Independent: letter on history`s manipulation

Hasnet Lais`s excellent article on the way the national curriculum prevents history teachers from teaching "the brutal legacy of empire" provides yet another piece of evidence to illustrate the way British history is still being manipulated (As a history teacher, I`m horrified by the whitewashing of my curriculum, 30/10/17). It was bad enough when Michael Gove was insisting on factual history taking precedence over analysis and evaluation, but when the facts to be taught are prescriptive, and when essential events are omitted, the history learned is bound to be inaccurate and misleading.

   This is not a new phenomenon, and the Brexit vote was, in part, the result of a distorted view of our history, seemingly desirous of our so-called "glorious past", when wars were won by "Britain alone", when empires were gained to "civilise", when atrocities were only committed by enemies or "barbarians", and when the economy boomed without the need for European co-operation or labour.

    Of course history involves, as Lais reminded us, a "dispassionate and authentic inquiry into the past", but unlike other countries like Germany which insist on facing up to their past and refusing to mislead students with "colonial amnesia", however uncomfortable, Britain does the opposite. Court cases such as those on behalf of 44,000 Kenyans claiming compensation for the brutal tactics employed by the British crushing the Mau Mau rebellion in the 1950s, get scant coverage in the press; had any other country used beatings, torture, rape, forced labour, castration and roasting alive as methods to suppress popular uprisings, it would be headline news.

      In fact, the thirty year rule has been ignored so often by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, that there now exists an archive containing 1.2 million files, going back to the end of the Crimean War, hidden from the prying eyes of historians, and, of course, from barristers aiming to get justice for their clients. 

   Two things are essential: first, the release of the "secret" files, and second, an admission that our history has been manipulated for years, and that a re-write is required.

 

Observer letter on Oxbridge

Priya Gopal`s arguments for the need both for a conversation about "wider deprivation and systemic inequality", and the existence of a "two-tiered education structure" merely deflect away from the unassailable truth about Oxbridge`s appalling "admissions processes" (Oxbridge bashing is an empty ritual if we ignore wider social inequities, 22.10.17). She sounds too much like the Oxford apologist who, when the figures were released to David Lammy, claimed that rectifying the problem was "a long journey", needing a "huge, joined-up effort across society".             
   Such propagandist nonsense is echoed sadly by Gopal blaming the existence of private schools for Oxbridge`s bias towards them! Her article raises many questions, but answers none of them. Why, when the national figure for attendance at private schools is 7%, do Oxbridge colleges insist on recruiting over 40% from the independent sector, especially when research at Cardiff and Oxford Brookes universities proved students from state schools gain better degrees than independently-educated candidates with the same A-level grades. Similarly, has not the integrity of the Pre-University examinations taken instead of A-levels by many private school pupils, and set and marked by teachers in the private sector, been questioned by recent scandals at Eton and Winchester?

   Is it any wonder that few high-attaining black or working class students are attracted to apply to Oxford or Cambridge, when both universities do so little to disprove the perceived myths which surround them? 

     Do Oxbridge interviews give all candidates a chance to show off their  understanding, or are the questions designed more to flummox all but the most confident? Will the majority of candidates from modest backgrounds face humiliation and embarrassment, if not at the interview, in the colleges afterwards, with the formal dinners, the expensive balls and clubs? Teachers concerned about their pupils` welfare, should not be blamed for directing most bright students elsewhere!

Oxbridge interviews need to change

So much gets written about Oxbridge interviews along the lines of Alex Preston`s article last week, how they "are not about catching our applicants", but about "getting candidates to think", one is drawn to conclude they "protest too much, methinks" (Solving the riddle of getting into Oxford, 15.10.17). These interviews, apparently, are designed to show "the first flickerings of critical thought", which is really worrying, as it arrogantly suggests sixth form teachers demand no such thing. If tutors fear they might be "bored" in tutorials, some internal reforms might be necessary!

      Preston even resorts to quoting from an Oxford professor`s book, which claims candidates need only "stay calm", and "use the one thing that will get you into Oxford, your brain"! For around 60% of Oxford`s undergraduates, their brains were accompanied by considerable wealth, giving them the access to private education, and the ensuing confidence. Putting sixth-formers through what is clearly a terrifying ideal for most of them can only damage the self-esteem of the hundreds every year who are rejected.So much for concern for pupils` mental health issues!

     If this is a time "when Oxford is seeking to be more inclusive", they should start with ensuring interview questions give the opportunity to all candidates to show off their knowledge and intelligence, rather than confuse and surprise them.  Do the tutors not believe the research findings at Cardiff and Oxford Brookes Universities, which revealed students from state schools gained better degrees than independently-educated candidates with the same A-level grades? The sooner a Labour government insists all universities take a maximum of 7% of their undergraduates from the private sector, in line with national figures, the better.

  Recent cheating scandals at Eton and Winchester "outed" the Pre-University examinations, taken at most private schools in place of the usual A-levels; it seems these examinations are often both written and marked by teachers in the private sector. On the Pre-U website, Winchester College recommends these examinations, as they are "very liberating for teachers"! How many "unliberated" A-level teachers in state schools know that their pupils are competing for places at university with students whose grades have been achieved differently? As if the playing field wasn`t sufficiently uneven!

Guardian letter on short-termism

Your editorial`s conclusion, that successive governments have failed to "think clearly" about the crisis in health and social care, making it "a bleak indictment of short-termist democracy", sadly can be applied to all aspects of government policy (Years of political cowardice now risk the sustainability of the NHS, 17/10/17). Short-termism leads to all sorts of apparently unforeseen problems; did no-one see that cutting council grants would bring about quality reductions in public services? Was no-one in authority able to predict recruitment crises in nursing and teaching, through over-work and a pay freeze? Tax reductions for the rich would not lead to increased inequality and decreased revenue for the Treasury? Selling weapons to the Saudis would bring in revenue, but the longer-term effects of the weapons on human targets, let alone on the government`s ethical standing, mattered not a jot. Promising £350m a week for the NHS might lead to a Brexit vote, but with drastic consequences later.

Similarly, short-termism in business has led to companies focussing more on immediate profits, rather than the benefit of improved productivity from longer-term investment in technology and training. 

   With the effects of such policies now coming home to roost, is it any wonder principled politicians, with plans to transform the way our society is managed, are on target to win the next election? 

The Tory disease: short-termism

John McDonnell is wisely concentrating on the OECD`s "criticism of Britain`s weak productivity", and how the organisation stressed the need for more "infrastructure investment,  increased research spending and improved training". This highlights the sharp contrast  with Tory policies, which almost all are based on short-termism, and which have caused immeasurable problems, not only for the country`s economy, but for most of its long-suffering people.

      Labour needs to emphasise how successive governments have failed to think clearly about their health and social care p[olicies, and their short-termism has led to the present crises, and to obvious, but apparently unforeseen, problems. Did no-one see that cutting council grants would bring about quality reductions in public services? Was no-one in government able to predict recruitment crises in nursing and teaching, through over-work and a pay freeze, or that tax reductions for the rich would not lead to increased inequality and decreased revenue for the Treasury? Selling weapons to the Saudis would bring in revenue, but the longer-term effects of the weapons on human targets, let alone on the government`s ethical standing, clearly mattered not a jot.

     Britain`s current productivity problems have been caused by government-endorsed short-termism in business, with companies focussing more on immediate profits, shareholder dividends, and obscene pay and bonuses for bosses, rather than on improving productivity with longer-term investment in technology and training. Of course, companies concentrating on such policies should be the only ones considered for government contracts.

      With the effects of such short-termism now coming home to roost, is it any wonder principled politicians, with plans to transform the way our society is managed, are on target to win the next election? Being able to manage joined-up thinking is always handy when in government, and Labour being immune from  the Tory disease that is short-termism is something that needs publicising!

Question Time needs changing!

Roger Mosey makes many pertinent points about the future of Question Time, paricularly that the BBC is "right to try to renew its relevance" (Off the Air, 13th October, 2017). Also sensible is, as "these are serious times", that there is little room for celebrities and such-like on the panel, but plenty for experts; when, for example, the Education Secretary guests, why not also include an experienced examiner, headteacher, or union leader? Doctors or surgeons when Secretary for Health is on?  

  Mosey, however, misses an important point: viewing figures are not going to increase significantly unless some radical changes are made. Regardless of how "adept" Dimbleby is, a new format requires either a younger chair, preferably female, or  different guest chairs every week. Scheduling the programme against Newsnight has always seemed ludicrous, as is the idea that "the multiplicity of minor parties" demands panel representation; Ukippers have spoilt too many editions already! Studio audience participation could be enhanced by the use of electronic voting devices, whilst the wider audience could be involved by asking them to follow @bbcquestiontime on Twitter, and responding with retweets, or not, after every question. 

 As for the getting the "excellent This Week", to "move earlier", Mr Mosey!! There is nothing like the sight of opposing politicians cosying up together, whilst earning a fat fee, to put young people off politics for ever!

Every day is bad for PM

Why John Rentoul should think that Wednesday this week was an especially "embarrassing day for Theresa May" beggars belief (Voices, 18/10/17).  Admittedly she carelessly answered "Yes" to Corbyn`s request that she "pause universal credit", and her government agreed to last week`s Labour demand for a "freephone helpline for claimants". There was also also  the expectation that Tory MPs be "instructed not to take part in the vote" at the end of the universal credit debate, but whether this makes for  a particularly bad day for May is doubtful.

           We have a prime minister so divorced from reality she recently made a statement claiming that there is a "great prize" awaiting us after Brexit, when the UK will become a "great global country"! Theresa May even admitted she thinks she will still be Tory leader in 2022! How embarrassing can she get?

  Her government`s uselessness in foreign affairs results in arms being sold for use in Yemen, and offers nothing to ameliorate political and humanitarian catastrophes. Sucking up to Trump, rather than criticising him for his crassness, goes a step further than shame and humiliation. 

  At home, shortages of hospital beds, teachers, GPs and nurses, prison and police officers, firefighters, food and buildings` inspectors, HMRC staff and more, exacerbate problems caused by decreased funding for local authorities, and the many caused by government-enforced austerity policies and real-wage cuts. If she is not embarrassed by all of this, she should be ashamed of herself.

     One of the the troubles is that May`s rhetoric knows no bounds, and ever since the Downing Street speech in July last year, she has done nothing to lead a government  "driven" by any interests other than those "of the privileged few". The "burning injustice" that is the lack of parity funding "between the south-east and the north", amounting to £59bn over ten years, is not going to be remedied by her government with a record of disastrous cost-cutting,  and which has already committed to Crossrail 2, rather than the electrification schemes across the north, which were promised in the Tory manifesto.

    History shows that the Conservative party is based on preserving the riches, property and benefits enjoyed by the wealthy, who in return become party donors. Businesses have their regulations reduced by Conservative governments so that they can make more profits, and in return, help to fund the party. As a result, corporate excess, greedy landlordism and lack of sufficient regulation on the financial sector are problems never likely to be tackled by May`s government. Every day in office is an embarrassment, and Wednesday was no more degrading than any other day!

Too much mis-remembering

Will Hutton misses the point when writing about there being "too much remembering" (Endlessly refighting old wars does nothing to heal a fractured present, 08.10.17). Catalans wanting independence, just like the residents of eastern parts of Germany who voted far-right, have memories of their past which are not "inflated" as Hutton calls them, but so vivid they cannot be forgotten. History is always manipulated by politicians to suit their own ends, but when its justification is "ethnically based superiority", it becomes dangerous.

 What Hutton omitted to mention is that for many in Britain the memory of the fight against fascism is not just "over-remembered and over-deified", it is inaccurate, something that our governments have been keen to encourage, and has led to a preponderance of feelings of national pre-eminence. It is clearly a case of too much mis-remembering. The idea of "Britain alone" overcoming the Nazis is still being perpetuated, even on the cinema screens. Then there are the myths about the British empire acquired to spread civilisation, regardless of the massacres and atrocities, slavery and torture. Why else would millions of documents either have been destroyed or hidden away from the prying eyes of historians? The "glorious past", a time of economic growth without the need for European co-operation and immigration, did not exist.

  It is never "a time to forget and move on", as Hutton concludes. The mythology certainly needs to be scrapped, but the truth, especially in 

Labour should end Pre-U examinations

Few, if any,will have any problems with Labour`s promises to "radically transform Britain`s education system", and that "teachers would be at the heart of it". Most of the problems which have developed since Gove`s outrageous abandonment of advice from experts could have been avoided had the then Secretary of State listened to teachers.

 There is today, however, one very secret area of the education system which involves teachers very heavily, though sadly the teachers in question belong to the private sector. Who knew, before the recent scandal involving examination-cheating at Eton and Winchester, that there existed examinations taken by privately-educated students in this country, which were equivalent to A-levels but not the same, and whose grades are recognised by universities as entrance qualifications? They are called Pre-Us, and often include questions set by teachers in the private sector, who also mark them.

     With no limits to the proportion of students universities can enrol from private schools, only private sector pupils taking these examinations, and independent school staff, in many cases, actually setting the examinations, the current post-16 assessment system is both unfair and flawed. 

     On the Pre-U website, Winchester College recommends these examinations for use by other public schools, because they "are very liberating for teachers". I bet they are!

 Having taught A-levels for over forty years, and being "unliberated", I knew nothing about the existence of such examinations, and I doubt if many of today`s teachers in state schools realise that their students are actually competing for top grades and university places with privately educated pupils whose "A-level grades" will have been earned in a rather different way. Imagine how easier teaching becomes when, for example, having to cover three hundred years of history, and knowing which questions will be on the paper, even if no actual "cheating" is involved! How many state-school students have been denied access to their first choice university because of better grades achieved in these A-level substitutes?

    Labour must ensure these "examinations" are no longer viable as university entrance qualifications immediately!

Manipulated history and Brexit

Last week`s Leader mentioned the important role history is playing in the current issue of Catalonia`s independence (The Spanish crisis, 6th October, 2017). The "feeling of hurt" after the oppression the Catalans suffered during the Spanish Civil War and Franco`s dictatorship "has never gone away", and allying this with economic resentment has led to the demand for a referendum.

   Strangely, the Leader did not see fit to compare this with the UK`s current crisis. That similar economic frustration was an important factor in the Brexit decision is irrefutable, but Britain`s struggle against the fascists also played its part, albeit rather differently. Our manipulated version of history has given many Britons an aversion to the idea of European co-operation, having been led to believe "Britain alone" defeated the Nazis, that the empire existed to spread civilisation, and that our "glorious past" showed the economy could flourish without immigration. 

     British governments have allowed historical files, which would correct inaccurate history, to remain secret, and they must share responsibility both for creating a general belief in our mythological past, and for the utter confusion which now abounds. 

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!