The Department of Transport needs a major sort out if we‘re going to keep Britain moving.

Highly-rated Local Government Minister John Healey is set to publish at Labour Conference a pamphlet with the LGA Labour Group calling for town halls of "all the talents".
In what seems a natural extension of Gordon Brown's Cabinet strategy, Healey seems to be calling for Local Authorities to be less partisan in their power sharing - "Confident politicians can reach beyond the narrow circles of their own power".
While this may mean co-opting opposition politicians into positions of power, the main thrust seems to be to press devolution down to a local level.
I for one am looking forward to reading the detail.

I wrote the piece below for the Guardian's CiF. It has enraged many readers which makes me think that it must have hit a very raw nerve!


According to a new report some public schools are at risk of going out of business because they are, in effect, pricing themselves out of the market. Is such news something that those that espouse progressive politics should rejoice at? After all the sad truth is that in the last 10 years the number of parents choosing to send their children to private school and not to the local - and probably excellent - comprehensive, has increased. Does this matter? In my view it should matter greatly and particularly to those who wish to see increased levels of social mobility. 

It does not seem to have mattered that that the fees for many private schools, which were the subject of an inquiry in 2005 by the Office of Fair Trading for potential collusion, have risen exponentially. Why? Because in the pursuit of privilege many well off (and not so well off) parents will do whatever it takes to ensure that their child starts the race to achieve success and prosperity further down the track than other children.

In fairness it is not unreasonable that any parent should want their child to do as well at school and in life as they have done themselves, often they want them to do better. In a free society if some parents choose to secure advantage and privilege by sending their children to elite schools there is little the state can do about it.

There are though, clear consequences for social mobility that many "left leaning" (and possibly Guardian reading) parents often choose to ignore. British public schools have always been a production line for the class system. They employ some of the best-qualified teachers, with as many as two-thirds educated in the top 20 British universities. They can - and do - raise their fees steadily, they select their pupils, have a growing endowment income from their benefactors and some of the most impressive sporting and extra-curricular activities.

What's more they now recruit from a middle-class obsessed by perceived educational and social advantage. Parents who are willing to take the bold decision to become part of the problem, rather than seeking to be part of the solution. I often hear some of my friends and "comrades" attempting to ease their conscience by announcing that the local comprehensive school is simply not good enough and justify their decision to go private in the name of parental responsibility.
It is also the case that because so many of these parents work in the media (or are in government) there is little political mileage in calling for the reform of private schools and more equal access to universities.

Those who do have influence, those who have a "voice" in our society have such a high stake in the current order they will seek to mobilise and organise in order protect it. For the sad truth is that when middle-class parents abandon the state sector in favour of the private, it is conservative and not progressive politics that triumphs. So if one or two private schools do end up closing then I for one will not be shedding too many tears.

Mayor of London Ken Livingstone today launched his draft London housing strategy in which he calls for an increase in the number of family homes being built in London

Is it just me or does anyone else thing that the Chancellor's decision to gurantee all deposits in the Northern Rock is just wrong?

Everybody seems to be demanding a referendum on something these days, mostly on Europe, but also on anything that might smack of 'constitutional change'. But how well thought out is the argument, and do referenda produce better decisions than parliamentary votes?

This is a bit of a follow up to Mike Ion's post of compulsory voting. Between mandatory voting, all woman shortlists, PR and votes at sixteen, there doesn't seem to be much room for further innovation in electoral reform - but there are a few ideas I'd like tested at local government level to see if they are popular.

I have written this piece on the Guardian's Commentisfree on electoral reform and the possibility of coalition with the Liberals.

Since there have been calls for more policy discussion, I'm posing the question 'Should this Labour government make the UK go fully metric?'

Children and families secretary Ed Balls today launched a national consultation on young peoples' services. He sent out the email below to Labour members.

What do you think?

Polling carried out for the Fabian Society by YouGov shows that the British public think the Prime Minister's salary should be double that of a premiership footballer. In the fair pay league, the public think footballers would earn 62,000 a year, not ten or fifty times that. But nurses and supermarket workers should get more.

New Year is a time to make changes for the better. The government's decision to raise the legal age of buying tobacco to 18 should be a welcome New Year's resolution.

The first idea I like: 'legal age harmonising'

But the second is just quite absurd.

He talks of confusion, yet he comes up with an idea like this? How could it ever possibly work. Legally, it would be a complete mess.

Potentially allowing 16 year olds to purchase alcohol in the pub?

Perhaps even giving them the vote. What a can of worms he could open. Human rights lawyers would have a field day.

Being responsible at that age and 'showing maturity' is about NOT doing those things. Yes most of us did, but it is because we didn't follow the law. The sort of people he would be in effect enfranchising are those that wouldn't be interested in the more promiscuous activities adults get up to.

18 is a sensible age, messing around with means testing for privileges is in my opinion, his most ridiculous 'sort of' policy yet!

Simon Heffer's Telegraph Op-ed, got me thinking..