skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Once again MPs are united against the BBC. A cross-party committee of MPs has demanded the BBC be accountable to Parliament. Surely public eyebrows will rise in unison at MPs criticising 'spending public money without fully analysing costs and benefits'. But behind the pot-kettle-black, do they have a point?
The BBC has undeniably made a few foolhardy decisions of late. In trying to maintain public interest the corporation has felt pressured to bid for popular names (infamously Jonathan Ross). But there have also been some fantastic decisions. The corporation persevered with their decision to base BBC Scotland in Glasgow despite severe recruitment difficulties early on. They have invested heavily in new talent, there as elsewhere (the majority of people that work in UK private media were trained at the BBC), and in the process fulfilled their mandate of being a truly UK-wide broadcaster.
The BBC is not beyond criticism, and it is right to question excessive spending, especially on pay at the top. But we are in murky water when MPs start demanding that the BBC is accountable to them, and must justify every pound spent, every decision made. The BBC plays a vital role democratic politics (a point we have made here before), and must maintain independence from Parliament.
So is there a way to balance accountability with independence? There is. And – who knew?! – it already exists. Every 10 years the Charter review scrutinises the BBC’s role, activities and budget. When next up for review – in 2016 – this process should be rigorous and ensure value for money from the Beeb. But once the financial settlement is complete, like it or not, the BBC must be left to do its job. That is what independence means.
If criticisms that the BBC has too many, overpaid managers ring true, it may well be that the unrelenting attacks are a driving force. Organisations that lack the freedom to take risks and make mistakes see middle management multiply in a bid to disperse accountability for ill-fated decisions. Meddling MPs may well end up with a cowed corporation of risk-averse managers, with fewer funds to support the talent and creativity it thrives on. That, surely, would be a waste of tax-payers money.
Tess Lanning and Laura Chappell
Gordon Brown's speech on immigration last week was a call for mainstream political unity on an issue which can too often turn nasty (particularly in election years), a defence of the policy framework put in place by Labour, and a strong critique of the Conservative commitment to cap immigration.
Labour are working hard to position themselves as tough on immigration, in the face of a public and media debate that has often portrayed them as a ‘soft touch’. In fact, Labour have a good story to tell on immigration policy to those who are concerned about control.
No system is perfect, least of all in immigration, but the Points-Based System is a pretty effective way of deciding which migrants should be able to come to the UK to work, based on the needs of the economy; the Government have more-or-less got on top of the asylum issue; and the new UK Border Agency is presiding over an immigration system that is more functional and controlled than it has been for many years. Even the decision to open up the UK’s labour market to workers from the new EU countries, which led to a massive and largely unpredicted flow of migrants from eastern Europe (and considerable political backlash), has had few negative impacts and many positive ones.
Labour’s failings on immigration have been of politics, not of policy, in recent years. It’s worth noting three main political problems:
- Labour ministers have been reluctant to talk openly about the very real challenges and opportunities presented by immigration, which has added to a sense that the issue is somehow ‘off limits’ and ceded the space to those who hold extreme views. So, it is welcome that Gordon Brown is tackling the issue head on in this election campaign.
- Labour have allowed the political debate on this issue to become highly polarised, because they have not been able to develop a balanced and moderate narrative that occupies the middle ground and can convince the majority of voters. So, it was good to see Gordon Brown emphasising the (considerable) degree of policy consensus on the issue which now exists.
- Labour have too often tried to solve a political problem with a slew of policy announcements and changes. All too often, this only reinforces the perception that the immigration system is broken. So, although Gordon Brown was right to defend the policy framework that Labour have put in place, he may have made his political message less effective by also using his speech to announce or re-announce a range of relatively minor tweaks to the system.
Sarah Mulley
Anyone watching Newsnight this Wednesday would be forgiven for thinking that the entire debate about immigration comes down to numbers. Whatever people’s concerns about migration – be it the impact on the economy, public services or community cohesion – the answer from politicians is always the same: adjust the number of immigrants coming to the UK. Schools can’t cope with all the Polish kids? Stop letting so many Poles in. Pakistani immigrants aren’t integrating? Let fewer in to the country. The economy needs more skilled workers? Adjust the points system to let them in.
There is a danger with this approach that it assumes the only thing immigration policy can do is alter the number of migrants entering the country. But a lot happens once a migrant has crossed the border, too. Greater state support for settlement can improve integration and help tackle many of the problems people are concerned about. Schools can’t cope with all the Polish kids? Provide the schools with teaching assistants to help them cope. Pakistani immigrants aren’t integrating? Fund and support outreach workers to help them learn English and establish roots in the community.
I’m slightly bemused that while politicians are keen to point to Canada’s immigration system as a model way to control the number of immigrants arriving, they neglect to mention the fact that Canada also invests a great deal in supporting immigrants to settle in, and that their government endorses an official model of multiculturalism. Dedicated translation services, English language tuition, education programmes, information diffusion, citizenship instruction, employment programmes and social welfare policies are all part of the tool kit used. The evidence is that if you invest early in helping migrants to settle in to their new country, then you stave off many of the problems and tensions faced further down the line. It might just be more important to solving these problems than limiting the numbers you let cross the border in the first place.
Jonathan Clifton
The Prime Minister is the co-chair of a new UN high-level advisory group on climate change finance. To mark the first meeting of the group (known inelegantly by climate wonks as the HLAG) Ed Miliband, the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, launched a new UK government International Climate Change Action Plan on Wednesday morning.
The HLAG is quite a big deal in the international climate change world, but more domestic concerns probably lie behind Ed Miliband’s Action Plan launch. Polling data comprehensively shows that climate change and environment are not decisive electoral issues. However, recent work by ippr – as yet unpublished – shows that an important minority (17 per cent) of floating voters in marginal constituencies list climate among their top three issues.
Our data suggests these voters are young, liberally inclined and important in the battle for the centre ground of UK politics. So while climate change may not matter electorally at the national level, constituency by constituency it may and Ed Miliband’s launch suggests that Labour is reading the runes on this (it’s important to emphasise that we have presented our poll findings to Labour, the Conservatives and the Lib Dems).
The plan itself is somewhat short on substance, but the nature of the launch and its audience points to a wooing of groups to which the environmentally-inclined floating voters may belong. Sharing Miliband’s platform was President Jagdeo of Guyana – also an HLAG member – who heaped praise on the UK PM and DECC Secretary for their leadership prior to last year’s big climate summit in Copenhagen.
The audience was made up of green and development groups and others that have campaigns on climate change, such as the Women’s Institute. The question of whether Gordon Brown will continue as co-chair of the HLAG should Labour not be returned to government on May 6 is moot; he’s there in an official capacity and so his fate in this case would be in the hands of the new UK government. ippr’s polling data suggests that Ed Miliband’s green and development group-wooing strategy may increase his leader’s chances.
Andrew Pendleton
There’s a line in the Conservative’s Draft Manifesto that caught my eye. It says “Britain is one of the least family-friendly countries in the developed world. This will change with a Conservative government.”
It’s a phase that has every chance of making it into the final version. The Conservatives know that on many indicators – relationship breakdown, risky behaviour by teenagers, the emotional well-being of children – Britain does not score well.
But it’s not altogether clear that they understand how to improve Britain’s family-friendliness. Most of the trends associated with Britain’s poor family record have been shaped by rampant individualism and consumerism, our tendency to act selfishly and fetishise making money over making time for one another.
Labour’s response in government has been to launch a thousand policy initiatives, to make it a bit easier for families to live within this culture, rather than challenging the culture itself. But this is really a sticking plaster approach – it doesn’t address the bigger problem.
Could politicians do more to make us influence our unfriendly family culture? Here are three things politicians could do during the election to make a start:
- Politicians need to talk about why family life matters. It’s important not just because it produces better children but because relationships sustain us all.
- Policies need to address the real issues. The problem with the debate about whether or not you support marriage through the tax system is that it takes an important issue – relationship breakdown – and reduces it to a discussion about financial transactions. Relationships aren’t breaking down because people can’t see the monetary benefit of staying together.
- Finally, politicians could make family life more visible in politics. I don’t mean by parading your children (or even your pregnant wife) but by demonstrating that time spent with your family matters, by bringing people into the next cabinet who are allowed to work part-time to balance their work and family life and by contemplating better ways to fitting the demands of a job to family life, rather than vice versa. A new cabinet with job share ministers? Now there’s a thought.
Lisa Harker, co-director, ippr
Some commentators on last night’s Chancellors Debate have suggested that it lacked a bit of spark and drama – including, it must be said, my colleague Tony Dolphin (see 2 posts below).
No gaffes, no bombshells, no personal attacks – so no interest.
I beg to differ – here were serious issues being discussed in a serious way by serious politicians. Even the much criticised George Osborne seemed to rise to the occasion and to – by and large – engage constructively and effectively with his counterparts, Vince Cable – everyone’s idea of how a grown up politician should act– and Alistair Darling – whose reputation seems to be growing by the day. Without getting too dewy-eyed – or indeed po-faced – about it, this was just the sort of political debate that the country needs at this time.
There was point-scoring of course, but there were also plenty of points of agreement and a strong sense that the argument was constructive – and, yes, interesting. (All three seemed like decent, nice, sensible human beings as well – and when was the last time anybody said that about a group of politicians!) We the viewers were treated as adults up to the task of listening for an uninterrupted hour to informed debate about the country’s future. This is a high cry from the ridiculous pantomime of parliamentary exchanges, the inanity of so many studio discussions and the complete emptiness of Piers Morgan style ‘lifestyle’ interviews.
Can we dare to hope that the spin doctors, the strategists and tacticians, the rebuttal units and ad agencies – and yes the party leaders - will reflect on last night’s low key, but fascinating debate and think: Hey! How about having a serious, constructive, instructive campaign?
Tim Finch
This week dreams of balmy Spring sunshine have been put on hold. With some parts of the country facing the prospect of a white Easter, the issue of fuel poverty is once again receiving particular interest from policy makers.
Today sees the publication of the Energy and Climate Change Committee’s report of its inquiry into fuel poverty. It highlights the fact the Government is likely to miss its 2010 and 2016 targets to eradicate fuel poverty and suggests that a ‘road map’ is needed to set out how the 2016 target will be met. The report contains some other interesting proposals on improving data so that measures can be better targeted and reviewing the markets for fuels for people who are not connected to the mains gas network.
All of the proposals are welcome but of course the question is whether any will be picked up in election manifestos.
Winter Fuel Payments (made to everyone over the age of 60) have always been a vote winner despite the fact that they are an exceptionally inefficient way to tackle fuel poverty. Only a small proportion of pensioners are living in fuel poverty, yet this measure cost the Treasury £2.7 billion last year alone. Scrapping this payment ahead of an election might be politically unwise (and both Labour and the Conservatives have pledged to continue it) yet it desperately needs to be reformed so that it is better targeted at those in need, as we have argued in our recent report The Long Cold Winter.
What other fuel poverty measures are likely to make it into the manifestos? The Government has championed fuel poverty as an issue but its strategy has not been able to match the sharp rises in energy prices seen over the last few years. Even with the new price support measures in the Energy Bill it is still hard to see how targets for 2016 will be met. The Liberal Democrats also emphasise the importance of tackling fuel poverty and have proposed an energy efficiency programme to insulate 1 million fuel poor homes. The Conservatives, however, have been much quieter on this issue and have put forward very little in the way of concrete proposals for addressing fuel poverty.
Energy prices are forecast to continue rising over the coming decade, which means that fuel poverty is set to increase. If the current cold weather focuses manifesto writers’ minds on developing robust policies to deal with the problem then we may stand a better chance of achieving affordable warmth for all.
Jenny Bird
Once again MPs are united against the BBC. A cross-party committee of MPs has demanded the BBC be accountable to Parliament. Surely public eyebrows will rise in unison at MPs criticising 'spending public money without fully analysing costs and benefits'. But behind the pot-kettle-black, do they have a point?
