A Timely Reform by Ian Ridley

Blog & web site of Ian Ridley

Penultimate Shuttle Mission should launch on Wednesday

October 31st, 2010

Shuttle Discovery is readied for STS-133Space Shuttle Discovery is due to launch from Florida on Wednesday 3rd November at 3.52pm EDT (7.52pm GMT if I’ve got my time zones right).

Catch these events whilst you can: STS-133 is Discovery’s last mission and the last-but-one Shuttle mission before they are retired in February 2011.

NASA TV has full live coverage of each launch and mission and 24-hour News Channels usually carry each launch.

NASA has all the mission information. Heavens Above provides predictions for spotting the Shuttle and International Space Station as they orbit overhead. Weather permitting, you should be able to spot the ISS every evening this week at various times between 5pm and 7pm.

Edit: 15/11/10 – Launch time has been put back to 4:05 a.m. EST on Nov. 30. That’s 9.05 a.m. GMT.

Petition: Lib Dems against a rise in Tuition Fees

October 13th, 2010

LDs against feesLib Dem blogger Neil Woollcott has set up a petition for Lib Dem supporters (and anyone else) who want to let senior Liberal Democrat ministers know their opposition to an increase in Tuition Fees.

I encourage everyone to sign this.

I oppose the rise for two reasons;

1) If our opposition to an increase in fees was going to be negotiable in forming a coalition, why did so many of our MPs sign the NUS pledge to oppose an increase during the 2010 General Election campaign? I realise that some policy has to be up in the give-and-take of coalition talks. So why make such a clear atand prior to an election when the policy was going to be put up for horse-trading and a few months later some Lib Dem MPs would be voting to support increases in fees?

2) The whole Higher Education sector is a mess. It has no strategic direction as to what it is for and how big it should be. Every year thousands of students get into a lot of debt in the mistaken belief (heldover from the 1980s) that a degree always  leads a better salaried job. Many degrees take far longer to study for than they need to, wasting the students’ time and money.

The increase in fees is justified by the coalition as part of reducing the deficit and a need to protect university spending. In fact it is just an ad hoc solution to the hole that will be left by  spending cuts, whilst maintaining current student numbers.

The questions about what Higher Education is for, how many graduates England needs and how do we ensure equal access regardless of a student’s income background have not been answered.

Funding-wise a Graduate Tax might be more equitable but it has been rejected in the short-term because the scheme would require start-up Treasury funding. I would feel more comfortable if Vince Cable had announced that fee increases were a short-term measure until the economy improved and that they would be replaced by a Graduate Tax scheme when funds allowed. That would be a far from ideal policy but one that I could live with.

I have not seen mention of the knock-on effect that the polciy will have on postgraduate numbers. I believe that fees have already had a big impact on this area. Graduates with £20,000 debts are not attracted by starting 3 years of PhD research. During this time students continue to live on a very basic income and can get into more debt, whilst their student loans accrue more interest. The new policy will just make postgraduate study even less of an option, restricting the range of people entering academic and other research.

Did the GMB & Unite break the rules & deliver for Ed?

September 27th, 2010

Ed Miliband with GMB, Unite & Unison logosDid GMB’s & Unite’s rule-stretching endorsements of Ed Miliband tip the balance in Ed’s favour?

Jim Pickard at the FT reports that Unite included a leaflet supporting Ed Miliband in its ballot mailing to members and that at least some envelopes had Ed’s picture on them.

The Guardian reports that the GMB went further, mailing out ballot envelopes within larger envelopes featuring Ed Miliband’s picture. The paper quotes Mark Wickham-Jones, Professor of Politics at Bristol University as commenting, “The GMB appear to have broken the spirit of the rules guiding the conduct of the Labour party leadership.” Labour party and union figures have rejected such suggestions.

More prescient is Prof. Wickham-Jones’ observation that,”In the event of an Ed Miliband victory …… It may well suggest that the margin of his victory depended on votes cast in dubious circumstances.”

So, whether the rules were broken or not, the question is: Did these actions by GMB and Unite deliver a majority for Ed?

The only sure way to know would be to be to compare the votes of GMB & Unite if there had been no Ed Miliband endorsement in the ballot mailing with the vote results where the endorsement was present. Since the former never happened we cannot do this.

Using detail from the the leadership results published by Labour, we can try to work backwards and see if these Union “ballot endorsements” got Ed his majority. This can be done by comparing the voting patterns of GMB and Unite with those of other affiliated unions.

Overall Ed’s majority was 1.3% over David Miliband. This is equivalent to 2,596 of the 199,671 Affiliate Member votes that the Milibands had between them after the 4th and final round of AV transfers.

Labour only provide breakdowns of the first preference votes by each affiliated organisation. We need to see if the Unite and GMB “ballot endorsements” inflated Ed’s vote above the “norm”. My best guess at a “norm” is to take the mean vote for Ed across all affiliated unions. This is 35.51%.

GMB and Unite did indeed return an above-average vote for Ed: 42.05% and 42.62% respectively; 6.55% and 7.13% above the mean. Only the UCATT union had a higher first preference vote for Ed Miliband at almost 60%.

If this higher voter than the union average is exclusively due to the “ballot ensdorsements”, then this tactic delivered an extra 10,750 votes for Ed Miliband, almost four times his eventual majority.

Of course the higher GMB and Unite votes could be just due to extra underlying support for Ed from the voters in these unions . However, I find it hard to believe that such a blatant endorsement on the actual outer envelope containing the ballot did not influence some voters.

Even if this tactic was only responsible for a quarter of the above average first preference votes returned by the GMB and Unite, then it is still greater than Ed Miliband’s eventual majority.

The lack of data on the transfers means that I can’t analyse how the tactic affected the lower preferences of Alan Millburn, Diane Abbott and Ed Balls. However, I believe it must have had some positive effect on Ed Miliband’s vote. And this strengthens my point further.

Why would two of the biggest Labour-affiliated unions spend thousands on this promotional strategy if it didn’t influence their members when they received their ballots?

And finally, if the GMB and Unite have delivered the Labour leadership to Ed Miliband, what will they want in return?