Isn’t it amazing that the entire UK has a public budget of only a few thousand pounds? It’s hard to imagine how all the schools, hospitals and police officers are paid for from this.
Of course this is a complete nonsense and in fact the UK government's total budget (including devolved administrations) is almost £650 billion. Nevertheless if you’ve been reading newspapers recently you could be forgiven for thinking otherwise.
There has always been a fascination with what MPs can claim in expenses but this seems to have reached fever pitch in recent times. The latest story regarding Home Secretary Jacqui Smith’s claim for an adult movie (used by her husband) is the clearest example of this.
The first and most obvious point to make is that something has to change regarding MPs expenses. Not only is there general public revulsion at some of the entitlements but many of the claims simply defy defence.
In relation to recent discussions on increasing political interest amongst the public this can never happen as long as the body politic is seen to be so infected and corrupt, even if this is often unfair. Change therefore must happen, and sooner rather than later.
Nevertheless there is a worry regarding the media fixation with the minutiae of expense claims; whilst it is right that no-one makes a false claim even for as little as £10 where is the real scrutiny and consideration of everything else the government spends?
Just as political parties can often be accused of focusing on negative, non-policy stories in order to get coverage so too can the media. Surely if newspapers can devote page after page to the smallest detail of MPs expense claims they could do likewise for the way money is spent on health or education?
The defence here would of course be that they already do this and that if you pick up a ‘paper or watch the TV you will hear regular discussions of the billions being spent on this, that or the next thing. And there is some truth to this.
However this is very rarely done in a considered fashion, instead the coverage is usually that this money is being spent and is either helping or isn’t. Sometimes you may also get a particular group demanding more money be spent or complaining that too much is already devoted to something.
Ultimately this is not the most helpful way to publicise such issues. The media have a special responsibility as the outlet from which most people get their facts and information about public life, indeed it’s this fact that lets them demand answers from government.
However it has to be asked if the way that politics and policy are covered in our national media is in any way conducive to genuine understanding or debate. If political coverage is relegated to two or three pages, and always relates to confrontations then it’s no wonder people are put off by this.
If newspapers can devote hours of research to exposing false expense claims by MPs (a valid issue when public funding is at stake) surely they should have this same concern for the billions which are spent each year?
How much healthier would our political system be if – as well as an open and accountable expenses system for MPs – the media could revise the confrontational and unenlightening way they present political debate. This would allow the public to track and consider every bit of public spending.
There’s an old saying that if you look after the pennies the pounds will take care of themselves. However that doesn’t work with public money. By focusing almost exclusively on the relatively small amounts MPs claim (in the grand scheme of the total budget) it helps people ignore the bigger picture.
Yes the small claims for pounds matter. But it’s the billions which go unnoticed which concern me more.
31 Mar 2009
29 Mar 2009
While Rome burns
Recession solved, a world class education system, health problems all fixed and crime wiped out. And this was all overnight, a fairly impressive achievement you'll surely agree.
Of course the sharp-eyed amongst may wonder how you managed to miss coverage of these notable events. However they surely have taken place?
What other explanation can there be for some of the stories which have appeared in the the Sunday newspapers and the political comments attached to them?
The first is Thom-gate, as it must surely be christened at some stage (although better suggestions welcome). In a nutshell the complaint is that singer Sandi Thom, being such an open SNP supporter, should not receive any money for playing at government events.
In the grand scheme of things it's unlikely Ms Thom will retire any time soon based on the supposed bounty received from taxpayers via Alex Salmond; the suggestion that using her for certain events is a pay off seems churlish at best. That being said it's an attack you could quite easily imagine other parties throwing at Labour were scenarios reversed.
However it's not just Labour that can be accused of meaningless comment. Another story highlights problems Labour are having regarding the selection of a candidate to replace John Reid MP. In response to this the SNP are quoted saying this is evidence of Labour disintegration across the UK, again hardly the high point of political commentary.
In recent discussions about getting more and diverse interest in politics there's been various ideas but little focus on why people across the board have such a dislike of politicians (not a new phenomenon by any standards but something which falling voter turnout suggests is worsening); surely stories such as these must be a factor?
There's a chicken-and-egg element to this entire debate. Is there a low standard of political debate in this country because of stories and comments like these, or do we have such stories because of the lack of political interest?
The worry that all parties have about the media is if they don't say anything on a given day their rivals will; the newspapers and airwaves will still be full of news (even if this title may be slightly generous), most likely attacking them if they haven't provided it.
In this case the trick is to pitch as many stories as possible in the hope that some of them will stick. If the content happens to fit in with your party's narrative and key messages then so much the better.
Parties are also often forced to give negative comments. If a journalist phones and asks for some words regarding problems your rivals are having it's surely a brave press officer that tells them they're not interested in commenting because they've got better things to do with their time.
In this regard there is a challenge to the media - are they writing stories or pushing agendas which force parties to seek out the lowest common denominator? And are they open to real policy issues and stories, rather than just fights and fall outs? Although in this time of media cutbacks there are other challenges to achieving this.
Political parties have a role too. If they simply seek the irrelevant hit on the grounds that any bad story about your opponents is better than nothing this does little to enhance political interest. And nor does it allow them to claim any sort of high ground when the question of why people hate politics is raised.
However there is a third aspect to this - a challenge to the general public too. On the one hand politicians and the media do have a responsibility to try and report on issues which actually matter, in a meaningful and sensible way. But this cannot be solely down to them.
An oft repeated maxim is that whilst people dislike the political process they have a deep concern for politics because this actually means how their hospitals and schools are run, communities policed and so on. Bearing all this in mind how many people actually take the time to look into such issues in any detail?
No political party wants to criticise the public so there is a tendency at times to treat them like children: no-one wants to be the one to say that if people want a higher standard of debate they have to actually take part in this and read media outlets which encourage this. If not then they must share some culpability for the state we're in.
Of course all this may be my mistake. The sarcastic intro to this article is misplaced if all those great achievements have taken place in which case the political debate status quo must surely carry on as before.
But if not then maybe some sort of change is needed. Otherwise we'll all get burned in the end.
Of course the sharp-eyed amongst may wonder how you managed to miss coverage of these notable events. However they surely have taken place?
What other explanation can there be for some of the stories which have appeared in the the Sunday newspapers and the political comments attached to them?
The first is Thom-gate, as it must surely be christened at some stage (although better suggestions welcome). In a nutshell the complaint is that singer Sandi Thom, being such an open SNP supporter, should not receive any money for playing at government events.
In the grand scheme of things it's unlikely Ms Thom will retire any time soon based on the supposed bounty received from taxpayers via Alex Salmond; the suggestion that using her for certain events is a pay off seems churlish at best. That being said it's an attack you could quite easily imagine other parties throwing at Labour were scenarios reversed.
However it's not just Labour that can be accused of meaningless comment. Another story highlights problems Labour are having regarding the selection of a candidate to replace John Reid MP. In response to this the SNP are quoted saying this is evidence of Labour disintegration across the UK, again hardly the high point of political commentary.
In recent discussions about getting more and diverse interest in politics there's been various ideas but little focus on why people across the board have such a dislike of politicians (not a new phenomenon by any standards but something which falling voter turnout suggests is worsening); surely stories such as these must be a factor?
There's a chicken-and-egg element to this entire debate. Is there a low standard of political debate in this country because of stories and comments like these, or do we have such stories because of the lack of political interest?
The worry that all parties have about the media is if they don't say anything on a given day their rivals will; the newspapers and airwaves will still be full of news (even if this title may be slightly generous), most likely attacking them if they haven't provided it.
In this case the trick is to pitch as many stories as possible in the hope that some of them will stick. If the content happens to fit in with your party's narrative and key messages then so much the better.
Parties are also often forced to give negative comments. If a journalist phones and asks for some words regarding problems your rivals are having it's surely a brave press officer that tells them they're not interested in commenting because they've got better things to do with their time.
In this regard there is a challenge to the media - are they writing stories or pushing agendas which force parties to seek out the lowest common denominator? And are they open to real policy issues and stories, rather than just fights and fall outs? Although in this time of media cutbacks there are other challenges to achieving this.
Political parties have a role too. If they simply seek the irrelevant hit on the grounds that any bad story about your opponents is better than nothing this does little to enhance political interest. And nor does it allow them to claim any sort of high ground when the question of why people hate politics is raised.
However there is a third aspect to this - a challenge to the general public too. On the one hand politicians and the media do have a responsibility to try and report on issues which actually matter, in a meaningful and sensible way. But this cannot be solely down to them.
An oft repeated maxim is that whilst people dislike the political process they have a deep concern for politics because this actually means how their hospitals and schools are run, communities policed and so on. Bearing all this in mind how many people actually take the time to look into such issues in any detail?
No political party wants to criticise the public so there is a tendency at times to treat them like children: no-one wants to be the one to say that if people want a higher standard of debate they have to actually take part in this and read media outlets which encourage this. If not then they must share some culpability for the state we're in.
Of course all this may be my mistake. The sarcastic intro to this article is misplaced if all those great achievements have taken place in which case the political debate status quo must surely carry on as before.
But if not then maybe some sort of change is needed. Otherwise we'll all get burned in the end.
27 Mar 2009
What should an MP look like?
Or an MSP, MEP or councillor for that matter?
This topic has led to a flurry of activity in the blogging world in recent times, not simply in Scotland in relation to women, but elsewhere regarding young people and also ethnic minorities too (following the sad death of MSP Bashir Ahmad).
The issue of who represents has always been a debate in UK politics. It was obviously an issue going back into the nineteenth century when only a minority of men actually had the vote and has continued much the same throughout those reforms.
Nevertheless in spite of this the debate appears to have taken on a new momentum in the past few years, most likely replicating changes elsewhere in society which have questioned levels of diverse representation in all walks of life.
Recent Scottish blog discussions on women in politics have gone thus; everyone agrees that political representation is not diverse enough but the issue of Labour's decision to have all-women shortlists (AWS) to select their candidates for certain seats has split opinion down the middle.
Before deciding which point-of-view you most support it's worth considering what the actual problem here is.
In theory elected representatives are there to speak for everyone in their constituencies. Clearly on policy matters this is not really possible as there will never be 100% agreement on such issues, however in terms of individual problems a person may have they should all get the same treatment from their MP (which is used as short-hand for all reps).
This logically means that it's irrelevant who MPs are, because they should work for all their electorate. The argument that a woman (for instance) may not want to speak to her MP because he's a man doesn't really run because the reverse could be the same, meaning there's no way to ever please everyone.
However that's not to say there are no problems. The most obvious one is the impression that politics is a game for middle-aged white men, because that's what Prime Minister's Question Time generally looks like on the TV.
Equally the complaint goes that as parliament gets to vote on and decide all major issues it's important to have different perspectives evident: thus wherever you're from as a white man you will see things very differently from a women's perspective or ethnic minorities and so on.
Is this actually the case? Well in some ways it's impossible to say. Again you can argue that governments are elected by the entire country (or local councils for a given area); if they are genuinely not talking about the issues people care about as a collective group then they will soon be thrown from office.
You may also look at those times when women have ascended to the top of politics: nationally Margaret Thatcher is the obvious choice but there are various examples of women leading national parties and councils, for instance. In such circumstances can anyone honestly say that a notably different agenda has been evident (albeit that you can argue all examples still have most of their colleagues as white males)?
Part of the issue here is certainly the type of voting system most traditionally used in UK politics, first-past-the-post (albeit that this is changing with MEPs and councillors elected using completely different systems and MSPs a modified version).
This system, which ensures that one person represents an entire area does mean that talking in national averages becomes meaningless e.g. saying 8% of the UK population come from an ethnic minority and so 8% of MPs should be likewise doesn't really mean anything in practice - elections are held on a local basis not a national one. So changing electoral systems would perhaps be more effective than only allowing certain people to stand.
It's also worth saying that it would never be possible to get a complete match of MPs to their respective social groups, not even if you said quite starkly that X% had to be men, X% women, X% ethnic minorities and so on, not least because what if someone ticks more than one box? It's also worth asking if we would ever have ethnic minority-only shortlists to counter this imbalance?
As a white male talking about these issues is something of a minefield, and perhaps my perspective is skewed by not being in a group which is obviously under-represented in parliaments or councils. Nevertheless it's certainly been my experience that people outwith politics seem to be much less concerned about these issues than those in the political village.
More often than not what does concern people whose only political involvement is voting (if that) is the the experience and ideas of the people that are in parliament, whether they're male, female, black, white or whatever other division you can think of.
The genuine lack of political debate we often are exposed to (which is not all politicians' fault) is of more concern to me than any other matter, albeit that a case could be made it's like this because of the lack of diversity in politics. However the Scottish Parliament rather undermines this notion.
Holyrood is held up as a good example of notable female representation, albeit that it has dropped over the years. However it's hard to argue that there is massive debate in the parliament with most party differences being cosmetic rather than genuinely substantial.
Furthermore the growing trend for people to have little or no experience outwith politics before going into parliament is a genuine problem, for a multitude of reasons. The most obvious is that someone who works in politics their whole life has no idea what it's like to be in a frontline job (public or private sector). It's also harder to rebel if the only life you know is politics, making it more difficult to leave and do something else.
It's no bad thing to have debates about levels of representation because public scrutiny helps develop such ideas and policies. However it's also the case that the public-at-large cares less about these issues than other matters, otherwise people would have simply voted to balance up political representation in their area.
Where it's hard to disagree with those who back AWS is on the matter of fence-sitting - it's not really enough to say something must be done but not this and we don't know what it should be (although this is countered by Yes, Minister's "something must be done, this is something, so it must be done" line).
Perhaps this boils down to the chicken-and-egg debate. There are those who think the way to increase political diversity is for different groups to get involved in politics and then become elected representatives; others that more elected representatives from these groups are needed to get more people involved in politics.
My first concern is that the politicians we have - regardless of social background - have experience outwith the system and are of an independent mind. It's this type of example which will get more people from all backgrounds interested and that is surely the best way to encourage diversity in politics, amongst elected representatives or otherwise.
This topic has led to a flurry of activity in the blogging world in recent times, not simply in Scotland in relation to women, but elsewhere regarding young people and also ethnic minorities too (following the sad death of MSP Bashir Ahmad).
The issue of who represents has always been a debate in UK politics. It was obviously an issue going back into the nineteenth century when only a minority of men actually had the vote and has continued much the same throughout those reforms.
Nevertheless in spite of this the debate appears to have taken on a new momentum in the past few years, most likely replicating changes elsewhere in society which have questioned levels of diverse representation in all walks of life.
Recent Scottish blog discussions on women in politics have gone thus; everyone agrees that political representation is not diverse enough but the issue of Labour's decision to have all-women shortlists (AWS) to select their candidates for certain seats has split opinion down the middle.
Before deciding which point-of-view you most support it's worth considering what the actual problem here is.
In theory elected representatives are there to speak for everyone in their constituencies. Clearly on policy matters this is not really possible as there will never be 100% agreement on such issues, however in terms of individual problems a person may have they should all get the same treatment from their MP (which is used as short-hand for all reps).
This logically means that it's irrelevant who MPs are, because they should work for all their electorate. The argument that a woman (for instance) may not want to speak to her MP because he's a man doesn't really run because the reverse could be the same, meaning there's no way to ever please everyone.
However that's not to say there are no problems. The most obvious one is the impression that politics is a game for middle-aged white men, because that's what Prime Minister's Question Time generally looks like on the TV.
Equally the complaint goes that as parliament gets to vote on and decide all major issues it's important to have different perspectives evident: thus wherever you're from as a white man you will see things very differently from a women's perspective or ethnic minorities and so on.
Is this actually the case? Well in some ways it's impossible to say. Again you can argue that governments are elected by the entire country (or local councils for a given area); if they are genuinely not talking about the issues people care about as a collective group then they will soon be thrown from office.
You may also look at those times when women have ascended to the top of politics: nationally Margaret Thatcher is the obvious choice but there are various examples of women leading national parties and councils, for instance. In such circumstances can anyone honestly say that a notably different agenda has been evident (albeit that you can argue all examples still have most of their colleagues as white males)?
Part of the issue here is certainly the type of voting system most traditionally used in UK politics, first-past-the-post (albeit that this is changing with MEPs and councillors elected using completely different systems and MSPs a modified version).
This system, which ensures that one person represents an entire area does mean that talking in national averages becomes meaningless e.g. saying 8% of the UK population come from an ethnic minority and so 8% of MPs should be likewise doesn't really mean anything in practice - elections are held on a local basis not a national one. So changing electoral systems would perhaps be more effective than only allowing certain people to stand.
It's also worth saying that it would never be possible to get a complete match of MPs to their respective social groups, not even if you said quite starkly that X% had to be men, X% women, X% ethnic minorities and so on, not least because what if someone ticks more than one box? It's also worth asking if we would ever have ethnic minority-only shortlists to counter this imbalance?
As a white male talking about these issues is something of a minefield, and perhaps my perspective is skewed by not being in a group which is obviously under-represented in parliaments or councils. Nevertheless it's certainly been my experience that people outwith politics seem to be much less concerned about these issues than those in the political village.
More often than not what does concern people whose only political involvement is voting (if that) is the the experience and ideas of the people that are in parliament, whether they're male, female, black, white or whatever other division you can think of.
The genuine lack of political debate we often are exposed to (which is not all politicians' fault) is of more concern to me than any other matter, albeit that a case could be made it's like this because of the lack of diversity in politics. However the Scottish Parliament rather undermines this notion.
Holyrood is held up as a good example of notable female representation, albeit that it has dropped over the years. However it's hard to argue that there is massive debate in the parliament with most party differences being cosmetic rather than genuinely substantial.
Furthermore the growing trend for people to have little or no experience outwith politics before going into parliament is a genuine problem, for a multitude of reasons. The most obvious is that someone who works in politics their whole life has no idea what it's like to be in a frontline job (public or private sector). It's also harder to rebel if the only life you know is politics, making it more difficult to leave and do something else.
It's no bad thing to have debates about levels of representation because public scrutiny helps develop such ideas and policies. However it's also the case that the public-at-large cares less about these issues than other matters, otherwise people would have simply voted to balance up political representation in their area.
Where it's hard to disagree with those who back AWS is on the matter of fence-sitting - it's not really enough to say something must be done but not this and we don't know what it should be (although this is countered by Yes, Minister's "something must be done, this is something, so it must be done" line).
Perhaps this boils down to the chicken-and-egg debate. There are those who think the way to increase political diversity is for different groups to get involved in politics and then become elected representatives; others that more elected representatives from these groups are needed to get more people involved in politics.
My first concern is that the politicians we have - regardless of social background - have experience outwith the system and are of an independent mind. It's this type of example which will get more people from all backgrounds interested and that is surely the best way to encourage diversity in politics, amongst elected representatives or otherwise.
26 Mar 2009
A very brief thought (for once)
Dictionary definition of coincidence: a striking occurrence of two or more events at one time apparently by mere chance.
1. The BBC today held their News School Report day when children up and down the country were given the chance to act as journalists.
2. The Daily Politics today invited extreme rival bloggers Guido Fawkes and Derek Draper on to their show to fight for a while.
That is all.
1. The BBC today held their News School Report day when children up and down the country were given the chance to act as journalists.
2. The Daily Politics today invited extreme rival bloggers Guido Fawkes and Derek Draper on to their show to fight for a while.
That is all.
25 Mar 2009
Who decides?
For what seems to be the umpteenth time a fight has broken out over who is responsible for public services in Scotland: local councils or Holyrood.
This time the issue at hand is teacher numbers after it was revealed there are almost 1000 fewer teachers in Scotland now than last year: opposition politicians say this completely contradicts the Scottish Government's promise to reduce class sizes, the SNP respond that it is councils which are responsible for hiring teachers.
However the purpose of this post is not to look at this specific issue.
Instead the crux of this debate - as so often before - is this: at some point politicians (on all sides) are going to have to finally decide what they mean when they say they support local decision-making, and there are two reasonable positions in this debate.
Either the belief runs that the centre knows best and should direct national policies which will be enforced uniformly across the country. As a policy designed to ensure that claims of 'postcode lotteries' never arise and everyone gets the same services wherever they live then this is perfectly legitimate view.
Similarly a person may believe that a Parliament in Edinburgh cannot possibly know what is best for each and every community in the country meaning that we should leave decisions up to local councils, if in fact not devolved further.
However in general terms these are mutually exclusive positions. In other words you cannot back local decision-making then complain when a central diktat is not followed. And vice versa.
There is certainly evidence of all sides wanting to have their cake and eat it. On the one hand everyone claims to agree with the need for local decision-making and subsidiarity, but on the other the government is immediately criticised when a central line is not followed.
But just as this leaves at least some of the opposition parties open to criticism so too does the government have to bear some responsibility here. There is an undeniable contradiction between claiming to give local councils greater freedom and flexibility and then complaining that they don't do what you wish.
The oft cited concordat is no excuse either. Whilst this document is pointed to as some sort of agreement by councils to pursue various objectives the reality is utterly contrary to this; instead the freedom that this gave councils to spend money as they wished by ending ring-fencing was the price the SNP paid to secure a council tax freeze.
There is nothing intrinsically wrong with either position in this debate, not least because each has its faults, meaning that a case can be made either way. But once a position has been reached it has to be stuck to, not changed to suit your argument on a given day (whether government or opposition).
The question of 'who decides' and runs public services is a difficult one that essentially has been at the heart of much debate since the start of devolution (and is ultimately part of the independence issue too). But this conundrum is not made any easier by parties taking a position one day then undermining it the next.
NOTE: For any who's interested there will be a much fuller article on localism available here and on DestiNation in the next few weeks.
This time the issue at hand is teacher numbers after it was revealed there are almost 1000 fewer teachers in Scotland now than last year: opposition politicians say this completely contradicts the Scottish Government's promise to reduce class sizes, the SNP respond that it is councils which are responsible for hiring teachers.
However the purpose of this post is not to look at this specific issue.
Instead the crux of this debate - as so often before - is this: at some point politicians (on all sides) are going to have to finally decide what they mean when they say they support local decision-making, and there are two reasonable positions in this debate.
Either the belief runs that the centre knows best and should direct national policies which will be enforced uniformly across the country. As a policy designed to ensure that claims of 'postcode lotteries' never arise and everyone gets the same services wherever they live then this is perfectly legitimate view.
Similarly a person may believe that a Parliament in Edinburgh cannot possibly know what is best for each and every community in the country meaning that we should leave decisions up to local councils, if in fact not devolved further.
However in general terms these are mutually exclusive positions. In other words you cannot back local decision-making then complain when a central diktat is not followed. And vice versa.
There is certainly evidence of all sides wanting to have their cake and eat it. On the one hand everyone claims to agree with the need for local decision-making and subsidiarity, but on the other the government is immediately criticised when a central line is not followed.
But just as this leaves at least some of the opposition parties open to criticism so too does the government have to bear some responsibility here. There is an undeniable contradiction between claiming to give local councils greater freedom and flexibility and then complaining that they don't do what you wish.
The oft cited concordat is no excuse either. Whilst this document is pointed to as some sort of agreement by councils to pursue various objectives the reality is utterly contrary to this; instead the freedom that this gave councils to spend money as they wished by ending ring-fencing was the price the SNP paid to secure a council tax freeze.
There is nothing intrinsically wrong with either position in this debate, not least because each has its faults, meaning that a case can be made either way. But once a position has been reached it has to be stuck to, not changed to suit your argument on a given day (whether government or opposition).
The question of 'who decides' and runs public services is a difficult one that essentially has been at the heart of much debate since the start of devolution (and is ultimately part of the independence issue too). But this conundrum is not made any easier by parties taking a position one day then undermining it the next.
NOTE: For any who's interested there will be a much fuller article on localism available here and on DestiNation in the next few weeks.
23 Mar 2009
Public executions
If you go on a visit to the People's Palace on Glasgow Green it describes how public executions used to happen in the park, where people would travel from far and wide to watch the hangings take place.
The notion of such an event being entertainment would surely be regarded nowadays as unacceptable - yet after the sad death of a young mother in the public eye can we really be so sure?
Regardless of an individual's view of Jade Goody in life the crux of this story is that 27 is far too young an age for anyone to meet their maker, not least when that mother leaves behind two young sons. That sympathies should be extended is surely the very least that our common humanity can offer.
Nevertheless it is hard to be rid of a strange taste in your mouth following this; not at Jade or her family but the manner in which the British media have acted throughout this whole affair.
Jade herself was always treated as a form of national joke figure following her initial Big Brother appearance, distasteful but something which could be argued ultimately helped a woman with little education build a fairly prosperous life for herself. This reputation of course changed following her second visit to the Big Brother house.
At that point the woman now venerated in the national media became a countrywide hate figure. Regardless of the circumstances of this how can the same media which so decried her at that point then turn this into a form of canonisation?
The reality is that such a volte-face is surely not possible to any group that has any concept of shame or hypocrisy, which clearly is not a problem for many (though by no means all) that inhabit media offices up and down the country; the 'prerogative of the harlot' indeed.
The defence from many in the media would of course be that they were simply showing due respect for a young woman in the latter stages of her life; indeed they may even contend that they were helping her or the wider public by highlighting cancer awareness issues. What utter nonsense, unless we can expect this positive health publicity to be continued in another guise.
Jade's actions were of course designed to ensure that her children would have the type of life and financial security never available to her, an understandable and laudable enough wish. And of course media interest and money was always going to form part of this equation.
That however does not excuse the manner in which every small aspect of a woman's life and death was then laid bare for public scrutiny; not simply the high-profile wedding but daily updates on hospital visits and such like. There can be no reasonable claim of genuine public interest there.
Even though raising money for her sons' future was part of Jade's plan the media exploited this in every way they could. If all they had wished to do was financially help out a terminally-ill woman they could have done this before withdrawing and allowing her some degree of dignity in those last few weeks. And the excuse that Jade herself may have been complicit in this is no excuse; have the media no self-control?
It's perhaps worth comparing two women that have died in the public eye in recent times leaving behind young families; obviously Jade but also Jane Tomlinson. Both these women came from very different backgrounds and sought their deaths to be an opportunity to raise money, albeit for different and understandable reasons.
Jane Tomlinson was of course different in that she only came to prominence once she had been diagnosed and her fundraising began, unlike Jade that was already in the public eye. The key difference here was each woman's ability to understand and control her situation; there is surely no doubts that their backgrounds made it much harder to exploit Tomlinson in the way that Jade was in the end.
There is no greater example of the sickening levels that this story sinks to than what happened when OK magazine printed a special tribute edition before Jade had even died. For all the excuses made there is no question of what actually happened; OK believed that Jade's death wouldn't fit in with their printing schedules and so took the risk that she'd die before the magazine was published. The sheer callousness of this is hard to put into words.
If Jade Goody's story was genuinely unique (and perhaps the specific details of it are) then maybe this could be written off as an unfortunate and distasteful event never to be repeated. But of course this is not the case.
We only have to turn our minds to the tale of Madeleine McCann to see the manner in which the media are prepared to turn even the most heartrending of tragedies into public spectacles, not least when one newspaper had a period where its front page headline every day for a fortnight was about Madeleine (and this was outwith the initial flurry caused by this story).
The defence here is of course the same with Jade, that they were simply fulfilling the wishes of the family and a wider public interest. And again the response here must be the same: what nonsense.
The media tap is obviously one that once turned on is hard to stop. However the near pornographic voyeurism that many newspapers (in particular) seem to feel about the complete dissection of a story and the individuals involved is surely one that poisons our public and civic life as much as any of the scandals and outrages these same outlets themselves regularly expose.
When the tales of what used to happen at Glasgow Green are described to many people, particularly children, they find it hard to believe that such a society could ever exist. These past few weeks - not least the actions of the British media - suggest we are not that far removed from such a time.
The notion of such an event being entertainment would surely be regarded nowadays as unacceptable - yet after the sad death of a young mother in the public eye can we really be so sure?
Regardless of an individual's view of Jade Goody in life the crux of this story is that 27 is far too young an age for anyone to meet their maker, not least when that mother leaves behind two young sons. That sympathies should be extended is surely the very least that our common humanity can offer.
Nevertheless it is hard to be rid of a strange taste in your mouth following this; not at Jade or her family but the manner in which the British media have acted throughout this whole affair.
Jade herself was always treated as a form of national joke figure following her initial Big Brother appearance, distasteful but something which could be argued ultimately helped a woman with little education build a fairly prosperous life for herself. This reputation of course changed following her second visit to the Big Brother house.
At that point the woman now venerated in the national media became a countrywide hate figure. Regardless of the circumstances of this how can the same media which so decried her at that point then turn this into a form of canonisation?
The reality is that such a volte-face is surely not possible to any group that has any concept of shame or hypocrisy, which clearly is not a problem for many (though by no means all) that inhabit media offices up and down the country; the 'prerogative of the harlot' indeed.
The defence from many in the media would of course be that they were simply showing due respect for a young woman in the latter stages of her life; indeed they may even contend that they were helping her or the wider public by highlighting cancer awareness issues. What utter nonsense, unless we can expect this positive health publicity to be continued in another guise.
Jade's actions were of course designed to ensure that her children would have the type of life and financial security never available to her, an understandable and laudable enough wish. And of course media interest and money was always going to form part of this equation.
That however does not excuse the manner in which every small aspect of a woman's life and death was then laid bare for public scrutiny; not simply the high-profile wedding but daily updates on hospital visits and such like. There can be no reasonable claim of genuine public interest there.
Even though raising money for her sons' future was part of Jade's plan the media exploited this in every way they could. If all they had wished to do was financially help out a terminally-ill woman they could have done this before withdrawing and allowing her some degree of dignity in those last few weeks. And the excuse that Jade herself may have been complicit in this is no excuse; have the media no self-control?
It's perhaps worth comparing two women that have died in the public eye in recent times leaving behind young families; obviously Jade but also Jane Tomlinson. Both these women came from very different backgrounds and sought their deaths to be an opportunity to raise money, albeit for different and understandable reasons.
Jane Tomlinson was of course different in that she only came to prominence once she had been diagnosed and her fundraising began, unlike Jade that was already in the public eye. The key difference here was each woman's ability to understand and control her situation; there is surely no doubts that their backgrounds made it much harder to exploit Tomlinson in the way that Jade was in the end.
There is no greater example of the sickening levels that this story sinks to than what happened when OK magazine printed a special tribute edition before Jade had even died. For all the excuses made there is no question of what actually happened; OK believed that Jade's death wouldn't fit in with their printing schedules and so took the risk that she'd die before the magazine was published. The sheer callousness of this is hard to put into words.
If Jade Goody's story was genuinely unique (and perhaps the specific details of it are) then maybe this could be written off as an unfortunate and distasteful event never to be repeated. But of course this is not the case.
We only have to turn our minds to the tale of Madeleine McCann to see the manner in which the media are prepared to turn even the most heartrending of tragedies into public spectacles, not least when one newspaper had a period where its front page headline every day for a fortnight was about Madeleine (and this was outwith the initial flurry caused by this story).
The defence here is of course the same with Jade, that they were simply fulfilling the wishes of the family and a wider public interest. And again the response here must be the same: what nonsense.
The media tap is obviously one that once turned on is hard to stop. However the near pornographic voyeurism that many newspapers (in particular) seem to feel about the complete dissection of a story and the individuals involved is surely one that poisons our public and civic life as much as any of the scandals and outrages these same outlets themselves regularly expose.
When the tales of what used to happen at Glasgow Green are described to many people, particularly children, they find it hard to believe that such a society could ever exist. These past few weeks - not least the actions of the British media - suggest we are not that far removed from such a time.
21 Mar 2009
Always a job for a volunteer?
Or so the old saying goes anyway. But in my experience this isn't always the case.
As someone who remembers going to various volunteer-run services when I was younger I've always thought you should be prepared to do likewise so that others can benefit from this.
So with having some spare time on my hands recently I had looked into doing some voluntary work; for someone who has done in this in the past and has all the various Disclosure checks you need you wouldn't think this would be a problem.
You'd be wildly wrong.
It amazes me that we regularly hear calls from voluntary groups for people to get involved and help out but then when you try and do just that you are pretty much ignored.
To place this in some context I have only contacted charities and voluntary groups that have advertised their need for people on official volunteer recruitment websites; these have been various charities looking for people with different skills. In other words it's not been the case that I've been in any way cold-calling.
Yet on each occasion one of three things has then happened: no reply at all (in the majority of cases); an interested reply then no further contact; or go for an interview, agree to get involved and what you'll be doing and then silence.
So what lessons should I take from this? One of two really: either these regular demands for volunteers are just nonsense and superfluous, or the people of Scotland have responded so overwhelmingly that there now just isn't space for any other people.
Both these ideas are of course, I assume, nonsense.
Running charities and particularly voluntary groups is of course not easy, which is why they usually look to recruit so many other people. But as hard as this may be the onus must be on anyone advertising to at least get in touch with people that contact them; anything else just puts off people only trying to help.
For my own part I will certainly keep going and trying to do something to help other people, but surely it shouldn't be as hard as this?
As someone who remembers going to various volunteer-run services when I was younger I've always thought you should be prepared to do likewise so that others can benefit from this.
So with having some spare time on my hands recently I had looked into doing some voluntary work; for someone who has done in this in the past and has all the various Disclosure checks you need you wouldn't think this would be a problem.
You'd be wildly wrong.
It amazes me that we regularly hear calls from voluntary groups for people to get involved and help out but then when you try and do just that you are pretty much ignored.
To place this in some context I have only contacted charities and voluntary groups that have advertised their need for people on official volunteer recruitment websites; these have been various charities looking for people with different skills. In other words it's not been the case that I've been in any way cold-calling.
Yet on each occasion one of three things has then happened: no reply at all (in the majority of cases); an interested reply then no further contact; or go for an interview, agree to get involved and what you'll be doing and then silence.
So what lessons should I take from this? One of two really: either these regular demands for volunteers are just nonsense and superfluous, or the people of Scotland have responded so overwhelmingly that there now just isn't space for any other people.
Both these ideas are of course, I assume, nonsense.
Running charities and particularly voluntary groups is of course not easy, which is why they usually look to recruit so many other people. But as hard as this may be the onus must be on anyone advertising to at least get in touch with people that contact them; anything else just puts off people only trying to help.
For my own part I will certainly keep going and trying to do something to help other people, but surely it shouldn't be as hard as this?
18 Mar 2009
Two birds. One stone.
Schools are one of those subjects which can provoke extreme responses in people. For proof of this you only have to look at the furore which often develops amongst adults when someone suggests shutting one down.
This is never moreso than when the school in question is their local one and where they attended as a child. This is hardly surprising; aside from being a focal point for many communities it is often an obvious link back to a person and their family's past.
However very often the big problem is not a local school closing down but rather pupils being forced to go to one in the first place, a problem most often associated with so-called placing requests. Figures just released show that almost 30,000 of these requests are made in Scotland each year, about 4000 of which are rejected.
For those of you not familiar with this concept this is essentially when a child's parents wishes them to go to a school outwith their catchment area. There are various reasons for this, often to do with parental employment, the school siblings attend and so on.
However one notable factor - and certainly one which can then cause the biggest complaints if the placing request is unsuccessful - is because the parents believe that the child's local school offers an inferior education compared with the school they wish their son or daughter to go to. Sometimes this even results in parent lying about their address to try and get pupils in.
Whatever the reasons for having a placing request this is always something of a quandary for governments and councils. On the one hand parents have a legal right to make these demands; on the other there is only so much room in a school and once capacity is reached there is simply no way other pupils can get in.
At this point parents will usually appeal and take their complaints as far as they can, often involving legal action. This is sometimes successful if the decision to say no is based on attempting to meet government targets on class sizes (which are not legally binding) rather than a genuine issue of space.
So what role does government have in all of this? Well it really depends what the reasons are for the request. Short of building new classes or schools (something which is apparently not currently happening anyway) there is little that can be done if the placing request is due to another school being more convenient for a parent's workplace and so on.
However if the request is because of a perceived problem with the local school then things are different, even if still very difficult. It is interesting to note the current opposition to school closures in Glasgow because in previous closure programmes (or pre-12 strategy as the council terms it) these closures were often because so many parents bypassed their local school in favour of a perceived better one.
It's usually this point that causes most concern at placing requests; the idea of often better-off or educated parents taking their child out of a local school and putting them somewhere else. The argument runs that this brings down the overall potential achievement of a local school, creating a vicious circle where more parents do the same.
There may be some truth to this but just asking parents not to won't work. For one thing no parent is going to allow their child to be some sort of experiment to help a local school if this may damage their long-term education. And for another stopping placing requests would just lead to even greater house price inflation in desirable catchment areas (even in this current climate), as is certainly currently the case.
Instead if we want to change this - and give parents and pupils an incentive to go to their local school - surely this has to involve some form of financial commitment from the government and council?
No-one chooses to put in a placing request to allow their child to go to a school that is seen as being worse than the local one; whether or not there are other factors behind such a decision it will ultimately be to an equal or better school (at least in terms of parental perception).
This does mean then that schools in poorer areas which may have worse exam results - not in itself actually a sign of poorer quality teaching - get a double-whammy as the students which may achieve high grades bypass them, meaning there are few positive role-models found within the school.
However if we wanted to change this, tackle the problems of parents not getting their school of choice and actually do something meaningful about the standard of education that people in our poorest communities can look forward too then why not create a reverse incentive?
What if a system was devised which gave schools in our poorest communities extra resources? Rather than trying for an across the board reduction in class sizes (which will have a minimal difference in top schools) this could allow extra teaching time to be given to those pupils and communities which most need it.
Parents with placing requests would then have two choices. On the one hand they could still go ahead with their action or instead they could send their child to the local school where they know that more resources will be available, albeit in a more challenging educational environment.
Furthermore this money would not just be given without anything expected in return; headteachers could be given fixed contracts (say five years) and then assessed on their progress, with those that succeed being rewarded and those that don't moved on in favour of someone else. In this way rather than just pay lip service to the idea of using education as a means of creating a level social playing field this would be a firm action towards this.
Of course there are two obvious obstacles to this. Firstly the lack of money generally available just now. And more than this there is the almost certain opposition and complaints from parents at schools that don't benefit from this extra funding. At that point it's up the council or government to decide if they are really prepared to take actions to change the lives of our poorest communities, or just talk about it instead.
They say school days are the best of your life, something no-one really appreciates until years later. But this is clearly only the case for some pupils, and that's part of the reason that parents make placing requests to give their child the chance of this in the best school possible, a perfectly reasonable wish.
So instead of just talking about how education is the great leveller why not actually do something to prove this? Extra money for schools in poorer areas could help more get a good education in the school they've chosen to be at; thus killing two birds with one stone.
This is never moreso than when the school in question is their local one and where they attended as a child. This is hardly surprising; aside from being a focal point for many communities it is often an obvious link back to a person and their family's past.
However very often the big problem is not a local school closing down but rather pupils being forced to go to one in the first place, a problem most often associated with so-called placing requests. Figures just released show that almost 30,000 of these requests are made in Scotland each year, about 4000 of which are rejected.
For those of you not familiar with this concept this is essentially when a child's parents wishes them to go to a school outwith their catchment area. There are various reasons for this, often to do with parental employment, the school siblings attend and so on.
However one notable factor - and certainly one which can then cause the biggest complaints if the placing request is unsuccessful - is because the parents believe that the child's local school offers an inferior education compared with the school they wish their son or daughter to go to. Sometimes this even results in parent lying about their address to try and get pupils in.
Whatever the reasons for having a placing request this is always something of a quandary for governments and councils. On the one hand parents have a legal right to make these demands; on the other there is only so much room in a school and once capacity is reached there is simply no way other pupils can get in.
At this point parents will usually appeal and take their complaints as far as they can, often involving legal action. This is sometimes successful if the decision to say no is based on attempting to meet government targets on class sizes (which are not legally binding) rather than a genuine issue of space.
So what role does government have in all of this? Well it really depends what the reasons are for the request. Short of building new classes or schools (something which is apparently not currently happening anyway) there is little that can be done if the placing request is due to another school being more convenient for a parent's workplace and so on.
However if the request is because of a perceived problem with the local school then things are different, even if still very difficult. It is interesting to note the current opposition to school closures in Glasgow because in previous closure programmes (or pre-12 strategy as the council terms it) these closures were often because so many parents bypassed their local school in favour of a perceived better one.
It's usually this point that causes most concern at placing requests; the idea of often better-off or educated parents taking their child out of a local school and putting them somewhere else. The argument runs that this brings down the overall potential achievement of a local school, creating a vicious circle where more parents do the same.
There may be some truth to this but just asking parents not to won't work. For one thing no parent is going to allow their child to be some sort of experiment to help a local school if this may damage their long-term education. And for another stopping placing requests would just lead to even greater house price inflation in desirable catchment areas (even in this current climate), as is certainly currently the case.
Instead if we want to change this - and give parents and pupils an incentive to go to their local school - surely this has to involve some form of financial commitment from the government and council?
No-one chooses to put in a placing request to allow their child to go to a school that is seen as being worse than the local one; whether or not there are other factors behind such a decision it will ultimately be to an equal or better school (at least in terms of parental perception).
This does mean then that schools in poorer areas which may have worse exam results - not in itself actually a sign of poorer quality teaching - get a double-whammy as the students which may achieve high grades bypass them, meaning there are few positive role-models found within the school.
However if we wanted to change this, tackle the problems of parents not getting their school of choice and actually do something meaningful about the standard of education that people in our poorest communities can look forward too then why not create a reverse incentive?
What if a system was devised which gave schools in our poorest communities extra resources? Rather than trying for an across the board reduction in class sizes (which will have a minimal difference in top schools) this could allow extra teaching time to be given to those pupils and communities which most need it.
Parents with placing requests would then have two choices. On the one hand they could still go ahead with their action or instead they could send their child to the local school where they know that more resources will be available, albeit in a more challenging educational environment.
Furthermore this money would not just be given without anything expected in return; headteachers could be given fixed contracts (say five years) and then assessed on their progress, with those that succeed being rewarded and those that don't moved on in favour of someone else. In this way rather than just pay lip service to the idea of using education as a means of creating a level social playing field this would be a firm action towards this.
Of course there are two obvious obstacles to this. Firstly the lack of money generally available just now. And more than this there is the almost certain opposition and complaints from parents at schools that don't benefit from this extra funding. At that point it's up the council or government to decide if they are really prepared to take actions to change the lives of our poorest communities, or just talk about it instead.
They say school days are the best of your life, something no-one really appreciates until years later. But this is clearly only the case for some pupils, and that's part of the reason that parents make placing requests to give their child the chance of this in the best school possible, a perfectly reasonable wish.
So instead of just talking about how education is the great leveller why not actually do something to prove this? Extra money for schools in poorer areas could help more get a good education in the school they've chosen to be at; thus killing two birds with one stone.
16 Mar 2009
Electoral mathematics
It was said recently that more bankers were turning to teaching in the wake of the credit crunch, something which is presumably a good idea since new figures show many children leaving school can't read, write or count properly.
I say 'presumably' because often there is something of a myth that everyone who works in the private sector is a high-flying go-getter whilst their public sector equivalents spend all day screwing up and wasting taxpayers' money. Under this logic it therefore follows that private staff could easily do public jobs and to a much higher standard.
In fact there's various reasons for children not achieving the basics in school - as discussed previously - and they won't be solved simply by putting some ex-bankers into schools, regardless of how capable they may be. Instead it may be worth putting one other group into schools to try and turn this situation around - former politicians.
A quick read of newspapers in the past few weeks and the incredible way that opinion poll results can be turned around - or ignored - to reflect the particular viewpoint an individual favours is extremely impressive. Thus who better to teach our children the intricacies of numeracy?
Opinion polls are always ultimately a waste of time; their findings are supported by people who agree with them, opposed by those that don't and half the time are commissioned by the very people who want to see a particular outcome - and low and behold this always back their views.
However they do perform two key functions: they give political parties and pressure groups something to get newspapers writing about and they provide a cast-iron case for whatever argument you wish to promote. Except of course when they don't.
In recent years the SNP have been the leading lights in this regard, using opinion polls on a regular basis to highlight their ascendant position in Scottish politics; indeed it is almost certain that this will continue in the future too.
However their treatment of two weekend stories highlight the sheer futility of opinion poll politics. Firstly a poll was published showing Labour with a lead over the SNP in voting intentions and also a clear majority of the public rejecting independence. Obviously this was rejected with the SNP instead focusing on a result included in the same poll which showed that most Scots at least want a referendum on this issue.
All well and good you might say. Except the same weekend another poll showed that most people in Scotland favour nuclear power, something the SNP opposes. Logically then their position should now change, but of course this isn't the case.
But this selective use and interpretation of statistics doesn't confine itself to the SNP; all parties are guilty of taking this head in the sand approach when it suits them. Labour for instance have spent recent months ignoring the barrage of polls which have shown the SNP striving ahead, yet are now happy to embrace such results.
Given the fluctuating nature of Scottish politics it is almost guaranteed that when in the near future another poll comes out that makes less welcome reading for Labour - and surely the SNP are already working on commissioning this - then the previous position of rejecting polls ("there's only one poll that matters and so on") will be used.
Perhaps all of this is inevitable; newspapers have a lot of space to fill everyday and if they're not writing something supporting a party then it's probably kicking them instead, especially if you're one of the main two parties. Still it would be nice if we could reach some sort of agreement going forward: either all opinion polls are nonsense or they are each an accurate reflection of the public mood.
It doesn't really matter which view is taken because it would achieve one clear goal: either we'd have to listen to them all and adjust policy positions accordingly (something which will never happen) or we can just no longer have to endure hearing about them each day.
I'm willing to bet that this is a view even those people that can't read, write or count properly would agree on. Would that our politicians could do the same.
I say 'presumably' because often there is something of a myth that everyone who works in the private sector is a high-flying go-getter whilst their public sector equivalents spend all day screwing up and wasting taxpayers' money. Under this logic it therefore follows that private staff could easily do public jobs and to a much higher standard.
In fact there's various reasons for children not achieving the basics in school - as discussed previously - and they won't be solved simply by putting some ex-bankers into schools, regardless of how capable they may be. Instead it may be worth putting one other group into schools to try and turn this situation around - former politicians.
A quick read of newspapers in the past few weeks and the incredible way that opinion poll results can be turned around - or ignored - to reflect the particular viewpoint an individual favours is extremely impressive. Thus who better to teach our children the intricacies of numeracy?
Opinion polls are always ultimately a waste of time; their findings are supported by people who agree with them, opposed by those that don't and half the time are commissioned by the very people who want to see a particular outcome - and low and behold this always back their views.
However they do perform two key functions: they give political parties and pressure groups something to get newspapers writing about and they provide a cast-iron case for whatever argument you wish to promote. Except of course when they don't.
In recent years the SNP have been the leading lights in this regard, using opinion polls on a regular basis to highlight their ascendant position in Scottish politics; indeed it is almost certain that this will continue in the future too.
However their treatment of two weekend stories highlight the sheer futility of opinion poll politics. Firstly a poll was published showing Labour with a lead over the SNP in voting intentions and also a clear majority of the public rejecting independence. Obviously this was rejected with the SNP instead focusing on a result included in the same poll which showed that most Scots at least want a referendum on this issue.
All well and good you might say. Except the same weekend another poll showed that most people in Scotland favour nuclear power, something the SNP opposes. Logically then their position should now change, but of course this isn't the case.
But this selective use and interpretation of statistics doesn't confine itself to the SNP; all parties are guilty of taking this head in the sand approach when it suits them. Labour for instance have spent recent months ignoring the barrage of polls which have shown the SNP striving ahead, yet are now happy to embrace such results.
Given the fluctuating nature of Scottish politics it is almost guaranteed that when in the near future another poll comes out that makes less welcome reading for Labour - and surely the SNP are already working on commissioning this - then the previous position of rejecting polls ("there's only one poll that matters and so on") will be used.
Perhaps all of this is inevitable; newspapers have a lot of space to fill everyday and if they're not writing something supporting a party then it's probably kicking them instead, especially if you're one of the main two parties. Still it would be nice if we could reach some sort of agreement going forward: either all opinion polls are nonsense or they are each an accurate reflection of the public mood.
It doesn't really matter which view is taken because it would achieve one clear goal: either we'd have to listen to them all and adjust policy positions accordingly (something which will never happen) or we can just no longer have to endure hearing about them each day.
I'm willing to bet that this is a view even those people that can't read, write or count properly would agree on. Would that our politicians could do the same.
13 Mar 2009
The writing's not yet on the wall...
... but it soon will be to mark ten years of devolution.
The public are being asked to submit their nominations for some inspiring Scottish words to be added to the 25 quotes that currently adorn the outside walls of Holyrood.
Already there is something of a campaign growing to ensure that these comments will be from a Scottish woman because, surprisingly, all of the current ones are from men. It is surely assured that this will soon change.
And rightly so; whilst being someone who would usually focus on the best outcome rather than some sort of quota filling it's unbelievable that at least one Scottish woman's thoughts have not been inscribed on the national parliament's walls.
My initial preference - one highlighted by David Maddox at The Steamie - would be for Muriel Spark, through her literary creation of Miss Jean Brodie, particularly the following:
"Safety does not come first. Goodness, truth, and beauty come first"
If ever there were words which deserve - indeed demand - to be viewed by Scotland's parliamentarians each day it's these; anything which would shake Holyrood out of its general consensus and torpor.
Ten years of devolution should not simply be about making some cosmetic changes to the parliament's walls, it should be about considering the story of devolution and whether or not it has come close to living up to the lofty goals which characterised its inception.
The reality is that beyond one or two notable exceptions the past decade is hardly defined by radical thinking and actions; of course there have been many small but worthy achievements but is there yet anything to define our generation?
Unless of course we're happy with this. Genuine change in our society is not something which can ever be achieved overnight, whether its a revolution in housing or radical education reform. But does that mean that we should not even try, or instead be stuck in a morass of just ensuring everyone gets a little of what they want.
For all the bombast it's hard to really identify too many differences which separate the main parties (mostly the SNP, Labour and the Lib Dems but also the Tories too), beyond the obvious constitutional dispute. A glance at the respective manifestos endorses this.
This is not to say there is no divergence at all but simply that those which exist are hardly earth shattering. For instance previously Labour's policy was to reduce school class sizes for Maths and English in S1 and S2 whilst the SNP wished instead to reduce them in primaries 1-3. So different yes, but not massively. Of course Labour's new leader Iain Gray says their policy will start again from scratch so it remains to be seen if this changes.
Ultimately - as Jean Brodie says above - parties have to be prepared to lose, but not want to, obviously. If everyone simply sticks with safe tinkering at the edges for fear of rocking the boat in a tight electoral scenario then what is the point of the parliament? It is not even as though the argument that losing may let in an extremist party is relevant; there is a clear social democratic consensus across the Chamber.
And in reconsidering our political processes ten years on this challenge does not simply extend to politicians, the country as a whole including the media have a role too. As is noted in a Steamie comment if politicians are to suggest new ideas this has to be dealt with maturely and not reported as splits and so on.
Ten years of devolution is a time to think about any changes we wish to see. For the outside of the parliament the time is certainly right to include a woman's thoughts; but it's change inside the building that men and women across Scotland surely need.
The public are being asked to submit their nominations for some inspiring Scottish words to be added to the 25 quotes that currently adorn the outside walls of Holyrood.
Already there is something of a campaign growing to ensure that these comments will be from a Scottish woman because, surprisingly, all of the current ones are from men. It is surely assured that this will soon change.
And rightly so; whilst being someone who would usually focus on the best outcome rather than some sort of quota filling it's unbelievable that at least one Scottish woman's thoughts have not been inscribed on the national parliament's walls.
My initial preference - one highlighted by David Maddox at The Steamie - would be for Muriel Spark, through her literary creation of Miss Jean Brodie, particularly the following:
"Safety does not come first. Goodness, truth, and beauty come first"
If ever there were words which deserve - indeed demand - to be viewed by Scotland's parliamentarians each day it's these; anything which would shake Holyrood out of its general consensus and torpor.
Ten years of devolution should not simply be about making some cosmetic changes to the parliament's walls, it should be about considering the story of devolution and whether or not it has come close to living up to the lofty goals which characterised its inception.
The reality is that beyond one or two notable exceptions the past decade is hardly defined by radical thinking and actions; of course there have been many small but worthy achievements but is there yet anything to define our generation?
Unless of course we're happy with this. Genuine change in our society is not something which can ever be achieved overnight, whether its a revolution in housing or radical education reform. But does that mean that we should not even try, or instead be stuck in a morass of just ensuring everyone gets a little of what they want.
For all the bombast it's hard to really identify too many differences which separate the main parties (mostly the SNP, Labour and the Lib Dems but also the Tories too), beyond the obvious constitutional dispute. A glance at the respective manifestos endorses this.
This is not to say there is no divergence at all but simply that those which exist are hardly earth shattering. For instance previously Labour's policy was to reduce school class sizes for Maths and English in S1 and S2 whilst the SNP wished instead to reduce them in primaries 1-3. So different yes, but not massively. Of course Labour's new leader Iain Gray says their policy will start again from scratch so it remains to be seen if this changes.
Ultimately - as Jean Brodie says above - parties have to be prepared to lose, but not want to, obviously. If everyone simply sticks with safe tinkering at the edges for fear of rocking the boat in a tight electoral scenario then what is the point of the parliament? It is not even as though the argument that losing may let in an extremist party is relevant; there is a clear social democratic consensus across the Chamber.
And in reconsidering our political processes ten years on this challenge does not simply extend to politicians, the country as a whole including the media have a role too. As is noted in a Steamie comment if politicians are to suggest new ideas this has to be dealt with maturely and not reported as splits and so on.
Ten years of devolution is a time to think about any changes we wish to see. For the outside of the parliament the time is certainly right to include a woman's thoughts; but it's change inside the building that men and women across Scotland surely need.
11 Mar 2009
What exactly is ‘news’?
Interesting post from Alastair Campbell about some of the media coverage of Gordon Brown’s visit to America, including when the Prime Minister met the new President and addressed both houses of Congress.
Whatever your opinion of Mr Brown it has to be said that this is a fairly significant story and one which should logically dominate the news media, in particular the time of political editors sent to the US to cover it. Instead, as Campbell notes, Adam Boulton from Sky took some time out his day to rebut a blog from former deputy prime minister John Prescott.
Now if you’re reading this you obviously look at blogs. Similarly I’m writing a blog so obviously have an interest in them. But for the vast majority of the population they’re not that important. So why on earth would such an influential journalist take time out of his day to rebut the content of one?
There will be certainly be various reasons for this, much of which surely goes to the heart of public dissatisfaction with politics and the manner in which it is reported.
The temptation is to say that the main reason is ego, and there is some truth in this. The fixation that the media have with spin doctors and so on is that there is an element of self-justification and promotion in this; if party spin doctors are hugely important then by implication so must the people they deal with be.
By way of anecdotal proof ask yourelf who was seen as Tony Blair's closest advisor: the aforementioned Alastair Campbell is the most likely answer yet Jonathan Powell, Blair's chief-of-staff, was at least as important. However as it's the media that record such things Campbell's role automatically becomes the key one.
There is a certain flipside to this. As parties take greater control of their media message so the opportunities a journalist has to speak to politicians diminishes; at this point they simply write about the people they then have the greatest contact with, namely spin doctors.
However whilst these are valid points – and the cynic may wish to think the worst of many in the media – in reality there is another overriding factor: the speed of modern day news. And linked in with this is the need to fill in the blanks on various days, which can develop bad habits.
In the past, before the days of 24-hour media, a story would not have been broken at quite the breakneck speed we now see; there would have been time to breathe and check facts before publishing. Now in the days of the internet and instant TV news these luxuries no longer exist.
Instead as soon as a journalist finds out something – especially if it’s a story that their rivals will likely have details of too – the challenge has to be to get it out there before anyone else can do so. And to some extent (leaving aside issues of accuracy) this is no bad thing on busy days.
The problem is that not every day has lots of news in it, but that doesn’t diminish the need for the media to provide the same amount of outlook. Jeremy Paxman once opined that there were days he wished he could just tell people to switch off Newsnight, because nothing had happened that day. But that’s obviously not a genuine option.
So this dilemma – combined to some extent with the ego issue mentioned above – forces journalists to try and find other sources of news to fill in the blanks on those quiet days. But this then causes a further conundrum.
If the media only wheel out certain stories or angles on slow days it soon becomes evident that this is exactly what they’re doing. So this then forces them to talk about this even on days genuine news is taking place, leading to the strange scenario of Sky TV’s political editor standing outside the White House talking about an ultimately obscure British blog.
Now again to defend the media there is an extent to which this is forced upon them. This is obviously for the reasons already mentioned but also due to the switching of public attention away from traditional news gathering sources.
The practices of sitting watching the evening news or buying a newspaper are fast diminishing; a quick glance at sales and viewing figures proves this. People can now choose when they want the mainstream media to give them news, if indeed they stick with the mainstream media at all (although that is still the majority pursuit).
There is also a lot more ‘news’ shouting for public attention too. This is not necessarily about news as we would understand it e.g. current affairs and so on but often the vacuous world of entertainment journalism, with many now finding it easier to name reality TV ‘stars’ from five years ago than their local MP.
All of these things cause the media problems and often lead to a vicious circle, not least in terms of resources. The less people that buy a newspaper for instance the less staff they need to produce the paper; just look at what’s happened recently at the Herald group and Daily Record.
All of this leads to problems of accuracy, depth of content and so on. It also forces the reduced staff to do more, often relying heavily on agency stories and press releases rather than genuine considered journalism. And it certainly makes it easier to write about trivia and gossip, even if this is political.
Consider this, if you want to properly draft a story about education policy you actually need an in-depth knowledge of this e.g. what is the current policy, what different groups are arguing for, has it been tried before, what do other countries do and so on. Staff with less time simply cannot do this.
What some political journalists can easily do though is talk about gossip e.g. who’s up, who’s down, who’s fighting, who’s plotting and so on. It’s easy to understand, almost impossible to rebut and it fills up the pages.
Of course it doesn’t in any way help the country or boost understanding of the political process. But that’s a price some journalists are willing to pay.
Whatever your opinion of Mr Brown it has to be said that this is a fairly significant story and one which should logically dominate the news media, in particular the time of political editors sent to the US to cover it. Instead, as Campbell notes, Adam Boulton from Sky took some time out his day to rebut a blog from former deputy prime minister John Prescott.
Now if you’re reading this you obviously look at blogs. Similarly I’m writing a blog so obviously have an interest in them. But for the vast majority of the population they’re not that important. So why on earth would such an influential journalist take time out of his day to rebut the content of one?
There will be certainly be various reasons for this, much of which surely goes to the heart of public dissatisfaction with politics and the manner in which it is reported.
The temptation is to say that the main reason is ego, and there is some truth in this. The fixation that the media have with spin doctors and so on is that there is an element of self-justification and promotion in this; if party spin doctors are hugely important then by implication so must the people they deal with be.
By way of anecdotal proof ask yourelf who was seen as Tony Blair's closest advisor: the aforementioned Alastair Campbell is the most likely answer yet Jonathan Powell, Blair's chief-of-staff, was at least as important. However as it's the media that record such things Campbell's role automatically becomes the key one.
There is a certain flipside to this. As parties take greater control of their media message so the opportunities a journalist has to speak to politicians diminishes; at this point they simply write about the people they then have the greatest contact with, namely spin doctors.
However whilst these are valid points – and the cynic may wish to think the worst of many in the media – in reality there is another overriding factor: the speed of modern day news. And linked in with this is the need to fill in the blanks on various days, which can develop bad habits.
In the past, before the days of 24-hour media, a story would not have been broken at quite the breakneck speed we now see; there would have been time to breathe and check facts before publishing. Now in the days of the internet and instant TV news these luxuries no longer exist.
Instead as soon as a journalist finds out something – especially if it’s a story that their rivals will likely have details of too – the challenge has to be to get it out there before anyone else can do so. And to some extent (leaving aside issues of accuracy) this is no bad thing on busy days.
The problem is that not every day has lots of news in it, but that doesn’t diminish the need for the media to provide the same amount of outlook. Jeremy Paxman once opined that there were days he wished he could just tell people to switch off Newsnight, because nothing had happened that day. But that’s obviously not a genuine option.
So this dilemma – combined to some extent with the ego issue mentioned above – forces journalists to try and find other sources of news to fill in the blanks on those quiet days. But this then causes a further conundrum.
If the media only wheel out certain stories or angles on slow days it soon becomes evident that this is exactly what they’re doing. So this then forces them to talk about this even on days genuine news is taking place, leading to the strange scenario of Sky TV’s political editor standing outside the White House talking about an ultimately obscure British blog.
Now again to defend the media there is an extent to which this is forced upon them. This is obviously for the reasons already mentioned but also due to the switching of public attention away from traditional news gathering sources.
The practices of sitting watching the evening news or buying a newspaper are fast diminishing; a quick glance at sales and viewing figures proves this. People can now choose when they want the mainstream media to give them news, if indeed they stick with the mainstream media at all (although that is still the majority pursuit).
There is also a lot more ‘news’ shouting for public attention too. This is not necessarily about news as we would understand it e.g. current affairs and so on but often the vacuous world of entertainment journalism, with many now finding it easier to name reality TV ‘stars’ from five years ago than their local MP.
All of these things cause the media problems and often lead to a vicious circle, not least in terms of resources. The less people that buy a newspaper for instance the less staff they need to produce the paper; just look at what’s happened recently at the Herald group and Daily Record.
All of this leads to problems of accuracy, depth of content and so on. It also forces the reduced staff to do more, often relying heavily on agency stories and press releases rather than genuine considered journalism. And it certainly makes it easier to write about trivia and gossip, even if this is political.
Consider this, if you want to properly draft a story about education policy you actually need an in-depth knowledge of this e.g. what is the current policy, what different groups are arguing for, has it been tried before, what do other countries do and so on. Staff with less time simply cannot do this.
What some political journalists can easily do though is talk about gossip e.g. who’s up, who’s down, who’s fighting, who’s plotting and so on. It’s easy to understand, almost impossible to rebut and it fills up the pages.
Of course it doesn’t in any way help the country or boost understanding of the political process. But that’s a price some journalists are willing to pay.
9 Mar 2009
The minimum of fuss
It's always interesting to assess political reaction when new ideas appear almost out of the blue; so it proved over the weekend.
Glasgow City Council - in the form of leader Steven Purcell - announced plans to establish their own minimum wage for council workers of £7 per hour and to push all their suppliers and contractors in the city to do likewise.
Given that the council's budget was passed relatively recently without any mention of this it really is a surprising announcement - and arguably the biggest headline to appear out of Labour's Scottish conference, a fact in itself which has caused much comment.
It's an indictment of politics that the main reaction to this plan (whether you approve or not) has not been the likely impact on low-paid workers and other repercussions but rather the political fall-out. And so to that later.
But firstly what might this plan mean for low-paid workers in the city? Well for council ones it's a pay rise, pure and simple. And it's unlikely too many will be unhappy about that. The ones who may complain are those currently earning just above the people about to benefit and as such may demand their own rise to maintain this pay differential.
Across the city though in this current climate it's hard to see it extending beyond council workers, unless the council really does make it a legal requirement for anyone wishing to win their business. It's then feasible this could lead to some more public/private tension as low-paid workers elsewhere bemoan this move.
There is also obviously a question of how this is to be funded, especially if it leads to inflationary demands from other workers. Glasgow council - like others across Scotland - has notable financial challenges to face and so this extra money has to come from somewhere, albeit that in a total budget of £2.4 billion this is by no means impossible.
But whilst some concerns have been raised it's also possible that it will provide a certain economic boost to the city. Low-paid workers are much more likely to live in the city's boundaries and to spend some of any increase they get; this could then have at least a small influence on Glasgow's economic recovery.
However as noted above, these issues haven't been the main excitement emanating from this policy; instead that's been about old-fashioned politicking.
The broad gist of this is that Purcell is teeing himself up for a crack at the Labour leadership, whenever Iain Gray goes. However it is surely far too early for this to be the case?
Iain Gray has only just got his feet under the table and barring an utterly unexpected and shocking event will lead Labour into the 2011 elections. His long-term future of course will depend on just what happens at this stage, although unless Purcell stands for election at that stage he will not be a leadership contender anyway.
Should Labour lose that election (or at least not be the biggest party) then it's debatable how the party would respond. You can argue that the Tories' biggest problem post-1997 was constantly changing their leader when they lost - is that a trap Labour could fall into?
Of course leadership matters but to say it's the primary reason for winning elections is slightly fanciful; surely the public's opinion of the government is key? Does anyone seriously believe Tony Blair could have lead Labour to victory in 1983 or that Cameron would have won in 2001? Still it's unlikely that this announcement (combined with Jim Murphy's speech) will have pleased Team Gray, whose speech coverage was mostly overshadowed.
In that respect it can only have pleased the SNP, although some of the online responses here has been curious to say the least, with much of it sniping. It's surely fair to say that had John Swinney or Alex Salmond announced this that it would currently be trumpeted with shouts of joy from these same people, leading you to wonder if they're worried it's a vote winner?
The official SNP response has concentrated on stoking up the idea that this massively undermines Iain Gray, which is hardly a surprise. Less has been said about the policy itself although expect this to be flagged up the next time Glasgow says it needs more money.
And in terms of Glasgow city politics this has to help Labour. It's unlikely there are too many people in Glasgow that will vote against them because of this and in fact such a move may win them many votes. This could obviously then impact on any hopes the SNP had of winning the council in 2012, and potentially on John Mason and Nicola Sturgeon at their next elections too.
Indeed this latter point is important. A move like this separates Glasgow Labour from the UK and Scottish brands, something which may not be a terrible idea in the coming elections. The coverage thus far doesn't help Gray (although is also hardly fatal) and also puts down a clear dividing line with the UK government, in terms of their minimum wage policy.
Whatever your opinion of the move it is at least a big idea and notable action - something which Scottish politics generally lacks. In ten years of devolution there have been no more than a handful of genuinely notable policies springing forth from Holyrood, so if councils can do this then it's no bad thing.
In the grand scheme of things it would be sensible for Labour to concentrate on this aspect of the policy - namely coming up with ideas and taking firm action. The politicking aspects of such an announcement are difficult to avoid but it doesn't really do Iain Gray any public harm (although admittedly doesn't help within media circles).
And if Labour are going to challenge the SNP in 2011 then it's ideas that the public can easily understand that they are going to need.
Glasgow City Council - in the form of leader Steven Purcell - announced plans to establish their own minimum wage for council workers of £7 per hour and to push all their suppliers and contractors in the city to do likewise.
Given that the council's budget was passed relatively recently without any mention of this it really is a surprising announcement - and arguably the biggest headline to appear out of Labour's Scottish conference, a fact in itself which has caused much comment.
It's an indictment of politics that the main reaction to this plan (whether you approve or not) has not been the likely impact on low-paid workers and other repercussions but rather the political fall-out. And so to that later.
But firstly what might this plan mean for low-paid workers in the city? Well for council ones it's a pay rise, pure and simple. And it's unlikely too many will be unhappy about that. The ones who may complain are those currently earning just above the people about to benefit and as such may demand their own rise to maintain this pay differential.
Across the city though in this current climate it's hard to see it extending beyond council workers, unless the council really does make it a legal requirement for anyone wishing to win their business. It's then feasible this could lead to some more public/private tension as low-paid workers elsewhere bemoan this move.
There is also obviously a question of how this is to be funded, especially if it leads to inflationary demands from other workers. Glasgow council - like others across Scotland - has notable financial challenges to face and so this extra money has to come from somewhere, albeit that in a total budget of £2.4 billion this is by no means impossible.
But whilst some concerns have been raised it's also possible that it will provide a certain economic boost to the city. Low-paid workers are much more likely to live in the city's boundaries and to spend some of any increase they get; this could then have at least a small influence on Glasgow's economic recovery.
However as noted above, these issues haven't been the main excitement emanating from this policy; instead that's been about old-fashioned politicking.
The broad gist of this is that Purcell is teeing himself up for a crack at the Labour leadership, whenever Iain Gray goes. However it is surely far too early for this to be the case?
Iain Gray has only just got his feet under the table and barring an utterly unexpected and shocking event will lead Labour into the 2011 elections. His long-term future of course will depend on just what happens at this stage, although unless Purcell stands for election at that stage he will not be a leadership contender anyway.
Should Labour lose that election (or at least not be the biggest party) then it's debatable how the party would respond. You can argue that the Tories' biggest problem post-1997 was constantly changing their leader when they lost - is that a trap Labour could fall into?
Of course leadership matters but to say it's the primary reason for winning elections is slightly fanciful; surely the public's opinion of the government is key? Does anyone seriously believe Tony Blair could have lead Labour to victory in 1983 or that Cameron would have won in 2001? Still it's unlikely that this announcement (combined with Jim Murphy's speech) will have pleased Team Gray, whose speech coverage was mostly overshadowed.
In that respect it can only have pleased the SNP, although some of the online responses here has been curious to say the least, with much of it sniping. It's surely fair to say that had John Swinney or Alex Salmond announced this that it would currently be trumpeted with shouts of joy from these same people, leading you to wonder if they're worried it's a vote winner?
The official SNP response has concentrated on stoking up the idea that this massively undermines Iain Gray, which is hardly a surprise. Less has been said about the policy itself although expect this to be flagged up the next time Glasgow says it needs more money.
And in terms of Glasgow city politics this has to help Labour. It's unlikely there are too many people in Glasgow that will vote against them because of this and in fact such a move may win them many votes. This could obviously then impact on any hopes the SNP had of winning the council in 2012, and potentially on John Mason and Nicola Sturgeon at their next elections too.
Indeed this latter point is important. A move like this separates Glasgow Labour from the UK and Scottish brands, something which may not be a terrible idea in the coming elections. The coverage thus far doesn't help Gray (although is also hardly fatal) and also puts down a clear dividing line with the UK government, in terms of their minimum wage policy.
Whatever your opinion of the move it is at least a big idea and notable action - something which Scottish politics generally lacks. In ten years of devolution there have been no more than a handful of genuinely notable policies springing forth from Holyrood, so if councils can do this then it's no bad thing.
In the grand scheme of things it would be sensible for Labour to concentrate on this aspect of the policy - namely coming up with ideas and taking firm action. The politicking aspects of such an announcement are difficult to avoid but it doesn't really do Iain Gray any public harm (although admittedly doesn't help within media circles).
And if Labour are going to challenge the SNP in 2011 then it's ideas that the public can easily understand that they are going to need.
7 Mar 2009
Stating the obvious
That Tom Harris MP, imagine calling for all teenage mothers to be executed. Wait, what's that you say, he didn't actually do that?
In fact there is a world of difference between what Harris said and some of the reaction that there has been in the newspapers, with Green MSP Patrick Harvie describing it as 'loathsome moralising'.
Once you've actually read the piece it's hard to argue with the general tone, if perhaps it does miss out some key points. Indeed you could argue that while Harris' article avoids suggesting solutions Harvie's response refuses to even acknowledge that there's a problem.
The reality is that there is nothing left-wing about endorsing poverty (something that I'm not actually accusing Harvie or others of); it is a national tragedy when large numbers of young people of both sexes see no great hope or aspiration in their future.
And it's this that lies behind the problems that are often evident amongst those communities where you are most likely to find teenage parents (most likely because this is not something 100% confined to poorer areas).
It is complete nonsense to suggest that every teenage girl that gets pregnant does so in order to get a house. But it's also madness to suggest that this never happens. As is often the case when two extremes make a case the truth lies somewhere in the middle.
We also have to widen this debate to talk about young people (and wider communities) where there is little ambition or chance to improve people's lives, and that's true for both sexes. Where Harris possibly didn't explain himself as well as possible was in failing to mention the fathers involved in this, although he does so in the Comments section.
The reason it’s important not to demonise single/teenage parents is that it achieves nothing, and in many cases may be wrong. It's also vital to understand the background such people have come from; there's no point in stating that people should have goals and ambition in their life if they've been brought up in an environment devoid of this.
Consider again the tragic Brandon Muir case, which concluded this week. Of course thankfully this extreme example is the exception but it does paint a general picture; in certain communities people live lives utterly removed from the rest of us, and their offspring have little chance of escaping this.
If you don't believe me, imagine this scene: walking past an obvious drug addict teenage mother (not an unknown sight) pushing a child. Your first reaction might be sympathy for the child and the worry of what hope they ever have. You may even think ill of the mother.
Now fast forward sixteen years; that child is a teenage mother pushing her own baby down the road. And you'll worry what'll happen to that baby and think ill of the mother. But where is the logic in that?
Just as in the Brandon Muir case this subject ultimately has to boil down to what we're going to do about it; there is no sense just passing comment, tutting a bit and then forgetting.
That's where there is a role for both the UK and Scottish governments and local councils too; indeed simply because of the respective powers they have this is something which can be best attacked on a Scottish basis.
There may well be some changes which could be made to the benefit system, although the suggestion of removing such entitlement from teenage mothers is simply insane and only likely to compound the problems mentioned above. Instead there may be ways to force the new mother's family as well as the father to take a greater long-term financial responsibility.
Equally education is an important component too; sex education to some extent but also the general experience that young people get at school which will shape the rest of their lives. The minority that get pregnant because of state benefits will only be dissuaded from doing this if they see an alternative.
But there is also an issue about how wider society deals with young people and particularly the image that the media promotes. Pick up any newspaper most days - including so-called quality ones - and you will be deluged with a torrent of Z-list reality celebrities and other such vacuous subjects. When these are the role models promoted by the modern media is it any wonder we create entire communities where aspiration is little more than to have cosmetic surgery and then strip for a lads' mag?
As is usually the case with substantial problems that politicians have to face there is no simple solution to this. But acknowledging that there is actually a problem has to be one step in this.
And not attacking politicians for making statements that are not unreasonable (and probably agreed with by a bulk of people in this country) is part of it too.
In fact there is a world of difference between what Harris said and some of the reaction that there has been in the newspapers, with Green MSP Patrick Harvie describing it as 'loathsome moralising'.
Once you've actually read the piece it's hard to argue with the general tone, if perhaps it does miss out some key points. Indeed you could argue that while Harris' article avoids suggesting solutions Harvie's response refuses to even acknowledge that there's a problem.
The reality is that there is nothing left-wing about endorsing poverty (something that I'm not actually accusing Harvie or others of); it is a national tragedy when large numbers of young people of both sexes see no great hope or aspiration in their future.
And it's this that lies behind the problems that are often evident amongst those communities where you are most likely to find teenage parents (most likely because this is not something 100% confined to poorer areas).
It is complete nonsense to suggest that every teenage girl that gets pregnant does so in order to get a house. But it's also madness to suggest that this never happens. As is often the case when two extremes make a case the truth lies somewhere in the middle.
We also have to widen this debate to talk about young people (and wider communities) where there is little ambition or chance to improve people's lives, and that's true for both sexes. Where Harris possibly didn't explain himself as well as possible was in failing to mention the fathers involved in this, although he does so in the Comments section.
The reason it’s important not to demonise single/teenage parents is that it achieves nothing, and in many cases may be wrong. It's also vital to understand the background such people have come from; there's no point in stating that people should have goals and ambition in their life if they've been brought up in an environment devoid of this.
Consider again the tragic Brandon Muir case, which concluded this week. Of course thankfully this extreme example is the exception but it does paint a general picture; in certain communities people live lives utterly removed from the rest of us, and their offspring have little chance of escaping this.
If you don't believe me, imagine this scene: walking past an obvious drug addict teenage mother (not an unknown sight) pushing a child. Your first reaction might be sympathy for the child and the worry of what hope they ever have. You may even think ill of the mother.
Now fast forward sixteen years; that child is a teenage mother pushing her own baby down the road. And you'll worry what'll happen to that baby and think ill of the mother. But where is the logic in that?
Just as in the Brandon Muir case this subject ultimately has to boil down to what we're going to do about it; there is no sense just passing comment, tutting a bit and then forgetting.
That's where there is a role for both the UK and Scottish governments and local councils too; indeed simply because of the respective powers they have this is something which can be best attacked on a Scottish basis.
There may well be some changes which could be made to the benefit system, although the suggestion of removing such entitlement from teenage mothers is simply insane and only likely to compound the problems mentioned above. Instead there may be ways to force the new mother's family as well as the father to take a greater long-term financial responsibility.
Equally education is an important component too; sex education to some extent but also the general experience that young people get at school which will shape the rest of their lives. The minority that get pregnant because of state benefits will only be dissuaded from doing this if they see an alternative.
But there is also an issue about how wider society deals with young people and particularly the image that the media promotes. Pick up any newspaper most days - including so-called quality ones - and you will be deluged with a torrent of Z-list reality celebrities and other such vacuous subjects. When these are the role models promoted by the modern media is it any wonder we create entire communities where aspiration is little more than to have cosmetic surgery and then strip for a lads' mag?
As is usually the case with substantial problems that politicians have to face there is no simple solution to this. But acknowledging that there is actually a problem has to be one step in this.
And not attacking politicians for making statements that are not unreasonable (and probably agreed with by a bulk of people in this country) is part of it too.
6 Mar 2009
Birthday wishes
I woke up last night and suddenly had a thought: I'm sure it's one year since I started blogging.
Sure enough on checking this morning it seems that 6 March 2008 marked my first post. Therefore it's happy birthday to me, in my 286th post.
I've noticed that a few regular bloggers have been dropping out recently (albeit temporarily) and remember saying at New Year that I thought I would do less. In fact I think I've kept going at a decent rate, even if I don't have as much time as when I first started.
So here's to the next year and a good few more posts. And hopefully some more decent debate.
Sure enough on checking this morning it seems that 6 March 2008 marked my first post. Therefore it's happy birthday to me, in my 286th post.
I've noticed that a few regular bloggers have been dropping out recently (albeit temporarily) and remember saying at New Year that I thought I would do less. In fact I think I've kept going at a decent rate, even if I don't have as much time as when I first started.
So here's to the next year and a good few more posts. And hopefully some more decent debate.
5 Mar 2009
What life would Brandon Muir have had?
It’s hard for most people to come close to understanding the torment that Brandon Muir must have faced in his short life. It’s harder still to begin to explain the sheer outrage and anger that must go towards his killer, a man who was supposed to help take care of him.
Ultimately the emotions being expressed in the media today is understandable; as details of the way Brandon Muir was treated have emerged it is hard not to be utterly furious and incredulous that anyone could do this to a child.
What happened with Brandon is completely outrageous and thankfully very rare; whilst many children may have terrible backgrounds it is not the majority who face such a specifically tragic life.
Let's avoid the understandable emotional reaction to the Brandon Muir case for just one second: imagine instead that the child had lived and had not been subjected to quite the level of abuse and, frankly, torture that he was. What life would he have had?
Assuming that he had remained with his mother he would have had to live a life ravaged by drugs, surrounded by people with little or no education, possibly no job and certainly no obvious hope of escaping that environment.
It’s likely he would then have gone on to schools which would not have had the investment needed to help all pupils; Brandon himself would almost certainly have been a pupil with limited educational chances (given his background).
And in the years ahead, as he was brought up in such an environment, he may have faced the same general lack of hope and negative temptations that took his mother: crime, drug abuse and so on. In short he may have been condemned to live in this cycle of poverty.
So whilst the life he did face was beyond tragic were we as a society going to offer him any better had he lived? And are we seriously prepared to do anything to change this, or instead have yet more hand wringing?
Whilst as a society we are outraged by this in what way is the tale different from the Baby P case? Or Victoria Climbie? Or any other similar story we hear about on a tragically regular basis? The answer is that it’s not.
Instead we will get the same rhetoric now as before. The media will cry foul and express anger and the authorities will talk of the need to learn lessons. And the latter point is important; an inquiry has already been set up and if there are lessons which be learned that aren't solely about money then these changes must happen. But does anyone really believe this will lead to substantial change?
Albert Einstein once talked about the definition of insanity being when people do the same thing over and over again but expect a different result each time. This is exactly what we do every time a terrible case such as Brandon Muir occurs – and the belief that without changes something different will then happen perfectly matches the insanity description.
To some extent there are two issues which would need to change to address these problems; both of which are enormously difficult but one in particular cannot change overnight.
The first and most obvious issue is how we care for children that are brought up in troubled households. Some believe children ultimately should remain with the parents, others that the children of drug users (for instance) should all be removed.
However either way this is going to cost money, particularly the latter. We already have a shortage of foster carers and care homes across the country so a massive expansion in the number of children taken care of is going to be very expensive.
What’s most worrying is that this is actually the easier of the two solutions; putting money in to tackle a problem after it has arisen (in terms of removing children from problem backgrounds) is the cheaper of the two options. And even that shows no signs of happening.
The alternative choice is much more difficult, would take longer to achieve and has a price tag well in excess of what we currently spend.
Are we surprised that people of all ages from the poorest backgrounds in our society lead lives most people would baulk at? That someone who lives in poor quality housing, has little education and deals with crime on a near daily basis should turn to outlets such as drug abuse? And that others in the community are then dragged down by this?
None of these points are to excuse Brandon’s killer, far from it. But away from this specific case if we genuinely want to tackle some of the problems that force our young people to live lives no-one should have to then it will take investment.
Of course none of this is easy. Even if we had untold public funds available to tackle such problems they could not be changed overnight, and in the current climate public finances are obviously struggling just as much as everywhere else.
But if we are not prepared to do things differently – including spending more money on the poorest and weakest in our society – then what do we really hope to achieve through outrage and inquiries, beyond cosmetic changes?
When people go to the ballot box they can cast their vote based on what helps them most, or what helps society. How many people who already have comfortable and secure lives still vote based on what a party will do for them rather than those less fortunate?
Such an argument – spend more public money on those who have the least - probably won’t win many elections. Instead the country will just wait until the next tragic case then perform an act of national absolution by expressing outrage before forgetting again.
This story was ideal for cut-and-paste journalism: at the conclusion of the Brandon Muir trial most newspapers simply repeated the same articles they used in the case of Baby P just three months ago.
The messages we heard then – outrage, let down by society, where were the social workers, who’s really to blame, never again and so on – have all been wheeled out in the same way they are each time such a tragedy occurs.
The real tragedy of Brandon Muir is that he was ultimately condemned from the moment he was born. If his life wasn’t destroyed at the hands of his killer it would likely still have happened anyway thanks to the society in which he would have lived.
And we don’t need inquiries to tell us that. We just need a child’s face and tragic story.
Ultimately the emotions being expressed in the media today is understandable; as details of the way Brandon Muir was treated have emerged it is hard not to be utterly furious and incredulous that anyone could do this to a child.
What happened with Brandon is completely outrageous and thankfully very rare; whilst many children may have terrible backgrounds it is not the majority who face such a specifically tragic life.
Let's avoid the understandable emotional reaction to the Brandon Muir case for just one second: imagine instead that the child had lived and had not been subjected to quite the level of abuse and, frankly, torture that he was. What life would he have had?
Assuming that he had remained with his mother he would have had to live a life ravaged by drugs, surrounded by people with little or no education, possibly no job and certainly no obvious hope of escaping that environment.
It’s likely he would then have gone on to schools which would not have had the investment needed to help all pupils; Brandon himself would almost certainly have been a pupil with limited educational chances (given his background).
And in the years ahead, as he was brought up in such an environment, he may have faced the same general lack of hope and negative temptations that took his mother: crime, drug abuse and so on. In short he may have been condemned to live in this cycle of poverty.
So whilst the life he did face was beyond tragic were we as a society going to offer him any better had he lived? And are we seriously prepared to do anything to change this, or instead have yet more hand wringing?
Whilst as a society we are outraged by this in what way is the tale different from the Baby P case? Or Victoria Climbie? Or any other similar story we hear about on a tragically regular basis? The answer is that it’s not.
Instead we will get the same rhetoric now as before. The media will cry foul and express anger and the authorities will talk of the need to learn lessons. And the latter point is important; an inquiry has already been set up and if there are lessons which be learned that aren't solely about money then these changes must happen. But does anyone really believe this will lead to substantial change?
Albert Einstein once talked about the definition of insanity being when people do the same thing over and over again but expect a different result each time. This is exactly what we do every time a terrible case such as Brandon Muir occurs – and the belief that without changes something different will then happen perfectly matches the insanity description.
To some extent there are two issues which would need to change to address these problems; both of which are enormously difficult but one in particular cannot change overnight.
The first and most obvious issue is how we care for children that are brought up in troubled households. Some believe children ultimately should remain with the parents, others that the children of drug users (for instance) should all be removed.
However either way this is going to cost money, particularly the latter. We already have a shortage of foster carers and care homes across the country so a massive expansion in the number of children taken care of is going to be very expensive.
What’s most worrying is that this is actually the easier of the two solutions; putting money in to tackle a problem after it has arisen (in terms of removing children from problem backgrounds) is the cheaper of the two options. And even that shows no signs of happening.
The alternative choice is much more difficult, would take longer to achieve and has a price tag well in excess of what we currently spend.
Are we surprised that people of all ages from the poorest backgrounds in our society lead lives most people would baulk at? That someone who lives in poor quality housing, has little education and deals with crime on a near daily basis should turn to outlets such as drug abuse? And that others in the community are then dragged down by this?
None of these points are to excuse Brandon’s killer, far from it. But away from this specific case if we genuinely want to tackle some of the problems that force our young people to live lives no-one should have to then it will take investment.
Of course none of this is easy. Even if we had untold public funds available to tackle such problems they could not be changed overnight, and in the current climate public finances are obviously struggling just as much as everywhere else.
But if we are not prepared to do things differently – including spending more money on the poorest and weakest in our society – then what do we really hope to achieve through outrage and inquiries, beyond cosmetic changes?
When people go to the ballot box they can cast their vote based on what helps them most, or what helps society. How many people who already have comfortable and secure lives still vote based on what a party will do for them rather than those less fortunate?
Such an argument – spend more public money on those who have the least - probably won’t win many elections. Instead the country will just wait until the next tragic case then perform an act of national absolution by expressing outrage before forgetting again.
This story was ideal for cut-and-paste journalism: at the conclusion of the Brandon Muir trial most newspapers simply repeated the same articles they used in the case of Baby P just three months ago.
The messages we heard then – outrage, let down by society, where were the social workers, who’s really to blame, never again and so on – have all been wheeled out in the same way they are each time such a tragedy occurs.
The real tragedy of Brandon Muir is that he was ultimately condemned from the moment he was born. If his life wasn’t destroyed at the hands of his killer it would likely still have happened anyway thanks to the society in which he would have lived.
And we don’t need inquiries to tell us that. We just need a child’s face and tragic story.
3 Mar 2009
The 3 Rs
It always struck me as a great irony that the phrase the '3 Rs' (reading, writing and arithmetic) promotes bad spelling.
Nevertheless whatever impact this had there have been concerns for some time now that something which was once perceived as a key strength of Scottish education - the fact that everyone could read, write or count - is now on the wane. Even if there is a certain element of rose-tinted glasses affecting this view it's still an issue worth considering.
The basic philosophy behind this question was posed last year by the Scottish Government when they launched the review of qualifications in Scotland. One key proposal was to introduce a formal test for literacy and numeracy before pupils leave school. It seems that this idea has won the backing of most people who responded.
It's not hard to understand why. One complaint often heard from the business community is that they get a huge number of pupils coming to them from school (and sometimes even university) that do not have basic reading, writing or counting skills, vastly reducing their ability to do any productive job.
So to combat this the idea of literacy and numeracy tests was floated. However in spite of winning general support for this it has to be hoped that the Scottish Government don't rush into introducing such a policy without answering several key questions which remain.
In theory this plan sounds great: introduce reading, writing and counting tests and we'll know just how well competent each child is with these skills. Except there are two very obvious problems which immediately spring to mind (particularly depending on when these tests take place).
Firstly what if they fail? A huge number of young people leave school in fourth year - especially those most likely to fail such a test - so what happens at this stage? Would it simply mean that they would forever be left with the millstone around their neck of having failed this qualification?
By making pupils wait until weeks before they leave school (if the test takes place in fourth year) does this not just make the problems outlined above all the more likely to arise? If pupils have made it to fourth year (or even third year) unable to read or write surely they are likely to be failing in other subjects too?
Part of the problem is defining this issue in the context of a sheet of paper: we don't want pupils to have a reading, writing and counting qualification just for the sake of it, we want them to actually be able to do all these things. Thus waiting until fourth year for such an assessment would seem slightly bizarre.
Another problem is what actually we plan on assessing. Would this qualification be a simple 'pass or fail' or would it define levels (as is actually currently the case in terms of charting these skills)?
However regardless of all the points above perhaps the key issue is how pupils would actually prepare for this test and who would be responsible for aiding them in these efforts. The obvious answer is their maths and English teachers but this would bring about problems of its own.
Teachers in both these subjects already have a huge amount of information to impart to pupils; short of notably increasing the amount of time devoted to these classes every week (which in any case would still be at the expense of other maths/English work the class as a whole may be doing) this is surely unlikely to happen.
Another suggestion (and a key part of the government's new Curriculum for Excellence) is that all teachers would be responsible for promoting literacy and numeracy to their pupils, regardless of the subject they teach. The problem here is simple: where everyone's responsible it usually means no-one is.
Whatever way the government eventually introduce this scheme there is one essential component that must be part of it: it cannot simply be a new initiative that is brought in without any new money or funding or other changes in what schools are expected to achieve.
There are pupils in Scottish schools that quite simply cannot read, write or count. The blame for this can be spread around many ways: it's the primary schools, secondaries make them do too much, parents don't help, etc, etc. Whilst there is some value in identifying when the problems arise (because this makes it easier to resolve) we also have to be prepared to take defined action.
If by the first or second year of secondary we begin to identify those pupils already struggling with these skills that are likely to fail any test then surely the only worthwhile course of action is to remove them from their classes and put them in dedicated literacy and numeracy classes. Aside from the fact that this will inevitably carry with it a stigma it also means that they will have much less exposure to the range of subjects that is meant to characterise the Scottish education system.
This will also involve additional spending on more literacy and numeracy staff in each school - which will be no small investment. However if we are serious about ensuring that pupils at least have these skills then this will be an absolutely essential component of this work. And there is always the argument that by enhancing these skills it will reduce misbehaviour given that much of this stems from children being unable to fully participate in class.
Education is one of these policy areas which seems to be constantly under review and in the process of change, facts in themselves which explain some of the problems to be found in the system. However if there is genuinely agreement on one particular change people want to see - namely a focus on ensuring that all pupils can read, write and count - then this should happen.
But it's vital that real thought - and real investment - goes into ensuring that this can actually happen. Otherwise we'll still be having these discussions even after any changes are made.
And hoo cood posiblie wont that two hapin...
Nevertheless whatever impact this had there have been concerns for some time now that something which was once perceived as a key strength of Scottish education - the fact that everyone could read, write or count - is now on the wane. Even if there is a certain element of rose-tinted glasses affecting this view it's still an issue worth considering.
The basic philosophy behind this question was posed last year by the Scottish Government when they launched the review of qualifications in Scotland. One key proposal was to introduce a formal test for literacy and numeracy before pupils leave school. It seems that this idea has won the backing of most people who responded.
It's not hard to understand why. One complaint often heard from the business community is that they get a huge number of pupils coming to them from school (and sometimes even university) that do not have basic reading, writing or counting skills, vastly reducing their ability to do any productive job.
So to combat this the idea of literacy and numeracy tests was floated. However in spite of winning general support for this it has to be hoped that the Scottish Government don't rush into introducing such a policy without answering several key questions which remain.
In theory this plan sounds great: introduce reading, writing and counting tests and we'll know just how well competent each child is with these skills. Except there are two very obvious problems which immediately spring to mind (particularly depending on when these tests take place).
Firstly what if they fail? A huge number of young people leave school in fourth year - especially those most likely to fail such a test - so what happens at this stage? Would it simply mean that they would forever be left with the millstone around their neck of having failed this qualification?
By making pupils wait until weeks before they leave school (if the test takes place in fourth year) does this not just make the problems outlined above all the more likely to arise? If pupils have made it to fourth year (or even third year) unable to read or write surely they are likely to be failing in other subjects too?
Part of the problem is defining this issue in the context of a sheet of paper: we don't want pupils to have a reading, writing and counting qualification just for the sake of it, we want them to actually be able to do all these things. Thus waiting until fourth year for such an assessment would seem slightly bizarre.
Another problem is what actually we plan on assessing. Would this qualification be a simple 'pass or fail' or would it define levels (as is actually currently the case in terms of charting these skills)?
However regardless of all the points above perhaps the key issue is how pupils would actually prepare for this test and who would be responsible for aiding them in these efforts. The obvious answer is their maths and English teachers but this would bring about problems of its own.
Teachers in both these subjects already have a huge amount of information to impart to pupils; short of notably increasing the amount of time devoted to these classes every week (which in any case would still be at the expense of other maths/English work the class as a whole may be doing) this is surely unlikely to happen.
Another suggestion (and a key part of the government's new Curriculum for Excellence) is that all teachers would be responsible for promoting literacy and numeracy to their pupils, regardless of the subject they teach. The problem here is simple: where everyone's responsible it usually means no-one is.
Whatever way the government eventually introduce this scheme there is one essential component that must be part of it: it cannot simply be a new initiative that is brought in without any new money or funding or other changes in what schools are expected to achieve.
There are pupils in Scottish schools that quite simply cannot read, write or count. The blame for this can be spread around many ways: it's the primary schools, secondaries make them do too much, parents don't help, etc, etc. Whilst there is some value in identifying when the problems arise (because this makes it easier to resolve) we also have to be prepared to take defined action.
If by the first or second year of secondary we begin to identify those pupils already struggling with these skills that are likely to fail any test then surely the only worthwhile course of action is to remove them from their classes and put them in dedicated literacy and numeracy classes. Aside from the fact that this will inevitably carry with it a stigma it also means that they will have much less exposure to the range of subjects that is meant to characterise the Scottish education system.
This will also involve additional spending on more literacy and numeracy staff in each school - which will be no small investment. However if we are serious about ensuring that pupils at least have these skills then this will be an absolutely essential component of this work. And there is always the argument that by enhancing these skills it will reduce misbehaviour given that much of this stems from children being unable to fully participate in class.
Education is one of these policy areas which seems to be constantly under review and in the process of change, facts in themselves which explain some of the problems to be found in the system. However if there is genuinely agreement on one particular change people want to see - namely a focus on ensuring that all pupils can read, write and count - then this should happen.
But it's vital that real thought - and real investment - goes into ensuring that this can actually happen. Otherwise we'll still be having these discussions even after any changes are made.
And hoo cood posiblie wont that two hapin...
