Once upon time, about HE policy

Once upon time, about HE policy

On my way home from labour conference 23, I visited the People's History Museum. It was a bit of a vanity trip as I was looking for any documentation related to NOLS’s adoption of a comprehensive, as in wide ranging, education policy. I was on the national committee for 1977 and held the education portfolio. I led the organisation, with much help from many others, in developing a comprehensive policy which was presented to conference 77.

I found a copy of Labour Student dated Spring 78 reporting on that 77 conference, in which my successor, John Merry wrote a review of the new education policy. The full article, overleaf, I summarise from Merry’s article, the key demands. The article seems to have missed my desire to take sides in the debate around the purpose of Higher Education; whether it was to prepare people for work, or allow them to fulfil their potential.

I conclude by saying, we needed Romer, and Mitchell to establish theoretical frameworks where maximising potential is preparing people to participate in the economy. I was ahead of my time but the focus of Labour’s consideration of education policy turned to primary and secondary education with the introduction of national curriculum, academy schools and league tables. I don't think they helped as they all contributed to the de-professionalisation of teachers and teaching. The lesson I reflect on today is a rule I learnt many years later; the amount of process and measurement doesn’t necessarily bring about good outcomes.

The full article can be read by using the "Read More" button ...

Labour’s macroeconomics

Labour’s macroeconomics

An article reviewing the politics behind the Starmer and Reeves’s speech to #lab23 and pointing at the arguments of some of the critics of their line on macroeconomics. I also look at the supply side initiatives they propose and question if it’ll be enough. I note that even funding these supply side measures will remain difficult while they maintain the harshest aspects of their fiscal responsibility rules and their promises on tax i.e. no increases in VAT, income tax and no new wealth taxes. I comment that the growth target is a necessary goal but they don’t specify a credible means of achieving it. This could easily be corrected even if one thinks that these fiscal rules are necessary. Conference also passed a union backed motion on critical infrastructure calling for the renationalisation of energy and railways. For the full article, use the read more button …

Labour’s defence promises

Labour’s defence promises

“Labour to Win ensured the motion topic “Defence” was debated at Labour Conference 23. . In this article, I review the debate and then make some criticisms of the way in which the issues are being handled. The motion states that Labour will continue to support NATO, the need for a nuclear deterrent and that its support the armed forces will be absolute, whatever that means. It also argues that a Labour government will continue to meet the UK’s NATO commitments, 2.0% of GDP and that a Labour Government will invest in the UK’s defence manufacturing capability, continue to support Ukraine, engage in a ‘new’ EU-UK security pact and develop the AUKUS partnership. It also commits to engaging in multilateral disarmament talks.

I look at what the motion doesn’t say, starting with the suggestion that financial targets are not the same as quality. The motion reads as if it’s designed to troll the pacifist and soviet nostalgic left but fails to address the dire state that Cameron’s “Defence Review” left the armed forces in. A defence policy needs to be based on an effective threat analysis, not on the needs of worker’s jobs nor of business profit. A private weapons supply industry doubles the criminality of war. I also look at the reliability of NATO and find it wanting. We need the rest of the EU and the UK contribution to the defence of Europe needs to be within the EU and its “strategic compass”.

There is more detail overleaf; please use the 'Read more' button ...

Control freakery at #lab23

Control freakery at #lab23

Sunday’s conference was not a good day for Labour Party democracy. Amongst all the debates on rule changes, and speeches and a sofa session on winning the coming election and despite a rules based promise to be able to refer back sections of the National Policy Report, Conference was only offered the opportunity to accept the NPF report as a single document.

Labour needs a manifesto that offers hope and change to address the problems that the British people face. The NPF report was finalised in a secret session earlier this year and it is typical of this leadership that the vote to accept it was the first item of conference business and occurred before any debate and vote on the members and affiliates motions. The priority ballot results were announced and nothing challenging was prioritised by the CLPs.

The British people need a Labour government to solve its problems, of the cost of living crisis, infrastructure decay, wealth inequality and corruption. Labour’s leadership needs to unite the party and recognise that its membership have good ideas. The clamour for clarity on Labour’s policy offer is growing, curiously from unexpected sources but the control freakery of the leadership is effectively closing down and ignoring the views of the membership and once again violates the rules based promises of conference sovereignty. …

What’ll be debated at #lab23

What’ll be debated at #lab23

The two leading factions have announced their recommendations for how CLP delegates should vote in the #lab23 conference priorities ballot. Only 12 motion topics are debated, six of which are the result of a ballot of the CLP delegates. The rest of this article looks at the factions' recommendations and laments the likelihood that important contrarian views will not be debated. To read the article in full, use the 2Read More" button ...

Innovation happens elsewhere!

Innovation happens elsewhere!

“The innovators dilemma” is a book by Clayton Christensen, first published in 1997. In it, he explores the paradox that successful companies that do everything right can still fail. The source of this failure, or that observed by the book, is new entrants to markets pushing market disrupting technologies and products, allied to a management inertia avoiding the necessary changes. This article looks at how these threats impact business strategy, its decision-making (particularly investment decisions) and political parties, specifically the Labour Party.

The innovation problem for political parties was brought to my attention in an unfinished white Paper by Emmanuelle Avril of the Université Sorbonne Nouvelle and in the text she quotes the Innovator’s Dilemma. I conclude that, Innovation happens elsewhere and is inexorable.

The complete article is available overleaf …