Yesterday I received an email letter from Eton College. It was a letter I have come to dread.

            It was well written and confident. It came from a sixth form boy. He invited me to speak to their Keynes Society.

             He explained that the Society invites people like me to address their Economics Club on a Thursday evening. He recited the impressive list of recent speakers including the Governor of the Bank of England. He asked me to join them for dinner before the lecture. He praised my work in my book “After the Credit Crunch” to demonstrate they have a serious interest in the issues I raise in public debate. He understood where I come from on  the issues of banks and Europe and will doutbtless wish to cross examine me with his fellow students after the lecture.

               He did not know that I have been a speaker at their Society before. I was greatly impressed when I went. The lecture was very well attended, though delivered in the evening with no teachers involved in organising it. I gave  a fairly demanding lecture. They listened in rspectful silence and then asked a searching  series of  relevant questions.

              So why should I dread the invitation? I am of course  delighted that there are able young men wishing to discuss these matters of great importance to our joint futures. My worry is the letter reinforces the sense I have of the large gap between the approach of the best in the independent sector, and the typical approach in the state sector.

                I have not had any invitations from economics societies organised by students in state school six forms. If the state sector does not offer the Governor of the Bank of England or leading figures in the UK economics debate the chance to go in and discuss with students, but Eton does, Eton will get more help and the state schools will not. Therein lies the rub.

There were not many positives in the replies about what the Coalition government has done for you. So let me see how I can do an equivalent for the past Labour government, where I found plenty to criticise, particularly in the later years of credit crunch and crisis. There were things about the Labour government that I thought were good:

1. Accepting the Eurosceptic view that we should not go into the Euro, and using the opt out the Conservatives had negotiated.

2. Cutting standard rate income tax to 20% and keeping top rate tax at 40%

3. Controlling public spending in the first Labour Parliament, and paying back some debt.

4. Cutting CGT to 18%

5. Providing incentives to enterprise and business

6. Launching Academy schools

7.  Making some improvements in hospitals and health care

8. Widening the M25 and improving J 11 on the M4

 

           Some claim that we need more independent candidates in elections, especially for Police Commssioners. Those who are disillusioned with party politics think that we could find judicious wise independents who could do the job just as we want.

          As a democrat I have no problem with “independent”  people offering their services to the electors. Freedom to stand and to put a different point of view is vital to life in a democracy. So is choice between serious candidates who can win. There is nothing stopping an independent candidate becoming a serious rival for power, if their message is popular and the other competing  parties are unimpressive. Occasionally this happens.  Often in Council or General elections people want to choose between the major parties, because they want to influence which party will end up running the body concerned.

          However, I do think we need to examine what we mean by “independent”.  An independent can be genuinely independent of all political parties. That means that they will not take a party whip once elected to a given body. They can make up their own minds, unguided by colleagues in the same party. Some will think this an advantage. However, on a Council or in a Parliament it also has some disadvantages. It means the independent cannot form a government or a majority group to run the Council. The independent cannot guarantee to introduce anything they offered in their manifesto, as they may not even have a seconder for their proposals, let alone a majority. Thay may become inadvertent or unintentional liars or promise breakers. In office they discover they have to change their minds or broker deals with others to try to get anything done.

           Police Commissioners are  different. They are single people who can build their own little office and run the job as they see fit. The Labour and Conservative Police Commissioners likely to be elected will be pretty independent themselves. There will be no whip to suggest what they should say and do.

                 They can make their own agendas. If they became persistently hostile to their own party in Parliament and  went out of their way to disagree with its fundamental beliefs, then they could lose the right to fight again to retain their job as a member of their stated party. If they  fail to  live up to reasonable standards of conduct they could be thrown out of their party in a public gesture of annoyance by the party leadership.

                  There is no similar hygeine mechanism for an independent. If they misbehave no-one will take their party membership away. It is only if their misbehaviour becomes gross that the police and  courts become involved. They too, of course, would need to curb bad habits if they want to be re-elected.

                   The question of independence from a party should not be confused with true independence of thought. An independent might be more ideological than a party candidate. They might have clear and strong prejudices, but not declare them before the election. You do not know how an independent will decide matters or what is likely to be their view of a common problem, unless they tell you in their manifesto. Often their manifesto is very thin on detail.  With a Labour or Conservative candidate you have more idea of what you are likely to get.

                               Nor should the idea of independence be confused with the important issue of the independence of the police. All serious candidates for Police Commissioner and all main party candidates agree that they will not try to mess with the independent right of the police to investigate and to charge people for offences without fear or favour and without political interference. The law establishing Police Commissioners was also very clear on this important matter.

 

  Lord Patten, on behalf of the BBC Trust said:

“At the heart of the BBC is its role as a trusted global news organisation…. (George) offered us his resignation because of the unacceptable mistakes and unacceptable shoddy journalism which had caused so much controversy…. He’s behaved as editor with huge honour and  courage…George had set on putting in place a number of changes, which will be required in this great organisation and it’s a tragedy that he was overwhelmed, as we all were to a great extent, by these events….”

 

Lord Patten has subsequently  suggested that there needs to be substantial change and reform of the BBC, and has attacked its top heavy management structures.

The questions posed by the BBC news and current affairs coverage include:

1. Why did they have   a long record of failing to offer reasonable air time  and fair treatment to Eurosceptics? Why did it take external studies to reveal the shortage of airtime given to critics of the EU, the adverse way they were introduced and treated, and the more frequent interruptions they suffered?

2. Why are critics of global warming theory either ignored or treated as cranks, when there is still serious scientific and economic debate about the causes of climate change, the extent of it  and the best way of responding to it?

3. Why does the BBC normally interview people from a left of centre perspective – demanding more expenditure, higher taxes, more government  intervention – rather than from a right of centre perspective, asking people why they don’t cut taxes, control spending and reduce the role of government? Shouldn’t a balanced broadcaster do a bit of each?#

4. Why are losses, unusual tax arrangements, financial engineering in the public sector treated more leniently than similar things in the private sector?

5. Why did all the layers of BBC management fail to instill into Newsnight after the Savile crisis the need to investigate thoroughly and present a case with evidence to back it up where there is plenty of evidence, and to cancel an enquiry where there is insufficient evidence?

6. Why, after  the failure of the Newsnight team on the Savile issue, did management not require stricter reporting and higher standards for future work?

7. Which managers approved the Macalpine piece? Had anyone on Newsnight read the Waterhouse Report which had looked at these allegations years before? Had they seen the comments on their witness? Why did they fail to put the allegations to the person they were  falsely accusing? Why did they tweet out that they would be revaling a top tory paedophile, only not to name one? Why did they not expose again the actions of Labour Clwyd County  Council, which was responsible for the children’s home and the social service department in question? Why did they not remind us of the 7 people who were successfuly convicted of crimes in the North Wales abuse tragedy, none of whom were prominent Conservatives?

8. What changes did Mr Entwistle wish to put in place? Why did he not tell the Select Committee or the Today programme about these?

9. If Mr Entwistle “exemplifies the highest sdtandards of public service broadcasting” why did these obvious errors occur on his watch?

10. What is the BBC going to do about its top heavy and clearly ineffective management?  Shouldn’t the editors of flagship programmes be responsible for their journalistic output, discussing it with lawyers and others where necessary? Isn’t the only other person who must have a view in difficult cases, the Editor in Chief?

 

12. Why does Mr Entwistle get such a large pay off when he has done the job for such a short space of time and decided to resign because he did not think he had done or could do the job well enough?

          The BBC Trust needs to tell us what value we are getting for the all the expensive layers of management in the BBC. They need to tell us who is responsible for controlling editors whose journalistic standards are not high enough, or who is responsible for appointing them.

 

 

           The BBC Trust appointed Mr Entwistle as Editor in Chief and Director General, only to accept his resignation shortly afterwards.  Mr Entwistle had not resolved the first Newsnight crisis, and allowed the second one. Both problems were the same issue – very poor journalism.

          If the BBC is to continue to recruit mainly pro EU global warming hawks to its main news programmes, doesn’t the Trust have a duty to represent all the licence payers who do not agree with these viewpoints? Shouldn’t it be the voice for balance?

              The Newsnight child abuse disasters  look as if they sought to protect the BBC from accusations about child abuse in the Savile scandal, and to wrongly incriminate a leading Conservative of the Thatcher era instead for the North Wales problems, whilst playing down the role of Clwyd County Council who were responsbile for  the children’s home and social service department which were involved.

          Isn’t it time for the Trust to demand proper journalist standards? It could ask why the BBC has spent a lot of money blocking FOI requests seeking to find out how balanced the BBC is in its approach to energy policy and global warming.

Shouldn’t the BBC news and current affairs side seek to represent the spectrum of views on big topics that characterise our democratic debate, without fear or favour?

 

          Today I will attend the Remembrance Day Parade in Burghfield in the morning, and in Wokingham in the afternoon. I will lay wreaths in memory of the fallen in the two world wars and more recent conflicts on behalf of my constituents.

 

          There has been a lot written about this. Reporters tell us some close to the government have briefed that Mr Obama’s victory is a good omen for Conservatives, because he too is an incumbent presiding over difficult economic times. His victory shows a Conservative victory is possible in 2015.

          I am all for a Conservative victory in 2015. If the government does the right things from here such a victory is possible.  However,  we cannot  deduce it from Mr Obama’s win. US and UK politics are very different. The US does not have the overarching problem of the EU and the erosion of its powers of self government, nor does it have our proximity to the Euro and control from Burssels over many important aspects of our economic life. UK Conservatives are not heavily influenced by Christian movements. US attitudes to self help and working are tougher than UK attitudes. If the Conservatives do and say the right things about the EU, about  how they will go about getting a new relationship,they can pick up support. If the recovery gathers pace in the last couple of years of this Parliament the economic position could also be better for the Conservatives.They can get support for good immigration and welfare policies which get more people back to work or in work for the first time.

            The political arithmetic is also, however,  very different between the UK and the US. Mr Obama scored a good victory in 2008. He  attracted 52.9% of the popular vote. This election he merely  needed to hold on to most of that to win. He lost 2.4% of the popular vote which still left him in the lead. Mr Cameron only attracted 36% of the popular vote in 2010, not enough to win. He needs to attract 4-6% more of the popular vote in 2015 to win, so he needs to make himself and his party more popular. He does not have Mr Obama’s luxury of losing votes.

            If the UK is to emulate the US relative success with economic recovery, the government does have to make more progress in mending the banks, and in delivering cheaper energy. The US economy has outperformed ours so far this decade, thanks primarily to going for cheap gas and getting on with sorting out the banks and property values.

 

             I have felt sorry for “the senior Conservative of the Thatcher era” ever since the Newsnight programme alleged that he  had committed  paedophile crimes, inviting people to trawl the internet to find out more. His friends could not protest his innocence, for fear of naming him when they knew he was innocent.

             The Savile case and the “senior Conservative of the Thatcher era ” case have one thing in common – very poor journalism. If you are going to intervene  in the exposure and apprehension of serious criminals, you need to get your facts right, you need to have evidence with witnesses, and you need to put the accusations to the accused to see what the defence is going to be. Apparently in the Macalpine case the BBC failed to check that the person accused by their one witness was the correct person, failed to find any supporting evidence for the accusations, and failed to ask the accused what he thought of it. Meanwhile, with the Savile case, there was a failure to unearth all the evidence from a multitude of witnesses, and to produce a programme which delivered the weight of evidence now thought to be out there.

             Some  Conservatives feel particularly unhappy about the way this has been treated. Of course the treatment of the wrongly accused is the worst feature, but they are not happy that in a fairly unsuccessful attempt to disguise his name the Conservative party was accused of harbouring a paedophile in the Thatcher era. Some Conservatives will ask why the unnamed person had to be described in this way. Would the BBC have said a senior figure of the Callaghan or Wilson era, if the dates had been different, or were they as often seems the case, out to attack Margaret Thatcher?  Would they have constantly repeated the word Labour, if the senior figure had been from that party, or sufficed themselves with a general word like politician? Why, in the North Wales abuse cases, did the BBC not constantly refer also to Clwyd Council, the  Council responsible for the childrens’   homes? Clwyd was certainly not a Conservative Council. Why did  they not add the Labour party label to a very nasty set of incidents if they thought the fact that it was a national Conservative government mattered? Why didn’t the unpublished Clwyd report into the abuse crisis become a matter of interest, as well as the wide  ranging enquiry ordered and published by Conservative Ministers?

           I like to think that Ministers and senior Councillors of any colour would wish to let the police and prosecuting authorities get to the bottom of any hateful crime, without fear or favour.All decent Conservative and Labour people condemn child abuse as one of the worst crimes. The BBC should be careful about trying to give a party gloss on crime, especially when it gets the accusations wrong.

 

          It’s time to ask you what you think about the PCC elections so far.  We have a few more days to go before polling day.

            Police Commissioners will soon replace the little known Police Committees of co-opted Councillors. They have a duty to agree budgets, set policing priorities and handle complaints for their local police force. So far it has been a fairly quiet election. More recently the BBC has allowed more election debate on the topics that matter in the world of policing.

          Whether you wanted these new posts or not, they are coming and it makes sense to engage with the candidates and tell them what you want from your police force. The Commissioners will have to decide their own budgets – you may want them to keep that bit of the spending down. They need to work well with the Chief Constable, and of course avoid any interference with police independence when it comes to handling cases, collecting evidence and bringing prosecutions. They can make a difference in ensuring that the police service reflects people’s perceptions and worries about crime, by telling people what is happening in countering it, and ensuring resoruces are deployed where it matters. If you want particular types of crime targetted, or if you want a different style of policing, now is the time to say so.

          I was intrigued to hear the UKIP spokesman say as his number one wish  they wanted more women to be in these top jobs, only to  admit UKIP  has just two women candidates. Do you agree with them about more women in these roles?  I see that UKIP is  fighting 24 out of 41, and as so often leaving some of the most federalist areas of the country like South Wales, Gwent and Cleveland without any UKIP offering.   It would be good to have an update from UKIP supporters who are vocal on this site and regularly use it to urge people to vote UKIP in a way supporters of other parties do not do.  How do  they see their party’s fortunes going from here? Who should a UKIP supporter vote for where there is no UKIP candidate?  Do they expect a “break through” in the PCC elections where they do have candidates?

I will be appearing on Any Questions, Radio 4 at 8pm. Rachel Reeves for Labour and David Steel for the Lib Dems will also be on the panel.