Katharine Birbalsingh

Disappointed to read that Katharine Birbalsingh has lost her teaching post for addressing the Conservative conference on the failings of our educational system. I wish her well and know she will find a better post in time.

Her Executive Headteacher Irene Bishop however, should be suspended immediately whilst her role in this sorry saga is investigated. My guess - and it is no more - is that her role has been entirely politically motivated. If this were so, Education Secretary Michael Gove, should remove her and not allow her near another child again.

That our educational system is broken and in need of fundamental repair can no longer be in doubt. Passing the new educational bill within weeks of taking government speaks volumes. Education is about opportunity. Without fear or favour. Not holding children back or consigning them to a life without hope. Dinosaurs like Irene Bishop have no place in the future education of our children.

Coalition, compromise & wish-lists

Interesting discussion on the Guardian's Politics Weekly podcast today - given that coalition government is likely to become more common under AV and other more proportional systems, should party manifesto's be merely wish-lists? To be used only to select policies that will withstand the compromises inherent in coalition politics?

PMQ's

So looking forward to Ed Miliband's first PMQ's this afternoon - one of the great theatrical rituals in politics. And one that terrified Tony Blair, despite consistently being one of its greatest performers.

David Blackburn writes an excellent preview in Spectator blogs, but I feel Miliband will need to strike a much more original line to stand out and appear with any gravitas.

Gender agenda

Louise Bagshawe - MP for Corby - arguing the coalition's case for gender balance in cuts on radio 4 this morning shows how ridiculous this agenda has become. Siting the equality act introduced in the dying days of the last Labour government, her opponent asks what impact assessments were undertaken to see how the emergency budget would affect women. As if any such assessment were carried out by the Machiavellian Gordon Brown when he abolished the 10p tax band so as to wrong-foot the opposition.

Like the act requiring the government to halve the budget deficit over its lifetime - something Mr Balls now appears to have forgotten - the equality act is yet another of Labour's amusing tactical agenda's designed to impede government. Whatever happened to Nick Clegg's great reform bill?

Shadow boxing

Ed Miliband was scared of his shadow - or at least the notion of making either Ed Balls or Yvette Cooper his Shadow Chancellor. So the timid new Labour leader fluffed his first big call and played safe with Alan Johnson.

Writes Kevin Maguire in today's Mirror.

A few more tax iniquities

I just heard the end of Any Questions on radio 4 and one caller struck me as interesting.

She pointed out that under the normal  tax system a single earner on £60,000 would have a large proportion of their income taxed at the higher rate, 40% tax band. Whilst two earners both on £30,000 (and therefore jointly earning £60,000) would both be taxed at the standard 20% rate of tax.

Havn't heard any Mumsnet users complaining about that...

Brooks on Miliband

I hadn't noticed quite how close Wallace was to Ed Miliband - despite his conference speech - until I saw this Brooks cartoon today. Brilliant.

The wisdom of Brittan

"There is indeed not all that much urgency to cut the deficit, when economic recovery is far from assured and output is well below optimal capacity rates. But government expenditure is probably too bloated and needs to be curbed on its own merits or rather demerits. The logic of this position is that expenditure curbs should be offset by tax cuts."

Samuel Brittan writing in todays FT.

The universalism of welfare

Now Liberal Conspiracy are piling in on the child benefit cuts:

Thus the Tories get the best of both worlds: they get to look tough but fair, while actually doing something that profoundly undermines fairness and the entire Beveridge/Attlee agenda. Truly a masterstroke.

and...

Lefties/greenies etc need to stop gloating on about how the Tories are shooting themselves in the foot and about those poor stay-at-home Mums, and start talking simply about defending the principle of welfare state universalism.

So the principle of universalism in benefits 'needs to be defended', and stopping such benefits for the wealthiest of our society 'profoundly undermines fairness'.

So where's the morality in that?

Osborne plays Brown

Interesting piece from James Forsyth in this weeks Spectator on the loss in Child Benefit for higher rate tax payers - accessed via ipad, so no link.

Titled 'If Cameron is heir to Blair, Osborne is heir to Brown' it looks at the tactical nature of George Osborne suggesting that the Child Benefit move was a tactical attempt to wrong-foot Labour - straight out of the Gordon Brown political guide.

If they accept that people earning over £44,000 should shoulder more responsibility, they are accepting an end to universal benefits and the enormous client base built up over 13 years of Labour government. If they object and defend the 15%  most wealthy, they become morally indefensible.

Teaching Unions Kill Innovation

"the (teaching) unions constitute an inflexible brake which is "killing" the innovation necessary to transform children's lives, and they "cover up" for failing teachers" says Geoffrey Canada in a remarkable speech to the Conservative conference in Birmingham yesterday.

Read the details from Allegra Stratton in today's Guardian.

The Roaring Silence

Notice the roaring silence from the left over the withdrawal of child benefit for higher rate tax payers. And how many tears does David Davis think we should shed for people earning over £44,000 losing their child benefit? Then we have Laura Kuenssberg of the BBC suggesting it's the Conservatives equivalent of the 10p tax disaster.

Oh no it isn't. Why exactly is taking an average of £1770 (assuming 2.2 children) from people earning over £44,000 (that's 4%) the same as doubling - yes doubling - the tax take (that would be 100%) from the poorest people in our society earning less than £15,000 per year?

I do not know if the amount raised by this measure is essential to pay down the deficit left by Labour. But I do know that people earning over £44,000 are exactly the ones that need to be paying it. Not the poor.

IDS at #cpc10

Iain Duncan Smith addressed the Conservative conference this afternoon on welfare reform. The Comprehensive Spending Review is still some weeks away, so this was a largely perfunctory speech without much detail. Personally I'm rather glad since in previous years the nature of his work with the Centre for Social Justice has regularly reduced me to tears.

His work though, is just one of the pillars of major reform being undertaken by this extraordinarily radical government - free schools, GP commissioning, AV, fully elected house of lords, police commissioners - the list goes on. But IDS's reforms of the welfare system are at the centre of what Conservatives understand as addressing the

causes of poverty - welfare dependency, educational failure, indebtedness, addiction and family breakdown. This coalition is undertaking the biggest reform of the welfare system for a generation. And at its heart is the belief that work must always pay better than welfare. If you want the slogan, 'changing lives through work'.

Describing this as 'our contract to the unemployed', IDS described remaining out of work as no longer an option, whilst committing the government to full provision of all necessary support to the most vulnerable who are unable to work - 'our contract with the disabled'. 'I will always fight for fairness' he declared, but fairness is a two way process. This he declared as 'our contract with the British taxpayer'.

He also suggested that yesterday's announcement on child benefit being withdrawn for those earning more than £44,000 per year was just one of the necessary measures to ensure that the deficit is reduced, and that if we fail to reduce that deficit, it is the poorest in our society that will suffer the most, '...leaving so many people trapped beyond hope, beyond aspiration'.

He ended with the words that on the 6th May, 'the British people honoured us. Now we must honour them.'

Child Benefit

Pretty pedestrian speech from George Osborne this morning finishing with that terrible slogan 'Together in the National Interest'. Whoever thought that up?

But one small issue around child benefit that I heard raised at Liberal Conspiracy suggesting that its an attack on women can be put to bed.
Listening to George Osborne on the Today program, he explained that child benefit would be claimed back through the tax system from anyone earning over £44,000pa. Not from their partner.

Red Ed

Great piece in todays Sun newspaper on the Red Ed name going global:

"Ed Miliband was "Red Ed" round the globe yesterday as the world's media adopted The Sun's nickname for him.   But by last night it had gone global as TV presenters and journalists translated the phrase into their own language and used it to describe Red Ed's position in post-New Labour British politics. In France he was Ed Le Rouge, Der Rote Ed in Germany and Ed El Rojo in Spain. Italy's famous La Repubblica newspaper reported on the Labour conference under the headline: "Ed Il Rosso." Diario de Noticias in Portugal told how the Labour leader is "Ed vermelho". In Greece respected broadsheet Ta Nea had picked up the Kokkivou Evt - Red Ed - tag too. Even in Serbia, Blic newspaper reported "Crveni Ed" had disowned mentor Gordon Brown"

Priceless.

Nick Boles on immigration

Have you noticed how John Redwood always seems to post his blog hours before any reasonable person gets out of bed? Well this mornings post (6.52am since you ask) makes interesting reading.

It reviews 'Which way up' by Nick Boles producing some interesting proposals on the limits of social policy towards immigrants, including

1. A cap on non-EU immigrants of between 20,000 & 50,000 per year.
2. A surety deposit from all non-EU immigrants repaid once taxes have been paid for a number of years or forfeited for any legal offences or if no taxes have been paid.
3. For EU migrants the UK should enforce the Directive which only requires a member state to allow free movement for the purpose of residence supported by work income or independent means. "Whenever a migrant from within the EU applies to a central or local government authority for benefits or housing or part of the NHS for non-emergency healthcare, that authority should be required to check whether the individual in question has a job or sufficient funds to support themselves in the UK. If they don't, they should be told to leave the country..."
4. No-one should be eligible for social housing until they have lived here for five years.

Interesting stuff - especially after this weeks speech from Ed Miliband on how Labour got immigration so wrong.

The indulgence of David Miliband

With the massed ranks of the British media completely taken in, David Miliband quits the Labour front bench to give his brother a 'clean field' for the future. The truth is that you will never again see a more egotistical, self-centred 72 hours in British politics.

Having lost a democratic ballot for leader of the party on Saturday, David Miliband totally overshadow's his brothers inauguration and first speech to the party with his apparent indecision over whether to stand for Labour's shadow cabinet.

He then claims that this decision is putting his party first. It is quite unbelievable that experienced hacks like Nick Robinson and Adam Boulton are taken in by this blatant self-indulgence.

The wisdom of crowds

Three comments picked from Peter Oborne's piece 'Behind the Coalition's agreeable chatter, the real battle is beginning':

1. Balls' economic 'ability' is being hyped in precisely the same way Brown's was; he may well have a degree of erudition, but he is wrong about the road to recovery. He was entirely wrong about education and the Secret Family Courts, and was a negligent washout as Children's Minister. And he is almost universally loathed within the Labour ranks. (Hence the likelihood that he will come last in the leadership contest). John Ward.
2. "Balls insists that the Coalition has got the timing and nature of its cuts hopelessly wrong. He supports this thesis with an impressive array of economic reasoning and historical examples" says Peter Oborne.
   
   Nonsense. Balls's "historical examples" (1981 and 1931) show either a deep ignorance of economic history or a willful attempt to mislead. The statements he makes about both of these eras are factually untrue (for example, he claims that the Tories raised interest rates in 1981 and caused a recession - in fact, they cut interest rates and the economy grew from mid-1981). Balls's reasoning is only impressive if you forget to check out his 'facts'. HJ777 
3. Labour are desperate for a voice and your plan (Mr Oborne) is spot on. Get Ed Balls on the front bench attacking Cameron and Osbourne knowing full well he is up to his neck in s*** with the last lot. Perfect ammunition for Cameron. Nothing he says will have any credibility. This will be funny to watch. Panlid

Peter Oborne on coalition

Excellent piece from Peter Oborne in tomorrows Telegraph including the thoughts:

• ...the Coalition has pulled off a remarkable feat. It is simultaneously playing the role of Government and Opposition.
• ...the only thing that matters is the economic contest between Ed Balls and George Osborne. Only one of them can be proved right – and it will be winner take all.

Well worth a read.

Comrade Cable

So much adverse press for Vince Cable this morning its difficult to know where to start. Take your pick from Allister Heath, Steve Richards, or Fraser Nelson. All contemptuous of a few pointed words. Yes Mr Cable was playing to his Liberal Democrat conference audience. No the coalition is not about to become a class-based Marxist regime like Chavez's Venezuela.

Just calm down you commentators. I may not agree with Vince Cable over a Graduate tax or a Mansion tax or a latter-day Glass-Steagall Act. Indeed there may not be too much else to agree with. But he's absolutely right when he says the banks caused - and continue to cause through their lending policies - untold misery to our economy.

Thank you Mr Cable for much needed honesty amongst the braying of bankers - or at least their apologists - who are in denial of the consequences of the bankers incompetence.

Two years after the disaster became apparent, British banks continue to be supported both directly and indirectly by taxpayers money whilst they continue to pay obscene bonuses to themselves. Why? because they are reaping vast profits from lending out money at high interest rates that has been borrowed at near-zero interest rates from the British taxpayer via the money markets. You don't really need a Cambridge Mathematics Tripos to work that one out.

Did I hear Mr Cable use the word 'spiv'? Did he mean a slickly-dressed petty-criminal, dealing in black market goods of questionable authenticity? I don't think we need to sink to the level of rhyming slang for bankers here - the term 'spiv' seems pretty appropriate to me.

Meanwhile, the political class decide which welfare payments are to be cut, which school re-building project is to be scrapped and a whole host of other public spending decisions to pay for the privilege of bailing out the banking sector.

Mr Cable hasn't quite got there yet. Mervyn King is still the closest that I have seen to suggesting that banks need to actually take responsibility for their mistakes. Step one is to announce that from here out any UK bank which fails will be put into
receivership by the Bank of England. Yes that does mean that shareholders & bondholders will be wiped out - after all, they understood the risk that any investor takes. But it does NOT mean depositors like you and me - or businesses holding money on deposit - will be wiped out.

The assets of the bank - the depositors, branches, staff & customers - need to be re-bundled into a new bank, wholly owned by the taxpayer, with a clean balance sheet ready for business. Now that would really ensure competitive new lending - a new 'clean' bank with no losses, a nationwide presence on every high street and hungry for new business.

And all it took was a little imagination. They don't teach that at Oxford.

Quote of the day

'if form filling and box ticking brought equality, Britain would be a utopia'

Lynne Featherstone at the LibDem conference.

The Brown Years

Just been listening to Steve Richards new book 'The Brown Years' being serialised on Radio 4. The first of three episodes tells the story of those first few months in 2007 when Brown took over as Prime Minister - the brief honeymoon through the summer and the catastrophic decision to pull out of an election he had himself hyped up simply to 'wind up' the tories.

The first thing that hits you is Ed Balls' role. This man was right at the heart of the Brownian cabal, describing not just events as they unfolded, but detailed emotions and thinking that characterised his bosses every move.

The Education secretary was not only there at Brown's side, he was tying the blindfold, tightening the noose and pulling the lever. Both Douglas Alexander and Ed Miliband were blamed for 'the election that never was' in September 2007. Both were briefed against to Adam Boulton by number 10. Both by Damian MacBride. Both on the instruction of Ed Balls. Both of which were denied on the program, but in just too general terms, 'I have never in my career...' by Ed Balls.

Did Gordon Brown know this was going on? asks Steve Richards. No answer. But an interesting consequence was that the famously-close Brown treasury team which had moved across to number 10, was now fatally fractured and would never again provide the same coverage.

The 'election that never was' left Brown in limbo - a non-elected Prime Minister, unpopular with a savvy electorate. As Peter Hain put it, the Brown premiership 'never recovered'.

Thereafter, Brown was wickedly mocked at PMQ's, his integrity lost with another enquiry into party funding, whilst the loss of Inland Revenue data disks screemed of incompetence. The seminal accusation of dithering was later reinforced by the ill-judged private signing of the Lisbon Treaty - as if the occasion were something to be ashamed of.

Disaster piled on disaster as events quite beyond Gordon's control blew up. But the media had already shifted. The narrative which Gordon Brow had so singularly failed to tell of what his ambitions for the premiership were had already turned from triumph to disaster.

Liberal Democracy

I still find it incredibly difficult to see how the LibDem's can achieve anything approaching their 23% general election poll ratings anytime soon. But if a third of that total were disaffected Labour voters now returning to the fold, good riddance - 'shifting sands' they may be, but the LibDem's hold no debts.

Mary Ann Sieghart, writing in today's Independent, suggests that everything necessary is already in place and that time - as with broken bones - will heal everything.

It may need some help. Beyond doubt now is Nick Clegg's feeling that being a short-term protest party for the left is no longer viable. If you didn't like the Iraq war or ID cards or 42-day detention without trial, or the loss of civil liberties or too many other top-down authoritarian bullying initiatives to mention here, then why did you vote Labour?

Certainly, the tone from the left has begun to change. Both Polly Toynbee and Jackie Ashley, after months of ill thought out visceral hatred towards the 'traitorous' LibDems (following years of cosying up we note), have begun to recognise that coalition government means compromise and co-operation, not ideologically-driven utopianism. That way only hatred lies - and we've had thirteen years of that.

Perhaps we'll start to hear the backstory - the principles behind the 'orange book' or the surging tide of bottom-up localism espoused throughout this party. The deeply held priciples of personal liberty, international co-operation and 'fairness' that pervades all Liberal Democrat policies in the public sector.

The left of course, would have us believe that before the 1997 ascendancy of New Labour, there were no schools, hospitals or welfare. Just broken people floating around in dirt, poverty and injustice. All provided by Margaret Thatcher and the wicked Tories.

Funny how they won four elections in a row and 18 years in government then...

Quote of the day

Great quote from Nick Clegg at the LibDem conference today: 'You cannot build social justice on the sands of debt'.