Byron Review: Let's listen to young people

Dr Tanya Byron's report "Safer children in a digital world" was published today, and the Government, who commissioned the review 6 months ago, welcomed it and committed to respond to its recommendations to ensure that young people are safe online.

The Byron Review looked at the risks to children's safety and wellbeing of exposure to harmful or inappropriate material on the internet and in video games.  The report recognises the need to develop a shared culture of responsibility to reduce and prevent harmful content on the internet, and increase children’s ability to understand and tackle any problems.

There has been a fair bit in the media today on the report's recommendations into the classification of video games.  Indeed a neutral stumbling across the story, might wonder whether this was all the report entailed.  Video games is clearly a key area in the consultation, and people, including many charities and commentators, have questioned the nature of some inappropriate games in the past.

I can't help but feel, however, that the adult voices are still drowning out the young people, and once again, the Government is listening to the adult voice (questioning video games), and sidelining the young person.  In general, Young people weren't complaining overtly about video games, and most of them said that they knew how to avoid the harmful content on their computer.  Let's give them credit - they choose not to play some video games, and if they stumble across something inappropriate on the net, they can 'click away'.

The key finding of the report is that young people are telling us that cyberbullying is the biggest issue for them.  The big problem is not a parent’s fear of inappropriate material on the web, but direct cyberbullying from other young people, which they feel they can’t avoid as easily or ‘click away’ from.

So the message from the young people is clear: the Government needs to tackle cyberbullying, and it needs to do it now.  Raising awareness is important, and advice on what to do is useful, but the solution must involve young people, giving them the information and tools to tackle the problem themselves.

The Charity I work for Beatbullying is about to launch its Cybermentors programme: an online adaptation of our proven bullying prevention model. Thousands of young people will be trained as Cybermentors to help, support and assist young people being bullied online. Young people can take responsibility for bullying, whether it’s happening in school or online, and do something positive to tackle it.

The Government has committed to following the Byron Review's recommendations, so perhaps it will now listen to the young people and tackle cyberbullying?  It could do this by supporting and investing in  practical solution which are teh considered reponse of thousands of young people across the UK, and not the voice of adults.  Now that would certainly be a giant step towards keeping young people safe online.

Emma-Jane Cross

Can the creative industries further progressive goals?

Last Thursday, Progress and Campaign TV staged a joint event in Westminster on the creative industries. The event followed the publication of the government's long-awaited strategy paper on the creative economy.

There was opening presentation by the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, Andy Burnham and a response statement the chair of the UK Film Council, Stewart Till. The editor-in-chief of Media Guardian, Janine Gibson, chaired the event.

Here are some of the main points that came out of the meeting:

Andy Burnham argued that the strategy paper showed that the creative industries were now being taken seriously in government for their role in regeneration and economic growth. This was also reflected in recent favourable spending settlements for DCMS.

Another change over Labour's decade in power was that the place of broadcasting - certainly its preeminence among the creative industries - was now much more uncertain in the digital age.

Burnham also argued that although the digital age - internet 2.0, MP3s - had thrown open the creative and editorial process in music, TV, writing, film, the creative industries themselves were still to large extent dominated by a metropolitan, often Oxbridge-educated elite. The challenge was two-fold: how to reward those young artists release their wares via these new media; and how to give people from non-traditional backgrounds access to working in the creative industries.

Stewart Till paid tribute to the late Anthony Minghella, who he said 'set the standards for the creative industries to follow'.

Britain was beginning to wake up to the power of the creative industries, in a way that Hollywood had done fifty years ago. The British film industry had grown at 6-7% per year in recent years, far ahead of the economy as a whole.

The present government had been a friend of the creative industries. The former secretary of state, Chris Smith, 'got it', as did his film minister, Tom Clarke. The recent strategy paper was full of 'smart ideas', especially regarding training and education, IP, and other pressing digital copyright issues.

Some questions coming out of the debate:

How will the creative industries give better access (eg to people from the regions) by improving and formalising access to internships and channeling more revenues towards formal training?

How will the government encourage the creative industries in the regions (eg like the BBC's Salford media village)?

Will the government compel internet service providers to crack down on illegal downloads - if so, how?

Academies are working

Despite much opposition – indeed downright hostility from some quarters – it would appear that the government’s flag ship academy programme is beginning to prove successful. There are now 83 academies open in 49 local authorities. They are achieving fast-rising results. The proportion of pupils in academies getting five or more good GCSEs has doubled over the past six years, compared to the underperforming schools they replaced, and their rate of improvement is almost double the national average over the same period. Their rate of improvement in English and maths is also significantly above the national average in both GCSE and the national key stage 3 tests sat by 14-year-olds.

Last year, the National Audit Office reported that academies are "on track to deliver good value for money", and are meeting their attainment objectives. As for parents, they are voting with their feet. There are, on average, three applicants for every academy place.

Despite all of this the idea of creating an additional 400 academies - backed by Gordon Brown - is still too much for many teachers and education commentators. The common argument against academies is that once established they might well end up sucking resources from other local comprehensive schools. But will they? Academies are required by law to be all-ability schools; they have to comply fully with the admissions code and this is monitored by the government directly.

The 2007 school census shows that the proportion of pupils with special educational needs in academies is 29.5% - compared with an average of 19.2% for all schools. The proportion of pupils eligible for free school meals in academies is 33.8% - compared with the national average of 13.1% for secondary schools. Speaking at the recent NASUWT conference Ed Balls highlighted the fact that academies are also collaborating with other schools in local behaviour partnerships, ensuring that they take their fair share of "hard to place" and excluded pupils

What many critics of the academy programme overlook is that in the setting up of so many of these new academies in areas of significant social and economic deprivation, the government has rediscovered what many used to call "compensating measures".  The truth is that for communities trapped in a cycle of educational failure and under achievement the academy programme can and does offer new energy, new purpose and new opportunities for young people and for local communities who have long deserved better.

Yes, but what did the IRAQIS think of the invasion?

In the period up to the fifth anniversary of the invasion of Iraq the media have gone into overdrive to cover every angle of how wrong it all was. There have been Anniversary Specials in the magazines and broadsheets, daily reports from Baghdad, Ten Days to War (or should that be Ten Days of Anti-war Propaganda?) on Newsnight, a similar countdown to war on the Today programme, Iraq -The Betrayal and Battle for Haditha on Channel 4, The Iraq War by Numbers on ITV - the common theme being that the war was a total disaster. Everyone has had their say, the columnists, the presenters, the pundits, the politicians, and even individual Iraqis, singled out to fit in with the standpoint of the interviewer.

What had been missing from the many views expressed was some sort of reasonably reliable survey of how the Iraqis as a whole felt about the invasion five years on. After all it was they who were at the cutting edge of the operation. Last Monday  BBC News remedied this deficiency by announcing the results of a poll of Iraqi opinion  it had conducted in February along with ABC News and other broadcasters. Suprisingly 55% of those questioned said that their lives were good, compared with 39% in a poll taken in August 2007. 63% believed the Americans should leave only after a period during which security and government get stronger and far from Iraq being on the verge of civil war, 66% supported a united Iraq. Unsuprisingly large majorities considered that there was still much to be done to improve security and the public services.

But tucked away at the foot of the BBC's website report was the most significant finding of all - one that was directly relevant to the media's pre-anniverary Iraq fest  referred to above. That finding provided the answer to the crucial question of whether the Iraqis themselves thought that the invasion was right or wrong. Given nationalistic feelings and the terrible suffering that the Iraqis had endured one would have expected very few to say that the invasion was right - 10% to 20% at most. In fact the figure was an impressive 49%. Of those who said the invasion was wrong, the great majority were Sunnis, the minority ethnic group that had been in the ascendancy under Saddam. The full ethnic breakdown of answers to this question was 95% of Sunnis saying the invasion was wrong, 65% of the majority Shia group saying it was right, as did 87% of the Kurds (click on to "The Iraq Survey: Key Results in Graphics" for the full details of the poll).

All in all the survey rather pulled the rug from under all that media coverage lambasting the invasion and its aftermath. So perhaps we can understand why it has received so little publicity. Even the dear old BBC which had commissioned the poll and is mandated to be impartial relegated it to about half-way down its television Six O' Clock News and to bottom of the Ten O' Clock News. Needless to say it was presented as a mix of positive and negative news, glimmers of opimism etc with, scandalously, NO MENTION AT ALL of the key finding about Iraqi attitudes to the invasion.

Am I being too cynical in concluding that the BBC ran the story this way because it tended to undermine the negative spin they were putting on the invasion in their other programmes? I think not, bearing in mind that two months after my complaint to them about their negative coverage of the best crime figures we have had for years (click here for my blog on the matter) I am still waiting for an explanation (despite reminders). The normal waiting period is ten days.

Both stories illustrate how  even what is supposed to be the most non-partisan part of the media can set their agenda against this New Labour government. Until we start taking this media bias more seriously I fear there is little prospect of reversing the swings against us, particularly in bad times.      

What is Channel 4 for?

I attended the Next on 4 event this morning, where Jon Snow hosted the launch of Channel's 4 'strategic blueprint'.  They are placing an emphasis on digital technologies in order to capture young audiences, and have launched a £50 million public service digital media fund.

Crucially, they are cutting their overseas aquisitions budget by £35 million, meaning less US shows.  I wonder how this will affect the channel's ratings over the next few years - surely the popular American dramas and comedies are a key draw?

Chief Executive Andy Duncan also announced that Channel 4 would be facing a £100 million funding gap by 2012 (the year of the digital switch-over), which they would be looking to make-up from public subsidy.  The argument is that Channel 4 has recieved, in the form of a free analogue licence, about £150 million in public subsidy per year since it lauched.  The channel would now like to see that subsidy continue in other forms.  When challenged, Duncan argued that this figure was not some accounting sleight-of-hand, but represented a real edge that allowed them to run the channel in the way they should.  Clearly, the money for this will have to come from one of two sources - the government's central coffers, or the licence fee, but Duncan and his collegaues were relucant to suggest which this might be.  In the coming months, we're likely to see either (a) an ugly scrap between the BBC and Channel 4 over funding, or (b) an ugly scrap between publicly funded organisations on one hand, and commercial broadcasters on the other... over funding.  Channel 4 were keen to talk simply about their unique position, but I don't really see how a conversation can be had without constant reference to the BBC.  They need to explain where they expect their new money to come from, and fast.

The conflict stems, of course, from the difficulty in quantifying the benefit of publically funded broadcasting.  Often, discussions over public service broadcasting are couched in terms of a polite threat: "Pay the licence fee, or you'll lose Life in Cold Blood"; "Fund us, or we'll cancel Cutting Edge and replace it with Celebrity Big Brother's 100 Greatest Moments".  When put in these terms, or when we consider the unpleasant prospect of the Murdoch-owned media dominating TV news, its easy to see how the arguments for public funding find favour.  Though there are occasional controversies (like the Big Brother Race Row, or the BBC's role in the David Kelly affair),  I think the threat of back-to-back Love Island keeps the public and policymakers on-side.

However, a case could also be made that subsidies have the effect of shouldering smaller, regional and TV programme makers out of the market.  In this analysis, it is less clear that the public (and our culture as a whole) is being served.  Rather than constantly chasing the latest digital technologies, and ensuring every other show has its won blog and podcast, Channel 4 and the BBC simply need to prove that they are fostering the development of such regional talent.  If they can do that, then I think they'll be able to persuade government to give them the funding they ask for. 

Unlimited wealth creation is NOT progressive, Mr Hutton.

Let me say at the outset that I am no left-wing loony. In fact, as readers of my humble blog will have noticed I am staunchly New Labour. That is why I was so appalled by John Hutton's speech (reported elsewhere on the Progress site) extolling the virtues of wealth creation and huge salaries without limit.

Predictably the speech has prompted venomous attacks from the likes of Neal Lawson and Polly Toynbee, to which my instinctive response is to jump to the defence of the offending New Labour minister. But In the same way that it is incumbent on best friends to inform someone of a bad breath problem so, in this case, do I think  it  right that New Labourites should inform the minister of a bad politics problem when he has got it so wrong and is thereby bringing our New Labour project into so much disrepute.

I will not go into all the ways in which Mr Hutton's words have adversely impacted on perceptions of what we are supposed to stand for (Messrs Lawson and Toynbee have covered the ground pretty well) but let me say just this. Yes, wealth creation is necessary up to a point. So are high salaries up to a point.   But the level at which that "point" bites in is crucial here. Wealth creation must be balanced against the needs of the environment and of our personal well-being. High salaries must be balanced against their impact on social cohesion and our sense of fair-play. Making the most of your abilities is one thing. Doing it in such a way that others are elbowed aside is quite another.

To give the impression that New Labour is just about getting on and making money without limits, as John Hutton has done, simply plays into the propaganda of our enemies on both the left and the right.

Event report: Labour party spring conference

At Labour party spring conference Progress partnered with the Local Government Association and the Leadership Centre for Local Government to deliver two events – one on the Children’s Plan, the other on the prospects for delivering the government’s target of three million new homes.

John Merry, Leader of Salford Council, kicked off the discussion on the Children’s Plan by explaining how local government is generally better than Whitehall at delivering the kind of ‘joined-up government’ the Plan advocates. He was excited that plans for delivery of the Children’s Plan are helping push local government up the agenda.

Rita Krishna, Cabinet Member for Children's Services in Hackney, was pleased that the Plan was taking the focus away from capital projects and building towards the nature of the services provided within them. The Plan’s breadth, and its focus on poverty, accountability and the workforce were to be commended.

Minister for Children Kevin Brennan started by saying that much of the content of the Plan will be very familiar to high-performing councils. They led the way on restructuring services to make them children-focused – only last summer did Whitehall catch up with creation of the DCSF.

Politicians need to lead the way by proclaiming positive messages about our children to counter the relentlessly negative coverage they receive in the media. The Plan can’t be accused of lacking ambition – the aim is to make Britain the best place for children to grow up in the world.

Sarah Tough from the Institute of Education raised some interesting questions about some of the topics she felt the Plan might have neglected or avoided. There is still a long way to go to narrow gaps in attainment, and reform of excessive testing and assessment is long overdue. School admissions policies are contributing to social segregation and without change will make narrowing the attainment gap impossible. Sarah suggested that incentives are needed for teachers to teach in ‘difficult’ schools – these incentives could be time or training, rather than simply financial.

Responding to questions about how councils could deliver the Plan, panel members agreed that strong leadership that aimed to influence all services in an area was crucial to delivering a ‘joined-up’ vision like the Plan.

At this point the Secretary of State Ed Balls joined the discussion. He admitted that the government had been guilty of sending mixed messages about the importance of local government in the past – and that now that should change.

Ed set out methods by which children might be prevented from falling behind in the future. Early intervention is key, as is a curriculum that motivates young people. He was confident that diplomas would help shape this. More needs to be done to motivate parents of 8 – 10 year olds, who have been somewhat neglected.

One questioner from Devon was concerned that academies are too free to exclude difficult pupils – Ed Balls refuted this, arguing that academies’ intakes were more ‘difficult’ than the average for their area. In the end raising standards across all schools was the best answer to the problem of admissions. A new initiative is that all local authorities will have to have a strategy for dealing with low-achieving schools in their areas.

In response to a complaint about central government encouraging outsourcing services, Ed robustly defended the policy, arguing that all organisations, including trade unions, go to specialist outsourced organisations to help them deliver services at the best value. Outsourcing need not devalue the ethos of public service.

Ed admitted that there was a debate to be had about how information was collected but as resolute in defending the concept of collecting detailed information on performance – without it it would be impossible to deal with educational disadvantage. At that point the event had to draw to a close as conference’s plenary session began, at which Ed spoke and declared his full support for the academy programme.

Later in the afternoon delegates reconvened in a packed room for a discussion on the delivery of the government’s ambitious plan for three million new homes.

Housing minister Caroline Flint began by declaring her desire to move away from talking about ‘units’ built, and to start talking about homes, and their places in communities and local infrastructure.

Labour urgently needs to expose the opportunism of the Tories and Liberal Democrats on this issue – their consistent local opposition to any development just doesn’t fit with their supposed support for the building targets.

Caroline was excited that she will shortly be announcing the shortlist for sites for the new eco towns. These will contain 30-50% affordable housing, and every home will be less than a ten minute walk from services. In addition, the DCLG will be undertaking a review of the private rented sector, and Caroline will be working to encourage more tenant control over their housing.

Adrian Harvey was keen to stress CABE’s message that we need to build neighbourhoods and places, and not just homes. These places have to economically and socially sustainable, or local government will be left to pick up the pieces of the resulting social failure. We simply can’t afford to get this wrong – but all the evidence shows that we are getting this wrong. CABE’s studies suggest that a fifth of new development is unsustainable, and that a third should never have been approved as it did not meet planning guidelines. The majority of new development is just mediocre, and only a tiny proportion is good or excellent.

The biggest failure is that new developments lack character, a sense of place, and good quality public space. Design is not about aesthetics, it’s entirely functional. The criteria for good design are robustness, functionality, and delight. To convince the public that new development is an asset it has to be good.

Currently the housing market is dysfunctional. Local authorities are the real ‘consumers’, and it’s up to them to demand improvements. They CAN do this!

Tony Newman began by criticising the Planning Inspectorate – ‘the best that can be said of them is that they are inconsistent’. Without good quality guidance and support from planners councillors are placed in a difficult position. Tony cautioned that even though we are talking about three million new homes, 90% of housing that will exist in ten year’s time is already built. We’re beginning this building programme at the possible peak of the market as the buy-to-let market is beginning to unravel. There are still many additional unresolved issues in housing – such as housing benefit reform.

One complaint coming across in questions from the audience was how developers are building too much housing that does not meet the most pressing demands of their areas. Basildon has seen a preponderance of town centre flats, and Hertfordshire a glut of massive executive homes, when affordable family houses are what are most needed. Adrian Harvey made the point that the market is dysfunctional, developers do not know what is needed, and that councils need to spell out to developers what they should be building.

The packed room was testament to the growing importance of housing as a political issue, which was recognised by Gordon Brown’s appointment of the Housing Minister to the cabinet this summer. Councillors seem to be greatly interested in the issue, but many were confused and intimidated by the planning system and developers, and were keen to see more guidance as to how they should implement Labour’s housing strategy at the local level.

Event report: Is it time for Labour to ditch First Past the Post?

‘To think somehow that proportional representation is Viagra for a flaccid electorate not voting in great numbers, that’s a terrible mistake,’ said Stephen Pound MP at Tuesday night’s Commons event asking, is it time for Labour ditch First Past The Post?

The MP for Ealing North argued that the reasons behind low voter turnout ran deeper than the technicalities of the voting system. ‘It’s when politics matters less to people that they don’t vote. Our job is to make politics relevant to people.’

The debate, held in association with Make Votes Count, was prompted by the recent publication of the government’s review of voting systems.

Much of the discussion - also featuring contributions from Guardian columnist Polly Toynbee, justice minister Michael Wills and UCL Constitutional Unit director Robert Hazell - revolved around how the problem of voter disengagement could be addressed and whether a change in electoral system would provide a remedy.

Toynbee said that Labour should have ditched FPTP when it came to power in 1997 but that during those heady days it could not conceive of a time when it might benefit from electoral reform. ‘If it’s a hung parliament next time, it will look very cynical if the parties come round to PR just to hold onto power.’

Toynbee said that under FPTP parties to ‘descend on the centre ground where the shade of difference of what is said is so infinitesimal’ in a bid to capture the tiny number of swing voters. ‘There are big differences at heart but the voting system makes the parties cross-dress.’

Wills reminded those present that since 1997 Labour had implemented significant electoral reform, such as new voting systems for elections in Scotland, Wales and London. But he said the recent review of voting systems had not identified any one system as superior. ‘It should not be about parties choosing a system that will most advantage themselves, it’s about a voting system that delivers democracy for all of us. It’s important that constitutional change is done as much as possible on the basis of consensus.’

Wills described it as ‘profoundly patronising’ to voters to suggest that adopting particular voting systems would lead to particular results. Voters are very sophisticated and get the change they want under the current system, he said, citing the ground-shifting 1997 election as evidence.

Addressing the practicalities of achieving electoral reform, Professor Hazell offered electoral reformers some difficult facts to swallow. He identified five steps that would need to be taken – developing an alternative system, legislating to authorise a referendum, holding the referendum, a second parliamentary vote to implement the change in the event of a ‘yes’ vote, and conducting boundary reviews. 

Hazell pointed out that a referendum could not simply be sprung upon the public, but must be preceded by an education campaign, thus lengthening the process further. In the even of the public voting for a change in voting system, it would take at least a year – and probably longer – for the necessary legislation to be implemented and for boundaries to change.

However, Wills insisted that a change in voting system need not take so long. ‘It could be done very quickly if the political will was there,’ he said. ‘We would need a referendum but it could in theory be done before the next election.’

Wills also contended Toynbee’s assertion that a more proportional voting system would lead to a more plural politics, less clustered around the centre-ground. ‘Actually, that sort of system produces coalition governments and it would lead to parties having to ditch their policies once they are in a coalition.’

One audience member passionately argued that the only way to increase voter turnout is to make voting compulsory. ‘You drive on the left, you pay your taxes, you don’t punch people in the face and you vote in elections,’ he said.

Wills responded that he did not advocate compulsory voting but said the government was about to consult on whether it should be brought in. Hazell affirmed that ‘compulsory voting is the only serious and reliable way of increasing turnout’ but questioned how the public would respond to the idea. ‘It was introduced in Australia 100 years ago, in a more deferential age. I don’t know if Brits would welcome the introduction of compulsory voting.’

Pound warned against ‘aspiring to purity that is unattainable’, adding that ‘not all problems can be resolved by changing the system because there is something fundamentally wrong with democracy.’

However, the debate clearly made an impression on this traditionally adamant opponent of electoral reform. ‘I came here a die heard First Past the Post-er, but two or three of the contributors tonight have given me serious ground for thought,’ he said, rounding off a lively and stimulating night’s debate.

Cameron is no Obama but he is like...

Iain Dale really is getting carried away with himself when he compares Cameron with Barack Obama. Why? Unlike Cameron, Barack Obama takes a ‘fair-minded’ approach to politics; he understands that truth and certainty are not the same thing. Obama (who regularly talks to halls and gyms packed with supporters who have queued hours to hear him speak - I doubt Cameron will ever have such an impact) believes in the politics of the common good.

Common good politics is the politics of empowerment; it is the politics that espouses cooperation not competition, the hand up and not just the hand out. Cameron's approach to politics is very different. Cameron's modern Tory party will act unilaterally when it can (for example on Europe) and cooperate when it has to (for example on trade or climate change). Under Cameron the Tories still believe that the role of government is to concentrate wealth and power in the hands of those who embrace their political, their economic, and their social views.

Unlike Obama, Cameron subscribes to the idea that social responsibility means the state doing less. Cameron's Tories, instinctively, want to shrink the state, they want fewer civil servants and a revival of old fashioned ‘business philanthropy’ and charity-sector work to plug any future gaps in state provision.

Granted both men are ideologues? Cameron an ideologue? Yes – and the worst kind of ideologue, an ideologue with no convictions. Cameron pretends to know all the answers and that makes evidence irrelevant and argument a waste of time, which is why he so often resorts to vague and general assertions and personal attacks on his political opponents. Obama relishes debate and ideas; he seeks to create policy based on sound evidence and a clear sense of justice and moral conviction. David Cameron relishes sound bites, image and tomorrow’s headlines; he has a clear sense of what will look good and almost no apparent political convictions.

We were first told that Cameron was the 'heir to Blair' and more recently he has been portrayed as a loyal Thatcerite. Now he is the Tory party's anwer to Barck Obama. The truth is that Michael Portillo has it about right when he suggests that Cameron will need at least two elections before he can hope to restore the Tory party's fortunes at the polls.

Cameron is no Obama, Cameron is the Tories' Neil Kinnock.