Aggregated UK political opinion content, stakeholder research and policy consultations.
Andrew Gwynne\'s blog

Free markets + schools = disaster

July 12th, 2010 by Andrew Gwynne

‘There is no money’ – this is the message blasted across the Chamber by Ministers every time an Opposition MP (and increasingly, some Coalition backbenchers) condemn a decision to cut a project in their constituency. And to some extent, this is true. The public finances could not grow indefinitely and, given the banking crisis and the global recession, huge deficits followed. Had Labour won the 2010 General Election, there would still have been cuts – deep cuts – though not as severe or immediate as the Coalition’s plans.

However, for Building Schools for the Future, this wasn’t the case. Gove tried to use the mantra that the money wasn’t there, only to be shot down by his own Permanent Secretary who confirmed that Ed Balls was correct to say that full Treasury approval had been given to BSF. The money was there.

And if the money was there, it must still be there.  Now call me a cynic but I’ve not yet seen Gove scurrying up Downing Street with his bags of treasure wishing to please his master in Number Ten. So has this all been a cunning ploy to generate a slush fund of capital money for Gove’s ‘Free Schools’ plan? I suspect it might be.

You see, apart from a small number of middle-class mavericks who may be quite happy to have their Tarquin (apologies if any readers are called Traquin) educated above a shop or in an industrial unit rather than mixing with ordinary kids in the Comp down the road, most parents are not going to buy into that.  They want their children taught with the best facilities too, and for ‘Free Schools’ to work, they need to be in shiny new buildings.

The real concern is that this whole policy will be at the expense of the majority of children. It cannot be cost effective to create extra capacity in the schooling system when there is just no need for it. And nor can Local Authorities effectively plan for the future when, if parents don’t like a sound strategic decision, they can just declare UDI!

I have very real doubts that this free market approach to schooling will work. I also have very real concerns that in these financially tight years ahead, it will waste public funds on a scale rarely seen; and in the process, will have denied our children of that best start in life that Building Schools for the Future promised so many.

Tags [ , , ]

Categories [ UK Politics, education ]

Comments [ 3 ]

Leave your comment

Lest we forget

July 6th, 2010 by Andrew Gwynne

Please stick with me. I know the first golden rule of blogging is to keep making regular posts and – where appropriate – to reply to readers’ comments. It is something I particularly enjoyed doing back in February and March when I was recovering from illness at home (and to be fair, had lots of time on my hands).

Sadly, in the past few weeks, I just haven’t had anything like the amount of time to sit down and gather up my thoughts – now I’ve started to receive emails, tugging at my heart strings to keep on blogging!

Firstly, I haven’t gone away.  Sadly (as a result of the illness earlier in the year) I am having to have lots of medical tests, which have put me out of action a bit. I’ve also been incredibly busy in the Commons, having secured a couple of debates – which take up spare time in preparation.

Anyway, I wanted to reassure my loyal band of followers that I haven’t forgotten about you. And I will be back to full operation soon! Promise!

I was going to post a blog on cuts, and particularly on the Bulding Schools for the Future programme, which was cruelly axed by the Conservative-LibDem Coalition Government yesterday. However, that and the AV referendum (another subject I will return to shortly) seem to pale into insignificance…

Earlier today I had the immense honour of attending the funeral of Lance Corporal Andrew Breeze at Christ Church, Denton.  It was one of the most moving church services I have ever attended.  And the people of Denton really did Andrew’s memory proud, lining the main street to the church and clapping him as he was carried from the hearse into the church.

Of course, any death in the service of one’s country is a tragedy.  These are young men – a similar age to me, in the case of Lance Corporal Breeze – who should have a full life before them. To have that life cut short is a cruel blow.

But it also serves as a reminder to politicians that the decision to commit our troops to combat is something that should never be taken lightly.  I don’t want to revisit the rights and wrongs of recent conflicts, particularly in Iraq and Afghanistan, but we do need to remember these painful consequences of decisions taken by politicians.  Yes, our armed services are professionals – I would say the best – and will go on missions throughout the globe as and when they are told to. Some will pay the heaviest price though.

On a sombre note, I sign off with the words used in Andrew Breeze’s funeral today: Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.

Tags [ , , ]

Categories [ International ]

Comments [ 2 ]

Leave your comment

Déjà vu, both Home and Away

June 24th, 2010 by Andrew Gwynne

It’s certainly been an interesting week in politics.

Of course the ‘highlight’ of the week in Parliament – apart from my Westminster Hall debate on policing cuts in Greater Manchester, that is – has been the new Coalition government’s emergency budget.

Much has already been written about the budget, and as the measures begin to bite, no doubt much more will be written; but I can’t help but feel a real sense of déjà vu. Geoffrey Howe’s ‘tough’ budget of 1981 saw attacks on housing benefit, child benefit and of course a near doubling of VAT to 15%.  That budget, of course, precipitated a deep recession from which parts of the country, especially those over-dependent on traditional industries – including my own Denton and Reddish constituency – have struggled to recover from.

Today, almost 30 years on, there are similar fears that the measures in the Coalition’s emergency budget could stall the fragile recovery and see us spiral down into a double-dip recession. It’s pointless re-running the arguments put at the election (when of course, Nick agreed with Gordon!). The Coalition have changed Britain’s economic policy considerably. Is it a gamble that will pay off for them? Only time will tell, but this country, and the public sector in particular, is certainly in for a bumpy ride in the years ahead.

Congratulations today to the Hon. Julia Gillard MP, who in a bloodless coup (almost!) has succeeded Kevin Rudd as Labor Prime Minister of the Commonwealth of Australia.

Very sensibly – and no doubt learning some key lessons from what happened to its British sister party – Gillard has publicly acknowledged on TV that she is an ‘unelected’ Prime Minister and that she will set in motion arrangements for an early general election so that Australians can endorse (or sack) her.

So it’s going to be worth paying a wee bit more attention to politics in the southern hemisphere for a while.  Things are moving quickly down under; Rudd of course was the most popular leader and PM ever just a few months ago. But then things went horrendously wrong for him over a number of policy issues, not least his mining tax proposals.  Can Gillard claw back enough support for the ALP in the next few weeks? We’ll see.

Australian politics is a tough game. One thing is for sure, the next election there is going to be well worth any political junkie taking the time to watch!!

A final interesting thought – with Gillard’s appointment, Australia has scored an all-women hat-trick: A female Prime Minister; a female Governor-General and, of course not wishing to stir up the Monarchy debate, a female Head of State!

Tags [ , , , , , , ]

Categories [ General musings, International, UK Politics ]

Comments [ 3 ]

Leave your comment

There may be trouble ahead…

June 7th, 2010 by Andrew Gwynne

Ok so now we have another example of the push-me-pull-you government.

On the one hand, yesterday, that nice Mr Clegg, full of youthful charm, told us all that there would be no return to savage Thatcherite cuts. Today of course it is the for the Coalition’s bad cop (that’s the equally youthful Mr Cameron!) to break the news that times are going to be hard and the cuts will run deep.

Now Cameron comes to this cutting business with much better credentials. After all, it was the Conservatives’ position not just at the General Election, but throughout most of the recession not to intervene in the way the Labour Government did.

I don’t particularly want this to be a piece on the economic rights and wrongs of fiscal stimuli; the point I am making is that the Conservatives’ had a clear position on the deficit for some time – I did not agree with it – that the economy needed significant cuts in public spending to kickstart private investment.

Of course the Liberal Democrats agreed with Labour throughout the period running up to and including the General Election, that to cut £6bn immediately would be a  complete disaster for the economy and could tip us back into recession.  Again a very laudable and clear position.

So here we now are, 7th June 2010. Almost a whole month has gone by for the new government and there’s the emergency budget on the horizon too; and despite Nick’s nice smile the blunt fact is they’ve completely signed up to the ‘Tory Cuts’ all of their pre-election Focus newsletters warned the electorate about.

The Lib Dem record player has certainly changed its tune from ‘More, more, more‘. Now it’s more like ‘There may be trouble ahead‘.

In real terms what does this mean? Well in my own patch, Greater Manchester Police have been ordered by the new Treasury to find an extra £7 million savings this year alone. That will have a disastrous impact on policing in one of Britain’s largest conurbations.

How far things have come since Stockport Council passed a motion condemning (I kid you not) the Labour Government and the borough’s Labour MPs for the 4% increase in police grant settlement, and claiming this would impact on frontline policing.  Of course, this was back in March 2010.  It is strange that we’ve not heard a peep out of them since the latest government announcement was made!

And therein lies the problem for the LibDems. They are comfortable with opposition; it’s what they know best. It is easy politics and the narrative is clear: Nasty Labour/Tory [delete as appropriate]… [insert local campaign]. Now in government those tough choices are theirs to be made. Over the coming weeks and months, some of their previous statements may well just come back to haunt them.

Tags [ , , , ]

Categories [ UK Politics ]

Comments [ 4 ]

Leave your comment

Our push-me-pull-you Government

June 1st, 2010 by Andrew Gwynne

If a week is a long time in politics, then a full five year parliament is an eternity.

In the immediate aftermath of the 2010 General Election, commentators speculated that the Conservative-Liberal Democrat Coalition government wouldn’t last; that this marriage of convenience would crumble under the pressure of tough decisions in office.

Now I never subscribed to that scenario, although it is still very possible. The Coalition is undoubtedly fragile and there are two competing agendas with people in both parties (let alone the Labour opposition) who want the whole project to collapse in failure. It reminds me of Dr Doolitle’s push-me-pull-you.

For the Lib Dems, the challenge is to remain a distinctive and relevant political entity. The risk is they become seen as one with the Conservatives, and particularly so with every unpopular decision made. Is it possible, over a five year term, to maintain a degree of independence whilst equally maintaining effective collective cabinet government?

The Lib Dems like to portray themselves as the ‘nice guys’ in British politics. When they have to start making very unpopular decisions in government, how will they cope? Presumably this is where Simon Hughes’s ludicrous suggestion at still having Lib Dem ‘shadows’ despite being in government (as well as to snaffle some opposition Short money) comes from.

But the fragility of the Coaltion should be a worry for Labour too, because it breeds complacency. There were quite senior people back in the early 1990s, following the party’s fourth consecutive defeat at the polls, who wanted to halt the whole process of ‘modernisation’. Their theory was that Labour needed just one more heave to propel it to power, irrespective of the policy platform which had been resoundly rejected by the electorate.

Thankfully, Tony Blair accelerated the process of modernisation, setting the foundation for Labour to govern for thirteen years. As then, Labour should not now put off making the changes it needs to make to win back the support it lost in 2010. To sit back and hope for the Coalition to implode would be disastrous for Labour. The party needs not just to be a credible opposition to the Coalition, but a real alternative government to it.

Of course, there is just a possibility, too, that in five years time the Coalition- having held it together and directed Britain through the economic morass – will have re-found political popularity. If that happens then people may start to believe that a more consensual style of politics, transcending the traditional left-right splits, has worked and that Britain, perhaps with a new electoral system, will have genuinely entered into a new era.

We shall see!

Tags [ , , , , , , ]

Categories [ General musings, UK Politics ]

Comments [ 4 ]

Leave your comment

How well is our Welfare State?

May 27th, 2010 by Andrew Gwynne

Today, the new Work and Pensions Secretary (it’s Betsy Duncan-Smith’s husband, whatever he’s called) has announced a radical overhaul of the welfare system. Actually, looking beyond the headlines, it’s pretty much a continuation of the work the Labour government had set in motion in recent years.

The modern welfare state was designed in the 1940s to suit the needs of a post-war society.  It is a testament to those social pioneers that the system has survived largely intact for six decades.  However, where I agree with Iain Duncan-Smith (and with his predecessors James Purnell and Yvette Cooper (that’s Mrs Balls to IDS)) is that the system is now not fit for purpose.

We now live in a society completely changed from 1940s Britain.  Take pensions for example. Back then, most adult males didn’t survive many years past retirement. Added to that, the balance between the working age population and the retired population meant the system was designed to be both affordable and sustainable for the long-term.

Now I am proud that in the last six decades the life chances of the population have improved substantially for both men and women.  It is a good thing that more people are living longer.  But it now puts enormous strain on the welfare state (not just the benefits side, but the NHS and social care too) and funding is becoming an issue.  Added to that, we now have a society where retired people outnumber the working age population.  It is clear that the current system, which has served us so well, cannot be funded indefinitely without major changes to the demographics of the UK.

Pensions is an obvious hot potato for the incoming government, but it isn’t the only issue.  We have to move on from the notion that welfare benefits are ‘mine as of right’.  It is so frustrating for me as an MP to see genuinely needy people at my advice surgery who can get nothing out of the system, and then others who seemingly manage to milk the same system, without having put anything in (nor intending to in the future).  So we do need to rebalance the benefits system so that it is more about giving people a ‘hand up’ when they need it, rather than just a ‘hand out’.

It is that culture that has to change and, in my opinion, it can only be done by completely re-drawing the system to fit the modern age.  For too long in the past we’ve tinkered here and there, but not really addressed the real flaws in the system.  I hope when the dust settles on the new government, we in Parliament can have a good and proper debate on the needs of the modern welfare state; to give extra help to those who genuinely need it, when they need it, and to continue to help the elderly, weak and most vulnerable in society.

Tags [ , , ]

Categories [ General musings, UK Politics, Welfare Reform ]

Comments [ 2 ]

Leave your comment

Pomp and Policy

May 25th, 2010 by Andrew Gwynne

Today is the State Opening of Parliament.  I am going to admit that it is a day I always enjoy.

Ok I accept, this year’s isn’t the Queen’s Speech that I would have wished for (it’s not Her Majesty’s fault, she didn’t vote for this lot either), but in my opinion, a bit of pomp and ceremony is what we do best, and it does no harm at all once a year.

To some, I imagine the spectacle of the Monarch travelling from Buckingham Palace to Westminster in the State Coach, with the Crown Jewels in tow, is irrelevant or even a complete anathema.  But I still think this ceremony serves a real purpose in the 21st century.

Firstly, whether we like it or not, it reminds us all that we do live in a Monarchy, and Queen Elizabeth II is our Sovereign.  The State Opening is also the one time that all three branches of government come together under one roof.

It further reminds us that it is a Constitutional Monarchy – in that the Queen comes to Parliament to summon the new House of Commons to come to the House of Lords to listen to her read a speech written by her Prime Minister, a member of the elected House of Commons.

It also reminds us, through the slamming of the Commons’ door in Black Rod’s face, of the battles scattered throughout history for power to be relinquished from the Monarch and then eventually, the Lords too, and given to the elected House of Commons.

The pomp and ceremony is actually relatively new; introduced by Edward VII in the early 20th century because his mother, Queen Victoria, couldn’t really be much fussed with the event.

Of course, the real purpose of the State Opening of Parliament is to set out the new Coalition Government’s business for the next year; much of it we already know through the Coalition’s programme for government, which was published last week, or via the ‘leaks’ to Sunday papers.

After the pantomime finishes today, then the real business of Government, and for me, Opposition, really begins.

Tags [ , , , , , , , , ]

Categories [ General musings, UK Politics ]

Comments [ 4 ]

Leave your comment

Back to the future. What now for Labour?

May 14th, 2010 by Andrew Gwynne

I’m back (both blogging, and as an MP!)

To the loyal band of followers of this blog, my profound apologies for not posting anything for quite some time!  Secondly, congratulations to Rene Kinzett, a Tory Twitter mate (between you and me I have quite a few of those too!) for agreeing to blog with Think Politics too.

Well what can I say? The polls were right and we now have a hung parliament!  The electorate has spoken, and nobody has won the 2010 General Election. And after the extensive negotiations, the dust has settled and Britain has a new Conservative/LibDem coalition government.

I profoundly disagree with much of Mr Cameron and (though slightly less so) Mr Clegg’s platform.  But those of us in the Labour camp must accept that, although the Conservatives failed to win the election, we also lost the contest.

Indeed, it is easy to disparage the coalition government – and there will undoubtedly be difficulties for both the coalition partners along the way – but part of Labour’s problem this time round was that our own coalition, which saw us through to victory in 1997, 2001 and, to a smaller extent, 2005, essentially broke up.

The blunt truth is we need to win that support back.  We need to convince not just our core vote (which proved to be extremely resilient last week), but a swathe of people who aren’t instinctively traditional Labour voters.  The task is immense in parts of the country.  Anyone looking at a new electoral map will see just how few Labour MPs there now are in the South East and South West regions of England.

But all is not lost.  Certainly we will have a new leader in place by summer. Personally, I hope the contest won’t be a coronation – we’ve done that.  I also hope it won’t be acrimonious (we’ve done that too!).  Let’s use the situation to move beyond the old Blairite and Brownite divisions.  Whoever wins needs the support of the entire party behind them in the challenges ahead. We won’t win at the next election by perpetuating the politics or, indeed, the ‘new’ Labour divisions of 1994-2010.

I genuinely hope Labour will take the opportunity, especially while the new government is bedding in, to talk about policy.  Let’s accept that Labour did brilliant things between 1997 and 2010; I still firmly believe we changed Britain for the better. But let’s also acknowledge the very real mistakes we made (such as Iraq, Lisbon and 10p tax to name three) and that, for some voters, we were just not radical enough – particularly in the days when we had a massive parliamentary majority, and the ability to push through transformational legislation.

If done properly, the next few months should allow for a process of party renewal; for fresh ideas, for policy debates and for the party to successfully begin to challenge the new Tory/LibDem agenda.

Tags [ , , , , , ]

Categories [ General Election 2010, General musings, UK Politics ]

Comments [ 11 ]

Leave your comment

Is it 1983? Fire up the Quattro!

April 17th, 2010 by Andrew Gwynne

Last night I watched Ashes to Ashes on BBC1. For those who didn’t get to see it, it is set in 1983, and the storyline last night was linked to the General Election of that year.

The relevance to this post was a piece of footage of the election, showing Roy Jenkins, one of the gang of four who left Labour in 1981 to form the Social Democratic Party; The BBC news commentator said “Mr Jenkins is buoyed up by recent polls placing the Alliance ahead of Labour”… ominous stuff following the first-ever televised leaders’ debate this year.

As I type, the dust has barely settled on the YouGov/Sun poll last night showing a massive bounce for the Lib Dems, just pushing Labour into third place. Now there are reports of two other polls showing a similar trend (though ICM still has Labour in second place).

Of course none of us really knows how the debate will affect the dynamics of the remainder of the campaign. Can the Lib Dems solidify their position, or have they peaked too early? Who knows? And frankly it is pointless speculating. What we have seen is our politics (and this election) getting interesting. When I wrote my blog piece on the February polls, and the speculation of a hung parliament, it was just that – speculation. Now it is looking more and more likely as an outcome.

Even before the debates, the Tory leads in most polls were not quite enough to deliver them a majority in the new House of Commons on a uniform swing (though with local factors and a concentrated effort in the marginals and a non-uniform swing in key seats it was actually possible). Now, with each of the main parties appearing to be very close to each other with around a third of the votes each, a hung parliament is looking very likely indeed.

Back in 1983, and because of our electoral system, the surge in support for the SDP/Liberal Alliance didn’t translate into seats. It did however help to deliver a massive Conservative majority by depriving Labour of seats it needed to hold (and others it needed to win back which it had lost in 1979), and it pretty much kept them out of power until the Blair landslide of 1997.

If the current poll trends are to be believed (and they may settle back down into the pre-debate positions in a few days), and because of the same electoral system, Labour on around 30% would win just short of 300 seats and would be the largest party in the House of Commons. The Tories and the Lib Dems also on around 30% would win something like 200 and 100 seats respectively.

Unlike in 1983, the present Lib Dem surge is actually a disaster for the Tories. Undoubtedly, if replicated in the election, the current polls would spell the end of any hope of a Conservative majority. The Cameron project will have spectacularly failed. The scale of the Tory slump is really clear when yesterday’s YouGov/Sun poll is compared with the YouGov/Sun poll from just TWO days earlier:

14th April Con: 41%, Lab 32%, LD 18%

16th April Con: 33%, Lab 28%, LD 30%

17th April Con: 33%, Lab 30%, LD 29% (Update at 9pm)

Nothing yet is written in stone. There’s still two debates and three weeks left to go. The Alliance surge of 1983 didn’t in the end ‘break the mould’ of British politics. Will 2010 be different?

Tags [ , , , , , , , ]

Categories [ General Election 2010, Opinion Polls, UK Politics ]

Comments [ 9 ]

Leave your comment

How is it for you? GE2010

April 16th, 2010 by Andrew Gwynne

Please understand that I’ve been a bit busy and so I haven’t sadly been able to blog as much as I would have liked, what with the general election (and local elections in Stockport and Tameside (have to keep my councillors sweet!)). I know the first rule of blogging is keep things up to date, so I apologise.

Even in a constituency like Denton and Reddish, a parliamentary candidate’s diary very quickly fills up. I’ve had the official campaign launch; opened a £6m new primary school in Audenshaw; opened a new play area at a local SureStart centre in Haughton Green (both done before I officially ceased to be an MP) and today I’ve had a school visit and a hustings both in South Reddish. Tomorrow, there’s the delight of our street stall at Houldsworth Square in Reddish, too!

Anyway, for any candidate, elections are a very hectic time. We are completely obsessed by polls and newspaper headlines. We stress about nomination papers, getting leaflets from the printers, batching them up and getting them delivered. We are absolutely fixated on canvass returns and voter ID; but of course, the reality is that while the rest of the population may have a passing interest in the election, most people are just getting on with their daily lives.

So how is the election for you so far? Two weeks in and lots of leaflets and direct mail delivered, media coverage galore, and the first-ever televised leaders’ debate… has the election campaign in 2010 set you alight yet?

PS, only three weeks to go!

Tags [ , , , , , , ]

Categories [ General Election 2010, General musings, UK Politics ]

Comments [ 2 ]

Leave your comment

« Older Entries