You have give Iain Dale a bit of credit - whatever Frank Field can do, Iain can not only match it but top it for asinine political stupidity.

Its only a matter of three days since I comprehensive picked apart Frank Field’s claim that the government’s New Deal for Young People Programme has been a failure - (See Frankonomics) - in a post that, encouragingly from my point, got a sidebar link from Chris Dillow, a good write-up (and some fair criticism of my writing style) from Fisking Central and an ‘attaboy’ in comments and positive write-up from D-Squared.

To pick up on one remark by D-Squared - “I don’t think Unity is an economist by trade” - I am long way from being an economist, although with a solid educational background in both the empirical science and psychology (which was my major at University) I’m a fair navigator of statistics. Nevertheless, my rare forays in economics are one’s I approach with a fair bit of trepdation, in the knowledge that with bloggers like Chris, D-Squared, Wat Tyler and Tim Worstall out there, any errors in understanding will get picked up pretty quickly should one of them happen by, which makes it all the more gratifying (and a matter of considerable relief) to be told by any of them that I’ve got things pretty well on the money.

That said, it was with great amusement that I found that Iain Dale has ploughed into the debate with this gem of a post:

The New Deal: Not a Success

The New Deal was set up a decade ago with the intention of alleviating youth unemployment, which stood at 14.4%. Since then the government has poured billions into the scheme and trumpeted its success. Youth unemployment now stands at 14.5%. A success indeed.

Field, at least, had a 29 page report to try and back up his arguments - Dale is happy to go with one, completely unrevealing, headline statistic.

To my even greater amusement, Dale’s been called on lack of evidence by Chris Paul, thus:

If your unattributed statistic is true Iain are you going to consider what the rate would have been WITHOUT the interventions?

Provide a reliable source for your stats first. And no, CCHQ will not do.

And on noticing an attiribution, this:

Ah, Fraser Nelson. Who is that? Where’s the link?

Only to come back at this with…

Chris Paul, as usual, you display your political ignorance. Fraser Nelson is political editor of the Spectator. The figures are in his column this week.

Well that settles it then - if its in the Spectator then it must be so - even if one suspects that Nelson is doing no more than selectively parroting Field.

[sigh]

Oh, couldn’t let this pass without noting the stellar contribution of Praguetory, a little further down the comments…

As I’ve said elsewhere, Chris Paul is a village idiot and a national joke.

Is that good enough Iain? Lol.

Ah yes. PT’s projecting again - and this from someone who thinks George Osborne is an economic illiterate.

Fuck me, if this is any indication of the economic literacy of the right-wing of the Tory Party these days, then I wouldn’t entrust them with the petty cash, never mind the economy of the United Kingdom.

I understand that UKIP may have an interesting economic policy announcement in the pipeline, might be worth some of you Tories waiting to see what they have to say.

Thought I’d give everyone a timely reminder that ex-Tory whip David MacLean’s shameful attempt to exempt parliament from the Freedom of Information Act returns to the House of Commons today, and requires another solid filibustering performance from opponents to talk the bill out.

Couple of quick points to pick up, here.

MacLean claims that this exemption is necessary to preserve the confidentiality of MPs correspondence in relation to constituency casework. This is bullshit.

There are 24 clauses in FOIA setting out exemptions on disclosures, of which those most relevant to MacLean’s claims are:

Section 34. Exemption for parliamentary privilege.

Section 40. Exemption for information that cannot be released due to Data Protection Act 1998.

Section 41. Exemption for information provided in confidence.

Section 36. Exemption for information that, if disclosed, would be prejudicial to the effective conduct of public affairs, a neat little catch-all clause that includes cover for information that:

would, or would be likely to, inhibit-

(i) the free and frank provision of advice, or

(ii) the free and frank exchange of views for the purposes of deliberation, or

(c) would otherwise prejudice, or would be likely otherwise to prejudice, the effective conduct of public affairs.

All of which neatly covers pretty much anything of a legitimately confidential nature that might crop up in a MP’s constituency casework.

This, it seems, is not good enough for Labour MP Martin Salter who claims:

“Members on both sides of the House have found their correspondence to a public authority already revealed to a third party,” he said.

“This is completely unacceptable.”

If that’s the case then it rather rather odd that no MP has yet raised the matter of such disclosures with the Office of the Information Commissioner, as this FOIA request of my own clearly demonstrates:

Question.

1. What representations, if any, has David MacLean MP made to the Information Commissioner in regards to this proposed legislation [the exemption bill], prior to its introduction to the House of Commons?

2. Has Mr MacLean, or any other Member of Parliament, consulted with or sought the advice of the Information Commissioner in the matter of the application of the Freedom of Information Act to MPs correspondence with Public Authorities and, if so, what guidance has been issued to them by the Information Commissioner, particularly in regard to applicability of existing exemptions in the Act to MP’s correspondence?

Please enclose copies of any/all relevant correspondence relating to this inquiry

Response:

I can advise you that the Information Commissioner does not hold any information relating to your request. The Information Commissioner received no approach from Mr MacLean or any other Member of Parliament in relation to this matter.

Funny that, MPs are (allegedly) having their casework correspondence disclosed under FOIA on both sides of the House as yet not one of the them has raised the matter with the Information Commissioner?

Methinks there are some terminological inexactitudes in play here.

Is it just me, or does Iain Dale’s memory appear to be going?

In 1973 I failed my eleven plus. I failed it because I wasn’t even told I was taking it. We had taken so many government tests that year that we all decided not to take this one seriously. Whadda mistaka da maka (as Captain Bertorelli in ‘Allo ‘Allo might have said). So I ended up at the local Secondary Modern, turned bog standard comprehensive. I was lucky. Saffron Walden County High School did me proud, despite the efforts of Education Secretary Shirley Williams to deprive me of school books.

Government tests? In 1973? What the fuck is Dale talking about.

I’m slightly younger than Dale and moved up to primary school in 1973, and in the four years I spent at the school - a standard CofE primary on a council estate - I sat precisely no external tests, government or otherwise.

There was no government testing regime for 7-11s at the time, and the only test I actually recall taking was a reading age test* about a week after I started at the school, having moved up from the infants school next door, on which my score went off the scale, which topped out at 13 years of age. After that, they skipped the whole business of reading tests, pointed me to the school library and told me to pick any book I liked the look of - I actually spent much of my time in reading lessons helping out some of the other kids with their reading, but then I was a bit of precocious little bastard at the time.

In those days, I should explain, reading tests were scored by assessment against the expected reading ability at different ages.

Apart from that, the only externally driven test I was ever offered (and turned down) was the chance to take the 11+, but as the nearest grammar schools were in Birmingham and most of the kids who went there looked a right bunch of socially inadequate misfits and complete tosser, I passed on the chance and went to the local comprehensive. There were other tests, of course, but these were all internal an nothing to do with a formal government testing regime - tests at primary level just weren’t the done thing during the 1970s

I wonder if politics is playing tricks with Dale’s memory here as I’m almost certain that the only formal tests he would - and could - have taken at the time would have been preparatory tests for the 11+.

Strange.