Matt Genner | ukwatch.net

The Contradiction of Choice from the Government

tim — Mon, 25 Aug 2008 12:23:41 +0000

Buzzwords abound in the rhetoric of politicians and never more so than when the talk is of public sector reform. Of the current phrases spewing forth ‘choice’ and ‘empowerment’ are two of the favourites but whose choice and whose empowerment? And while MP’s try to frame these words as synonyms of ‘public benefit’, is choice always a good thing?

Health and education are the main areas where politicians see choice as the best way of improving services. Choosing where and what treatment to have and which school to send your children to are policies which both the Labour and Conservative parties are pursuing. This year’s Darzi review made patients’ rights the focus of change, proposing that patients’ views on the quality of care should have an impact on future funding, with bonuses for those GPs and hospitals providing the best services. Furthermore, the results of patient satisfaction should be published creating a form of NHS league table allowing patients to choose at which GP or hospital they wish to receive their treatment.

Parents are continually told that by being able to choose which school to send their children to they are getting a better deal from state education. Government ministers eulogise choice as the best way to match a child’s educational needs to the school that is best placed to cater for them.

Choice as prescribed by this government, however, leads to centralisation, destruction of communities, privatisation and the marginalisation of the poorest from the process. Their legacy of choice will be less choice.

Polyclinics are a perfect example of this. Patients are told that these super-surgeries will lead to more choice but one key choice will be removed: the choice to go to your community hospital or GP. Elderly patients, who frequently need to seek medical advice, will see their relationships with their doctor destroyed and will be forced to travel impractical distances.

NHS league tables, while appearing to increase patient choice, are in reality just another way of imposing more targets. Moreover, if patients do utilize them to make decisions about which hospital to go to they will find that choice is removed. A hospital which scores poorly in the table will receive less funding, therefore their results will get worse and fewer patients will choose them. As this spiral continues services will have to be closed down as they will no longer be efficient and then you no longer have a choice.

Choices can also be confusing, stressful and in the end you can always make the wrong one. When it comes to medicine my knowledge is possibly not as comprehensive as that of a qualified and experienced practitioner. I would, therefore, rather know that all hospitals and surgeries are clean and friendly and then allow my GP to refer me to the nearest one where I could receive the required treatment.

The government’s promise to give every parent a choice of secondary school for their child was proved a myth again this year with figures showing the number of pupils getting their first choice of school has dropped. As parents understandably clamour to get their children in to schools high up the league tables the idea of going to your local school is becoming a nostalgic notion, with over half of children not going to their nearest school. Commuting to school is detrimental to community development and the environment.

Worse still any benefits of the current policy are going to the wealthiest. A report by Bristol University found that disadvantaged families miss out in the current system and even in the same postcodes poorer families end up at the lower-performing schools. Expanding the better performing schools may not be possible as “giving popular schools the freedom to expand does not mean they will do so. To the extent that a school’s position in the league tables depends on the attainment of its intake, schools may be unwilling to increase and potentially to dilute the quality of their student body,” said Professor Burgess.

Whilst ‘good’ schools cream off the best pupils the rest are left with lower league table results and less people ‘choosing’ to go there. Some of the best teachers may leave and in worse case scenarios the school maybe closed. As with hospitals the choice is then removed. Furthermore, expanding the best schools and shrinking or closing the rest as suggested will result in huge institutions where education suffers. American researchers are leading the way in analysing the impacts of school size.

Craig Howley, of Ohio University, and Robert Bickel, of Marshall University, looked at whether smaller schools could reduce the negative effects of poverty on student achievement. They found that the correlation between poverty and low achievement was ten times stronger in larger schools than in smaller ones. “Everyone knows that there is a strong association between social class and achievement and that this association works very much to the disadvantage of economically disadvantaged students,” Bickel told Education World. “The California research, however, had the virtue of demonstrating that this disadvantage was exaggerated as school size increased.”

One in seven pupils in England are now in a secondary school with over 1,500 students and the number of pupils in schools of over 2,000 has doubled since 1997. Promoting choice is driving these figures ever higher. If you thought a change of government would bring about a change of direction then, like in most areas, the differences between Labour and the Conservatives are negligible. In a letter this week to local residents, Philip Dunne, Conservative MP for South Shropshire wrote: ‘We believe that the best way to enhance the power of patients is through choice.

We will allow patients to choose, in consultation with their GP, where they get their secondary care. And we will ensure that money follows the patient so that hospitals and clinics and other care providers are paid according to the results they deliver for that patient.’ Once again, it seems, Labour equals Conservative and the public is left without an alternative.

When ministers speak of choice what they really mean is installing the practice of privatised competition in the public sector. Not even the most ardent free-market Tory would openly pursue a fully privatised health or education service; it would be electoral suicide. All politicians know this so instead they are doing it under the radar masked by the promise of choice.

Genuine, useful choice and universal empowerment are great things which should be strived for but do not confuse them with current government policy. Next time you get excited by the prospect of politicians offering you a choice think again as it’s not always a good thing.

Labour Must Endorse Living Wage Campaign to Win Back Popular Support

tim — Mon, 11 Aug 2008 21:59:09 +0000

Cast your mind back nine years to a time when the Labour party had recently stormed to power and a wave of public optimism still swept the nation. We may have been duped but back then Labour did implement some radical reforms. Now, as the poorest members of society are struggling to cope with rising food and utility bills, it is time for the government to revisit one of its most successful policies, the minimum wage.

It is clear that the introduction of the minimum wage improved the circumstances of many workers, and even Conservative critics now back the policy, with the predicted negative impact on businesses never materialising. £5.52 per hour, however, is no longer enough and as the minimum wage has failed to increase in line with inflation its impact has diminished.

Labour should now go further. Introducing a national living wage – which allows anyone in full-time employment to enjoy an acceptable standard of living – would do more than any of the policies being mooted at present to tackle the impact of the ‘credit crunch’ on the poorest workers.

London is already leading the way with its own living wage. Without enforcement, however, the majority of employers have understandably chosen to stick with the national minimum wage. The Living Wage Employer Award hopes to change this. Stephen O’Brien, joint president of London First, described the award as “a new and much anticipated mark of socially responsible business practice”. “A growing number of high profile organisations are now part of the Living Wage Employer Group and London 2012 is set to be the first ever living wage Olympics.”

While the benefits of a living wage for workers and society are obvious – social cohesion, higher living standards, lower crime levels, improvements in health, greater incentive to work – there are also many benefits for employers. A KPMG report stated that since becoming a living wage employer the Royal London Hospital reduced its cleaning staff turnover by 50%. Furthermore, better pay means higher productivity and a happier and more motivated workforce.

Even Mayor of London Boris Johnson, who opposed the national minimum wage, is an advocate of the London living wage and earlier this year increased it to £7.45 per hour. “This is not only morally right but makes good business sense contributing to better recruitment and retention of staff, higher productivity, and a more loyal workforce with high morale,” he said. It is a sad state of affairs when a Tory such as Johnson is the one defending workers’ rights and the Conservatives are claiming to be the party of the poor. They will not fool many but there is, at the moment, no alternative.

London may have been an exceptional case in the past but nationally wages of average earners have remained almost static in recent years and those of the bottom third fell between 2004 and 2007. A national living wage would help to change these damning statistics. If Labour want to tackle poverty they should export the living wage to the rest of the UK. By implementing a national living wage, perhaps with regional variances, they would be able to help those most at need.

Business leaders would plead poverty themselves, as many did prior to the introduction of the minimum wage, but the cost would not have to sit solely with them. By increasing the tax free allowance the government could, in effect, pay much of the cost itself. Public opinion, for a change, would be behind them with a recent Harris poll showing that the majority of people favoured lowering taxes for the poor. The same poll also showed the majority in favour of higher taxes for the richest, but that would surely be asking too much from a government in thrall to the super-rich.

How to decide the level of the living wage would be a contentious issue. However, the results of a recent research project carried out by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation calculated the amount of money required for a ‘socially acceptable standard of living.’ The report concluded that ‘a single adult, working full time, needs to earn £6.88 per hour to reach this weekly standard.’ The study also found that the minimum income standard calculated was higher than the current threshold for relative poverty. The government’s already poor record on tackling poverty, therefore, is even worse than current measures indicate.

Julie Unwin, director of the foundation, said: “This research is designed to encourage debate and to start building a public consensus about what level of income no one should have to live below.” If Labour, whoever their leader is, want to regain the trust of core supporters and improve their chances before the next election they need to be the party leading this debate. Back in their heyday they fought hard to introduce a national minimum wage; they should now do the same for a national living wage.

A "Partisan and Right-Skewed Press"

Ellie Keen — Mon, 28 Apr 2008 22:31:53 +0000

A number of academic texts about the British media, such as Tunstall (1996), have concluded that the press is ‘partisan and right-skewed’ in the way it selects and angles news stories, in their leaders and in their backing of parties during election campaigns. At the same time it is claimed that columnists are ‘autonomous exceptions to the normal discipline of editorial approval and sub-editing cuts’ (Tunstall 1996, p.281), therefore not predetermined to be part of this bias. This essay will show that not only is there evidence of a partisan right-wing trend within the editorial stance and news reporting of the national press, but also that it is visible today in the opinions expressed by political columnists. My focus will not only be on the publications which are openly right-wing, but also on the columns in the liberal press.

The most obvious time when a newspaper has to reveal clearly its political preference is in the period leading up to a Parliamentary Election. Historically more papers have ‘voted’ Conservative than Labour during election campaigns ‘with The Express, Mail, Star, Telegraph, Times and Sun all espousing right-wing positions’ (Masterman, 1989, p.83). After labelling the Labour Party as ‘loony lefties’ in the build-up to the 1992 General Election, the ‘tabloid newspapers were judged to be so hostile to Labour messages that no useful working relationship was possible with them; neither group wished to sustain this position in 1992’ (Franklin, 1994, p.20).

In recent years several newspapers, especially those owned by Rupert Murdoch, have switched allegiance. This, however, does not signal a move to the left by the press; it is a result of the Labour party, led by Tony Blair, moving to the centre right as ‘for Blair, no effort was too great to win friends in the mass-circulation newspapers’ (McSmith, 1997).

Franklin (1994, p.13) states that the ‘media are not independent of politically and economically powerful interests within society.’ It would, therefore, be naive to think that whilst editorialising to pursue these interests, the same newspapers would allow substantial freedom to their political columnists to voice opinions that contradict the views expressed by these interests. It is more likely, however, that editors would employ columnists who reinforce the newspaper’s political position. The accepted idea that ‘editors are expendable; proprietors are with us until death us do part’ (Cudlipp, 1990, p.5 cited in Franklin, 1994, p.37) is also true of columnists and it would be quite possible for an owner or editor to replace a column writer who regularly rebelled against the political stance of the paper.

Edwards and Cromwell (2006) suggest that columnists are generally honest and believe what they are saying; there is no right-wing corporate conspiracy. The reason that their views are partisan is due to the system that selects them. Noam Chomsky also expressed this view, in an interview with broadcaster and columnist Andrew Marr. ‘I don’t say you’re self-censoring. I’m sure you believe everything you’re saying. But what I’m saying is, if you believed something different you wouldn’t be sitting where you’re sitting’ (Chomsky, 1996 cited in Edwards and Cromwell, 2006, p.89). So, while columnists are technically free to say what they want, in reality if they held certain left-wing views they would not be working in mainstream media.

The general trend of columnists has been to criticise politicians, mostly those of the government, whichever party is in power. Whilst this may seem like they are acting impartially, the majority of criticism centres around government policy not being right-wing enough. By examining the columns of Richard Littlejohn (a writer for the Daily Mail and formerly of the Sun), it is possible to see examples of this. Whilst he has said his role ‘is to sit at the back and throw bottles’ (Guardian, 1993 cited in Franklin, 1994, p.15), and he has successfully done this to politicians both from the left and right, his views indicate that he thinks both sides’ policies are not right-wing enough in every instance. This has led him to criticise government environmental policies making such comments as ‘if the eco-loonies and climate change fascists are convinced they’re right, why not let their theories be tested forensically in court?’ (Littlejohn, 2008).

The current election campaign for London mayor is clearly divided between right and left. The paper devoting most coverage to the election, the Evening Standard, while not a national paper, requires analysis due to its influence as the only paid-for daily London paper. Wilby (2008) illustrates how the paper has forgone any duty to impartiality when it comes to scrutinising the two leading candidates, Ken Livingstone and Boris Johnson. Even the columns of Andrew Gilligan, whom Wilby refers to as ‘a lefty like me’, shows considerable partiality towards the right-wing candidate, Johnson, by failing to subject him to the levels of scrutiny which Gilligan applies to Livingstone. While the majority of London constituencies in the last Parliamentary Election had left-wing views, 12 Conservative, 26 Labour, 3 Liberal Democrat, 1 Respect (London Housing, 2005), the press coverage available to them is not representative, with no paper to provide impartial or left-leaning reporting of the mayoral election.

Franklin (1994) illustrates how the media can help politicians to gain public support for their policies by communicating them in a favourable way. This was evident when Tony Blair made the case for the war with Iraq, which, by receiving popular support at the time from the media, displayed a right-wing bias within the press. Edwards and Cromwell (2006) argue that by not questioning the case for war, the press were themselves helping the British and American governments initiate an illegal conflict. At this time there was a distinct lack of opposition from left-wing columnists, with most leaders and opinion articles supporting the war. This resulted in Guardian columnist, Brian Whitaker, writing ‘[Saddam] could still save his skin by allowing weapons inspectors – who were thrown out of Iraq in 1998 – to return’ (Guardian, 2002, cited in Edwards & Cromwell 2006). There was no mention in the piece that the inspectors were told to leave by the US government who were preparing an invasion and likewise there were a lack of columnists from any newspapers questioning the decision to go to war.

Further acts of British columnists supporting the right-wing policies of the US government are explored in Edwards and Cromwell (2006) such as the Independent’s comment editor, Adrian Hamilton’s views that ‘the US’s worst crime was inaction’ with regards to plans for intervention in Haiti, promoting ‘the liberal media’s dissident credentials, without harming, or calling down the wrath of, power’ (Edwards & Cromwell, 2006, p.129).

While there are a handful of columnists who consistently represent the views of the left, such as John Pilger and Naomi Klein, in mainstream media, their paucity constitutes a significant under-representation of left-wing opinion in British society, as is the lack of left-wing newspapers, with ‘only the Guardian (Liberal/centrist) and The Mirror (right-wing Labour) reflecting centre or slightly left of centre positions’ (Masterman, 1989, p.83).

The previous examples show that while on the face of it columnists are autonomous, in reality their work, even when writing in left-wing publications, is skewed to the right. There are three factors that have led to this partisanship: Firstly, ‘there has been a persistent and growing tendency towards concentration of ownership’ (Franklin, 1994, p.34). Secondly, due to an increased reliance on PR material as disclosed in Davies (2007), which has been generated by large corporations keen to pursue a right-wing agenda. Finally, newspapers have become more reliant on advertising revenue and therefore advertisers have an increased influence on the news agenda (Edwards & Cromwell, 2006). These factors have a large influence on the work of political columnists, resulting in a significant right-wing bias in their work which is set to continue and possibly increase as newspapers become more dependent on advertisers and the ownership of newspapers contracts further.

References

Davies, N., 2007. Flat Earth News: An Award-winning Reporter Exposes Falsehood, Distortion and Propaganda in the Global Media. London: Chatto and Windus.

Edwards, D. & Cromwell, D., 2006. Guardians of Power: The Myth of the Liberal Media. London: Pluto Press.

Franklin, B., 1994. Packaging Politics Political Communication in Britain’s Media Democracy. New York: Routledge.

Littlejohn, R., 2008. Eco-loonies reject an inconvenient truth. London: Daily Mail. Available from: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/
columnists/columnists.html?in_page_id=1772&in_article_id=537512&in_author_id=322 [Accessed 23 April 2008].

London Housing, 2005. General Election results in London – 2005. London: London Housing. Available from: http://www.londonhousing.gov.uk/doc.asp?doc=14345&cat=2620 [Accessed 22 April 2008].

Masterman, L., 1989. Teaching the Media. London:Routledge.

McSmith, A., 1997. Faces of Labour:The Inside Story. London: Verso.

Tunstall, J., 1996. Newspaper Power The New National Press in Britain. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Wilby, P., 2008. Standards slip on impartiality. Media Guardian, 21 April, p.7