My must-reads this week June 10, 2016

by Stephen Tall on June 10, 2016

You can read all the articles that have caught my attention this week here: Below are a selection…

This two-minute video helps explain the gender pay gap

by Stephen Tall on June 7, 2016

When asked to draw a firefighter, surgeon and a fighter pilot, what do you think this group of primary school children came up with?

An eye-opening two-minute film by the Education & Employers Taskforce and Inspiring the Future “reveals the reality of gender stereotyping among primary school children.”

The answer, by the way: 61 pictures were drawn of men and only five drew women in these roles.

Which is a much better explainer of why the gender pay gap exists than unequal pay — about which I wrote in March:

It is lazily reported in the media as if the whole problem is down to evil companies flouting the 45 year-old equal pay act and refusing to pay women the same as they pay men for equivalent work. Now, I’m not about to deny that doesn’t ever happen, doubtless it does; but it’s increasingly rare and has little or nothing to do with the continuing gender pay gap, a much more ingrained problem which we are still nowhere near solving.

As this video demonstrates, again.

My must-reads this week June 3, 2016

by Stephen Tall on June 3, 2016

You can read all the articles that have caught my attention this week here: Below are a selection…

Tuition fees blindness

by Stephen Tall on June 2, 2016

Two things frustrate me about the debate, bubbling up again, about university tuition fees.

First, those who decry the current system and then call for a graduate tax, given that the current system is de facto a graduate tax. Actually it’s a better deal than a grad tax would likely be, as any remaining debts are wiped clear after 30 years.

The second frustration is the prominence the debate has. Of course ensuring ready access to university for all those who wish to study for a degree matters greatly. But when we talk about those following an academic route, we are talking about a minority of young people:

In fact, most young people do not follow an academic route after age 16. Two thirds of young people in their early 20s do not have a degree. Indeed, in England in 2013/14, of a total population of 1,285,800 16 and 17 year-olds, only 47 per cent of young people (601,500 people) aged 16 and 17 started A-Levels, whereas 53 per cent (684,300) did not do so.

The majority of young people, those who don’t progress to higher education, are in the main ‘overlooked and left behind’.

Yes, it’s perfectly possible both to argue against tuition fees and also to argue for a better deal for those young people not in HE. But that doesn’t often happen. And as politics is the art of choosing, it would be refreshing to hear an unambiguous prioritisation of policies which support the ‘many not the few’.

So let’s ditch the sterile debate about tuition fees – it’s clear the present arrangement is working okay for 18 year-olds, including those from disadvantaged backgrounds – and instead focus on getting post-16 education right for the 53 per cent of 16 year-olds who don’t even start A-levels.

My must-reads this week May 27, 2016

by Stephen Tall on May 27, 2016

You can read all the articles that have caught my attention this week here: Below are a selection…

My must-reads this week May 20, 2016

by Stephen Tall on May 20, 2016

You can read all the articles that have caught my attention this week here: Below are a selection…

My must-reads this week May 13, 2016

by Stephen Tall on May 13, 2016

You can read all the articles that have caught my attention this week here: Below are a selection…

My must-reads this week May 6, 2016

by Stephen Tall on May 6, 2016

You can read all the articles that have caught my attention this week here: Below are a selection…

3 policies I support in principle, but not in practice

by Stephen Tall on April 29, 2016

There are some policies I really like the sound of. They are, you could say, almost too good to be true… Which is sadly what I expect we might find if we tried to implement them.

Here are three I’ve supported in the past, but when pressed on how they’d work in practice, have been forced to conclude they probably couldn’t (at least, not within a democracy by a party wanting to win elections):

Unlimited (im)migration

I like the European ideal of free movement of people, so much I’d like to extend it. We’re citizens of the world, so why shouldn’t any of us be able to move around wherever we like? That doesn’t mean our host country would be obliged to support us, of course. But if we’re willing to stand on our own two feet, why shouldn’t that be in whichever corner of the world we choose?

In drab reality, of course, I realise that, border controls and net migration restrictions are pretty fundamental to states’ abilities to manage public services and maintain their current citizens’ well-being.

100% inheritance tax

I’m with Adam Smith on the desirability of estate taxes: “There is no point more difficult to account for than the right we conceive men to have to dispose of their goods after death.” Or, as Philip Collins has put it: “As a parent I have earned the money. As a child I have not.” If you want true equality of opportunity, and I do, ensure each successive generation earns its own way.

In dour reality, of course, I realise that this will create all sorts of perverse incentives to dodge taxes, both legally and illegally, as well as the moral hazard of disincentivising household savings.

A Citizen’s income

It would, of course, be terrific to be able to guarantee an above-poverty level of income to people who have no earnings from work at all, instantly stripping away the bureaucracy of the welfare state and the associated risks of dependency, assuring dignity to all. Little wonder it’s an idea that unites the think-tankers of both right and left.

In everyday reality, though, there is the small matter of funding it at a level which is genuinely liveable on, enough for all the basics of modern life, without levying eye-wateringly high taxation on everyone else. Perhaps someone, somewhere has done the maths which squares this circle. But, until then…

Principles and slogans are the easy bit in politics, as ideologues across the spectrum continually prove. Implementation, the boring bit, is much, much harder. Mario Cuomo was right: “You campaign in poetry. You govern in prose.” Dull. But right.

What a Tory cabinet minister said to me tonight: “I don’t know why you Lib Dems aren’t doing better”

by Stephen Tall on April 26, 2016

I don’t think this counts as name-dropping because I’m not going to say who it was. But, anyway, I was chatting to a Tory cabinet minister tonight, as you do, who was genuinely curious to know why the Lib Dems aren’t doing better in the polls.

“I mean, this government is giving you loads of free hits. And Labour’s so hard-left there’s no-one else around to be the voice of sensible opposition,” they said.

I defended my party. After all, we were ignored enough by the media when we were supported by 1-in-4 voters and had dozens of MPs. Life’s a lot tougher now with just eight (MPs, that is, not voters: things aren’t quite that bad).

Taking a sensible position on mainstream issues gets you ignored — it’s our out-rider policies, like Norman Lamb’s attempts to get cannabis legalised and Tim Farron’s calls for the UK to take in 3,000 child refugees from Europe, which attract what little publicity the Lib Dems still get. Worthy, important stuff. But not the bread-and-butter economy and public services issues which will decide how folk vote in 2020.

My ‘senior Tory source’ said they wouldn’t name the issues on which their party was vulnerable… before mentioning schools and the Conservatives’ daft plans for ‘forced academisation’ and abolishing parent-governors. “Champion parents,” they advised, “stick up for local, democratic accountability.”

To his credit, Tim Farron has spoken out against the Conservatives’ plans. But — as I’ve pointed out before, and will continue to point out — education didn’t make it onto the list of the party’s top seven priorities. Our education spokesman John Pugh’s contribution, Hard lessons from coalition, is more notable for its discursiveness than its solutions.

In any case, this isn’t just about my beef with the party sidelining what, for me, is the key, liberal issue: education. It’s bigger than that. My nameless Tory cabinet minister is right: given the gaping hole in the centre of British politics, we should be doing much better.

I think it’s too easy to pin the blame on the leader. Tim has probably the most thankless task in British politics right now. He’s set about it with his usual brand of energy and enthusiasm. It’s not cut through yet, but it’s still early days.

Inevitably, and largely understandably after last May’s trauma, the party has been inward-looking this past year (for example, the internal row over all-women short-lists). More importantly, we have felt keenly the lack of big-hitting talent at the top of the party, with most of our defeated MPs focusing on re-building their careers beyond politics. Add to that the loss of policy advisers and key party staff, and it’s not surprising if the Lib Dems appear a shadow of our former selves. We are.

If you were hopeful that I would finish with some gleaming insights, a prescription for headline-grabbing liberal initiatives that will give the Lib Dem fightback mainstream currency, I’m sorry to disappoint. This was never going to be easy. As far as I can see, there’s no alternative to hard grind, starting in local elections this May, clawing our way back.

Which is what I (more or less) told this Tory cabinet minister. For the record, (S)he Who Will Not Be Named wasn’t impressed and said we should hire them as a consultant. I said I’d rather have Lynton Crosby, but knew we couldn’t afford him.

You might also likeclose
Plugin from the creators ofBrindes :: More at PlulzWordpress Plugins