A few weeks ago, as Chris kindly noted, I spent a little time hacking through the detailed report of the Conservative Social Justice Policy Group on family breakdown (pdf – 2Mb), which was produced by Iain Duncan Smith’s Centre for Social Justice, and cross-referencing its analysis and recommendations against a number of key pieces of statistical trend data obtained from the Office of National Statistics.

Why?

Well, largely because the current Tory mantra on all manner of different aspects of social policy is that all roads lead to the allegedly pernicious effects of family breakdown, which they claim they will tackle if they form the next government; even to the extent that their standard rhetorical reply to any proposals for changes in social (or criminal justice) policy by any other party has become the spectacularly boneheaded claim that whatever the policy is, it won’t work because it doesn’t, in their eyes, address family breakdown. Now, if that’s what any party is going to claim then I think it only reasonable that they produce evidence both to back up the assertion and to suggest that they understand the dynamics of family breakdown sufficiently well to deliver effective policies to address it and many the issues it raises.

I am, of course, sceptical, not only for partisan political reasons but, on a much more fundamental level, because I don’t believe that the kind of legislative and fiscal levers that are available to governments, of any political persuasion, are likely to be effective in tackling such a complex, individual and deeply personal set of issues – not without resorting to nakedly coercive mechanisms, such as a complete prohibition on divorce. Governments (and politicians) in my view, don’t possess the ‘tools’, or moral authority, necessary to intervene in such matters in any kind of meaningful or productive manner.

While researching some of the statistical evidence on trends in marriage and divorce I came across rather a curious thing.

Conventional wisdom would, I think, suggest that the earlier in their adult life a couple marries, the more likely it is that the couple will eventually divorce and if they do divorce then its likely to be sooner rather than later when compared to couples who marry when they’re rather older. Most would consider that factors such as emotional maturity and financial stability, which tend to increase as people get older, will have a significant impact on the chance of a marriage being successful; the more you have of both when you marry the more likely it is that you’ll make success of things or, at least, be in a position to sustain your marriage through the difficult times that come to pretty much all couples without heading for the divorce court.

And yet, buried in the archives of the ONS is a set of statistical evidence covering the period from 1990-2000 showing, for each year, the median duration of marriages ending in divorce in each year by the age group (in five year intervals) of woman at the time they married, data which paints an interesting and very different picture to that which conventional wisdom suggests. Continue reading →

It was another bad-news day for The Labour Party. So, at the risk of this review becoming awfully tedious, we’ll have a *quick* look at some of the blogs discussing the referral of the funding scandal to the police [BBC], and then some ‘link ‘n quote’ highlights covering other stories.

A glorious day (as long as you’re not a Labour supporter)
Grimmerupnorth was the first blog to pop its head above the parapet (excusing the Tories, naturally) following the crushing news that the police have been called in, and explains that while those involved represent a “small, elite coterie at the top of New Labour”, it’s the rest of the Labour Party and its supporters who’ll suffer, and goes on to ask “God knows what the next round of opinion polls will bring.” Well, very bad news according to today’s YouGov/Telegraph poll.

Bernard Salmon (Lib Dem) is “intrigued” as to why David Abrahams gave money to more than one candidate in the Dep. Leadership Election. And fellow Lib Dem’r, Nich Starling, comments that “minister after minister has been wheeled out in front of the press for the last four days telling us that their own internal investigation was all that was required, and that calling the police was just opportunistic and playing politics by the opposition parties.” He goes on, describing the unfolding story as “some sort of slow and lingering death.”

Labour MP Caroline Flint appeared on last night’s Question Time and seemed to be building the government’s barricade out of support for the “thorough enquiry” into the affair. Political Hack UK is concerned about the damage done to the party, and demands that any such enquiry is “No whitewash, no half-truths, because it will be uncovered. The original crime doesn’t always end careers, but a cover-up will.” And finally, Bop Bob Piper (who assures us he doesn’t like conspiracy theories) has a conspiracy theory.

Other highlights
Butterflies and Wheels – Dignitas: Okay, you tell me – what does the phrase ‘human dignity’ mean? [...] Why do I consider it meaningless? I suppose largely because it doesn’t seem to refer to anything real. What human dignity? I don’t consider humans to have much dignity. We’re too mortal, too fleshy, too fragile, too clumsy, too weak, too dim to have dignity. It’s not a word it would occur to me to use about human beings; it’s not even an abstract noun it would occur to me to attribute to humans. (Norman Geras disagrees.)

Head of Legal – The worst legal system in the world? Version 2.0: The charging of Gillian Gibbons is a disgrace not just to Sudan, but to Islamic legal systems all over the world. I’m afraid that, until legal systems like this, and like the Saudi one, are abolished, nothing that calls itself Islamic law can really be taken seriously as a fit system for any society to live by.

Unknown Conscience – One Lefty Woman’s Perspective: Let’s have those face to face conversations. I don’t care if you come to the bloggers piss ups or not – that’s up to you. But if I am at a conference and you want to claim I am supporting imperialism, a racist and the war in Iran – come up to my face and tell me so – and we can have a calm conversation about it – and I can explain to you why none of those things are true.

Padraig Reidy/indexcomment.org – Pakistan: Coping with censorship: Having shut down every broadcasting station but state run television, Musharraf’s government proceeded to raid the offices of independent news channels such as Geo News and Aaj television. Phone lines were cut, some stations reported jamming, and there were threats of long jail terms for broadcasters who would not comply. Hundreds of journalists were arrested. But two independent news channels continued to broadcast live.

Eathpal – Bali: Climate conference: I guess we can expect some disharmony and a certain level of obstruction from the usual suspects but on the upside, we did recently lose a key obstructionist because of John Howard being booted out of office (yay!) and being replaced by the much more Kyoto-friendly Kevin Rudd.

Elsewhere
openDemocracy 50.50 – Whose side are we on?
Greg Palast – Brown’s Fixer Explains How It’s Done: Jon Mendelsohn and the Secret Tape
Cicero’s Songs – The Liberal Democrat Leader
Sinclair’s Musings – ‘Liberals’ conspire against the Public Sector Rich List
Skipper – Impressive Political use of Internet by US Democrats
Conor’s Commentary – Why we should not confine early learning to the middle classes
Paul Smith’s Blog – The difference between socialism, communism etc
yourfriendinthenorth – Saving Ulster from science
The Yorksher Gob – The Process of Argument

Parliament chuckles
Liberal Democrats watching yesterday’s PMQs might have wondered if they’ve missed out on the best man for the vacancy of Party Leader (bar the sainted Charles Kennedy, naturally). Vince Cable proved to be a Parliamentary sketch writer’s wet-dream [Simon Hoggart, Guardian] as he teased the embattled Gordon Brown. While the candidates for the Party Leadership continue to bicker like a couple of chumps on chat show sofas, Cable delighted the House with a rib-tickler of the highest order: -

“The house has noticed the prime minister’s remarkable transformation in the past few weeks – from Stalin to Mr Bean.“

Oh how the house roared. Notes were waived, and feet were stamped. Brown looked, and must have felt, like he’d just been punched in the stomach. The ‘safe pair of hands™’, who had steered Britain’s economy into the record books with a decade of continuous growth, now looked out of his depth, humiliated by the Parliamentary equivalent of a supply-teacher. And, of course, the Lib Dem bloggers loved it!

Hot Ginger & Dynamite agrees that Cable has done a tremendous job, calling him “an outrageously good Acting Leader and Shadow Chancellor.” HG&D is also right about Cable’s ability to pick his punches, choosing sensitive issues (such as the Saudi Royal visit) to put clear blue water between the Lib Dems and the other main parties. Caron’s Musings declared “Vince Cable plays a blinder”, and adds that the new leader must reward Cable with a “high profile” position in the new set-up. Hmmm. Not sure about that. Surely you hide the competent ones and promote the muppets? Makes you look good. Indeed, Mike Smithson worries if Cable will “over-shadow whoever wins?” Falkirk-based blog Love and Garbage wants to keep Vinny for good. And Nich Starling observes that even the BBC is now taking notice of the Lib Dems. Crikey.

In these days of ubiquitous Photoshopping, it was only a matter of hours before Brown’s mug would be superimposed on various Mr. Bean posters. And indeed, the blogosphere was soon awash with images of Brown mashed with Rowan Atkinson’s comedic invention. An honourable mention should go to Liberal Democrat Voice which remade the Mr.Bean’s Holiday film poster (ConHome has some too). Childish, perhaps, but great fun nonetheless. While still over at LibDem Voice (seamless, eh?), Stephen Tall has a copy of the Hansard transcript of Cable’s exchange with the PM.

Meral’s Musings agreed that Cable’s quip had “raised the bar.” Quite right. Great stuff. But Vince Cable’s good day didn’t end there, as Charlotte Gore points out.

Elsewhere…
Remembering the ability in disability – Northern Rock and Down’s Syndrome… Yes, you did read that right…
Philobiblon – Medieval Africa – the great kingdoms [Book Review]
Obsolete – Mendelsohn becomes Mandelson
The Nether-World – Letting The Iraqi Employees Die
Blood & Treasure – cargo and its discontents
Dave’s Part – Annapolis: Oslo for slow learners
Three Score Years And Ten – The Undiplomatic Diplomat

The Taxpayers’ Alliance published a couple of weeks ago a public sector rich list. Its a really good political ploy from an alliance whose main cause is the reduction of taxation but what is interesting is that the implications of compiling such a list actually tend to go in different directions to those in which the Taxpayer’s Alliance wishes to push British politics.

Firstly its noticeable that on their website, they claim the need for this survey because these public sector workers are paid so much more than teachers, soldiers and policemen. The politics of envy resurfaces and is evident in many of the comments! Such an argument presupposes a commitment of some kind to equality- and acknowledges the injustice of directors of the Royal Mail sitting in plush offices earning millions whilst soldiers sit in Basra risking their lives earning thousands. I’m not sure how that sits with the reductions in taxation that the TPA advocates elsewhere- nor am I sure that the only inequalities are within the public sector.

Secondly they argue that the salaries of public officials should be justified- and they are right. Lets take Adam Crozier, chief executive of Royal Mail. He is paid a ridiculously vast amount of money, but he was recruited from being Chairman of the FA- and before that was a leading advertiser. If the TPA believe in the efficacy of private markets setting wages then Adam Crozier is probably being paid at about the market rate for a chief executive- and so are many others amongst these fat cats in the public sector. Ultimately the cause of the pay of the public sector fat cats is the pay of the private sector fat cats. If you want to get your hands on these types of people you have to pay these types of salaries. So if you want to take a look at public sector people being paid too much for these jobs, perhaps you have to either settle for rubbish directors (of which more in my third point) or you have to think about private sector pay scales.

Thirdly, ah says my Taxpayers’ alliance friend- but the question is whether they have any impact on their organisations. But again that presents him with an ideological problem. Generally researchers for the TPA believe in hierarchy and hence in differentiated pay. There is lots of evidence, just have a look at Chris Dillow’s blog, that company directors don’t necessarily have an impact on their company stock’s performance- and its quite possible that the same thing applies in the public sector but again all the arguments in favour of or against hierarchy apply similarly in both sectors and hence all the arguments for and against large pay differentials and packets!

The ultimate problem with this kind of Daily Mail politics is that in order to establish that well paid bosses don’t make the public sector any better off, the Taxpayers’ alliance would have to accept that well paid bosses don’t have any positive impact on any organisation. Otherwise they are arguing for poorer public services! (Or perhaps that equality is a moral good which trumps efficiency, but again is that a unique truth for the public sector!) All these arguments seem to me to rebound upon their owners.

In a sense this isn’t important- the list they did didn’t really make the national media. But I think its worth thinking about. Partly because of what it tells us about the fact that even for the right-wingers in the Taxpayers’ alliance, equality is a moral good- the fact that teachers are paid a fraction of what the fat cats get matters to them in this context- so you have to ask why it doesn’t matter in other contexts. The other thing about it is that the Taxpayers’ Alliance ends up arguing that large salaries are unnecessary to promote efficiency and that they should be justified by results- again there is nothing necessarily limiting those insights to the public sector- those insights could be applied to the private sector. The thing is that as soon as you examine the logic of what the Taxpayers’ Alliance are saying you end up with politics far closer to the tradition of George Orwell than that of Margaret Thatcher.

I’m not sure that was what their intention was.

So what are we to make of the latest funding ‘scandal’ to engulf the Labour Party..?

Well… not as much as you might think.

You’ll have to forgive me for being a trifle cynical here but, on the assumption that David Abrahams would have been a permissible donor had his donations been correctly registered, then it would seem that the real problem here is simply one of an absurd lack of sophistication in the manner in which he attempted to preserve his own anonymity as a donor.

In simple terms, Abrahams used the wrong kind of intermediary – private individuals – to funnel his money to Labour without revealing his identity when, with a little more subtlety (and a bit of Tory know-how) he might otherwise have hidden successfully behind a secretive unincorporated association, like the Midlands Industrial Council, or buried his identity behind loan arrangements made through a string of corporate fronts and cash shells – it should be remembered that although it did eventually ‘come clean’ and provide a list of people who had loaned money to the party in the run in to the 2005 general election, the Tories did so only after stalling on the disclosure long enough to refinance £5 million of loans in order repay several sources, some of which were from overseas, ensuring that their identities would not be disclosed.

Taken as a singular issue, this latest party funding farrago does little more than re-emphasise the importance of the point I made here:

Political Parties should be compelled to reveal, fully and explicitly, the identity of those who finance their activities, up to and including to the extent of stripping away from party donors (and loanees) the relative anonymity they currently enjoy by means of hiding behind a variety of different (and permissible) corporate entities…

…Only then can voters consider the questions that may arise from the manner in which political parties are funded is truly democratic manner.

Even without the added frisson of a direct breach of regulations, as has happened with Abrahams’ donations, the fact remains that throughout the five to six years between PPERA 2000 coming into force and the ‘cash for honours scandal’ hitting the headlines, both major parties were routinely exploiting loopholes in that legislation to conceal from the public some of the major sources of party funding. The people who made the rules, and scrutinised them as they made their way through parliament and into law, went on to exploit gaps in the legislation for the benefit of their party – and by extension, their own political ambitions – all of which rather prompts the question as to whether the failure of PPERA to require the disclosure of loans to political parties was a matter of accidental omission or deliberate design?

Tempting as it might be to focus exclusively on the matter currently before us – yet another ‘dodgy’ excursion into the ‘black arts’ of party funding – its actually more important to view this latest ‘incident’ in a wider context; as one of string of issues and problems that tell us something very important about the current state of democracy and mainstream political culture in modern Britain. Just consider for a moment how this latest incident might relate to any or all of the following (presented in no particular order):

Continue reading →