Sunday 29 May 2016

What Remain needs to do

If Remain is to gain victory in the EU referendum, it has, as Andrew Rawnsley says, to persuade "a lot of non-Tory voters to make the choice recommended by a Tory prime minister" (To claim victory now would be a fatal error for the EU In camp, 22/05/16). What Rawnsley does not add, however, is that this is the same prime minister who has imposed, for six years, a policy of austerity, causing suffering and hardship for many. No wonder, then, there are "continuing worries about getting non-Tory voters to the polls", but there should be concerns, too, about the extent their motivation for voting will be to engulf the Tories in prolonged civil war.
    Rawnsley correctly warns the In campaign against complacency, especially as it believes it has won "the most important argument - about the economy". Even if it has, something which relies on non-Tories putting their trust in Cameron and Osborne, and believing their often outrageous claims, it certainly hasn`t focused sufficiently on the immigration question. If Remain is to win the case for open borders, it has to stress the advantanges of such an arrangement, not only the vital work done by European workers, but also the revenue they bring to the Treasury. The In team certainly do not "sound confident about their arguments" in relation to immigration, and, unless it finds a coherent and consistent message,"contrary" voters could well use it as another excuse to gain some revenge for what they regard as unnecessary austerity.

Friday 27 May 2016

Boris is no historian

Comments from Simon Heffer concerning the "general public" being entertained by Johnson`s "unrestrained remarks, such as about President Obama`s Kenyan heritage", reveal him to be as divorced from the real world as the Tory MPs with whom he obviously mixes (The Tory civil war,20th May, 2016). At least his views can thereby be explained, but one of those expressed by respected academic, Professor Brendan Simms, is less easy to comprehend (History lessons, 20th May, 2016). Why he refers to Boris Johnson as "my fellow historian" beggars belief. Surely not because the would-be Tory leader, with a Classics degree, has written a best-seller about Churchill? Even the review in the Telegraph described it as a "mixture of Monty Python and the Horrible Histories", whilst another said it bore as much resemblance "to a history book as a Doctor Who episode".
Churchill is still revered by the majority of people in this country, often winning accolades like the "greatest Briton" in populist polls, which, of course, is why Johnson wrote the book, hoping the creation of political association, and supposed similarity between author and subject, would advance his career. 
     That Johnson is again passing himself off as an expert historian in order to strengthen his arguments about Brexit is obvious, and Simms does well to describe it as the "blatant manipulation" of history. The truth is, however, that such misuse of the events of the past, something at which Johnson is clearly adept, perpetuates dangerous ideas about nationalism, war and racism, and deserves more criticism from the press and academia than it actually gets.

 

Thursday 26 May 2016

Transparency at PMQs

David Cameron clearly believes in the healing powers of transparency, and that "real progress" can be made when there is sufficient "political will" (The fight against corruption begins with political will,12/05/16). Could I suggest that he applies this belief to the televising of Prime Minister`s Questions? Instead of the cameras focusing on Corbyn, when the leader of the Opposition is asking his questions, could they not be directed at the Tory benches, so that we could see who is responsible for what can only be described as disgraceful behaviour? "The world" after all, is "turning towards transparency", as Robert Palmer of Global Witness says, so surely it is important that the "mother of all parliaments" is not left behind (PM promises to crack down on laundering,12/05/16).
 

"The greatest achievement ever"? Hardly!

Leicester City`s Premier League-winning  success has been described by many as "a miracle", and even, "the greatest achievement ever". Former Leicester, Everton and England striker, Gary Lineker, said that he couldn`t "think of anything that surpasses it in sporting history". Similarly, Alan Shearer, who won the Premier League in 1995 with underdogs Blackburn, said, "For a team like Leicester to come and take the giants on with their wealth and experience - not only take them on but to beat them - I think it's the biggest thing to happen in football." Not unsurprisingly, fellow pundit, Robbie Savage, agreed, saying it was  "the greatest achievement ever", one apparently never to be surpassed.
     Don`t get me wrong. I was as delighted as the next person about Leicester`s success, but remarks like those above are simply nonsense. What pundits, such as these three from the BBC, and they are not alone, don`t like to admit is that they didn`t see it coming, and therefore, as they are experts, it must be, possibly the biggest sporting surprise ever. The fact is, "experts" should have seen it coming, and the only thing it proves is, they`re not "experts".
     So used are they to the Premier League being won by the richest clubs, which buy the most expensive players, which pay the highest wages, which employ the largest squads, and which have the most experienced managers with proven track records, pundits and journalists lacked the expertise to foresee anything different. They didn`t look at the obvious facts! Well, it would require a little more effort, not to mention knowledge, than watching endless replays to show wrong split-second decisions by referees, wouldn`t it?
     At the end of last season, Leicester were the form team, winning seven out of the last nine matches. Superb scouting had brought in exciting, ambitious new talent, and soon into this season, was to provide the club with one of the players of the year, Kante. The replacement of Pearson as manager with Ranieri should have been seen as, at least, likely to have a rejuvenating effect on a team already with a winning habit, whilst the sacking of players for off-field misdemeanors was only viewed as a club  "in crisis", rather than having a likely significant effect on attitude and focus.
     Furthermore, closer scrutiny of the supposedly "top" clubs would have revealed some very worrying facts: defensive back lines without pace, with tendencies to injuries, and with many players nearing their "sell by" dates, not to mention a few superstars clearly with thoughts either on 2016`s European finals, or on the possibility of becoming a "galactico" in La Liga. Tactics, too, had become far too reliant on possession, a la Arsenal and Barcelona, with too little thought given to pace, incisive passing, and accurate crossing. Preventing the other team from having the ball as a sole tactic wins few games!
   So it`s "Well done, Leicester", but let`s get rid of the idea that it was a "miracle"; experts would have seen it coming!

   Talking of experts, how similar are our television pundits and top Tories? Both concentrate only on the top one percent, both tend to ignore advice when it goes against their pre-conceived ideas, both advocate close scrutiny of adversaries (referees and Labour) but argue against any form of regulation of their own activities, and both get extremely angry when criticised!

Monday 23 May 2016

Co-determination can close the pay gap

Owen Jones`s excellent article on the existence of practical alternatives
"to the inevitability of injustice" included Germany for its university
education without tuition fees, and for its "state-led industrial strategy",
but, surprisingly, not for its system of co-determination (The world can be
a source of hope, not of needless military invasions,19th May,2016).
Admittedly, its origins lie in its post-war imposition on West Germany by
the western powers, but the existence of workers` representatives on the
boards of large companies has played an important role, not only in the
so-called "economic miracle", but in the fact that pay gaps between
employees and bosses have never been allowed to increase exponentially, as
they have done in this country. Although Volkswagen is currently proving an
exception to this rule, obscene levels of  executive remuneration in the UK
are now, clearly, hindering productivity, with even Andy Haldane of the Bank
of England saying that "investment in physical and human capital" is being
decreased (Shareholders in boardroom pay protest at two more firms. 19th
May, 2016). Sir Gerry Grimstone may think "something akin to multilateral
nuclear disarmament" is needed to control boardroom pay, but
co-determination sounds less drastic, and in Jones`s words, "it`s time we
talked" about it (Pay pause,19th May,2016).

Saturday 21 May 2016

Best year for rock?

Bob Stanley criticises David Hepworth`s "lack of objectivity", but his review fails to offer any alternative to the view that 1971 was a "high-water mark for rock" (Review: 1971 - Never a Dull Moment: Rock`s Golden Year, 14/05/16). How a year which saw albums such as Who`s Next, Aqualung and Led Zeppelin IV can be deemed superior to 1966 beggars belief. The year of the Beatles` Revolver, Beach Boys` Pet Sounds, Dylan`s Blonde on Blonde, and the Stones` Aftermath has to be "the best year in the history of recording". The year also saw the emergence, not only of Paul Simon and Van Morrison as brilliant songwriters,(Sound of Silence and Them Again), but of hard rock with the supergroup Cream (Fresh Cream), early psychedelia (The Psychedelic Sounds of the 13th Floor Elevators, and live albums ( Stones` Got Live If You Want It). If you want to "dip into the backwaters", look no further than Love`s Da Capo, the Who`s A Quick One and the Animals` Animalisms.
      Hepworth is allowed his opinions, but a review of his work omits comparison with 1966 at its peril!

Tuesday 17 May 2016

Unpublished stuff on Labour`s "Open goals" , Rankin, CBI. SATs London, etc

For those of us who believe that a Corbyn-led Labour party can win in 2002, provided that a "new approach" is adopted, which basically means an end to the attacks on the leadership for not being sufficiently Blairite, Monday`s "meeting of MPs and peers" provided some hope at last (Corbyn pleads for a united party and admits Labour still has it all to prove,10/05/16).
Not only was there a plea to turn their "fire on this Tory government", but also common sense from Sadiq Khan, with his observation that Labour "cannot afford to miss any open goals". They have certainly blazed over the bar enough recently, especially with the non-existent "northern powerhouse", and the ridiculous grammar tests, with their focus on subordinating conjunctions and noun phrases! As if on cue, however, comes the news that the British Virgin Islands "are resisting David Cameron`s calls to make fresh concessions on ending tax secrecy (UK overseas territories resist PM`s call to end tax secrecy,10/05/16). Aditya Chakrabortty tells us how such offshore tax havens can be forced to comply with British laws by Orders in Council,(Corruption can no longer be written off as a developing world problem,10/05/16) whilst Corbyn himself has previously said, they are "British crown dependent territories", and if they refuse to observe UK tax laws, there is a precedent "for direct rule to be imposed" (UK could impose direct rule on tax havens, says Jeremy Corbyn, 05/04/16).
Well, Mr Corbyn, after everything the Tories have said about tax avoidance and evasion, and the obvious voters` outrage the denial of billions to the Treasury causes, this appears to be one "open goal" not to be missed; a start can be made at PMQs.


Ian Rankin`s admission, that he "can`t do anything" until he has a "title", beggars belief (My working day,07/05/16). Just because he has created the brilliant Rebus, sold millions of books, and caused immeasurable enjoyment both here and abroad, does not mean he should have a "title". Doesn`t he realise he needs to earn 180 times the amount of his average employee, or avoid paying tax on an industrial scale, and with the part of the proceeds, make huge donations to the political party of his choice, or run a company based on short-termism, with no thought of investing to raise productivity?
On the other hand, Lord Rebus of Fife does have a certain ring to it!

Whilst most will agree with the director-general of the CBI, Carolyn Fairbairn, when she criticises the government for its "lack of preparedness for the crisis that has engulfed the steel industry", there will be less sympathy for other aspects of her speech (CBI call for government to put up cash for industrial strategy,05/05/16). Calling for more government funding " to support innovation" is a little rich when the country`s industries are noted for their short-termism and low productivity, due to profits, rather than being ploughed into new machinery and technology, going instead to shareholders` dividends and management`s obscene salaries and bonuses.
 Any attempts by the government to encourage firms to introduce meaningful apprenticeship schemes are given short shrift by the CBI, and its call for ministers to address the "chronic shortage of physics teachers" beggars belief. Funding for improved pay for teachers, and, indeed, for a "new industrial strategy", would be far more likely if British companies, instead of spending millions on accountants to devise the most efficient ways of avoiding tax, actually paid up in full, like the majority of us do!

"Modal verbs, transitive verbs, intransitive verbs" are, sadly, just the tip of the Key Stage two assessment iceberg (Primary grammar teast would stump Jane Austen, says head,30/04/16). Primary head, Amanda Hulme, highlighted some of the unnecessary details needed to be learned by 10 and 11 year-olds, but a brief scan of the Sample Booklet published in 2015 reveals how such tests are taking education back to the middle of the last century, when the needs of society were rather different. Apparently, the DfE thinks this "new, more rigorous curriculum", which requires knowledge, by year six pupils, of present perfect and past progressive tenses, not to mention the subjunctive form, subordinating conjunctions, noun phrases and determiners, will help "every child fulfil their potential regardless of their circumstances". This begs some very obvious questions, or should I say, sentences beginning with interrogative pro-adverbs?
      I don`t actually recall the CBI calling for increased knowledge of the various parts of speech to help improve productivity, or any of our esteemed poets, dramatists and novelists attributing their success to their awareness that the "correct antonym"  for "unbelievable" is "plausible". No doubt the next head of Ofsted will be criticising previously graded "outstanding" schools for not devoting sufficient time to providing a broader curriculum, and having too many lessons aimed at learning antiquated grammar!

As Jonn Elledge says, there may not be "water dripping from the light fittings", but the idea of paying £1083 a month for a room in the Collective is not only a rip-off, but deeply insulting to the young professionals expected to live there (Up the property ladder to a tiny "twodio", 29/04 16). It seems that the government is not the only one treating young people with contempt. Is it any wonder thousands of teachers, doctors, social workers and the like are leaving in droves?
     A quick visit to the government website, (getintoteaching.education.gov.uk)shows how teaching is now such a "rewarding career", no details of pay are needed! The truth is that, even with London allowance, starting pay in the capital varies from £22.6k to £27k, just enough to qualify them as eligible to pay back student loans, on top of tax, national insurance, and, of course, rent.
   And for what? A room "three metres square" with a share of a "two ring kitchen hob", but with the added bonus of sharing a common room! If ever proof was needed that the government needs to set up an inspection and regulatory body, to stem the ever-increasing exploitation of tenants in the private sector, the idea of the Collective is it.

 

Morning Star letter on Tory propaganda

Tory grandee, Michael Heseltine, who recently described his party as the "most sophisticated political party in human democracy", at the same time accused the Brexit branch of becoming "swallowed up in their own propaganda". How ironic, then, that Home Secretary, Theresa May, proved the point that this is something of which the whole Tory party is guilty (Morning Star,06/05/16). No wonder her "so ignorant, so illiberal, so misguided" views on the European Convention of Human Rights received such a pasting. That is the problem of relying so much for popular support on a well-oiled propaganda machine to sway the voters` views: the policies get repeated so often, no change is possible without it becoming a major U-turn, or an embarrassing defeat.
  There are many current examples, ranging from the supposed need to academise all schools by 2022, and to impose a new contract on junior doctors to achieve a "seven day NHS", to the shrinking of the state back to 1930s` levels. All have been proved by experts to be misguided, but they are still being propounded by Tories as solutions, often to non-existent problems.
      Under the Tories` watch, taxes on the rich have been reduced, the pay gap between CEOs and their workers has reached obscene levels, whilst the economy has stalled, and food banks multiplied. The left, as Liz Davies says, is correct to argue "for the inclusion of economic rights" in the Human Rights Act.

 

Thursday 5 May 2016

History teaches politicians nothing!

How many times have we heard politicians espousing the virtues of teaching and learning history? The importance of the subject is never in doubt, and whilst not quite up there with science and maths, it certainly is on the next rung of the currivulum ladder.
 For those on the right, however, the subject`s significance lies in how the retelling of events from a nationalistic perspective can lead to an increase in loyalty to the state and crown.The fact that it can also reveal the evils and excesses of imperialism, and the pointlessness of wars, whilst also offering hundreds of opportunities for evaluation and analysis of sources, rarely gets a look in.
     What politicians of all sides agree on is that history has so many lessons to teach; everyone, but especially those with power, can look back in time, and learn from examples from the past. As is the case with so many politicians, however, their rhetoric does not match their actions. There are so many examples to prove this, but a few will suffice here.
   Take nationalism for instance; it has led to two world wars and hundreds more smaller ones, but English politicians like Michael Gove, still insist on more emphasis on British history in our schools, with more events which apparently glorify the bravery of the Brits, and denegrate all foreigners, becoming compulsory items on the curriculum. Even the role of our allies in wars is never given sufficient attention. Is such teaching likely to lead to increased tolerance, and a more peaceful future?
 Then there`s economic history: 20th century history has shown how governments which have borrowed and spent in times of economic hardship have ridden out the storm, and seen their countries` economies recover from recession. That doesn`t stop the Tories, and indeed some from other parties ostensibly to the left, from insisting that austerity is the answer to economic ills. What examples do they have for this?
       So much for history having so much to teach us!
 What about the well-documented subject of aerial bombing? If history teaches us anything it is that bombing kills and maims innocents, and the result is increased resentment and hatred, and desire for retribution and revenge, rather than peace. World War II, Vietnam, Syria? Yet very few leaders have the courage to suggest alternative methods to deal with aggression, when history tells us again and again that lasting peace can be achieved more easily and less painfully by negotiation and diplomacy,
 Social history shows us how sensible treatment of workers leads to more equal and fair societies. Fear of creating a hugely unequal populace, and a resentful working class, led the western powers to insist on workers being represented on the boards of West Germany`s businesses, and having a say in all decisions, including pay. This co-determination led to few industrial relations problems, and massive economic growth. So what does teh present government do? Insist on policies which curb workers` rights, and which inflame anger by imposing contracts and changing working conditions!

 Does history teach our modern leaders anything?

Monday 2 May 2016

Education going backwards

"Modal verbs, transitive verbs, intransitive verbs" are, sadly, just the tip of the Key Stage two assessment iceberg (Primary grammar test would stump Jane Austen, says head,30/04/16). Primary head, Amanda Hulme, highlighted some of the unnecessary details needed to be learned by 10 and 11 year-olds, but a brief scan of the Sample Booklet published in 2015 reveals how such tests are taking education back to the middle of the last century, when the needs of society were rather different. Apparently, the DfE thinks this "new, more rigorous curriculum", which requires knowledge, by year six pupils, of present perfect and past progressive tenses, not to mention the subjunctive form, subordinating conjunctions, noun phrases and determiners, will help "every child fulfil their potential regardless of their circumstances". This begs some very obvious questions, or should I say, sentences beginning with interrogative pro-adverbs?
      I don`t actually recall the CBI calling for increased knowledge of the various parts of speech to help improve productivity, or any of our esteemed poets, dramatists and novelists attributing their success to their awareness that the "correct antonym"  for "unbelievable" is "plausible". No doubt the next head of Ofsted will be criticising previously graded "outstanding" schools for not devoting sufficient time to providing a broader curriculum, and having too many lessons aimed at learning antiquated grammar!