UKIP support Suffolk Tories and vote to cut children's services

Being childless myself, I am fortunate in that the inadequacies of Suffolk County Council when it comes to education don't directly affect me. On the other hand, when your local authority ranks 146th (out of 152) at primary level and 137th at secondary level, you have to wonder whether cutting expenditure on Children and Young People services is really that good an idea.

For a 6% cut in real terms is what our local Conservatives have come up with for the coming year, which can hardly augur well. Of course, it does mean that the council tax precept is frozen once again, which is fine for Suffolk council taxpayers in terms of their wallets, but not necessarily great for those of us who see education as an investment. But, to add insult to injury, it appears that the Conservatives intend to add the "Pickles bribe" to the reserves rather than to protect services. 

And whilst the Conservatives probably send their children to private schools, or are too old for it to matter any more, you do have to wonder why UKIP were so happy to support the Conservative budget for 2014/15. After all, as our nearby UKIP councillor was so proud to claim how pleased he was to be fighting for our country again, having underperforming schools is something he might want to oppose.

But, for those people who were so keen to vote UKIP to pull Suffolk out of Europe send a message, the idea that, as UKIP councillor for Oulton, Reg Silvester, said; 

the UKIP group as a whole supported the budget, and he felt the administration had done a good job.

what exactly was the point of voting for them when, if more cuts and unaccountability were wanted, one could just have voted Conservative instead?

I'm guessing that Stephen Searle won't be putting out a leaflet telling local residents what he has done (and now I come to think about it, what has he done?), as school cutbacks are hardly likely to be popular. And, if his colleague is to be believed, so much for the idea that they are independently minded and unwhipped.

It just goes to show, perhaps, that by voting UKIP you simply get do-nothings with a different coloured rosette. At least I know what their Conservative counterparts stand for...

My brother, Kirk, explores the dilemma of how to educate your children

I am childless, entirely by choice, I might add, but in my role as evil stepfather and hapless uncle, I do have to. occasionally, give some thought to the next generation. But not as much thought as my younger, taller and generally more handsome younger brother, Kirk.

He blogs too, and I like to, from time to time, read what he publishes. His life is different to mine in all sorts of ways, but he is a good father and an all around decent human being (is one allowed to say that about one's kid brother?). Recently, he has been dealing with the question of his daughter's education, and the choices available.

He isn't political, takes little interest in politics, but writes interestingly and well of the issues that face him in his choice here.

Seckford Foundation: "if you can't win the argument, intimidate your opponents"

The argument for, and against, free schools in Suffolk has taken a curiously sinister turn.

In last year's District Council elections, one of the more lively campaigns was in Stradbroke and Laxfield, where local school governor, library campaigner and self-confessed geek, James Hargrave, took up the cudgels for the Liberal Democrats against the incumbent Conservative (described on the ballot paper as Independent, but we all know what that usually means). And, whilst he lost, his campaign was seldom dull.

Afterwards, he returned to his two personal campaigning issues, libraries and education, giving the County Council a hard time, and highlighting efforts by local Conservatives to skew the process in favour of their proposals.

In recent weeks, he has been giving the supporters of a proposed free school in Beccles a thoroughly deserved hard time. He's clearly having an effect, if this excerpt of a letter he received from Graham Watson, the Director of the Seckford Foundation is any guide;

Please note that we do not intend to engage in any further correspondence with you but will continue to monitor your blog in case you publish any defamatory comments in the future.

Mr Watson is described on the Seckford Foundation's website as a Member of the Institute of Chartered Secretaries and Administrators, with extensive knowledge of charity law, tax regulation and governance issues. He doesn't mention any expertise in the field of public relations.

So, as a favour to him, I would suggest that, in terms of public relations, he's wise not to claim any expertise. However, most people know an implied attempt to intimidate when they see one and, from the perspective of this bystander, that's exactly what Mr Watson's letter looks like.

And one wonders about the wisdom of issuing such a clumsy threat in writing, to a blogger, who has the means to immediately tell the world that you've threatened him. And in turn, you might wonder whether someone who considers that intimidation is an acceptable strategy should be involved in the education of your children.

I'm sure that he understands entirely what he's doing... But just in case...

One of those moments that makes this Coalition worth the hassle

Whilst I freely accept that I voted for the Coalition Agreement, having never actually had to make difficult decisions in government myself means that, sometimes, I can be a bit blase about the implications. It's the old story, being in power is nice, having to compromise, not so. And yes, there are parts of the Coalition programme that I'm not wild about. However, raising personal allowances and taking the some of the poorest people in society out of income tax brackets altogether is a thoroughly good thing.

Last week, like many Liberal Democrats across the country, I got an e-mail, the gist of which was that schools in my constituency will be receiving £703,000 through the Pupil Premium.

Just because my constituency is habitually prone to voting Conservative doesn't mean that there aren't plenty of families who struggle to make ends meet. I've occasionally mentioned issues relating to rural poverty (which reminds me, there's a document I need to read and report back on...), and if you don't live in a big house, there is genuine hardship about the county. It is therefore good news that schools will have additional money to spend on the children who will need most support.

Now I accept that there are those who will say "yes, but you're cutting education spending overall", and they probably have a point. However, spending has to be cut across the piece, and education is not exempt from that. Providing schools with an incentive to focus more resources on those children most in need of support is, in itself, a good thing, the sort of thing that educationalists support, and I would like to think that, as the economy improves, funding can and will improve too. And, best of all, the amount of money will be increased year on year.

I'm not foolish enough to think that the public are going to suddenly start liking us again, but regardless, if we manage to do enough good to make the electoral pain a bit more bearable, we can at the very least go down with a bit of pride. And despite the cynicism that exists in this country and, in my view, is one of the most corrosive things about British politics, standing up for things that you believe in represents what matters most in politics...

Oi, Willetts... NO!...

I'll say this, I don't know what David Willetts is smoking at the moment, but it's certainly hallucinogenic. Even hinting at the possibility that the wealthy could buy their way into the university of their choice for their children is, at best, ill-advised.

And yet, he is considered to be one of the greatest brains amongst Conservatives, which only goes to demonstrate that intelligence and common sense are not always mutually inclusive. His comments on feminism and social mobility were interesting, even if they proved to be a hostage to fortune, especially in his assertion that feminism had had a negative effect on social mobility. I can't imagine why women might not have agreed with him on that one...

Ironically, the subsequent debate demonstrated that he had some good points, but had undermined them with a flawed contextual setting. And it remains difficult to conclude that women have attained a level playing field in the areas that matter - employment, opportunity, politics. He also played to the fears of those who believe that Conservatism is designed to maintain power in the hands of a small, self-selecting elite.

But back to universities. The notion that individuals should be able to buy places in universities for themselves or their children would be unacceptable if it meant that others would be excluded. If it meant that those whose academic talents were insufficient went to university whilst the talented were excluded, society at large would be concerned.

And there are already programmes where employers sponsor students, whereby they agree to pay part, or all, of their fees in return for a commitment to work for the company for a designated period, so the notion of employers effectively buying places in universities is not such a huge step. But it is a worrying one.

You see, what is there to stop say, Valladares Investments LLC, based in the Cayman Islands, from deciding to buy a place for a young person to studying at the University of East Anglia (my old university)? Who decides who that young person would be? What is there to prevent the Chairman from selecting his grandson? In other words, what protection is there against nepotism, and what incentive is there to promote social mobility? Call me a cynic if you will, but you can just see how it will work in reality.

So, just give this one up, Mr Willetts, and focus on getting employers to sponsor students. Best of all, they'll sponsor students in the disciplines that they, and the country, most need, ensure future employment for more of them and provide guidance to universities in terms of demand management.

No, the market isn't always the solution, but it can be a healthy part of it sometimes...

Free Schools: an argument for the defence?

I'll start with a confession - I don't know an awful lot about education policy. I've not produced and raised children, I've never been a local councillor, or a school governor, in fact, it would be fair to say that I've had no contact with schools since I left Kingsbury High School in 1983, before some of you were born. So, why take a stance, you might ask?

Perhaps the place where I live might be a clue. I live in a small village, population about 200, without a school of any kind. The children of the village ride buses, or are driven by their parents, to neighbouring villages, or to Stowmarket, our nearest town.

The free schools movement, led by the likes of Toby Young, are keen to encourage communities to form their own schools, with their own specialisms, ethos and teaching methods. The response of the teaching unions and the political left, by no means mutually exclusive, has been to throw their hands up in horror at this attempt to break down the concept of a good education for all, seemingly oblivious to the fact that not all children actually do get a good education.

For the most part, Toby and his friends are middle-class, ambitious and aspirational, and there is nothing wrong with these things. Some, although not all of them, want the best for their children, regardless of the impact on other children, whereas others want the freedom to teach their children what they believe to be best for their development. The catch is, their pitch is all about choice.

In urban areas, or decent-sized towns, the concept of choice in education is a significant one. When I was in primary school in north-west London, I attended the nearest school to my home, Roe Green. I could, had my parents been so inclined, have attended Oliver Goldsmith, Kingsbury Green or Fryent, all within a mile or so, or St Robert Southwell had my Catholic father wanted to convince the priests back home of his devotion to his faith. Had I been Jewish, Mount Stewart wasn't that far away either. And, before long, Islamia Primary School, Britain's first Islamic faith school, opened in the borough.

Each of the schools had its strengths and weaknesses, but as suburban schools in nice areas, they tended to produce more than their share of bright, well-adjusted kids with a better than average chance of getting into university.

And the problem with free schools in urban areas is that choice already exists, whereas one suspects that some of their enthusiastic supporters are keen to raise the drawbridge and exclude those children who might 'lower the tone'. Already, as a parent, you can get involved in your local school, become a governor, influence the way it is run, and all within the current regime. But it might be a bit too democratic for some people's taste.

But here's the twist. There are places where choice in education is much less in evidence, places where, in order to exercise real choice, your children might not have to travel an extra 400 yards, or even a mile, but five. Those places are our rural communities, especially the villages. Some villages, like mine, don't have a school, or have a school threatened with closure because of its small size.

For those communities, where the school is part of the heartbeat of daily life, a free school offers an escape from the grind of driving your children seven miles there, and seven miles back, making earning a living that bit easier. Here in Suffolk, where the County Council have decided that middle schools are too difficult to keep going, local communities might well take the free school route to keep what they have and treasure.

So, my urban dwelling friends, oppose free schools if you must. But remember, one person's threat is another's opportunity, and in an increasingly urban-dominated policy-making environment, we forget our rural districts at our peril.

George Osborne: we weren't exactly telling the truth when we said that we would protect education

And so now we know - education is just as vulnerable as anything else under a Conservative administration.

In fairness, at least George is telling us the truth (probably). it could be that he'll only cut 8% of the budget on the Janus principle (if you tell someone you going to cut their arms and legs off, they'll be grateful if you only cut their legs off...). On the other hand, he might feel that we'll say, "Only 10%? Oh well, that's not too bad.", and it will be too late to stop him lopping 12% off of the education budget.

Ed Balls is denying that there will be any cuts at all, and that George is going to be to the education budget as Freddy Krueger was to the population of Elm Street. It seems likely, therefore, that one, if not both of them, is lying.

Throwing money at education hasn't had a huge effect on the education standards of our young people, although money did need to be spent on the infrastructure following years of Conservative neglect. Strangely, salaries for teachers and lecturers don't appear to have increased much either. The big growth industry is testing, which distorts what is taught and how, discourages innovation and initiative and costs a lot of money.

You can't just slash spending though. New buildings funded through the Private Finance Initiative still need to be paid for, and in a world where industries that require muscle relocate to countries where muscle is cheap and, in some cases, dispensable, you need a more highly educated workforce to take advantage of the new opportunities.

The debate appears to be centred wholly on how much it costs, rather than what you want to achieve through education. Indeed, what role should the state have in educating our children? Should it dictate what our schools, colleges and universities produce in the way of skilled graduates? If it doesn't, will the market step in to fill the breach?

What we need is a real debate on what we want from our primary, secondary and tertiary education sectors. What we're going to get, I fear, is a choice between more state interference from Labour and an opting out of responsibility from the Conservatives. There is an opportunity for a genuinely liberal response if we have the courage to take it. Unfortunately, we're only going to get a soundbite with which to do so...

Normal bureaucratic service is resumed

After a bit of a low day yesterday, normal service appears to be resumed. I've spent the day being annoyed by my computer, which seems to want to block my AOL connection, and delivering our latest leaflet in East Dulwich.

One of the big issues in the area is the ongoing saga of the new federated academy school, whose boys section (the existing school is for girls only) was originally intended to open next Autumn in temporary premises pending the construction of new buildings to be opened in Autumn 2009.

Whilst the academy structure is less than ideal, the pragmatic stance is to focus on what is best for the children and parents of this part of Southwark, and so our gallant Council Group have pushed hard to get a new secondary school for the East Dulwich and Peckham Rye area.

But recently, it seemed that barriers were being placed in the way of the project. The temporary site decided upon was apparently less than ideal, although it was never quite clear who thought so. The local police deny objecting on security grounds, the Department of Education and Skills deny that finance is an issue, and our non-resident MP indicates from her Kentish Town (that's north of the river, in Camden) home that she is keen for the project to progress.

So, the administration looked for other venues, met with the minister, Lord Adonis, to attempt to break the logjam and generally encouraged progress. There is no doubt that a new school is needed, and the sooner the better.

Alas, politics reared its ugly head. The Labour Party's desperate attempts to discredit local Liberal Democrats has led them to pull the plug on the project, and attempt to blame us for its failure. This is despite the planned temporary site being approved by the Academy Project Board and the Government, despite provision of a dedicated planning consultant. Claims that a risk assessment showed the site to be unsafe ran counter to the Borough Commander's advice that no such assessment had been made or cleared by the police chain of command.

Best of all, they claim that the decision was taken by the Project Board. Curiously, whilst that meeting was taking place, the Minister called our Group Leader to tell him that the decision to pull the plug had been taken. Anyone would think that voting in Liberal Democrat councillors was an excuse for Labour ministers to shaft the 'offending' residents... but politics is about making lives better, not hanging on to power for the sake of it, isn't it?