House of Lords reform – a con trick

As most people will know, the Coalition Government has proposed the House of Lords Reform Bill 2012. Ministers are trying to bludgeon this bill through with comments such as:

• We’ve been arguing about this for 100 years – let’s just do it.
• This is just a Westminster issue; ordinary voters are more concerned about jobs, education, health and their declining living standards.
• The Opposition supported House of Lords reform in their manifesto, so opposing this bill is just political posturing. Let’s just get it done and dusted.

All these arguments are over-simplistic. The reason why it has taken 100 years is that there is no agreement on what should replace the Lords. Some politicians want a wholly appointed chamber (which was Tony Blair's preference), some want a mixture (with no agreement on the ratio of appointed to elected), and a few want it fully elected. Just saying, “let’s get it done”, ignores this fact. A rush to get reform through should not mean that we should be prepared to accept something that is scarcely better than the present system. “Get it through quickly before they can think about it!” is the motive here.

The suggestion that most people are not much interested because of other concerns is patronising. Obviously on a day-to-day basis, people are worried about practical matters, but that doesn’t mean that the way our country is governed is of no interest to them. If that view were generally correct, hardly anyone would vote; in fact, most voters take part in general elections. The White Queen in “Alice Through The Looking Glass” asserted “nobody can do two things at once, you know”, but in the real world, where politicians and the White Queen do not live, it is possible to hold views about more than one thing at a time.

So why do they keep saying that? Because they want us to believe this is simply a bit of constitutional tidying up that is long overdue and we needn’t worry our pretty little heads about it. Are they right? I think not.

So what is wrong with their proposals?

1. The size of constituencies: these will be enormous, region-wide in size, thus eliminating any meaningful link between a candidate and the people s/he is supposed to represent. 
2. Lists: you will vote for a party, not an individual. You will have no say who the successful candidate is; s/he will come from the lists decided by parliamentary whips in consultation with party leaders. Individuals will be able to stand as independents, in which case you can vote for them, but with the enormous constituencies, your chances of knowing much about them are very slim. 
3. One fifteen year election term: they say this is to ensure continuity in the chamber, although there is no logical reason why continuity cannot be maintained by an elected Lord getting re-elected, except then s/he would then have to satisfy the voters who put him or her there in the first place. And therein lies the rub: they will not be accountable to their electorate, because they will never be seeking re-election, which means they can do what they like. An election without accountability does not constitute democracy. It is, at best, elective oligarchy. 
4. Public disengagement: a system that gives you a vote once every 15 years for a remote candidate who can then ignore your wishes is not likely to engage the electorate in the political system. We have enough trouble with public disenchantment with politics as it is; this will do nothing to change that, except perhaps for the worse. 

Okay, it’s not perfect, but it’s an improvement on what we’ve got now, isn’t it? No, not much. We will be in the position that the whips, in consultation with their party leaders, will decide who goes on the lists. You can be certain that a lot of retiring MPs will be jockeying for position, and the promise of a place on the list will probably be conditional on behaving. It will be another bribe to keep otherwise unruly backbenchers in line, not good for democracy in the Commons - rather like now, come to think of it. This means that most elected Lords will be party nominees, just like they are under the present system of honours. They will not be accountable to the voters, because they’ll never have to face re-election – just like the present system. Their link with the electorate will be extremely remote – little better than the present system.

So what is different? They will be there for 15 years, instead of for life – that is the biggest difference, and it’s not that great really. It will still be a nice little job creation scheme for ex-MPs, one that, as now, we have no control over; instead the parties in the Commons will control the intake. No matter how you vote, nearly all of the elected Lords will come from party lists: unless you vote for an independent, you will have no say who the successful candidate is.  You will of course have no say whatsoever in the one fifth of the chamber who will be appointed, not elected, nor the 12 bishops, nor the eight ministerial members appointed by the government so that they can put people who aren’t MPs into the Cabinet, as they do now with life peerages - where's the democracy there?

Why are they doing this? Basically, it’s control freakery, which I believe is proved by the argument that a fully elected Lords would challenge the supremacy of the Commons. This is rubbish. The Parliament Acts will still be in place and the powers of the new chamber will be the same as the old Lords; they can only delay Bills, and the Commons would still be supreme on financial matters. Changing how we put people there will not affect these limitations on the Lords’ powers in the slightest. Many other countries manage with two elected chambers; so would we, although it might take a period of adjustment. But raising the false spectre of a constitutional clash is designed to stifle demands for a more genuinely democratic upper chamber.

It’s no more than a big con trick, designed to maintain the present system while coating it with a veneer of fake democracy. The problem is that if this is passed, we will be stuck with it for at least another 100 years as party leaders use the charade of democracy to maintain their political patronage into the foreseeable future. The recent defeat in the Commons means that it cannot now be rushed through; this should give more time for reflection and scrutiny as to the real implications of this Bill. Let's hope that time isn't wasted.

Andrew Marr and the Titanic

HOME OF CAPTAIN E. J. SMITH, WATERLOO, MERSEYSIDE - THANKS TO PHIL SCOTT FOR PERMISSION TO USE THIS PHOTOGRAPH.

Now that I have finally recovered from the coverage of the Titanic disaster which was all over our media a couple of weeks ago, I think it time for a personal assessment. For myself, I found a good many of the programmes and articles which appeared to be of great interest. However, after a few days of it, I began to get a little tired of the whole thing. At the finish of the commemorations, I could not even bring myself to watch James Cameron's film on TV. Andrew Marr, on his Sunday morning programme, commented that he hoped the dead of the Titanic (including, presumably, the survivors of the disaster, who are also now dead) would be allowed to rest in peace.
  I have to admit, he had a point. Besides the over-exposure of the 100th anniversary, there are one or two questions that never get asked. Why, for instance, do we pay so much attention to the Titanic disaster, in which 1,523 people died and not to the world's worst maritime disaster - the torpedoing of the Wilhelm Gustloff in 1945, with the loss of 9,500 lives? Nor was the Titanic's sinking the worst British catastrophe at sea. The troopship Lancastria sank on the 17th June, 1940, with the loss of at least 4000 lives (some say that figure is too low). Also - why do the names of some (not all) of the poor souls who perished in the Titanic disaster live on in our memories, and yet others who died in similar events remain anonymous? I myself know the names of quite a number of people who died on the Titanic in 1912, as well as some survivors. However, I do not know the names of any of the 32 people who perished on the Costa Concordia on 13 January 2012, and don't suppose I ever will.
So why is this? I think it has happened - at least partly - because of a nostalgic image of Anglo-American Edwardian society. TV programme makers regularly present pre-WW1 Britain as a golden age, the passing of which is symbolised by the wreck of the great ship Titanic. This rose-coloured spectacle has a wide appeal, shown in the success of series such as "Upstairs Downstairs" and "Downton Abbey". Even "Dr Who" has featured an episode about the Titanic.
Anyone who has studied the period, however, will know that the Edwardian Era was no golden age. There was widespread industrial unrest and dire poverty in urban areas all over Britain. The women's suffrage movement was agitating violently for the right of women to vote. In Ireland, a massive conflict was brewing with Ulster Protestants mobilising against Home Rule for Ireland (with the active support of leading Conservative politicians), and independence movements in the Empire beginning to become active. Some people even maintain that a revolution would have happened in Britain, had WW1 not broken out.
 So, perhaps we need a re-assessment of the Titanic tragedy. Should we not stress the fact that it was all completely preventable? Had Captain E. J. Smith, whose house is pictured above, halted the Titanic when he learned of the presence of icebergs in the Atlantic, it is very unlikely that the ship would have sunk. And of course, had there been enough lifeboats, most passengers and crew - perhaps all - would have been saved.
  On the positive side, should we not honour the forgotten heroes of the disaster? I am referring here to the men who did not rush the lifeboats, or the men and women who manned the lifeboats so gamely. One individual who deserves credit is Captain Arthur Rostron, skipper of the Carpathia, who sped to the aid of the survivors. No mention was made of the fact that the USA thought enough of Captain Rostron to award him a Congressional Gold Medal. All the Titanic survivors praised the crew and passengers on the Carpathia.
 Lastly, I was saddened to see that very little mention was made of the Titanic's crew below decks, who worked to the last minute to keep the generators working to power the doomed ship's lights, and to pump out as much water as they could, in order to keep the ship afloat as long as possible. Very few of those brave men survived.
Or, as Andrew Marr has suggested, is it time to forget?

Ten Facts About George Galloway

Now, of course, there are more than ten facts about George Galloway M.P. (as of March 29th) that could be listed here. I could, for instance, tell you his mother's maiden name (can't find it) or his favourite London restaurant (certain to serve halal cuisine). These facts, of course, are mere trivia. Not only that, Mr Galloway reacts angrily to inaccurate information about himself - he once sued the Daily Telegraph and has sued others for libel. So, the facts listed below are all accurate, and in the public domain. Having said that, of course, Mr Galloway will say that there's another side to the story, and he's being misrepresented. Here goes:
1. Mr Galloway publicly praised Sadaam Hussain before the dictator's demise.
"Sir, I salute your courage, your strength, your indefatigability, and I want you to know that we are with you, hatta al-nasr, hatta al-nasr, hatta al-Quds [until victory, until victory, until Jerusalem]".
2. In defence of the Chinese government, he is on record as saying that the horrific Tiananmen Square Massacre never took place. Please see this link.
3.He has denied that gays and lesbians are persecuted in Iran, despite an abundance of evidence to show that it is happening. Please see him on this subject.
4.He is a presenter on Press TV, the propaganda outlet for the tyranny that rules Iran.
5. Hezbollah, according to George Galloway, is not a terrorist organisation. As Hezbollah is trained and financed by Iran, one wonders if that has influenced his viewpoint.
6. He was expelled from the Labour Party in 2003 for violating the party constitution. Please read this article from the Guardian.
7.For a supposed left-wing firebrand, he seems reluctant to join the working class. As he once told "The Scotsman" : "I couldn't live on three workers' wages"
8. He voted against the lowering of the homosexual age of consent. To be fair, it would not have gone down well with Press TV if he had voted for it.
9. Because of his support for Hamas, he was banned from entering Canada in 2009.
10. He presents a radio programme on TalkSPORT. I have only listened to this programme once. On that occasion, George read letter after letter from his admirers. Other people might like that sort of thing, but it's not for me.
Mr Galloway recently married again for the fourth time (although his third wife claims they are still married). I wish the bride and groom every happiness. I wonder, though: did they spend their honeymoon in China or Iran?

The Far Right and a "Big Question" Unanswered

Yesterday, I watched the latest edition of the BBC religious affairs programme, "The Big Questions". For those who have never seen this programme, it is a discussion forum, hosted by Nicky Campbell, where some highly sensitive issues are debated, sometimes heatedly, by proponents of diverse points of view. Yesterday's programme, which you can watch by clicking on the link, featured a topic in which I have more than a passing interest: "Is Britain complacent about the far right?". If I had seriously hoped for an answer to that big (and perhaps unanswerable) question, I was disappointed.
What happened instead was a protracted, and sometimes highly acrimonious, discussion about the activities of the English Defence League (EDL) and their anti-Islamist views. The EDL leader, Tommy Robinson (aka Stephen Yaxley Lennon), exchanged "pleasantries" with Muslims and anti-fascist academics. I do not intend to go over the content of the debate - those interested can watch the programme via the link given above - but I have to say that the original question under discussion was not answered. I admit that the programme showed that Britain does not appear to be complacent about the EDL, but this is not as significant as might be thought.
While I do not agree with the anti-Islamic "views" of the EDL, I must point out that the EDL does not fit the traditional profile of far-right parties. The EDL declares this, of course, but a comparison is useful here. Firstly, the EDL does not embrace national socialist ideology. Tommy Robinson has publicly burned a Nazi flag; EDL members fly Israeli flags on their marches; the EDL boasts of having Jewish, black, Hindu and Sikh members; Robinson himself has been involved in fistfights with Combat 18, and says that he receives more death threats from neo-nazis than from Jihadis (see the programme).
I know that this is not the whole story, and does not excuse the EDL's attempts to stir up community strife. I also know that there ARE neo-nazis in the EDL membership, who are watching for their chance to hijack the organisation. But the very fact that they are not a neo-nazi grouping makes for a different debate. For example, during yesterday's programme, one Muslim spokesperson invited Tommy Robinson to have dinner with his family - and Robinson accepted! That would not have happened with John Tyndall, Martin Webster or Colin Jordan.
Which brings me to my main point - by focussing upon the EDL, the programme missed the fact that there is a  threat from the far right about which Britain is complacent. While the violent neo-nazi groups in this country are small and marginalised (though nonetheless vicious), it is a different story in Europe. The Front Nationale in France is growing in popularity, following the Toulouse murders. Racist murder is increasingly common in Russia, and the far right is increasingly aggressive in both Italy and Germany. None of this was discussed yesterday. Because of this, my answer to the question "Is Britain complacent about the far right?" is a firm "Yes". We ignored the rise of Fascism in the 1930s, and we paid dearly enough for that.

OFSTED and the Lowering of Teacher Morale

It cannot have gone unnoticed that I am not exactly a fan of OFSTED - the government's schools inspection body. This is because I believe that its raison d'etre is primarily to stay in existence, rather than promote higher standards of education. Speaking as someone who has been on the receiving end of OFSTED's attention over many years before retirement, it's good to have the chance to turn the tables - and I know that many of my friends and colleagues, still serving, support me in this.
Well, OFSTED has made yet another sensational (not to mention scandalous) discovery. It seems that the UK is slipping in the international league tables in standards of Literacy. A full account of this can be read HERE.. This outrageous matter has been found out, by pure coincidence, shortly after the appointment of the new OFSTED supremo, Sir Michael Wilshaw. Sir Michael has impressed the government by his ability to walk around a playground, telling pupils off and stopping them from hugging each other. Having such unique talents,he is clearly the man needed as Chief Inspector for Schools.
All well and good, but I have to point out the question that no-one ever asks: if Literacy standards are so bad in our schools, why has OFSTED not noticed before? Even by OFSTED's own data, the slippage has been underway since 2009. Why has the watchdog not been watching? And who, if anyone, has been watching the watchdog?
What really concerns me is something more pressing than statistics, which are always questionable anyway. I am bothered about the effect that all these "discoveries" are having upon the morale of ordinary classroom teachers, who, despite what you might read in the Daily Mail, are overwhelmingly hard working, caring people. I know that they will be dismayed by yet another attack upon them and their status in the eyes of the public. If you are told repeatedly that you are not doing a good job, then you can get to believe it. As I have pointed out in previous posts, OFSTED pressure has already led to teacher suicides. This latest issue, timed suspiciously shortly after the appointment of Sir Michael, will not help.
I would like to see the teacher unions asking one post-budget question: why have there been no cuts in the OFSTED budget? Less pressure from this self-serving body can only result in happier teachers, more settled schools, and an improved education service for all.

Gay Weddings and the Church

In case you missed it, there has been a controversy lately, concerning gay marriage. The Roman Catholic Church has spoken out against it, in the face of the government's declared intent to legalise same sex unions, and is clearly out to resist this move. Two leading Catholic prelates have issued a letter to be read in churches, in which they say:
"The roots of the institution of marriage lie in our nature. Male and female we have been created, and written into our nature is this pattern of complementarity and fertility. This pattern is, of course, affirmed by many other religious traditions. Christian teaching fills out this pattern and reveals its deepest meaning, but neither the Church nor the State has the power to change this fundamental understanding of marriage itself."
As might be expected, this has upset a lot of people outside and within the Roman Catholic Church. Equalities minister Lynne Featherstone has said that the government is entitled to introduce same-sex marriages as a "change for the better".  She has also said that the church does not own marriage (it seems she was misquoting the Archbishop of Canterbury). Other outraged groups include the gay charity, Stonewall, and the organisation for gay catholics,Quest.
I have no intention of repeating the arguments and events of this matter, but, out of a wish to be fair to both sides, I would like to join the debate with a few observations of my own.
First, I would like to point out that the three great monotheistic religions are not, and have never been, tolerant of homosexuality. "Everybody knows this" (or do we?), but a few quotes are worth repeating. From the Old Testament, we get:
" If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them." (Leviticus, ch20, v13).
And then, from the New Testament:
"For this reason [idolatry] God gave them up to passions of dishonor; for even their females exchanged the natural use for that which is contrary to nature, and likewise also the males, having left the natural use of the female, were inflamed by their lust for one another, males with males, committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the recompense which was fitting for their error." (Romans 1, v26-7).
Finally, the Koran:
Qur'an (4:16) - "If two men among you are guilty of lewdness, punish them both. If they repent and amend, Leave them alone".
So, for Jews, Christians and Muslims, it's really not a good idea to be gay. And for hundreds of years, these three monotheisms have been rather unkind to homosexuals of both sexes.
However, I have to say that we cannot dismiss the objections of the churches (principally the Catholics, admittedly) as simple bigotry and homophobia. When the Archbishops express their opposition to gay marriage, they are correct in their intrepretation of Christian doctrine. We may not agree with what they say, but we cannot condemn them simply for holding different views from the rest of society. As John Stuart Mill said:
"If all mankind minus one were of one opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind."
In conclusion, I would like to ask a question. Since the three monotheistic religions are hostile, from first principles, to homosexuality, why do so many gay people even want to be practising Jews, Christians or Muslims? It would be better for gay people to celebrate their unions without concerning themselves about ecclesiastical approval. The opinions of senior prelates can safely be ignored - especially when so many of us - straight and gay - do not belong to the Roman Catholic Church anyway. As for gay catholics, I wish them well with their struggle to liberalise their church. They are the people best placed to challenge the prevailing theological viewpoint of the RC Church on this issue, and they will be the people who change it.

 

Supply Teaching, Privatisation and Cheap Labour

In view of the recent proposals by some local authorities to privatise the police, I thought it a good time to describe my own current experience in a privatised sector of education - supply teaching.
I retired from full time teaching in July, and, like many other retired teachers, set out to supplement my pension by doing supply work. Now, as it happens, I was a supply teacher twelve years ago, before I took up my last permanent post. At that time, in 2000, I was working as a local education authority (LEA) supply teacher, and received, after stoppages, about £110 a day. Now, after stoppages, I receive just £70 a day. By my reckoning, this amounts to a 44% drop in take-home wages over 12 years.
This is happening for two reasons. One is that I am still paying 40% income tax on my earnings, as I was when I was teaching full time. After April, I shall be on a lower tax band. Nevertheless, what I receive then will still be substantially less than my earnings back in 2000.
Lest I be accused of self-pity, let me say that I am well aware that there are many people worse off than I am. My heart goes out to my colleagues who have worked supply for years and seen their living standards drop - and their work dry up because of the cuts. I also know that there are hundreds of thousands of unemployed people who would happily take any job that paid them £70 a day. But this is not the point I wish to make.

Supply teacher pay has dropped because of one main reason - privatisation. Over the past decade, the supply teaching sector has been taken over by Supply agencies, who run their businesses for a profit. They make their profits by taking a cut from the daily pay of every employed supply teacher. That is why supply pay has fallen so much since 2000. The agencies compete with each other by offering their staff to schools at different daily rates of pay. As schools manage their own budgets, they tend to hire the cheapest supply teachers possible, which, in turn, adversely affects supply teachers' pay and conditions. Probably the worst off supply teachers are those who take on long-term supply posts in schools. This means they have the same workload as a permanent teacher, but with less pay and inferior working conditions (such as no sick pay). This can only be described as "cheap labour", and is only of benefit to younger teachers who are seeking permanent posts. Oh, and of course, the benefits it brings in supply agency profits and a reduced wage bill for schools.
So - what can we all learn from this? Well, it's pretty clear that privatisation does not work in favour of the workforce - any workforce. And that, I admit, is an understatement. Public sector workers, who are facing a third year of a pay freeze, would do well to be vigilant about their terms and conditions. This government of ours, with its strong monetarist leanings, is obviously out to attack all state services and their employees and replace them with private companies, underpaid labour and insecure working conditions. As I hope I have shown, the writing is on the wall.

Abu Qatada and the Intelligence Men

I can't say that I find Abu Qatada likeable. If half of what is said about him is true, he is a really nasty piece of work. Yet, in spite of the fact that he has had reported links with terrorist groups and has, allegedly, encouraged the killing of wives and children of Egyptian police officers, we are to continue to have him living among us. Besides which, he entered the UK on a forged UAE passport in 1993, which surely, even then, rendered him liable to imprisonment and deportation? Instead, he claimed asylum and was granted permission to stay until June 1998. During that time, he worked to support Egyptian Islamic Jihad (who murdered western tourists in Egypt) and the Algerian GIA (who murdered as many people as possible). In March 1995, Qatada issued a fatwa justifying the killing of the wives and children of "apostates" (i.e. Muslim men who abandoned their faith). In 2002 he issued a 10-page booklet as an apologia for the 9/11 attacks. He is wanted in eight countries, including the USA and Jordan. And, as we know, his conviction "in absentia" for inciting bomb attacks in Jordan is the reason why he cannot be deported. It seems that he might be tortured there, and his alleged co-conspirators are supposed to have been tortured to incriminate him.
Now, just about every section of opinion in the UK finds this outrageous, and the government are under severe pressure to act decisively in some way. Still, we are told that Qatada will only be on bail and will be strictly monitored. Not that this brings much relief to the general public.
But there is one section of UK society who might be relieved that Qatada has escaped deportation - the UK intelligence community. According to Mark Curtis, from whose excellent book, "Secret Affairs",I draw much of the information given here, MI5 tried, from 1993 onwards, to use Qatada as a double agent to inform on Islamic militants in Britain. Curtis writes:
"Qatada's lawyers have said that he was monitored by the security services from the mid-90s and that "his actions had a large degree of tacit approval".
Mi5 certainly said, in 1997, that Qatada was not even a Jihadist (!), despite all evidence to the contrary. Besides this, they were warned by an Algerian agent that Qatada was raising money for terror groups overseas, yet did not act. Qatada himself has said that MI5 offered him passage out the UK in 2002, but he did not accept the offer. He is supposed to have "mysteriously" disappeared from public view in 2002, yet a Guantanamo bay detainee (also an MI5 informer) says that MI5 were hiding Qatada in a flat in Bermondsey, South London.
All told, it looks as if our intelligence community has a "hot potato" in Abu Qatada. If he is deported, he will undoubtedly tell his version of how MI5 tried to use him as an agent - although it looks as if he was using them.

OFSTED and Disaster Capitalism

The recent announcement by the new head of OFSTED, Sir Michael Wishaw, whereby he wishes to change the "satisfactory" category of school and lesson performance descriptors to "requires improvement" - SEE HERE- while apparently showing concern for improvement in overall educational standards, is actually the thin end of a very thick wedge. Other measures are the recent announcements by Michael Gove that he is speeding up the process of dismissing so-called incompetent teachers and today's announcement that he wants to see greater sponsorship of schools by private firms. Barclays Bank have announced an interest in this today.
All this is intended to give the public the impression that this government is dealing effectively with the "problem" of education. There is a popular misconception, carefully fostered in the right-wing press (The "Daily Mail" is an obvious example) that schools are full of lazy, incompetent teachers who have been getting away with it for many years. It really should be asked - if this be the case, why has OFSTED not noticed it before, as they have been in existence for the better part of two decades? Could it be that OFSTED inspectors are lazy and incompetent? Surely not!
If there are so many incompetent teachers, how did they become teachers in the first place, I wonder? Contrary to what might be thought, it is not that easy to qualify as a teacher, and student teachers DO get failed. I have seen this happen a number of times in my career. Besides which, if it is so easy to be lazy and incompetent and still pass your teaching course - why is there such a high drop-out rate? Or should OFSTED be inspecting teacher training establishments more strictly? Ah, the beat goes on...
The plain fact is - despite denials - that the new measures to be applied to teachers will make it easier for Heads to get rid of staff that they do not want. The most obvious category of teachers to feel the lash will be older teachers of (about) 45+. As one Head observed to me: "Older members of staff take more time off than younger members" - and he is not alone in thinking this. Besides this, Heads, Deputies and Senior teachers are not immune to bringing their personal likes and dislikes to lesson observations and, as the old saying goes: "Ill will never said well". It is only too easy for ill-disposed lesson observers to downgrade an observed teacher - and, although I have to be discreet, I know that this happens. It is not unknown for Heads and senior teachers to pressurise staff in other ways also - I have even been told of a Head who gave a male teacher a class in which there was a child with a history of making allegations against men! The new rule, whereby a Head can walk in on lessons as many times as he or she wishes - unannounced - is a ready made tool for harassment.
As for the change from "Satisfactory" to "Requires Improvement", this is all a matter of semantics. After all -does not a "Good" teacher require improvement?And who gave OFSTED the right to change the meanings of words? I have actually heard an OFSTED speaker describe "Good" as the new "Satisfactory" - very enlightening!

If all this is intended to improve education, then the general public needs to know that this government has some strange ways of going about it. For instance, a head now has the power to put any person deemed suitable in front of a class. Cuts in school budgets have meant that schools avoid employing supply teachers as much as they can. Instead, Heads can put Teaching Assistants or anyone with Police clearance, such as volunteer parent helpers, in charge of a class. One West London secondary school head has been known to use school security staff - ex bouncers - to cover lessons in place of absent staff. Academy Schools have the right to employ staff who have no teaching qualifications whatsoever. And this - allowing children to be taught by unqualified staff - is supposed to be an improvement.
So - what's really going on? Well, the unions are right, in my view, when they say that this government wants to destroy state education. Hence the link  with "Disaster Capitalism". "The Shock Doctrine", by Naomi Klein, outlines this theory. In a nutshell, it states that monetarist economists (such as the late Milton Friedman), exploit disasters such as wars, famine, etc, to implement their desire to cut back on the public sector and let the market take over all the former state functions.
It hardly needs to be pointed out that this bears a close resemblance to the education policies of the present government. In fact, Michael Gove is said to be an admirer of Mrs Thatcher, who, in turn, was a great admirer of monetarism. By attacking the state sector financially, and making the lot of the average state teacher more insecure and onerous, the government is exploiting the present economic crisis. The aim, as Union leaders have spelt out, is to "encourage" more schools to seek academy status, and thus money from firms such as Barclays. The monetarists in the government will have their way, making education" less of a burden" on the taxpayer - and hard luck for anyone who suffers because of this.
Surprisingly, there is no mention of making cuts in OFSTED. Schools, hospitals, day care centres,police,public libraries and recreational facilities suffer cuts and closure, but OFSTED carries on without penalty.
Isn't it time we asked why?

2011 - No Need to Say Goodbye?

Well, it doesn't take much to show why we should be glad to see the back of 2011. We know it all already: the godawful financial situation which has devastated our economies, the Euro crisis, the summer riots, the cuts in public spending and the upward creep of the unemployment figures.Anyone who has followed this blog through the past year will see that there has been ample comment on all these issues, by myself and others.Summing it all up has challenged experienced media pundits. For me, perhaps the best summation of 2011 comes in this phrase I found in a Latin phrase dictionary:
"Forsan et haec olim meminisse iuvabit"
I won't translate that, as Google does a better job. However, I truly believe that there were signs of hope in all the last year's deluge of misfortunes. There was the marvellous "Arab Spring" in Tunisia and Egypt and, albeit with NATO help, the end of "The Mad Colonel" in Libya. During, and after, the dark days of the summer riots, ordinary people stood up against the tide of criminality: the Kurdish Community of east London who rallied to defend their businesses; the Sikh community of Southall, who mobilised to defend their Gurudwaras and neighbourhoods (no rioters came anywhere near), and the "clean-up" army of citizens who turned out to clean up their riot-hit neighbourhoods. There was also the great Trade Union march against the public spending cuts back in the spring. I took part in it, and sensed how powerful the people united can be. "dum vita est spes est" ( I won't translate that either).
So, for my New Year's message (Let all take notice!), I'd like to wish everyone what I wished for you last year, which is a massive slice of good luck. We needed it a year ago, and we need it now. And let's not forget that, while we may be weak separately, who knows what we can achieve if we act together - "viribus unitis"?
BTW - My New year's resolution is to put my Latin phrase dictionary back on the shelf. "Consummatum est!"

Santa Claus and Animal Cruelty

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!

More Scottish Nationalist confusion

Strikers marching down
the Royal Mile in Edinburgh

One of Britain's most muddled political parties, the Scottish Nationalists, are giving out mixed messages again:  they say that after independence, they want to form closer links with Scandinavia - there is a report in the Independent here.  This is despite their long-standing policy to retain both the monarchy and the pound.  Either you go for full-blown independence from the rest of the UK, sever all constitutional and monetary links and create partnerships and alliances elsewhere, or you go for the half-way house favoured by the SNP.  The problem with the latter is you'll  be seen as a semi-detached part of the UK and therefore lack the credibility and clout to create much of a mark on the international scene.  There are, of course, other countries which have kept the British monarchy, but they are completely independent in all other respects, including their currencies and economies.

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.

I shall write another post shortly on the SNP's confused approach to alcohol control.