Out with the New. In with the Old.

I can’t pretend that today is a good day. It is quite literally the end of an era in UK Politics.

It was eleven or twelve years ago, 2004 or 2005, when I first read about the group of politicians who were known at the time as the ‘Notting Hill Set’. David Cameron, George Osborne, Steve Hilton and Michael Gove were at the centre of a group who were plotting their rise to power at the Centre of the Conservative party.

I had absolutely no doubt they would achieve it because, at the time, the Conservative party was in a fairly dire state and seemed to lack almost any other talent. 

Since being wiped out at the 1997 election, after 18 years of Conservative government, the Conservative party was floundering. In 2002 Theresa May, as party chairman, had attempted to confront the problem by announcing at the Conservative Conference of that year that the Conservatives were thought of as ‘The Nasty Party’.

It was a spectacular own-goal. Rather than forcing the Conservative party to confront it’s limitations and somehow reinvent itself as a result of her utterly un-amazing insight, instead her words just served to ‘brand’ the party with a particularly damaging sound-bite. Frankly her words were little more than a grasp of the obvious and served no positive purpose.

The problem with Theresa May’s analysis at the time, and the analysis of many of her generation in the Conservative party then was that they were convinced that the Conservatives simply had a presentation problem. They felt they had the substance but, through no fault of their own, were branded incorrectly. There was evidence to support this analysis. Lord Saatchi did blind tests with focus groups on policies and found that people liked the policies he described right up until the moment they realised that they were Conservative policies.

Whilst Theresa May was navel gazing, telling the nation how terrible the Conservative party was and doing absolutely nothing recognisable to rebuild the Conservative party at grassroots level (her job as party chairman), another group were quietly working on the problem. 

I think it was either the 2003 or 2004 Conservative conference when David Cameron and George Osborne did a Question and Answer session on various policy areas with an audience of Conservative members. They were a breath of fresh-air. They looked and sounded young, sharp, thoughtful and very different from the grey-haired old fogeys of the Conservative party that we were all used to at the time. 

I was watching the Conference on TV while doing some decorating. But by the end of the session I had discarded the paint-brush and was absorbed watching what I knew was the future of the Conservative party. By the end of it I was convinced I had seen the next Conservative prime minister - the only question was which of them it would be but I correctly guessed that the older David Cameron was the most likely candidate.

The Leadership election campaign of 2005, with David Cameron up against David Davies, was the moment at which the leadership of the Conservative party skipped a generation. Instead of Davis becoming leader, the membership saw a fresh new approach and chose Cameron.

Which for me, makes the events of the last couple of days seem very strange. Instead of David Cameron and George Osborne, born in the 1960s and early 1970s, being replaced by the next generation as you might expect, in fact the reverse of the events of 2005 has occurred. 

The Conservative leadership are instead today those born in the 1950’s.. Theresa May is 59 years old and Philip Hammond (Chancellor) is 60. David Davis, has finally made it to Secretary of State at retirement age - he is 67!

UK Politics today is in a bit of a mess. The Labour party has over a hundred MPs in Parliament who don’t support their leader but who aren’t supported by their membership. The Liberal Democrats are practically invisible and UKIP are now a party without a cause or a leader. And the Conservatives have replaced their leadership with an older generation. It seems to me there is a political vacuum - I wonder now how it will be filled?

David Cameron’s final words in Parliament were that he ‘was the future once’… Ironically it now seems that the future for the Conservative party is the past.. strange times.

Pink and Fluffy Politics - My Hairdresser's Contribution to the Great Brexit Debate

A Gentleman should have a very special relationship with his hairdresser - particularly if spending time with her is thought to be preferable to spending time with the PM or even Her Majesty. See the video clip below.

And so it was that I found myself in Ashleigh Martin’s chair this morning as she examined my hair critically and assembled the tools of her trade.

‘What are you doing for your holidays then?’ she asked in full-on hairdresser tradition.

‘Nothing. I am doing nothing until June 23rd’, I responded a little grumpily, ‘and anyway I don’t want to talk about that. Hairdressers always talk about that. Do you know whats happening on June 23rd I asked?’

‘Is it the Queens birthday?’ asked Ashleigh smiling happily at me.

‘No its the EU Referendum!’, I retorted.

‘Oh yes’, Ashleigh replied, ‘I knew something was going on then..’ I am sure she was taking the mickey.

‘Have you decided how you are going to vote?’ I asked.

‘No. Not yet. You?’.

‘I am out. No doubt about it.’

‘Really’ Ashleigh said, surprised at my certainty. ‘But aren’t the French going to do something horrible if we leave?’

‘No that’s a load of old nonsense…’ I started to say but Ashleigh cut in.

‘But if we leave.. will we still be called Britain?’

I wasn’t sure if she was serious, ’Yes of course we will still be Britain and the United Kingdom’ I replied earnestly and then looked up to see Ashleigh’s impish grin staring at me in the mirror.

‘Oh that’s a shame’, she said, ‘Can’t we be called Candyfloss?’ Another impish smile.

I grinned back at her - my morning grumpiness finally broken. ‘What you mean with everything all pink and fluffy?’, I asked.

‘Yes’, she responded smiling happily expanding on her thoughts, ‘And you know.. where everyone is happy and hugs each other and is loving all the time.’ The joke had a slightly serious yearning to it now.

‘Well if more than 50% of people want that once we are out of the EU then yes I suppose we could change our country’s name to Candyfloss. That’s kind of the point really. It’s called Democracy and we need it back.’

‘Oh ok. You mean that right now we can’t make our own decisions on everything cos of Europe?’

‘Yes. We are just one of 28 countries who make the decisions..’

‘Yes I see what you mean’, Ashleigh said serious now, ‘I just don’t think people know enough to decide at the moment - what’s a Trade Barrier for god’s sake?’.

I preceded to explain the concept of trade tariffs using a bottle of shampoo from the counter in front of me. ‘Imagine you sell this for a £1 but when you sell it to another country the customer has to pay the equivalent of £1.50 because there is a tariff on it of 50p. Are you going to sell as many as if it were sold for £1 or are people in that country going to buy an alternative made in their country?..’. 

She followed me intently as I explained why, given that the EU sell more stuff (probably including shampoo) to us than we do to them, they were unlikely to want to impose crippling tariffs on UK goods and services because we would simply do the same to them. So overall they would lose out more. 

I was waiting for her eyes to glaze over and worried that she had scissors in her hands. So I went on quickly and explained that being outside the EU would mean that Britain would be able to trade freely without trade barriers with the vast markets across the world without EU tariffs making our goods and services uncompetitive in many instances. 

So even if the EU did go crazy and cease all trade with Britain we would have two years to adjust before they could do that and around £350 million pounds a week to pay for the problem as that is roughly what we pay to the EU, and we would have much bigger, growing markets to sell to instead.

‘Blimey’, she said (I was surprisingly still unharmed), ‘this is the sort of stuff people need to understand.’

‘Well I am going to be producing a series of videos to explain some of this stuff’, I explained.

‘Oh really!’, she responded with surprising interest, ‘can you send them to me?’ she enthused.

‘Of course they will be on Facebook but actually Ash. I was thinking I might send some stuff to you before I make them so you can have a look and see if it makes sense.’ She regarded me in the mirror with slightly narrowed eyes and her hand went to her hip.

‘So you think if someone like me can understand them then they’ll be ok??’, she admonished.

‘No Ashleigh’, I said thinking furiously, ‘I mean that you own a small business and you are local Councillor but perhaps you can help me work out how to make it all make sense to the Goggleboxers’. I was feeling relieved that I had dug myself out of a hole of my own digging without injury and having grasped an important point in the process.

‘Ok. I would be happy to help’, she said smiling sweetly, ‘but I know what you are like with your big words Robin. Just make it simple…’ she brushed the hair off my shoulders finishing her work.

Thanks Ashleigh. As usual you brightened up my day with your smiles, your humour and your sparky intelligence. You make politics sexy Councillor. And you helped show me the way forward to making a contribution to the great Brexit debate. You showed me that none of these EU issues are rocket science - its all just simple concepts that need to be explained in straightforward language.

See you very soon darling.

EXCLUSIVE!!! - Gove to Quit Politics! and Work for Local Council in Junior Waste Management Role

Member of Parliament and Secretary of State for Injustice, Michael Gove has stunned the nation this morning with the revelation that he is to quit Politics and apply for a job with the local Council picking up litter and possibly, if things go to plan longer term, sweeping the streets.

Gove explained this shocking turn of events by saying, ‘I liked Politics and really tried to do well when my friend David gave me a nice job running the schools. But most of the teachers hated me. Some of them produced a video calling me a complete Jeremy Hunt which at the time I thought was a compliment but I recently discovered was some kind of clever word-play to do with part of a lady’s body. It made me sad.’

One of Gove’s most loyal supporters in his Surrey Heath constituency, Mrs Shmallerie Right said, ‘We all believed in Michael. From the very earliest days we all thought he was destined for great things. When the EU referendum was called last week we thought he could be the nation’s champion. But it seems he has just lost his self-belief. I am going out shopping later as we have had a whip-round and I am going to buy him a pointy stick which I am having engraved with the words ‘With Thanks from the People of Surrey Heath’. He will love it I am sure. And it will remind him of all of us as he clears up the mess that everyone else makes.’

The Guardian newspaper broke the story yesterday with a shock article and with photographic evidence of Gove and London Mayor Boris Johnson out in a park somewhere picking up litter. Johnson explained, “We Oxford Etonian boys aren’t quite the brutal Bullingdon boys that we are sometimes made out to be. We do use the plebs for our own purposes but we also makes sure they have something to do after we have used them up. Thats why I am out with Michael helping him adjust to his new life. He thinks he is working for the Queen but actually I just told him that to make him feel better and if it keeps me away from campaigning for this dreadful EU thingy then all to the good. Off to play Wiff-Waff later with some chums!'

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/feb/27/gove-and-johnson-strike-a-pose-in-clean-for-the-queen-campaign

Gove went on to plead his case by explaining, ‘When I was at University I met lots of posh boys and they were all really nice to me - made me feel special. But really I am just a wee boy from the Highlands. I should never have been doing the things I have been doing for the last few years. They are better than me. I will just do my bit clearing up the mess. I used to pick up their champagne bottles after their parties so it will be just like that again.’

Another of Gove’s most loyal supporters a Mr Ken Bunn, who spent many years in prison following a horrific childhood incident, said, ‘I am devastated that Michael is leaving Politics. We thought that perhaps finally with Michael’s job at the Ministry of Justice there was a chance that offenders leaving prison would have a chance of a worthwhile life. But instead us ex-offenders will probably see him out on the streets with us sweeping. That is until one of our number loses the plot and bashes a granny with a broom n nicks her handbag - then we will be back to the home comforts of HMP in no time’.

Gove’s wife the celebrated Daily Mail columnist Sarah Vine is similarly stunned. She has spent the last few years valiantly and increasingly successfully attempting to let the nation into her home and her life to see the true Michael Gove. As she puts it, ‘If a nerdy looking fella like Chris Evans can achieve mass popularity then why shouldn’t Michael. He is not even ginger!’

Sarah Vine went on to reveal, ‘I do love Michael. But this morning he brought me a cup of Cocoa in bed with a little present. When I opened it I saw it was my very own high-vis jacket. He smiled at me so sweetly and suggested we go out shopping for a shawl and knitting needles for me and a pipe and slippers for him later. He also bought me a house plant and said he would try my quiche this evening - I nearly cried. I don’t know how to tell him I just don’t want this life.’

The Great Prison Escape

Since becoming Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice for in May 2015, Michael Gove’s efforts to reform the justice and prison system have continued at pace. Over the last six months there has been a constant flow of media reports illustrating a very thorough and thoughtful approach to reforming the system.

It is particularly encouraging to see many media reports in which Michael talks not just about solutions but focusses first on the problems. Too often politicians make policy announcements without having done the necessary ‘ground-work’ to explain and illustrate the problem which the policy change is designed to cure. The result is that either the policy doesn’t work to deliver the intended result - those dreaded unintended consequences as a consequence of a limited research and solid policy development or an opposition group is able to kill off a reform by galvanising an ill-informed public and media. 

However. I do have one concern related to reform of the prison system which I feel could upset the reform process and even potentially render it a complete failure.

With prison re-offending rates running at close to 50%, it’s clear that the prison system is failing. Criminals are simply being warehoused. Rehabilitation and prisoner reform is way, way below the levels it needs to be at for the system to be described as successful or working. 

But the first question is this. Do those who work in the prison service see it as their role to achieve this rehabilitation and reform?

Imagine you did a single question survey across the prison estate of say 500 members of prison staff across all levels of seniority. The survey would be confidential and answers posted anonymously but each paper would be coded so that the management level or non-management level of the respondent could be ascertained.

The question would ask:

What is the Role of the Prison Service and Your Role Within it?

Please put a number next to each of the five answers below to indicate order of priority. i.e. put a 1 next to the answer which you feel best answers the question, a 2 next to the second best and so on.

1. To punish criminals.
2. To protect the public.
3. To prevent criminals from committing more crime.
4. To reform prisoners.
5. To educate and empower criminals.

I think you would get some interesting answers and possibly also prompt some interesting and overdue thought processes.

So what am I really getting at here?

Let me tell you a couple of stories.

Around 25 years ago I was on a skiing holiday in the French Alps with my then girlfriend, now wife. We met a really nice bunch of prison officers, I guess 7 or 8 of them, and spent a lot of the week with them. One evening late in the holiday after an excellent adrenaline filled day of skiing we found ourselves in a bar with them and I started asking about what it was like to work in the prison system. At first I got some basic inoffensive answers. Then as the evening progressed and the alcohol flowed the inhibitions started to recede. 

I introduced the subject of violence in prison. I was expecting to prompt a conversation about prisoners becoming violent and how they dealt with the issue. ‘How do you deal with violence in prison?’ was my question.

One of the prisoner officers was steaming drunk by this stage. His inhibitions were gone, we had spent a week together - a combination of trust and a loosened tongue were prevalent. Imagine him swinging his pint glass around as he speaks.

‘Do you know how we deal with prisoners to keep them in line?’ he asked me with unexpected anger and passion in his voice. I had no idea.

‘We take them into a cell and a group of us beat the crap out of them’ 

‘So if a prisoner is violent you respond in kind?’, I asked.

‘No mate. We smash open the door of someone’s cell, pile in and beat the shit out of him so everyone knows who is in charge’.

I looked around at his colleagues. A couple smiled back nodding and a few others went quiet - varying levels of self awareness, perhaps even conscience.

‘So even if a prisoner hasn’t been violent you do this randomly? Are you allowed to do this?’ I asked naively. 

‘That’s how the system works. They are scum.’ he said flatly turning away to the bar to continue his drink.

Hmm. So - a brutal control system. 

Now fast forward to 2010. I found myself involved in a radio phone in on prison reform with Crispin Blunt MP who was prison minister at the time. After i had said my piece the next caller was a prison officer. He was bemoaning the difficulties of his job and rounded off his remarks by describing prisoners as ‘the lowest form of life’. He made it clear that his role was containment of a problem and thought rehabilitation was pointless.

It was fairly shocking to hear a prison officer who had identified himself by name speaking so blatantly and openly. It was very clear that he simply viewed his attitude and approach as normal, logical and rational - nothing to hide.

Crispin, to my surprise, congratulated the officer on doing a good job.. No attempt to question his approach or even gently persuade him towards another way of looking at things. But then MPs have to be ‘nice to everyone’ I suppose..

In 2009 I started reading a blog by a long term prisoner, Ben Gunn, which provided a fascinating insight into the inner workings of the prison system. The prison system tried very hard to shut it down but being a highly intelligent character and someone who subsequently, and this was really the point, told me that ‘there are more important things than me getting out of prison’, Ben kept it going. I read it avidly. A subject that was always prevalent in Ben’s musings was abuse of power and the ‘control systems’ used in prisons.

Ben’s blog is still up and can be read all the way back from 2009 at: http://prisonerben.blogspot.co.uk/

So. Am I suggesting that the prison system today is not controlled by policy and management direction but instead by a barbaric under-the-radar system of control involving systematic violence against ‘innocent’ prisoners to maintain order?

No. Not exactly.

Ben assures me that things have improved since the dark days of his early imprisonment and times when the horrors of prisons such as Dartmoor were legend and people apparently, quite literally disappeared. I will leave others to explore exactly where the current real state of play surrounding prison violence sits. ‘Suicide’ rates are alarming I gather.

What I am more concerned with is culture and it’s ability to upset real efforts at reform.

A short time after I started reading Ben Gunn’s blog I met him for the first time and then spent the next two years researching the prison system, talking to prison officers and prisoners, legal people, psychologists and reading extensively. I was focussed on helping him get out of prison whilst at the same time dealing with his need to continue publishing his thoughts and criticisms of the system - tricky to say the least but he was finally released in 2012 after 32 years (his original sentence tariff was 10 years). He was never a violent prisoner.

During this period, one particularly illuminating encounter was with a man called ‘Razor Smith’ - a repeat violent offender who had spent the overwhelming majority of his life inside. He had just been released from prison. So I took him out for dinner one dark night - like you do with complete strangers called ‘Razor’ with a proven history of violence. I had a mixed grill and he had something else with chips. Razor doesn’t like ketchup and physically blanched when i tore the top off my sachet and the red liquid oozed out. You don’t need to be a psychologist to work that one out do you?

Razor had lived his life from his teenage years in and out of almost every prison institution on offer but had finally managed to get to Grendon (a group therapy rehabilitation prison) and as the tragic consequence of the death of his beloved son had put himself through the deep contemplation and personal demon-facing process necessary to stay the course and finally get himself out of prison on life-license.

Razor wrote a book called ‘A Rusty Gun’. If you are involved in prisons or justice in any way you absolutely have to read it - in fact it should be law that anyone involved does so - it really is that good.

Avoiding the temptation to share the many brilliant anecdotes from Razor’s book (just buy it please..) the relevant point of this encounter was Razor’s insight into the attitude of prisoners towards prison officers and other prisoners.

While I was happily chomping through my mixed grill, liberally spread with ketchup, Razor’s eyes were constantly darting around the crowded pub. The second anyone moved or entered the room his eyes would flicker towards them. Having watched this for a while I realised that what I was witnessing and had witnessed since picking him up, driving along, parking and walking to the riverside pub were literally hundreds of ‘threat assessments’. 

Eventually I asked him about this very unusual behaviour - it really was extraordinary. He explained that in prison you have to be constantly super-aware of everything around you and having only been recently released it was a habit that hadn’t worn off. It emerged that the threat assessments in prison were not simply directed at other unknown or ‘untrusted’ prisoners but at prison officers. I explored this further. Razor explained that there is a very firmly embedded and re-inforced ‘them and us’ culture in prisons. This was no surprise to me. I firmly understood that there was a very prevalent attitude amongst prison officers about how they viewed prisoners.

But. What Razor was explaining was that it works both ways and was very heavily reinforced by prisoners with a system of ‘respect’. The behaviour of a prisoner is expected, by his fellow prisoners, to be ‘respectful’. But this isn’t ‘respect’ as you might understand it. 

‘Respect’ means that prisoners have to behave in a particular way. There is a very clear and rigorously and sometimes brutally enforced ‘respect’ self governed system in place. Imagine hundreds of eyes each making hundreds of 'threat assessments' every day. If prisoners step outside the system by for example consorting with or being friendly with prison officers extreme measures are the possible consequence. Cell burn outs (prison cells being set fire to) or the famous sugar in boiling water skin treatment, almost always without consequence for the perpetrators, are examples of extreme measures.

So. Am I suggesting that the prison system today is not controlled by policy and management direction but instead by a barbaric under-the-radar system of control involving systematic violence against ‘innocent’ prisoners to maintain order?

Again No. Not exactly. 

But what I am suggesting is that the deeply and firmly embedded culture of prisoners on one hand and the prevalent culture amongst prison officers on the other hand and the ‘them and us’ divide between needs to be thoroughly grasped and understood to achieve effective reform.

The most famous example, of which I am aware, of unintended consequences from prison policy change is drug testing. At some point it was realised that smoking weed in prison was a problem. So random drug testing was brought in. Urine samples retain traces for a a long period so it was easy to work out who had been smoking weed. So was the problem cured? No. Prisoners switched to heroin and other hard drugs for escape as they didn't show up in the drug tests to the same degree. The problem was immeasurably increased.

So am I suggesting caution?

No way! 

If re-offending rates are to be dramatically reduced then prisoners need to be rehabilitated. The entire attitude to the purpose of prison needs to be re-defined and completely embedded against a culture which unless it is tackled simultaneously will result at best in a sense of ‘unattached levers’ being pulled and at worst perhaps even in worse outcomes - as has been seen before.

In other words, simply offering carrots to prison management and officers and prisoners will not do the job unless everyone buys into the process. There is a huge legacy of failed ‘rehabilitation revolutions’ over decades that leads prisoners and officers alike to pay nothing more than lip-service to current and future attempts. And the culture, albeit in all probability a dilute version of the extremes I have described in some institutions, is against working together.

But. If their attitudes and beliefs are really challenged, if change can be demonstrated and its benefits illustrated and conveyed then it can work. 

If prisoners continue to be warehoused in very expensive residential criminality schools with hundreds of others and have at least 23 hours a day spare to discuss criminality whilst their ‘role models’ for authority and the societal system treat them with varying levels of contempt then nothing substantial will change.

But if prisoners leave with a proper ‘respect’ for others, for difference, have dealt with their demons (Again please get on Amazon and order Razor’s book if you haven’t done it already!), comprehend and buy into the concept of society, have some skills with which to earn a decent living and with the possibility of becoming wealthy even! and have cast aside their attitude that society is working against them and so they are ‘allowed’ to work against it… then change is likely.

The nub of this is the attitude of prison management and officers towards prisoners and vice-versa. Without working out how to change this, change will be full of false starts, failed initiatives and ultimately nothing worthy of the excellent minds employed to solve this problem. The are a hundred spanners available to be thrown into the works for every excellent policy decision delivered without buy-in.

In the two years I spent researching the prison system I met exceptions. People like Ben Gunn and Razor who threw so much of his life away but who finally came to the realisation. And prison officers such as John Podmore (he really is quite extraordinary) author of ‘Out of Sight Out of Mind who have spent a career in the system for the right reason. 

Sadly there will be those who can’t be reformed - they will have to be sacked (wink). 

People such as Ben, Razor and John have the grasp of the detail. I don’t. But I would argue that I see the problem from the perspective of the prisoner, the prison officer, the policy maker, the public and the media. The key is to define the solutions with full account and buy-in from every one of those perspectives.

It’s a clash of culture problem. A public who, thanks to the media, believe that prisons are holiday camps and that punishment is the answer to crime prevention (ok you made inroads there already), prison management who work around the system to maintain control and who often maintain contempt for their guests, and prisoners who rarely learn anything than from other prisoners.

Back to the survey. 

The real test for culture change will be when every one of the groups identified above put the education and rehabilitation of prisoners as priorities. Then the sticking wheels will come unstuck and the wagon will roll, the revolving door will slowly stop spinning and the escape from the prison problem will be truly underway.

Breaking the Cycle of Crime with a Carrot

On Friday, after approximately two and a half months as Secretary of State for Justice, Michael Gove made a well received speech about prisons.

In brief summary, he talked about the horrendous re-offending rates:

45% of adult prisoners re-offend within one year of release.

58% of adult prisoners serving less than 12 months re-offend within 12 months.

More than 67% of under 18 prisoners re-offend within 12 months.

Clearly prison does not work if it results in these outcomes and Michael didn’t shirk from telling it how it is and identifying the extent of the problem and persistent failure. He went on to propose that education was a key way in which re-offending rates could be reduced and how increasing the responsibility and autonomy of Prison Governors could help it happen.

I read through the text of the speech, agreeing with every sentiment, but it was one particular sentence which gave me real pause for thought. It said:

‘There is a drive to change things, an urgent need to improve how we care for offenders, which will shape my response.’

The words that leapt out at me were ‘how we care for offenders’. Really? A Conservative justice secretary talking about ‘caring’ for offenders - what an extraordinary event. Conservatives are known for their tough on crime, big stick approach to criminal justice which historically has caused rapturous applause at Conservative Party Conferences from the party faithful.

But look at the results. Has the approach of a long succession of Conservative and Labour Home Secretaries and Justice Secretaries delivered results? 

Clearly not.

So perhaps this significantly different ‘tone’ betrays a significantly different approach which gives  cause for hope that a real change may flow from this.

In the past Home Secretaries and Justice Secretaries seem too often to have developed policy to provide a response to what they think the public wants - a big stick, tough on crime approach based on the presumption that ‘toughness’ will provide the deterrent required to reduce crime - ‘prison works’. ‘tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime’. Lots of nice sound bites and lots of applause - no results..Wrong approach.

Instead of reaching for the habitual stick, Gove is clearly thinking about the motives of offenders, and circumstances which offenders find themselves in and is looking for solutions from a far more logical and productive perspective.

I am convinced that this approach is the key to unlocking this conundrum. 

I don’t suppose that the Secretary of State thinks that access to academic education in itself will cause a revolution. But it can make a difference for those who don’t have basic literacy and numeracy skills and for those for whom imprisonment could offer a chance to move beyond basic education to further education. And it could make a difference to prison culture, if prisoners genuinely start to see a period of imprisonment as a time to change the course of their life.

If education leads to employment it can be THE crucial element in preventing re-offending alongside social support (ideally family and friends), and having a place to live. In many cases education that delivers practical skills is likely to be a very effective way of reducing re-offending - particularly when the sort skills they learn are not limited to skills that require a job (its difficult to get a job as an ex-offender) but can enable them to work on a self-employed basis. 

I spent some time working with a repeat offender who had finally managed to break his own cycle of repeated criminality when he learnt basic construction skills in prison. He left prison able to earn a modest living working for himself doing minor building work. For the first time in his life he had a practical alternative to crime without having to do mundane, very low paid work that was so dull it was just a matter of time before he cracked and returned to crime.

I suspect that some may miss what Michael Gove is up to here. They may dismiss this speech as yet another repackaged ‘rehabilitation revolution’ - strong on rhetoric but short on consideration, research or intent. Or they may just think that having spent most of the last 7 or 8 years working in education that he sees education as the answer to all the world’s ills.

But I think BBC correspondent Nick Robinson in his recent ‘The Inside Story of the Battle Over Britain’s Future’ got Michael Gove about right when he describes him by saying:

‘He is a softly spoken revolutionary, a genuine radical’. 

I spent a couple of years learning all I could about the prison system and saw how the big stick attitude to offenders habitually displayed by politicians (except perhaps Ken Clarke) was matched by the attitude of many prison officers working in the prison system. 

The general approach that I encountered, with some notable exceptions, was of prison officers who saw it as being their job to punish prisoners, even persecute them in some extreme cases. The result is a highly developed ‘them and us’ culture in prisons and therefore the only people who could help prisoners make life changing actions and decisions alienate themselves from the entire group -unsurprising then that the cycle of crime perpetuates.

I am convinced that prisons and the cycle of crime problem need a revolutionary approach - A complete rethink and reworking and a lot more use of the carrot rather than the stick.

(To be continued..)

Is Russell Brand or David Cameron a Joke?

I am now really quite worried. I have just watched Russell Brand’s latest edition of The Trews (The True News) in which he interviews Ed Miliband for 15 minutes. 

A few minutes before, my 18 year old daughter had been asking if there was a Youtube video she could watch that could help her decide which of the political parties to vote for. With no realisation of the ironic situation I was creating I then, just a couple of minutes later, checked Russell Brand’s site to see if the much awaited interview had been posted. 

It had, just a little while previously. So I got it up on our TV in the kitchen and my wife and I and my daughter watched it. Ed came across as a bit ‘politiciany’ with the usual weird hand gestures that all MPs seem to be afflicted with the moment after they enter Parliament, but other than that, he came across well. 

In fact, he came across very well. He countered all of Brand’s questions about vested interests and managed to clearly position himself as the solution to unfairness and the rich taking advantage of common people - he brilliantly positioned himself as the solution to the problem to which Brand and his followers subscribe.

Russell Brand currently has around 1.1 million subscribers. I would expect that the majority are voters in the 18-30 age bracket. People who are interested in politics but who were, up until tonight, disillusioned with all mainstream political parties. These people are the thought leaders of the future and for their generation today. These are the people who, up and down the land, will have spent many months regaling their friends with the insights about injustice that Brand has fed them in his last couple of hundred daily Youtube videos. 

Over time these insights will have built a clear picture of a problem demanding an answer. And tonight, Miliband has positioned himself as the solution.

Tomorrow, Brand plans to interview Caroline Lucas from the Green Party and no doubt will then interview others from other parties. He will continue to build his subscriber base into many millions as a result of the surrounding publicity and became ever more influential and able to define the political agenda.

And what has Dave done?

David Cameron has today managed to get himself on all the mainstream media not announcing that he too will be meeting with Brand, but instead that he thinks Russell Brand is ‘a joke’.

If he had spent an infinite number of hours racking his brains to come up with a way to completely shoot himself in the foot then he could not have come up with a better way of doing it. What a plonker. This election’s equivalent to Gordon Browns ‘bigot’ comment in 2010.

But not only has Cameron harmed the Conservatives election chances, he has also blighted future generations of Conservative battles by confirming in the minds of millions that the Conservatives are arrogant, thoughtless and condescending people. 

And it’s not the first time. It wasn’t long ago that he was insulting UKIP supporters - the most likely people to vote tactically for him at a General Election.

This is quite staggering. When will he wake up and realise he needs to do what he failed to do last time and win this election. Not just by repeating the same old nonsensical sound bytes but by sounding and seeming in touch, down-to-earth and comprehending of the realities of life.

Instead he just insults someone who has built a following by being these things..

Cameron needs to go. It’s the end of the line. The posh boy thing is not just a Labour label. It’s a reality. Boris is not the answer - another posh boy - although at least he can tell a joke instead of accusing others of being one. I don't have anything against the posh, just so long as they don't sound like the sort of privelaged, out-of-touch, people that the electorate despise.

Unless Cameron can turn this round fast, the Conservatives are heading for oblivion. And even if they do wind up as the largest party in the House of Commons loyal Conservatives must turn on him after the election and turf him out. 

The staggering lack of awareness and incompetence displayed today, and previously, simply cannot be tolerated any further.

I speak as a Conservative supporter - no joke.

Why Paul Deach is a Real Local Hero

I am not someone who tends to lavish praise on people without good reason to. In fact I think most people who know me would view me as a critic rather than someone who regularly doles out praise - perhaps I am too critical sometimes..

But casting aside my own reputation for a moment, frankly I think Paul Deach’s efforts and the consequent reputation that he has built over the last few years deserve some real recognition. I will explain as follows.

Paul, who originally comes from Manchester, lives in Deepcut near Camberley with his wife and daughter and works part time for the NHS. He is also a local Councillor.

A few years ago Paul setup something called the Surrey Heath Residents Network which is essentially an Internet based news and information resource for local people, organisations and businesses. Now that probably doesn’t sound too exciting so far. There are a lot of websites and organisations that attempt to do the same thing. The difference is that Paul’s works brilliantly and the approach and ethics that motive him really set it apart.

Paul envisaged, setup and runs the Surrey Heath Residents Network entirely on his own and provides a steady of torrent of news and information about local events, activities and important information on a very localised basis.

At the centre of the network is the Surrey Heath Residents Blog - a regularly updated website, supported by a Facebook page, Twitter Account, YouTube Channel and Email mailing list. Whatever local people’s social media preference may be, they can receive regular updates on all the local news and current events. As well as delivering a steady torrent of written articles, Paul also produces well produced and edited videos, high quality photography and audio pod-casts.

But most importantly it provides a really high quality service. If a local event is coming up you will hear about it via the network before it happens, if you can’t make it to the event, you will be able to see Paul’s pictures and videos about it anyway. If a local emergency occurs Paul will let you know about it, and if, god-forbid someone local’s child goes missing Paul will spread the news in hours and hundreds of eyes will be on the lookout.

Paul jokingly describes his religious views on his Facebook profile as ‘Jedi’ and describes himself as a ‘Jedi Master of Community Spirit’. They, whoever they are, do say self-praise is no recommendation. But in this case it stands because that is exactly what Paul is. Equipped with his iPhone, MP3 recorder and laptop, if not his light-sabre, Paul provides an extraordinarily comprehensive and pervasive service to his local community. Despite his roots being in the North of England, Paul has put down his own and is deeply committed to his local community and to helping and informing local people.

But there is also a broader perspective to this.

Having worked in the IT and media industry for some years I have watched with dismay and surprise the steady collapse of local media over the last 10-20 years – i.e. local and regional newspapers.

Rather than grasping the opportunity that the Internet and associated technologies provided, the local news organisations just carried on doing the same old thing in the same old way seemingly unaware that the advertising model that supported them was changing. One by one, they have fallen away leaving very few in operation and those that remain with greatly diminished resources and subsequently reduced quality – making them ever less appealing.

As a result, news delivery is now predominantly national or special interest. In other words you get your news from your national newspapers or their website or social media outlet, national TV companies or from special interest publications or sites.

So how do you stay connected with your local community, it’s issues and events? How do you get that sense of belonging and involvement that being informed and participating provides?

You don’t.

So when you need help, or advice or ideas or support locally where do you turn?

But then perhaps you haven’t needed these things and you don’t care. Perhaps in this commuter-belt area you don’t need to care. So long as you catch the 7.15am to Waterloo and watch News at Ten before bed you feel happy and informed.

I would contend that you should care. Because the place in which you live, is the community for your family, even if you only spend weekends in it. And the more people that are involved and informed about local issues, the more impetus there is behind efforts and initiatives to deal with problems and improve local quality of life.

But without that flow of information how are you ever going to know what’s going on, what’s important, what needs doing and where you can get a real sense of glowing satisfaction from having helped make your little part of the world a better place..?

And that is why what Paul is doing is so important.

He has not following a template that others have determined. He has ploughed his own furrough. Worked out his own business model, overcome the obstacles and just got on and done it – brilliantly.

Paul has funded the entire operation himself and supports the running costs of the site by enabling local businesses to promote themselves on his site – again a really valuable service for businesses with a local customer base.

That’s why I think Paul is a trail-blazing hero who deserves some recognition, not just for his community minded spirit, but for actually getting on and doing it rather than sitting around and thinking about it.

But I am also deeply enthused by what Paul has done because it is a great demonstration of how to provide the missing link for active local democracy and local accountability. It's striking to note how little interest there is in the Local Police and Crime Commissioners we had the opportunity to elect in 2012 or how disinterested the electorate was in having elected Regional Assemblies back in 2004 - only around 20 odd percent of people voted to have them - a complete failure.

Now consider the Scottish Referendum and the changes that have occurred in Scotland culminating in a seismic political event yesterday - albeit with a less dramatic outcome than was possible. As was pointed out by some sharp-eyed commentator during the campaign, this could never have happened before the large Scottish media outlets (newspapers etc) started producing Scottish editions. The flow of 'localised news' created a notion of self-interest and awareness that people responded to in large numbers. Be you a Yes or No supporter, you surely have to applaud a successful democratic process in which a majority of people decide on something which will critically affect their lives..

All the best Paul. I know you will find this blog-post a bit of a surprise but I genuinely admire what you have achieved so far and what I think is the further limitless scope for what you are doing.

http://surreyheath-residents.co.uk/

Will Scotland Really Want to Bear the Cost of Independence?

Personally I have no idea at all if the complex economics of the situation mean that Scotland will be better off as part of the UK, or as an independent nation. To me it seems that it largely depends on the outcome of the negotiations that would follow a Yes result. Yet, this seems to be a crucial point that has largely been missed in this referendum campaign.

The Scottish referendum is not technically a referendum with a Yes result that automatically confers independence on Scotland. It is actually simply a referendum which, with a Yes result, would give the Scottish Parliament the authority to open negotiations for independence.

Sitting down at the negotiating table, Alex Salmond will quite obviously be attempting to negotiate the best deal he can for Scotland. He will want to minimise the debt burden that the Scottish government want to take on, he will want a special deal to use the British Pound and he will want to pay as little as possible towards the relocation of UK assets to England/Scotland as required.

The Anglo/Welsh/Northern Irish Government conversely will be looking to get the best deal for the remaining nations of the old United Kingdom.

Perhaps negotiations will be concluded quickly and easily and a deal will be done.

But perhaps not. Perhaps instead there will be a stand-off with the Scottish demanding a low debt and low exit price and the EWNI (England, Wales, NI) Government demanding a considerably higher one. It seems very likely that this will happen.

What happens then?

I would imagine the Scots cry foul and launch a campaign to get the support of majority of Scottish to the idea that the nasty EWNI Government are trying to rip them off.

Simultaneously the EWNI will launch a campaign to convince it’s own nationals and the Scottish that the Scots, after hundreds or years of subsidy, are trying to renege on their responsibilities. There is a general idea around that the Scots are very stingy with cash – so it will play to existing prejudices and easily garner huge support.

If things get really out of hand we could have social unrest and even the rise of Terrorism – a new ISA (Independent Scottish Army).

But perhaps it will not come to this:

It seems strange, and a very poor negotiating stance, that Alex Salmond recently threatened not to pay Scotland’s share of the national debt when independent.

Surely this threat just means that a Scottish Government will not be given independence without having paid off it’s debt first? And how will this fledgling nation borrow the huge sums of cash involved? Who will lend to this self confessed debt reneging government with their strange new Scottish currency?

Perhaps the markets will, but at very much higher rates than are currently being ‘enjoyed’ on the UK national debt.

So how will the prospect of Scottish Independence then look economically if a huge proportion of it’s tax take is going to go on debt interest repayments and restructuring costs and they have lost the UK Barnett Formula subsidy from the UK that they currently do enjoy?

Will the gusto and bluster of the Independence supporters stutter to a halt as the realisation dawns that the future looks horribly bleak. A high tax, low spend, low inward investment economy with the majority of it’s public sector jobs gone south – literally.

Perhaps the Scottish people will demand another referendum before the Scottish government takes them to independence because suddenly the deal doesn’t look so great and the future isn’t bright. It’s cold, wet, miserable, lonely and poor.

It’s interesting that Cameron’s promised ‘if I am the boss’ EU referendum in 2017 is to be proceeded by a negotiation so we know exactly what the EU deal (if there is one on offer) is. Seems like quite a good idea really doesn’t it.

Of course leaving the EU will be much easier for us than for Scotland to leave the UK – the EU doesn’t raise our taxes or control our currency.

All in all, it’s less Braveheart. More broken hearts. Scottish ones.

England’s World Cup Failure is Fault of the Working Class

Ok. I hope that got your attention. If you are a staunch Labour voter it’s precisely the sort of outrageous slur and pile of old steaming horseshit you expect from a dirty filthy Tory boy.

I shall now explain why you are wrong you flat cap wearing low-life scumbag.

But before I go into this I should just explain one thing. I know absolutely nothing about football whatsoever. I didn’t play it at school apart from on the odd occasion in the playground and I rarely ever watch a game other than during a World Cup.

But, that in essence is what I think qualifies me to be able to see the cause of the problem so clearly because, I believe, a big part of the problem is that everyone involved in football has almost always been involved in football and therefore is simply incapable of seeing where it’s going wrong. They are too conditioned, too used to seeing things from one perspective and too concentrated on the detail to see the big picture.

The problem with English football is that it is a game for the uneducated lower classes. And I don’t think I am, in fact, committing some kind of class slur by saying so – I am simply stating facts.

I remember a kid at school getting picked out as a talented footballer and then in the last year of school seeing him waiting for the bus every morning as he went off to Aldershot Football Club. I remember hearing that the money was terrible and that he spent most of his time cleaning the senior player’s boots – but that was apparently the way it worked. He was serving a servile apprenticeship that required no intelligence - in fact it demanded limited intelligence to be endurable.

And that I gather is the way that everyone gets into football. They get spotted as a talented kid, encouraged to spend as little time in the classroom as possible and as much time on the pitch as they can and then get fed into the football club machine until they are either cruely spat-out and rejected or until they ultimately make it to the big-time and start earning a decent living playing the game.

I guess there must be some smart academic kids in England who show some early talent for the game but no doubt even if they do manage to combine study with lots of time playing football their most likely well-educated parents wouldn’t dream of sending them off to do 5 years boot cleaning at a football club and give up on any reasonable level of education.

So the result of all that is that the lucky few who do make it to become players, then eventually retire and become pundits or presenters (Lineker etc) or get into management and coaching and then eventually one or two such as Venables, Hoddle or now Grandpappy Hodgson get to coach/manage the National side.

It should therefore be no surprise that the sort of analysis that comes from the TV studios only has any real insight or depth of analysis when it comes from the increasing number of foreign luminaries who are drafted into to displace the mindless drivel of our home-grown football monkeys droning on about a game of two halves, ‘it needs more vision and more communication on the pitch’ sort of nonsense.

And equally it should be no surprise that England has for so long failed to deliver any kind of promising performance on the pitch – because the same type of people with the same lack of analytical nouse migrate from the pitch to management.

I remember a story a few years back when it emerged that a particular Chelsea player, whose name I frustrating can’t remember, was derided by his fellow players because he read a broadsheet newspaper. Apparently he was an outcast because he was thought to be wasting his time exercising his mind instead of his legs.

It’s not that I am suggesting that England players should all have first class degrees, be capable of reciting great tracts of Shakespeare or harbour ambitions to get into brain surgery after their playing careers finish.

But I am suggesting that if we largely deliver poorly educated, generally lower working-class kids into the system who then have their entire lives run by football clubs staffed by people with a similar background then it should be no surprise if when the select few do eventually reach the top of the pile that they do lack the vision, analytical skills and insight that are required to build and hone a successful National team.

When Sir Clive Woodward finished up as England Rugby Coach having won the 2003 World Cup he turned his attention to football. In one newspaper interview he claimed that he never really liked Rugby and had always preferred football. He said one of his mates was someone senior at Southampton Football Club and he was going to get into coaching or managing football clubs through that route.

I think he probably could have made a big impact by applying some of the world beating continuous performance improvement techniques that he applied to English Rugby that so spectacularly turned us into World Cup Winners and World Cup finalists four years later.

But equally, I am not at all surprised that he is not part of the English Football setup. I just can’t imagine anyone having opened that door to him. To be involved in English football at any senior management level I imagine you wouldn’t get a look in unless you were one of those who had trodden the same path as all the others – i.e. been a football apprentice done good.

So lets stop all this nonsense about Roy Hodgson being a lovely old bloke – give him a break – look forward to the Euros in 2 years time-crap!

Bollocks. Hodgson may be a nice bloke but barring at least a five goal margin in England’s favour against Costa Rica on Tuesday he needs to be sacked along with his unshaven, miserable faced Captain – Gerard. England’s self-respect demands that at least. A public flogging (particularly for Gerard – it couldn’t make him look any more miserable) would be more appropriate.

And then the England setup needs to look deep into the abyss. Stop deluding themselves about ‘building a young team’ and ‘looking to the future’ and accept that the meaningful failures are not the on the pitch tactical failures. They are far more serious. They are systemic - so the system needs to change.

And that means breaking out of football being a working class game, run for working class people by working class people and all that old nonsense. Football gained a classless appeal for it’s audiences a long time ago but it’s still clearly run on that old failing basis.

Because while playing and managing English football remains the unintentional preserve of the working classes the world has moved on. The inverted snobbery of football simply cannot be sustained – the class divide must be smashed and the finest analytical minds from all areas of sporting experience and performance must be employed to dismantle the entire system and rebuild it as as a high performance machine that can deliver.

England Expects. Still.

Please Share if you care.

Another Epic Clegg Fail

Last night’s debate between Nigel and Farage and Nick Clegg was, in the early stages, quite a close run thing. But as Farage warmed up and Clegg failed to land any compelling arguments, lost his cool and lapsed into a patronizing approach, he started to fall further and further behind.

The YouGov poll just released says that 68% think Farage won with just 27% for Clegg.

But while everyone seems to be obsessed with who won, I was more interested in the substance of the debate that is finally being heard.

The central question on Europe is obviously - Are we better off in or out? The debate wasn’t exactly a forensic examination of this question but it did at least start to unravel some of the main issues.

On the issue of economics (i.e. would we be financially better off out) Clegg failed to make any compelling argument for the EU. Farage mentioned that the EU costs Britain £50million per day (£18billion a year) but Clegg seemed unable to justify any real cost benefits of membership.

He said that if Britain were out of the EU it would cost jobs but he entirely failed to justify why and instead resorted to pointing out that Britain would have to negotiate separate trade deals with other countries if it were outside the EU but again failed to justify why this would be a problem.

I was disappointed with Clegg. This was his opportunity to deliver real compelling Pro-EU arguments but he completely failed to do so. It really makes me wonder why he bothered to take part without having come armed with some solid arguments.

Until now, the advantage that Clegg and EU supporters in general have had was that in the absence of any real debate, many have been concerned that the prospect of leaving the EU involved a significant risk or peril – the uncertainty was an argument for the status-quo.

Yet having taken the opportunity to enter the debate, Clegg entirely failed to outline any significant risk or issue and so in failing to make this case he removed a degree of that uncertainty.

Instead Clegg made some fairly ridiculous claims. He tried to give the impression that the EU cost no more than Derbyshire County Council – ‘Some Superstate’ he sneered.

This is complete nonsense. Derbyshire County Council’s annual expenditure is around £1.1 billion. Britain alone pays £18 billion per year to the EU!

He also adopted a somewhat contradictory approach on defence. He claimed that, contrary to many reports, there are no plans for a European Army, Navy or Airforce, yet at the same time tried to claim we are safer in the EU. How exactly Nick?

Even on the subject of immigration, a subject on which even some of Farage’s most outspoken proponents disagree with him, Clegg again failed to make an argument. Instead he spent his time trying to suggest that Farage had claimed that 480million people would turn up in the UK as a result of EU free movement of people. It was a clearly ridiculous assertion.

On the subject of democratic accountability again Clegg failed to make an argument. He seemed to accept that the EU is not democratically accountable and ‘needs reform’.

All in all Clegg completely failed to champion a Pro-Eu argument. He simply used wishy-washy phrases about countries ‘working together’ and tried to paint the EU as being ‘the future’.

Farage effectively demolished that notion by pointing out that the EU in fact is an out-of-date protectionist block in a globalized and relatively free-trading world and Britain would be better of unshackled from it’s restraints.

Clegg came across as a blind bureaucrat incapable of envisaging an alternative to the EU yet also entirely incapable of making an argument for it.

You would think that, as polling has proved, the majority of the country are highly skeptical of the EU, or against continued membership, that Clegg or someone else would feel compelled to argue forcefully and convincingly for it’s merits.

But perhaps Clegg fundamentally believes that no British government will ever give the British people the opportunity to vote on membership of the EU. Perhaps he fails to make the argument not simply because of his own inadequacy but also because there is no situation that merits it. Perhaps he only entered the debate to try and revive his own flagging credibility.

If so it was, following the tuition fees fail and his stunning failure in the AV referendum (68% against), yet another Epic Fail.

Is Government Funding Killing the Arts?

This evening I attended the final of Woking's Annual Drama Festival. Over the last two weeks, amateur drama groups from as far afield as Bristol and Essex have competed to win one or more of 16 awards. The festival is apparently quite well known and highly regarded.

So I was surprised to find that on each of the three nights of the festival that I attended, the theatre (a modest 260 seater) wasn't even close to full. Even on the last night, tonight, when three of the best plays were recalled to be shown again, the theatre was only around half full.

Why?

The only reason I knew about the festival was that I am a member of a group who took part, but sadly weren't nominated for any of the awards. Otherwise I wouldn't have known about it. I have never heard of it before despite being a reasonably regular and local (30 years plus) theatre goer - surely indicating a major communication failure.

Following tonight's three performances, the adjudicator gave his assessment of the quality of performances he had seen throughout the two weeks of the festival.

'Was this year a vintage year for Woking Drama Festival?', he asked.

'Not Really', he said, 'Some of the groups didn't really bother to try very hard.'

It was a fairly damning indictment from someone who clearly knows his stuff.

He went on to implore the drama groups who attended the final night (not all bothered) to make use of the unusually high standard of facilities available at the theatre which has recently been gifted £300,000 by the local council for improvements.

And that £300k really got me thinking. The typical theatre goer is relatively wealthy. Why on earth should £300,000 pounds of local taxpayers money be lavished on a tiny, wealthy majority? And why is it?

An email I received earlier this week perhaps helps answer that question. It was imploring me, as someone who had bought a ticket for a previous festival night, to attend last Tuesday's festival night as the mayor was attending and given the £300k the council had spent they wanted to create the false impression that the festival was well attended and deceive the mayor into thinking that local taxpayers money had been wisely spent...

Isn't this madness?

What usually happens when you give people money for nothing? Are they incentivised to work hard and be creative?

Theatre is a unique and brilliant art form. But is government funding helping or ultimately hindering?

Does it help drive innovation and creativity when government hands out money to the arts?

Some would argue that without government money, the arts would die. But isn't it true that with government money the most creative people spend their time and energy competing for grants rather than working out how to attract audiences? - Isn't it therefore a downward spiral?

I suspect that the organisations at the top of the tree, who manage to garner national government funding and who should be telling the big story about the unique and compelling attractions of theatre are not doing as much of it as they would be, if they weren't being gifted taxpayers cash.

The UK's big-name football clubs are not subsidised yet they manage to inspire millions of people to play football at clubs around the country and further millions of others around the world. You will not find a city in the world without hundreds of Manchester United supporters..

So is government funding actually killing the arts by removing incentives and rewarding mediocrity which in turn creates a less compelling product for audiences?

If all direct and in-direct funding were suddenly withdrawn certainly some theatres would fail - the ones that produce a poorer quality product. But those that were left would succeed and perhaps out of the improved average quality, the result would be that more people would view theatre as something desirable to be involved with either as a member of an audience or as a participant.

And perhaps the major theatres and theatre production companies would do what major football clubs in this country have done and invest in creating sustainable mass audiences by effectively marketing the appeals of their product rather than making grant submissions. Not simply selling each production, but the very idea and appeal of going to the theatre.

And in turn perhaps thousands of people who attended and enjoyed this exciting well marketed medium of theatre would be tempted to join small drama and theatre groups and compete against each other in increasingly well attended, high quality festivals and competitions... thus driving standards and participation ever higher..

Does it seem like the perhaps counter-intuitive answer to the original question is yes?

Conservative Denial and Wishful Thinking

Denial and Wishful Thinking

I quite liked David Cameron's speech. As one of the media commentators noted 'he has realised he doesn't work as a man of the people so now he is just telling it like it is.' It was a good observation. He looked and sounded workmanlike. His messages appealed to his Conservative membership audience but also had the scope to appeal to a wider audience but without attempting to please everyone and therefore diluting appeal to all.

Unfortunately, you could say exactly the same about Ed Miliband. So whilst both leaders have pleased their own crowd, their core-vote, they are both left competing for the none of the above vote, both with reasonably compelling messages.

On the one hand, Dave is talking about dismantling some of the wilder excesses of the welfare state - requiring the unemployed to work for benefits and potentially withdrawing benefits from younger people who are not in training whilst out of work.

On the other, you have Ed embracing Socialism and constantly reminding everyone of his pedigree by lashing out repeatedly at the Daily Mail for picking on his deceased Father.

All in all, things are shaping up nicely for a long running and stimulating scrap as we head towards to the 2015 General Election.

But. Considering the electoral arithmetic - with the Conservatives requiring a larger share of the vote than Labour to win a majority, I simply cannot understand the degree of complacency that exists in the Conservative supporting media.

The general consensus seems to be that now that Ed has turned back to Socialism it is only a matter of time until the electorate comprehend the full horror and implications of his direction and reject him wholesale. And, furthermore, it is equally inevitable that those wayward Ukipers will see the light, decide that their vote for UKIP would usher in Ed and his nasty socialism and put aside all the abuse that they have suffered from the Conservative leadership and luminaries aside - and vote Conservative..

I am not so sure.

My reckoning is that for every UKIP vote that Dave can win back, Ed can win a Lib Dem vote to Labour on a similar basis - few think that a Lab/Lib Coalition is credible in 2015.

And equally, for every none of the above vote that can be persuaded of the evils of Miliband Socialism, there is another that can be persuaded that in a post crash world, Capitalism is discredited and the answer must be some kind of reconstructed Socialism.

Dave now needs to develop and demonstrate a ruthless, inspiring, competition crushing energy and conviction or yet again he will disappoint.

A Conservative majority at the next election is possible but only if Dave makes it happen - the kind of entitlement expectation that led him to lose the unlose-able 2010 General Election will end in complete disaster in 2015..

Conservative Conference Review

For the last few years, I have posted a detailed review of the Conservative Conference, rating each of the speakers that I have watched. This year I have decided not to do this, partly because I haven't had the time to watch each speech as carefully as in previous years.

Sadly, from what I have seen so far, this year's Conference looks like a slightly grey version of previous years Conferences. The set, rather than being a vibrant blue, is a slightly shaby grey looking dark blue and many of the speakers seem to lack the energy they had in previous years - I guess running the country in coalition must be taking it's toll.

Boris's speech, as usual has been a highlight, but even his speech has lacked the extent of humour and engaging style of previous years.

Many of the speakers are now tending towards a 'lecturing' style, something which I guess is a feature of a ministerial team who now, with over three years in government, know their business extremely well. But it does have a slightly patronising air to it and fails to persuade in a way that a more appealing delivery would.

But I suppose at least they look serious and workmanlike.

Michael Gove's speech was solid as usual. And, as usual, he preceded his own words by inviting some guests to speak about Education.



Let's hope this approach was intentionally low-key and they are planning a big, fresh, colourful, engaging and inspiring conference in 2014 before the 2015 General Election.

A Review of ‘Power Trip’ by Damian McBride

I have been off Politics for quite a while lately but I really couldn’t resist getting hold of a copy of this new revelatory book by Gordon Brown’s ex-personal spin-doctor and chief skullduggerer Damian McBride. To my surprise I was able to buy a copy on iTunes on Monday evening – before it was supposedly released on Tuesday to coincide with Ed Miliband’s big speech. I guess that shows how keen I was and the book didn’t disappoint.

McBride was famously responsible for the nasty habit of briefing against politicians in his own party (Labour) and for fabricating various unpleasant stories and placing them in the media to discredit Gordon Brown’s opponents and others. Ultimately, McBride’s dirty tricks ended in his sacking in 2009 when a series of incriminating emails from him were exposed.

Damian’s book is a real page-turner. He doesn’t waste time telling us about his childhood but barrels straight into the story building a very clear picture of exactly what it was like working behind-the-scenes first at the Treasury and then at No 10 for Gordon Brown.

In the days leading up to the launch of the book, in various media appearances on Newsnight and other places, Damian’s response to the question that everyone was asking, about Gordon Brown’s knowledge of what he was up to at the time was that Brown had not known about his ‘dirty tricks’.

In his book, McBride explains exactly how his method for ‘Lying Without Actually Lying’ worked.

If you read this book and watched any of those interviews there maybe moments during which you recollect what he said that you feel like involuntarily shouting the word ‘snap!’

As Damian said in various interviews, whilst using the patent-pending McBride ‘Lying without Actually Lying’ Method, Gordy probably didn’t know the specifics of all of Damian’s ‘dirty tricks’.

However, with the use of this book, a modicum of common-sense and just seven brain cells you too would have to conclude that Gordon understood exactly the approach that McBride was adopting on his behalf.

All in all, this simply confirms what many of us suspected about Brown’s approach to Politics and the book goes on to confirm other stories of Gordon Brown’s moodiness, bad tempers, repeated habit of blaming others for his own failings and general boorishness.

Yet despite recounting all this, Damian repeatedly says how much he admired Brown. In fact, in one interview with LBC’s Nick Ferrari he confessed to actually loving Gordy although I gather not in a fumbly, sexy way. I think it was more like Nelson and Hardy but with a different tragic ending.

And that very apparent contradiction leads me to a conclusion of what I think actually drove McBride to do the things he did. He didn’t do it because he, as he sometimes seems to suggest, actually really, at the root of things, admired Brown for his absolute greatness - he didn’t.

Instead he was initially in thrall to Brown’s position because of the desire to do a really good job for someone who he had only ever known as being very important.  He first met Gordon when he was Chancellor, wanted to do the best job possible and wasn’t limited by any of the sort of moral and ethical boundaries you might hope would exist. He then smothered his conscience by telling himself it was devotion to Gordon and his brilliance and thus the end justified the means – something he continually wrestled with until the end.

So for me the answer to the big, ‘neatly avoided without appearing to avoid’ (think I might patent that myself!) question of who was responsible for Damian’s approach and activities is simple – Gordon Brown and of course, as he admits, Damian himself.

Damian’s book is brilliantly written. I would strongly recommend it to anyone even slightly interested in Politics as a real insight into how things actually work.

There were two revelations that I found particularly intriguing:

When recounting the period of ‘The Election that Never Was’ when Gordy, despite riding high in the polls, failed to call an election in late 2007, Damian reveals that one of the headline policies for the planned General Election campaign was the scrapping of tuition fees.

As Ed Miliband and Ed Balls were Gordon’s closest political allies at the time, I wonder now if this will be one of their headline policy announcements in the run-up to the 2015 GE?

The other revelation was that Damian seems to suggest that out there, somewhere is some incriminating evidence that Ed Miliband was directly involved in some dirty tricks in the form of some emails.

Is someone keeping their powder dry until 2015?

Incidentally, there is a particular moment in his interview with Paxman on Newsnight on this Monday 23^rd (around 17.5 minutes in – available on iPlayer! here) when McBride is being asked by Paxman if he still ‘speaks’ to senior people in the Labour party.

Damian momentarily blanches until Paxman helpfully goes on to ask him when he last ‘saw’ Ed Balls - rather than pursuing the original question. Damian then describes his last physical meeting some time ago. He then asks him about Miliband and again McBride is able to answer that he hasn’t seem him for a long time.

My bet is that the answer to the original question, which Paxman mysteriously fumbled (perhaps he thinks McBride has something on him!), would have given a very different impression. But then I have read the book and have an insight into the McBride methods.

You should read it too.