Ed Balls has attacked the government this afternoon over their academy plans, following reports that education secretary Michael Gove is considering changing admissions codes to allow academies and free schools to give priority to children who receive free school meals. Balls said:
"If the government was serious about Academies serving children from poorer backgrounds, then they would have continued with Labour’s previous policy."
"Labour’s Academies were focused on transforming under-performing schools, often in disadvantaged areas, and had a higher proportion of children on free school meals than the national average. But Michael Gove’s new Academies have been distorted to focus on schools which are already doing well and in more affluent areas."
Almost every oral question asked by the opposition in the commons is currently answered by the coalition government in the spirit of the blame game: “we are in this situation because of the last government and we are now cleaning up the mess that it left behind.” The strategy to deflect fault upon the Labour Party is doubtlessly working according to recent YouGov polls, albeit not for the Liberal Democrats. But at some point in time, as is the case with a child becoming an adult, one needs to begin to take responsibility for one’s actions. This applies especially to the premature budget cuts proposed by the coalition government that will withdraw a vital support for the fragile economic recovery. As a consequence for the UK to return to former growth figures requires, amongst other things, a surge of growth in the export sector.
The coalition had a difficult week over the summer after the Institute for Fiscal Studies research found the emergency budget’s changes to tax and benefits hit the poorest hardest.
George Osborne and Nick Clegg’s claim that this was a “progressive” budget was always going to unravel. Who do people expect to lose out when public spending aimed at helping poorer people is cut?
Monday’s analysis that the cuts to the Building Schools for the Future programme will – surprise, surprise – disproportionately affect the poorest is further confirmation that this government is going the hammer those least able to defend themselves.
I wrote last week that in a reply from the FCO, it was revealed that the coalition had reversed their pre-election pledge and were going to continue to contest the case against the Chagos Islanders returning home.
Today the candidates have been at the TUC, attending the penultimate hustings of the leadership campaign, before the final televised tussle on Thursday when they clash on Question Time. As a Populus poll for the Times puts Labour just two points behind the Tories, the race to be next leader - and perhaps next PM - is hotting up.
DAVID MILIBAND wrote for LabourList today on the importance of education, which he called his passion. David said:
"Education is my passion; it’s why I got into politics. It’s also why I started the Building Schools for the Future Programme so that every child and community could benefit, and it’s why I am committed to realising the comprehensive ideal. Like Crosland I believe improving education is central to our Labour mission. His vision of a fairer society taking “shape in the form of bricks and mortar, more and better teachers, a longer school life in ample, imaginative surroundings” is what we should be striving for and what I will strive for as Leader."
Confirmation bias is the tendency to find what you are looking for in the evidence while ignoring any facts which would require you to revise your pre-conceived views. Last week, the ONS’s annual bulletinWork and worklessness among households was released.These are essential materials for anyone interested in how employment is related to welfare, income distribution and poverty. But never mind all that: this is what Chris Grayling got out of the report:
"These figures are a further indictment of how the current system is failing families and is [sic] a shocking reflection of the scale of worklessness across the UK that this government has inherited. Some areas of Britain are suffering from intergenerational worklessness, which is why we must act now to ensure that children living in workless households are not left behind like their parents have been."
Michael Gove was going to hit the ground running as education secretary in the new coalition. He was quick to change the name of the department and to close down half its website but those were the easy wins and only last month at least one survey was finding him to be the lowest performer in a low performing cabinet. So, what went wrong and what happened to all these essential reforms?
The Academies Bill which was rushed through parliament like emergency legislation has been an unmitigated disaster. The notion that high performing schools could suddenly become academies set free from local authority control and OFSTED inspection made good copy for the right-wing press but didn't make much sense to anyone else. Even on the department's optimistic figures only thirty schools have taken the plunge and fewer than 150 are likely to be established by Christmas (there are 25,000 schools). The main reason is that, in practice, local authorities have a light touch where successful schools are concerned. The bureaucracy, regulation and the form filling which schools sometimes complain about stems almost entirely from central government requests. And, of course, because these schools are successful they have fewer worries about OFSTED inspection anyway.
The TUC conference starts today, and union leaders are declaring war on the coalition's deficit-reduction strategy. Although some union leaders are talking about 'civil disobedience' campaigns and co-ordinated strikes, TUC general secretary Brendan Barber is taking a more cautious and constructive line. He wants a 'political campaign' that depends not just on a negative stance against the 'cuts'.
He is absolutely right to take this approach, for two major reasons. Firstly, while it is absolutely right that individual groups of workers make the case that removing their jobs are false economies, it is too easy for the coalition to claim that without reducing the deficit and the interest payments that are attached to it 'things would (or will) be worse'. And the reason it is so easy is because there is a lack of understanding of the economic paradigm that underpins the coalition's rhetoric. Sadly this economic paradigm was shared by the 1997-2010 Labour governments.
It was Anthony Crosland in 1956 who asked the Labour Party to “give education a much higher priority than in the past…and see it as [having] far greater significance to socialism.” For him as for us, the quest for equality is intimately bound up with our ability to spread educational opportunity, making sure that it is talent and ambition, rather than background and class that determines success.
In government we rose to Crosland’s challenge in many ways: we doubled investment, we recruited more and better trained teachers and teaching assistants, we introduced Building Schools for the Future, we raised the participation age and we expanded access to Higher Education. This year again we saw school standards rising across the board, with Labour academies serving Labour areas improving at three times the national average.
I was interested to read last Thursdays article entitled ‘The AV referendum is doomed’. The article went on to argue that because the most likely outcome of the AV referendum is a ‘no’ then any Labour leader would be well advised not to support the ‘yes’ campaign. I disagree. The main reason being that the fundamental mission of the left is greater equality and meaningful electoral reform is a stepping stone to greater equality.
Electoral reform, far from being an issue for the chattering classes is of central importance for any people or organisations that want to see a more equal society. The latest Compass pamphlet argues that “Democracy is the means by which the powerful are kept in check to stop them becoming more powerful. It transfers power from the wallet to the ballot box.” It is therefore easy to see why the Conservative Party is against electoral reform - they are happy for an elitist society to prevail.
Labourlist readers may remember reading in July that Councillor Sharron Brook, Lib Dem on Barnsley MBC, had put out an interesting issue of Focus.
This was, in many ways a principled way to approach a personal political dilemma. Having been elected to represent a party on a range of issues, only to find that they betray you, many people have simply walked the floor. Cllr Brook took the view that it was not a decision for her alone but for the people who had elected her too.
Well, the results are in, and I can report that this morning (Monday, September 13th) Cllr Brook left the LibDems and became a member of the Labour Party. Or as she has herself said, the LibDems have left her - a feeling common to many LibDems, particularly in South Yorkshire.
Over the next few days we'll be bringing you a short video pitch from each of the leadership candidates to you, the LabourList readers. First up is Ed Miliband, and you can watch his video below:
Okay, I don’t do these things. I don’t write paeans of praise to middle-aged white guys in slightly crumpled suits, painting them as the heir to (insert hero), the saviour, the Messiah, the second coming etc. I’ve not spent the past months retweeting every utterance of my candidate or asking people to twibbon-up their support. So, I promise you this isn’t going to be one of those saccharine pieces that have filled our feed readers and bored us to tears all summer long.
Here we go. I’m voting for Ed Balls, and I think you should too.
As the Co-operative Party gathered this past weekend in Cardiff, we have the opportunity to appraise the way the relationship between the Labour and the Co-operative movements is working. You will be pleased to hear that I think it is in good working order. When I addressed the Co-operative Party conference on Saturday, I was the first leader of the Labour Party – acting or otherwise – since Jim Callaghan in the late 1970’s to do so. I am immensely proud of that, and I believe it shows the bonds of affection between our Parties are stronger than ever.
Our partnership has always been a credit to the Labour Party, but over the last few years, the Co-operative Party has firmly established itself as a near inexhaustible supply of vibrant ideas, exciting new policies and solid resources for our movement. Our 2010 manifesto incorporated upwards of 20 Co-op Party policies, including ambitious commitments to the re-mutualisation of Northern Rock, and a plan to include a majority of football supporters in the running of their clubs. With such relevant and appealing policies, it is little wonder that membership applications have shot up over the last two or three years .
After just over a hundred days of this new coalition government, we should not underestimate the scale or nature of the challenges that we face as a party if we are to return to government at the next election.
We are faced with a confident government, bristling with ideological purpose – determined to undo our legacy at all costs, that seeks to steal our language of fairness, solidarity, responsibility and democracy. That lays claim to our founding values and principles, and presents a distorted version of our vision of society. That cloaks its own regressive actions with borrowed progressive words and limited progressive deeds.
I just want to start by saying what a privilege it is to be here in Cardiff at the first Co-operative Party Conference in what I believe is a new era of Labour Party politics.
I feel extremely privileged to be here, not just because the Co-operative Party’s strong links with the Labour Party, or the rising profile and contribution that it has been making to Labour Party policy - but because I believe that the values that you represent, have fought for, and continue to fight for, have never been more important than they are today.
Today I am going to set out how I believe we should respond to the coalition’s ‘Big Society’ narrative. For us to truly engage with this debate, I believe that it is not enough for us to expose the policy weaknesses of the coalition on the ‘Big Society,’ however serious and profound they may be. Our response needs to be for us to set out our own vision of how we build a society based on the inherently human values of mutuality, solidarity and reciprocity.
The Co-operative Party has asked both candidates for their views on co-operatives in London as part of the Mayoral selection. Ken Livingstone gives his response below, following Oona King's responses earlier today.
1. The Co-operative Party is the sister party of the Labour Party with more than 7,000 members. What has been your formal involvement in the Co-operative Party and the broader co-operative movement?
My first period of involvement in the Co-operative Party was in the 1970s when I was a member in South London. We had a campaign to democratise the local co-operative movement in that part of London which I strongly supported. I’ve worked with the broader co-operative movement ever since, particularly in support of co-operative housing.
Until Thursday night’s fantastic local election results, I was one of the Co-operative Party’s newest councillors. Elected in a by-election in July, I find myself in opposition to a Conservative-Lib Dem administration in the London Borough of Redbridge that is unprepared to put the interests of local people before national party allegiances.
I have never been one of those who believed that the Labour Party could do with a period in opposition for ‘renewal’, but until now I hadn’t realised just how self-interested that argument really is. The impact of the coalition’s cuts agenda is beginning to bite locally. Already we are faced with in-year cuts of more than £4 million. Front line services are at risk. Proposals circulated include cuts to budgets affecting road cleansing and enforcement, support for young people, mental health services and public conveniences.