Dare to pay the rate for the job

When will a UK government face down the Express and the Mail and assert that it is important to carry out public administration well, and for that it is necessary to pay public servants salaries in the same ball park as those performing comparable work outside government? It is all the more important that the chancellor of the exchequer receives sound unbiased advice from a civil service independent of vested interests, rather than having to rely on oligarchs and staff lent to him by merchant bankers and multinational accountants.

This failure to pay the rate for the job was brought home by the evidence given to Treasury Select Committee last Tuesday by Sir Nicholas Macpherson, Permanent Secretary to the Treasury. According to the Independent, Sir Nicholas said that the superior pay on offer to staff at the central bank and also the tax authorities made it hard to prevent talented junior staff from jumping ship. What is surprising is that not only are City institutions paying more than the Treasury, but also that “We pay less well than other departments, we have much higher turnover and I think we’ve got to do something about it”. It is not as if other parts of the civil service are totally happy with their pay: "13 per cent of Treasury employees felt they were receiving reasonable pay compared to people doing a similar job in other organisations. The comparable figure at HMRC was 23 per cent. At the Department of Communities and Local Government 32 per cent felt their pay was reasonable. At the Foreign Office 26 per cent felt the same." (from the same Independent report)

The one bright spot is that the more female-friendly ethos of the Treasury means that the Department continues to retain high-calibre women. “Often we will retain high quality women who will have child caring responsibilities who find life as City corporate lawyer or a City financier pretty difficult” said Sir Nicholas.

One might ask when we are going to see a Madam Chancellor of the Exchequer - but that is for another day.

Labour's recession not as bad as we thought

 - if you take prostitution and illegal drugs into account.

The Indy reports that the adoption of a new EU-wide accounting method (ESA2010), which incorporates estimates of activity in the black economy for the first time, has enabled the Office for National Statistics to paint a slightly rosier picture of the late noughties. The fall in GDP from the first quarter of 2008, when the American-led and UK-assisted credit crunch first hit, to the low point in 2009 was "only" 6%, as against the previous estimate of 7.2%.

While the revision may mean that that "UK output returned to its pre-crisis peak in the third quarter of 2013, almost a year earlier than previously thought", "the ONS itself [...] said that the changes did not significantly change the picture of the economy's performance since the recession. 'Although the downturn was less deep than previously estimated and subsequent growth stronger, it remains the case that the UK experienced the deepest recession since ONS records began in 1948'".

It will be interesting to see what effect ESA2010 has on Spain's revised figures, due to be published on 25th September. It has been estimated that the black economy accounts for about 25% of Spain's activity, on a par with that of Greece.

New EU council president sympathises with Cameron

Should we be worried?

Giles Goodall of the UK European Movement has issued this helpful background note to the recent appointments in Brussels:

In the well-worn tradition of filling the EU’s top jobs, last week’s summit stands out as something of a mini-revolution. In a delicate and complex (s)election process – whereby 28 leaders must agree on a candidate whilst simultaneously satisfying multiple requirements ranging from political to geographical – merit is not always the primary criterion. 

This time though, it was different. In choosing Poland’s Donald Tusk as president of the European Council and Italy’s Federica Mogherini as the EU’s next foreign affairs chief, the system may just have worked. As a ticket, the new appointments successfully tick all the right boxes: centre-right/centre-left, male/female, and east/west. Yet they are so much more than that too. 

Tusk’s election marks the first time a central or eastern European takes one of the EU’s top jobs (though his compatriot Jerzy Buzek already successfully led the European Parliament). Mogherini is a bold (and young) new face for the EU, bringing strong communication skills to a role that has suffered from low visibility since it was created in 2009.

The significance of Tusk’s appointment in particular is hard to overstate. It marks the coming of age both of Poland as a major player in Europe – after a decade as an EU member – and of an EU that has successfully reunited east and west. 25 years after the fall of the Berlin Wall, foreign minister Radek Sikorski – himself a candidate for the foreign affairs role – heralded ‘a great day for Poland.’ 

But it isn't just a good result for Poland – Tusk’s election also marks a notable diplomatic success for Britain. It crowns the achievement of EU enlargement, a policy devised, promoted and implemented by the UK. Learning perhaps from his ill-advised campaign against Jean-Claude Juncker as European Commission President, David Cameron realised the strategic interests at stake and publicly backed Tusk’s candidacy. He was right to do so. 

Tusk moved quickly to say he “cannot imagine an EU without the UK” and that many of the reforms put forward by Britain are “reasonable”. More importantly, the Polish prime minister is one of Europe’s star leaders, overseeing a hugely successful Polish economy and growing presence on the world stage in recent years. He is well connected with Germany and has strong credentials for standing up to Vladimir Putin in the Ukrainian crisis. 

He is also a convinced – and convincing – European. Launching Poland’s stint at the EU presidency in 2011, he departed from the usual downbeat, crisis-dominated script to declare: "the European Union is great. It is the best place on Earth to be born and to live your life." Bringing perspective to anti-Europeans, he said: "We were truly occupied by the Soviets. That's why for us EU integration is not a threat to the sovereignty of the member states." He has called the free movement of people "a great value" whose benefits some in 'old Europe' take for granted. 

Even on his weakest point – his supposedly limited language skills – Tusk successfully quipped (in fluent English) that he will “polish his English.” Finally, he promised to bring some much-needed central and eastern European energy to the EU. It will successfully complement Juncker's experience and Mogherini's communication skills. That’s good news for Britain, and good news for Europe.

It seems to me that the Tory thrust is to claw back the hard-won benefits of the social chapter, like the banning of ageism in the workplace. I hope that it is not what Tusk agrees with, or we are likely to see a race to the bottom in the EU with attacks on wages and job security. If on the other hand there is to be administrative streamlining and opening up the services market, things which Conservatives have also called for, then there is some hope.

UKIP wouldn't like it

There is an EU-wide (plus some other continental countries) facility ("portal") for helping workers from areas of high unemployment to those where there is a shortage of their sort of skills. A review has found that labour mobility is not as high as anticipated. The Commission recommends that the portal should extend its links to include private and third-sector employment bureaux rather than restrict itself to government departments, like the UK's Department of Work and Pensions, among other proposals.  (My gloss on the pdf here.)

Some extracts:

the free movement of workers is considered as a key element in the development of a more integrated EU labour market which allows worker mobility from high unemployment areas to those characterised by labour shortages. It also contributes to finding the right skills for vacant positions and overcoming bottlenecks and mismatches in the labour market. But despite the social and economic benefits it generates, intra-EU labour mobility is still limited, with an annual mobility rate in the EU of 0.29 per cent, and only 3.1 per cent of the European labour force being economically active in another Member State. Surveys show, however, that there is a significant mobility potential within the EU, with 2.9 million EU citizens indicating firm intentions to move in the next 12 months.

Set up in 1993, EURES is a European network for co-operation between the Public Employment Services ('PES') of the EEA Member States (the EU countries plus Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein), on the one hand, and the European Commission, on the other, allowing the exchange of vacancies and employment applications (so-called 'clearance'). It comprises an internet portal and a network of employment advisers, and accounts for approximately 150 000 placements per year.

[...]

The general objective of this initiative is to move further towards an integrated European labour market.
This is translated into the following specific objectives which address the five principal shortcomings identified above:
1. 'To achieve on the EURES portal a nearly complete supply of job vacancies, with job seekers all over Europe having instant access to the same vacancies, in combination with an extensive pool of CVs available from which registered employers can recruit;
2. To enable the EURES portal to carry out a good automated matching between job vacancies, job
applications and CVs, translating in all EU languages and understanding skills, competences, occupations and qualifications acquired at national level;
3. To make available basic information on the EURES network throughout the Union to any job seeker or employer seeking client services for recruitment and to consistently offer any person interested access to the EURES network;
4. To assist any such person interested with matching, placement and recruitment through the EURES network;
5. To support the functioning of the EURES network through information exchange on national labour shortages and surpluses and the co-ordination of actions across Member States.

Notwithstanding the European Parliament's thinking that the EC's work was done on the back of a fag-packet (my interpretation of their conclusions), anything that can reduce the imbalances of labour supply and demand across Europe must be a good thing. Even looking at it selfishly from the UK's point of view, while we are a net importer of labour at present, that has not been the situation in the past and will probably not hold true when the continental EU recovery is under way.

Chipping away at our freedoms

It would be wrong to suggest that JTAC's recent raising of the terrorist threat level was politically motivated. However, the government can be charged with political misuse of JTAC assessments. There was a time when these were communicated only to those who needed to know - the security forces, the police and government offices.

I suspect that Conservative ministers have given publicity to the threat level in order to ease the way for a return to the illiberal and borderline racist policies of the last Labour government. In part this would be as a result of persistent lobbying by reactionary elements of permanent staff and those with close links to US agencies, but it would also be seen as a way of differentiating them from their coalition partners in the run-up to the 2015 general election. Creating an aura of fear lends spurious credibility to the charge that liberals are "soft on terror". It is a big change from those heady days of 2010 when we thought that both parties were as one in the restoration of civil liberties.

The prime minister's statement to the House on Monday was split between the EU, Ukraine and Syria. It was understandable that Ukraine and the role of Nato occupied a large part of the questioning. However, Sir Menzies Campbell set down a marker:

Sir Menzies Campbell (North East Fife) (LD): May I welcome the fact that my right hon. Friend’s statement was rather more nuanced than some of the reports have suggested over the weekend? May I take him directly to the question of the exclusion of United Kingdom nationals from the United Kingdom? Is he aware that there is very substantial doubt as to whether that would be legal, not least, of course, because of our international obligations in treaties and conventions? In addition, hardly anything has been said about the practicality of such a proposal. Who would decide, would any such suspension be without limit of time, and, indeed, would any appeal be appropriate? In those circumstances, a great deal of work needs to be done on the proposal he has outlined.

and he was supported by the former attorney-general, so disgracefully dismissed:

Mr Dominic Grieve (Beaconsfield) (Con): May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the broad thrust of his statement? But I have to say that I share the concern that has been expressed about the suggestion that British nationals, however horribly they may be alleged to have behaved, should be prevented from returning to this country. That would offend not only principles of international law, but basic principles of our own common law. I recommend to him that the best course must be to bring these individuals to justice, and he may wish to confirm to the House that we have actually been quite successful in doing just that over the past nine months.

John Leech drew attention to the insidious way that big banks are doing dirty work for the spooks:

Mr John Leech (Manchester, Withington) (LD): A number of innocent British nationals of Syrian descent have already faced problems, including frozen and closed bank accounts, when returning from supporting  humanitarian efforts in and around Syria. How will the Prime Minister ensure that innocent British nationals returning to the UK are not labelled as suspected terrorists?

The situation is worse than that, though. Both the Daily Mail and the Independent have drawn attention to what amounts to racial profiling by HSBC. This bank is not alone.

I note that David Davis, so consistently a supporter of civil liberties, was not around to question the PM's statement. Nor were those few Labour members who profess similar views on individual freedoms. Perhaps they are saving their fire for the debate on the legislation, but I am interested to learn their views.

Radicalisation

Another strand of Monday's questioning was the need to tackle the trouble at source, the seduction of (mostly) young Muslims in this country to a programme of violence via radical preachers and online. We are not alone in this. In fact, a proportionately larger contribution to violent jihad is made by Belgium. Germany also identified the danger and instituted "Hayat" which appears to be working well.

This is the main theme of Nick Clegg's contribution to "Reinventing the State" (2007). In "Tackling Terrorism: a Liberal Democrat Approach", Nick lays out ways in which policing and administration of the law on terrorism could be strengthened  but also explains "how Islamist extremist ideologies are a direct affront to the most basic liberal values we hold dear, and to mainstream Islam. We must be unqualified in our assertion of our own liberal values, not least to strengthen the bonds with Britain's mainstream Muslim communities. Divorcing the widespread grievances that exist amongst mainstream Muslim communities from the world of terrorism, blocking the path towards rapid radicalisation, remains our single most important policy objective."

Nick has set out his response to the Cameron/May initiatives in a letter to members, quoted by Caron Lindsay on Liberal Democrat Voice. I hope that before too long the party will make an official public statement - the guidance from previous conferences is clear enough. In the mean time, I take heart from the fact that Nick headed the chapter on "Tackling Terrorism" with a quote from the Israel Supreme Court in its ruling on illegal practices by Shin Bet, the Israeli security services:

Although a democracy must often fight with one hand tied behind its back, it nonetheless has the upper hand.

Pessimism can be overdone

I did not know Simon Titley, nor had I knowingly met him, but nobody who created the opening of Genesis as it might have been written by a corporate numpty could have been bad. Caron Lindsay quotes this in her obituary on LibDem Voice:

1. At the outset, God’s agenda was to basically focus on his core deliverables, namely two leading-edge products, (a) heaven and (b) earth.
2. However, the earth lacked an overall concept, and had a low profile in terms of its key audiences. Obviously the Spirit of God had to step back and benchmark the existing waters before his game plan could get the green light.
3. And God’s key message was that light was a strategic objective, and it was covered-off.
4. And God’s perception of the light was that it was fit for purpose. However, his desired goal was that light and darkness should be differentiated in the marketplace.
5. So God branded the light ‘Day’, and the darkness he branded ‘I Can’t Believe It’s Not Light’. And the evening session and morning session made up Day One.
6. Then God set out with the object of factoring-in a firmament to interface with the existing generic waters, to bring to the party two segmented brands.
7. So God tasked himself with the job of rolling-out a firmament, to supply a proactive vehicle for launching his two distinct waters products, and it was up and running.
8. And God branded the firmament ‘heaven’. And at close of play, the prioritised actions for Day Two were ticked off.

Coincidentally, I happened to be leafing through "Reinventing the State" (2007) just now and came across a chapter by Simon Titley. It did not meet everyone's approval (this is the most detailed criticism, by Joe Otten), but it contained one insight which surely chimes with most long-standing political activists' experience:

The greatest crisis for the Liberal Democrats - and all other political parties - brought about by the social revolution is the catastrophic fall in membership. Those who counsel recruitment drives as the solution are missing the point entirely.

To understand what has happened, I need to tell you about my first drink. It was the late 1960s, I would have been about eleven or twelve, and one evening my Granddad took me through the back streets of Lincoln to his local Labour Club, where I was allowed to drink half-pints of shandy while watching the snooker. I was experiencing a now lost world in which the Labour Party was not a discrete political organisation but was woven into the social fabric, with a network of social clubs and union branches providing solidarity, not as a left-wing slogan but as a practical reality. My Granddad was a Labour voter all his life, not from an abstract idealogical conviction but because it was the natural thing to do. 

Ten miles down the road, my Great Aunt, my Granddad's sister, was a lifelong Conservative member and voter. So far as I know, she never canvassed, delivered leaflets or staffed a committee room. It was simply that in rural Lincolnshire, joining the Conservatives was just something you did, because it was part and parcel of the social fabric of the village. It was as natural as arranging flowers in the local church or stopping for a chat in the local store.

It is hard to recall this world now. Political parties were once social movements, a genuine expression of people's identities, which were in turn were a product of traditional affiliations to social class and settled geographical communities. Parties nowadays have been reduced to a small knot of political hobbyists, declining in number and rising in age, and in the process they have lost much of their democratic legitimacy. 

The era of mass-membership political parties is over, because the traditional culture of social solidarity that underpinned it has gone. Most people have disengaged from politics and, to the extent that they engage with the political system at all, their interaction is more analogous to shopping at the supermarket than it is to attending the moot hall.

It seems to me that the word "catastrophic" in the first paragraph above is over the top, because the plunge in membership did not kill any political parties, except perhaps for extremist entities like the National Front. The crisis has passed, to the extent that membership is now flat-lining - indeed, national LibDem membership rose slightly in 2013/14.

There have even been leaps in some parties' membership, rather like the surge in the early days of the SDP. UKIP is a recent case in point. However, Titley's supermarket analogy is apt here, too: new recruits are attracted to the headline message, rather like Asda's latest special offer, but are unaware of what the party is really about and after a short while, move on. UKIP's recruits tend to be elderly, which does not help the party's age profile. In contrast, I am always struck on the occasions when I attend Liberal Democrat conference by the number of young faces.

Diacetyl

That's the name of the chemical fingered by the BBC and the Daily Mail in one brand of electronic cigarette refill. It occurs naturally in some foods and as a result of fermentation, according to this wikipedia entry, but can be hazardous when heated and inhaled.

The manufacturer concerned stopped making the product some weeks ago when they learned of the dangers. However, they did not take the logical and prudent step of issuing a recall notice.

One should also question whence came the idea of this particular flavouring. Could they have taken a cue from traditional cigarette manufacturers?

Good news, bad news from Saxony

In yesterday's elections for the Landtag (state parliament) in Saxony, the anti-EU AfD party gained a foothold, while the liberal Free Democrats lost representation. That is the message from France 24. However, German media are equally taken with the fact that the neo-Nazi NPD also fell below the electoral threshold (no English language version of the Spiegel report available at the time of writing).

This seems to mirror the trend in the UK. Here, the unacceptably racist parties - BNP, NF, English/Welsh Defence League etc. - are falling back, while the collar-and-tie UKIP attracts the narrow nationalist vote.