Gove's latest gaffe

Lord Michael Gove is infamous for his comment, 'I think this country has had enough of experts.'  Arguably the experts weren't so wrong about the economic costs of Brexit.

Yet the editorial in the latest Spectator refers to 'the dreary beachfronts of Jaywick and Frinton.'

Jaywick is admittedly the most economically and socially deprived location in England.  Yet Frinton always thought of itself as rather exclusive, perhaps less so these days.    There is now a fish and chip shop there which was banned for a long time.

Back in the 1950s, Frinton was a favourite destination for a summer day out, even more so when we moved to Essex.   There was just one road into the town controlled by a level crossing.

The front road leads on to the Greensward.   Admittedly, the predominantly Edwardian and inter war developments were marred by the construction of some off plan tower blocks in the 1960s.

The sandy beach was patrolled by 'beach inspectors' to ensure that there was no impropriety.   Our day always finished with a walk into Walton on the Naze where the pier offered traditional entertaiments.

Some years ago I took two of my then 18 year old granddaughers with the mum of one of them to stay in Walton.  They were thrilled to see the flat roofed Art Deco houses in one part of Frinton.

I had great difficulty in finding a local restaurant that would meet the up market tastes of my eldest granddaughter anywhere in Nigel Farage's constituency.  Eventually I located one in Frinton.

It was rather crowded and I was puzzled by the next door table constantly referring to 'going out'.  I thought this perhaps referred to the old slogan 'Harwich for the continent, Frinton for the incontinent.'

In fact they were talking about Brexit.

We still need experts

In one of her recent diatribes, tin eared Liz Truss said that people were fed up with experts who were always wrong.  I wouldn't bother with her vapourings, except that her remark echoed that by Michael Gove that 'we've had enough of experts'.

If I took this at face value it would be quite alarming.   I am fortunate enough ti live in a very efficient and innovative NHS trust.  When I felt unwell recently I called the community emergency response service.  A nurse arrived in 20 minutes, checked me over and tried a minor procedure. 

When this didn't work she called her coordinator who told her to call an ambulance.   This arrived promptly with a very helpful paramedic on board.   On arrival at A and E I was immediately sent for a scan and a battery of blood tests.

Three different doctors examined me and then two returned and carried out a minor procedure.  I was then told that I was well enough to go home.  My only disappointment was that the fire brigade didn't take me home which was the service provided for my partner.

Throughout all this time, I was in the hands of experts.   They hadn't gone online and decided that they would be doctors, paramedics, ambulance drivers or nurses for a day.  They had gone through a long process of qualification and monitored experience.   They were experts and caring ones at that.

Now, I suppose the response to that could be 'aqueducts' as in the Monty Python Life of Brian in response to the question, 'What have the Romans ever done for us?'   Doctors (and vets) could be treated as an exception to the general rule.

The populist logic is that experts are part of a technocratic elite that exploit the mass of the population, e.g., scientists claim to believe in climate change because they can get money to study it.   Or they urge people to take vaccines because they profit from them, or at least big pharma does.

On reflection this distrust of experts has deep roots in British culture and history.  We were the first country to industrialise and in large part this was done by trial and error and training consisted of 'sittuig by Nelly.'

Countries like Germany decided to go down a systematic technical education route, hence in the First World War we had to get our supplies of khaki from Germany and after the war was over engaged in industrial espionage to discover the secrets of the German chemical industry, albeit we were helped by German emigres and the formation of ICI.

We need experts more than ever, but also politicians who are prepared to take uncomfortable decisions and that is too much to hope for.

Cabinet split over Australian trade deal

A battle royal is in progress in Cabinet on whether Britain should agree a tariff free trade deal with Australia.  Brexiteers think that if a trade deal cannot be concluded with Australia no deals will be possible for the new 'Global Britain'.

However, farmers - already reeling from the phasing out of support payments - are concerned that it could hit their markets and be a precedent for future deals, particularly those with the US and New Zealand.

On one side of the argument is international trade secretary Liz Truss, a popular figure among Conservative activists.   On the other side is Defra secretary of state George Eustice, backed up by Michael Gove.   Gove is concerned that rural areas in Wales and Scotland would be hard hit, further undermining the union.   Reports are suggesting that Boris Johnson may come down in favour of the deal.

Beef and sheep meat would be the main commodities affected, although Australia is also interested in exporting more cheese.   There is a 20 per cent tariff on beef at present which would be phased out over 15 years.   

Michael Gove's strengths

I don't like Michael Gove. I think he looks ridiculous when he comes back to his house jogging with a bagel. I didn't like his remark about experts. The thought of his wife, Sarah 'Vain' as Private Eye calls her, as political first lady appals me.

Nevertheless, I think that he is a lot smarter than almost all of the other candidates for leader of the Conservative Party. You might say that is a low bar, but I think he has good political antennae.

I have carefully monitored Defra ministers over the years. It is actually a rather difficult department to run given its diverse roles and the challenges it faces. Very few secretaries of state have been successful. They have moved on quickly or seen their political careers come to an end. The one exception that comes to mind is Hilary Benn.

What impresses me about Gove is that he has imposed his own agenda on the department. Some of his actions have been simply crowd pleasers. But there has been a serious attempt to give a greener tinge to farming policy and deal with biodiversity issues.

I think he could actually find a way through the Brexit dilemma which most people, even if it didn't please them, would grudgingly accept. That would a big win.

Gove on the warpath against experts again

Yesterday I went to see my surgeon for a sign off meeting after my recent successful knee replacement operation. We discussed the operation for the other knee, but it occurred to me afterwards that I could have saved myself a lot of money. I was conscious during the operation and it involved a lot of sawing and hammering. Why not get a carpenter in to do the second op?

In his latest column for The Times Michael Gove takes it upon himself to write the speech the prime minister should give on Brexit next week. His basic premise is that 'All our policies from now on must reflect the common sense of the majority, not the preoccupations of the privileged.' Moreover, 'The public [52%] have told us what they want. We must get on with leaving the EU. Completely. In months not years.'

Apparently this will be possible if we ignore the attempts of experts to make things more complex than they really are. Above all, we don't need to hire more people with PPE degrees. (I admit that I am particularly guilty here having taught on such a degree until recently and serving as the external examiner for another one).

Gove doubts that 'negotiating a new trade deal is fiendishly difficult, will take ten years and require men of great experience to see things through.' Has Gove ever read the text of a trade deal or a US trade act? Has he followed the negotiations on the Uruguay Round or those on the Doha Round that didn't even come to a conclusion? Why did it take so long to agree a trade pact between the EU and Canada that is still not operational?

He also argues that doing a deal with the EU on trade would be easy because we have tariff free trade at the moment. He overlooks the fact that the most complex issues surround non-tariff trade barriers. See this helpful guide from the Institute for Government: Non-tariff trade barriers

Fraser Nelson in the Spectator has the lead story in this week's issue, 'The End of Experts': The End of Experts His a more measured piece with a narrower target, economists and political scientists, whom he accuses of a failure to predict. He does, of course, have a point because of the so-called 'Oedipus effect': making a social science prediction can affect the outcome.

Have we had enough of experts?

For me one of the most striking comments of this turbulent year was that by Michael Gove, 'The people of this country have had enough of experts.' Given the referendum outcome, and the election of President Trump, he was clearly on to something. We have entered an era of 'post factual' or 'post truth' politics.

New Labour formally celebrated the arrival of evidence-based policy-making in a white paper. A whole academic cottage industry grew up around this concept, including a specialised journal.

I always had a few reservations about this rather technocratic concept. It seemed to me that it did not allow much room for values, beliefs and, yes, ideology, which in my view are at the core of democratic politics.

To take an example from my research, how should one deploy fire service assets (stations, appliances)? At one time in the UK. we prioritised commercial and heritage property. Thus, I found in the National Archives elaborate plans for deploying appliances as quickly as possible to the various properties of the Duke of Devonshire. If one prioritised saving lives, resources would be used differently.

Evidence-based policy-making can also be difficult when the evidence is incomplete and contested and there is disagreement on the lessons to be drawn from it. Bovine Tb, one of the most intractable policy problems I have ever encountered, is the classic example from my work.

Having said that, some evidence is better than no evidence at all. However, it is no match for a resonating emotional narrative that may be completely false, e.g., the 'birther' accusations made against President Obama by Trump among others.

In its spoof Christmas adverts Private Eye asks, 'Need a plumber, but had enough of experts?' The answer is to be found in the Gove yellow pages that will bring a guaranteed non-expert to your door, scratching their head and saying 'I dunno, mate, sorry no idea.'

The rising misery index

The misery index in the economy is likely to rise next year. Unemployment is almost certain to go up, although there is some dispute about how much it will increase by. However, it is unlikely that all the lost public sector jobs can be replaced in the private sector. Indeed, private sector bosses may be unwilling to hire displaced public sector workers whom they suspect of having led a cushy life. Women will be particularly affected as they are disproportionately employed in the public sector.

Inflation shows no signs of easing. There is pressure on commodity prices, particularly food, gas, oil and cotton. At some point the Bank of England will start to increase interest rates, although by how much and when remains a matter of argument. The CBI says 2.5% by year end: I think 1.75% is more likely.

Even so, one of the things that has helped many people through the recession is that mortgage interest repayments have, depending on the deal a person has, have been kept low. If they rose, real disposable income would be reduced even further. As it is, it will be hit by fact that wages are not generally keeping pace with inflation, by the rise in VAT and by the 1p per £ increase in national insurance contributions from April which is in effect a 1 per cent rise in income tax.

Not surprisingly, retailers are worried about consumer demand. Of course, an objective of current policy is to shift the economy from one driven by private consumption to one in which exports play a greater role.

Meanwhile, the Government is suffering a series of defeats at the hands of fiscal nimbyism. The unfortunate Michael Gove has had to retreat on school sports and free books for young children. In the latter case the sum involved is small, but one way in which retrenchment tends to happen is by cutting smaller programmes completely. Now the Government is under pressure on the forensic science service, the privatisation of which strikes me as not a good idea.

Campaigns may achieve victories on particular issues. An alliance of nimbys may well defeat the proposed HST from London to Birmingham, the start of a larger network. My local MP Chris White has come out against it, reflecting the views of his constituents. The opponents of the scheme say that the business and environmental case is flawed, but if that is so, how have countries such as China, France, Japan, Korea and Spain been able to make high speed trains viable whereas we just have a stretch of line in Kent?

What is clear is that there is choppy political water ahead in 2011 and it may not be possible to deflect the opprobium on to the Liberal Democrats.