Licensing teachers: nonsense!

Even Michael Gove eventually rejected the idea of licensing teachers on the grounds that it would add to an already overburdensome administrative system in schools. Only a privately educated Labour spokesperson for education could succeed in providing teachers with one reason for agreeing with the worst Education Secretary in modern times!

     Presumably Hunt has accepted hook, line and sinker  the coalition propaganda about state education, promulgated yet again in another TV series, which clearly is set to ignore the best aspects of comprehensive schooling, and to focus instead on trainee teachers` failure to discipline effectively challenging behaviour? Exciting television viewing, perhaps, but hardly a reliable enough source of evidence for a trained historian?

    Hunt clearly still has not grasped the fact that this Tory-led government has an ideological agenda, aimed at a two-tiered sytem of education, whilst privatising as much as possible. State schools are now providing such a good education, Gove had to change the examination system to reduce the amount of success achieved. Schools are full of enthusiastic, "motivated" and extremely hard working teachers,who are "passionate about their subjects"; well-prepared lessons,which inspire and challenge  the most hard working set of schoolchildren the country has ever had, abound, with more lessons observed, teachers appraised and learning assessed than ever before, not to mention the role played by Ofsted. Hunt has already gone on record in supporting Performance Related Pay for teachers, a system that all teachers see as totally unfair and impractical, and now he is proposing this licensing scheme! Does he not visit state schools, talk to teachers, parents and pupils, and have meetings with union leaders? Teachers have been driven to distraction, even resorting to strike action, by non-stop criticism and attacks from Gove for nearly four years, and now this; teachers and students deserve better. It makes one wonder whether Labour actually wants to win the election!

 

Letter to Guardian re Lab/LibDem pact

Your editorial rightly praises two Lib Dems for proposing, albeit belatedly, a "motion on digital rights" to their party`s spring conference, but excuses to commend the party, generally, are clearly few and far between. (Digital drumbeat,10/01/14) This makes the news that Labour is contemplating a possible post-election pact with them all the more alarming; Steve Bell`s portrayal of Clegg as a used condom accurately sums up the present situation, and suggests Boris Johnson has more political awareness than Balls! 

   Have Miliband and Balls forgotten the role the Lib Dems have played in supporting the Tories in their quest to impose poverty on the majority of the people, and shrink the state back to levels last seen in 1948? Just because they suddenly have discovered sympathy for the low-paid, and are currently vying with  the Tories over minimum wage proposals, does not mean Labour should be seeing them as potential allies. Would not a Lab/Lib Dem coalition spend most of its time undoing the work of the previous government, repealing laws which only entered the Statute book because of Lib Dem votes? If that isn`t the focus of a future Labour government, there can be no reason for voting for them! How can they possibly forget Lib Dem duplicity, from student fees to their total acceptance of Tory propaganda, particularly the abuse poured on Labour for apparently causing the 2008 crash, a point made most vociferously by Clegg when stepping in for Cameron at PMQs recently?

    The truth appears to be that, with their policies showing more signs of a cautious,Disraelian approach than an aggressive one, with more than a hint of Attleeism, Labour leaders are again pandering to the middle ground. This does nothing to set them apart from the other parties, does nothing to divorce themselves from the influence of the City, and nothing to regain votes they have undoubtedly lost to Ukip.The increase in support Labour received after the energy price freeze announcement, which of course, the Lib Dems criticised, seems to have taught them nothing about the desire in the country for boldness; talk of a coalition with the Lib Dems, sixteen months away from the election, is sheer cowardice.

TV`s sensationalist programmes tow the government line

Owen Jones`s criticism of Channel 4`s "miserable programme", Benefits Street, and of programmes of a similar nature, which use "unsympathetic examples" and where poor people are portrayed "in the worst possible light", was spot-on.(Independent,08/01/14) Sadly, such "sensationalist programmes" are not confined to focussing on the unemployed and low-paid; there are others which "airbrush out the reality", especially when it comes to education in the state sector.

   The coalition government since 2010, aided by the right wing press, has been constantly criticising state schools, with the clear aim of creating its own justification for, not only the reform of the examination system, but the creation, in the long term, of a two-tiered system, and a return of grammar schools. Hence, TV programmes which tow the populist line are commissioned, and we have a preponderance of documentaries about comprehensive schools, like "Educating Yorkshire" and now the recent "Tough Young Teachers" on BBC3, which not only highlight the worst aspects of school life, but ignore the best. Do cameras ever linger on the classes where behaviour is impeccable, where all homework has been handed in, and where the focus is on learning? No, of course not, but that is the reality of what happens in most lessons! Instead, we watch disruptive behaviour, low sets failing to grasp basic mathematical concepts, and pupils, previously excluded from other schools, causing problems for teachers. The government propaganda is therefore reinforced, the misleading message underlined. The truth, that education in state schools has never been better, teaching quality, because of detailed preparation of lessons and the enthusiasm and determination of the teachers, is of the highest order, which even Ofsted is forced to admit, and that a huge majority of lessons are orderly, with pupils respectful and on-task, is ignored.

Owen is right; rejecting the truth "has been encouraged by our political leaders", but that does not mean television should pander to their wishes. It`s time to concentrate on reality!

 

 

Too much Disraeli,not enough Attlee!

When Miliband first embraced the principles of a 19th century Tory prime minister, the public reaction was not the expected one of dismay; after all, Disraeli had witnessed the evils of a two nation society, divided into "haves" and "have-nots", and taken action. When the opposition leader allied his creation of "One Nation" Labour with attacks on predatory capitalism, the centre-left awaited policy details with cautious optimism, which was seemingly justified with the energy price freeze proposals.

     However, the news that another Disraelian principle has been adopted is more alarming.Soon after giving companies and bosses the option to pay a living wage to employees, with some tax relief the reward, rather than the pledge of legislation  to enforce it, came the proposal to give local councils permission to deal with the increased numbers of FOBTs as they see fit, when it was the same councils who allowed the betting shops to dominate many high streets in the first place. This is nothing less than the "permissiveness" which prevented Disraeli`s government of 1874-80 from providing anything other than "window-dressing", rather than pragmatic reform. It`s true that a small percentage of local councils, like Birmingham`s with its slum clearance, took positive action, but most, given the choice not to rock any capitalist boats, didn`t, and Disraeli lost the 1880 election; it was left to the 20th century Liberal government to make a significant difference, with a fledgling welfare state.

    This is not what most people either want or expect from a future Labour government, and neither is cosying up to Clegg and his cronies; what next, grant multinationals the right to donate taxes,like the coalition apparently does, or allow banking regulators to continue fining banks pittance, as totally ineffective punishment, for their scams and interest rate fixing? Policies designed to offend no-one might come under a "One Nation" umbrella but, as many opinion polls indicate, will not satisfy the majority of the electorate, so if the aim is not a majority Labour government in 2015, it needs to be declared as such.

    Our corrupt and unfair society is ripe for change, but it needs an opposition party with bottle, willing to adopt aggressive policies to change the banking culture and a taxation system which benefits the rich. The "new approach" at PMQs might have "worked well for Miliband", but if he`s got so little to propose, what is the point of being able to hear it better? A little less of the feebleness of  Disraeli, and rather more of the boldness of Attlee, is required!

 

Election and minimum wage

The race is clearly on: which of the two "champions of low-paid workers", the Tories or Lib Dems, will succeed, with their support for increasing the minimum wage, in winning the votes of the working people?  A general election is not on the horizon, by any chance? What idiots do they take voters for, after spending four years in power enforcing poverty on the majority, whilst enriching City friends? Remember how Clegg, after 30 months of delivering austerity to the country, said in 2012 that it was then time to "hardwire fairness" into government policies? Amazing what thoughts of Ukip success in the Euro elections, and a Labour victory in 2015, can do, especially when leadership changes will be in the offing! When the CBI chief sees the need for improvement in workers` pay, an election bandwagon suddenly presents itself. Suddenly, they care!

       Labour certainly needs to be more pro-active in this area, what many observers might consider their own territory. With both Tories and Lib Dems obviously struggling to retain their traditional voters, with political principles in the run-up to a general election mattering even less than usual, and with Clegg already facing what appears to many as a leadership challenge from Cable, Labour must pledge immediately a substantial increase in the minimum wage, up to at least living wage levels, and inflation-index linked, thereby "stealing the thunder" of Osborne`s March budget and the LibDems` so-called "fairness agenda", and setting out its stall as the party of the people, not the City.

        One question would still remain, however: is the raising the minimum wage, even to living wage levels, whilst obviously being a start in the improvement of the standard of living of many, sufficient on its own? Will it not, for example,merely lead to employers taking on more part-time staff on zero-hours contracts, large companies like supermarkets and online suppliers not only raising  prices but becoming more determined to find loopholes in tax legislation, and will not exploititative landlords be more inclined to raise rents further, in the knowledge that their tenants` income has risen?

    Hopefully, Jon Cruddas`s committees have been doing some joined-up thinking on these issues, so some sharing of their conclusions with the electorate, from the Labour leadership, would be welcome.

 

Gove`s "history" should not be taken seriously

The obvious fact is that the Education Secretary, who denounces historians, because they disagree with his naive ideas on the first world war, for "denigrating patriotism" and "supporting left-wing myths", is being taken too seriously; Gove is merely an arrogant politician, intent on imposing his ideology on the centenary commemorations, totally unqualified to debate history with academics. 

   How dare he have the impudence to challenge the views of historians, many of whom having devoted much of their lives to studying and teaching 20th century history,when he lacks not only qualifications in the subject, but as well as detailed knowledge, a basic understanding of how history works? Presumably his 2.1 degree in English did not provide him with the skills necessary to dispute the works of expert historians? The basic point which he clearly does not understand is that history is a matter of interpretation, and that historians can be experts in their field of study, yet reach different conclusions, and the first world war is no exception.There are many differing views on the causes of the war, but that does not mean all are wrong, bar one, which appears to be Gove`s view, or that those who support the varied viewpoints are upholding "left-wing myths". A traditional view may have to give way eventually, when revisionist historians` views take precedence, often after new research has been undertaken, or when new evidence has been unearthed, but that is not the case with WWI, and anyway, it does not mean that the earlier interpretation should be binned, and certainly not rubbished, in typical Gove-like fashion. The recent judgements, supported by Gove, on the role played by General Haig, for instance, are by no means watertight, as there is plenty of evidence supporting alternative conclusions.

     The rigour now in A-level history is such that Gove would fail to get a top grade in the subject, as his "coursework" in the Mail recently revealed important skills to be lacking; substantiating statements with factual evidence, evaluation of a wide range of sources, and showing explicit understanding of relevant issues all were missing. A-level students working on the option I have been involved with recently, have to show "clear and consistent understanding of the nature of historical debate" and the ability to "assess the relative merits of differing interpretations" with a "convincing,well supported judgement" (Mark Scheme for HIS4X,AQA); I know of many students who have achieved this top level, but sadly, our Secretary of State for Education does not even come close

Letter to Guardian on NHS

Whilst there is probably little doubt that "people with long-term medical conditions" are causing immense problems for the NHS, one has to question both whether their number will "overwhelm" it, and the wisdom of using the exact word spoken by Dr Martin McShane in your headline (Soaring cost of long-term care threatens to "overwhelm" NHS, 04/01/14) Of course, you want to stress the urgency of the situation, and are right to do so, but is it not also important to discuss problems facing the NHS in a measured and considered way, without alarmist headlines, leading to knee-jerk reactions, such as ones Paddy Ashdown has clearly witnessed? (Mood in Britain is frightening,04/01/14) The Tories and their Lib Dem puppets have already started their dismantling of the NHS, and will be looking to exploit such problems to further its aim of privatisation.With the coalition`s "economy with the truth" now reaching legendary status, it has become almost impossible to determine the difference between reality and propaganda,and we already know how this government proceeds with its privatisation programme, concentrating first on constant fault-finding of the state-owned institution for "justification", with the so-called failings often the inevitable result of job and financial cuts made by the government itself! Individual examples of failure are highlighted to give misleading impressions of the institution generally; huge media coverage follows, with the Mail, Express and even the BBC at the helm, leading to hysterical and alarmist conclusions; empirical evidence is ignored, and inaccurate data quoted repeatedly, with, of course, the costs to the taxpayer exaggerated. Remember Tory annoyance with the opening ceremony of the Olympics? The NHS is a main target for privatisation, with the overall aim being further reduction in the size and role of the state, and a mouth-watering pre-election promise of tax reductions to gullible Tory voters.

    This is not to deny the existence of problems within the NHS, but they are both inevitable given the longevity of "geriboomers" and the action of an unsympathetic government, and solvable, with public and future government support. Labour needs to step up its support now and not just from Andy Burnham; the whole party needs to shout it from the rooftops, before the Tory and Ukip propaganda machines spread even more bile in the build-up to the European elections. The country does not want the NHS privatised, as there is so much evidence, from railways to energy, that privatisation simply leads to the desire for profits taking precedence, to so-called "efficiency" leading to job cuts, and to needs of shareholders having priority over consumers.It would mean the end of the NHS as we know it!