First, I would like to thank RedNev for standing in for me during my absence. He has hit on some sore political points which will be revisited in the coming year - unfortunately.
Moving on, I wish to revisit my previous criticism of that undeservedly popular figure, Santa Claus. As I pointed out last year, he is in flagrant breach of Health and Safety legislation in this country and should be held to account for it. If this was not bad enough, there is also the matter of his cruelty to animals. It is no secret that his Christmas workload is a heavy one; he has many premises to visit and very little time to do it. However, this does not entitle him to inflict excessive work demands upon dumb animals - i.e. his reindeer. No information is available for how well the reindeer cope with their incredible task on Christmas Eve, but it surely contradicts all Health and Safety legislation regarding animals in the workplace. Why the RSPCA has never taken action is beyond me.
This year, however, something needs to be done. When Santa Claus enters British air space on Christmas Eve, he should be arrested and brought before a magistrate as soon as possible. I suppose that RedNev will say that this will delay Christmas for many children, but the law is the law. There is no place for sentimental excuses. In any case. Santa will probably be let off with a caution and then be free to carry on distributing presents.
MERRY CHRISTMAS, EVERYBODY!
Thursday, 15 December 2011
Monday, 5 December 2011
More Scottish Nationalist confusion
 |
| Strikers marching down the Royal Mile in Edinburgh |
I am dubious about nationalism anyway, as it's a form of politics derived from geography. The Scots are not a single people: ethnically they are derived from Picts, Gaels, Norse, Britons (akin to the Welsh), Anglo-Saxons and (after 1066) English. I would argue that, even today, most Glaswegians have more in common with people in Manchester or Leeds than they do with inhabitants of the Highlands and Islands. The main unifying feature of the Scottish people collectively is that they live north of the border with England.
Ordinary Scottish people face the same problems and - I would assert - the same enemies as their English counterparts. We have all been affected by the recession caused by the greed and incompetence of big bankers; we are all suffering from the effects of minuscule pay rises or pay freezes while inflation is out of control; job losses are devastating communities in England and Wales as well as Scotland. We are all affected by an economy that squanders scant resources on nuclear weapons and fighting wars for incomprehensible causes while cutting back on essential public services.
This situation isn't new, but the current recession reinforces the fact that that ordinary Britons have more that unites than divides them across national borders. It demonstrates that, when it comes down to it, we're all cogs in a machine that exists to preserve the privileges of the rich, with their seven-figure bonuses and 50% pay rises. From this perspective, the border marked by the River Tweed seems much less relevant than the divisions between people who are flourishing in this recession and people who who are suffering. Identical strikes, marches and rallies took place in towns and cities in England, Scotland and Wales (in alphabetical order) on 30th November to challenge the attacks on the pensions of ordinary working people in the public sector; which nation you lived in was utterly irrelevant on that day.
The SNP's response as as muddled as ever: the strikes were wrong because the public should have access to services, but they supported the attacks on the UK government's pensions reforms "because the short-term cash grab by the UK government has undermined the opportunity to secure agreement aimed at affordable and sustainable public sector pensions" said John Swinney of the SNP, clearly just using the dispute to have a pop at the Westminster government. Sorry, John, stop sitting on the fence and recognise that in this situation you can't have opposition without strikes, because negotiations with an outcome predetermined by the London government could never go anywhere. Unions know that verbal protests and humble petitions in situations like this simply won't work as they've tried them before. I write this as a former trade union officer for 24 years who spent much of that time as a negotiator: I can recognise official time-wasting and delaying tactics a mile off, and that is what the unions were facing here. But the champions of the Scottish people came out sounding just like the Labour Party, their main opponents in Scotland. When political opponents sound the same, as a voter you are deprived of choice, which is especially odd in Scotland, seeing that the SNP want to create a separate state on the basis of inherent Scottish difference.
The SNP stands for the idea of Scotland based solely on geography. They seems incapable, just like the main Westminster parties, of discerning the injustices being heaped on ordinary people, wherever they live in the UK. Except for their desire to make the border between England and Scotland into a national frontier, they are really little different from the London politicians they affect to despise.
Wednesday, 16 November 2011
Striking for gold-plated peanuts
 |
| Pinched from Private Eye |
It was announced today that unemployment for young people aged 18 - 24 rose to 1.02 million in the 3 months to September. The total number of unemployed people is the highest since 1994 and the number of women out of work increased by 43,000 to 1.09 million, the highest level since February 1988. It's usually the case that as unemployment rises, industrial action drops, and it's infuriating the government that that pattern doesn't seem to be happening now. Instead the country is facing the possibility of the biggest strike for 80 years on 30 November. How come?
As you'll know, one of the main reasons for the strikes is the attack on public sector pensions, which even BBC journalists have been heard to describe as gold-plated. Employees will be required to work longer and pay more to get less. Is this an injustice? Union members feel angry that the government has reneged on its deal with them, that they are not getting what they have been promised, in some cases over decades. It seems quite reasonable to be angry over broken promises, especially ones with such wide-ranging consequences that will affect their standard of living for the rest of their lives. That sense of injustice must not be underestimated.
To try to get the general public on board, politicians talk about the excellent pensions public sector workers will still have after the changes, especially when compared to the private sector. Let's deal with the private sector first:
Much of the private sector did once have better pensions, often based on final salaries, until the 1980s, until politicians stuck their noses in. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, Nigel Lawson, noted that in the financial boom of the 1980s, pension funds had large surpluses, so he allowed employers to have contribution holidays, which many took up, in some cases not contributing for years on end. Some like Robert Maxwell even stole from their pension funds. That's an extreme example of a view of pension funds as dead money that would be better used for the business, but those who only stopped paying into (as opposed to stealing from) pension funds clearly had the same mindset. What Lawson and the employers chose to forget is something we are all told when we take out an investment - that they can go down as well as up. And so it came to pass - they went down.
The next body blow to private pensions was one of Gordon Brown's first decisions as Chancellor of the Exchequer, which was to impose tax upon pension funds which had been previously exempt. These two measures by chancellors from both major parties, accompanied by an economic downturn in which investments weren't performing so well tipped many funds from prosperity in the early 1980s to an inability to meet their responsibilities by the mid-1990s onwards. All caused by a combination of both parties viewing pension funds as cash cows, either for the employers or for the Treasury, and many employers happily along for the ride.
One notable exception from the crisis in private sector pensions is the provision for chief executives and company directors, who looked after themselves by happily awarding each other massive pensions and large pay-offs from final salary schemes that somehow survived the pension crisis, while slashing the schemes for their own workforces. Fred Goodwin's final salary pension from the Royal Bank of Scotland pays him in six days what a retired executive officer (junior manager) in the civil service would receive in a year, providing s/he had completed 40 full years service (no career breaks or periods of part-time working). In contrast, Fred got his pension after 26 years in the industry between qualifying as an accountant in 1983 and retiring at 50 in 2009.
"Excellent public sector pensions." Having messed up private sector pensions for the workforce (except for the top executives), politicians then turned their attention to public sector pensions. Gold-plated? Judge for yourself: the average civil service pension is £4800 a year, and its local government equivalent is even less. This is what the government wants to cut, and it's hardly surprising that public sector workers oppose having to work longer and pay more to get even less. Yes, there are some in the public sector who get big pensions: politicians for starters, but also top civil servants (the Sir Humphreys) and local authority chief executives, but these represent a tiny proportion of the public sector and are in no way typical.
Some of the public, taken in by the propaganda about gold-plated pensions, believe that it's about time the feather-bedded public sector faced the real world like the private sector. If you apply that argument across the board, then logically you'd end up in a situation in which no one would get a pension more than the smallest in the private sector, which wouldn't benefit anybody. There is no doubt that private sector pensions have been treated disgracefully by governments and employers, but how does doing the same to the public sector help anyone? Some public sector staff are saying that if these changes are implemented, they will have to drop out of the pension scheme as they can't afford the extra contributions. If this happens, all we'll be doing is setting up a demographic time bomb whereby millions more from both the public and private sectors are forced to rely on state benefits in retirement. In what way is this "living in the real world" and planning sensibly for the nation's future?
As you'll know, one of the main reasons for the strikes is the attack on public sector pensions, which even BBC journalists have been heard to describe as gold-plated. Employees will be required to work longer and pay more to get less. Is this an injustice? Union members feel angry that the government has reneged on its deal with them, that they are not getting what they have been promised, in some cases over decades. It seems quite reasonable to be angry over broken promises, especially ones with such wide-ranging consequences that will affect their standard of living for the rest of their lives. That sense of injustice must not be underestimated.
To try to get the general public on board, politicians talk about the excellent pensions public sector workers will still have after the changes, especially when compared to the private sector. Let's deal with the private sector first:
Much of the private sector did once have better pensions, often based on final salaries, until the 1980s, until politicians stuck their noses in. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, Nigel Lawson, noted that in the financial boom of the 1980s, pension funds had large surpluses, so he allowed employers to have contribution holidays, which many took up, in some cases not contributing for years on end. Some like Robert Maxwell even stole from their pension funds. That's an extreme example of a view of pension funds as dead money that would be better used for the business, but those who only stopped paying into (as opposed to stealing from) pension funds clearly had the same mindset. What Lawson and the employers chose to forget is something we are all told when we take out an investment - that they can go down as well as up. And so it came to pass - they went down.
The next body blow to private pensions was one of Gordon Brown's first decisions as Chancellor of the Exchequer, which was to impose tax upon pension funds which had been previously exempt. These two measures by chancellors from both major parties, accompanied by an economic downturn in which investments weren't performing so well tipped many funds from prosperity in the early 1980s to an inability to meet their responsibilities by the mid-1990s onwards. All caused by a combination of both parties viewing pension funds as cash cows, either for the employers or for the Treasury, and many employers happily along for the ride.
One notable exception from the crisis in private sector pensions is the provision for chief executives and company directors, who looked after themselves by happily awarding each other massive pensions and large pay-offs from final salary schemes that somehow survived the pension crisis, while slashing the schemes for their own workforces. Fred Goodwin's final salary pension from the Royal Bank of Scotland pays him in six days what a retired executive officer (junior manager) in the civil service would receive in a year, providing s/he had completed 40 full years service (no career breaks or periods of part-time working). In contrast, Fred got his pension after 26 years in the industry between qualifying as an accountant in 1983 and retiring at 50 in 2009.
"Excellent public sector pensions." Having messed up private sector pensions for the workforce (except for the top executives), politicians then turned their attention to public sector pensions. Gold-plated? Judge for yourself: the average civil service pension is £4800 a year, and its local government equivalent is even less. This is what the government wants to cut, and it's hardly surprising that public sector workers oppose having to work longer and pay more to get even less. Yes, there are some in the public sector who get big pensions: politicians for starters, but also top civil servants (the Sir Humphreys) and local authority chief executives, but these represent a tiny proportion of the public sector and are in no way typical.
Some of the public, taken in by the propaganda about gold-plated pensions, believe that it's about time the feather-bedded public sector faced the real world like the private sector. If you apply that argument across the board, then logically you'd end up in a situation in which no one would get a pension more than the smallest in the private sector, which wouldn't benefit anybody. There is no doubt that private sector pensions have been treated disgracefully by governments and employers, but how does doing the same to the public sector help anyone? Some public sector staff are saying that if these changes are implemented, they will have to drop out of the pension scheme as they can't afford the extra contributions. If this happens, all we'll be doing is setting up a demographic time bomb whereby millions more from both the public and private sectors are forced to rely on state benefits in retirement. In what way is this "living in the real world" and planning sensibly for the nation's future?
Thursday, 10 November 2011
Handing Over the Reins
Well, the strain of writing this blog is starting to tell! After continuous outpourings of wit and wisdom, I shall be taking a well-deserved break in the Far East for about a month. Regular readers of this blog will be reassured to know that my place will be taken by none other than RedNev, who I now appoint as Deputy Blogmeister. Nev will continue to run this blog in the spirit of our inspirational forbear, Major John Cartwright.
I shall return in December.
Good luck, Nev!
Good luck, all bloggers!
PS. I was only joking about the strain of writing.
I shall return in December.
Good luck, Nev!
Good luck, all bloggers!
PS. I was only joking about the strain of writing.
Monday, 7 November 2011
Burning Poppies and the Blame Game
You may remember that last year, at this time, a small group of Islamists called "Muslims Against Crusaders" publicly burned poppies on Remembrance Day. Their leader, Anjem Choudhary, was fined £50. He was on TV last Sunday, announcing his intention to do the same thing this year. As might be expected, this planned gesture has been condemned by just about everybody - not least Muslims.
What I find of interest is that some pundits of the right cannot resist the temptation not just to attack this handful of Jihadi fanatics, but also to attack the Left.One such pundit is one Abhijit Pandya, whose views can be read HERE. Mr Pandya is entitled to his views, and makes some valid points, but he goes seriously off beam when he starts finding culprits for the rise of Islamic militancy. As he sees it, it's all the fault of the Reds:
"In essence, my thesis is as follows: Choudhary and his gang of poppy burners are much more a product (of?) anti-nation thinking that is fundamental to the left's critique of the world than to multiculturalism or failures of immigrant assimilation policy".
Mr Pandya does not sem to inhabit the same planet as the rest of us - either that or he is aiming to mislead people. Islamists loathe the Left (Marxist or non-Marxist) as much as they hate liberal democracy. I've discussed this in previous posts, but it still needs to be pointed out that both Britain and the USA found the Muslim Mujaheddin willing proxies in their battle against the USSR - in Afghanistan and elsewhere. Yet again, I find myself recommending readers to read "Secret Affairs" by Mark Curtis, which details how the UK and USA have worked hand-in-glove with Radical Islam over decades. Might not the present high profile of Jihadi militancy be something to do with encouragement from British governments - Tory and Labour? Don't watch this space. Instead, take a look at the picture below - it shows Muslim volunteers for the Waffen SS. The units to which these men belonged gained a reputation for savagery and fanaticism that rivalled that of their ethnic German counterparts. I would argue that Anjem Choudhary and his band of lunatics have more in common with these men than anyone on the Left. Nor did these SS men represent Islam as a whole - on Remembrance day, let's think of those who gave their lives to defend Britain from Fascism - including many thousands of Muslims from Commonwealth countries. Many Muslims fought and died on our side against Nazism - and Islamofascists like Choudhary, and his spiritual brethren in the Waffen SS.
What I find of interest is that some pundits of the right cannot resist the temptation not just to attack this handful of Jihadi fanatics, but also to attack the Left.One such pundit is one Abhijit Pandya, whose views can be read HERE. Mr Pandya is entitled to his views, and makes some valid points, but he goes seriously off beam when he starts finding culprits for the rise of Islamic militancy. As he sees it, it's all the fault of the Reds:
"In essence, my thesis is as follows: Choudhary and his gang of poppy burners are much more a product (of?) anti-nation thinking that is fundamental to the left's critique of the world than to multiculturalism or failures of immigrant assimilation policy".
Mr Pandya does not sem to inhabit the same planet as the rest of us - either that or he is aiming to mislead people. Islamists loathe the Left (Marxist or non-Marxist) as much as they hate liberal democracy. I've discussed this in previous posts, but it still needs to be pointed out that both Britain and the USA found the Muslim Mujaheddin willing proxies in their battle against the USSR - in Afghanistan and elsewhere. Yet again, I find myself recommending readers to read "Secret Affairs" by Mark Curtis, which details how the UK and USA have worked hand-in-glove with Radical Islam over decades. Might not the present high profile of Jihadi militancy be something to do with encouragement from British governments - Tory and Labour? Don't watch this space. Instead, take a look at the picture below - it shows Muslim volunteers for the Waffen SS. The units to which these men belonged gained a reputation for savagery and fanaticism that rivalled that of their ethnic German counterparts. I would argue that Anjem Choudhary and his band of lunatics have more in common with these men than anyone on the Left. Nor did these SS men represent Islam as a whole - on Remembrance day, let's think of those who gave their lives to defend Britain from Fascism - including many thousands of Muslims from Commonwealth countries. Many Muslims fought and died on our side against Nazism - and Islamofascists like Choudhary, and his spiritual brethren in the Waffen SS.
Friday, 4 November 2011
The Slow Death of Local Radio
It made no headlines, but last night on "Folkscene", which is a folk music programme on BBC Radio Merseyside, you would have heard me talking to the host, Geoff Speed, about the cd "The End of the Line". Not heard of it? Well, it's the 9th album of songs and poems written by me, and recorded by various artists. I'm pleased to report that the programme went well, as have the sales of the album - sold out, in fact. In one way, however, it was rather a sad occasion. The BBC, because of cuts to its budget, is planning to axe all its local radio specialist music programmes across the country. When my collaborators and I make album 10, we will have very few folk music radio programmes available that will be prepared to play our cd. And, of course, it won't be just folk music programmes whch will be affected - Blues, Jazz, Country and Gospel music lovers will all see their local programmes disappear. But why?
Well, the obvious answer is that it is a cost cutting exercise necessary to save public money. The problem that I have with this view is that no figures of how much money will be saved have been published. Besides which, I happen to know that most presenters of such programmes get a very low rate of pay. Many presenters record their programmes at home, and rarely ever set foot in the BBC studios. There could be other factors at work, but I'll discuss those later.
There is no doubt, surely, that the loss of these programmes will deprive local music fans of information about what is happening in their local area. Not only this, but local acts will not get opportunities to be heard by a wider audience. Local radio, in other words, will become a lot less "local", as it will cease to reflect their area's music scene. It may be said that BBC Radio 2 has specialist music programmes, but I know from long experience how difficult it is to get played on national radio - once in 18 years, in my case. The Paul Joneses, Mike Hardings and Bob Harrises of this world are only interested in nationally established artists. It will be left to local commercial radio to pick up the slack - but only if it is profitable. Many commercial stations are not interested.
But what of those "other factors"? Well, I don't claim that there is a conspiracy at work, but both the musical and political establishments stand to gain from the shedding of specialist music programmes by the BBC. Instead, we will have more of the same old stuff that we already get on daytime BBC Radio 2 - and yet more of the manufactured hits from X factor winners and their ilk. Simon Cowell, Louis Walsh, etc, will be laughing all the way to the bank.
As for the political establishment, they stand to gain by shutting down an outlet for dissent. This is not to say that all Blues, Folk, Country artists are politically vocal, but the fact is that these types of music - especially Folk - have always included a radical, politically critical streak. If you listen to most music played on radio nowadays, you'd be hard put to find anything remotely critical politically - it's escapist, if anything. And with the axing of specialist music programmes from local radio, it will become even more escapist. Stalin would undoubtedly have approved.
Well, the obvious answer is that it is a cost cutting exercise necessary to save public money. The problem that I have with this view is that no figures of how much money will be saved have been published. Besides which, I happen to know that most presenters of such programmes get a very low rate of pay. Many presenters record their programmes at home, and rarely ever set foot in the BBC studios. There could be other factors at work, but I'll discuss those later.
There is no doubt, surely, that the loss of these programmes will deprive local music fans of information about what is happening in their local area. Not only this, but local acts will not get opportunities to be heard by a wider audience. Local radio, in other words, will become a lot less "local", as it will cease to reflect their area's music scene. It may be said that BBC Radio 2 has specialist music programmes, but I know from long experience how difficult it is to get played on national radio - once in 18 years, in my case. The Paul Joneses, Mike Hardings and Bob Harrises of this world are only interested in nationally established artists. It will be left to local commercial radio to pick up the slack - but only if it is profitable. Many commercial stations are not interested.
But what of those "other factors"? Well, I don't claim that there is a conspiracy at work, but both the musical and political establishments stand to gain from the shedding of specialist music programmes by the BBC. Instead, we will have more of the same old stuff that we already get on daytime BBC Radio 2 - and yet more of the manufactured hits from X factor winners and their ilk. Simon Cowell, Louis Walsh, etc, will be laughing all the way to the bank.
As for the political establishment, they stand to gain by shutting down an outlet for dissent. This is not to say that all Blues, Folk, Country artists are politically vocal, but the fact is that these types of music - especially Folk - have always included a radical, politically critical streak. If you listen to most music played on radio nowadays, you'd be hard put to find anything remotely critical politically - it's escapist, if anything. And with the axing of specialist music programmes from local radio, it will become even more escapist. Stalin would undoubtedly have approved.
Monday, 3 October 2011
OFSTED and a Whole Lotta Shakin' Goin' On
Well, those ever-vigilant chaps at OFSTED are at it again - talking about the need for a shake-up in education. It always amuses me to hear this, as they have been saying the same thing for the better part of two decades. As a veteran of numerous inspections by both OFSTED and Her Majesty's Inspectors for Education (HMI), it's my belief that schools, to borrow Elvis' phrase,are "all shook up" already. So what was wrong with all the many thousands of school inspections that OFSTED have carried out in the past?There are two answers to this question - one that will be acceptable to OFSTED and one that definitely won't be - I shall provide the latter.
Nick Glibb, the Schools Minister, says that OFSTED will be concentrating upon things "which really matter". No-one seems to have asked him what they've been doing so far - still less has he asked them. The BBC article states:
"Overall, these new ground rules for inspections show a shift in emphasis from wellbeing issues, such as safeguarding children, community cohesion and healthy living, towards core academic standards."
This gives the impression that OFSTED inspectors have ignored teaching standards and gone around checking alarm systems and locks. This is simply not true, as anyone who works in a school will tell you. Anyway, the OFSTED supremo, Miriam Rosen, declares:
"Inspectors will spend even more time in the classroom observing teaching and learning, with a renewed emphasis on reading and literacy skills."
Parents reading this will no doubt be reassured - but lessons are observed anyway. In my first such inspection, I was observed for six lessons, and at that time, I was not unique in this. Some teachers I know had far more. All this happened when inspections lasted a whole week. The length of inspections has been reduced since, but, in my experience, the number of classroom visits pro rata has not dropped. All this talk of "shake-ups" is happening for another reason - one to which I have alluded before.
It is no coincidence that Nick Glibb and Miriam Rosen are new to their jobs, and want to make names for themselves. UK education is, as I have said before, a political football which is always being kicked around as in need of reform. It never seems to occur to people like Glibb and Rosen that things might improve if there were less shake-ups and schools could get on with teaching.
And there is something else about OFSTED that the general public does not know. This organisation has a habit of moving the goal posts when it comes to assessing the quality of teaching and learning. OFSTED has four "level descriptors": Outstanding, Good, Satisfactory and Inadequate. Well, lessons which may have been classed as Satisfactory by an inspector in one year, can be graded UNsatisfactory after the passage of time. I have been present at a meeting when an adviser has shown a video of a lesson graded Satisfactory in 2000, "but (said the cheery adviser) it wouldn't be now!". At another such meeting, we were told that the OFSTED grade of "Good" is now the new "Satisfactory". OFSTED, it seems, has the power to change the meanings of words, but we were not told what "Satisfactory" now meant. Imagine what would happen if the standards of bricklaying changed in the same way - would a wall that was "satisfactory" in 2005 have to be knocked down in 2011?
So why do they change the standards for lesson assessment? Well, they won't admit this - but I think that OFSTED is being governed by what Durkheim called "the dialectic of ends and means", whereby a means to an end becomes an end in itself. OFSTED inspectors enjoy fat fees and generous expenses.Anyone doubting this should look in the school car park during an OFSTED inspection - the inspection team always arrive in a fleet of new cars. To justify its existence, OFSTED needs to keep repeating the need for shaking up education. One question - at a time of stringent budget cuts in the public sector, is it not time to shake OFSTED (and Mr Glibb) by the scruff of the neck?
Nick Glibb, the Schools Minister, says that OFSTED will be concentrating upon things "which really matter". No-one seems to have asked him what they've been doing so far - still less has he asked them. The BBC article states:
"Overall, these new ground rules for inspections show a shift in emphasis from wellbeing issues, such as safeguarding children, community cohesion and healthy living, towards core academic standards."
This gives the impression that OFSTED inspectors have ignored teaching standards and gone around checking alarm systems and locks. This is simply not true, as anyone who works in a school will tell you. Anyway, the OFSTED supremo, Miriam Rosen, declares:
"Inspectors will spend even more time in the classroom observing teaching and learning, with a renewed emphasis on reading and literacy skills."
Parents reading this will no doubt be reassured - but lessons are observed anyway. In my first such inspection, I was observed for six lessons, and at that time, I was not unique in this. Some teachers I know had far more. All this happened when inspections lasted a whole week. The length of inspections has been reduced since, but, in my experience, the number of classroom visits pro rata has not dropped. All this talk of "shake-ups" is happening for another reason - one to which I have alluded before.
It is no coincidence that Nick Glibb and Miriam Rosen are new to their jobs, and want to make names for themselves. UK education is, as I have said before, a political football which is always being kicked around as in need of reform. It never seems to occur to people like Glibb and Rosen that things might improve if there were less shake-ups and schools could get on with teaching.
And there is something else about OFSTED that the general public does not know. This organisation has a habit of moving the goal posts when it comes to assessing the quality of teaching and learning. OFSTED has four "level descriptors": Outstanding, Good, Satisfactory and Inadequate. Well, lessons which may have been classed as Satisfactory by an inspector in one year, can be graded UNsatisfactory after the passage of time. I have been present at a meeting when an adviser has shown a video of a lesson graded Satisfactory in 2000, "but (said the cheery adviser) it wouldn't be now!". At another such meeting, we were told that the OFSTED grade of "Good" is now the new "Satisfactory". OFSTED, it seems, has the power to change the meanings of words, but we were not told what "Satisfactory" now meant. Imagine what would happen if the standards of bricklaying changed in the same way - would a wall that was "satisfactory" in 2005 have to be knocked down in 2011?
So why do they change the standards for lesson assessment? Well, they won't admit this - but I think that OFSTED is being governed by what Durkheim called "the dialectic of ends and means", whereby a means to an end becomes an end in itself. OFSTED inspectors enjoy fat fees and generous expenses.Anyone doubting this should look in the school car park during an OFSTED inspection - the inspection team always arrive in a fleet of new cars. To justify its existence, OFSTED needs to keep repeating the need for shaking up education. One question - at a time of stringent budget cuts in the public sector, is it not time to shake OFSTED (and Mr Glibb) by the scruff of the neck?
Sunday, 18 September 2011
The Afghan War, Faith and Statistics
Mark Twain once said:
"Faith is believing what you know ain't so". He had a point, and atheists frequently use this quote when they want to provoke arguments with religious believers. That's not my intention here, however. I quote Twain because it seems to me that our leading poiticians are doing just that - believing in something that they know cannot be true. After ten years of fighting, British party leaders, including our incumbent Prime Minister, still seem to believe that we are accomplishing something worthwhile by fighting the war in Afghanistan. This is either what psychologists call "being in denial" - or simple self-delusion.
There is an abundance of hard facts to show that our miltary effort in Afghanistan is futile. There are the obvious ones, such as:
1. The Taliban is still fighting, and is even able to launch attacks in the Afghan capital without too much trouble. IED attacks are as common as ever.
2. Following on from the point above, there is the painfully inescapable fact that the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq have actually increased the risk of terrorism around the world. Al-Qaeda may have taken a severe beating, Bin Laden might be dead, but Al-Qaeda imitators, such as the 7/7 bombers and Al-Shabbab, are active in other countries outside Afghanistan.
3. British attempts to hold ground are made untenable because of the simple fact that we do not have enough troops out there to do it, as some US commentators have observed.
4. Civilian casualties, whether caused by ground troops or aircraft, have alienated the local population, driving some of them to support the Taliban.
5. Resources, that could be used to maintain the public sector, which this government is bent on attacking, are being squandered. It has been shown, for example, that one day's war costs as much as it would cost to pay 100, 000 nurses. Here is a short (2.5 minutes) video by Tony Benn which covers this issue:
Now, these are the obvious reasons for describing the Afghan War as futile. You can read them in any "Stop the War" leaflet. But there are others:
1. No-one ever points out that the people of Afghanistan never asked us to help change their society and, like Robespierre said: "No-one loves armed missionaries".
2. The Karzai government is corrupt and only survives thanks to massive infusions of US aid.
3. Even senior US soldiers are now admitting that the military effort in Afghanistan is doomed - SEE HERE
With all these compelling reasons for withdrawal, our leaders persist in asserting the need for combat operations in Afghanistan. I can only conclude that they are motivated by simple, blind faith.
Jesus said (Matthew 17:20) that a little faith could move mountains. Maybe, but there are a lot of mountains in Afghanistan - and I'm not just referring to the physical geography.
"Faith is believing what you know ain't so". He had a point, and atheists frequently use this quote when they want to provoke arguments with religious believers. That's not my intention here, however. I quote Twain because it seems to me that our leading poiticians are doing just that - believing in something that they know cannot be true. After ten years of fighting, British party leaders, including our incumbent Prime Minister, still seem to believe that we are accomplishing something worthwhile by fighting the war in Afghanistan. This is either what psychologists call "being in denial" - or simple self-delusion.
There is an abundance of hard facts to show that our miltary effort in Afghanistan is futile. There are the obvious ones, such as:
1. The Taliban is still fighting, and is even able to launch attacks in the Afghan capital without too much trouble. IED attacks are as common as ever.
2. Following on from the point above, there is the painfully inescapable fact that the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq have actually increased the risk of terrorism around the world. Al-Qaeda may have taken a severe beating, Bin Laden might be dead, but Al-Qaeda imitators, such as the 7/7 bombers and Al-Shabbab, are active in other countries outside Afghanistan.
3. British attempts to hold ground are made untenable because of the simple fact that we do not have enough troops out there to do it, as some US commentators have observed.
4. Civilian casualties, whether caused by ground troops or aircraft, have alienated the local population, driving some of them to support the Taliban.
5. Resources, that could be used to maintain the public sector, which this government is bent on attacking, are being squandered. It has been shown, for example, that one day's war costs as much as it would cost to pay 100, 000 nurses. Here is a short (2.5 minutes) video by Tony Benn which covers this issue:
Now, these are the obvious reasons for describing the Afghan War as futile. You can read them in any "Stop the War" leaflet. But there are others:
1. No-one ever points out that the people of Afghanistan never asked us to help change their society and, like Robespierre said: "No-one loves armed missionaries".
2. The Karzai government is corrupt and only survives thanks to massive infusions of US aid.
3. Even senior US soldiers are now admitting that the military effort in Afghanistan is doomed - SEE HERE
With all these compelling reasons for withdrawal, our leaders persist in asserting the need for combat operations in Afghanistan. I can only conclude that they are motivated by simple, blind faith.
Jesus said (Matthew 17:20) that a little faith could move mountains. Maybe, but there are a lot of mountains in Afghanistan - and I'm not just referring to the physical geography.
Friday, 9 September 2011
9/11 - The Forgotten Victims
The cliche is correct - everyone remembers where they were when they learned of 9/11. I was walking into an Ealing pub after school with a friend who told me how he'd heard that some terrorists in New York had let off a bomb in the World Trade Centre. Once in the pub, we saw it was much worse than that. Like most of the world, all of us in the pub stood and watched the planes crash into the two towers (and their subsequent collapse) over and over again. It was almost as if we were all hypnotised by events. Yet, even at the time, I had the feeling that it was all a monstrously successful "come on" - a provocation.
Well, as we know, the reaction was not long in coming, and the counterreactions soon happened as well. The USA, rightly incensed at the attack on its territory, set out to thrash Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan and Iraq - as we know. This, in turn, led to further terrorist attacks such as those in Bali, Madrid and 7/7 in London. Osama Bin Laden is now dead, slain by a small group of elite spooks.But, we know all that, and I don't intend to dwell upon it.
As the 10th anniversary of this appalling atrocity approaches, the focus of America's attention will be upon the memorial service on Sunday, in order to mourn the 3000 dead of 9/11. This is entirely correct, and I certainly would not wish to criticise it. Some people, though, equally correctly, point out that The US and UK "coalition" has killed far more people in Iraq and Afghanistan than the number who perished in New York on 9/11. Wikileaks puts the number as high as 111, 937 Iraqi civilians. According to the Guardian, no-one is keeping a precise count of civilian deaths in Afghanistan. And of course, there will be no service of remembrance for Iraqis and Afghans.
But there is another group of 9/11 victims that no-one sees fit to mention. These are the innocent victims of post-9/11 backlash who felt the anger of people in the USA and the UK. There was the Sikh petrol pump attendant in the USA who was shot dead by a bunch of rednecks because he looked like Osama Bin Laden. A Somali girl in my class at that time told me how her auntie, living in America, had been stoned and chased by a crowd for" looking Muslim".
Over here, a bunch of thugs showed their "solidarity" with the USA by beating up an Afghan taxi driver in Acton, West London. The taxi driver was left paralysed.
A Muslim man, whose own daughter had died on 9/11, was subjected to a racist attack by two girls.
Muslim pupils in UK schools reported numerous cases of bullying and harassment.
There were many such incidents in the UK and the US, and the ugly term "Islamophobia" became a commonly used word in the English language.
It hardly needs to be said that there will be no ceremonies for this group of victims, either.
Well, as we know, the reaction was not long in coming, and the counterreactions soon happened as well. The USA, rightly incensed at the attack on its territory, set out to thrash Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan and Iraq - as we know. This, in turn, led to further terrorist attacks such as those in Bali, Madrid and 7/7 in London. Osama Bin Laden is now dead, slain by a small group of elite spooks.But, we know all that, and I don't intend to dwell upon it.
As the 10th anniversary of this appalling atrocity approaches, the focus of America's attention will be upon the memorial service on Sunday, in order to mourn the 3000 dead of 9/11. This is entirely correct, and I certainly would not wish to criticise it. Some people, though, equally correctly, point out that The US and UK "coalition" has killed far more people in Iraq and Afghanistan than the number who perished in New York on 9/11. Wikileaks puts the number as high as 111, 937 Iraqi civilians. According to the Guardian, no-one is keeping a precise count of civilian deaths in Afghanistan. And of course, there will be no service of remembrance for Iraqis and Afghans.
But there is another group of 9/11 victims that no-one sees fit to mention. These are the innocent victims of post-9/11 backlash who felt the anger of people in the USA and the UK. There was the Sikh petrol pump attendant in the USA who was shot dead by a bunch of rednecks because he looked like Osama Bin Laden. A Somali girl in my class at that time told me how her auntie, living in America, had been stoned and chased by a crowd for" looking Muslim".
Over here, a bunch of thugs showed their "solidarity" with the USA by beating up an Afghan taxi driver in Acton, West London. The taxi driver was left paralysed.
A Muslim man, whose own daughter had died on 9/11, was subjected to a racist attack by two girls.
Muslim pupils in UK schools reported numerous cases of bullying and harassment.
There were many such incidents in the UK and the US, and the ugly term "Islamophobia" became a commonly used word in the English language.
It hardly needs to be said that there will be no ceremonies for this group of victims, either.
Tuesday, 16 August 2011
The Riots - Are We Missing Something?
It's hard to believe that a week ago today, we thought Britain was descending into anarchy. The Sun newspaper, last Tuesday, was actually entertaining the idea of using live rounds on rioters. Now, in the aftermath, our political leaders are at loggerheads about how to prevent it happening again. Everyone knows about this, but those who don't, can see the competing arguments of Cameron and Miliband HERE.
Actually, I think this discussion to be a worthwhile idea, and don't want to sound negative about it. From the far political Right to Left, a plethora of explanations and remedies are being explored and touted.
What concerns me is the fact that one very important aspect is being ignored or forgotten. The underlying economic situation, which "everyone knows about", is being left out of the equation. The inescapable truth is that there are simply not enough jobs for young people, and particularly the young people from whom the ranks of the rioters are drawn.
In sociological terms, most of the rioters (not all) come from what we used to call "the unskilled working class". That's when there was work for them, I mean. In 1966, 50% of the UK workforce worked in manufacturing industry; today, the percentage is only 14%. When Mrs Thatcher, with her monetarist fiscal "reforms", practically destroyed British industry in the 1980s, tens of thousands of people found themselves on the scrap heap in Mrs Thatcher's Brave New Britain. The unskilled sector, the people who had done the routine jobs in the factories, were particularly hard hit. Lacking the skills, education (and, let's face it,the will) to adapt to the new service economy, they, and the areas they lived in, stagnated. A new expression was coined - instead of the unskilled working class, the talk was of "the underclass" (an expression revived last week). Many of the youth of this class, as we know, drifted into gangs who blighted their local neighbourhoods in various ways.
I get the impression that our political leaders were happy to live with the problem - provided the gangs stayed out of sight on their "turfs". What no-one expected was for these gangs to bury their differences and go on the rampage, as they did last week. Suddenly - ooops! - we have a major problem to deal with.
The solutions being mooted at the moment, as far as I understand them, are of the "sticking-plaster" or punitive kind: parenting classes; sports training; citizenship education; ending benefit payments - even evictions.
The problem I have with these measures is that they simply will not work if these youths are not placed in well-paid, worthy jobs. What is the point of doing an 8 week course in citizenship (or anything else) if you just end up back on the dole? This idea was tried in the 80s (Who remembers YOPs?)It failed then, and will fail again. I wish I could say that I have the answer, but I haven't. The only idea that occurs to me is to increase the benefits payments to these youths massively - but that would be politically unacceptable.
Actually, I think this discussion to be a worthwhile idea, and don't want to sound negative about it. From the far political Right to Left, a plethora of explanations and remedies are being explored and touted.
What concerns me is the fact that one very important aspect is being ignored or forgotten. The underlying economic situation, which "everyone knows about", is being left out of the equation. The inescapable truth is that there are simply not enough jobs for young people, and particularly the young people from whom the ranks of the rioters are drawn.
In sociological terms, most of the rioters (not all) come from what we used to call "the unskilled working class". That's when there was work for them, I mean. In 1966, 50% of the UK workforce worked in manufacturing industry; today, the percentage is only 14%. When Mrs Thatcher, with her monetarist fiscal "reforms", practically destroyed British industry in the 1980s, tens of thousands of people found themselves on the scrap heap in Mrs Thatcher's Brave New Britain. The unskilled sector, the people who had done the routine jobs in the factories, were particularly hard hit. Lacking the skills, education (and, let's face it,the will) to adapt to the new service economy, they, and the areas they lived in, stagnated. A new expression was coined - instead of the unskilled working class, the talk was of "the underclass" (an expression revived last week). Many of the youth of this class, as we know, drifted into gangs who blighted their local neighbourhoods in various ways.
I get the impression that our political leaders were happy to live with the problem - provided the gangs stayed out of sight on their "turfs". What no-one expected was for these gangs to bury their differences and go on the rampage, as they did last week. Suddenly - ooops! - we have a major problem to deal with.
The solutions being mooted at the moment, as far as I understand them, are of the "sticking-plaster" or punitive kind: parenting classes; sports training; citizenship education; ending benefit payments - even evictions.
The problem I have with these measures is that they simply will not work if these youths are not placed in well-paid, worthy jobs. What is the point of doing an 8 week course in citizenship (or anything else) if you just end up back on the dole? This idea was tried in the 80s (Who remembers YOPs?)It failed then, and will fail again. I wish I could say that I have the answer, but I haven't. The only idea that occurs to me is to increase the benefits payments to these youths massively - but that would be politically unacceptable.
Wednesday, 10 August 2011
The Riots - the Ulcer Bursts
 |
| SHOP FRONT, EALING BROADWAY. 9/8/11 |
The choice of premises attacked was interesting;_ they were all retailers of fashion accessories, such as mobile phones, trainers, or clothes, such as the store in the photo. All of which sets the present riots apart from those of previous years. Previous riots in Britain have been political in intent (Lewisham, 1977), or over a recognisable grievance (public sector cuts) or a combination of both (The Poll Tax Riots of the 90s).
These riots, I think, are exactly what so many commentators have said already: a massive outburst of criminal activity. I have no intention of reproducing what has been written already - there is an abundance of that, but I would like to express a personal view. My opinion is that these horrendous events are the bursting of an ulcer that has ben building up in our inner cities for some time. A number of national newspapers have been chronicling the rise of gang culture and general anti-social behaviour in Britain for years. The media has highlighted numerous "spasms" of that ulcer, such as senseless murders, violence, drug taking and binge drinking. There has been much condemnation of "Broken Britain" (David Cameron's phrase), but precious little serious analysis of the problem, still less a national strategy to deal with it. And no-one predicted what has happened - the fact that these gangs might resolve their "turf" differences and act together, with devastating consequences.
Already, the blame game has begun ("liberal society"), as well as sensationalist, simplistic (or should it be "simple-minded"?) solutions ("put them in the Army"), coming from the Right, in their posturing, unimaginative way.. The Left, in their posturing, unimaginative way, are starting to regard the riots as some kind of latter-day "Peasants' Revolt", and linking it to cuts in public spending. Both need to wake up to the fact that we now have a national emergency on our hands that needs immediate pragmatic attention.
Instead of employing carrots OR sticks to deal with the problem, I would advocate the use of BOTH. If, as so many right-wing thinkers say, these rioters are a bunch of twisted, psychotic criminals, then we need to find what has made them that way and - very important - how to cure this psychosis and prevent it spreading to younger, potential rioters. The Left needs to recognise that criminal behaviour is just that, and needs to dealt with severely. There is no political motive at work here. As noted, the looting has been of luxury consumables, not necessities. Ordinary people have been attacked, robbed and made homeless by these rioters - hardly an expression of class consciousness. Wherever these rioters have met determined opposition, such as that shown (I think magnificently) by the Turkish/Kurdish community in the East End of London, they have been dispersed and defeated. That wouldn't happen if the rioters were the vanguard of the revolution, as my friends, the Anarchists, seem to think.
In conclusion, I would say that if we think we are having problems now - wait until these rioters have their own children, and see what problems we have then.
Tuesday, 2 August 2011
The Three "Rs" and the Rising Stars of Education
As I have observed before, education in this country is a political football which politicians rediscover and set out to reform periodically, usually at strategic intervals (eg, when facing falling opinion polls), or to enhance their own reputations. Today, the BBC reported the pronouncements of the latest in a long line of such politicians:
"Schools Minister Nick Gibb welcomed the rise in results, especially in writing but he said a third of children were still struggling in the three Rs."
He said: "There has been a decline in the proportion of children - both boys and girls - who can read and write beyond the expected level. And the results of our weakest readers and writers also remain a real concern."
The "results" he is talking about are, of course, SATs results. These have been subject (no pun intended) to withering criticism for years by the leaders of the teacher unions and various educationalists. I totally endorse this view, having seen, at grass roots level, the effect that SATs pressure can have on some parents and children. I know that some 11 year olds are pressurised by ambitious parents into long hours of SATs revision - sometimes for periods of time that would do credit to undergraduates facing their Finals. I have seen young children in tears because they have not got the results they (and their parents) wanted. It has been known even for some children to be threatened with violence, should they not get high grades in their SATs. These tests, in a nutshell, should be abolished completely. They prove nothing of any value; they encourage "teaching to the test", not education; after SATS, year 6 children are as keen on coming to school as GCSE and "A" level students are after their exams (i.e. not at all) - except that the older pupils go on "study leave". Nor are SATs of much value to secondary schools, who implement their own ability tests in Year 7, making SATs results irrelevant.
Mr Gibb (or should it be "Glib"?) seizes upon the fact that many children cannot read and write as well as he would seem to expect. It may be true, but there is nothing new about this. If we look back to 1945 and beyond, we see that there has ALWAYS been a problem with general literacy, and Mr Glib deserves no credit for discovering something well known already. The real reason for this problem lies not in teaching methods, but in attitudes of wide sections of the population towards education - in particular, the hostile attitude of many in the white working class - the lowest attaining educational grouping. In my opinion, those negative attitudes need to be tackled root and branch, rather than making a few cosmetic changes in order to score political points over rival parties.
"Schools Minister Nick Gibb welcomed the rise in results, especially in writing but he said a third of children were still struggling in the three Rs."
He said: "There has been a decline in the proportion of children - both boys and girls - who can read and write beyond the expected level. And the results of our weakest readers and writers also remain a real concern."
The "results" he is talking about are, of course, SATs results. These have been subject (no pun intended) to withering criticism for years by the leaders of the teacher unions and various educationalists. I totally endorse this view, having seen, at grass roots level, the effect that SATs pressure can have on some parents and children. I know that some 11 year olds are pressurised by ambitious parents into long hours of SATs revision - sometimes for periods of time that would do credit to undergraduates facing their Finals. I have seen young children in tears because they have not got the results they (and their parents) wanted. It has been known even for some children to be threatened with violence, should they not get high grades in their SATs. These tests, in a nutshell, should be abolished completely. They prove nothing of any value; they encourage "teaching to the test", not education; after SATS, year 6 children are as keen on coming to school as GCSE and "A" level students are after their exams (i.e. not at all) - except that the older pupils go on "study leave". Nor are SATs of much value to secondary schools, who implement their own ability tests in Year 7, making SATs results irrelevant.
Mr Gibb (or should it be "Glib"?) seizes upon the fact that many children cannot read and write as well as he would seem to expect. It may be true, but there is nothing new about this. If we look back to 1945 and beyond, we see that there has ALWAYS been a problem with general literacy, and Mr Glib deserves no credit for discovering something well known already. The real reason for this problem lies not in teaching methods, but in attitudes of wide sections of the population towards education - in particular, the hostile attitude of many in the white working class - the lowest attaining educational grouping. In my opinion, those negative attitudes need to be tackled root and branch, rather than making a few cosmetic changes in order to score political points over rival parties.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
