commendable achievement and a worthwhile effort. Having problem children in classes hurts them and other pupils - and it only stores up problems for later in life.
But there's also a danger that the fall isn't just down to such changes, rather simply the enforcement of a policy. There's no doubt that headteachers in the city (and elsewhere) are being told to avoid exclusion at all costs.
This means that there are still schools with notable problems aren't getting better at dealing with difficult pupils - simply that there's less evidence of it in terms of exclusions. And that is bad news for teachers, pupils and overall schools.
So whilst it's worth noting some progress no-one should fool themselves that enough is being done - especially on a day when it was revealed that schools in the city have been told not to buy more books as financial pressures are dealt with.
Exclusion should be a last resort. But it should absolutely be a resort which schools can enforce without any centrally-set policy telling them otherwise.
14 Jan 2009
Counselling councils
Just how many councils should we have in Scotland? The Herald newspaper has decided that the current figure of 32 is too many and is starting a campaign for a big reduction, possibly to low as 14 or 15.
So what's behind this and would it make any great difference, especially considering other national policies?
Scotland's councils have a chequered history of relations with central government, be that at Westminster until 1999 or (predominantly) Holyrood since then. This is no great surprise when you think about.
Councils like parliaments are full of people that have been elected and have strong ideas - therefore they all see themselves as the authentic voice of their communities. It is inevitable that in such a scenario these groups will disagree on what actions should take place, especially those which impact on powers that the other enjoys.
In this regard it makes little difference whether or not we reorganise councils; regardless of how many such bodies there are they will continue to have fights with central government and vice versa.
As well as this chequered history there have also been a litany of changes to the actual shape of local government in Scotland. Reorganisation in 1995 saw the introduction of the current system (32 individual, stand-alone councils) in place of the old regional and district councils, which had overlapping responsibilities and boundaries. If you go back further into examples of council reform and reorganisation you can see examples of burgh systems and, before that, county councils.
One major part of this debate which has changed in the past decade is the introduction of the Scottish Parliament. At the point this occurred Scotland's legislative opportunities and politicians increased notably but without any concomitant reduction in other elected officials. This is not in itself wrong but can lead to charges about Scotland being over-governed.
The post-devolution relationship between central and local government has become notable over the past four years or so, under both administrations. The Labour-Lib Dem coalition often spoke of the need for public sector reform without ever doing much about it (said to be because of tensions between the two governing parties) barring introducing proportional representation whilst the SNP have often spoken about a 'new relationship' following last year's concordat between councils and the government.
The concordat is one of those strange issues which everyone (in politics at least) talks about but few seem to have read or fully understood. In principle the concordat was about developing a new partnership between the two groups including reducing ring-fencing (where councils are told how to spend money) in exchange for freezing council tax and signing up to so-called shared priorities.
In reality the concordat was devised to ensure that a key SNP pledge to freeze council tax was achieved. After this councils essentially now have the power to ignore any central government demand, seen in practice with most councils not looking like achieving the SNP's 2007 election pledge to reduce class sizes in primaries 1-3.
This is not necessarily a bad thing: if we're to have locally-elected councils then it makes sense for them to have the freedom to make their own decisions and not be mandated by national plans which don't help locally. This is a principle that most political parties appear to back - until such time as they're in power and disagree with what councils are actually doing!
The final debate currently underway at a national level which affects local government - and indeed any plans for reorganisation - is that of how councils are and should be funded. The plan to replace council tax with a local income tax (LIT) has been one of the major issues of this Parliament and will continue to be so.
If LIT was introduced then this would change the powers debate further. Although it would yet change to win Lib Dem support the SNP's LIT plan is to have a uniform tax rate set nationally, which would further reduce the limited financial powers councils have. This in turn could further enhance the case for other changes to how councils operate.
However whatever the history of this the key issue when talking about councils now (particularly any changes) is what their functions should be and how these are best and most effectively delivered. It's hardly an exclusive to point out that there is little agreement on this.
Many people argue that the current system - even with very small councils - is the right one to ensure a democratic system which doesn't see small areas subsumed (and then ignored) by much larger authorities. Others claims that having 32 councils is simply a waste of resources and leads to a lot of duplication. Some of these will be genuinely-held views, others could be seen as just protecting their own place in the current system, depending on your perspective.
There's no way of knowing for sure which of these is the correct approach. On the one hand it could be argued that every reorganisation which has taken place has been with the goals of better, more efficient and responsive services in mind, just as changes now would be; but has this ever actually happened?
If we go back to district and indeed parish control of large parts of Scottish services this was clearly decision-making on a hyper local basis compared with now. However it was also a range of services far removed from what most people demand and expect in 2009.
If council services were restricted to bin collection, road maintenance and schools (which in fairness many would probably argue for) then it would be much simpler to have these controlled in a very local manner. But a quick consideration of just of some of the services councils can provide makes this much harder to achieve:
Schools, social work, care homes, bin collection, recycling facilities, sports centres, road maintenance, park management, council tax collection, benefit distribution, housing maintenance and building, libraries and some transport services. And in fact many more.
Whilst some people would say that this is part of the problem with councils - they do too much when people just want the basics - it becomes much harder when you say which of these should be scrapped, simply because there would not be agreement. One person who wants a smaller council will want A,B,C scrapped whilst another who agrees with the principle will want to save A,B,C but scrap X,Y,Z. And so on.
So simply saying that we should have less councils because this will automatically save money and provide a better service would seem unlikely. Even as supporters of change admit it would actually be a process which would take a great deal of time to plan and implement to say nothing of the huge financial costs involved.
And of course if we are serious about saving money then really what this means is having notably less staff. Even if there were some savings to be made through 'natural wastage' e.g. retirals, people leaving anyway, etc to have a major impact it would really have involve redundancies at some point, and it's unlikely any political party is going to back such an eventuality.
It's also debatable the political support for change exists. The SNP have stated categorically (as part of the concordat) that they won't change councils, the Lib Dems were said to be one of the obstacle to reform during the last administration and Labour are clearly not unified on this which makes it harder to see where support comes from. and this is of course to say nothing of the fury which would erupt from many councillors who would see their jobs and power as being under threat.
Council reform (with a defined and clear purpose in mind) is no bad thing and the type of debate that the Scottish Parliament should have, certainly rather than debates about whether the Saltire should fly in the debating chamber or not. However with a minority government and in the context of other policies affecting local government which are either proposed or have taken place it's simply not going to happen anytime soon.
So what's behind this and would it make any great difference, especially considering other national policies?
Scotland's councils have a chequered history of relations with central government, be that at Westminster until 1999 or (predominantly) Holyrood since then. This is no great surprise when you think about.
Councils like parliaments are full of people that have been elected and have strong ideas - therefore they all see themselves as the authentic voice of their communities. It is inevitable that in such a scenario these groups will disagree on what actions should take place, especially those which impact on powers that the other enjoys.
In this regard it makes little difference whether or not we reorganise councils; regardless of how many such bodies there are they will continue to have fights with central government and vice versa.
As well as this chequered history there have also been a litany of changes to the actual shape of local government in Scotland. Reorganisation in 1995 saw the introduction of the current system (32 individual, stand-alone councils) in place of the old regional and district councils, which had overlapping responsibilities and boundaries. If you go back further into examples of council reform and reorganisation you can see examples of burgh systems and, before that, county councils.
One major part of this debate which has changed in the past decade is the introduction of the Scottish Parliament. At the point this occurred Scotland's legislative opportunities and politicians increased notably but without any concomitant reduction in other elected officials. This is not in itself wrong but can lead to charges about Scotland being over-governed.
The post-devolution relationship between central and local government has become notable over the past four years or so, under both administrations. The Labour-Lib Dem coalition often spoke of the need for public sector reform without ever doing much about it (said to be because of tensions between the two governing parties) barring introducing proportional representation whilst the SNP have often spoken about a 'new relationship' following last year's concordat between councils and the government.
The concordat is one of those strange issues which everyone (in politics at least) talks about but few seem to have read or fully understood. In principle the concordat was about developing a new partnership between the two groups including reducing ring-fencing (where councils are told how to spend money) in exchange for freezing council tax and signing up to so-called shared priorities.
In reality the concordat was devised to ensure that a key SNP pledge to freeze council tax was achieved. After this councils essentially now have the power to ignore any central government demand, seen in practice with most councils not looking like achieving the SNP's 2007 election pledge to reduce class sizes in primaries 1-3.
This is not necessarily a bad thing: if we're to have locally-elected councils then it makes sense for them to have the freedom to make their own decisions and not be mandated by national plans which don't help locally. This is a principle that most political parties appear to back - until such time as they're in power and disagree with what councils are actually doing!
The final debate currently underway at a national level which affects local government - and indeed any plans for reorganisation - is that of how councils are and should be funded. The plan to replace council tax with a local income tax (LIT) has been one of the major issues of this Parliament and will continue to be so.
If LIT was introduced then this would change the powers debate further. Although it would yet change to win Lib Dem support the SNP's LIT plan is to have a uniform tax rate set nationally, which would further reduce the limited financial powers councils have. This in turn could further enhance the case for other changes to how councils operate.
However whatever the history of this the key issue when talking about councils now (particularly any changes) is what their functions should be and how these are best and most effectively delivered. It's hardly an exclusive to point out that there is little agreement on this.
Many people argue that the current system - even with very small councils - is the right one to ensure a democratic system which doesn't see small areas subsumed (and then ignored) by much larger authorities. Others claims that having 32 councils is simply a waste of resources and leads to a lot of duplication. Some of these will be genuinely-held views, others could be seen as just protecting their own place in the current system, depending on your perspective.
There's no way of knowing for sure which of these is the correct approach. On the one hand it could be argued that every reorganisation which has taken place has been with the goals of better, more efficient and responsive services in mind, just as changes now would be; but has this ever actually happened?
If we go back to district and indeed parish control of large parts of Scottish services this was clearly decision-making on a hyper local basis compared with now. However it was also a range of services far removed from what most people demand and expect in 2009.
If council services were restricted to bin collection, road maintenance and schools (which in fairness many would probably argue for) then it would be much simpler to have these controlled in a very local manner. But a quick consideration of just of some of the services councils can provide makes this much harder to achieve:
Schools, social work, care homes, bin collection, recycling facilities, sports centres, road maintenance, park management, council tax collection, benefit distribution, housing maintenance and building, libraries and some transport services. And in fact many more.
Whilst some people would say that this is part of the problem with councils - they do too much when people just want the basics - it becomes much harder when you say which of these should be scrapped, simply because there would not be agreement. One person who wants a smaller council will want A,B,C scrapped whilst another who agrees with the principle will want to save A,B,C but scrap X,Y,Z. And so on.
So simply saying that we should have less councils because this will automatically save money and provide a better service would seem unlikely. Even as supporters of change admit it would actually be a process which would take a great deal of time to plan and implement to say nothing of the huge financial costs involved.
And of course if we are serious about saving money then really what this means is having notably less staff. Even if there were some savings to be made through 'natural wastage' e.g. retirals, people leaving anyway, etc to have a major impact it would really have involve redundancies at some point, and it's unlikely any political party is going to back such an eventuality.
It's also debatable the political support for change exists. The SNP have stated categorically (as part of the concordat) that they won't change councils, the Lib Dems were said to be one of the obstacle to reform during the last administration and Labour are clearly not unified on this which makes it harder to see where support comes from. and this is of course to say nothing of the fury which would erupt from many councillors who would see their jobs and power as being under threat.
Council reform (with a defined and clear purpose in mind) is no bad thing and the type of debate that the Scottish Parliament should have, certainly rather than debates about whether the Saltire should fly in the debating chamber or not. However with a minority government and in the context of other policies affecting local government which are either proposed or have taken place it's simply not going to happen anytime soon.
13 Jan 2009
No? Really?
Primark has been accused of having links with UK sweatshops.
Really? Well that's come as an absolute shock. Because obviously any company which charges a couple of pounds for trousers is going to pay manufacturers' staff top wages.
Surely no-one in the country can be in any way surprised that this company pays low wages at home and abroad; a quick look at all their prices sums this up.
Primark is a place many people shop, which is their right. But anyone who does so and believes they're going somewhere which has workplace standards at the top of their agenda is kidding themselves.
Still if it's any consolation it's doubtful many other clothes shops pay their manufacturing staff a big wage, but it's explicitly obvious in the case of Primark.
Really? Well that's come as an absolute shock. Because obviously any company which charges a couple of pounds for trousers is going to pay manufacturers' staff top wages.
Surely no-one in the country can be in any way surprised that this company pays low wages at home and abroad; a quick look at all their prices sums this up.
Primark is a place many people shop, which is their right. But anyone who does so and believes they're going somewhere which has workplace standards at the top of their agenda is kidding themselves.
Still if it's any consolation it's doubtful many other clothes shops pay their manufacturing staff a big wage, but it's explicitly obvious in the case of Primark.
12 Jan 2009
Love thy enemy
As soon as it was announced that the British Humanist Association (BHA) was extending their 'there's probably no God' bus campaign this was very predictable.
A religious group, Christian Voice (CV) has protested to the Advertising Standards Agency that the advert should not be allowed; I suspect the complaint will not be upheld. Now to be honest I don't think the advert will have a huge impact either way - people that believe will continue to do, people that don't will do likewise.
However the advert has been launched and after its initial publicity it would likely have just disappeared never to be heard of again, apart from the odd time that people saw (and likely ignored) it on the bus.
Therefore unless CV and the BHA are secretly in league with each other then what exactly has this achieved? Other than for CV to provide free publicity for an advert they oppose.
Is this an example of 'love thy enemy' in practice?
A religious group, Christian Voice (CV) has protested to the Advertising Standards Agency that the advert should not be allowed; I suspect the complaint will not be upheld. Now to be honest I don't think the advert will have a huge impact either way - people that believe will continue to do, people that don't will do likewise.
However the advert has been launched and after its initial publicity it would likely have just disappeared never to be heard of again, apart from the odd time that people saw (and likely ignored) it on the bus.
Therefore unless CV and the BHA are secretly in league with each other then what exactly has this achieved? Other than for CV to provide free publicity for an advert they oppose.
Is this an example of 'love thy enemy' in practice?
9 Jan 2009
Political poker
It must be great to be a Scottish politician - who else gets to play poker with £33 billion?
Thus begins the annual Holyrood budget process with all sides seeing who will blink first. The SNP government have repeated last year's claim that they'll resign if their budget is voted down; this time Labour are saying 'go ahead'; and the Lib Dems are demanding an £800 million tax cut.
The budget process as political theatre only really began when the SNP were elected, simply because they are a minority government. In the past although the opposition may have postured there was never any question that the Labour-Lib Dem Executive would win the day.
But now things are different and thus the Scottish population can look forward to this face-off being an annual occurrence (because Holyrood must pass a budget each year). The underlying worry and indeed threat is that if enough MSPs cannot agree then this may mean the budget will not be passed.
It's worth thinking about what this would mean. The rhetoric is at times that this would lead to an American-style 'shutdown' with all public services closing as the money runs out. In fact unless I'm mistaken if the budget is voted down it simply means that the status quo continues i.e. this year's budget carries on next year, obviously without any inflationary rises.
So whilst this is not as cataclysmic as a complete shutdown it would still have notable consequences, not least in terms of new priorities or staff wage increases having to fall by the wayside, certainly until a new budget could be agreed (or a new government for that matter).
Because that's the other threat which has now become part of the debate: the government threatening to resign if it doesn't get its way. When First Minister Alex Salmond said it last year it was seen as a clever and bold move (in fact the SNP already knew they had the votes); it did however have the downside of being a threat which only really works once.
For evidence look at the coverage of this threat last year and now. How much more powerful might it have been if this year was the first time it had been made? In fact it could have re-energised the SNP government by providing a stark choice between them and likely rivals. The flipside though is that it could also have looked like a desperate move by a government not as popular as was once the case.
What is clear though is that because the media are not as excited by this repeated threat this gives the other parties - mostly Labour - a greater freedom to manoeuvre; they don't face the type of criticism which would likely have been the case a year ago had they suggested that the SNP government should resign.
In fact this isn't exactly what has been said - Labour are simply saying they would put forward Iain Gray as First Minister if Alex Salmond and the SNP government should resign. However barring any surprises or strange tactical decisions it's likely that whatever happens with the budget Labour will benefit from a perceived improved performance this year, given the problems they faced last time.
So where does this leave us all then? Well rather like last year the smart money has to still be on the budget passing. Although it wouldn't be end of the known universe should it not (see above) it would still cause enormous problems and not reflect well on any politician.
It also exemplifies part of the problem which is true of all public spending and that any governing party would face; it's actually very difficult to change the money that governments spend. The bulk of public spending goes on staff wages and the instant anyone talks about changing this the unions (whose strength lies in the public sector) are never slow to cry foul. So for any government to make changes, perhaps to reflect the current economic circumstances, is not a simple move.
The money then that is up for grabs is the extra amount which the Scottish government gets to reflect inflation and any Barnett consequentials (when extra money in England is given on a pro rata basis to Scotland). However given that some of this money will inevitably go on paying for current services (including higher staff wages) this can only go so far.
The other avenue which could allow some flexibility is that Holy Grail of politics: efficiency sayings. These are meant to be when governments identify needless spending and re-target the money. However the main problem with this is that they often provokes outrage from the unions (see above) and also no-one ever saves as much as they say they will. So even this alone does not guarantee a solution.
You may have noticed that the Tories have thus far not been mentioned here, something which is also evident in the Scottish media. This may be a deliberate tactic, or at least be turned to their advantage now. With all the other parties fighting and holding fairly extreme positions the way is clear for the Tories to ride in, win some notable concessions from the SNP and then act as the responsible king makers.
This of course would still need the Greens and independent Margo MacDonald to back the government (or at least not oppose it) but that is more than feasible, although again it will cost the Scottish government some money and commitments. The Greens will want some nod towards the environmental agenda, Margo something which is of benefit to the Edinburgh and Lothians area.
Because whilst the budget process doesn't mirror the US system in having a possible shutdown this type of horsetrading is a notable part of American politics. Regardless of party many members of Congress will hold budgets to ransom in exchange for investment in their areas, making it all the more likely they'll be re-elected. The role of Margo in particular is quite similar to this.
In many ways this undermines the idea that minority government in itself must lead to more consensus and cooperation. Of course this is a feasible scenario but quite often what is characterised as consensus is really little more than backroom deals which everyone agrees to welcome. And such approaches definitely do not have to take place in any planned or strategic context meaning that money can be just traded around rather than properly invested.
Another aspect of the debate in recent days has been the warm noises all parties have made about consensus. Whilst they might be entrenched in their respective bunkers each has been at pains to make clear that they would be happy to negotiate, it just might be that the other parties are not so constructive or mature.
In that regard it might seem like a deal could still be reached, even between the two biggest parties (the SNP and Labour). The reality is that this is not going to happen. For such a scenario to emerge would involve either a) both parties holding a joint press conference to announce the positive news and agree that no one side deserves credit or b) for them to agree then fight it out for who gets credit. Because the latter option is clearly what would happen there is simply no way that such a deal will be made (at least not this year).
None of this makes it any clearer what will happen and this is really just the start of the discussions, so the public can expect and brace themselves for weeks of fighting, no doubt starting in earnest in this Sunday's papers.
Just who will blink first?
Thus begins the annual Holyrood budget process with all sides seeing who will blink first. The SNP government have repeated last year's claim that they'll resign if their budget is voted down; this time Labour are saying 'go ahead'; and the Lib Dems are demanding an £800 million tax cut.
The budget process as political theatre only really began when the SNP were elected, simply because they are a minority government. In the past although the opposition may have postured there was never any question that the Labour-Lib Dem Executive would win the day.
But now things are different and thus the Scottish population can look forward to this face-off being an annual occurrence (because Holyrood must pass a budget each year). The underlying worry and indeed threat is that if enough MSPs cannot agree then this may mean the budget will not be passed.
It's worth thinking about what this would mean. The rhetoric is at times that this would lead to an American-style 'shutdown' with all public services closing as the money runs out. In fact unless I'm mistaken if the budget is voted down it simply means that the status quo continues i.e. this year's budget carries on next year, obviously without any inflationary rises.
So whilst this is not as cataclysmic as a complete shutdown it would still have notable consequences, not least in terms of new priorities or staff wage increases having to fall by the wayside, certainly until a new budget could be agreed (or a new government for that matter).
Because that's the other threat which has now become part of the debate: the government threatening to resign if it doesn't get its way. When First Minister Alex Salmond said it last year it was seen as a clever and bold move (in fact the SNP already knew they had the votes); it did however have the downside of being a threat which only really works once.
For evidence look at the coverage of this threat last year and now. How much more powerful might it have been if this year was the first time it had been made? In fact it could have re-energised the SNP government by providing a stark choice between them and likely rivals. The flipside though is that it could also have looked like a desperate move by a government not as popular as was once the case.
What is clear though is that because the media are not as excited by this repeated threat this gives the other parties - mostly Labour - a greater freedom to manoeuvre; they don't face the type of criticism which would likely have been the case a year ago had they suggested that the SNP government should resign.
In fact this isn't exactly what has been said - Labour are simply saying they would put forward Iain Gray as First Minister if Alex Salmond and the SNP government should resign. However barring any surprises or strange tactical decisions it's likely that whatever happens with the budget Labour will benefit from a perceived improved performance this year, given the problems they faced last time.
So where does this leave us all then? Well rather like last year the smart money has to still be on the budget passing. Although it wouldn't be end of the known universe should it not (see above) it would still cause enormous problems and not reflect well on any politician.
It also exemplifies part of the problem which is true of all public spending and that any governing party would face; it's actually very difficult to change the money that governments spend. The bulk of public spending goes on staff wages and the instant anyone talks about changing this the unions (whose strength lies in the public sector) are never slow to cry foul. So for any government to make changes, perhaps to reflect the current economic circumstances, is not a simple move.
The money then that is up for grabs is the extra amount which the Scottish government gets to reflect inflation and any Barnett consequentials (when extra money in England is given on a pro rata basis to Scotland). However given that some of this money will inevitably go on paying for current services (including higher staff wages) this can only go so far.
The other avenue which could allow some flexibility is that Holy Grail of politics: efficiency sayings. These are meant to be when governments identify needless spending and re-target the money. However the main problem with this is that they often provokes outrage from the unions (see above) and also no-one ever saves as much as they say they will. So even this alone does not guarantee a solution.
You may have noticed that the Tories have thus far not been mentioned here, something which is also evident in the Scottish media. This may be a deliberate tactic, or at least be turned to their advantage now. With all the other parties fighting and holding fairly extreme positions the way is clear for the Tories to ride in, win some notable concessions from the SNP and then act as the responsible king makers.
This of course would still need the Greens and independent Margo MacDonald to back the government (or at least not oppose it) but that is more than feasible, although again it will cost the Scottish government some money and commitments. The Greens will want some nod towards the environmental agenda, Margo something which is of benefit to the Edinburgh and Lothians area.
Because whilst the budget process doesn't mirror the US system in having a possible shutdown this type of horsetrading is a notable part of American politics. Regardless of party many members of Congress will hold budgets to ransom in exchange for investment in their areas, making it all the more likely they'll be re-elected. The role of Margo in particular is quite similar to this.
In many ways this undermines the idea that minority government in itself must lead to more consensus and cooperation. Of course this is a feasible scenario but quite often what is characterised as consensus is really little more than backroom deals which everyone agrees to welcome. And such approaches definitely do not have to take place in any planned or strategic context meaning that money can be just traded around rather than properly invested.
Another aspect of the debate in recent days has been the warm noises all parties have made about consensus. Whilst they might be entrenched in their respective bunkers each has been at pains to make clear that they would be happy to negotiate, it just might be that the other parties are not so constructive or mature.
In that regard it might seem like a deal could still be reached, even between the two biggest parties (the SNP and Labour). The reality is that this is not going to happen. For such a scenario to emerge would involve either a) both parties holding a joint press conference to announce the positive news and agree that no one side deserves credit or b) for them to agree then fight it out for who gets credit. Because the latter option is clearly what would happen there is simply no way that such a deal will be made (at least not this year).
None of this makes it any clearer what will happen and this is really just the start of the discussions, so the public can expect and brace themselves for weeks of fighting, no doubt starting in earnest in this Sunday's papers.
Just who will blink first?
8 Jan 2009
Working it out
Hands up who remembers their experience of work experience when they were at school (older readers may be slightly out of the loop here).
The principle was that pupils would go into the real world, learn a range of important and transferable skills and then be better motivated at school and when they got a real job. The theory of course for many was that they just became tea boy or girls for the week.
So it's therefore good news that the current model of work experience is to be reviewed by the Scottish government; but only if it actually makes a difference and is done in a joined-up manner i.e. in relation to other reviews going on of how pupils are assessed and so on.
It's actually a great pity this story has not received more coverage. For all the problems with it work experience is still a good idea. Many pupils have a positive experience which gives them an idea of what they do (or don't) want to do once they have left school. Also given the one complaint many employers have is that many school leavers lack 'soft skills' (how to act at work, turn up on time, etc) then this is a way of changing that.
It also helps to try and locate pupils' learning in a real world context. So whilst teachers may insist to pupils that it's vital they learn about X, Y or Z or do certain things this can often be a hard message to get through. However once pupils have been out at work (even if only for a short time) they may be more inclined to listen on their return.
Many schools already operate a form of 'work experience plus' for their pupils. Rather than simply going out for one week in fourth year older pupils instead will go out one afternoon or morning per week to a place of employment where they gain skills which will hopefully help them in the years ahead.
The only downside of this otherwise excellent idea is that this is sometimes seen as an option only for non-academic pupils. Thus whilst there's an obvious value to giving children who don't fit in well with the school environment extra options it's important to not pigeonhole them, or to exclude more able children from what could still be a good experience for them too.
However changing the system must not end up being simply about telling schools or councils that the system should change: it must instead be backed up by proper resources as well as have links with other reforms going on in education just now.
For instance getting even a small number of young people a one-week work experience job can take a huge amount of work for the school staff member assigned to this. It will know doubt involve several phones calls and contacts and may not even be successful. And this is to say nothing of the follow-up work to ensure pupils turn up and work well when there.
So imagine then extending this to more pupils throughout the entire year; it's no surprise that many schools just don't have the resources which would be needed to do this properly. A change in how work experience works could really be a big step towards getting more pupils (especially those that sometimes leave school and go nowhere) into work, so it would be unfortunate if it fell apart simply because no money was forthcoming to support it.
Equally there is a responsibility on businesses too. Just as they have every right to complain if they believe pupils do not leave school with the requisite skills so too are they then obliged to support efforts to change this. If more resources are invested and pupils given more opportunities to do this then businesses have to make the 'jobs' available for pupils to do, and then not simply make them tea boys and girls once they're there.
In terms of an incentive to businesses there may also be the opportunity for pupils to begin training for the job they will go into once they leave school. Again it's important to not force pupils down a path they cannot then deviate from but equally if there is a way that pupils can gain a practical education now, which helps them 'hit the ground running' on day one in a job then why should it not be an option?
Finally it's vital that as the Scottish Government undertake this review it's not done in isolation. There are currently major changes underway or planned in Scottish education, including the scrapping of Standard Grades and a new type of curriculum (Curriculum for Excellence). This is, in part, meant to help pupils get ready for life after school.
Too often governments are accused (often with great justification) of having reviews in different but related areas which don't properly relate to each other or where good ideas are not backed up the required resources. This is certainly one scenario where it's possible that could happen. It's vital that it doesn't if we're to help pupils get ready for what happens when they leave school.
If this opportunity is taken it could mean the end of work experience being just about who makes the best cup of tea or coffee. A genuine revamp of work experience aligned with other changes and supported by proper resources could be one of the most fundamental changes possible to improving life chances for many young people.
I'll drink to that, whether tea or coffee. But no sugar thanks, just milk.
The principle was that pupils would go into the real world, learn a range of important and transferable skills and then be better motivated at school and when they got a real job. The theory of course for many was that they just became tea boy or girls for the week.
So it's therefore good news that the current model of work experience is to be reviewed by the Scottish government; but only if it actually makes a difference and is done in a joined-up manner i.e. in relation to other reviews going on of how pupils are assessed and so on.
It's actually a great pity this story has not received more coverage. For all the problems with it work experience is still a good idea. Many pupils have a positive experience which gives them an idea of what they do (or don't) want to do once they have left school. Also given the one complaint many employers have is that many school leavers lack 'soft skills' (how to act at work, turn up on time, etc) then this is a way of changing that.
It also helps to try and locate pupils' learning in a real world context. So whilst teachers may insist to pupils that it's vital they learn about X, Y or Z or do certain things this can often be a hard message to get through. However once pupils have been out at work (even if only for a short time) they may be more inclined to listen on their return.
Many schools already operate a form of 'work experience plus' for their pupils. Rather than simply going out for one week in fourth year older pupils instead will go out one afternoon or morning per week to a place of employment where they gain skills which will hopefully help them in the years ahead.
The only downside of this otherwise excellent idea is that this is sometimes seen as an option only for non-academic pupils. Thus whilst there's an obvious value to giving children who don't fit in well with the school environment extra options it's important to not pigeonhole them, or to exclude more able children from what could still be a good experience for them too.
However changing the system must not end up being simply about telling schools or councils that the system should change: it must instead be backed up by proper resources as well as have links with other reforms going on in education just now.
For instance getting even a small number of young people a one-week work experience job can take a huge amount of work for the school staff member assigned to this. It will know doubt involve several phones calls and contacts and may not even be successful. And this is to say nothing of the follow-up work to ensure pupils turn up and work well when there.
So imagine then extending this to more pupils throughout the entire year; it's no surprise that many schools just don't have the resources which would be needed to do this properly. A change in how work experience works could really be a big step towards getting more pupils (especially those that sometimes leave school and go nowhere) into work, so it would be unfortunate if it fell apart simply because no money was forthcoming to support it.
Equally there is a responsibility on businesses too. Just as they have every right to complain if they believe pupils do not leave school with the requisite skills so too are they then obliged to support efforts to change this. If more resources are invested and pupils given more opportunities to do this then businesses have to make the 'jobs' available for pupils to do, and then not simply make them tea boys and girls once they're there.
In terms of an incentive to businesses there may also be the opportunity for pupils to begin training for the job they will go into once they leave school. Again it's important to not force pupils down a path they cannot then deviate from but equally if there is a way that pupils can gain a practical education now, which helps them 'hit the ground running' on day one in a job then why should it not be an option?
Finally it's vital that as the Scottish Government undertake this review it's not done in isolation. There are currently major changes underway or planned in Scottish education, including the scrapping of Standard Grades and a new type of curriculum (Curriculum for Excellence). This is, in part, meant to help pupils get ready for life after school.
Too often governments are accused (often with great justification) of having reviews in different but related areas which don't properly relate to each other or where good ideas are not backed up the required resources. This is certainly one scenario where it's possible that could happen. It's vital that it doesn't if we're to help pupils get ready for what happens when they leave school.
If this opportunity is taken it could mean the end of work experience being just about who makes the best cup of tea or coffee. A genuine revamp of work experience aligned with other changes and supported by proper resources could be one of the most fundamental changes possible to improving life chances for many young people.
I'll drink to that, whether tea or coffee. But no sugar thanks, just milk.
5 Jan 2009
Black and white
I always wonder about politics and washing clothes (bear with me). Mainly because if the world was actually as black and white as many in politics make it would take much less time to clean my clothes (only two loads, you see).
Anyway bad jokes aside much of the debate (certainly in a UK context) around the tragic situation in Gaza is so polarized as to be not only meaningless but in fact utterly unhelpful - black and white if you like.
Having passed a pro-Palestine demonstration yesterday in Glasgow I'm left to wonder about the actual value of such things, mainly because the broad tenet of the march seemed to be that (and the some of the actual banners on display read) 'Israel is a land of murderers'.
Now no decent person could in any way hope to argue that firing rockets into Palestine has any moral justification. But by that same token surely no-one can defend Hamas doing likewise into Israel.
Yet to listen to so many people who speak on this subject (whatever side they may be on) you could be forgiven for thinking that in fact random murder is in anyway tolerable or justifiable. I may like this blog to be one which considers both sides of the story but in this case it's simple: it's not.
Equally to try and break this situation down into such simplistic divides - all Israelis support murder and all Palestinians are terrorists - does nothing to move the debate forward. If this is an example of the type of international pressure being heaped on authorities in the area no wonder so Israel and Hamas are so entrenched in their rejection of Western intervention.
The Israel-Palestine situation is a heartbreaking and enormously complex scenario, not dissimilar from Northern Ireland. And because it involves real people it'll never be as simple as just saying 'Israel out' or any other meaningless rhetoric.
So why do so many persist in pretending otherwise?
p.s. This is obviously much shorter than my average posting length. My new year's resolution is to try and post more reasonable lengths, to see if people are actually encouraged to read them...
Anyway bad jokes aside much of the debate (certainly in a UK context) around the tragic situation in Gaza is so polarized as to be not only meaningless but in fact utterly unhelpful - black and white if you like.
Having passed a pro-Palestine demonstration yesterday in Glasgow I'm left to wonder about the actual value of such things, mainly because the broad tenet of the march seemed to be that (and the some of the actual banners on display read) 'Israel is a land of murderers'.
Now no decent person could in any way hope to argue that firing rockets into Palestine has any moral justification. But by that same token surely no-one can defend Hamas doing likewise into Israel.
Yet to listen to so many people who speak on this subject (whatever side they may be on) you could be forgiven for thinking that in fact random murder is in anyway tolerable or justifiable. I may like this blog to be one which considers both sides of the story but in this case it's simple: it's not.
Equally to try and break this situation down into such simplistic divides - all Israelis support murder and all Palestinians are terrorists - does nothing to move the debate forward. If this is an example of the type of international pressure being heaped on authorities in the area no wonder so Israel and Hamas are so entrenched in their rejection of Western intervention.
The Israel-Palestine situation is a heartbreaking and enormously complex scenario, not dissimilar from Northern Ireland. And because it involves real people it'll never be as simple as just saying 'Israel out' or any other meaningless rhetoric.
So why do so many persist in pretending otherwise?
p.s. This is obviously much shorter than my average posting length. My new year's resolution is to try and post more reasonable lengths, to see if people are actually encouraged to read them...
2 Jan 2009
Sensationalism
Why is it that some newspapers cannot simply report the facts and allow people to come to their own conclusions? Where does the need for sensationalism come from?
One story which has made most of the 'papers today is the claim from Scottish Secondary Teachers' Association that some school bells are now so loud they can damage people's hearing.
The complaint particularly relates to new PPP schools where the SSTA says money has been saved by having one big bell as opposed to smaller bells around the whole school. Many media outlets have simply reported the SSTA's claims, however some newspapers felt the need to characterise this as "Teachers want to ban the school bell".
Now having read the SSTA's claims (and remembering that they are not even the biggest education union) nowhere does it say they want to ban the bell - far less that all teachers do - simply that they think some bells could damage people's hearing and should be changed.
Whatever your view on this - and it has understandably been ridiculed in many quarters - why is there the need to exaggerate the story beyond what it is? Why if one paper can simply report the facts and leave it up to the public to decide can they not all do this.
We often ask ourselves why there is declining interest in politics and in newspaper readership figures. Whilst these are complex matters the need to break everything down to such basic and often exaggerated claims must at least be part of this.
Unless newspapers think that the public are stupid and so need to have simple, sensationalist and (often) misleading articles in order to attract them then in future it would be nice if we could just get the facts and make up our minds.
One story which has made most of the 'papers today is the claim from Scottish Secondary Teachers' Association that some school bells are now so loud they can damage people's hearing.
The complaint particularly relates to new PPP schools where the SSTA says money has been saved by having one big bell as opposed to smaller bells around the whole school. Many media outlets have simply reported the SSTA's claims, however some newspapers felt the need to characterise this as "Teachers want to ban the school bell".
Now having read the SSTA's claims (and remembering that they are not even the biggest education union) nowhere does it say they want to ban the bell - far less that all teachers do - simply that they think some bells could damage people's hearing and should be changed.
Whatever your view on this - and it has understandably been ridiculed in many quarters - why is there the need to exaggerate the story beyond what it is? Why if one paper can simply report the facts and leave it up to the public to decide can they not all do this.
We often ask ourselves why there is declining interest in politics and in newspaper readership figures. Whilst these are complex matters the need to break everything down to such basic and often exaggerated claims must at least be part of this.
Unless newspapers think that the public are stupid and so need to have simple, sensationalist and (often) misleading articles in order to attract them then in future it would be nice if we could just get the facts and make up our minds.
1 Jan 2009
Bliadhna Mhath Ùr
Or to put it another way, Happy New Year!
Blogging has been of the light nature here recently so we'll see if the new year rekindles my interest.
But either way hope everyone has a successful twelve months ahead.
Blogging has been of the light nature here recently so we'll see if the new year rekindles my interest.
But either way hope everyone has a successful twelve months ahead.
