Not the economy, stupid

Don't worry Nick - the Conservatives will naturally sort out the economy - their basic instinct is to reduce government waste and provide an environment which is favourable to business.

It makes sense for the Tories to want to sound different - if they just talk about their core instincts they will sound very old fashioned.

This is especially true since Labour has failed their promises to deliver better schools, better hospitals and a more respectful society. The people still want this delivered - the Tories are stepping up to the plat.

The Conservatives understand that they need to help business to fuel the economy and also to divert wasted government spend to the front line in order to fund actual change.

Gordon clearly doesn't know how to delivery social improvement. He finds it too hard. He knows he should be busy doing things. This is why the Government likes to look busy and run around launching legislation which restricts peoples civil liberties. It is easier to stop people doing things, than to create an environment where people can thrive.

In short - the Conservatives are the only people who remotely sound like they understand how to fund and actually deliver social change.

Boom-bust Gordon is a disaster on so many levels - he is no more able to turn the economy around than he is able to deliver a better society..... 42 days.... cameras in bins... ID cards.... ASBO's..... CCTV.... threat to Jury trials....

Nick,
Surely the Conservatives are sensible NOT to rush to judgement are develop their ideas in the short term - I mean, they've probably got 3 years before any general election!

Also, as much as I like you - can you stop using "it's the economy stupid" - everytime I hear you talk about economics you seem to peddle this tired cliche. Just some feebdack.

I may be doing him a disservice on the basis of too little evidence, but my initial view is that if we are to rely on Osborne doing anything resembling deep thought about the real world then we really are in trouble. He may or may not be intelligent - it's difficult to tell with people whose academic career consists of public school/Oxford- but his track record so far in proposing initiatives that seem to fall apart as soon as they are subject to scrutiny is not encouraging.

I hope iango82 doesn't know something we don't - by my reckoning we have under two years to the next General Election as the last one was held on 5 May 2005. Or is GB going to change the law so he can cling on to office longer?

On the topic of the post, why should the Tories announce any policies at the moment? - based on recent history, GB will only copy them.

Nick,

I'm surprised that you have not picked up on the story of the cancelled bin and pay trial. If there was ever an example of Labour waste this was it. Pay out over £1 million to configure rubbish lorries to weigh bins and to implant microchips in bins so that the public can be charged for rubbish. Then to be told that it is being scrapped because it doesn't work because fly tipping increased and the problem of communal bins in flats...

Are those in charge so out of touch? Did they really not think of these simple facts.

GB told us last year that there was no election so he could layout his strategy for the future ... er ... I guess he has been busy...

There is a lot the Conservatives will have to sort out.

#1 jonathan_cook: "Labour has failed their promises to deliver better schools, better hospitals "

I have to ask whether you have actually been into a school or hospital recently? You can say that the improvements have not reflected the scale of investment if you like, though I would disagree with you; but nobody with any knowledge of either health or education can possibly say that there has been no improvement, and you devalue your argument by making such claims. Of course, what you actually have to do is to compare where we are now with where we would have been but for Blair's win in 1997, and on that basis the improvements have been very considerable.

The real reason is because they don't need to say anything.
We have a Labour government with rising inflation, overspending, huge waste, rising Union unrest. It's like the 70s all over again. We all remember how that panned out...

Maybe I am going soft as I just sent the Tories an email of support with regard to David Davis.

I do agree that your observation is very pertinent to judging what the Tories would do in government - as opposed to what they say they do.

I probably am being a tad optimistic but possibly they are thinking big picture. Green policies that accelerate our flight from carbon dependency to sustainable energy security must be a good thing.

In a way what you describe is reactive politics where policy initiatives are closely tuned to public reactions. But the oil prices (if you consider that they are in part at least due to increased demand and not speculation) and the credit crunch could be seen as failures of strategic policy making. You can't be popular with everybody if you act strategically. The global economy and global issues like climate change necessitate strategic thinking.

I can't say I would expect the Tories to potentially upset the Square Mile if they felt that there could be another credit crunch type of crisis. Would they upset oil companies? Doubt that too. Nuclear power is not a strategic solution as nobody knows
for sure how to deal with the waste. But there is a powerful lobby.

The Tories may think that its wise to look like Labour - but they would be mad. The New Labour bubble has definitely burst!

If we had PR it might be possible to replace failing parties like we replace failing schools. But competition in politics is something that is frowned upon. Neither of the big two will queue up on that, but it would be a smart move for the Tories.

Just a thought, but maybe part of the reason for not talking about economic policy is that the Tories realise that there are factors that UK Government can't do too much about whoever is in charge, and therefore it might be better to say nothing, promise nothing, and therefore avoid some negative effects should they be in power and not be able to turn things around?

The two big economic issues of the moment seem to be the Credit Crunch and Energy (particularly Oil) costs - Global issues in other words that are quite difficult to divorce from the local effect on the UK Economy. If Cameron promises that things will be so much better and then discovers that due to Global Economic Factors that he can't deliver, he will get a kicking - if he stays silent on prospects, there's always a bit of a getout that he never said he could bring the UK unscathed through a Global crisis.... In the meantime the press headlines, rising fuel and other costs etc do the job for him in any case. Potentially it could be a smart political move by Cameron to say nothing.....

All I can say is -

If no party is prepared to commit to definite workable measures to reduce taxes, immigration and crime, I won't be voting.

Don't think I'll be voting, somehow.

There is no point in asking Gordon about the economy he will just put it down too global trends.theres no point in asking Alister Darling he can hardly say the last guy mucked it all up.

I agree with posting 1; fixing the economy is a "given" that anyone should assume they'd do if/when they get into power. After all, facing a recession and no money in the kitty and huge national debt and overblown public spending/waste, they need to fix the economy before they can do anything else.

Brown/Labour have destroyed our economy completely and have no idea about social policy either as they have no grounding in reality.

Cameron's right in focussing on social policy because that's one of Brown's "safe" areas where Brown quotes misleading statistics to hide the fact that he's broken that side of the country too.

For example, the "children's poverty" statistics improved for a bit, but only because Brown made everybody poorer.

His poverty statistics are calculated on a relative basis, so by making everybody poorer and then giving people with children a partial refund he "improves" poverty statistics despite everybody being worse off than before; this is one of the reasons he doubled the 10pct tax band and then gave a partial refund via tax credits.

This statistical manipulation/lying was also mentioned by someone else on another topic.

Brown/Labour, rather than fixing problems, prefer instead to manipulate the statistics so that it looks like things have improved when in reality they've got a lot worse.

If you don't believe me just consider the fact that things like the Northern Rock bale-out don't appear in Brown's national debt figures; hey presto over 100 billion pounds of liability/cash vanishes from the government books.

I guess the main point here is that Cameron would have a solid case where he can explain how Brown manipulates the social policy figures but the underlying problems get worse, so that when it comes to social policy nobody should believe anything that Gordon Brown says.

How can the Tories possibly cost any policies at the moment when Brown is likely to borrow more money to fund Labours ever increasing budget, to waste even more of our hard earnt taxes (the 29m wasted on the planned asylum centre being the most recent example). The 10p tax debacle has meant borrowning of another 2.7 billion.

Osborne needs to know what the finances will be come 2010 before economic policies can be set in stone and properly costed. Brown spends our money by treating the economy like a credit card. It will all have to be paid back and that is the headache for the Tories.

As stated by an earlier comment, Brown will copy the policies anyway. Just let Brown keep digging.

6 Jimbrant.

Yes I have been into both schools and hospitals recently. Though for different reasons......

1. Comprehensive Schools: I have noticed that teachers are still losing control of the pupils. The kids are in charge in many schools. Not much learning takes place. From the inside of one of the Year Heads offices, all you could hear was kids shouting and swearing.

The government has not given money directly to schools and to teachers. Our taxes are spent on a vast array of regulatory and review bodies. The Government has not improved morale. The Government has not weeded out poor teachers and attracted more inspirational teachers.

Yes - some schools are now housed in new flash buildings. The majority of schools demonstrate negligble change compared to tax payers investment.


2. Hospitals: I noticed lack lustre cleaning contractors skulking around. There is also no longer an air of matronly efficiency in hospitals. Our hospitals used to sepearate MSA and CDif patients - reduction in beds means these diseases spread to other patients and kill them. I noticed some fantastic nurses and doctors - doing their best - despite slow hand clapping Patricia Hewitt. I saw no change improvement in facilities - I noticed that I now pay to park and visit sick friends and relatives. Food has got worse - surely good food aids recovery?

Yes - We might have some new hopsitals being built, but these haven't really come on line yet - plus we are paying for them multiple times over due to the PFI arrangements. Gordon has wizzed huge amounts of money up the wall on health focused quangos and regulatory bodies. The existing hospitals show neglible improvement in facilities and an increased chance of killing people due to CDif and MRSA.

Why should the tories run any 'risks' here, or leave themselves open to attack from New labour. We forget, this is politics. If I were in their shoes I'd keep whatever cards I have close to my chest. It's the Labour party that have to manage the crisis. They're in power, not the tories. I know there'll be others saying: 'well shouldn't the tories give us their solutions/policies on this matter?' Why should they? They want to get elected, and if new Labour find themselves in this position after ten years, then, hard luck. It's not Cameron's job to ease their plight.

The terrible irony is that it is perfectly possible to cut basic income tax quite significantly without reducing the overall tax take.

I.e., you just rearrange the balance of the taxes you've got, rather than make actual cuts which will result in public funding reductions.

This is the reason the Lib Dems are able to offer a costed tax package to cut the basic rate for 16p - paid for by a combination of green taxes, removal of some higher-rate taxpayer reliefs and of some business tax reliefs (though combined with a 1p cut in the business tax rate as well).

However, take that or leave it, the my-party-right-or-wrong flagwaver @1 reminds me why I fear the Tories so much. I don't want to rely on anyone's "natural instincts". I want a bloody costed policy. But the Tories treat the economy like the finances of a student society. Their apologists keep saying that they've got to "get in and see what sort of a mess the economy is in", as if the country is run out of a set of A5 cashbooks Gordon Brown keeps in his kitchen drawer, rather than an international system open to constant public scrutiny.

In fact, Tories always strike me as distinctly amateurish in their approach to government as a whole and I am mystified as to why people give them so much credence. There is this crass assumption that getting in and "really giving everything a good shake-up", or whatever, is going to somehow naturally result in waste reduction throughout the entire system. It just isn't true. Did we learn nothing from Jim Hacker and Sir Humphrey?

I'm saddened by the contents of the post, which posit that perceived difference is risky (and the effect that's having on our stilted crap political system can only be bad, with nothing left field being even remotely considered), but I'm also saddened by the number of people writing comments assuming the tories will win the next election.

They probably will, but to be honest, it'll just confirm my theories that our choices are growing narrower by the day. How much longer before we vore for "L", who say "we're nice and we'll make you feel better" or "C", who say "we're nicer and we'll make you feel better than L".

I'm not getting anything concrete from either camp of fools at the moment. To use another horribly hackneyed cliche..

Where's the beef?

Any of the parties will have to do a lot after Labour is gone.
I can understand why the other parties would keep there policies close to their chests.
Labour adopts all policies, from anywhere, at the moment and claims them for their own.
This is painful to see at the moment.
Democracy has been sacrificed in order to produce even more laws to use against the people.

"Research shows that that people judge what is wise and what is risky by how different it is to what they've got now."

Umm...no. SHEEP judge what is risky by how different it is to what they've got now.

And, given the cohesion shown by all the pundits' blogs over Davis, so do political commentators, including Nick Robinson! However, the 'people' seem to be crying for independant thinking.

Why do you think this could be? Could it be because we yearn for someone to break the mould of these dead, grey, aparatchik politics? That are enforced on us by an unholy alliance of the political and media classes? What level of responsibility do the established news channels bear for this ghastly morass of continual oppression?

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

re 16:
I think you're right in that you can rejig the tax/credit system (and eliminate waste) so that everybody's better off but the absolute tax-take still stays the same (or even increases).

A perfect example would be that they could increase the tax allowances so that less of your hard earned cash it taxed, thereby taking most people out of the tax credit system and saving a fortune on admin/bureaucrats. They could end up saving more money from eliminating the pointless admin/waste than they'd lose from increasing the allowances.

Another example is that by cutting taxes people have more money to spend, which leads to more consumer spending which leads to more tax generated for the government as businesses prosper and the whole economy starts to grow again.

There are many many other things that can be done along similar lines.

If they really wanted to, Labour could actually increase the overall absolute take-take, reduce the percentage tax burden, improve public services, and start to pay off the national debt, all in one shot.

The problem is that Brown/Labour do not understand how that can be done and they argue about completely invalid/incorrect points on mathematics. They simply don't have the basic grasp of logic/maths/theory when it comes to running an economy.

The tories can suggest some general ideas, but given that if/when they come into power there could inherit, say, a 2 trillion pound national debt and a depression/recession, or a 1 trillion pound debt and slow growth, it's very hard to give specifics.

They'll be in the same boat as when Thatcher came into power, ie they'll need to take a look at the books at the time and work out the balance between paying off national debt, eliminating waste, giving people a tax break etc.

Thatcher had to fix the economy before she could do anything else, because you can't help people financially when you yourself are completely bankrupt, hence why she was particularly hated towards the end of her first term (saved by the Falklands).

Towards the end of her second term she'd managed to fix the broken economy that she'd inherited from Labour and could start dishing out more money to help people.

If/when the tories get into power again it'll be a repeat of that situation; they'll need to fix the economy first, and everything else will stem from that.

People underestimate just how much damage Labour/Brown have done to the economy; when we start to hear the real figures and not the Brown/Labour lies after the next general election we'll then see the true magnitude of the disaster we're facing.

Nick
In all honesty the only thing Mr Brown and his party know about finance is how to spend money on grand ideas.
Looked after from the cradle to the grave is my fathers favourite comment about the labour party, pity the shambles on the NHS and pensions now!
Years of wasteing revenues from gas,oil etc have been wasted by the likes of Mr Brown and the great social engineering policeys of his predecessors, when oh when will they realise people want the money in their pockets to do with as they choose?
Smashing our ecconomy with taxes to save the planet won't wash while India, China etc steal all our jobs and wealth and turn a blind eye to any damage they do to the Earth.
Soon we will have no work, be in the middle of ecconominc unrest, rising crime levels and cheap imported labour with the result Brown and his people will push through yet more law and legislation to turn us futher into a police type state!
The torries are missing the train here, Cameron should be quietly telling all that the buck and rot will stop with him and be quite clear he will repeal anything NOT IN THE INTERESTS OF THE BRITISH PUBLIC.
Who the heck can you vote for at the moment? they all speak with forked tongue!

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

I suspect the reason the Tories are keeping a low profile regarding the economy is because they, like G.B., have not got a clue what to do.
We are about to go through a fundimental change in our economy. We can no longer manipulate commodity prices and world trade, to our advantage, as we have done in the past. As a consequence lifestyles and expectations will have to change.
The two Ds will find that we no longer have a sphere of influence, and the "emerging economies" are not particularly interested in us-we have had our day.
David and David expect to be voted in by an electorate who believes they can change the tide of history. They know they cannot-but in the meantime why enlighten the plebs?

The Tories aren't talking about the economy because they have the same policies as New Labour as indeed do the Lib Dems. It is exactly the same in every other part of public policy. The choice in our glorious democracy is no longer between blue, yellow and red but between various shades of whatever colour those 3 combined add up to.

Most people seem to be congratulating the Tories for having no economic policies, and blithely assuming that Tories will naturally fix the economy.

I can only conclude that most contributors to this blog began their working life in the late 70s to early 80s and fell into a coma or moved abroad between 1990 and 1997!

Those of my generation will likely find such assumptions utterly laughable.

However, Nick's "more of the same is good" argument is on shaky ground. Has New Labour's landslide in '97 slipped so quickly from the memory?

The game is up. The economy is heading for the buffers so fast that there will be chaos and mayhem.

If we don't want to see inflation then interest rates must rise. There must be a squeeze on credit, there is just too much money in the economy, and if more money chases ever fewer goods then, any idiot will tell you that inflation will result.

We are struggling against capitalism itself. We are losing this war as well. I wish this was not true but I foresee a repeat of the Great Depression, the Great Depression which followed the Great War. The Great War was the war to end all war, and that failed. The same with the economy.

During the Great Depression many people actually had very good lives, they maintained their standard of living where their income remained the same, or increased, but prices fell. Some people will do the same this time!

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

re 25: I beg to differ; I think the reason they're not talking too much about the economy is because they don't want Brown to steal their ideas and then implement badly-thought-out half-baked versions of those ideas like they did with Inheritance tax etc. Coupled with that is the fact that the level of national debt could vary massively by 2010, as could the ongoing levels of waste.

What I'm hoping is that immediately before the 2010 general election, when Brown can't enact things in Parliament and cause any more damage, the tories will make an announcement in their manifesto of a major overhaul of the entire system, basically throwing everything that Brown's done in the bin and starting again using more rational arguments/logic than Brown's been using the last 11 years, and using lateral thinking to put forward alternative ideas that'll help the situation.

If they don't do that then I agree with you that there won't be anything much to choose between the parties.

If there isn't a massive difference between how Labour want to do things and how the tories want to do things in 2010 then democracy would indeed have failed us.

I hope/expect that the tories will be brave and say things like "why should anyone on 6 grand a year pay any income tax at all?", and "why don't we just take people out of the tax credit system and let them keep more of their own money in the first place?" etc etc. If they fail on things like that then we're all done for.

Thatcher's economic policies led to massive unemployment, a recession, the poor getting poorer as the rich got richer - why would we want her policies again?

Simple: they don't need to. Labour leader's delusions (particularly Brown and Darling) statement's around "3.3% inflation" is ensuring Labour's future defeat anyway.

The Toires have nothing to say about the economy because they are Thatcherite, just like Labour.

With Thatcherism being daily shown to be a hopless system for running the economy the Tories have no choice but to keep their mouths shut, since they would have done everything equally as badly.

Crime, education, the NHS, house prices, energy costs - they are all problems caused by the core concept of "there's no such thing as society" and that the only way to provide a better life is to allow, indeed encourage, greed and selfishness while letting everything that's not nailed down to be sold off to massive corporations to do with as they please.

Thatcherism has always been about the moronic notion that the rich are important and clever while the poor are stupid and unimportant (otherwise they'ed be rich, innit?) so everything should be run by the rich for the rich and it's bound to all work out right in the end.

We need a government which is not working for big business, which means no more PFIs and no more privately-owned vital services like water, power, rail, and health (if a dentist wants to practise privately, then she or he knows where the ferry ports are). And that also means no more UK governments that grovel and slobber over the American President when he starts telling us what to do.

#14 jonathan_cook :

I think you are wrong on the facts. A lot of the money in both health and education has gone on better pay and more staff - in education one of the big problems in the 90's was that good students didn't want to go into teaching. Now they do, and over time that will address some of the problems you point to. I remember that in the 90's kids had books that were falling apart, teachers were being made redundant because of under-funding, and classrooms were leaking and crumbling. Money has gone directly into those areas, and there have been great improvements. Money has been given directly to head teachers to use as they think best. The quality and quantity of equipment available to teachers (such as computers) has improved beyond belief.

In health, there are 20000 extra doctors, and 80000 extra nurses. The number of doctors being trained has increased two or three-fold, though of course the impact of that will take several years to make itself felt. The very large increase in demand for new drugs and more expensive treatments/equipment has largely been met, at great cost. You talk about MRSA without mentioning that until 1998 the numbers of infections were not even measured, let alone dealt with.

In both areas things are far from perfect, but there have been great improvements. And as I said earlier, what you really have to look at is the turnaround from a situation where things were steadily getting worse to a position where things are getting better. If policy had continued on the same basis as that in the early 90's it is difficult to imagine just how bad things would now be in both health and education. And finally you might remember that it was the tories who took matrons out of hospitals, and this government that put them back.

I actually think that George Osborne is a very thoughtful, intelligent and capable politician, and an impressive strategic thinker. He was the mastermind behind Cameron's campaign to get elected as leader of the Conservatives. It was George Osborne who was the reason that the Tories shot ahead in the polls late last year - remember inheritance tax? Arguably he was one of the main reasons that Brown bottled it and did not call the general election as a result. He is happy to sit back and watch Labour floundering in the economic mess they have created, and he is right to do so.

Another thing - all this rubbish about economic problems being down to external causes like the credit crunch, oil prices and food prices - what rot. Our economy has not been set up to be resilient to these problems, and we are too dependent on and aligned to the American economy. Why is it that our German and other counterparts in Europe are doing so well now, and we are doing so badly? It is because they addressed the structural weaknesses in their economies, and are now well positioned to survive the economic downturn relatively unscathed, while Labour spent money during the boom years like a drunk on payday, racked up huge public debt (both on and off-balance sheet), allowed property prices to increase unsustainably, allowed private debt levels to spiral out of control, sucked out all the money that should have been available in the economy for investment and wealth creation through stealth taxes, and overall created an economic trough that the Tories would be mad to try and help them out of. Sadly, we'll all suffer through Labour's complacent stupidity, and like Mr Micawber, Gordon Brown will keep hoping that 'something will turn up', waiting out the full period of his office before allowing us the chance to throw him out. I notice he never says anything about 'Tory boom and bust' anymore.

The really sad thing is that when the Tories do finally win (and they will), it will be with such a huge majority that they'll be just as unaccountable and unchecked as Labour were since 1997 - and our pendulum political system will continue swinging from one extreme to another. We need PR to stop the first past the post system where a government with a large majority can do what it likes. Australia has PR, and is one of the most sensibly governed countries there is, no matter which party is in charge.

re 30: you wouldn't necessarily want to repeat her policies on all areas, but you would definitely want to repeat the general policy of trying to fix the economy before wasting any more public money, because if that doesn't happen then we're all doomed.

If anyone thinks that we should leave the economy completely broken/bankrupt and just continually throw money that we don't have at problems without thinking about where that money's coming from or where/why/how it's being spent then I hope they don't vote.

re 32: There's not much point refusing to address the problems of businesses; how do you expect people to have jobs if there's no businesses around to employ anyone?

Thatcher did a lot of things that were wrong/nasty, but one thing she was right about was reversing the brain-drain and encouraging businesses to grow and rewarding people generally when they do well.

The Labour idea that all rich people are evil and should simply give all their money to poor people and then kill themselves is very counter productive.

You might not like it, but without people who manage/create/run businesses properly, other people will have no jobs and starve. It's that logic which thatcher understood but which Labour/Brown don't understand.

The challenge is to get a better balance than Thatcher did but still using the same general idea; be friendly to businesses because that's the only way the country earns any money, but don't kill off other people at the same time, ie reward/encourage people when they do well, while still giving people who need it a hand but while also not encouraging laziness. It's just a question of balance.

The economy talks for itself.

The Dani Finklestein piece in the Times was interesting and does explain why 'Dave' is not going to do anything that defines his party in a distinctive way from Labour.

As we have now discovered that Dave's family is worth some 30 million pounds, then I do hope he is working 'for the love of his country' rather than drawing a salary and expenses from the long-suffering English PAYE drone.

I would like a political journalist to ask 'Dave' what he is going to do as PM when Alex Salmond informs him that the Scots are off to full independence.

No doubt, he'll fall back on a 'stock' answer such as 'I don't deal in hypothetical questions'.

However, that particular one will have to be answered in 2010, and mostly likely by 'Dave'.

Now Nick why oh! Why did you not see the writing on the wall?
GB has been putting on the style again, you guys are either blind or should we say under performing the question is “Fit for Purpose”?
When GB and AD talk about the world economy and in the same breath, blame the import of oil as being one of the major problems for the UK, you guy’s fall for it time and again.
We export more of the North Sea oil than we import oil from other oilfield across the globe, all the worlds oil refineries require to mix the different crude oils to maximise the returns.
As for to-days biggest blunder again Gordon really put his foot squarely in his big mouth, merging the “English and British Navies” with our European partners really took the biscuit and being a Navy biscuit he broke his teeth badly there, the weevils will get him over that one.

What do you mean "With the return of inflation!" Inflation has hit the hardly remarkable level of ... wait for it ... 3%. We all remember that under the Tories it was double that. Interest rates are a third of what they were under the Tories.

Isn't it more likely that the Tories don't talk about the economy because then people will reflect back on the miserable years of two recessions, mass unemployment, and spiralling interest rates. And that they opposed the main reason for this stability - Bank of England independence?

They are probably very wise to focus elsewhere.

Nick ,
you wrote this article at 10.56. By 12.00 you had changed tack by saying "what a lot of choice David Cameron had to go on and that you thought it had to be Afghanistan and Europe". I used to think you were great but I think you have been getting too many chocolate biscuits and cups of coffee in No.10. Are you being sucked in by the Downing Street machine?

Silas Brown

OK then Nick. Let's make it very short. Is it because of the following Tory record of so called, low interest rates?

Base rates under the Tories. These are from 1985 and after someone here said that the economy was sorted.

1996 Oct 6.00 % 0.25 %
Jun 5.75 % - 0.25 %
Mar 6.00 % - 0.25 %
Jan 6.25 % - 0.25 %

1995 Dec 6.50 % - 0.25 %
Feb 6.75 % 0.50 %

1994 Dec 6.25 % 0.50 %
Sep 5.75 % 0.50 %
Feb 5.25 % - 0.25 %

1993 Nov 5.50 % - 0.50 %
Jan 6.00 % - 1.00 %

1992 Nov 7.00 % - 1.00 %
Oct 8.00 % - 1.00 %
Sep 9.00 % - 1.00 %
May 10.00 % - 0.50 %

1991 Sep 10.50 % - 0.50 %
Jul 11.00 % - 0.50 %
May 11.50 % - 0.50 %
Apr 12.00 % - 0.50 %
Mar 12.50 % - 0.50 %
Feb 13.00 % - 1.00 %

1990 Oct 14.00 % - 1.00 %

1989 Oct 15.00 % 1.00 %
May 14.00 % 1.00 %

1988 Nov 13.00 % 1.00 %
Aug 12.00 % 1.50 %
Jul 10.50 % 1.00 %
Jun 9.50 % 2.00 %
May 7.50 % - 0.50 %
Apr 8.00 % - 0.50 %
Mar 8.50 % - 0.50 %
Feb 9.00 % 0.50 %

1987 Dec 8.50 % - 0.50 %
Nov 9.00 % - 0.50 %
Oct 9.50 % - 0.50 %
Aug 10.00 % 1.00 %
May 9.00 % - 0.50 %
Apr 9.50 % - 0.50 %
Mar 10.00 % - 1.00 %

1986 Oct 11.00 % 1.00 %
May 10.00 % - 0.50 %
Apr 10.50 % - 1.00 %
Mar 11.50 % - 1.00 %


1985 Jul 11.50 % - 1.00 %
May 12.50 % - 0.25 %
Apr 12.75 % - 0.75 %
Mar 13.50 % - 0.50 %
Jan 14.00 %

Have a nice day Nick, and well done.

At post 6 someone made the claim (clearly based on Labour propaganda) that schools and hospitals have improved in the last 10 years. Not wanting to spend too much effort bursting that bubble, I doubt the poster himself has actually bothered to look in schools and hospitals recently. In schools we see 2 things that are very interesting, the first is that discipline has clearly gone out of the window, especially in deprived areas. This in turn has a knock on effect of adversely affecting the quality of education of all those in low discipline schools. Then we have had standards consistently lowered under the facade of improving exam results which are actually the direct result of exams becoming easier.

Hospitals are similar, we see improvement of very specific goals which are easily fudged. I've been to casualty twice in the last 5 years, once in the back of an ambulance, where I was seen immediately by a doctor, but then left in pain on a trolley for 2 hours. The second time for a broken bone, where I was seen quickly by the triage nurse (to get waiting times down), but then left in a cubicle for a few hours before actually seeing a doctor and starting sorting out the cast.

Where Labour have been highly successful is in fooling the voters. From day 1 of the New Labour administration, they have been devising clever schemes to fudge official figures and make it look like they are doing better than they are. Unfortunately with these schemes, when the voters finally see through them, the damage has already been done. Take the economy as a key example. In 1997 Labour inherited the most successful economy a new government have inherited in over 100 years. Then what did Gordon Brown do with it, he followed Tory plans for 3 years, and embarked on a grab for as much money as he could lay his hands on. He sold most of the UK gold at a historic low. He applied stamp duty to pensions dividend income, which has stolen billions out of pension funds every year of the Labour government. He started borrowing heavily during a boom period, when he should have been laying aside for the coming bust. He mandated that the Bank of England should set interest rates based on an unrealistic measure of inflation that excluded key things like housing costs. All these things have meant that Britain is easily the second worst (after the US) placed country in the world to weather the credit storm. You only have to stick pins in maps for failed banks to see that.

Osborne fortunately has a great intellect, but David Cameron should not underestimate the task he faces. The country isn't ruined as badly as it was in 79, but it isn't far short. Many of the problems will take 10+ years to fix. Just think of all the final salary civil service pensions we will be paying in 40 years time for the explosion in the size of the civil service during the last 10 years?

re 30: since 1997 the gap between the rich and poor has actually got wider.

The Tories wont give any economic policies away because any mention of cutting tax will immediately be heckled by Labour as therefore cutting spending, cutting services and closing the NHS. Economising and value for money aren't ideas they understand.

Labour doesn't want a well managed efficent civil service, if they can get 2 people to do one persons work then all the better, because then it's 2 people who are likely to vote Labour in future because neither will vote for the Tories knowing they have a 50% chance of being made redundant and actually having to find a worthwhile job where they have to work.

#34 A small child: "Why is it that our German and other counterparts in Europe are doing so well now, and we are doing so badly?"

Can you give the evidence on which this statement is based? I don't think it's true, but if it is it is strong evidence for the benefits of joining the Euro perhaps?

"Our economy has not been set up to be resilient to these problems,"

See the IMF report on the UK economy released last month: "For over a decade, the United Kingdom has sustained low inflation and rapid economic growth - an exceptional achievement. More recently, the economy grew by 3 percent in 2007, and inflation returned to target after a temporary elevation. All this is the fruit of strong policies and policy frameworks, which provide a strong foundation to weather global shocks." Can you explain why your opinion is to be preferred over that of the IMF?

I am interested in your view that the government should have prevented people from selling their homes at the market rate, and prevented them from exercising their right to decide whether and how much to borrow. Surely the Cam Tories are not Stalinists in disguise?

As for Osborne, you have your view and I have mine. You mention his populist proposals to cut inheritance tax and stamp duty, but neglect to mention that they were to be paid for by changes to non-dom taxation that would have produced only a fraction of the money he needed. The jury is still out, I think.

You're forgetting the green stealth taxes they are proposing. The proceeds of which will go into tax cuts elsewhere. 'To help hard working families'.

The problem is green taxes are supposed to change behaviour. If behaviour does change and less green taxes are coming in. what happens to other tax then? Maybe they don't expect behaviour to change and green taxes are actually just revenue raising taxes.

Basically nothing will change. Except the Conservatives will be a little nastier and will scapegoat single mothers see first line.

It is mildly amusing to watch you and your fellow left-wing apologists at the BBC clinging to the wreckage of this arrogant, deceiptful and cowardly government.

One subject that Cameron will probably keep quiet about will be his plans for the BBC. I suspect that there will be a price to pay for its supine and grovelling support for Labour during the past 11 years. The BBC has become both an anachronism (hoovering up public money) and the paradigm for political correctness and and leftist bias.

I am fully aware that censorship is alive and well at the BBC so no doubt my comments will never see the light of day. My assessment of the government above also applies in full measure to the BBC and I look forward to David Cameron and his men exacting a very painful revenge.

Can someone please define wasting public money? What should be done with it in your view? Except hoarding in it and dishing it out in tax cuts at election time.

Ref comment 6. jimbrant wrote:

Ref improvement in schools. the recent list of 600 failing schools published by the government contained one third on the new flagship academies.

I have 2 kids at school and have seen the improvements, they all revolve around more regulation, targets, buildings and kit.

You need inspirational teachers, small class sizes and firm but fair discipline.

Put a new glass factory over the same old machinery and you just churn out the same old sausages. They just cost more.

Nick,

Even though Chancellor Gordon Brown boasted an end to boom and bust during his ten years at the Treasury we both know that was a lie. No Goverment can control the economy. The best they can do is to take advantage of the good times and store up enough reserves for the bad times.

Gordon Brown did not store up reserves in the "Nice Decade" and so has extremely limited power now to help out people hardest hit by the economy.

I'm sure both Gordon Brown and David Cameron are aware that there are no easy solutions and it will be a matter of taking austere measures to "tough it out"

I voted Labour in 1997 and 2001; and Lib Dem in 2005. I'm pretty sure I won't vote Labour at the next election because I beleive Gordon Brown's Government is unprincipled and incompetent.

True the newly branded Tories are largely an unkown and nearer the election I will be studying their policies and manifesto. I have some sympathy with the Tories for not wanting to lay out all their policies so far away from an election for fear that Gordon Brown will steal them. Look what happened during the election that never was!

The Tories have two problems, First, many of the difficulties that the economy faces are either totally outside of the UK's control, and would have been the same whether they, or Labour were in power - or they are caused by rampant, unrestrained capitalists making money at the expense of the wider economy - the banks trading in worthless sub-prime debt. The same capitalists who are the darlings of the Tory party.

Second, the pound has fallen against all major currencies, except the US Dollar. A run on the pound has historically been a rallying call to the opposition, but the obvious solution, ditch the pound and join the euro, is particularly unpalletable to a euro-sceptic Conservative party.

#43 dave_h "At post 6 someone made the claim (clearly based on Labour propaganda) that schools and hospitals have improved in the last 10 years"

Well no, actually. I note that you're evidence-base on health consists of two visits to casualty in the past 5 years, while you don't actually say what your knowledge of schools might be. In my case, in the past 5 years I have had a daughter give birth in hospital, I have had my son die of leukaemia after treatment in hospitals in London and locally, my wife is well down the path of dementia, and I have benefitted from new drugs available from the NHS to control hypertension. On education, I worked in a university and was a comprehensive school Governor until my family's health problems intervened. On the basis of that evidence I can assure you that your portrait of the NHS is insultingly inaccurate, while your knowledge of the education system is based more on Daily Mail reporting than on the facts.

On the economy, please see the view of the IMF quoted in my post at #45. And finally on Civil Service numbers perhaps you would give the evidence for your claim for the 'explosion'?

Public money is simply that amount that has been taken from the citizens. All taxes come from the citizens - even corparation tax, which is only possible because we pay for products and services.

Wasting public money occurs when politicians invent schemes that have little possibility of working in practice, but seem like a good idea to raise a profile in the limited term.

Wasting money is also when you invent new QANGOs, populated by people who are described as the "great and the good" but still expect to be paid a hell of a lot more than most citizens.

Any good corporate management could go through a rather flacid business and take out 2-3% of cost without breaking sweat.

If that approach were applied to Government expenditure, we - yes we, the tax-payers - would have more than UKL 12 BILLION of savings.

This Government expects to get the "right" answer when collecting statistics about the performance of departments and agencies.

A real government would be more prepared to accept reality.

#49 RussellHolmstoel: "Ref improvement in schools. the recent list of 600 failing schools published by the government contained one third on the new flagship academies."

But 'failing' in this case means failing to achieve standards that are being set at a much higher level than they were. They would not have been failing if judged against the standards expected in 1997.
And since many of the new Academies were set up to replace 'failing' schools in difficult areas of deprivation your statistic does not surprise me particularly.

I see little difference between Labour and Tories - I trust neither of them.

Utter tosh.

Enough of this nonsense about "not patching the roof when the sun was shining" and how the large government deficit as the responsibility of the government is stopping the UK being able to improve its current macro-economic condition. the opposition may well spin it well but in reality if we had a more expansionary fiscal policy we would merely get greater inflation than current seen. the BoE cannot lower interest rates for this reason. in reality there is little or nothing a government can do in these circumstances, except potentially lower the fuel duty, which would be beneficial. but to do that would ignore the threat of climate change, which we cannot afford to do

Re. 47

"I am fully aware that censorship is alive and well at the BBC so no doubt my comments will never see the light of day. My assessment of the government above also applies in full measure to the BBC and I look forward to David Cameron and his men exacting a very painful revenge. "

Its nice to know that people keep an open mind about things instead of posting inanely stupid and inflammatory comments.

Its particularly ironic that when you take into consideration whose Newslog you have posted your comment on. Nick Robinson in particular flouts this to the extreme.

A case of Write-First, Think-Later?

Or possibly no thinking at all...

Brownloather @ 47.

If you consider the Blair/Brown governments to be left wing you are a very deluded individual. I'm left wing as are most of my family and friends. None of us vote New Labour as it has absolutely no left wing policies on offer. It's a centre-right party in awe of corporatism, politically correct garbage, the free markets, PPP/PFI, the rampantly capitalist EU and the USA.

Bit like Cameroon's equally useless Tories.

The Trades Union movement is now realising this as displayed by the GMB cutting New Labour funding. The sooner New Labour loses the election and the Blair/Brown acolytes can be disposed of and the party returned to it's rightful owners - the TUC - the better.

regarding schools and hospitals. Surely it is not about whether these places have improved, what is relevant is the extent to which these places have improved relative to the amount of money that has been spent on them.

Nick,

For whatever reason, you finish off with a flourish about "our sakes". Since Osborne will not be near the economic tiller for some months, if not years, why on earth does it matter whether he is holding court in the summer of 2008? Why on earth would the Beeb want to flush out his policies at this stage when clearly the existing men in charge haven't a scooby but are not likely to pass the bat to him to have a shot.

Why not discuss the performance of the government instead. At least here it matters whether these people are held to account or possibly even do what they said at first? Why not pose the question to Brown about what he plans to do with a Treaty that has no foundation in law so long as Ireland says NO? I am sure this will be of greater significance to-day when the Lords are being asked to pass the Treaty rather than a discussion about what Osborne might say about something he might be able to effect some years away. Or am I being just too obvious?

All the best

• Ref 54 jimbrant
Not totally sure about standards being higher or how you come to that conclusion. We know that many in the business claim that exams are much easier. One Uni has announced its own entrance exam as A levels arent much use as a guide to entry. So many get 3 As now.
Discipline standards have got worse, ask any teacher about their ability to discipline a child, they are barely allowed to defend themselves from assault.
The point I was really trying to make is that Labour just throws money at problems. It builds swanky new buildings but does not fix the real problem. Children need smaller classes and basic discipline first. The building is the last thing to make any contribution to their education. Yet it has been where Labour start.
You are quite right when you say many of the new academies were built to replace failing schools. But to fail after huge amounts of investment is a terrible failure. Labour have effectively said, youre poor inner city kids, heres a new building, carry on as normal.
I don’t mind paying high taxes to educate inner city children, its probably one of the best uses of my money. I do however object to paying hugely for failure or at least for the same old régime in a new glass box. I also object to the price the kids pay for this failure.
And don’t even get me started on the brand new state of the art prison that Jack Straw recently opened. Private cells, wired for the internet, playstations, video games. Did you see it? Even one of the cons told Jack Straw that it was like a holiday camp. I tried to book the family in for 2 weeks in August but the courts filled it within days. This money should be spent on educating and training prisoners. Again a good use of my money.
Your point on the Tories and what would they have done may be right, they were not exactly up for investment in public services. At worst the economic boom over the past decade would have led to massive tax cuts and the majority of people would have taken their money and spent it the way they would have wished. (private education and health care) A minority would have been worse off. Hard to know to what degree.
But we do know that Nu Labours promise of Education Education Education has failed and with a significant human and financial cost and the health service isnt really in fine shape either. I am however, not persuaded that DC has the answer.

Ok, I get the point, Nick, however, do we actually want this new style of bland yet slick politics? Do we want spin? Do we want politicians who only live for every edition of the The Mail, The Sun, etc, etc?

I DON'T!

In Gordon Brown's first three months he seemed to put a great deal of effort into differentiating himself from Blair and I was actually quite hopeful.... any change at all would have been good. Cameron on the other hand made clear that he was basically a continuation of Blair.

As you now suggest, they're presently engaged in a game of chicken not daring to change direction and personally I find it awful - they should adopt their respective positions and stay there, stick to their principles and give us a choice.

They should do as the Liberal Democrats and come up with some policy not just steal it (from the Liberal Democrats).

Oh, and Cameron's going to re-engineer us socially? So it's a continuation of the nanny state is it?

#59 One good thing about New Labour is that they shifted the spectrum of political policy away from the truly disasterous extemes of the left. Free markets and capitalims have a lot of faults in terms of social welfare, but these pale in insgnificance when you compare them with the (Orwellian) Animal Farm consequences of pursuing a genuinely left wing agenda.

Nick, is the reason that no party is standing against David Davis in the by-election is because they all agree with him? Or is it because they're scared to disagree with him?

Puzzling.

# jimbrant having had similar experiences with hospitals, I agree with you absolutley the improvements are amazing. Every one I meet in the hospital waiting rooms are of the same opinion or so they tell me.
If its not obvious that schools and teachers are much better, I remember the Tories laughing and jeering at Tony Blair when he said he would see that every child would be taught to use a computer, it did'nt take long for them to stop laughing, my grand children have just about all finised school and their standard of education at the same age as my children is much higher. these Tories on these posts are renowned for saying the first thing that comes into their heads and if it degrades the govenment and particularly GB they will post it with gusto!they want to sit back and think, the living they are getting today is the result of GBs policies, and their not been doing too bad for the last ten years.

#62 RussellHolmstoel "Not totally sure about standards being higher or how you come to that conclusion"

I'm talking about the standards set to judge whether a school is failing. The 600 schools originally mentioned are 'failing' because they are not achieving the proportion of kids expected to get a good set of O levels. That proportion has been increased as the general level of achievement has improved. Of course, if you think that the standard of the exams has been lowered that will affect how you see this - but there is actually little evidence for such a lowering. Just try to do an O level Maths paper now, and see how you get on!

#extremesense. no its because he's a self seeking nut and they all think its better for him to stew in his own juice , but if he does well Dangerous Dave and Gormless Gideon will wellcome him back with open arms,not to sure about Dreary Dominic though.

#60 colinefb: of course you are right. But how do you measure how effective the investment has been? How much of the extra expenditure does the fact that there are 2000 extra doctors, and that it is easier to recruit and retain teachers, justify? I don't know, and I don't know how you would come to a conclusion about it. What I do know is that both health and education are significantly better, and I can't see how they would have been better with less expenditure.

#40 - no one believes the official rates (possibly because there are two of them for a start!)

#69

I don't disagree with you. Measurement is extremely difficult. I guess it probably lies in the hands of the Public Accounts Committee, I'm not sure which other body might really have the clout and the resources to really consider all of the issues.

On a personal note, I was very sorry to read about your son and I wish you every strength in looking after your wife.

@64 - I think you'll find that Animal Farm was actually a warning against 'State Capitalism' (ie Russia under Stalin or present day China) and 'Nationalism mixed with Socialism' (ie Hitler's nazi's, Syrian/Iraqi Ba-athists, Iran etc). It wasn't a warning against socialism as any move toward proper socialism ceased when Lenin himself ceased.

Nick,

Another desperate attempt to justify a desperate Government from a disreputable organisation employing a failed journalist. Apart from that, nice try...!

#72

What I meant, and probably didn't articulate very well, is that "proper socialism" is merely a theoretical creation. In my opinion it cannot meaningfully exist (ie outside of tiny communities) in the real world because human nature gets in the way and there will always be people who subvert the system to leave themselves "more equal than others" (to continue that theme).

Capitalism is not the "best" solution, but it is - again, in my opinon - the only one that can successfully provide a framework for society whislt accommodating the shortcomings of human beings. Then, to make up for the shortcomings of the capitalist model the state must introduce the necessary safety nets and opportunities (broadly, "the welfare state" and high quality education for all). As far as I am aware this is classic "centre ground" politics - and I don't mourn the fact that all parties have gravitated in this direction from their respective extremes.

66 Grandantidote and 67 Jimbrant

Yes there has been some improvement in schools and hospitals, but people object to the value for money achieved.

Take schools - we now have 10% more teachers and since 1997 the Government spends £35Bn more per annum on education. Brilliant. Marvellous. But where has all the money gone?

I think people are frustrated that they see so little improvement for the money spent. Personally I think we'd see better education results if we just divided most of the additional annual £35Bn evenly between schools and let them spend the money as they see fit.

Instead - the government are obsessed with quangos and initiatives. Across all government the amount spent on these bodies rose from £79Bn to £123Bn in 3 years alone.

If you take education alone, the government has set up and continues to staff and spend money on numerous bodies. Do we really need to fund all these bodies and initiatives, rather than divert money directly to where it is needed:

- Early Learning Partnerships
- Transition Information Sessions
- Parent Support Advisers
- Parenting Early Intervention Pathfinders
- Primary Leadership Programme
- Primary Strategy Consultant Leaders
- Social and Emotional Aspects of Learning Resources
- School Improvement Partners
- Reading Recovery Teachers
- Secondary National Strategy
- Learning Agreements and Excellence Hubs
- The September Guarantee
- School Sport Partnerships
- Pathfinder Partnerships
- Education Improvement Partnerships
- Extended Improvement Partnerships
- Extended Schools
- Every Child Matters Programme
- Cross-Government Safeguarding Programme Board
- Local Safeguarding Children Boards
- Activity Agreements
- The Apprentice Ambassador Network
- Care to Learn
- Aimhigher (the national outreach programme)
- Safer Schools Partnerships
- the London Challenge
- Chartered London Teachers
- the 6th Form Presumption
- Early Adopters Programme
- Making Mathematics Count
- Train to Gain Service
- Youth Matters
- Sector Skills Councils
- National Skills Academies
- Trust Schools Toolkit
- Specialist Schools and Academies Trust
- Numeracy Taskforce
- Safer Sector Partnerships
- Framework for Personal Learning and Thinking Skills
- Diploma Gateway
- Every Child Reader
- School Attendance Strategy


That is education. What about other government responsibilities? How much money is spent on bearocrats rather directly on the frontline in hospitals, the armed forces and the police?

"The Labour idea that all rich people are evil and should simply give all their money to poor people and then kill themselves is very counter productive." #36

I wonder what country you've been living in if it has escaped your notice that Labour has been the party of the super-rich for over a decade.

Perhaps the Tories would be better since they are the party of the merely very-rich!?

Both parties believe in the fantasy notion of a free market providing for everyone. So long as they do that there is no chance of them doing anything sensible. There is no such thing as a free market anywere, and the real market provides for a tiny number of people at the top, while screwing over everyone else.

Or does anyone here think that people like Donald Trump or Tony Blair are suffering sleepless nights because of the increase in home heating costs? Or wondering if they're going to lose (one of) their houses?

Ref 67 jimbrant

Ah Ok misunderstood that point. Thanks, I am not sure I can personally comment on how hard my O level was compared to a GCSE, (too long ago) But I have seen recent papers and I didn’t seem to have much trouble with it.

I read a lot of comment from the trade about them being easier and I cant say I have seen anyone saying exams are getting harder. Universities don’t say this and some private schools are thinking about setting their own exams to replace A levels. This cant be good.

I accept there have been improvements, But are they the right improvements, is money being spent well and are we getting value for money? The big improvement discipline, would be almost free. I actually heard a head teacher on a TV proudly announce his school had launched a new policy of excluding children from a class for 15 mins if they swore at a teacher more than 3 times in any one lesson. Does this happen in France and Germany. German friends of mine say No, not in any schools there, I have Belgium friends who say the same, and would bet this does not happen in France.

I think I read that you were a comprehensive school Governor, why is it that we fail to deal with this problem effectively. Im interested because I have just moved my lad to another school solely for this reason.

One statistic I would love to know, is how much we spend per child and actually how much gets to the child and how much is spent on administration and regulation.

Alas for Gordon, he is no Midas. Rather, everything he touches turns to the Brown stuff!

#75 jonathan_cook "But where has all the money gone?"

Well I'm sure there has been waste, as there always has been. Don't let me get started on the Higher Education Funding Council, for example!

But the answer to your question is basically fairly simple. In education it has gone on higher salaries and more staff (ie pay); on more books and equipment; and on building new and refurbishing old schools. If the extra funding had not gone in, it is difficult to imagine the state that education would now be in. I can remember the very great difficulty we had in persuading university students to consider a career in education in the mid-90's, so that people were being recruited who were not ideal for the job (and perhaps that goes some way to explain the difficulties in discipline etc that has been commented on earlier). Teaching is now an attractive career, at least financially, though you wouldn't think so to listen to the NUT, and there is no difficulty in getting good students to go into it.

The question is, how much is that worth? What would have been the cost of continuing with previous levels of funding?

And the same is true in health, but in spades.

I think Cameron should start talking about the economy because Brown has well and truly doomed us all with his wasteful public spending and centralised beurocratic government.

The only problem for Cameron is that there is not alot he could to rescue the economy in the short term even if he got into power.

Its a shame that when Brown inevitably gets chucked out that Cameron will inherit a dire economy and won't have the money to deliver the things he wants. Furthermore the working people in this country are going to be on the breadline and Cameron will not be able to ease that pain in the short term.

Thanks for nothing Brown.

#77 RussellHolmstoel : You are right, universities do have problems with the current system. There is a relatively minor problem with poor literacy and (especially)numeracy among some students, particularly those who wouldn't have got to university at all just a few years ago. But for the 'top' universities the problem is that A levels no longer provide a means of discriminating (in the nice sense) between good students. I think that there is some evidence of 'creep' in the level at which 'A' grades are awarded, but there also seems to have been a real improvement in the standard and especially the range of A level achievement. In my day, in the 50's, we had A levels and then a separate S level exam that was supposed to be harder; and of course in those days the numbers doing A levels at all was a lot lower. It is a complex area, but I don't think you can take the decsision of some universities to introduce their own exam to divide up the A grade cohort as conclusive evidence that standards have fallen.

As for schools, I commented in #79 that one effect of the extra funding has been an improvement in the quality of students attracted into teaching as a career. It will take time for that improvement to work through into the system, of course, but it might be expected to lead to an improvement also in the areas you find problematic. I have to say that in 'my' school there were few of those problems anyway, though it was situated in the middle of a fairly deprived old council estate which the Council tended to use for their more difficult tenants. A lot depends on the quality of the Head, which is one argument for not just handing over everything to the individual school.

Spend per child has doubled since 1997. I don't think it is possible to break the spending down in the way you suggest, partly because it is actually very difficult to define what you mean by 'administration and regulation' . For example, within a school there might well be (should be) a unit devoted to providing pastoral support for difficult kids (too bright/ not bright enough/ challenged mentally or physically). Those staff will be counted as 'non-teaching', and so will look like administrators. The same sort of difficulty comes up in health; the Conservatives regularly make capital out of the extra 'bureaucrats' in the NHS, but they include in that grouping medical technicins and other non-clinical staff who are anything but bureaucrats. According to the NHS;s own figures, the cost of managing the NHS has fallen from 5% to 3.6% of the total budget; in Canada the propoortion is 10%, and in the US it is 17%. There is a lot of misinformation about all this, in my opinion.

#71 colinefb: Thanks.

Not sure whether it's worth making a comment, as many messages seem to disappear.

There appears to be a complete lack of understanding that "learning and understanding" is the basis of education.

How many of our children actually understand how the English language works?

And, without that, how can they hope to really understand how French, German, Spanish, Arabic and various Asian languages work?

We've had a senior educational advisor to the government say recently that teaching "subjects" is a Victorian middle-class structure.

Pray tell, how do you teach Physics, Chemistry or Maths without focusing on the core of the subject? Trying to make it "relevant" is not necessarily a bad thing but real knowledge doesn't necessarily find it easy to fit the Periodic Table ior Quantum Theory into an everyday situation.

My old man (born 1912) left school early as he feared his comprehension of the structure of French could make him fail the much more demanding and broarder based School Certificate.

It is complete nonsense to believe that children have become more "able" over the last century.

The better (from whatever background)have always done well. It is only a government focus on "delivering" better results that makes it look that way. How is it possible for so many graduates to be now considered worthy of First or Upper Second degrees?

In the past, only the very best got a First.

Waving exam results as if they show improvements is a nonsense.

If not, why should Universities now have to to add an additional year for many students
who simply are not capable of dealing with the basic requirements of genuine degree level understanding?

This may not apply to "soft" subjects. But it is critical in the Hard topics of science. Guess where so many students are directed now...

Bugger the league tables. Get more children thinking in harder areas. That's the future.

The problem is that there is just too much "stuff" spewed out by people who have no real feeling for what is needed.

Don't give us more Balls. Give us more people who understand that it doesn't matter where, or in what circumstances, you were born, you can still be a brilliant contributor to our society. (Not sure that applies to Balls, who seems to have a totally theoretical approach to both economics and learning...)

It just seems really odd.

When Blair/Brown promised a referendum on the Constitutional Treaty, Blair withdrew that commitment once French and Dutch voters decided it was not what they wanted. So the treaty was - as they said - dead in the water, so we weren't allowed to confirm that fact. So we were not allowed to kill it stone dead.

The Lisbon Treaty has been legally killed. it can only be applied if all signatories agree.

Blair decided not add more grief to the Constiutution's failure. And he withdrew the option of a Referendum.

But Brown seems to feel it is "right" to force an unwelcome (barely diguised) Treaty down ourthroats.

Where can that be be seen as a government for the people, by the people?

getridofgordonnow - "For example, the "children's poverty" statistics improved for a bit, but only because Brown made everybody poorer."

Really?

Then why did data show that the gap between rich and poor was increasing consistently within Labour's time in Government?

Child poverty is increasing again, now, but not because Brown has made everyone poorer, but merely because he has a delusional scheme where the government takes more money off lower earners, centralises it, and then expects everyone to know how to claim it back.

It may be that the Conservatives need to bury the insidious spectre of Thatcherism before they can win enough votes in a general election. Snap polls over one-issue debates don't really indicate positive trends. Margaret Thatcher famously declared there was no such thing as society, but David Cameron puts his focus on social reform and promises to bring Thatcherite tactics to bear on his aim, should he win office. I'm not sure I quite understand his reasoning on this one.

I realise that in #33 I made a great error in claiming that there were 20000 more doctors since 1997. There are not. There are 40000 extra doctors. The lower figure relates to the extra consultants, I think.


#86 Dingdongalistic "Child poverty is increasing again, now, but not because Brown has made everyone poorer...."

No indeed not. It is because what you are referring to is relative poverty. The increase is because Brown has made everyone else richer (to use your formulation). And the gap between rich and poor is not because the poor have got poorer, but because the very richest have got richer even faster than the rest of us.

Sorry Nick, but the titles of your recent blogs seem to be skating around the periphery of the political world in this country, whilst the real significant daily events are hardly mentioned by you.

Who cares who had dinner with the worst prime minister on record and the worst US president ? Or Gordon Browns rhetoric tone about oil prices?

To paraphrase your original question, what I am asking is :

"Why is Nick Robinson talking about anything but the real political issues ?"

Ref 81. jimbrant

Thanks, some good points to mull over.

I accept the difficulty in working out how the money is spent, do you know the total spend per child? It would be interesting to compare with the private system. When I read all the initiatives listed in 75 you can see where a good chunk of money goes.

Just knowing that the spend per child has doubled is not enough, especially if much has not actually reached the child. when I say that I mean reached the school. I accept the need for pastoral care and even good admin in the school itself. I also accept that teachers need to be paid well. Though I have to say some Head Teachers salaries seem rather amazing. (if what I read is true)

Probably the best thing GB has ever done was to make the BoE independent. I cant help but wonder if the same principle should be applied to education. It should not be a political football with a new initiative every few months. I was pretty outraged that Ed Balls, essentially an advisor to the treasury, was made Education Secretary as soon as GB became PM. Just a job for a mate really.

My experience of the NHS, I have to say, has been very mixed, our family here in London use it and our experience has been very poor. My father died recently after a series of illnesses in Bristol where I have to say the care there was fantastic. A total contrast.

Sorry to read about your lad.

Ref 89 U11714077
No point talking to Nick he never reads these postings.

jonathan_cook @75

Thanks for the long list. I bet that most of those organisations have directors, administrators, media centres, new logos and fancy stationery, internal communications, external communications, focus group liaison officers, (perhaps even diversity officers), PR and marketing people (check the ads in The Gruniad)....

Basically if half the people employed in the public sector (excluding front-line staff such as nurses, teachers, refuse workers, hospital porters, etc - i.e. people whose work actually achieves something) disappeared tomorrow, I'm sure public services would not suffer at all - and probably even improve.

When Thatcher said there was no such thing as society, she was possibly right. from a modern perspective, but politically very wrong to say it.

What do we prefer? Comments that we don't like, or challenges?

How many people now really know their neighbours extending ten or more doors down from where they live?

What are their lives like? How could we help them? Could or would they help us?

Once upon a time we lived in small places - villages, towns, cities - where people knew each other, their families, their aspirations.

Now things have become different.


Thatcher pobabluy buggered things up because she didn't reacognise that very local things - like mining industries - created local societies that it could take years to replace.

But just take a look around you and wonder how many people you actually know.

And how solid that sence of society is as Brown accepts that Post Offfices should be clsosed down, local life should be curtailled, so that bloody useless equality rights people can be afforded.

Given the choice, would you prefer a local Post Office, or an equal rights counsellor?

#90 RussellHolmstoel: "do you know the total spend per child"

I think it is quoite a complex question. The Institute for Fiscal Studies (not a govt-friendly organisation) did a report for the Select Committee that went into great detail, and gave no very simple answer. Many people say it is currently about £5000 for each child excluding building costs. The government gives a figure of £6600, I think - with the aim of increasing to the level of public school funding in 2006, which was £8000. One problem is that a single figure covers all schools - my understanding is that the UK does very well (better than anyone else) for pre-primary, for example.

Head teachers are well paid, but having some experience of senior management jobs in both the public and private sectors I have to say that they have one of the most difficult roles I have seen. It is made harder by the fact that they are not embedded in the sort of structure that you would get in a business of equivalent size. So while I think that teachers are now quite reasonably rewarded, I would not object to Heads getting even more than they do now.

Thanks for you final comment.

Most Labour policies can I believe be directly traced to Mrs Thatcher and Sir Keith Joseph so why do we need to go their again with the Tories. We already have a Tory government called the Labour party and look where that has got us....

One thing that seems to be unrecognized is the effect on the structure of the population of the UK of reducing the employment stability of the middle class as Mrs T. did. The middle class are breading less than they did, but the working class have a support mechanism ('the social') and they have continued to breed. The consequence of this is to inevitably change the balance of society.

This gives rise to a relative increase in the number of children from the less stable and less well educated classes. This require that GCSE and A level grade inflation took place to present the UK as a well educated society when in truth our kids are on average dumber. All this is down to Mrs T and the subsequent Tory Prime Ministers including Mr. T. Blair.

I fear that Mr. D. Cameron is another Tory. I hope he is not.

The relative aspect of child poverty is measured relative to people without children on a similar salary scale from what I understand (although feel free to correct me if I'm wrong)

ie a person on salary x who has a child is compared to a person who doesn't have a child but who's earning the same salary.

The person with a child gets tax credits, whereas the other person doesn't.

The child poverty statistics would compare like-with-like, comparing the final post-tax/post-credit income of the person with a child to the person without a child.

So, by making everybody poorer on salary x, but giving a partial rebate of a tax credit to the person with a child, you therefore "improve" child poverty despite the fact that the parent actually has less money than they did before, because the person with the child now officially "earns" more than they did before when compared to the person without a child.

ie the person with the child earns less than they did before, but in relation to the person on the same salary without a child (who's lost more than the person with the child) they're better off than they were before.

The government assumes that everybody who's entitled to tax credit claims them when they calculate who's rich and who's poor, so when they work out these statistics I don't think they measure the real incomes, just the "if you grabbed all credits you'd have this" assumed income.

I might be wrong, but from what I've read/heard I think that's how they do it.

Hopefully a statistician who's in the know about how Brown works out the poverty stats can chip in here to confirm/deny/explain this aspect.

I sincerely hope I'm wrong and that Brown isn't making everybody poorer just to improve his official poverty statistics, but it wouldn't surprise me if that's the case.

Sorry, Nick, not that this is related, but did you know you have an appreciation society on Facebook?

why should they reveal what they will do in great detail?

who knows what the economy will be like in 6 months/2 years time when an election is called!

cameron doesnt have access to the country's books until weeks before an election... would you plan your household expenditure on guess work?

then of course, there's the obvious reason that youve missed nick, they might want to keep some of their ideas to themselves, as brown has already shown by blatantly stealing ideas from other parties and telling us they are his own, but always managing to implement parts of these ideas, whilst raising tax revenue from the public.

cameron is quite right not to talk about it in detail, as he doesnt have the full accounts and financial position before him.

why do you think the labour spin machine is trying to force cameron's hand to reveal some financial policy?
could it be that the labour leadership have run out of money and ideas?

The reason he is not harping on about the economy is that globalisation (as predicted) is the main driver of all things economic. Multi-Nationals are now calling the tune. So if the Tories were to get into power they will have as little control over events as the last lot. That is why they can't make any promises about the economy because they will not be in charge of the economy. Of course they have always been right to oppose the minimum wage as ( if you are going to curry favour with them) the multi-nationals love cheap exploited labour. There is one small difference ,though, they could make to goverment expenditure and that is to curb the criminality involved in MP's expense claims. (make that a large difference considering how many are at it)
I don,t know if it's true (it's probably just a malicious rumour) but I have heard that an MP may have been paying some of their expense allowance to a relative who has been dead for twenty years. Anyway I've got go now. I have to go and let mother in from the garden. I've had her out there all day rotovating and planting spuds (I'm going self sufficient). I only pay her a fiver per day. She's done a grand job considering she's turned ninety one. Ha! and Peter Hains thinks he's getting value for money out of his eighty year old mum.

Oh! Nearly forgot to mention (that Thoughtful couple) the Wintertons putting that second London home into a trust fund for their dear children to benefit from. How thoughtful. Maybe one day one of them can get elected as a Tory MP and claim the second home allowance on it as well and maybe when their kids grow up and maybe. You get the picture.