Entertainment For Lively Minds
ATE : Ask The Extremists
So, listening to the news on the way home I found out that I'm an extremist - that's the word Cameron has used for people who think that the Work Fair initiative is nothing more than cheap labour for Tescos.
Seems like there are a lot of extremists around here : http://www.wordmagazine.co.uk/content/work-fair
To me that this appear to be just the latest "spin" attack from the ConDems. The BMA and the College of Midwives are no longer professional bodies of the medical profession, no, they are "unions" (which of course to the ConDems equates in some way to "evil").
The teachers, governors and parents of a school that does not want to be forced to be an acadamy are also extremists deliberately damaging the pupils' education - worse, according to Gove they are "Trots".
Led as they are by a man who only has experience of the PR industry this is perhaps no surprise - and his embracing of green causes and hoodies was instrumental in making his party appear less "nasty", so he knows it works. That he (and his deputy PM) also made a huge play of their manifesto promises and then ditched them in days seems to show a somewhat cynical attitude to the electorate.
I just wonder how people feel about being labelled (without paraphrasing for once) as Commie backsliders if they ever find themselves not agreeing with ConDem policy ?
- More from Slick.
- Login or register to post comments
-
Come on Slick
Get off the fence and tell us what you really think of the evil Tory bastards!
By the way, have you got a quote of what he said exactly?
BBC Radio 4 News
Quotes the government as describing those who have organised protests against the work fair scheme as "disgraceful" and that the protests are run "by a small number of extremists".
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/console/b01c6hmx about 9min 50 seconds in.
Not quite what you said, is it
At no stage did Cameron say that people who disagreed with Workfare were extremists - merely people who organised protests against such schemes. Which are supported by Polly Toynbee, Bill Clinton and other such right wing luminaries.
My defence
I heard it whilst driving - and it had just rattled around in my brain for a couple of hours.
That Tesco have changed their stance on Work Fair http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/tesco-in-work-experience-... would seem to suggest that the protests had some point.
Or have they just bowed to disgusting extremist pressure by saying they'll pay the full wage and offer a job at the end if the work's up to scratch - which is all the protest was asking for. Pay people for their work, and if there is a real job going then give it to someone - is that so unreasonable ?
Not really
IMHO. Tesco have bowed to pressure - sadly. Bad headlines and angry protests are never good for business, so perhaps not surprising. But the people who suffer will be those denied an opportunity to sample work.
Sample work ?
I've done shelf stacking - and it's not all it's cracked up to be.
Me too
And I've been long term unemployed. Only one of these things is likely to lead to a job - as it did with me.
Were you paid for this shelf stacking
or did you just do it for free ?
I was paid for mine. Not much, but I was paid.
Yes
I was paid (a pittance) for the shelf stacking, which turned into a long term job. I didn't claim benefits at the same time, but it would have been around the same level of take home cash. I did it for the experience and opportunity, not really focusing on the immediate cash side of things.
I personally loved retail and should probably have stuck to it!
Routine of work
I've a lot of sympathy with your comment about sampling work. When you're in work, going to work day-in day-out, 9-5 whatever the routine is, your body adjusts to it and so does your perspective of life/work. Sure, that perspective might be "I hate this job" but that's very different from "I hate working, gimme the dole".
If you don't sample/experience that routine, especially young people, you don't build up that self-awareness.
I've never been unemployed but I have twice lost a job. On both occasions I did totally unrelated and largely menial work that wasn't anything to do with my career as I looked to get back into the routine my "life/work perspective" had built up.
When you're in work there is much that you take for granted about the underlying benefits - outside of financial and security - that work has.
That said, I do have problems with a large company like Tesco taking people on without paying them IF the work they do contributes to the bottom line. That includes shelf-stacking, sweeping floors or pushing trolleys back to the shop from the car park/canal/central reservation.
Bring back McCarthy. You knew where you were with him.
Being up there without a paddle was a bit of a bummer though.
To summarise
I don't give a tinker's cuss if Cameron or Gove think of me as a pinko or a trot. What is important is that lots of us let him know that we don't like what he's doing, and that he will be fought at every single turn on issues where he wishes to steamroller his unmandated, half-formed, half-arsed ideas through our useless, toothless legislature. Because opposition has to come from somewhere when the democratic process is as broke as it currently is.
It's easy to label the man as an evil overlord who is doing this all for purely political means. That would, in its own weird way be comforting. What scares the living shit out of me is the thought that he and his legion of idiots might actually be sincere in thinking they're really doing the right thing, like Lords Raglan and Cardigan, no doubt
"Why Bother?" Shrugs Britain
illuminatus writes:
What is important is that lots of us let him know that we don't like what he's doing, and that he will be fought at every single turn on issues where he wishes to steamroller his unmandated, half-formed, half-arsed ideas through our useless, toothless legislature. Because opposition has to come from somewhere when the democratic process is as broke as it currently is.
I have been in the UK 5 days, all fresh eyes and that, and what strikes me is that the chippy fighting spirit of Albion has been replaced wholesale with a grudging resigned shrug and a what's-the-point? Something has been steamrollered here in the UK. Orwell would use foxes, wolves and sheep for his farmyard parable if he were writing today. I would love to join you, united to fight at every turn, but where does one go?
People are certainly a bit beaten up by it all
But there are plenty of online campaigns, and while I was initially quite blase about them I think they are having an effect. I think too that as the underlying financial situation worsens and bank start failing or needing more vast lumps of taxpayer support, the government infighting will get much worse.
I actually think Cameron & co are rattled - which isn't the same as saying they're on the run yet - but they are mounting a huge smash and grab raid on the State because they don't think they have much time.
People are angrier than you give them credit for in other words
There are lots of valid ways
first, some people choose the methods of direct action, on protesting in the streets. This has had success in some places; there has been, if not panic, then real disquiet about the levels of real anger in areas affected by HS2, for example. Others choose the mass petition route, as a way of quantifying some kind of unease or disagreement with a position. And we can use some of the government's own weapons against them (like the gov 100000 ePetition signature thing - do remember to go along and sign the one of r privatizing Thatcher's funeral, please)
And then there's the way that I suspect lots of us use: trying to stop others pissing in the pool of ideas. One way that governments try to assert control is by trying to take control of the currency ideas. We saw it in the 80's when all political debate became framed by the terms of Thatcherism. The right won because the left started to try to argue with the right on the right's terms. This only works when we allow the government o dictate the agenda for discussion. It means we have to talk about the issues with our friends, or families, our work colleagues, our students.
We have to try and engage with the ideas and win by force of reason, not resort to the type of ad homimem tactics the political classes use in the adulterated bear pits that are now the legislature and the mass media. Don't give them the chance to fall back on those weapons in the media training armoury they have been given. It means challenging them, and their supporters, every time they hit a doorstep during any election campaign, on every phone in, talk show and local MP or councilor's surgery, or doorstepping a minster like happened to Lansley the other other day. He didn't have an answer, and couldn't back away. Like Foot's Labour in the 1980's, today's Labour party is led by someone who has the intellectual chops but is never ever going to be able to engage with the wider public. Cameron thinks the ground is clear, so in whatever way we can be, we have to be the opposition; we have to fight to keep the pool of ideas free from the horrific pollution of the spin and propaganda of the political system, to stop them trotting out the same old half-truths and sophistry and presenting them as incontrovertible truth.
Now, you may think I'm a rabid leftie. and yes, I probably do sit a little to the left of centre; I prefer to read the Guardian. But I'm hardly an SWP member. I'm more of a left-wing libertarian and contrarian. I don't agree with the death penalty, but think there is a place or corporal punishment. I think there should be a safety net for people, but those abusing it are wrong and should face sanction. I think the richest should shoulder more of the tax burden than they do, but don't think the days of 98% supertax are anything other than stupid. I believe there's a place for the free market economy, but that it should be kept well away from a whole load of other things. since 1992, I haven't voted the same way twice in successive elections. I am actually the kind of floating voter that is supposed to be the target for the political parties. But I am so antipathetic to the whole thing.
Systems of justice and of government are only sustainable when they have the appearance of fairness. They don't actually have to be fair, just appear to be most people, most of the time. That's part of the social contract. And when that contract is strained or broken, people do feel (rightly or wrongly) able to do things loot and riot, because the playing field so is horrendously tilted and the rules that were supposedly to apply to everyone no longer do.
If I get time, I'm seriously considering trying to write something about this. I even have a title and a concept to hang it all around, but I have too many other things to do to start it yet (including getting my PhD back off the ground, where it has lain, moribund, for too long, so I can kick star tmy own career a bit more).
Sorry, that appears to be rather longer than originally intended
HS2 - Slight tangent....(and stereotyping) but here goes...
When HS1 cut through the migrant (and Labour voting) heartlands of east London and urban south west Essex nary a negative voice was heard in parliament. Now HS2's planned route goes through the Chilterns, and a little bit close to Amersham, all hell breaks loose.
The fighting spirit of Albion
Welcome back by the way. I'm not really a pessimist, my own job is pretty secure and while we're not rich nor are we going to have to resort to eating the guinea pigs to survive. However there just seems to be a sense of doom hanging over the country like the alien space craft in Independence day. You don't know what is going to happen but you sense it isn't going to be good. Since the credit crunch started there has been a constant stream of this is going to be bad and there's going to be a recession etc. Lack of consumer confidence becomes a self fulfilling prophecy and the spiral continues. The media bombards us with negatives, not just on the economy but riots, idiot sports people, the Argentinians want the Falklands back and we can't do anything even. Even the weather has been dull over the last couple of years. It's little wonder that the spirit is on the wane. The papers that report all this gloom are being proven to be rubbish. Throw in the eurozone which nobody really understands especially not the people running it appears, our own government which at least should have created a sense of a fresh start after the lurching along of the end of the Brown years, but yet manages to appear out of touch and clueless it can all just feel so flat. Sorry this is a ramble, hope you're settling in ok BigE, and best wishes to all the members of this blog who are struggling.
That's what worries me too...
That they actually believe it. If it was just politics, then as you say it would be weirdly comforting. However they seem to have actually believed their own press and propaganda that there were simple and quick answers to all the countries ills, and that the previous administration all actually idiots rather than just of a different political viewpoint.
You can actually forgive Nick Clegg and the Liberals for floundering a bit in government - after all they had no one in the party who had actually been in government (except Shirley Williams?). But the Tories have a wealth of fairly recent experience to draw on, and the major use of that seems to have been to savage Ken Clarke for suggesting that things are not quite a simple as they seem, and that actions have (often unforseen) consequences.
It's usually...
...when someone is losing an argument that they resort to personal insults. Not big, not clever
Cameron's use of language
We've had talk of "going for" satisfactory schools; and "shock troops" being assigned to "smash complacent schools".
I fully expect to be "The Enemy Within" by the end of the year.
I haven't understood the school one
There are a number of possible combinations which can look a bit off within the possibilities of relabelling :
If a school is getting outstanding results, but the teachers are only good then the school will be labelled as good. And if a school has poor or satisfactory teachers but the results are outstanding, what then ? Is it actually a failing school ? Even if everyone leaves with 5 A-C GCSEs ?
I do wonder - does a school with an excellent catchment area say something like : 95% of parents work, parents will encourage children at all stages, parents support art gallery and museum attendence, buy their kids all the books they want, read to them, give support with homework etc etc - does such a school really need the best teachers the country has to offer ? Or is it the school where the conditions are quite the reverse that deserves them - as more of the potential attainment will be reached through in-school activity.
But if a school has outstanding teachers but the results are poor (due to the catchment area say) then the school will be labelled as failing. Even though the teachers have been judged to be doing all that is humanly possible - and more ! Isn't that, just slightly, bonkers ?
In a word
Yes
Welcome to UK education policy since about 1983, isn't it just priceless?
Hmm
then probably my thoughts on fast tracking the sacking of poor teachers aren't too far off beam -
You have grades of - poor, satisfactory, good and outstanding
You fast track sacking the poor teachers (which presumably means a new reliance on temporary staff whilst a new outstanding teacher is recruited - and I'm not sure where from).
So, now you have no poor teachers, so satisfactory by default becomes the bottom grade. Do you then regrade some of the satisfactory as poor in order to keep the 4 grade system ? Or do you get rid of the satisfactory teachers ? But if you do the latter, then good will become the bottom quality grade and....doesn't this in the end mean that you sack everyone OR grade everyone as outstanding ? But that's meaningless, as there must be some variation between the individuals.
It makes my head hurt.
satisfactory is unsatisfactory
"Education watchdog Ofsted wants to toughen the language of inspections in England - changing the "satisfactory" rating to "requires improvement".
Ofsted's chief inspector, Sir Michael Wilshaw, wants to send a message that "satisfactory" is now unsatisfactory and that more schools should be pushing for the higher rating of "good".
This is the latest attempt to improve schools which are seen as "coasting"."
(taken from 'The Staff Room" website)
Satisfactory ratings
First up I'm a teacher so yes I have a bias. I work in a school that was judged as "satisfactory" at our last inspection. This felt enough like failing at the time, especially when there were aspects of the judgement that were quite unfair. Satisfactory shouldn't be good enough he is quite right but portraying that as a stick to beat schools with is not going to help anyone. In nearly 14 years I've met 1 teacher who was really bad and to be fair to her she was at the end of her career and had been messed about by the constant meddling from governments since time whenever. The demoralising thing is you do your best with your kids and it will never be good enough.
You rating depends on what they're looking for.
Which will be whatever's fashionable at the moment - differentiation, safeguarding, use of ICT. You can never second-guess this. The fact that you've dealt with the points raised in the last inspection makes no odds. If you aren't doing something that they are suddenly rather keen on, it's not your day.
This is
True enough. Even on a prior inspection where we were judged as good we had an issue that every school this particular inspector had inspected got. Plus the national big issue changes like the wind too.
1983 - the year I became a fully qualified Secondary Teacher.
1986 - the year I changed career.
With you all the way illuminatus.
Yep, don't let Cameron's Cronies define terms
... such as the current Head of Ofsted, Michael Wilshaw, and his scary "no excuses" attack on the teaching profession.
This under-qualified Quango chief (who's run two selective schools prior to being appointed by the odious Gove) dismisses reasoned argument linking socio-economic status to educational attainment - pretty much a straight line graph according to just about every study of the effect of background on educational achievement - and labels reasoned argument as 'excuse'...
which is odd
because the whole point of private schooling is to link socio-economic status to education attainment. Isn't it? Or does that only apply to people who go to public schools, and not the plebs?
I used to think...
...that the privately educated kids I came across when I went to college, who - on the whole - had self confidence in spades, good academic results, a good work ethic and knew lots of stuff had got all this stuff from their expensive schools.
Then I met their parents.
Who had self confidence in spades, good academic results, a good work ethic and knew lots of stuff.
Or as Fran Abrams put it in the recent Do schools make a difference? programme,
"About 10% of a child’s life chances are actually down to his or her schooling. The other 90% is down to parents, family background, social class. Stuff that’s already fixed well before your child ever goes through the school gates, clutching his Bob the Builder lunch box."
Just got back from parents evening
As teacher rather than parent. Broadly speaking the kids that are timid have scary parents. The disorganised ones have disorganised parents. The poor readers have parents with poor literacy skills. Etc etc. this isn't a hard and fast rule and is not aimed as a criticism of the parents because 99% are doing their best. My own kids have many of my traits and I have many of mine. How a school is expected to wave a magic wand and make everyone better than average who knows?
"They f*ck you up,
...your mum and dad,
They may not mean to, but they do.
They fill you with the faults they had
And add some extra just for you.
But they were f*cked up in their turn
By fools in old-style hats and coats,
Who half the time were soppy-stern
And half at one another's throats.
Man hands on misery to man.
It deepens like a coastal shelf.
Get out as early as you can,
And don't have any kids yourself."
Thank you Mr. Larkin, but you're a little too late.
The definitive word on boarding schools comes,
inevitably, from my claimed artist.
Not exactly the usual lefty "all-people-who-go-to-public-schools-are-evil" position, but definitely critical of the whole idea of sending a child away to school and the tendency of such institutions to become, essentially, sausage factories. If you're coming from a radical left position as Pd was, the idea that public schoolboys are as much victims of the system as anybody else is interestingly off-message. It certainly makes for a great song, especially Heaton's lonely and slightly off-key vocal at the end.
Note: the pic is the wrong line-up. Always nice to see the noble Hugh, but it's Dave Hemingway thumping the tubs here - and, like Pd's vocal and Pete Wingfield at the pianoforte, he gets rather carried away. Much like the boy in the lyric :)
Fair's fair.
If wanting passionately to live in a more caring, equal and less greedy, corrupt and selfish country and world is extreme then I for one am delighted to be considered an extremist.
It won't be the first time I've probably been considered that by our overlords, when I joined the anti-apartheid movement, the C.N.D, the Anti-Nazi League, Greenpeace and Amnesty International I will undoubtedly have become rather extreme in the eyes of some and frankly It will be a cold day in hell before I could give a toss what a bunch of toffee-nosed dickwits think of me.
Well said Peter
Well said Peter.
Keep on fighting the fight.
Interestingly...
Argos and Tesco are clearly terrified about the bad publicity
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-17116473
Those loser pinko Trot scumbag retail concerns are all the same... one thing I love about that story is a picture of Clegg - who is clearly dyeing his hair nowadays - with the caption - "Nick Clegg said the scheme would help protect the unemployed from loneliness and depression".
Like him presumably.
Cameron is in the bunker. Its going to get nastier. Any of you who are Lib Dems I implore you to pester the living shite out of your MP
Lib Dems.....
are there any left? Thought they were doing everything possible to get rid of their voters.
on the subject of Cameron
The only time Cameron sees the people he governs is when he goes to his pop concerts. To him, the UK is basically comprised of the people you might see at a Gillian Welch show.
And I dare say that actually makes him far more in touch with the population than anyone else in either cabinet.
I did see something about this in The Times
on Saturday, sorry can't link due to paywall.
There was a 2 pager about Cameron's advisors and their roles - Sam Cam was listed as a "1 person focus group" who "keeps Cameron in touch with the real world" (or a very similar set of words).
For some reason the thought of a £150,000/year handbag design consultant who is the daughter of a Baronet being in touch with the "real world" was rather amusing.
A less controversial chortle can be found on her Wikipedia page which seems to suggest that David Cameron used to be married to Sarah Brown, and before that to Sandra Howard. It also seems to imply that Ed Milliband is married to Jack Dromey.
Oh, and I'd go to a Gillian Welch concert. So if Cameron is like people who go to Gillian Welch concerts then he must be like me which would make him a pinko commie extremist. Pass the Paracetomol someone.
I doubt that the choice of language is accidental
I assume they knew the Tesco u turn was coming. Cameron sounds positively chilled compared to Duncan-Smith who gave it the full monty in The Mail - it seems opponents have
an unjustified sense of superiority and sporting an intellectual sneer, we find a commentating elite which seems determined to belittle and downgrade any opportunity for young people that doesn't fit their pre-conceived notion of a 'worthwhile job
further on he refers to "Luddites" and "intellectual snobs". Given the Tories continual assertions that this is a massively popular initiative you do wonder who he's trying to convince.
Still, he's not the only one at it. Baroness Warsi was also getting stuck into "secular fundamentalists", part of a rising tide of "militant secularisation". Apparently.
I can shrug that off
I've been called elitist and intellectual before....but I don't recall ever being an extremist ! At my age ? Really !
I'll admit I found it a little odd that the government chose Baroness Warsi as their spokesperson for the defence of the church of England.
Worthwhile jobs
This would be the same Conservative Party that in opposition derided New Labour's schemes as not being "real jobs", would it?
Funny how you change your mind when you are in power rather than opposition, isnt it?
(I fully expect the tables to turn next time the administration changes).
Ageing Hipster Secular Fundamentalism
Glad to see it's alive and well on the Word blog, though I don't think it's motivated by left-wing pinkos, just a sense of common decency which this morally bankrupt Government lost the moment it got into power, backtracking on election promises such as the NHS and being a family-friendly party.
IDS's attempts to appeal directly to the Tory heartland of Daily Mail readers seems to have backfired, too, and his comments that the unemployed are X-Factor obsessed wannabees shows a clear lack of understanding of the needs of the increasingly disenfranchised older unemployed.
And the news that Emma Harrison, boss of A4e, who paid herself a £8.6 million dividend last year, is now having her business investigated for fraud doesn't surprise me in the least, with claims being made workers were signed off for jobs lasting only a day whilst collecting thousands of pounds from the taxpayer.
The Daily Mail
are not happy with this government. The belief there seems to be that the current lot are dirtying the good name of the Tory party.
Shame the boy Stimpy isn't around
He always makes a sensible comment along the lines of - nothing wrong with right wing views, its the politicians of all stripes who are the problem. He's right of course, millions of perfectly sane and educated people find left wing views just plain wrong. I don't AGREE with them of course but that doesn't matter at all.
(Regarding Stimpy - Anyone heard anything? I've been in direct contact in the past but I don't want to wear - or stress - him out)
Who's the extremist ?
Last night on Harriet Baldwin was on Newsnight as the Coalition's panelist facing three chaps who had had varying experiences of Workfair and other schemes, with varying degrees of success.
However, despite declaring that the schemes were all voluntary, she was carved up completely by one panellist who gave her chapter and verse about the compulsion involved. I could not tell if she was simply under orders to keep insisting it was all voluntary and so reassure the public, or more simply that she was not on top of her brief, and did not know which schemes were voluntary and which were not; either way, eventually she was driven to try to convince her opponent that he was wrong about his own experience, and then try to say how there was only opposition from the Socialist Worker's Party, before Paxman cut her off.
If this is the government's stance, to shout Big Scary Lefty when they are trumped by the evidence then who is the extremist ? Either that or Ms. Baldwin will be let go from her placement after four weeks and someone else wheeled out to face Paxo.
Wow !
I'll have to try and see that.
Anti job-fair = SWP ?
Anti-Gove "reforms" = Trotskyite
Anti Health reforms = Unions (= red robbo leftie presumably)
Yeah, therre does seem to be a pattern emerging. Seems that after all the class war isn't over yet.....
Health reforms
I'm not sure the BMA have got any Red Robbos.
They'll have a few Doctor Roberts tho :)
Last time I told my doctor I had the Trots,
he gave me imodium.
I thought the current line
I thought the current line was that anyone criticising workfare is a "job snob".
I suggest we form a movement called AMMO-
Axis of Mild-Mannered Objectors.
That sounds
more like me
According to Toby Young
'One of the most energetic campaigners against the West London Free School was a charming gentleman called Nick Grant. In addition to being the local NUT shop steward, he’s on the national executive of the SWP and is an organiser of the Anti-Academies Alliance.'
Trot or not?
Perhaps true
But that's one man. That doesn't tar them all with the same brush, does it? Besides, I'm not SWP fan but even a stopped clock can be right twice a day, can't it?
Bunker mentality
Its falling to bits all around them and if The Wrong Millibroon weren't leader Labour would be racing away - even though I believe their record on the City and PFI is utterly shameful and many of them really ought to be in prison by now.
Its fanciful to blame all the opposition to the schools reforms and health reforms on a load of entryist Trots. The Tories are racing through a lot of things that weren't in their manifesto and which betray their prejudices and little else.
Why would the local representative
of the National Union of Teachers not be involved in a campaign against a change that will have an effect on the teachers at the school ? That's sort of his job.
Hardly surprising that he would be involved in the Anti-Academies Alliance either - recalling that the NUT membership (that's teachers) have adopted an anti-academy position ( http://www.nut.org.uk/academies ) then that's sort of his job as well.
He is one man, representing the opinions of thousands of teachers.
Who is Toby Young again ?
Oh yes : "Young is the lead proposer and co-founder of the West London Free School, the first free school in Britain to sign a Funding Agreement with the Secretary of State for Education, and now serves as the school's chair of governors" (thanks Wiki!).
So, clearly a totally independent voice without a political axe to grind......
The academies project
Was this not started By Blair and Adonis?
Yes and no
while the academy system was a Blair project, in many ways it was just a dressing up of the Grant Maintained and CTC system proposed during the conservative governments that preceded it (see 1988 Education Reform Act, which also introduced the National Curriculum). As ever, the problem seems to be that there was not that much difference between the Blair project and what had gone before, just that some of the labels had been changed a little bit so as not to scare the horses.
In essence, both systems allowed selection, and both removed control and funding from the Local Authority's remit. Perfect for the 80s and early 90s with hostile local authorities who could be shot at, while later also fitting a more technocratic Blair agenda with the rebadging that was done.
Neither were hugely satisfying, it must be said.
Are you satisfied
with the current system of state education in England?
No
When I said "neither", I meant neither the system introduced by the Conservative governments of the 1908s, nor the ones of the Labour government that followed. The system that is in place now, and that will evolve over the next few years, will not be any better because it is mostly about tinkering around the edges of what has gone before (however it is sold to us).
The Tomlinson Report contained a fair few radical and sensible ideas about how the UK education system should change. But its findings were just too radical for nervy politicians (of any party). Even Michael Gove has rather timorously intimated that education had improved in the period 1997-2010: his main issue was that this improvement was not quick enough. To admit to anything other than rising standards is seen as politically suicidal, which brings me to the A Level...
No government, of whatever hue is willing to admit the "gold standard" A level is no such thing any longer and the GCSE is unfit for purpose, being little more than an "everyone gets a prize certificate" now. The roll back frrm some vocational qualifications might be throwing out the baby with the bathwater, it seems to me. The whole system needs massive remodelling, but no one is going to do that now.
Totally agree
that radical restructuring is required, not mere tinkering. However, how is that to be accomplished in the face of NUT opposition to any alteration to the unsatisfactory status quo?
Well, here's a really radical thought...
Instead of lecturing them and calling them pinkos, like certain people with an SW1A postal address, how about asking them to come up with some proposals of their own for how the education system in the UK should work, to bring to the table with other interested parties for a real and constructive debate about how things should be (not what politicians call a debate, which is where they carpet bomb the media with their proposal until any naysayers give up trying to be heard over the din). After all, teachers are supposed to be, you know, professionally qualified to make reasoned decisions about pedagogy.
But, like I said. That'll never, ever happen.
Sounds reasonable,
but would these teachers' representatives simply be the NUT executive, including such as SWP National Executive members such as Nick Grant? How constructive would these debates be? Education is a political matter and, personally, I'm not sure how any Government can take on the variety of vested interests.
YOu need them too Ian
The government is making the mistake of only listening to people who already agree with it.
You end up like John Major whose only political friend in the world was Archer. Though that's unfair really (though true as well) because Major was brave - as many of his ministers were, and many many in Northern and Southern Ireland - about the peace process. You don't have the option of who you deal with at times.
They need to get things happening - true - and deal with EVERYONE not just the ones they like. Which they are refusing to do.
Yes
and the government, as well as other participants, have vested interests too. I always thought that was the point of negotiation, myself :)
Agree
that it can only be helpful to consult with those involved. However, consensus does not always have to be reached and sometimes vested interests have to be confronted. Practically, I can not envisage a situation where any SWP supporter would ever work constructively with a Tory government.
Governments have limited time to effect change.
Weeeelll
Again - the NI Peace process as an example? A UK pm dealing with the leadership of the IRA - and vice versa of course? Almost inconceivable.
Politicians who can make things happen are important and useful people. The ones who merely represent their own narrow support are very dangerous - and even as a old leftie git (TMFTL) I won't again repeat how little regard I had for NuLabour (though I can if you want...!)
Hear what you say
and agree that there are countless instances of governments worldwide sitting down with freedom fighters/ terrorists/ insurgents/ armed bandits or whatever and negotiating peace deals with opponents that they'd always claimed to a credulous population they'd never deal with.
However, as can even be seen on this thread, those of a leftist bent see it as their bounden duty to thwart, subvert, disrupt any government which is not of their stripe. One wonders what their true attitude to democracy and the will of the electorate is.
BTW, have you ever read Peter Dale Scott on 'Deep Politics'?
Ta for the tip which I will follow up
I just wish I had the energy to see it as my bounden duty to thwart, subvert, disrupt any government which is not of my stripe :-)
Touch pompous I agree,
but I can only imagine you're the type Willie Whitelaw warned against - 'going round the country, stirring up apathy.'
I'm not...
just can't be arsed.
And the right don't do that, Ian?
Not of the right,
myself. Merely commenting on many on the left's refusal to accept electoral defeat.
I was thinking
of military coups the world over, and of the coup apparently planned against the Wilson government in the UK.
http://rooksmoor.blogspot.com/2011/02/what-if-coup-against-prime-ministe...
(Sorry for long link - it was the most detailed I could find.)
Rogue State
by Blum is an excellent book on that subject. The Wilson 'coup' was worthy of an Ealing comedy.
Thanks, Ian.
I shall look out for it.
(NB Other coups are available. And are, in general, considerably less amusing.)
Rogue State
does become depressing and dispiriting as the endless catalogue of US-inspired coups is detailed. Any film of the Wilson 'plot' would be richly amusing.
The Wilson Plot?
Do you think that's wise, sir?
Things must be bad for Dave
Even the Torygraph are on his back now...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/david-cameron/9098662/David-Cam...
DT on DC
The Torygraph fairly regularly gives the prime minister a kicking. Usually for not going far enough (in their view). Oddly enough they do not seem to be very supportive of the Coalition.
Lacks Direction
is the key criticism there. And the reason the government lacks direction is because it has no money to spend. That is what governments essentially do, spend our money. This lot are looking for a revolution in the private sector to compensate for the downturn in the public sector resulting from no finances to cover it all. Apparently. The previous government gave billions to banks to maintain the status quo. A Tory - sorry coalition government - isn't going to dismantle the status quo in the big boys corporate arena. For example we have a state run bank (RBS) posting a loss so no sign of any returns yet on that bail-out. Not having had an opportunity yet to look at this more closely the cynic in me wonders how much RBS' accountants are massaging the figures to show a loss in order to prevent forking out payback. Perhaps to provide a bumper payback in the election year.
The direction required is not in policy, there is no money for policy. It is a systemic change that is required that breaks the financial monopoly predicated by the current status quo. Nothing has changed in the last 5 years. Nothing, other than 99% of us - including the government - having less money to do less with.
I laugh every time Cameron calls for small business to lead the way. As if a plumber, web designer, accountant or consultant in Luton is going to create the road map for directing the private sector.
Not cynical
It is not cynical to expect RBS's accountants to be bringing out their dead and dodgy to make the figures look poor. It is pretty good practice if you look take the view that cleaning the stables while the government pays the bills will make it a better commercial proposition when sold. The important thing is the timing of the sale - if the government sells too soon in a fire sale (as you can argue we did with Northern Rock) we will not get our money back. The problem is the philosophy - Labour has no problem with state owned assets, the Conservatives have a strong aversion.
The problem with a revolution in the private sector is that it is not going to be as quick as is needed. A good start up business tends to lose money in the first year or so, and make money from year 2 or 3. No quick enough to help through this crisis.
Not cynical at all - entirely predictable
And paulwright - this sentence isn't quite complete - "It is pretty good practice if you look take the view that cleaning the stables while the government pays the bills will make it a better commercial proposition when sold" - for f*** all to a party donor leaving all the toxic assets with the taxpayer.
Plus we're paying interest on the money we borrowed to bail the banks out, and their assets are dropping in value like a stone.
that's my point
We will be totally fleeced if we sell the banks early and cheap to people with vested interests. That would be wrong, appalling, and I expect it will happen.
I take the view that the value dropping like a stone is part of the clean up - the share price will come back in time. The interest is a only a small percentage of the money we have staked - it will probably be no more than 20% of the total money at risk. So, my view is we should be aiming to sell for the bailout money plus 20%. I expect the banks to go for the bailout money less 20% - to be followed by a rapid rise in the share price, and unearned profits for the owners, and bonuses for the managers. I guess that is what the managers are hoping for too. If I was in their place I would. But my views on life (and working class background) mean I never would be.
I don't think the share price WILL recover
For decades possibly - mean it. And meantime we've borrowed 45 bn for that bank alone - hiring the money will cost many times that over an extended period, real terms inflation is already running at 10% (so the assets such as they are will halve in value over five years), the stuff the banks lent against is nigh on worthless in many cases (Irish, Bulgarian property, mortgage backed securities, AAA derivatives...) and our currency is being debased by QE.
They're utterly and completely bust and insolvent - zombie banks - kept alive by our support and 'liquidity' injected by QE which is just causing inflation. And because we didn't nationalise them we can't even do a fire sale of the assets to get some of our money back. Hester has his pointy teeth firmly in our jugular indefinitely...
I found this on the internet
"Yes Mr Hendrix
I appreciate the guitarist part of your CV, but can you please give me a concrete example of a situation where you demonstrated excellence in customer service?"
Hmmmm................
and could you give me examples of how your experience of ...errr....product shelf positioning maintenance allowed you to demonstrate your skills of leadership and teamworking ?
Well yes, he was wasn't he?
Didn't he spend a few years learning his craft by earning a living from paying customers in highly competitive commercial environments (i.e. the chitlin circuit) that were neither fun nor glamorous?
I'm not sure
servicing the customers was part of the job description
It may have happened...more a perk of the job I expect..
Enjoying seeing this slur fall flat on its face...
as Sainsburys, Tesco, a raft of charities and Poundland (for goodness sake !) all backing away rapidly from the work fair initiative.
Presumably those who run all these fine businesses and institutions are extremist trotskyites as well ?
My overall feeling is that on a raft of measures the ConDems have used name calling as a substitute for a reasoned argument, and have found that most people are unconvinced by this caricature of "if you aren't with us then you're a left wing socialist extremist commie".
Probably it's the clustering of the major parties in the centre ground over the last 25 years that make this name calling by the ConDems feel, well a bit archaic and out of touch.
But they're still at it!
Just heard some faceless Tory drone blaming it on "Left-wing activists".
These activists must have got into the police now, as the investigation into A4e proceeds...
Ah yes
the bobby on the beat...bolsheviks to a man !
And the Adam Smith insitute
Idle feckless Trot layabouts sitting round smoking "dope" at taxpayers expense - in need of a wash and a haircut
11 million quid in 3 years for helping the unemployed.
You'd have to be a raving Trot nutter to find that indigestible.
Anyway
Gove has solved the problem of school governors who won't do as they are told - he's used his powers as minister to sack them, and appoint his own board, including as chair the person whos company will be responsible for running the school when it becomes an academy.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-17385311
They will have to "consult" with the parents who so far have been against the conversion) - but ultimately the governors have the power to convert the school. The parents get a say - but not a vote.
Since the board is all pro-conversion then Gove gets his way.
Democracy.
In action.
Makes you proud.