History teaching fails on the basic facts – and Daily Mail on statistics
The Daily Mail reports a survey of first year unversity students, which found that as a result of “trendy” teaching, most could not answer basic factual questions on British History. Just 16.5% could name who was was the general in charge of the army at Waterloo, and just 11.5% could name a 19th century Prime Minister. (What of the ignorance of the 5% or more who couldn’t recognise the answer to the first is also a possible answer to the second)
I was of the first to get away from the traditional way of starting with the Romans in First Year and finishing with the Post war events in the fifth form. But I could have answered these questions reasonably well by eleven.
A summary comment on this may reveal a lack of fluency with statistics at the Dail Mail offices
“In total the students answered just 26.7% of the questions correctly – just over one in five”
Hat tip to Conservative Home for directing me to this article.
Douglas Carswell today accused the Prime Minister of telling lies. Here is the comment just posted.
Interviewed by Nick Robinson today, the Prime Minister categorically said that “I have always told the truth”. On that point I think we should believe him.
Why? you might ask. What he says is clearly at odds with the facts.
The problem is that Gordon Brown (along with Peter Mandleson) have moulded New Labour around projecting a message and image. That message is not objective reality, but the image necessarty to win power and retain it. Couple this with Brown’s decade-long building of his own power base to become Prime Minister through scheming against every opponent. What results is someone like a communist who saw the imminent revolution in every newspaper paragraph, or an alcoholic in denial. They can only see what fits their reality. To see objective reality would cause his own self-destruction with a comment like
“We are in the worst economic mess since the second world war, and many of my actions as Chancellor have made this worse for Britain. As Prime Minister, despite trying to do my best, I have made mistakes that our children will be still paying for in their retirement. I have run out of ideas and energy on how to improve the situation, shall therefore be tendering my resignation with immediate effect.”
I have already posted about the need to cut government expenditure is a more rounded way through focusing on 7 major areas. There is an important adjunct to this. The ability of the economy to climb out of the recession will be hampered by
1) High Taxation
2) Onerous Regulation
The burden of these twin factors was able to be borne in the boom. They may have reduced profitability, but other factors such as low interest rates and the ever-increasing public expenditure more than offset these factors. In addition, the house-price bubble was helped by the planning constraints on new-build. This shortage of supply increased the house price inflation. Coupled with easy money and low interest rates it also helped the consumer boom.
The opposite will apply in the recovery. This is through,
1) The high costs of the regulation will limit the ability of firms to lower prices, whilst still remaining profitable – break even is higher.
2) More importantly, the time taken in meeting regulatory requirements, whether in house building or in putting in place new investments, means that the payback period is lengthened.
3) Regulations to protect workers rights means that taking on new employees is similarly discouraged (Protecting the employed in the good times means protecting the unemployed from gaining employment after the bad times – see much of Western Europe during the 1990s).
Sustained recovery with real jobs will therefore be impaired.
Reducing the deficit requires not only cuts in government expenditure. It means removing the impairments of the private sector to adapt and grow.
John Redwood seems to be grasping this point when he recognizes that the car scrappage scheme just offsets some of the high taxes on the car industry. Here is my comment posted earlier.
Mr Redwood,
You make a very valid points here about trying to undo the harm of high taxes on the car with a subsidy for new car purchases. However, I would take issue with you on the government having encouraged new housebuilding. You have said before that house buying was encouraged house buying in the past with low interest rates from 2000 to 2005 (only then to raise them too high). However, tough planning laws have meant that during the boom the numbers of new homes being built were at record lows, with much of the new build being in apartments and not the more desirable houses. This shortage of new build when demand was (artificially) strong, further exacerbated the house price inflation.
However, you do point to a general principle for a quick, sustainable and affordable recovery – Undo the harm done by higher taxes and more regulation.
In the boom, these extra costs were largely absorbed. They have encouraged a steeper downturn and the increased costs will slow down and diminish the recovery.
Dan Hannan blogged today on the CAP & Trade Scheme just adopted by the US House of Representatives. Assuming all assumptions are correct, the impact on global temperatures will be just 0.05 degrees by 2015. The costs on the US Economy will be huge. If adopted worldwide, we might get 0.20 to 0.25 of a degree reduction. This scheme would therefore fail the Stern Review proposals of the benefits of action exceeding the costs. Without even questioning the AGW science, we can claim to be creating net harm to humanity by these measures.
The Tories straight-jacketed are becoming in the debate on public spending. For instance today Conservative Home reports Phillip Hammond saying that “protecting frontline services is the key reviewing government expenditure”. If the Tories do not change this debate then they will fail the nation when in government. Here are some examples from my shopping that might help them succeed:-
1) VALUE FOR MONEY – It is not how much that is spent, but the output that matters. Consider an example from my shopping. Recently I bought aubergines for 49p each against 89p each at another supermarket. The quality was not as good. However, the cheaper ones were at least 3 times the size of the more expensive ones, and I use them for bulk in making ratatouille. If the Labour Government were regularly paying 89p for their aubergines, they would say it was a cutback if a switch was made the 49p variety, and lowering of quality, even though quantity was increased 3-fold.
2) PLURALITY of SUPPLY. The standard argument is to have a single source and type of supply. In the Government sector, the NHS is the only source of supply for Healthcare and the National Curriculum is means that the syllabuses and the structure of lessons are determined centrally. In my shopping, I like to buy the branded tea and instant coffee. But in neither do I stick to one brand, or stick to one supermarket, and I tend to stock up when it is cheap. I therefore save around 30% on average. The government sector is more complex, but by having diversity it is possible to get better value.
3) WASTE REDUCTION. I do most of the shopping in my family, as I have the knowledge of prices, where things are in supermarkets and the best idea of my family’s diverse tastes, and the quantities required. Knowing tastes and quantities means that mistakes are minimized. We occasionally waste food in the household, but it is far less than 20% that is claim nationally. The Labour Government may have looked at cheaper sources of supply, but not consistently. In particular, as tastes change it
4) PRODUCTIVITY. Mine and my partner’s time is valuable. We neither want to spent large parts of out time on shopping or cooking. Therefore, we would not normally make bread, pizzas, sauces or sausages as these would waste time. In cooking, we may cook large joints of meat and freeze some, as this saves both time and cost. There is a lot of trail and error in this and learning by experience. The Government, consistently, has looked at extending existing services and creating new functions, with an eye solely on the public perception and no particular view on how much output is achieved for a given input. In so doing productivity has probably fallen. See Burning our Money here.
5) FINANCIAL CONSTRAINTS. When shopping, I do not look for the absolute cheapest, nor do we do without luxuries. But too many luxuries, and too few bargains will lead to the overall household weekly shopping envelope constraining other expenditure, such as housing, cars and holidays. What is best is to have flexibility, so luxuries can be afforded, quality is generally good, diversity is high, new things tried yet cost is kept low. The Labour Government has for too long deceived itself about the financial constraints, first juggling over the course of the business cycle, then believing that boom and bust has vanished. Now there is the deepest recession since the constraints are massive, as government was already over-spending in the good times.
6) MAINTAINING FOCUS ON PRIORITIES. When shopping for the best bargains, I do not lose sight of the fact of that I am aiming to satisfy the needs of my family. I do not slavishly pander to the whims of the children (though I do provide some treats and some junk food), nor do we do without all luxuries and treats. Rather, it is a balance of getting value, and concentrating on the basic goods that need to be purchased week in week out. For the Labour Government, too many items that should be classed luxuries, or “nice to have”, have become essentials and basic human rights. When it comes to stressing priorities they have little idea. Rather than make such a decision, they are waiting to be forced to make a decision, and then cuts are likely to be evenly made across the board.
7) CONSIDER THE INTEREST OF THE RECIEVER AS NUMBER ONE. I look for the best offers in each supermarket. I take note and take advantage of pricing mistakes (such as making smaller packets cheaper per unit than larger ones); can see usually through phoney offers (usually); buy supermarket own-brands and trawl the discount cabinets for items at their sell-by date. In other words, I would like to think a supermarket’s profit margins on my shopping is somewhat below the average. My interest becomes before that of the supermarket. In Government, much of what is done is due to pandering to the government sector workers. Serving the general public is just another priority to be considered. Government should exist to serve the people. Everything should follow from that. This includes the interest of the public servants.
The analogy is only that. It does not encompass all the issues, and some areas (such as productivity and maintenance of priorities) are ranked as more important for government, whereas value for money in every item is the most important for my weekly shop. However, if it is the welfare of the nation that is our concern, it is a good way to move away from sterile and unproductive arguments.
Daniel Hannan made an interesting in last week’s Sunday Telegraph. Could Peter Mandleson in his elevated role, be saving the government until October to enable the Lisbon Treaty to be ratified? Certainly he seems to have rallied both the cabinet and the PLP when they seemed to be distintigrating. Labour seems to be back on course feeding the agenda, rather than being battered by new revelations on expenses and resignations. However, there are two weaknesses to this arguement.
Firstly, if Labour had continued to disintegrate, then it would have further destroyed it’s own prospects in the forthcoming general election. Saving Gordon Brown’s Premiership helps the Labour Party, as a new leader would have to call an election soon afterwards. Labour will stage some sort of recovery, so the delay will save a few Labour seats.
Secondly, for Lord Mandleson, he has reached the pinicle of his power. If the government collapses, he will be cast out in the wilderness.
The interests of the Labour party and the European Federalists coincide at the present time. They are not in conflict as Hannan would suggest.
The election of John Bercow as speaker of the House of Commons was achieved with very little support from MPs of his own party. Whether you accept is was with 3 or 4 conservative votes (per Nadine Dorries) or might be at high as 20, it was still with a 10% or less the consrvative votes. Hopefully John Bercow can rise above this and become a strong and impartial speaker. But he has a mountain to climb, as his support could well be based upon a cynical attempt to make life difficult for a future Conservative Government. T o quote Fraser Nelson in the Spectator.
“History has been made, insofar as Mr Bercow is perhaps the first Speaker ever to be chosen on account of his unpopularity and lack of authority. And this is, in itself, a deeply revealing insight into the late-stage Labour game plan. A retreating army still has plenty of options, if it is imaginative enough. There are bridges to be burned, landmines to be laid, earth to be scorched. And Speaker Bercow is merely the most visible of the many shackles with which Labour hopes to burden a Tory government.”
Another example of a Labour Government planning for opposition?
John Redwood points to a small victory for the Conservatives in the Commons yesterday in a vote on Regional Assemblies.
It may be a small victory, but a failing government ploughs on. Why should they do this when the opinion polls would show little enthusiam for the idea of another body of bureaurats?
Might I suggest that the New Labour spin-doctors have re-grouped under Lord Mandleson. The brief now is to destroy the incoming conservative government, by crippling them with commitments and providing daily headlines about Consrevative cuts. In so doing, the most destructive part of the alternative reality of properganda spin is revealed.
UPDATE
Englishman’s Castle provided a blog about the death of the South-Western Regional Assembly. It shows the lack of purpose in having such entities. The fact that the Government is still promoting the assemblies when they serve no distinct and useful purpose either suggests that
EITHER
The government does not have a measure of their lack of purpose,
OR
They are keeping them, expensively, on life-support, so that it is the Tories who will lkill off “a brilliant initiative in decentralisation”
Either way, it does not show a government serving the people.
Iain Dale has posted an e-mail sent to a former labour supporter, inviting him to rejoin. Dale’s comment is
“Note that people are being asked to rejoin three times. If the BNP line doesn’t get them, then maybe the threat of cuts will. And note that there’s not a single positive reason to rejoin – it’s all attacking the Tories.But it’s the BNP line that will enrage right minded people.”
Again, the line being taken by Labour is that “we must prepare for opposition”
Ed Balls has continued the preparations for post-election opposition with an attack on the Tories education policies in today’s Guardian.
This oppposition mentality is shown by the Labour Government’s policies merely form an unquestioned measuring-rod from which to evaluate the Tories. Like any opposition with no hope of forming a government, consistency is not required. In the current circumstances, when spending needs to be squeezed, if something is raised up the list of priorities, we need to know what has fallen down the league table. In particular, those areas which are no longer required, so can be dropped. Or there might be areas can be reduced.
Unfortunately the Ballsian approach tends towards an extremist party that knows that they will never form a government when he says
“David Cameron is playing the public for fools and, frankly, the centre-left have let him get away with it too long.”
In other words, the Tories have a conspiracy to make things worse. Labour needs to expose the “truth”.
Hat tip Dan Hannan
FOLLOW UP – John Redwood stated yesterday that
“It is pathetic that we are still stuck in this idiotic sound bite culture, where Mr Brown seriously believes he can frighten people from voting Conservative by continuing to fib that Tories want to sack teachers and nurses.His main reason for wanting Balls in place of Darling apparently was to have someone as Chancellor who would spend his time rubbishing the Opposition instead of tackling the serious productivity and deficit problems in the public sector.”
Well perhaps Ed Balls is trying to do the attacking role from his current position?
