Matthew Cain's blog » David Cameron

What Britain can’t learn from The Wire

Matthew — Thu, 27 Aug 2009 06:00:23 +0000

There’s a lively debate in the blogosphere, and particularly the bloggers circle, following Chris Grayling’s observations about similarities between inner cities in Britain and the Baltimore depicted in The Wire. Matthew Taylor questions what the Tories make of the corruption in local government given that in the UK, they run most town halls (though not in the inner cities which Grayling had in mind) whilst Henry Kippin of the 2020 Public Services Trust reminds us that politicians and popular culture do not mix.

There are lots of lessons we can’t learn from The Wire.

1. Gun crime is not out of control in the UK

As Garbo points out on the Wardman Wire, there are far less murders in the UK than the US, Manchester than Birmingham. In fact, Britain has fewer murders than France or Sweden – to name but a few. The culture of guns in The Wire presents a number of problems to the community – armed police acting irresponsibly, young lives ended prematurely, innocents caught up in gun fights, no go areas for the emergency services.

2. Local government is not corrupt

The corruption and incompetence in the state house in Baltimore is a key theme for one series of The Wire. There is corruption in local government in the UK – but nothing like on the same scale. Coincidentally, local government in the UK does not have the same discretion over public spending as the state government in the US.

3. Local news is failing, but not that badly

Local newspapers are closing in the UK all the time, for similar reasons to the pressure that the newsroom feels in the USA. However, national newspapers are much stronger and the sorts of problems experienced in Baltimore would not go unreported in the UK – witness the fuss over stabbings last year in our big cities.

4. The public safety net is wider and more effective

The public safety net in the UK is not without its problems but it is more comprehensive than in the UK. Aside from the greater security and support provided to the jobless and those insecurely housed, public services are stronger – the police, NHS, schools, social services – despite all their problems.

There are things that we can learn from The Wire. Kippin points out the challenges of attainment for so many young, black men in Baltimore. That’s not dissimilar to the UK – and we have the same problem with other minority ethnic groups. He sees “the sense of dignity, achievement and individual gain that often drives the kids on the corner”. Personally, I saw the grinding inevitability that sucked in even the best, most able individuals (Stringer, Michael, Dukie) to their seemingly inevitable under-achievement.

But most importantly, The Wire was about inter-connectedness. It was about the inter-play between the system and people. And if it taught us anything, it should have been that to begin to start fixing the problem, you have to understand the society. And Toxteth and Moss Side and bits of Birmingham, Burnley and Oldham are not like Baltimore. That’s the point made in Gang Leader for a Day as well.

The government’s New Deal for Communities was an attempt to address the systemic failings in communities, like the projects in Baltimore. Mostly it failed to meet its own aspirations. As far as I understand, it failed because it didn’t understand the local communities, didn’t empower them to fix their own problems, and didn’t address the problem in the right way.

If the Tories are serious about addressing urban failings, they must first understand the communities, networks and societies. Chris Grayling’s remarks suggest they don’t and they won’t.

Investment v Cuts has never worked

Matthew — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 19:25:01 +0000

For weeks now it’s looked like the next election will be fought on familiar lines: Labour investment versus Tory cuts. Today David Cameron did a pretty good job of chipping away at Gordon Brown’s dividing line. That’s no bad thing for the Labour Party.

Gordon Brown may want to fight the next election on the basis of investment versus cuts but it won’t work. This isn’t just my opinion, this is a fact. Labour has tried investment v cuts at the last two elections – 2001 and 2005. It didn’t work at either election.

There are all sorts of ways of testing an election slogan – through polling, focus groups, media monitoring, on the doorstep and more besides. But the ultimate test is what happens on polling day. Judging a slogan any earlier is like assessing a football team on paper before the cup final: useful and informative but ultimately inconclusive.

In 1997 Labour got 13,518,167 (43.2%) votes compared with 9,600,943 to the Tories on a 71.5% turnout – giving Labour 418 MPs. The Labour message was ‘things can only get better’. They promised some incremental improvements to public services (no class size of more than 30 for 5,6 and 7 year olds) but also to keep inside Tory spending limits for the first two years and no increase to basic income tax.

In 2001 Labour got 10,724,953 votes (down 2.5%) compared with 8,357,615 for the Tories on a 59% turnout – giving Labour 413 MPs. The Labour message was ’schools and hospitals first’. So Labour actually lost votes. The message didn’t work.

In 2005 Labour got 9,562,122 votes (down 5.5%) compared with 8,772,598 for the Tories on a 62% turnout – giving Labour 356 MPs. The main message was ‘Forward, not back’ but it articulated a message about public service investment (and reform) against cuts. The message of investment AND reform was important during the passage of the main bills in parliament on public services throughout 2001-2006, partly because it united a coalition of support where merely ‘investment’ concerned some of Labour’s electoral coalition.

General election results are complicated and people vote for a range of reasons. However, investment v cuts has not worked. If it hasn’t worked for other reasons then – ok, let’s give it another go. But there are compelling reasons to believe it won’t work this time either.

1. The public know that the government is deeply in debt. There is a growing discourse which believes that the public sector wastes money. Investment alone is not universally popular.

2. Experts won’t be quiet in the next nine months if the government keeps talking about investment v cuts. The governor of the Bank of England, the IMF, the IFS and more – all will testify that the government needs a plan for getting the deficit under control. The (cautious) support of Paul Krugman will not be enough.

3. It won’t build a successful electoral coalition. The Doctors who have had a pay rise thanks to Labour’s investment are not grateful. The nurses who have had a pay rise thanks to Labour’s investment are not grateful. The administrative assistants who have paid more tax are not grateful.

4. The numbers involved are too big to make sense – and the public don’t trust statistics from the government. The billions of pounds are so many, the sums of cash so incomprehesibly big – and with nothing to compare them to – that the investment narrative and the £20bn hidden cuts talk – just doesn’t resonate.

If David Cameron has decreased the likelihood of investment v cuts being the narrative at the next election, he may have increased Labour’s chance of winning.

David Cameron is a hypocrite

Matthew — Mon, 27 Apr 2009 12:43:56 +0000

I’m angry at David Cameron’s hypocrisy. This weekend, at a Conservative party conference, he attacked high earners in the public sector.

Cameron singled out, by name, an apparently random list of the 34th highest earner, Ed Richards, the chief executive of Ofcom (£400,000 per annum) and the senior executives at British Waterways, Robin Evans (67th), Nigel Johnson (184th), James Froomberg (128th) and Philip Ridal (129th) and revealed their wages (combined, around £900,000). It was unbecoming behaviour from the man Jon Gaunt calls prime minister.

David Cameron’s decision to name and shame these executives was hypocritical. Only minutes earlier he had criticised the Budget as a “pathetic piece of class war posturing.” And naming public sector officials was what, exactly? His list didn’t contain any of the top 10 best-paid public sector officials. And in picking officials from British Waterways, he conveniently missed better-paid officials with salaries set by Conservative party-run councils: Peter Gilroy, Kent County Council, Gerald Jones, Wandsworth Council – for example. And today, Cameron’s party will oppose government plans to reveal the salaries of private companies.

Where was your denunciation of senior bankers remuneration – David?

This class-driven hypocritical bullying (not dissimilar to Labour’s attack on Fred Goodwin) hints at a nasty future for the public sector – one in which high-calibre management is disincentivised to work in the public sector, where pay increases don’t happen in line with private sector increases and where the work of public servants is attacked at party conferences rather than praised. It suggests an emasculated public sector which provides the traditional Tory safety-net and second-class service, where charities have to fill the gaps – with scant resources.

This is not new conservatism. This is not nice conservatism. This is the same old Tories. Sadly, Labour is just too hopeless to take them on.

Cameron mistaken on party funding reform

Matthew — Sun, 15 Feb 2009 20:50:07 +0000

David Cameron has apparently told Iain Dale that a Conservative government would not prioritise party funding reform (via Conservative Home). This is a mistake and the reason he offers just isn’t good enough.

I believe it’s a mistake because a Conservative government will face allegations over where it gets its money. I know this, because it happens to every party and politician who has to raise large amounts of money. These allegations will reduce the standing of the Conservatives but – more significantly – lead to a further dislocation between citizens and politicians.

One of the interesting things that I’ve observed from Labour’s time in office is that the big decisions which it put off or got wrong at the start, usually came back to haunt them: fox hunting, Lords reform, structures in education, welfare reform.

I welcome his consideration of tax relief for small donations. David Cameron was the first person I discussed this with, in preparation of the ippr research report. However, if this isn’t taken as part of a wider package of reform, it will not win public confidence. One of the consistent messages of our research was that party funding needed to be a tripartite arrangement: caps on spending, caps on donations, proportionate assistance from the state.

However, what’s most disasppointing is Cameron’s suggestion that state funding “can’t be afforded” given the economic climate. This is just posturing. The total amount it should cost the state is likely to be around £50m a year – or at least is highly unlikely to be near £100m. Let’s be honest, that’s a lot of money. But it’s insignificant in the context of government spending. And it’s a small price to pay for a system of party funding which helps restore a bit of trust in our political system.

UPDATE: Iain Dale has now published some extracts from the interview on his blog.