SATs (and "trick questions") should be abolished

The fact that "music, drama and art embedded into every part" of the day in a Bradford primary school has produced a remarkable "turnaround" in results in all areas of the curriculum illustrates perfectly the importance of enjoyment as a hugely important factor in learning (The secret of great SATs results? Extra music, and lots of it, 03/10/17). How encouraging it is to see children`s mental and social development being given top priority, and massive congratulations must be given to all involved.

      At last, children`s welfare is clearly beginning to feature more prominently in some educationalists` thinking. Sadly, however, its prominence was lacking when the SATs assessors decided that asking a question like this at Key Stage 2 was either appropriate or useful:

   A bat and ball cost £1.10 in total. The bat costs £1.00 more than the ball. How much does the ball cost?

    It`s plainly ridiculous to put young children under stress with unnecessary testing, but the inclusion of such "trick" questions makes the call for the abolition of SATs even more urgent. 

On Tories` unsuitability to govern

Andrew Rawnsley mentioned how a  "strategic dilemma" for the Tories is causing "fresh division within their ranks" (Roll up, roll up to see whether Theresa will flop in the big top, 01.10.17). The realisation that they clearly need to make some proposals which will have significant impact, and persuade young people, in particular, to turn away from Corbyn, is countered by those who think "they will never outbid " him when it "comes to spending money". This, however, is not their main problem. The real "dilemma" for the Tories is that they have allowed the lobbyists and donors to have far too much influence on policy, particularly in recent years, something which hasn`t caused problems, because cutting costs and limiting regulation has suited the lobbying industry just fine. Cameron`s pledge to reform the "scandal" of the "far-too-cosy relationship between politics, government, business and money" merely resulted in a register being set up, typical of his disingenuity.

  Now that public opinion has finally turned in favour of more regulation, public ownership, and fairer taxation, the Tories can no longer remain the small-state libertarian party of recent years. How much longer can Tories allow lobbyists to water down their proposals which would allow worker representation on company boards (unlike the CBI-approved non-executive directors), more affordable and social housing being built, control to be taken of the gambling industry, tenants being ensured fair rents? The answer is probably indefinitely, because of the party`s reliance on funding and support from these vested interests. 

   A possible alternative, to promise transformational changes in the public sector, appears beyond their scope of thinking. Introducing sensible pay ratios, capping top salaries, ending gender pay gaps, allowing considerable pay increases to end recruitment crises in education and health, limiting government contracts to non-tax -avoiding companies, reforming the honours system, all are being allowed to become Labour priorities. 

  EU leaders might well have "deep doubts about Mrs May", but the real doubts should be about the Tories` suitability to govern.

Yet another Tory problem: Lobbying

Both of the otherwise excellent articles on the Conservative government`s problems strangely omitted to mention the influence of lobbyists on Tory policies and action (Politics; The long Tory civil war, 29th September,2017). Every time May or one of her ministers admits the need for a policy which would actually initiate real change, and win votes, proposals are watered down. Whatever happened to May`s promises made in Downing Street last year, to the "fight against the burning injustices", to the help for the "just about managing", to the leadership of a government "not driven by the interests of the privileged few"?

      The pro-business lobby has clearly influenced most of May`s proposals on corporate reform, something she said was vital because excessive pay at the top threatens the "social fabric of our society". Not vital enough, however; the pledge on workers` representatives on company boards fell at the first hurdle, and now it is up to non-executive directors to stand up against CEOs and argue for better pay ratios. Of course, both the CBI president and the director general of the Institute of Directors publicly voiced their approval, and CEOs will continue to pocket at least around 100 times the pay of their average employees.

   As long as there is a willingness to kowtow to lobbyists, Tories have little chance of either introducing sufficient change, or amending unpopular policies, to "collapse the floor under Labour`s feet". Concern that our government is selling weapons to the Saudis so that they can bomb Yemen, a country so devastated by war that famine and disease are rife, doesn`t stop the arms industry lobbyists winning the day.

     Likewise, the betting lobby ensures the continued existence of the addictive fixed-odds betting terminals on almost every high street, and a barrage of televised advertisements on primetime TV. The building industry`s influence over government means little or no affordable or social housing is being built. As Stephen Bush says, the Conservatives` problem with the young "might not be easy to solve", but it is certainly not helped when lobbying succeeds in preventing much-needed legislation on capping rents, and ending tenant exploitation, from being introduced.

 As for the influence of the banking and financial sectors on government policy!! The lack of substantial regulation, the fact that next to no prison sentences have resulted from the many abuses and fraudulent acts, and the refusal of governments to introduce a financial transaction tax all speak volumes. No doubt, it won`t stop them claiming in Manchester to be the party of social justice!

      Tories can "claim back language from the left", which Robert Haflon suggests, as much as they like, but as long as lobbyists rule the roost, something which their party funding demands, "compassionate Conservatism" will remain as much an oxymoron as ever.

Why not sack Johnson?

Mary Dejevsky might well have a reasonable solution to some immediate Tory problems, but sacking Boris Johnson, with him then challenging Theresa May for the leadership, would be my preferred option. This is as it most likely would lead to an early general election. The sooner Labour is in power the better.

Dejevsky’s description of Johnson is spot on when she calls him “crass and gaffe-prone”, but where does she get the idea that he “possesses a sense of history”? Surely what he actually has, like many privately educated toffs, is a distorted vision of history, exaggerating the importance of Britain and looking back on a “glorious past” that was, in fact, a time of British-enforced slavery, barbarity and multiple atrocities.

As for having a “capacity for empathy”, it certainly wasn`t in evidence when insulting Buddhists in Burma, writing rude limericks about the Turkish leader, and thinking it funny to ridicule the dead in Libya.

Clearly, Johnson’s sense of humour is puerile in the extreme, but when it is allied with public-school arrogance, and an education which taught a totally biased and inaccurate version of imperial history, the result is a Foreign Secretary who brings embarrassment and shame to us all. MPs on all sides should be demanding his resignation. 

Next election is Labour`s to lose!

Solomon Hughes writes that Labour cannot count on the Tories having a similar "very bad Tory campaign", but correctly adds that there are "weaknesses we can aim at in the next election" (Morning Star, 29/09/17). Of course there are!

      The Tory party, even if the election doesn`t come until 2022, will still be the divided one it is now. Does anyone really believe it will have united around a "charismatic" leader like Rees-Mogg, Amber Rudd, or even the scheming Boris Johnson? Can anyone see their stirring speeches emboldening thousands of young activists across the country?

   Is the Tory party suddenly going to have a Damascene moment and  be no longer advocating lower taxes for the rich, divisive education policies, arms sales to whatever dictatorship willing to buy, and a national minimum wage well below  the level  required for a decent life? Of course not. These are the policies which form the basis of Conservatism in this country. Even when trifling changes are proposed, the lobbyists are quick to water them down to limit their significance further still.

      By the time of the next election, does anyone really think that the Tory government will have regulated the rental sector so that tenant exploitation by Rachman-like landlords will no longer exist, or that the public sector will be well funded with no recruitment crises in health and education? Social housing? A financial transaction tax?

 Furthermore, can we envisage this divided, back-stabbing coalition of selfish millionaires sealing a Brexit deal with hunky-doryness on all sides?  Will the results of callous austerity policies and cuts ever be forgotten?

     The current conference shows how fearful the Tory party is of Jeremy Corbyn, and it will do everything in its power both to liken him to Stalin, and to exaggerate dire consequences of socialist policies. Try what they will, they cannot match the popularity of Labour`s leader or its policies. Only rebellious disunity stands in the way of a Labour victory.

 

Johnson should go!

"Gaffe" is usually defined as "an unintentional act or remark", and is the most popular method of describing the numerous incidents when our country`s foreign secretary manages to insult the people, customs or leaders of other countries (The ambassador, Kipling - and Johnson, 30/09/17). Johnson may occasionally blurt out, like most of us, silly, inappropriate observations, but most of his insults simply are not "unintentional" at all. A recital of Kipling`s "Road to Mandalay" in "the most sacred Buddhist site" in the capital of of Myanmar is not something uttered inadvertedly. Johnson knew full well the impact his quoting of the poem would have, but still continued until the British ambassador`s intervention. Similarly, his writing of "a crude limerick about the Turkish president" was done to ridicule purposely, whilst his insulting comments about Hillary Clinton and Francoise Hollande have to be deliberate.

 Clearly, Johnson`s sense of humour is puerile in the extreme, but when it is allied with public school arrogance, and an education which taught a totally biased and inaccurate version of imperial history, the result is a foreign secretary who brings embarrassment and shame to us all.  MPs on all sides should be demanding his resignation. 

Next election:why Labour will win

What a shame the chief political commentator of the Sunday newspaper of our choice, Andrew Rawnsley, despite the absolute chaos being caused by a Tory administration bereft of principle and unity, is still unable to come to terms with the distinct possibility of a left-wing Labour party running the country (The shadows dancing on the walls at Labour`s Brighton celebration, 24.09.17). Not only does he sink yet again to the bottom of his Blairite barrel with the spurious suggestion that Corbyn`s age will make "the future of the leader" the "biggest taboo subject" at the Labour conference, Rawnsley also submits that the June election saw Labour as "the lucky beneficiary of freak circumstances that won`t necessarily be repeated" next time.

  Presumably the Tory party in 2022 will no longer be the divided one it is now, but will have united around a charismatic leader like Rees-Mogg or Amber Rudd, whose stirring speeches will have emboldened thousands of young activists across the country? It will no longer be advocating lower taxes for the rich, divisive education policies, arms sales to whatever dictatorship willing to buy, and a national minimum wage well below  the level  required for a decent life? By then the Tory government will have regulated the rental sector so that tenant exploitation by Rachman-like landlords will no longer exist, and the public sector will be well funded with no recruitment crises? The Brexit deal will have been sealed with hunky-doryness on all sides, and callous austerity policies and cuts forgotten?

     Rawnsley admits the "Corbyn sceptics in the parliamentary Labour party have gone mute since June", and not without reason. Time perhaps for Mr Rawnsley to follow suit!