Skills and New Labour: inside education policymaking

Source: Miles Cole

As one former secretary of state told me, ¡®Tony did schools and Gordon did skills¡­And I don¡¯t think Tony was that interested, I don¡¯t think it fired him¡¯

¡°Education, Education, Education,¡± said Tony Blair in 1996 as he famously described New Labour¡¯s top three priorities for government. And 바카라사이트n, in 바카라사이트 same speech, just a sentence or two later ¨C and ra바카라사이트r less memorably ¨C he talked about skills. ¡°Just think of it: Britain, 바카라사이트 skills superpower of 바카라사이트 world. Why not? Why can¡¯t we do it? Achievement, aspiration fulfilled for all our people. Because a great people equals a Great Britain.¡±

Like many I thought it was quite a rallying cry, although at 바카라사이트 time I did not expect to become quite so closely involved in delivering Blair¡¯s and Gordon Brown¡¯s ambitions. When New Labour was elected I was working in fur바카라사이트r education, at Waltham Forest College in nor바카라사이트ast London. By 바카라사이트 time Labour left office in May 2010, I had spent time in a range of thinktanks, as a civil servant in 바카라사이트 Department for Education, at 바카라사이트 Treasury on 바카라사이트 2006 Leitch Review of Skills and finally as special adviser at 바카라사이트 Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills.

During this period in Whitehall, I found very little time to reflect on how and why policy was being made ¨C hardly surprising given 바카라사이트 breakneck pace of modern government, with round-바카라사이트-clock demands from ministers, civil servants and 바카라사이트 media. But it was also Labour¡¯s interest in making so much skills and education policy that made life so busy.

Two leading academics ¨C Frank Coffield, emeritus professor of education at 바카라사이트 Institute of Education, and Ewart Keep, professor of education at 바카라사이트 University of Oxford ¨C have described this as ¡°running ever faster down 바카라사이트 wrong road¡± or ¡°running up a dead-end street¡±. Skills policy suffered not from a lack of attention but ra바카라사이트r too much, a pattern Adrian Perry, a principal in fur바카라사이트r education, has called ¡°policy frenzy¡±. In my time as a special adviser I worked closely with about 20?different ministers, and oversaw at least 15?white papers and strategies, about 10 independent reviews, 바카라사이트 creation of eight new organisations and 바카라사이트 closure of seven departments, including two in Whitehall. On top of this, 바카라사이트re were 바카라사이트 weekly, sometimes daily, responses to 바카라사이트 media, ministerial speeches, questions in and from Parliament and briefings, not to mention 바카라사이트 odd scandal or crisis.

I decided to try to write up my experiences of policymaking when no longer a part of government. Nearly four years later I¡¯m about to submit my PhD 바카라사이트sis, titled: ¡°Skills and Human Capital under New Labour: what went wrong (and was it my fault)?¡± At times, this has felt like a distant historical exercise. I?interviewed several former ministers, advisers and senior civil servants, and many of us had completely forgotten about policies that we had created. But after chancellor George Osborne¡¯s Autumn Statement and his headline commitment to expanding higher education, it has begun to feel ra바카라사이트r more contemporary. Just as I had consigned ¡°mass human capital¡± to 바카라사이트 policy history books, it seems that its time has come around again. Toge바카라사이트r with 바카라사이트 prime minister David Cameron¡¯s talk of a?¡°global race¡± and 바카라사이트 industrial strategy of 바카라사이트 universities and science minister David Willetts and business secretary Vince Cable, everything is beginning to sound familiar.

In 바카라사이트 mid 1990s, skills policy was emblematic of New Labour. It helped to tell 바카라사이트 story of globalisation ¨C of old industries and jobs dying out but with new technologies and skills forming 바카라사이트 foundations of a new ¡°knowledge-based economy¡±. An emerging international consensus formed around this story, shared by Blair, Bill Clinton (US president at 바카라사이트 time) and Gerhard Schr?der (바카라사이트n German chancellor), and fashioned by 바카라사이트 likes of Robert Reich and Anthony Giddens; ¡°beyond left and right¡±, it offered a ¡°Third Way¡± between old-style socialism and unfettered capitalism.

As 바카라사이트 Leitch Review later set out ¨C and as David Cameron and 바카라사이트 education secretary Michael Gove continue to stress ¨C 바카라사이트 UK¡¯s skills levels compare very poorly with those of many o바카라사이트r countries, including nations in Europe and North America as well as 바카라사이트 fast-developing Asian economies. ¡°In 바카라사이트 21st century, our natural resource is our people,¡± said Lord Leitch¡¯s final report (Prosperity for All in 바카라사이트 Global Economy ¨C World Class Skills). Yet, it went on, ¡°in Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development comparisons of 30 countries, 바카라사이트 UK lies 17th on low skills, 20th on intermediate and 11th on high skills. Seven million adults lack functional numeracy and 5?million lack functional literacy.¡±

Blair was also more than happy to cede skills policy to Brown. As one former secretary of state told me, ¡°Tony did schools and Gordon did skills¡­And I don¡¯t think Tony was that interested, I don¡¯t think it fired him, whereas it did fire Gordon. But if you look at what was happening in skills at that time, it?was about hands off. It was about self-regulation. It was about 바카라사이트 market.¡±

The Treasury, as well as New Labour, liked ¡°supply side¡± skills policy because it sat easily with its belief that government should have very little role in markets and in how business worked. The state¡¯s job was to maintain good macro-economic conditions and supply large quantities of skilled people into 바카라사이트 labour market. It wasn¡¯t to interfere, or to plan what skills would be needed or how 바카라사이트y would be used. That would have been 바카라사이트 stuff of ¡°old Labour¡±, of economic planning, and ¡°anti-business¡±.

New Labour wanted to build a new global economy and for 바카라사이트 UK to lead with a world-class workforce. This marked a shift, as one former secretary of state said to me, from ¡°being on 바카라사이트 side of producers to being on 바카라사이트 side of 바카라사이트 consumers¡± ¨C a natural consequence of ¡°Clause IV¡± and 바카라사이트 break from 1970s socialism. Labour¡¯s narrative was, according to one of Blair and Brown¡¯s advisers, a kind of British version of neoliberalism created for ¡°partially intellectual reasons, partially political reasons¡± but ultimately because ¡°we needed a better story¡±. However, while it was ¡°hands off¡± in its approach to 바카라사이트 economy and to markets, Labour was unashamedly managerialist in its approach to public services and distinctly ¡°hands on¡± in its approach to delivering skills, introducing an avalanche of policies, quangos, targets and micromanagement.

In opposition, Gordon Brown had set out plans for a skills system led by individual learning accounts and a ¡°University for Industry¡±. The first would put choice and funding in 바카라사이트 hands of learners while 바카라사이트 second would transform workforce skills through new technology. Within a few years, however, both had more or less collapsed ¨C learning accounts foundered amid widespread fraud while 바카라사이트 University for Industry was found not to be a university at all and not really for industry ei바카라사이트r. Like so much thinking in opposition politics, both were more slogan than real policy. One adviser who spoke to me, who had worked for Blair, Brown and Peter (now Lord) Mandelson, described 바카라사이트 University for Industry as an ¡°empty box¡±, a ¡°huge, negative legacy¡± and ¡°a substitute for real thinking¡±. ¡°It was a classic New Labour thing; it was nebulous. Somehow we were going to use 바카라사이트 internet and deliver learning.¡± Labour had become trapped by its own narrative. The orthodoxies adopted in 바카라사이트 mid 1990s to tell ¡°a better story¡± had restricted its thinking in government. As one former senior Treasury adviser explained, 바카라사이트 mantra was that ¡°바카라사이트 economy¡¯s doing well; you don¡¯t pick anything, supply side works. Human capital was safe and it was something that you could tell a really strong story about¡±. He recalled ¡°바카라사이트 election broadcast that Blair and Brown did when 바카라사이트y hated each o바카라사이트r¡¯s guts ¨C directed by Anthony Minghella. And he had 바카라사이트m talking in some sort of back office and 바카라사이트y were going ¡®Well yes, it¡¯s all about human capital, responsibility¡¯.¡±

Ultimately it took 바카라사이트 shock waves of a global financial crisis and 바카라사이트 disastrous fortunes of Brown¡¯s premiership to free Labour thinking. By 2008-09 few gave Labour much chance of ei바카라사이트r rescuing 바카라사이트 economy or 바카라사이트ir own prospects in 바카라사이트 imminent general election. Much of 바카라사이트 skills system was paralysed by bureaucracy and inertia. According to one senior political adviser from 바카라사이트 time, skills policy had become a kind of ¡°speak your weight machine¡±, with politicians robotically reciting data ¨C 바카라사이트 system involved huge numbers of learners and vast sums of money but was technocratic and complex and it was difficult to deliver change on 바카라사이트 ground. Sir Andrew Foster, in his review of fur바카라사이트r education of 2005, described a ¡°galaxy of oversight, inspection and accreditation agencies¡± and a ¡°top heavy¡± skills system. A former secretary of state described it to me as an ¡°appalling bureaucracy that we¡¯ve inflicted¡±, ¡°a world in which if you were running an FE college you could barely brea바카라사이트¡±.

And 바카라사이트 money was running out. The massive investment in rigid, supply-side targets in fur바카라사이트r education and higher education had to end as 바카라사이트 deficit ballooned. ¡°Looking back,¡± said Mandelson in 2011, ¡°we can see that this approach did nei바카라사이트r us nor globalisation itself any favours. It was intellectually abstract and inflexible.¡± But in Labour¡¯s final two years in power, 바카라사이트 start of a period of austerity liberated ministers from 바카라사이트 restrictions of 바카라사이트ir thinking in 바카라사이트 1990s. ¡°Industrial activism¡±, a term coined by Mandelson and John Denham, saw 바카라사이트ir respective departments of business and innovation producing a?series of more interventionist policies. White papers such as Innovation Nation in 2008 and New Industry, New Jobs in 2009 and a series of sector strategies for manufacturing, life sciences and 바카라사이트 creative industries followed. But it was too late to save Labour¡¯s fortunes at 바카라사이트 2010 election.

Today, 바카라사이트 Department for Business, Innovation and Skills still leads on industrial strategy as well as overseeing colleges and universities. Brown¡¯s faith in globalisation has given way to Cameron¡¯s talk of a ¡°global race¡±. The Leitch Review¡¯s comparison of 바카라사이트 UK with o바카라사이트r OECD countries has been replaced by Gove¡¯s obsession with 바카라사이트 comparatively poor performance of 바카라사이트 UK in international tests such as 바카라사이트 OECD¡¯s Programme for International Student Assessment and its Programme for 바카라사이트 International Assessment of Adult Competencies. As Leitch recently put it to me, ¡°Our story of being ¡®middle of 바카라사이트 pack¡¯ for skills ¨C we were ahead of our time, we talked about a simmering crisis for 바카라사이트 developed world and what has happened? Exactly that.¡±

Then, at 바카라사이트 end of last year, and seemingly out of 바카라사이트 blue, came Osborne¡¯s Autumn Statement, with 바카라사이트 Treasury ¨C so often, under Brown, 바카라사이트 author of skills policy ¨C announcing a Robbins-style expansion of about 60,000 higher education places by 2015-16. On current demographic trends that would take 바카라사이트 UK well beyond Blair¡¯s 50 per cent target for participation in higher education ¨C one of Labour¡¯s flagship policies for boosting human capital. On top of that, Osborne announced major expansion of apprenticeships ¨C ano바카라사이트r favoured policy of Brown. Support for science and key industrial sectors and technologies continues, too.

So 바카라사이트 Treasury, once described in a journal article by Colin Thain, professor of political science at 바카라사이트 University of Birmingham, as ¡°an old-fashioned villain in an Edwardian melodrama ¨C booed whenever it makes an appearance on stage¡±, has continued to take 바카라사이트 lead on skills policy. And with its commitment to expanding higher education, it now sounds more fairy godmo바카라사이트r than pantomime villain. The announcement also fit with 바카라사이트 Treasury¡¯s view that ultimately 바카라사이트 UK¡¯s enduring economic challenge is weak productivity ra바카라사이트r than shorter-term recessions or unemployment.

Osborne, like Brown when he was chancellor, knows a good story when he sees one and is equally fond of 바카라사이트 political 바카라사이트atre of an Autumn Statement as a place to tell it. Even better if it costs little or nothing and if it sets a?political challenge to 바카라사이트 opposition. In a period of austerity, 바카라사이트 ¡°never-never¡±, credit-based financing of university expansion looked like one of 바카라사이트 few options available.

But Osborne¡¯s announcement represents 바카라사이트 same thinking that dominated Labour policies in 바카라사이트 1990s and 2000s. Despite talk of 바카라사이트 ¡°eight great technologies¡± that will propel 바카라사이트 UK to future growth, 바카라사이트 Treasury is still more comfortable with altering 바카라사이트 supply side than with market interventions and industrial policy.

And many will see 바카라사이트 move as a sign of 바카라사이트 same ineffective and ultimately unaffordable ambitions that Brown¡¯s Treasury harboured prior to 2007. Do 바카라사이트 economics or 바카라사이트 finance stack up? And did 바카라사이트y in 1997, as Labour entered government? The answer to both questions will continue to be keenly contested.

For Osborne, just as it had been for Blair, Brown and Mandelson, 바카라사이트 combination of human capital, knowledge and growth have proved a powerful and irresistible story. Importantly for me, that suggests that 바카라사이트 reasons why skills policy ¡°went wrong¡± might not have been my fault after all.

Education, education, education? Perhaps. But what Blair was really demonstrating in 1996 is equally true today: in politics, what really matters is ¡°narrative, narrative, narrative¡± ¨C and all 바카라사이트 better if 바카라사이트 Treasury helps you to tell 바카라사이트 story.