50 mistakes in 100 days (21-25)

By Howard Dawber

Over 100 days ago, Britain woke up to a new coalition government. In that time they have already displayed extraordinary economic illiteracy and are beginning to champion a dangerous mix of cruelty and cheerful incompetence, perhaps already worse than any government in living memory.

Here are the numbers twenty-one to twenty-five of the top 50 things they have done wrong … so far…

21. SLASHING DEFENCE BUDGET TWICE OVER – WHILE WE ARE STILL AT WAR
In July George Osborne said there “was nothing special about the defence budget” and that it would face like every other budget a cut of between 25% and 40%. This will affect the equipment and capability of our armed forces at a time when they are fighting in Afghanistan.

However, what’s worse is that he said the costs of renewing the Trident nuclear deterrent would ALSO come from the Defence budget, not from a separate fund as previously supposed. Defence Secretary Liam Fox was said to be furious. This means that the £20bn cost of the new submarines over the next few years will eat even further into the budget for army equipment such as helicopters. In fact the budgets for new helicopters – agreed by Labour – is now under threat of a £4bn cut.

Why is it a bad idea? Conservatives said they would protect the defence budget before the election – and central to their attacks on Labour was that we needed more helicopters. Now defence seems to be facing bigger cuts than any other department. Safety and capability of our armed forces will inevitably suffer.

22. ABOLISHING THE FOOD STANDARDS AGENCY
In recent years the Food Standards Agency has become an active campaigner for better food labelling and against the promotion of unhealthy food to children. The ConDem coalition has decided to abolish the agency – the fear being that this will now give the major food companies free reign.

Why is it a bad idea? The FSA was tackling serious public health issues and battling for better consumer protection in food. The food industry was trying to avoid being regulated. This hands victory to the food companies on a plte.

Andy Burnham, the shadow health secretary, said:

“Getting rid of the FSA is the latest in a number of worrying steps that show Andrew Lansley caving in to the food industry. It does raise the question whether the health secretary wants to protect the public health or promote food companies.”

Tam Fry of the National Obesity Forum, said it was “crazy” to dismember the FSA:

“It had a hugely important role in improving the quality of foodstuffs in Britain and it was vital to have at the centre of government a body that championed healthy food. This appears just the old Conservative party being the political wing of business.”

Patrick Holden, director of the Soil Association, said:

“Many NGOs campaigning on food thought for a long time the food industry has an unhealthy degree of influence over the department of health so the great risk is the corporate vested interests of the food industry will have too strong an influence on future policy.”

23. TURNING THE ACADEMIES PROGRAMME ON ITS HEAD
Labour’s academies programme was brilliant and simple. Failing schools in deprived areas would get the chance for an injection of new money and ideas by turning into academies. Charities and private sector sponsors would be able to come in and take on the challenge of turning around the school. Additional resources would therefore be targeted where they were most needed.

Michael Gove sees it differently. His policies are about helping schools in better-off areas (see number 24 below) so he is proposing that only the top performing schools – rated “Outstanding” by Ofsted – get to become academies. Gove used fast-track legislation to force this policy through – normally reserved for emergencies like anti-terror measures – because he said (in the Queen’s Speech Debates) that over 1,100 schools wanted to apply for Academy status before September. He later said it was more than 1,700 schools.

Why is it a bad idea? The top performing schools are the ones which already have good leadership, resources and need least help. Under the ConDems resources are being targeted away from those who need them the most and towards those (mainly in better off areas) who need them the least. For a good illustration read what Gove’s Tory ministerial colleague Teresa Villiers is saying about a top performing school in her area. Also the whole exercise seems to have become a damp squib with only 1 out of 10 eligible schools who expressed an interest finally going ahead and applying. Gove’s 1,100 schools turned out to be hopelessly exaggerated – in reality only 153 schools applied.

24. DOGMATIC INTRODUCTION OF FREE SCHOOLS
This is not a bad idea in principle – but could be very bad in practice. The ConDems want to anyone to be allowed to set up a school. Companies, parents, teachers, charities, religious groups. Anyone. They will get a special pot of cash from central government (which will have effectively have been top-sliced from the budget of the local education authority) and special help from the New Schools Network charity. Schools will need buildings, so new premises will be rented like ex-office buildings and industrial units, abandoned shops or large residential properties. The idea comes from Sweden.

Why is it a bad idea? Swedish teachers warned the Tories not to do it as it had not worked for them. Swedish Education Minister Bertil Ostberg said:

“The free schools are generally attended by children of better educated and wealthy families, making things even more difficult for children attending ordinary schools in poor areas….Most of our free schools have ended up being run by companies for profit.”

This policy is fraught with problems – the new schools will be able to exclude pupils who don’t fit their criteria. The new buildings may prevent disabled children from attending the schools. Provision for autism, dyslexia, deaf and visually-impaired children or any special needs will be undermined. Local education authorities will lose the overview of education in their areas. And a new army of private consultants and school operating companies is waiting in the wings to make a massive profit out of this at our expense. It is an attempt to privatise the whole education system. Gove claimed in parliament that there had been 700 expressions of interest in the policy – but it turned out that only 62 groups had actually applied to set up schools.

25. PICKLES CASTRATES LOCAL GOVERNMENT
Eric Pickles, the secretary of state for communities and local government, talks about how the ConDems are decentralising, and offering more powers to local authorities. He wants councils to be free to innovate and spend their own money. However he is stopping councils from raising council taxes (they will face a public referendum if they set a high rate), slashing budgets this year and then next year by 25% at least and bringing in rules to stop local councils from campaigning against the cuts ( by banning councils from lobbying government).

Why is it a bad idea? The Conservatives always talk about giving power back to local councils but when in government they take power away from elected local and regional government. Councils are going to face massive cuts but will not be allowed to lobby our new coalition government against the cuts.