More on Speeding

More on speeding.... On the left is a graph that shows how fuel efficiency decreases after 60mph. It's an American gragh, so the mpg are miles per American gallon rather than Imperial, but the trend will of course be the same - you use up more petrol if you drive too fast.

Essentially doing 75mph (120kmph) instead of 55mph (90kmph) increases the fuel you consume by about 20%. Given how expensive petrol is at the moment, you'd think it was a no-brainer that people cut their speed. Yet drivers rarely do this - and these same drivers then complain about fuel prices and speeding tickets.

Why do they behave this way? I think it is to do with problems with deferred gratification. The same way some people are unable to wait till the sales to buy an item, or to save for it for six months instead of putting it now on the credit card, some people can't wait an extra half hour to get to their destination (or can't be bothered to get up half an hour early to give themselves enough time to drive there at 60mph). If we could just get people to try it out, they'd not only save themselves a lot of money, the volume of petrol consumed would fall, as would the CO2 emmissions. Plus they'd stay within the law and avoid speeding tickets.

I'd say to people, just try it once - perhaps on a weekend trip to see the inlaws. You probably know already how much fuel the journey takes, and you can therefore easily compare how you do with a journey at a steady 60mph. Obviously it will hurt the self-image of some to be driving at that speed in the slow lane with the lorries. But the financial gain is substantial - I'd say, just try it out once. Then decide whether a macho self-image is worth the extra cost (hint: it doesn't matter what other drivers think of you as they don't know you from adam).

Speed Cameras

I thought I'd do a post on speed cameras because one way to tell if someone is Labour or Tory is to ask them their views on speed cameras. Labour people instinctively feel they are a Good Thing: they save lives and it is no hardship to slow down, so they feel that if you get caught and fined for breaking the law it serves you right. Tories by contrast don't give a fig about the law, don't believe that speed cameras save lives, and feel it is their right to break the law with impunity and that speed fines are a "tax".

To inform the debate I thought I'd look up the guidelines as to where you can put speed cameras.

For fixed site cameras, the guidelines are as follows:

1. There must be at least 4 fatal or serious collisions per km in the last 3 calender years

2. at least 8 personal injury collisions per Km in the last three years

3. Collisions where causation factors are not speed related must not be included.

4. At least 20% of drivers are exceeding the speed limit in this spot.

5. Collisions are clustered close together around a single stretch of road or junction

6. There has been a site survey carried out by a road safety engineer that has concluded that there are no other obvious practical measures to improve road safety on this strtch of road.

7. The cameras must be well signed and highly visible.


If it is a digital enforecement site, there must be at least 5 fatal or serious collisions per km in the spot in the last three years and at least 10 personal injury collisions.


It is clear that the cameras are put where there has been a serious problem and where the local authority is trying to prevent further accidents. You could say that the cameras are shrines to the dead, as if there were no accidents on that stretch of road, there would be no camera there.

So why do Tories object? I think it's down to their lack of community spirit. They feel that their pleasure in speeding is more important than other people's lives. Labour people feel the opposite: the community good is more important than minor unimportant pleasures like speeding. Tories also seem to have a more cavaliar attitude to obeying the law than Labour people. At the end of the day we can only conclude that Labour people are just nicer and more humane. You have to have a hard-hearted and possibly cruel attitude to your fellow man to become a Tory.

On Defections

Steve Richards, writing in the Independent made an interesting observation:

Defections are a wholly reliable guide to the parties' prospects, much more so than opinion polls. In the late 1970s and 1980s all the defections were away from Labour to the Conservatives and the SDP. Even though Labour was often well ahead in opinion polls it lost elections. The defectors knew instinctively which way the tide was flowing.

Since the mid- 1990s all the defections have been away from the Conservatives. That is why the move of Quentin Davies to Labour is significant. His switch suggests that the tide flows towards Labour still. The Conservatives have failed to attract defections in spite of some unsubtle attempts in recent months. They must reverse the tide first.

There is truth in this. Someone like Digby Jones would only accept the Labour whip if they felt in their bones that was the only way to run a department, because the Conservatives and LibDems have no chance at all of getting into government.

The Tories of course are desperate for people to defect to them, and have also been courting some of the independents who have come to Labour. John Rentoul has this bit of gossip about Mark Malloc Brown (the UN chap who criticised the USA):

Sir Mark's recruitment is notable, too, for proving that Gordon Brown is superior at the mysteries of defector management to the amateurs on the Tory side. The Tories thought Sir Mark, who addressed their conference last year, was already in their transfer lounge, waiting for a flight to the land of Cameroon. At 4pm on Wednesday, when his name began to be mentioned around Westminster as a possible minister in the new Government, a member of the shadow Cabinet said confidently: "No chance."

No chance huh? Mark Malloc Brown has not only taken the Labour whip, he's joined the Labour party.

Of course these defections have put Tory and LibDem noses out of joint. When Quentin Davies defected to Labour, some of them suggested that they would "respect" Labour more if we'd have said No to him.

What they don't understand is that unlike the other parties, Labour is not an exclusive club. Anyone who is a citizen of the UK can join. All we ask is that if you are a member of our party, you must not be a member of any other party. We don't do blackballing - that's for the likes of the Bullingdon Club. I shudder at the very idea of rejecting someone because their face doesn't fit. It's a slippery slope to something horrible. Thankfully Labour is open to all comers, and as a result we have the broadest membership base of any of the parties. Members who are cleaners and members who are lords. Members whose names are Quentin and members whose names are Wayne. People of all creeds, colours and classes. This broad church is what makes us representative of the UK, and gives us a sense of what the public wants. This is the reason why we are in government.

Quentin Davies already agrees with us on the EU, and he has admitted that his previous opinions on how we run the economy were wrong and has changed his mind. As for his other views - he is free to argue them within the Labour party and will no doubt find Labour members vigorously arguing back. It is only within the Labour party that he will hear these opposing arguments anyway - and hearing dissenting arguments is a necessary pre-condition to someone changing their mind.

If anyone else wants to join the Labour Party, click here. All are welcome no matter who you are or what your background is. We don't discriminate in Labour.

The New Cabinet

Now we've seen the full change in line-up, two themes emerge: "the next generation" and "change in foreign policy stance". The latter has resulted in most of the American papers doing "Brown appoints his cabinet" stories (probably the first time the American papers have covered British cabinet reshuffles).

Here's what Time magazine had to say: The new Foreign Secretary is unlikely to charm any neocons. Skeptical about the war in Iraq, David Miliband also protested in Cabinet last year at the British handling of the conflagration in Lebanon. They also note the appointment of Mark Malloc-Brown as Minister for Africa, Asia and the UN. Mark Malloc-Brown last year criticised the USA for "too much unchecked UN bashing and stereotyping," and added that "the prevailing practice of seeking to use the U.N. almost by stealth as a diplomatic tool while failing to stand up for it against its domestic critics is simply not sustainable." The New York Times takes a similar line, leading on the choice of Foreign Secretary and noting his anti-war concerns. I would say that the Americans have got the "change" message loud and clear, even if some Brits haven't quite twigged what has happened.

The other anti-war appointment of course is John Denham, who honorably resigned over Iraq. He comes back to look after universities and skills.

On the "next generation" theme, we have Jacqui Smith, age 44 as Home Secretary. This is a really bold appointment. Being Home Secretary is no picnic, and giving it to a young woman will please all those who've been irritated that women have hitherto been given "soft" jobs like Culture. David Miliband, aged 41, also represents the new generation as Foreign Secretary. Ed Balls (schools) is 40. Douglas Alexander (international development) and Ruth Kelly (transport) are both 39. James Purnell (culture) and Ed Miliband (cabinet office) are 37.

These are people who came in under New Labour, and represent the future of the Labour party. Under the watchful eye of the experienced Gordon Brown, they are being given their chance to show us what they are made of. Brown is essentially doing what Kinnock did for him and Tony Blair; bringing on the next generation (a duty Blair should have have attended to, but he was too self-absorbed to bother). One of this cohort will emerge as the successor to Brown in six to eight years.

All-in-all I'd say it was a good day's work.

The Handover

Well it all went through in text-book fashion. Indeed this transition has been so smooth I believe that future British governments over the next century will be trying to emulate and achieve hand-overs as elegant as this one.

I watched PMQs and thought Blair was a little grave to start with, though he warmed up during the second half when a stereotype Tory (Winterton) and a stereotype LibDem (the guy with the obscure question about the church) popped up. And the standing ovation at the end was poignant. Blair was a star in sheer galactico politics.

Yet one was reminded why a change was needed when we saw the Browns. I think the public will be struck with Mrs Brown in particular (this is probably their first glimpse of her). A more different character to Cherie you couldn't find. People watching the proceedings will have seen Cherie throw her arms out theatrically to embrace the Lady in Waiting who came to greet them at the palace and contrasted that with Mrs Brown's more reticent and normal behavior (I mean does anyone in Britain anywhere greet anyone with their arms flung out?). It's unfashionable to mention this, but spouses matter, whether male or female. You get a glimpse into what sort of person the politician is drawn to, and what sort of person the politician has inspired to love them back. Brown must be a great guy if someone as nice as Mrs Brown loves him.

The slight awkwardness outside No 10 struck an endearing note too. Just five years ago, Brown would have been pilloried over it, you were expected then to be a performer or you were a non-starter. But it's a measure of the change in public mood that people are now inclined to feel touched and reassured by the human awkward unscripted moments. The next decade will be very different from the last, and it's Brown that embodies the change (Cameron with his 1990's script is so last century).

One last thing about Blair's new job as Middle East envoy. People are carping about this. But Blair didn't actually need to take it on. He could have just focused on making a lot of money a la Bill Clinton. The role of Middle East envoy is a horrible thankless job and the chances of failure are very high. So why take it? I think he's doing it because he's seeking Redemption. He's only 54, young in political terms. Suppose he works flat out the next ten years and pulls off a peace initiative, it will then change his final story. It will become the story of a man, who through inexperience and mis-judgement made a mistake over Iraq, and then with very hard-earned knowledge of how war (and civil-war) actually works, tried again and fixed things. He'll be different from the usual envoys who go in with pipedreams about bringing peace and find their illusions shattered. Blair comes at this battle hardened - all his illusions about the middle east are already shattered and all that's left is knowledge about just how difficult it will all be. He may just succeed. I hope he does.

Deputy Leadership

I voted for Johnson, but he got pipped at the post by Harman. Kudos to her for winning against the odds - not easy to pull off at all. She's also very articulate on family issues, and takes apart Tory discrimination towards single parents very well indeed. And kudos to the party organisers who managed to keep the result secret right to the very end (to the extent that Sky news ended up leading with the wrong result).

I understand that Harman will be party Chairman as a result, and am happy with this. I think she'll be a much better Chairman than Blears, who made chirpy comments from time to time, but didn't seem to engage with party members much further.

I wonder who will get the Deputy Prime Minister job - Straw? I guess we'll find out in a couple of days. I must admit to feeling more cheerful than I've done for a couple of years. The whole transition has gone really smoothly, even Michael Portillo referred to it as "elegant". And it seems like the look of the government will change too, with lots of tired faces retiring from the scene. I detect a new cheerfulness among the public too - they were tired of Blair and wanted something different. I think we've read the mood of the country well in how we've conducted this and who we selected for leader.

The Lib Dems and Power

According to the Guardian, Gordon Brown was prepared to do the John F Kennedy thing and offer positions in the government to Lib Dems in the House of Lords. Apparently Lord Carlisle was suggested for attorney general, Lord Leslie for something to do with constitutional affairs and Lord Ashdown for position unknown.

While like most Labour people I'd object to LibDems MPs in the Commons being part of the govt, I've no objections to the idea of LibDems in the Lords participating. In particular I think giving the post of Attorney General to someone independent of the government is a splendid idea, and it might safeguard democracy if a precedent could be set for all future governments to appoint an independent non-government-party Attorney General.

It's all got quashed by Ming Campbell under pressure from his own MPs - apparently they want to maintain "ideological purity". Maintaining ideological purity is code for being scared of power exposing them as useless. After all anyone and his dog can carp from the sidelines, but power, with all the responsibilities, contraints and pressures to compromise that it brings, is a difficult thing to deal with. Anyone most certainly can't cope with it.

This might be a moment of truth for the Lib Dems. They've been prattling on about proportional representation - but PR means coalitions. Not only that but being part of a coalition under a PR system is no different to being part of a coalition under the FPTP system - you are still representing the strand of the population that voted for you. So if they are scared of coalitions, they'd be scared of them under PR too, and we'd simply end up with a succession of unstable minority Labour or Tory governments. Perhaps this is the time for the LibDems to ditch PR and endorse FPTP, which at least guarantees that they will never take power and allows them to navel gaze to their heart's content.

As for Gordon Brown, he can say to the electorate, look I tried to be inclusive but they weren't interested. And therefore a vote for the Lib Dems is a wasted vote. Of course there are non-Labour people who arn't LibDems. If I was him, I'd still look for an independent attorney general, there must be someone on the cross-benches who qualifies.

Economic Perceptions

I'm of the firm belief that the Labour party's fortunes are tied to the economy, and that when voters are alone in the polling booth, economics trumps all other considerations no matter what they tell the pollsters. So it is worth looking how people perceive their own personal financial situation is doing.

YouGov asks the question "How do you think the financial situation of your household will change in the next 12 months", every two months. Unfortunately their figures don't go further back than Jan 2003, but there is still enough to tell an interesting story.

          Get Better   Stay Same  Get Worse  Don't Know
Jan 2003   21           31         47         1
Apr 2003   17           28         53         2
Jan 2004   21           31         47         2
Mar 2004   19           31         48         3
May 2005   23           34         37         6
Nov 2005   18           33         44         5
Mar 2006   21           31         44         5
Nov 2006   21           32         43         5
Mar 2007   24           30         44         4
May 2007   23           35         38         4
                                        

The important figure is those saying things will Get Worse.
Some of those who say things will Get Better or Stay the Same will give the government credit, but most will just pocket the benefit. Those who think things will Get Worse however, are highly motivated to kick the government.

It's notable that people were most pessimistic in April 2003, when the Iraq war had started, and the FTSE had reached a low of 3287 in the previous month (March 2003), down from 6900 in December 1999. But by the time of the general election in 2005, the Get Worse figure has dropped 16 points from the April 2003 figure (the FTSE had recovered, housing was going well, and unemployment was 4.5%).

During the grumpy 2006 period, the Get Worse figure climbs, but the May 2007 poll, which was done after Blair announced he would step down (fieldwork done 21-23 May), shows a return to roughly where we were in May 2005, during the general election. Note that this improvement came despite interest rates rising, though it's worth noting that electricity and gas bill have fallen in this period. To me this improvement in the economic polling indicates that voters actively associate Gordon Brown with prosperity. They feel that while Blair's priorities have been foreign policy, Brown's will always be the economy.

Schools, selection, and all that stuff

I thought it might be worth looking at the whole schools thing from another angle. I've been re-reading Freakonomics by Steven D Levitt and in particular his chapter on Parenting (chapter 5 page 148), where he tries to work out which behaviours and decisions make a difference to a child's success or failure in life.

He cites a very interesting study done on the Chicago Public School System. From 1980 onwards, primary school children could apply to enter any Chicago High School they wanted (as opposed to going to the school nearest their home). The choice is huge (more than sixty high schools within the Chicago system to choose from), and hence the take-up rate is high - about half of CPS students opted out of their neighbourhood school. Because it was impossible for every child to go to the best school, CPS resorts to a lottery. If you decide to opt out of your neighbourhood school, you pick your school of choice and your name is entered in a lottery - and you either get in or you don't based on the lottery. The choice plus lottery system makes it ideal to test whether there is an advantage to going to a "better" school or not.

Here's the interesting thing: the data shows that the students who won the lottery and went to a "better" school did no better than equivalent students who lost the lottery and were left behind in their neighbourhood school. They gained no academic benefit from going to a better school and those who got left behind in the neighbourhood school did not suffer from any supposed brain drain either. However, the students who entered the lottery in the first place were more likely to graduate than the students who didn't, regardless of which school they ended up in.

Conclusion: the parents and students who enter the lottery tend to be smarter and more motivated to begin with (that's why they are trying for a better school in the first place) and this motivation is what affects the academic outcome, regardless of school. i.e. it's the parents that make the difference, not the school.

Which suggests that New Labour is on the right track with it's emphasis on parenting classes, and trying to intervene early so that ignorant parents don't pass on bad behaviours and neglect onto their children. Good parenting is a skill, and though people are supposed to have learnt this from their own parents, some in the underclass haven't (which is why they are in the underclass). If only parents on the sink estates realised that all they have to do is make sure their children eat properly, do two hours of study at home each night, and then go to sleep on time so they get their rest, and they will do well in school. How well you do in exams is correlated with the amount of time you spend studying, and no matter how brilliant your teachers, you will fail if your parent does not insist you put in the study time. Instead too many neglect their children and let them hang around outside late at night, getting tired and wasting their time. The world in 2007 is very different from that of 1907 or even 1957, most (though not all) class barriers have been smashed - all you have to do is get good GCSE's and A Levels and you are on your way to a decent job and good life.

Tory U-Turns

Latest U-Turn from the Tories - first " we will not promote the opening of new ones" (Osborne) and now they are going to allow new grammars to be built.

This is the latest in a series of U-Turns. Cameron was going to leave the EPP within six months - now it's been postponed indefinitely while they wait the approval of some minor Czech party for the formation of a new group sometime in the future.

He was going to assert his authority on candidate selection by imposing an "A-list" - then under pressure he produced a B-list (or whatever they called it) and then abandoned the lists altogether and let the local party associations to do what they'd been doing before Cameron came along.

He was going to put a windmill on his house - and then abandoned it a week later, when he found he was foul of the planning rules.

All these have a common theme - he says things purely for PR effect and it never once occurs to him to check if his ideas are feasible, practical and can actually be implemented. i.e. he has none of the skills required for government which is all about making sure your plans are feasible, practical and can be actually be implemented.

Alastair Campbell once said that he thought Cameron was actually trying to do his job rather than Blair's or Brown's. There is truth in this. Why on earth didn't Cameron apply for the post of communications director for the Tories, rather than party leader/leader of the opposition, which requires somewhat more substantial skills?