Tuesday 26 February 2019

Corbyn can`t win!

It seems Corbyn can`t win! Now that he has finally "thrown the party`s weight behind a second EU referendum" in the inevitable eventuality of Labour failing to get "its own version of a Brexit deal" passed this week, the criticism keeps on coming (Jeremy Corbyn: we`ll back a second referendum to stop no-deal Tory Brexit, 26/02/19). Despite the decision being eminently sensible, both politically and electorally, showing up the rebel Independent Group for their over-hasty defection, and the feebleness of parliament being exposed by divisions and indecision, Corbyn`s move is seen as being "divisive", having a "corrosive impact on the sovereignty of parliament"! Over the last few weeks his refusal to support the idea of another vote was seen as being anti-democratic, presumably eroding the "sovereignty of democracy"!
    The fact that Corbyn is prepared to allow the voters a final say shows his determination to avoid a disastrous no-deal exit, and deserves support and praise from all Labour MPs. If some are still reluctant to acknowledge sensible leadership, it makes one wonder whether they would vote in parliament to end to austerity, increase taxes on the rich, and support all the other excellent policies proposed in the last Labour manifesto. After all, isn`t it the "sovereignty of the people" that really counts?

Saturday 16 February 2019

Scrapping GCSEs and reforming private schools

As well as the excellent proposals made in your editorial for the steps which "can be taken straight away" to deal with the "inequality-generating machines" which are private schools, others are worthy of consideration (Private schools present obstacles to social mobility that must be overcome, 13/02/19). Closing the loopholes which allow schools in the independent sector to by-pass the newly-reformed, more rigorous, and coursework-free GCSE and A-level examinations by entering pupils for coursework-included and lightly regulated IGCSE and Pre-U examinations is essential. Coursework was seen by Gove as the main reason for grade inflation, and recently described by the Ofsted chief inspector to the education select committee as a vehicle for "mark collection", so why Cambridge Assessment examinations are still allowed to include it for final assessment beggars belief.
   The only entry qualifications for our state-funded universities should be A-levels, described by Ofqual as "national qualifications based on content set by the government", and BTEC`s vocational qualifications. As private schools "educate around 6% of the UK`s school population", banning universities from having more than 6% of their undergraduate intake from the private sector, as many have suggested, also appears eminently sensible!

If GCSEs "are the gold-standard qualification", as the spokesman for the Department for Education says, why are schools in the independent sector allowed to avoid them, and enter their pupils instead for Cambridge Assessment`s IGCSE examinations, which allow coursework (GCSE exams must be scrapped, says Tory MP, 11/02/19)? Robert Halfon`s idea for a Baccalaureate which recognises academic and technical skills is a good one, but only if all schools, including private schools. are forced to adopt it as their only leaving qualification!

Robert Halfon rightly says that "a well-rounded education requires more breadth" than on offer with the current exam-obsessed system (Influential Tory calls for GCSEs to be scrapped in exam overhaul, 11.02.19).The problem with his idea, however, is whether the new baccalaureate, which includes "vocational skills and personal development", would also be compulsory in the independent sector. It is well known how private schools avoid the newly reformed exam-based GCSEs and A-levels by entering pupils for Cambridge Assessment`s lightly-regulated IGCSE and Pre-U exams, which are still allowed to include coursework as part of the final assessment. Interestingly, the Ofsted chief inspector told the education select committee last week that exams which include "coursework components" turn into "something about mark-collection" rather than "exciting projects"!
  Unless all schools are forced to adopt the new baccalaureate, and universities accept its grades as the only viable entry qualification, Halfon`s idea will have the effect of decreasing social mobility even further!

That the "reversal in the rise of state school enrolments" to university matches the slow progress being made in recruitment "from areas of low education achievement" is hardly surprising (Proportion of state school pupils starting university declines, 08/02/19). These areas have suffered the worst excesses of the Tories` callous and unnecessary austerity policies, and their schools will be the ones suffering most in terms of underfunding, leading to inevitable curriculum and staffing problems. Pupils from such schools do brilliantly if they manage to get the A-level grades needed for university, but many with unfulfilled potential do not.
 Pupil motivation in these schools is a real challenge, especially when funds are being reduced, which makes the facts that wealthy private schools receiving state handouts "of more than £200m a year", and also being allowed to gain university entrance qualifications through lightly-regulated exams which unlike A-levels, include coursework as part of the total assessment, even more galling (Critics take aim at subsidies given to private schools, 05/02/19). Universities have to recognise the potential in pupils from poor backgrounds, from schools in deprived regions, with discipline and staffing problems, poor leadership, and lower-than-average results, who manage to get 3 A-level passes. The idea of denying student loans to students with less than 3 Ds at A-level is a disgraceful one, and one which the government should reject immediately (Denying loans to weaker A-levels will "penalise poor families, 05/02/19)!

Sunday 10 February 2019

Education`s Ugly Sisters

What is indeed clear, as Fiona Millar says, is that education "is rapidly becoming a Cinderella service", but it is equally obvious who take the roles of the Ugly Sisters (State education is becoming a Cinderella service for both Conservatives and Labour, 22/01/19). With the prime minister only interested in extending grammar schools, and the leader of the opposition, judging by PMQs, not willing to enter any debate on the subject, this particular pantomime seems set to run for a while!
 It`s not as though the current system is working well, with increasing concerns, both about the  stress and anxiety levels faced by both pupils and teachers, caused particularly by the government`s obsession with exams, and about the integrity of the examinations themselves. Then there`s the underfunding and problems caused by the teacher recruitment crisis, as well as the matter of university admissions, all subjects in need of urgent discussion. Ofsted seemingly has seen the error of some of its ways, but as Dr Richard House pointed out, the need remains for a "supportive inspectorate" (Letters, 22/01/19).
  The frequent changes of leadership and priority at the DfE, with the position of secretary of state seen merely as a stepping stone in  political careers rather than an opportunity to make a difference, leave responsibility for stopping education`s "drift to bankruptcy" at Corbyn`s door. Policy statements from him are needed, whether they be about teacher workload, ending the charitable status of private schools, or even the necessity of making university entrance reliant on A-level examination and BTEC grades only. 
English education has seen its fair share of pantomime villains; it could do with a fairy godfather promising fairness for all schoolchildren!

British business typified by Tesco!

The reputation of British business, already at rock-bottom with its recent history of obscene pay awards, bonuses attached to short-term profits and share values,, tax avoidance, zero-hours contracts for many workers not even being paid a living wage, and lack of investment leading to low productivity, has been done no favours by Tesco`s most recent announcement (Threat to 9,000 jobs as fresh food counters shut, 29/01/19). Introducing yet more so-called "efficiency" cuts, putting "up to 9,000 staff jobs at risk", is a typical short-termist and unimaginative response by a CEO determined, as Nils Pratley says, to "keep the profit margin promises he made to the City" (Business view, 29/01/19).
     Rather than reduce Tesco`s "points of differentiation" with its rivals by closing fresh food counters, it makes far more sense for a major supermarket to be cashing in on the current trends for healthier eating and vegan-style diets. With profits at well over £1bn a year, some nutritious loss-leaders which improve health, could be offered, demonstrating how cheap, but nevertheless still wholesome, lunches and evening meals can be. Selling all the ingredients needed at the same counter could work, as could providing a different reduced-price meal every day. Reducing prices of healthier foods like fresh fish and local vegetables whilst promoting itself as the "healthy" supermarket appears a more sensible management decision for Tesco than abandoning its upmarket appeal
   Trying to defeat Aldi and Lidl at their own game is never going to work; having a management clearly out of touch with customers can only end badly! Tesco is missing out on a wonderful opportunity to improve the health of the nation, as its rivals would be shamed into copying for fear of becoming the unhealthy option!

Tories failing on tax avoidance

A Business Leader is not the most appropriate place in which to describe how the world`s leading digital companies do everything they can to "drive down the effective rate of tax they pay", and then ask its readers why wouldn`t "everyone else play the same game" (Facebook and the tech giants won`t like it, but a digital tax must become reality, 03.02.19). Quite frankly, the world`s businesses are a disgrace, seeing profit as the only objective worth pursuing, and caring not a jot about the welfare of their workforce, the environment, or the debt they owe society. Individuals, by and large, are different - we wouldn`t have doctors, nurses, teachers or carers if it were not the case. Unfortunately we do have governments, like ours, which plead poverty, but do next to nothing to ensure wealthy companies and individuals pay their fair share. The Leader suggests other countries "should follow" Hammond`s lead because he supports a "modest digital tax", but he is Chancellor in a government which has reduced corporation and the top level of income tax, believes in the nonsense that is the Laffer curve, a device created to justify tax reductions for the wealthy, and has recently delayed plans to require British tax havens like the British Virgin Islands to reveal the owners of companies hiding assets (MPs attack ministers over delay to tax havens` public registers, 11/01/19). Hardly an example for others to follow!
      Nick Cohen recognises not only that the super-rich should be paying far more in taxation, but that even a country like cash-strapped Britain will not "compel them" (Forget philanthropy. The super-rich should just pay all their taxes,03.01.19). What he omitted to mention is that nothing on the tax-evasion front is likely to change until a left-wing Labour government is elected in this country, something of which he isn`t the greatest fan!

Sunday 3 February 2019

Agreeing with Observer`s editorial!

Trapped between a rock of Labour-supporting Leave voters and the hard place where its Remain-supporting voters reside, the Labour party`s obfuscation on Brexit details is hardly unsurprising. It does, however, have to make its intentions clear soon, and William Keegan hinted at a possible solution (For the poor, it`s not the EU that`s the problem. It`s austerity, 27.01,19). With any form of Brexit looking disastrous, particularly in the short-term, and especially on the jobs/working regulations` front, support for a second, but different, referendum on leaving the EU looks a sensible option.
       This time, however, Corbyn`s Labour needs to take charge of the Remain campaign, so that it can, in Keegan`s words, "take the austerity bull by the horns". Only a Labour government-in-waiting can make promises about taxation, spending and investment which can give hope to those who justifiably feel "left behind", and who took out their frustrations on the EU. In 2016 politicians were too cowardly to admit that their poverty was the fault of successive governments, which had focused too much on the City, the financial institutions, and the south-east, at their expense, a mistake Labour would have no reason to repeat.
   In this second referendum the messengers are as important as the message, which is why the likes of Blair, Mandelson and austerity-supporting Tories have to be silenced. Farage will undoubtedly return in his private jet to rage against the Establishment, whilst Rees-Mogg and Johnson would find it much more difficult this time even to sound credible. It might be unpopular with extreme Tories and the right-wing press, but with a united Labour party promising Leave-voters the future that the previous campaign could not, the result would almost certainly be a far different one!

Friday 1 February 2019

In favour of rent controls

Campaigning for "wide-ranging rent controls" in London seems an eminently sensible decision for a mayor hoping for re-election, especially as this is an area on which previous Labour propaganda has been particularly weak (Khan to put rent control plan at heart of mayoral re-election bid, 24/01/19). Khan`s plan, of course, will "not find favour with the Conservative government". Why would it, when 309 Tory MPs in 2016 voted against Labour`s amendment to the Housing and Planning Bill, which would have placed "a duty on landlords to ensure their properties were fit for human habitation", with 72 of them registered as deriving income from property of over £10,000 a year?
  When the Tories have to adopt such a ludicrous argument against rent controls as them leading to landlords being unable "to afford to maintain properties", and having to sell up, Khan must know he is on to a winner! Capping rents, however, does little to address the problem of many rents being at far too high a level already. Legislation is needed, both to help local councils deal with "rogue landlords", as requested by Brent council (Letters, 23/01/19), and to ensure rents nationwide are compatible with the condition and position of the properties. If housing inspectors have to be employed, with the power to place rented properties in bands with each band possessing a  maximum rent, so be it!