Religion, Parliament and the SNP

 

When Kate Forbes, candidate for leader of the Scottish Nationalist Party (SNP), in the wake of the resignation of Nicola Sturgeon, said recently that she would not have voted for gay marriage had she been an MSP, there was considerable criticism made from all quarters. The critics came from both the wider LGBT community, but also from some leading SNP figures. Ms Forbes did not help herself by saying that she believed it was "wrong" to have a child outside marriage. Nor was she helped by inadvertently drawing support from conservative quarters such as The Spectator. Stephen Daisley wrote in Boris Johnson's old paper:

"There is an uncommon graciousness and generosity of spirit at work in this woman. She is a nationalist ideologue, utterly committed to breaking up the UK, but she’s so achingly, infuriatingly reasonable about it."

In spite of this unwanted approbation, Ms Forbes responded with dignity to the attacks made upon her, issuing a statement on Facebook and Twitter:

"I will defend to the hilt the right of everybody in Scotland, particularly minorities, to live and to live without fear or harassment in a pluralistic and tolerant society.
I will uphold the laws that have been won, as a servant of democracy, and seek to enhance the rights of everybody to live in a way which enables them to flourish.
I firmly believe in the inherent dignity of each human being - that underpins all ethical and political decisions I make."

Now, my initial reaction was to condemn Ms Forbes outright - without giving her a fair hearing and without examining the context. After some reflection, however, I came to believe that this was part of a larger issue of politics and religious belief and decided to investigate further. What I found was, to me, surprising.

So, I thought, how unique is Kate Forbes? Is she the only practising Christian, nay, the only religious believer in our political setup? The answer is: far from it. The first political religious group I located online was Christians in Parliament, which, as it says, is: 

"...an All-Party Parliamentary Group, which exists to support all Members and staff in their work in the Houses of Parliament",

Members include Tim Farron, MP, and Lord David Alton (LibDems), Stephen Timms, MP, Marsha de Cordova, MP, (Labour), Desmond Swayne, MP, Gary Streeter, MP, (Conservative) and Sir Jeffery Donaldson of the DUP. There is a YouTube video, featured on their website and hosted by the one-time Tory MP, Nicky Morgan, called "Why should Christians get involved in politics?". All of which suggests to me that perhaps Kate Forbes is not alone in being a practising Christian and a politician.

Of course, political party divisions can sometimes override religious solidarity. This is proven by the article in Premier Christian News, which recorded Keir Starmer's supplanting of Jeremy Corbyn by saying: 

"Labour’s new top team consists of 14 MPs who ascribe to the Christian faith.A week after being elected as Jeremy Corbyn’s replacement, Keir Starmer has chosen his shadow cabinet – the MPs who will speak and work on specific topics.In a team of 98 there are fourteen politicians who are members of Christians on the Left, which is affiliated with the Labour party."

This 2020 article informed me that....

"On the front bench is Jonathan Reynolds, chair of Christians on the Left and the new shadow work and pensions secretary. A broad church of people join him, including David Lammy and Marsha De Cordova. Bridget Phillipson, a Roman Catholic, and Cat Smith, a Methodist who says her faith led to her involvement in politics, are the shadow chief secretary to the treasury and minister for young people respectively.

So, then, Christians of all denominations are already active in politics, some of whom must share Kate Forbes' views on gay marriages and births out of wedlock. Kate Forbes, then, is hardly an exception.

But what about other faiths? Well, I was interested to learn that 18 Muslim MPs were elected to Parliament in 2019. As The Muslim News says:

"Muslim candidates won a record of 18 Parliamentary seats at this month’s General Election, three more than in 2017 but slightly less than expected as Boris Johnson’s Conservative Party scored a resounding 80 seat majority.The number of successful Muslim candidates are spread over London, the South-East, the Midlands, North-West and North East, though none are in Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland. No less than 10 are Muslim women, including Apsana Begum, 29, in the safe Labour seat of Poplar and Limehouse, who is the first hijab-wearing MP".

And, of course, our present prime minister is a Hindu. There was once even a Mormon MP, Steven Kerr, who was Conservative MP for Stirling from 2017 to 2019.

Jewish MPs of course, have a long and distinguished place in our parliamentary system, dating back to the time of Benjamin Disraeli. The Jewish Chronicle names a number in the present cabinet, including Dominic Raab and Grant Schapps. It lists others:

-Michael Howard, Tory leader, 2003 to 2005
-David Miliband, current Labour Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs
-Malcolm Rifkind, Foreign Secretary from 1995-97
-Sydney Silverman, Labour MP responsible for the abolition of capital punishment in 1965
-Leo Abse, a Labour MP for nearly 30 years who pushed through reforms on homosexual relations in 1966
-Leslie Hore-Belisha (British Liberal, then Conservative), who Introduced the driving test and in 1934 the Belisha beacon
-LibDem peer Lord Lester, whose two Private Members’ Bills became the models for the Human Rights Act 1998
-Lord Lawson, Chancellor from 1983-89
-Edwina Currie, Junior Health Minister from 1986-88
-Leon Brittain, Home Secretary from 1983-85
-Lord Emmanuel (Manny) Shinwell, a minister in the two pre-war Labour governments. In 1938 he slapped a Conservative MP who had shouted: “Go back to Poland, you Polish Jew”

Does this mean that religious groups hold sway over our political life? Not so. Unbelievers will rejoice to learn that the National Secular Society is alive and active in the UK Parliament and is campaigning for a separation of church and state, beginning with the abolition of parliamentary prayers. As Megan Manson writes on the NSS website:

"Conservative MP Crispin Blunt (who also happens to be gay and Humanist) addressed this issue earlier this month. He raised as a point of order that MPs "who don't have faith or subscribe to faiths other than the established church" are required to sit through Anglican prayers simply to secure a seat in the chamber. Blunt was also among 15 MPs who signed an early day motion calling for the abolition of parliamentary prayers last year. The MPs who signed this EDM were politically diverse, representing the Conservatives, Labour, Lib Dems, Greens and SNP, in addition to one independent MP. The principles of inclusivity, equality and modernisation are supported by members of all parties."

Religious faith, or the lack of it, is a major presence in UK political life. So why all the fuss about Kate Forbes? Well, I think the answer might lie in the internal politics of the SNP...

All three candidates in the SNP leadership race were out to win - of course. But the SNP is seen as a progressive party. In fact, some say it is the gayest party in the House of Commons. By getting Kate Forbes to come out (no irony intended) about her religious beliefs would be a very effective way of knocking her out of the leadership race (although she nearly won). Still, there is an irony in having a Muslim elected as SNP leader. When Muslims in general are vilified in the UK as extremists, how refreshing it is to have Humza Yousaf, a practising Muslim, taking a tolerant stand towards LGBT rights and unmarried mothers.

Before Ruth Perry - Three More Victims of OFSTED

 

In the wake of the tragic death of Ruth Perry, it was interesting to see the comment made on BBC TV this morning by the man once called "the Dirty Harry of OFSTED" - Sir Michael Wilshaw. Following a heart-rending account by Lisa Telling, a Head Teacher from Reading and a friend of the late Ruth Perry, Sir Michael made an interesting comment:

 "... former chief inspector Sir Michael Wilshaw said Ofsted had been "a force for good", but admitted he did not think it was "appropriate" that heads should have to sit on the result of an inspection for so long."

This is his view on the fact that Head Teachers, should their schools fail, are bound by OFSTED rules not to reveal it to staff for a long time. Lisa Telling spelt this out:

"She told BBC Breakfast that Ms Perry had to bear the "world-destroying" verdict by herself for 54 days, saying head teachers live in fear of inspections as they can be "personally damaging"

Indeed so, especially for Ruth Perry, whose life has been damaged irrevocably. A two day inspection has ended a 32-year career and taken a popular, caring teacher from her family, friends, staff and pupils. What is remarkable that someone like Sir Michael Wilshaw is making even the mildest criticism. As we know, though, the Chief Inspector, Amanda Spielman, refuses to entertain the idea for serious changes in the inspection system, as called for by the teacher unions. Still, at least the matter is now under serious review, which I find truly remarkable.

The reason that I am so surprised is the fact that, sadly, Ruth Perry is not the first educationalist to commit suicide because of pressure from OFSTED. Far from it. These tragic events go back over nearly a quarter of a century. As I said in my previous post, in my last 11 years of full-time teaching, I had a good deal of experience of OFSTED and HMI inspections. When I retired, and started blogging, OFSTED was one of my favourite subjects for adverse comment (some would say vituperative comment).

Back in June, 2011, I wrote a blog item titled "Arise, Sir Chris!" , in which I expressed my chagrin at the news that the former OFSTED supremo, Chris Woodhead, was to be made a peer of the realm.

Sir Chris died of Motor Neurone Disease in 2015, and I noted that, at the time of writing in 2011, he was considering suicide as he felt his life was not worth living. I pointed out that, because of pressure from his department, a number of teachers had committed suicide already. I named three in the blog item, and I will take a closer look at those three unfortunates here.

Keith Waller, a 35-year old teacher, hanged himself at his home in Sudbury, Suffolk in May, 2007. At the inquest, his headteacher said that she had observed a lesson by Mr Waller  after she joined his school in January, 2006. She testified:

"At that time I judged his lessons to be between satisfactory and inadequate," she said in a statement. In June 2006 there was an Ofsted inspection and again the same judgement was made that improvement was needed".

Mr Waller felt himself to be under severe pressure - so much so that he was seeking another job. A friend of his, Peter Thornton, said: 

"He resigned from a very senior post at the school in an attempt to reduce this but to no avail...
He felt he was being bullied and victimised. It seemed nothing was ever good enough."

Like Ruth Perry, Keith Waller was a very popular teacher. Following his death, dozens of tributes appeared to him online.  One parent said: 

"As a teacher myself I applaud his excellent teaching, hard work and fun nature. He was a complete asset to the school."

Jed Holmes, a Headteacher, died at home on the eve of an Ofsted inspection at his school, Hampton Hargate Primary School, Peterborough, in July, 2007. Already off work with stress, he was found dead from carbon monoxide poisoning at his flat, with remnants of a barbecue fire in one room.

The coroner said the evidence showed he was concerned about the inspection.
"We can't exclude the proximity of the Ofsted inspection at the date of his death," said Gordon Ryall, Peterborough coroner. "It was that impending inspection that triggered off the action he decided to take".

His doctor, Dr Neil Sanders said: "The reason for his depression at this time was his feeling of stress and pressure at work and his feeling of letting other people down."

Sixteen years later, we see similar factors at work in the case of Ruth Perry.

An even earlier example of teacher suicide due to OFSTED pressure is that of the third and last of the examples I quoted in 2011: Janet Watson (photo unavailable at present). Ms Watson was 33 at the time of her death in 1999. She was subject leader for religious education at Rudheath Primary School at Northwich in Cheshire.

John Hughes, North Wales Coroner at the inquest held at Mold, Clwyd, reading from statements presented to the coroner's office, said Ms Watson had suffered from depression and the Ofsted inspection had put her under increased pressure. Ofsted inspected the school in May 1998 and Ms Watson's worry over the event adversely affected her health. The coroner said it was an "absolute tragedy" that such visits should cause such a degree of stress.

And we should bear in mind that these absolute tragedies have continued up to the present day. I am left wondering when or if they are going to end.

As we know, OFSTED are expressing their sympathy for Ruth Perry's demise, but intend to continue, despite growing condemnation from many quarters. OFSTED, following investigations into Mrs Perry's case will make a sophisticated version of the "Jobsworth" defence: "Only doing my job!". I always think that this resembles the excuse made by Nazi war criminals: "I was only obeying orders!". The less sympathetic officials will shrug off criticism with a lengthy rehash of the Robert Louis Stevenson quote (Not Lenin, as frequently cited): "You can't make an omelette without breaking eggs".  They will stress the overriding need to provide full and accurate information to parents and government on the performance of our schools. The fact that this inspection regime breaks lives, careers and is driving young teachers from the profession is just unfortunate. 

OFSTED inspectors with a conscience - and that might well be all of them - face a dilemma. What they do might be legally justifiable, but certainly not morally justifiable. The cases above - and there are probably many more than I have covered here - spell out the need for a review of inspection criteria and judgements at the very least. Too many lives have been lost already.

It is my fervent hope that Ruth Perry's tragic end will bring an end to the melancholy train of suicides that have continued for far, far too long. May Ruth Perry, Janet Watson, Jed Holmes, Keith Waller and all other similar victims of OFSTED pressure rest in peace.

Ruth Perry - a Tragic and Unnecessary Demise

 I am writing this blog post with a feeling of deep anger, so I must apologise in advance if I sound over-emotional at times. Not that any apology is really needed. The suicide of the dedicated teacher and Headteacher, Ruth Perry, seen above, has shocked many, whether involved in education or not. Mrs Perry took her life in January, ahead of the publication of an adverse OFSTED report. I was in a school which failed its OFSTED inspection some years ago and I can empathise with the feelings of all staff at Mrs Perry's school (Caversham Primary School in Reading). Times will be tough for all staff at that school now; were Mrs Perry still with us, she would have had to resign. For a dedicated teaching professional of 32 years, that would have been galling and humiliating in the extreme. I can well see why Mrs Perry found it unendurable.

Regular readers of this blog will remember that OFSTED was one of my principal targets for criticism some years ago. This was because I had recently retired after the best part of eleven years in a school which had failed its OFSTED in 2000 and gone into Special Measures. During those years, we were subjected to repeated visits from OFSTED and HMI inspectors. We, as a staff, worked slavishly to get the school out of those measures. Even when they ended, OFSTED still retained an interest. Even after my retirement in 2011, and I worked as a supply teacher, I saw the pressure on school staff when OFSTED were due to pay them a visit. Consequently, I took great pleasure in exposing what I considered to be the follies of OFSTED.

Of course, OFSTED is not the only burden that teachers have to bear. There are the constant bureaucratic pressures of planning, target setting and assessment. There are the unremitting onslaughts of  government initiatives and, latterly, financial constraints. For many teachers, especially in secondary schools, there is the regular hazard of pupil indiscipline, leading to abuse and assault. No wonder, then, as The Independent said, in 2017:

"The suicide rate among primary school teachers in England is nearly two times higher than the national average, figures have revealed."

These figures have not been updated, but when they are, I predict that, post-pandemic, they could well be higher. Risk of suicide among primary and nursery school teachers was 42 per cent higher than patterns in the broader population of England during the period 2011 to 2015, according to data released by the Office of National Statistics (ONS).

The Independent goes on to say:

"There were 139 suicides among teaching and educational professionals during the period, and almost three quarters (73 per cent) of these — or 102 suicides — were recorded as primary and nursery schoolteachers."

When these figures are updated, it hardly needs to be said that Ruth Perry's tragic demise will be included. 

And, of course, this is all part of a bleak picture for teachers. The National Education Union (NEU) points out:

"44% of England’s state-school teachers plan to quit by 2027, according to the latest NEU poll. Half of those (22%) intend to leave within two years.
Schools are struggling to fill vacant posts, leading to a doubling up of roles. 73% of teachers say this has worsened since the start of the pandemic.
Over half (52%) of teachers say their workload is either ‘unmanageable’ or ‘unmanageable most of the time’, up from 35% in 2021".

The OFSTED response to this whole tragedy reads like a computer-generated blurb, quoted by the BBC:

"Matthew Purves, Ofsted regional director for the south east, said: "We were deeply saddened by Ruth Perry's tragic death.
Our thoughts remain with Mrs Perry's family, friends and everyone in the Caversham Primary School community."

This resembles previous OFSTED statements issued after previous OFSTED-related teacher suicides. No positive measures, such as counselling, in order to prevent further tragedies, are even remotely considered. The government response is equally bland:

The Department for Education said inspections were a "legal requirement".

A spokesman said: "Inspections are hugely important as they hold schools to account for their educational standards and parents greatly rely on the ratings to give them confidence in choosing the right school for their child.
We offer our deep condolences to the family and friends of Ruth Perry..."

Most kind - I don't think.

To come to the point, I shall say that, while I have completely retired from teaching now for eight years, I am a serving school governor. My school recently passed its OFSTED inspection - deservedly so. The Head, deputies and teachers are dedicated, hard-working and consummate professionals. In spite of this, I would not change places with any of them. I only wish them, and all serving teachers the best of luck.

Finally, I know that I speak for all readers of this blog in sending condolences to the family of Ruth Perry and to the staff and children of Caversham Primary School in Reading.

For all readers of this item who are outraged at this latest loss of a dedicated teacher and who wish to take some positive action, the NEU has started a petition to replace OFSTED. You can sign by clicking on this link HERE. Either alternatively, or as well as, there is a petition on Change.com calling for an inquiry into the OFSTED inspection at Caversham Primary School which is LINKED TO HERE.

Defending Gary Lineker: "First they came..."

It has to be seen to be believed. If you click on THIS LINK, you will be amazed at the number of articles written about Gary Lineker by that bastion of objective journalism, the Daily Mail. Gary joins the pantheon of people that the Mail hates. What a list! Cross-channel migrants, trade unionists, asylum seekers, teachers, lawyers, civil servants, junior doctors, Meghan and Harry, human rights activists - and that's just this week. I wish I was exaggerating. It's not just the Mail, of course. As we know, all other right-wing media outlets have joined in, together with many Tory politicians and, to an extent, some Labour luminaries, such as Yvette Cooper and Emily Thornberry. As the Daily Express gloatingly says:

"Corbynite MP Emily Thornberry joined in the criticism of BBC presenter Gary Lineker last night, arguing his language has been "really unfortunate" and she wouldn't have used it."

So, what exactly did Lineker say that has given such offence? His tweeted words were directed at the government's asylum policy. He said:  “An immeasurably cruel policy directed at the most vulnerable people in language that is not dissimilar to that used by Germany in the 30s.” The meanest intelligence can see this to be a single sentence, whether we agree with it or not. Had it been tweeted by me or you, (and I don't have a Twitter account), it would disappear into the ether. Much is being done to counter the double standards and hypocrisy of the Tories and the Tory media on this issue. Even as I type, the indomitable James O' Brien of LBC is tearing into them, but I would like to look at two examples of eminent media personalities who are defending Gary Lineker.

The first eminent defender is Emily Maitlis, who herself was reprimanded in 2020 by the BBC for her interview with Dominic Cummings which the broadcaster said did not meet its standards for "impartiality" after Cummings appeared to break lockdown rules. As Lineker could well be facing a similar reprimand, Ms Maitlis says: "Curious that @GaryLineker was free to raise questions about Qatar’s human rights record - with the blessing of the bbc - over the World Cup , but cannot raise questions of human rights in this country if it involves criticism of government policy…"

That is very well said by Prince Andrew's interrogator, but another defence comes from an unexpected quarter. Piers Morgan is not known for his concern for human rights, but he makes a sterling point in Lineker's favour when he says of a man with whom he, Piers Morgan, has crossed swords on  a number of occasions: 

“We both have strong opinions, we both believe in what we say and we express them forcefully, but we agree to disagree.And I have no problem with Gary Lineker, a football presenter, sports presenter, from giving his views.He’s not a BBC news journalist, he’s not anchoring The News at 10 or Question Time or Newsnight, he’s a football presenter doing Match Of The Day and other major sporting events."

Both telling points, and I would like to join in Gary Lineker's defence by examining what he said. I believe his words in the original tweet to be more accurate than his critics are saying against him once the anti- migrant vituperation of the tabloid press is factored into the topic.The language employed by Tory politicians and their lackeys in the press about cross-channel migrants is frequently similar to that of Nazi propagandists in the 1930s. As Tom Peck says in The Independent: 

"If the home secretary writes execrable garbage in the newspapers, and repeats it in the House of Commons, about how “100 million people are coming here,” people are not merely entitled but obliged to show zero tolerance. To call it what it is".

It has been said that the real reason for the outrage of the Tories and their press is the fact that Gary Lineker has 8 million followers on Twitter, and cannot be safely ignored, like the rest of us. That should not preventing us from speaking out. While we have democratic rights of free speech, we should  exercise them. "First they came for Gary Lineker..." and one day, it could be our turn.

Lastly, to bear out Gary's point, it's worth doing a direct comparison between Nazi propaganda and the anti-immigrant tropes of the right-wing press, in this case, the Daily Mail.

Now, it's no secret that the Mail has a lot to live down for its dealings with Nazism in the 30s. Before the Nazi takeover in 1933, after the 1930 German elections, the Mail welcomed the Nazi success as "the birth of Germany as a nation". In 1934, it ran a story "Hurrah for the Blackshirts", praising Moseley's British Union of Fascists (BUF) as  the correct party to “take over responsibility for [British] national affairs”. This earned the Mail's proprietor, Lord Rothermere, a dinner invitation from Hitler. And of course, the Mail has been at the forefront of every campaign of populist xenophobia since WW2, from Enoch Powell in the 60s, to Ugandan Asians coming to Britain in the 1970s, to the present day.

But to return to Gary Lineker's charge, here is visual evidence to support his case. Thanks to Global Justice Now, I present two cartoons, one from Nazi Germany in the 30s, the other from the Daily Mail in 2014. One portrays Jews as parasites on the German nation, the other of refugees as invading parasites. Both include images of rats, implying that both minorities are vermin.

And this from the Mail, 9 years ago:

Gary Lineker has made a very effective point.