Thursday 19 March 2015

Gove and "compassionate conservatism"

 Ian Birrell, writing in the Guardian,might well think that Gove`s "bold and much-needed attempt to reclaim compassionate conservatism" is part of a debate "the electorate deserves to hear", but many will view it rather differently.(Gove is right: the Tories do need to detoxify the brand,14/03/15) The ambitious chief whip clearly still has designs on promotion, if not leadership, in the near future, and with a speech about Tories being "warriors of the dispossessed", he was simply cashing in on many Tory MPs` dissatisfaction with the negativity of the "competence not chaos" campaign. Gove even spouted forth nonsense about them having to fight for "social justice" and mobility, when the government which Tories dominated had, within weeks of being in office, reduced income tax for the rich, and ended the Education Maintenance Allowance, which helped poorer students stay on in sixth forms! 
      So close to the election, what the electorate "deserves to hear" is some truth about Britain under the rule of another predominantly Tory government, about what reducing government spending to levels last seen in the 1930s will mean, and about the effects of both future privatisation of the NHS, and of more cuts to the efficiency of the social services. Such "truths" explain Cameron`s reluctance to debate on live television, when all the details will be ensconced in the Tory manifesto.
       The last five years have clearly demonstrated that there is no such thing as "compassionate conservatism", but when has any empirical evidence ever influenced Tory politicians? None of Gove`s assessment and curriculum policies, during his whole tenure at the DfE, were based on hard facts; evidently, nothing has changed!   

Tuesday 17 March 2015

Greece and the war

 Whilst it is true that Greece has to realise it cannot live beyond its means, it is difficult not to sympathise with its leaders for having to resort to "mentioning the war", and claiming multibillion-euro reparations for first and second world war atrocities. Germans may well think the demands "impertinent" especially for attacking Germany "where it is most vulnerable", but isn`t that exactly what is happening to the Greeks? Austerity has been imposed on them, any benefits from quantitative easing denied to them, and with interest rates for their debts clearly too high, further unemployment and poverty appear inevitable. Is Tsipras`s request for reparations really that unreasonable?
     The concept of compensation for war damages is emotively charged, because of its role in the rise of Nazism. This surely overestimates the role played by the demand for £6,600m in reparations, when it was actually only part of the Versailles treaty`s punishment of Germany in 1919, with the other sections, relating to huge land and population loss, disarmament, and  Article 231, the hated "war-guilt clause", having arguably more impact on the German people`s mind-set. Had the Allies insisted on nothing more than the repayments, things could well have turned out differently.
      Furthermore, Greece is in a Catch-22 situation, for there is little chance of the EU agreeing to austerity being eased while Syriza is running the country, because it would set a precedent, and electorates all over Europe would quickly get the message. That should not prevent, however, a British government from being more supportive to an old ally, especially bearing in mind Churchill`s shameful decision to turn on Greek partisans who had fought so bravely on our side, which led to the death of 28 of them, and 100s being injured, on 3 December,1944; the plan to return the Greek king to power meant arming those who had previously been supporters of Hitler!!  In the light of this, perhaps now would be an appropriate time for the Parthenon marbles to be returned to their rightful owners, especially given the huge boost the Greek tourist industry would thereby receive?

       Is it not understandable that the Greeks should resort to "increasingly desperate measures" when their future looks so grim? It`s hard to blame them for looking back, and shameful that no European poitician dares to offer them one iota of support.

Monday 16 March 2015

Last chance for Labour to win the teachers` vote

Whilst most people with any  leanings towards fairness and justice want to see an end to this Tory-dominated coalition as quickly as possible, a Labour victory in the May election still cannot be taken for granted. One would think Tory interference in education, with Gove`s totally unnecessary assessment reforms, forced academisation of schools, and repeated criticism of teachers, would have guaranteed Labour gaining the support of all those associated with state education, but, sadly, this is not the case. Even when the Tories make absurd claims about the success of their reforms, the response from Labour appears weak and confused.
    Take free schools, for instance, with the Tories , not content to have spent millions of taxpayers` money on  such vanity projects, now planning to build many more. It would be expecting too much for them to base their policies on empirical evidence, given Gove`s examination reforms, but even the report by Tory think-tank, Policy Exchange, on which their "500 more free schools" announcement is founded, admits its limitations. The fact that the report confesses its own "data cannot demonstrate conclusively" that any improvements in state schools have anything to do with being near a free school, beggars belief; they should have added, "despite what the prime minister will say"!
     But, despite their intention to "scrap" the free school scheme, Labour failed to capitalise on this Tory nonsense by alienating teachers on another front. How many experienced  teachers in the public sector were consulted  before Tristram`s latest policy initiative? Of course, the country needs to "make the most of the talents of all our young people", as the shadow education secretary said, but how can that be achieved by identifying only a small proportion, the so-called "gifted and talented", and giving them special treatment? The huge majority of teachers know that all children have talents and deserve an educational system which will stretch them to the limit, and that designating some as worthy of a more expensive education than others, is clearly unfair. It  a should not be featuring in an education policy of any political party, let alone Labour`s! Whatever happened to the idea of equality of opportunity?
     Unfortunately, Tristram appears to have the knack of demonstrating his ignorance of state schools at a time when one would assume the teachers` vote was Labour`s for the taking. Does he and his advisers really think that support will be gained by harping on about  "character education", based on the mistaken premise that pupils in state schools today lack sufficient "character and resilience". Hunt  frequently has remarked on the alleged difference in this respect between the state and privately educated, but is this not an example of merely carrying on where Gove left off, making huge generalisations about education without the empirical evidence to substantiate them?
        Naturally, the DfE has joined the debate, and their definition of “character” includes everything from "perseverance, drive, and grit" to "honesty and dignity", but how can they even begin to think that all of these characteristics, and more, do not abound in state schools? As for resilence, state pupils constantly display the ability to recover from setbacks. How often have they had to bounce back in the face of assessment "goalposts" being frequently moved, and their excellent examination results being criticised and challenged by politicians from all parties, not to mention the personal economic and social problems many face? Then there`s the Education Maintenance Allowance being removed, 6th form courses being dropped because of lack of government funding, university fees being hiked, and the ever-present preference shown by the so-called top universities for students from the private sector, despite recent research showing how state-educated undergraduates do better at university than students educated at the so-called "schools of character", with similar A-level grades.
     Of course, the "enrichment activities that help cultivate well-rounded young people" are under threat in state schools, and perhaps it is here where Hunt`s attention needs to be focussed, rather than on England becoming in the DfE`s words, a "global leader of teaching character", with its inevitable criticism of teachers, albeit implicit this time.
 Teachers have, since Hunt`s promotion to the post, been faced with many of his proposals, ranging from the unfair, support for Performance Related Pay, to the ludicrous, the need for teachers to be re-licensed every five years or so, to the absurd, the teachers` oath.  Consequently, it is difficult to find any real educational reasons for teachers to vote for Labour; just as well there are so many for them not to vote Tory or Lib Dem!
     Nevertheless, an all-out campaign to woo all those involved in the state education sector, in the last few weeks before the election, can still prove electorally fruitful. Every opportunity should be taken to sympathise with  teachers for what they have had to endure in the last five years, and congratulate them for what they have achieved. Above all, promise them that things will improve under Labour, and that a Labour education secretary would meet with teacher union leaders on a regular basis, to discuss problems and find solutions – hardly rocket science!






Sunday 15 March 2015

1930s spending: more warnings needed


It`s probably not often that the Labour party receives a favour from the leader of the country`s chief constables. However, the dire warnings from Sir Hugh Orde about inadequate protection of the public from "criminals and the growing threat of homegrown terrorists" which would ensue with another five years of the Tories` "long-term economic plan", should rejuvenate its propaganda machine. The electorate, judging by the opinion polls, appear ignorant of the real implications of "public spending falling to just 35% of GDP", and Labour should not be relying on leaders in the front-line of the cuts to be doing their electioneering for them. Even when Ed Balls makes a speech on the subject, a luke-warm reception from the press is guaranteed, so one solution might be to plan an all-out assault by the party as a whole.
      How can the "grooming" epidemic be stopped, or the increased pressure on the NHS and education services be eased, when less experts are employed to do their jobs? Increasing NHS efficiency or social mobility are definitely not Tory targets. Reducing further the staff at HMRC and the Food Standards Agency inevitably will lead to no reduction to either the tax avoidance "industry", or the health risks caused by food contamination, whilst yet more cuts in the social care budget will intensify pressure at A and E departments. The list is endless, and the dangers cannot be emphasised too much; arguments against shrinking the state are not "bashing-business" as the likes of the CBI predictably suggest, but in favour of ensuring safety and fairness for all.
     What the Tories are promising is a government based on laissez-faire principles, where, with so little regulation, the gap between rich and poor continues to rise exponentially. Hopefully, the 15% of the media which is not committed to aiding a Tory election victory will play its role in warning voters of the consequences of another Tory-dominated government, and the real reasons why Cameron is unwilling to defend his policies in TV debates will be realised.

Saturday 14 March 2015

Guardian letters on free schools and "character teaching"

Increasingly, it becomes more difficult to react to news about education policies with anything but despair. It would be expecting too much of the Tories for them to base their policies on empirical evidence, given Gove`s examination reforms, but even the report by Tory think-tank, Policy Exchange, on which their "500 more free schools" announcement is founded, admits its limitations. (Cameron to pledge 500 more free schools despite statstical doubts,09/03/15) The fact that the report confesses its own "data cannot demonstrate conclusively" that any improvements in state schools have anything to do with being near a free school, beggars belief; they should have added, "despite what the prime minister will say"!
     Sadly, news from Labour on the education front fares little better, despite their intention to "scrap" the free school scheme Only last week we saw Tristram Hunt showing enthusiasm for another policy testifying, in Rafael Behr`s words, "to the power of nostalgia above evidence". (Policy by nostalgia just ain`t what it used to be,04/03/15) Of course, the country needs to "make the most of the talents of all our young people" but how can that be achieved by identifying only a small proportion, the so-called "gifted and talented", and giving them special treatment?

     All children have talents and deserve an educational system which will stretch them to the limit, but designating some as worthy of a more expensive education, is clearly unfair, and certainly should not be featuring in an education policy of any political party. Whatever happened to the idea of equality of opportunity?

Whilst not usually finding anything significant with which to disagree in a Fiona Millar column, her article on "character education" appeared to be based on the  mistaken premise that pupils in state schools today lack sufficient "character and resilience". (You can`t measure good character,10/03/15) Tristram Hunt  frequently has remarked on this alleged difference in this respect between the state and privately educated, but is this not an example of merely carrying on where Gove left off, making huge generalisations about education without the empirical evidence to substantiate them? Rafael Behr would, no doubt, refer to it as "the power of nostalgia above evidence". (Policy by nostalgia just ain`t what it used to be,04/03/15)
  Millar states that the DfE`s definition of character includes everything from "perseverance, drive, and grit" to "honesty and dignity", but, in my experience, all of these characteristics, and more, abounded in state schools. As for resilence, state pupils constantly display the ability to recover from setbacks. How often have they had to bounce back in the face of assessment "goalposts" being frequently moved, and their excellent examination results being crticised and challenged by politicians from all parties, not to mention the personal economic and social problems many face? Then there`s the Education Maintenance Allowance being removed, 6th form courses being dropped because of lack of government funding, university fees being hiked, and the ever-present preference shown by the so-called top universities for students from the private sector, despite recent research showing how state-educated undergraduates do better at university than students educated at the so-called "schools of character", with similar A-level grades.
     Of course, the "enrichment activities that help cultivate well-rounded young people" are under threat in state schools, and perhaps it is here where the DfE`s attention needs to be focussed, rather than on England becoming a "global leader of teaching character", with its inevitable criticism of teachers, albeit implicit this time.

Monday 9 March 2015

5 Reasons Cameron won`t do TV debates

5 reasons Cameron won`t do TV debates:
1. Unlike at PMQs, he will be forced to answer the questions, not just because he will not have his horde of baying fat cats behind him drowning out his non-answers, but because the others in the debate will have set an example he will be obliged to follow. The likes of Paxman would not tolerate answer-avoidance in the same way Speaker Bercow does.
2. He will be forced to attempt to justify his policies over the past five years, not just the callous ones like the bedroom tax and cuts in disability welfare, but also the obviously unfair ones, like tax cuts for the rich, cutting jobs at HMRC when supposedly determined to reduce tax avoidance, the gradual privatisation of the NHS, and the many, many more which hurt those least able to defend themselves.
3. He will be obliged to explain his post-election plans for the country, particularly his much vaunted "long-term economic plan", which entails taking government spending back to levels last seen, in this country, in the 1930s. Attempting to justify the need for smaller government when the country desperately needs the opposite, with more regulation to reduce the spiralling inequality, more security against internal threats, and more workers in health, social care, and education, is clearly not on the top of Cameron`s wish-list.
4. Miliband is obviously an opponent he does not relish facing, which explains the non-stop attacks he, his party, and his friends in business, the City, and the media, have been making on the Labour leader over the past year or so. Funny, really, when he is so accustomed to calling Miliband "useless" in a rowdy Commons, that he won`t risk humiliation in a one-to-one debate with him!
5.  TV debates stir up interest in politics, the contenders, and in the election itself, and this is not something Cameron is keen to do. The more interest, the bigger the turnout, but the Tory leader is quite happy with a low turnout on election day, especially as his policies have been aimed at pleasing the pensioners, the majority of whom always vote. Had he been keen on increasing the numbers voting, he would have moved polling booths to supermarket carparks, university campuses and town centres. He would even have taken seriously the possibility of electronic voting.

Sunday 8 March 2015

Tory policies flawed; social housing the answer

Yet more promises from the Tories about doubling to "200,000 the number of cut-price starter homes" when social housing has almost disappeared in many places. Far better for Cameron to stress that now is an excellent time for councils to be borrowing the necessary capital to make good the housing shortfall. With inflation currently so low, real interest rates are near zero levels.
  What, perhaps, is equally relevant is that Tory promises on housing are not actually worth the cigarette packet where, according to some wag no doubt, the policies first saw the light of day. "Helping aspiring homeowners to buy" may well be a "key part of the long-term economic plan", as the housing minister, Brandon Lewis says, but as that same "plan" aims to take spending by the government back to levels last seen in the 1930s, and that Tory policy is evidently to repeat untruths so frequently, eventually many voters will believe them, why should these latest pledges be taken seriously? The latest English Housing Survey reports that total home ownership has fallen by 206,000 since the coalition took office, whilst at the same time, profits made by private landlords have soared exponentially.
      It should not be forgotten that a previous, similar pledge was made by Cameron and the then housing minister, Grant Shapps, that council homes sold under their Right To Buy scheme would be replaced "one-for-one" with new, affordable homes! In actual fact, since April 2012, 2,300 homes have been built, to replace the 26,000 sold off, roughly one built for every eleven sold.
      Social housing has to be a priority for Labour`s manifesto, not only because the majority of new housing currently being built is nowhere near the "affordable" range, but also because it would decrease the demand for privately rented property. However, if local authorities are to be encouraged to provide the much-needed housing, "Right to Buy" has to go, or at least for election purposes, be put on hold, but the other main argument in favour of providing more social housing is that the alternatives being offered do not work.
    Cameron`s electioneering plan to supply more homes for first time buyers, something he has suspiciously not thought worth considering over the previous five years, places no requirement on the builder to provide genuinely affordable homes, so prices are still likely to be too high for the likes of hard-working teachers, social workers  and nurses wanting to get on the so-called first rung of the housing ladder. How can they hope to save for deposits when they have to pay 20% of their earnings on income tax, 9% paying back their student loans, approximately 10% on national insurance, plus anything like another 40% on their hugely-inflated private rents, and more still, on food and travel?  Cameron has stated that buy-to-let landlords will not benefit from his scheme, but that will not prevent them buying the new homes at non-discounted prices; charging often obscenely high rents for inadequate properties means that finding deposits is no problem for these modern-day Rachmans. The Mortgage Advice Bureau has calculated that these landlords have 15% more equity available than this time last year, so they will be, as always, first in line when property becomes available. Any initiatives encouraging home ownership should include a proviso that the buyers, benefitting as they are from taxpayers` funded schemes, must live in the home for five years after purchase. 
     There is even worse news for first time buyers: the relaxation of pension rules next month will allow those accessing their pension funds to invest in property, and with savings rates so low, this is clearly a viable option for many. Whilst this may be welcome news for some whose parents are investing pension pots on their behalf, for the majority of young people the prospect of home-ownership will be as remote as ever.
    The priority has to be more social housing, if only to enable tenants to escape the clutches of their greedy private landlords! Labour has some proposals to check the profiteering of these landlords, but they don`t go far enough, and will not see the much-needed reduction in inflated rents. A countrywide building programme of social housing is essential.

A less tolerant attitude to banks needed by Labour?

What on earth are all those expensive research groups and advisors, experienced in American elections, thinking of, if they cannot see votes for Labour "in bashing LLoyds`s bonuses"? (Lloyds has been let off too lightly,,01/03/15) Why, do they think, is Labour hemorrhaging votes to the Greens, Ukip and the SNP? Of course, the electorate wants action taken against the banks; they owe us! Voters also want a Labour party vastly different from the Tories, regardless of what Blairites, Balls and the rest of the pro-City faction think!
    Your Business Leader suggests Miliband as prime minister would "force UKFI to vote against Lloyds`s pay report", but he could do much, much more, starting with participation in the EU`s financial transaction tax. Furthermore, if £375bn could be "created" by quantitative easing to recapitalise the banks after the crisis, why can`t the same method be used by a Labour government to fund a fully nationalised RBS, and its transformation into a People`s Bank, re-staffed with employees more concerned with improving customer service than their annual obscene bonus? Pay at the top could be capped to sensible levels, all profits could be ploughed back into the Treasury to fund health and education, and ethics could stop being merely a word used in banking CEOs` rhetoric. A People`s Bank could attract millions of customers away from the others on the high street and the banking culture would be forced to change. Of course, the other banks "would fight tooth and nail", but most neutral observers would regard this as just deserts for all the money-laundering, interest rate fixing and mis-selling scams of recent years. 

Such a policy would not merely be "a statement of intent" by Labour, it could, quite possibly, win them the election!

Friday 6 March 2015

Against Tristram`s "gifted and talented"

Just as the Tories offer, in Rafael Behr`s words, educational "policy by nostalgia" with their renewed support for grammar schools, Tristram Hunt shows enthusiasm for another policy testifying "to the power of nostalgia above evidence", a "gifted and talented" fund. The shadow education secretary needs to be very careful, especially as he has no experience of state school education, or, indeed, of this policy in action!  Of course, the country needs to "make the most of the talents of all our young people" but how can that be achieved by identifying only a small proportion, the so-called "most talented in primary and secondary schools", and giving them special treatment? By definition, many with less obvious talents will not be among those chosen, but don`t they deserve the opportunity to have their talents stretched? The policy is fraught with problems.   
          At primary level, with so much ability still untapped, and therefore unidentifiable, who can tell accurately which pupils are to be described as "gifted and talented"? Don`t all children have the potential to develop at least some abilities which are superior to those of their peers? Labelling in secondary school can be as equally dangerous; not only is there the possibility of missing out worthy candidates, there is the undoubted damage caused to those who are not deemed "special", who are denied the extra opportunities, who don`t get chosen for the educational trips or extra lessons and such like, and whose self-esteem suffers as a consequence. What about their aspirations? Another problem is that even members of the "chosen" can fall victim to arrogance and laziness.
          The answer has to be that all pupils need to be challenged, whatever their abilities, and taken on to the next level, not just the ones achieving level 5 at the end of key stage 2, or whatever. All children have talents and deserve an educational system which will stretch them to the limit, but designating some as more "gifted and talented" than others, and consequently worthy of an education with increased funding, is unfair. It certainly should not be featuring in an education policy of a political party determined to provide equality of opportunity for all.

Tuesday 3 March 2015

Too many secrets at the BBC!

Whilst it is worrying that the Commons culture, media and sport committee recommended that the BBC should "reduce its content" and "called for the licence fee too be scrapped", its report did say that the corporation should "prepare for the possibility of a change", but not until the 2020s. What, perhaps, is more of an immediate concern is the fact that the same committee sees the need to recommend that the National Audit Office , the government auditor, should have "unrestricted access" to the BBC`s financial accounts. Surely it should not be possible for a state-owned, taxpayer-funded organisation, annually in receipt of approximately £4bn of public money, to refuse for its accounts to be properly audited? An important question has to be answered: what is it that the BBC wants kept secret
      Back in 2012 there was a furore over the BBC`s paying of staff through personal service companies, enabling both tax avoidance for the employees, and reduced National Insurance liabilities for the Beeb. Now, of course, there is the link between the BBC chair, Rona Fairhead, and HSBC`s current tax problem; she was in charge of the bank`s audit and risk committee from May 2007, having responsibility for governance and compliance across the global bank. There is also the small matter of the BBC`s sale of Television Centre in west London to a consortium, which was described by Margaret Hodge as "clearly a tax avoidance scheme".
      There clearly is a need for an urgent debate about the BBC at the moment, probably more important than whether the licence fee should be covering the iPlayer! 
      The public has a right to know the exact details of where its money goes and how much tax is failing to reach the Treasury!
 

Sunday 1 March 2015

cash for access/taking us for mugs

Not surprised to see Cameron rejecting Miliband`s "call to limit MPs` outside income".His leadership of the Tory party is under such extreme pressure from the right-wing back-benchers, any agreement from him to "rein in their extra-parliamentary activities" was never on the cards. No doubt, he will be spouting forth about the necessity for MPs to have experience of the real world, so that they can empathise with the needs of their constituents, and serve them more effectively. Cameron and the Tories frequently say things like this, because they take us for mugs.
    They expect us to believe their support for an increase in wages, when their so-called "long-term plan" is for a low-wage economy; they expect us to accept that they really are determined to end the "morally repugnant" tax avoidance, even though they have cut the workforce at HMRC by 20%, and their much-vaunted "Google tax" is only intended to raise £355m a year, and then, not until 2019; Tories even consider it likely that people living north of  the Midlands will vote for them because of their support for creating "northern powerhouses", despite the billions spent on London and the south-east in the last five years. Tories are still attacking Labour as the "borrowing party" because it borrowed £142.7bn in its thirteen years in office. Voters are too dumb, in their eyes, to remember that they have borrowed £157.5bn in their five years of coalition government.
         Now they suddenly care about good governance? 
         This isn`t the first time Miliband has called for MPs to be "banned from directorships and consultancies". Presumably, he realises, like the rest of us, that being on a British company`s board of directors in the 21st century, with agendas which include pay renumerations worthy of only one adjective - "obscene", dealings with accountants to discover new tax avoidance scams, discussions of "efficiency" which can only mean cutting jobs, and methods to maintain the "profit-at-all-costs-forget-ethics" ethos, is so far removed from the real world experiences of the average constituent, it is more of a hindrance to good governance than benefit. 
         

Observer Letter:changing the banking culture

Your "Business Leader" last week focussed on the "mudslinging the bankers would have been preparing for" in the build-up to "this year`s bonus round". (Who would want to be a senior banker now that bonus season has begun again?22/02/15) Hardly unexpected, one would imagine, in view of the banks` "wrongdoing" over the last twelve months, which culminated with the revelations surrounding HSBC`s active involvement in tax avoidance and evasion. Enough about Stuart Gulliver`s travails!
    The article suggested that bankers "have only themselves to blame for this febrile atmosphere", but isn`t that exactly the point, and the reason the country has been forced to endure years of a corrupt banking culture? Bankers don`t do blame, and clearly do not care one iota that their actions have brought disgrace to their profession. The CEOs may well come out with the usual resolutions about ethics coming before profits, and behaviour matching public expectations, but the mis-selling, rate-fixing, money laundering and tax evasion have continued unabated, with fines only accounting for a few days` profits. Nonsense spouted about "death spirals", and "best people" leaving the country, unless obscene bonuses are paid, will no doubt, again hit the headlines.

    The conclusion of the article, that because of the trillion pound bail-out and the £375bn from quantitative easing, politicians owe it to us to "hold bankers to account" is incontrovertible, but hardly original. Labour is intent on taxing bonuses more at least, but why a more radical approach is not being adopted, to match the electorate`s mood, is difficult to comprehend. The EU`s financial transaction tax comes into operation next January, so a Labour government`s pledge to participate would seem a no-brainer. However, if changing the banking culture is a priority, a fully nationalised RBS, funded by QE or real-interest free loans from the Bank of England, re-staffed with people interested in customer satisfaction, not their bonuses, and with all profits going to fund the NHS, and re-named the People`s Bank, seems the obvious answer.