Showing posts with label Ed Balls. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Ed Balls. Show all posts

Sunday, January 23, 2011

Layer 428 . . . Forbidden Love, Sex on the Job, Rough Trade, Politics, Wee Dougie Alexander, and Adele

.
Douglas Alexander has been chosen by Ed Miliband to become his shadow foreign secretary. This raises very serious questions about Brother Ed's ability to build a winning team. He's never actually managed an organisation in real life, and he's making a complete nonsense of the most important aspect of management - recruiting the right people to fill the key roles.

He totally messed up with his appointment of Alan Johnson to be his shadow chancellor - which also makes you wonder how much Ed himself knows about economics. Now that Johnson's resigned he's brought into his senior management team one of the dullest, most right-wing, most conservative, most careerist, most New Labourist little shits he could possibly have found.

The boy Alexander is an appalling choice. He's the ultimate machine politician. He's a revolting little toad of an arselicking, conniving, over-ambitious, political pillock. What's more, his speaking voice, his delivery and his language are so boring he's impossible to even listen to, let alone understand and appreciate.

He has no ideology, no principles, no regard for Labour traditions. He's the classic managerialist. He has no passion for equality and social justice whatsoever. He'll go along with whatever Ed Mili says is current policy, and he'll do whatever he's asked to do in order to keep his nose clean(ish) and further his career in politics.

This whining prat was in charge of DAVID Miliband's leadership campaign. What's that tell us about his effectiveness - he couldn't even get the hot favourite for the leadership to be first past the winning post. Brother David must be cringing in disbelief.

Voting record (from PublicWhip)

How Douglas Alexander voted on key issues since 2001:
   
    * Voted very strongly for the Iraq war.
    * Voted very strongly against an investigation into the Iraq war.
    * Voted strongly for Labour's anti-terrorism laws.
    * Voted moderately for replacing Trident.
    * Voted very strongly for introducing foundation hospitals.
    * Voted strongly for introducing ID cards.
    * Voted moderately against greater autonomy for schools.

This man was a bugler in the Boys Brigade, he's the son of a Church of Scotland minister, he was a speechwriter and a researcher for Gordon Brown, he was a solicitor for precisely six months, he supported Blair on the abolition of Clause 4, and he's done fuck all of any real use - ever.  He's typical lobby fodder.

Make your own mind up.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_Alexander

PS There's no point anyone saying that Alexander was/is a decent constituency MP. Even if that were the case - so what? There are lots of us who could be hard-working MPs, given half a chance. Those Labour politicians who hold the senior posts in politics ought to be those who have a track record of fighting for the principles of equality, social justice and solidarity which the Labour party was created to fight for. Alexander is a third-rate apparachik and a lickspittle who supports illegal wars, supports a police state, supports nuclear weapons, supported the most right-wing leadership the Labour party has ever had, and hasn't a single radical thought in his head.

.................................

People on the political programmes this morning were all talking about politics being a 'rough trade' - as they were discussing the resignations of Coulson and Johnson, the promotion of Balls, the competence of the police, the further questions about Blair being a war criminal, etc.

Presumably the word 'trade' is supposed to differentiate politics from proper professions, for which you need academic qualifications - as distinct from trades such as building, carpentry, plumbing, electrical contracting, etc . . . for which you also need proper qualifications. Plus practical skills, rather than academic theory.

The professions are for the middle classes. Trades are for the working classes.

Working class men and women used to be in Parliament, but not any more. These days you need to be something like the son or daughter of a church minister, preferably with a first class degree in politics, philosophy and economics, or law; preferably from Oxbridge. There are lots of lawyers in Westminster and Washington.

By 'rough', they mean that if you're a politician you become an object for abuse, condemnation, ridicule and hatred. Which is true. I'm happy to give my fair share of abuse, whilst also trying to reasonable, accurate and honest.

If you put yourself up to be a representative for people's needs and aspirations, and you then fail to say or do anything of significance to challenge or change the status quo, and you fail utterly to improve the lives of the poorest sections of society (if you happen to be a Labour politician), then you thoroughly deserve to be despised and verbally roughed up.

People are going crazy with frustration, living in poverty, living with no hope of a decent job, let alone a career or a decent pension, whilst fat cats get ever fatter, thanks to the complacency, indolence and self-serving smugness of unprincipled, visionless bastards like Douglas Alexander. What the hell do they expect?

...................................................................

Ello, Ello, Ello, Goodbye.

Undercover police officers are apparently allowed to have sex with those they're spying on, but they're not allowed to fall in love with anyone they're trying to bang up, so to speak. Sounds about right.

It would look very strange if some needy activist says to her environmentalist-activist 'colleague' - "I'm gagging for a damn good bonk, old mate - let's go back to my place and get jiggy," and he - who's apparently a healthy heterosexual male then turns round and says, "No thanks".

What kind of collegiality and solidarity would that show? That would blow his cover instantly. The 'activist' would immediately realise that she was in the company of of an undercover plod who's under orders not to do normal human things - like having sex.

On the issue of falling in love - well, what can one say? Falling in love is NEVER a good idea. Admittedly it can sometimes take half a lifetime for people to learn NOT to "fall in love" (and just as quickly fall out again) and to realise that the love drug is just as dangerous and  as addictive as crack and heroin. This can be a very hard lesson to learn, especially when someone's bloodstream is full of the endorphins produced by great sex with an attractive partner and they feel BRILLIANT!

There's a world of difference between wanting to be with someone whose company and whose sexuality makes you feel fully alive, and mistaking your desire for that person for enduring love.

Loving someone involves a hell of a lot more than desiring someone, wanting to be with someone, feeling good when you're with someone. There are thousands of books and films about people who fall in and out of love. Mills and Boon created an industry out of people's desire for romantic love. People might want it, but that doesn't make it desirable. It can seriously mess up your life. Especially if you're an undercover cop.

.............................................

There's a brilliant song about crazy love released this week by a young English singer called Adele. She and her band performed it last night on the Alan Carr show. It's a rocking and rolling soulful groove called Rolling in the Deep. Catch it here:

http://www.adele.tv/videos/179/rolling-in-the-deep-official-video

http://www.metrolyrics.com/rolling-in-the-deep-lyrics-adele.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a3gkoU7KtG4&feature=fvsr

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lazyDlfaptM&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8slyQBbZFgc&feature=related

Great pounding rhythms, great voice, great backing vocals.

Very interesting how different her second album (21) sounds compared to her first album (19). Apparently the experience of touring in the USA and listening to soul and blues music had a huge impact on Adele, as she'd not really paid attention to these types of music previously.

The first single (from ("21")is a revenge tune "Rolling in the Deep". Adele described it as a "dark bluesy gospel disco tune."  -  Wiki

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adele_%28singer%29

The fact that Adele had a huge hit with Bob Dylan's "Make You Feel My Love" (which was on her first album) also speaks volumes about her excellent taste and musical sensibilities.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0put0_a--Ng&feature=related

http://www.bobdylan.com/songs/make-you-feel-my-love

http://www.lyricsmode.com/lyrics/a/adele/make_you_feel_my_love.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fnn9JlqqTE4

....................................

Sex Was A Tool

Undercover police cleared 'to have sex with activists'

Promiscuity 'regularly used as tactic', says former officer, contradicting claims from Acpo

 http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/jan/22/undercover-police-cleared-sex-activists
Undercover police officers routinely adopted a tactic of "promiscuity" with the blessing of senior commanders, according to a former agent who worked in a secretive unit of the Metropolitan police for four years.

The former undercover policeman claims that sexual relationships with activists were sanctioned for both men and women officers infiltrating anarchist, leftwing and environmental groups.

Sex was a tool to help officers blend in, the officer claimed, and was widely used as a technique to glean intelligence. His comments contradict claims last week from the Association of Chief Police Officers that operatives were absolutely forbidden to sleep with activists.

The one stipulation, according to the officer from the Special Demonstration Squad (SDS), a secret unit formed to prevent violent disorder on the streets of London, was that falling in love was considered highly unprofessional because it might compromise an investigation. He said undercover officers, particularly those infiltrating environmental and leftwing groups, viewed having sex with a large number of partners "as part of the job".

"Everybody knew it was a very promiscuous lifestyle," said the former officer, who first revealed his life as an undercover agent to the Observer last year. "You cannot not be promiscuous in those groups. Otherwise you'll stand out straightaway."

Well, of course - we all know these promiscuous activist anarchists are all bonking like bunnies. Especially the women. Mad, bad and dangerous to know. OK to shag though, if you really need to.

.

Friday, January 21, 2011

Layer 427 . . . Coulson, Laughing Policemen, Rotating Politicians and Educational Revolutions

.
The thing about the Today programme on Radio 4 is that it's often far more entertaining than the so-called light entertainment programmes. In between the dour and dull bits about politics and current events there are lots of amazing, disturbing and brilliantly funny bits.

..............................

When I was young, my dad's favourite record, and one of the nation's favourite records, was  The Laughing Policeman. This was a ditty about a  policeman who couldn't stop laughing, even when he was arresting people. The vocal bit was basically - Ah - ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha . . .  ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha HA!  At least that's the bit we remembered. Brilliant.

In the news this week we've been hearing tales of policemen who can't stop shagging. Policemen who are sent to spy on environmental activists and end up shagging them. Policemen who are supposed to give 'protection' to politicians' wives and end up shagging them. All together now for the Shagging Policeman -

Ah  . . . ah . . . ah . . . ah ah ah ah . . . aah aah aah aah aah aah . . . oh oh oh oh oh oh oh oh oh oh oh oh
AAAAH!

Time for an update on the rest of the lyrics?

http://lyricsplayground.com/alpha/songs/t/thelaughingpoliceman.shtml

He's too ......... for a policeman
He's never known to ......... 
And everybody says
He's the ........iest man in town!.  

He ......... upon .......... duty 
He .......... upon his ...........
He .......... everybody
When he's ............ in the street. 

He never can stop ...........
He says he's never tried.
But once he did .......... a man
And ............ until he cried!  


..................................................

Alex Salmond said on Desert Island Discs this week, "Political spouses have got the roughest end of everything." Hmmmmm.

I forgot to mention in my comments about Alex Salmond that he's keen on horseracing and golf, and he's a lifelong fan of Star Trek. These Capricorn guys . . . eh? What are they like?

I've just got round to looking up the definition of the verb 'to haver' - an activity engaged in by The Proclaimers, according to them. It means 'to talk nonsense'. Sounds about right.

...........................................................

Chinese Revolution

"New models of learning are emerging from countries like China." So said the man from Pearson Education, which has just paid a small fortune to acquire an Indian on-line tutoring  company.

http://www.sify.com/news/Pearson-gets-control-over-TutorVista-for-Rs-577-crore-news-National-lbtaOhaejfg.html

How interesting that he focuses on China - a country that has gone to great trouble and great expense to re-train its entire teaching force on the principles and practice of The New Learning Revolution. A few years ago the Chinese leadership became convinced that it was important to abandon 'traditional' forms of schooling - Gradgrindism, Goveism, cramming 'facts' and 'knowledge' for high-stakes examinations, etc, - and they began to design forms of learning that maximise the benefits of the pupils' own motivation to learn, maximise access to the Internet, promote collaborative peer learning, formative assessment, creativity, and so on.

It strikes me as ironic that someone from the private sector apparently understands far better than our Gove-led coalition government that the Chinese are not only the greatest innovators and world leaders in manufacturing processes - having learnt from the best they could find around the world how to make things more efficiently - they are also set to show the rest of the world how to educate people, using the best educational practices they could find. Education that prepares people for life as well as work. Education for creativity, innovation and imagination. Education that inspires people to become self-directed, self-motivated lifelong learners.

There was a programme on TV last night which showed an interview with a group of Chinese students who were talking about world affairs and the Chinese political system - and a very bright, confident, well-informed and thoughtful group they were. Totally fluent in English, of course.

http://oxzen.blogspot.com/2009/12/layer-234-new-learning-revolution-and.htm

http://www.amazon.co.uk/New-Learning-Revolution-education-schooling/dp/185539183X 

http://www.thelearningweb.net/page011.html 

http://www.thelearningweb.net/page011summ.html 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_9367000/9367626.stm 

...................................

Keeping Ourselves Informed


Aaron Sorkin - the creator of The West Wing and writer of The Social Network - said on R4 this morning that there's nothing more important to a democracy than a well-informed electorate. Which is why the ratings-chasing news channels in the USA are so fucking dumb. Or words to that effect.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aaron_Sorkin 

...................................


New Balls Please
I can't abide Ed Balls as a human being, and he was an appalling Minister of Education, but I suppose putting an economist like Ed B in charge of education was like putting a non-economist like Alan Johnson in charge of the economics brief. It was never going to work out well.

Thanks to The Shagging Policeman our poor Mr Johnson has now resigned and Ed B has finally become the shadow chancellor. One thing you can say about Edward is that he seems to have a proper understanding of Keynesian (ie enlightened) economics, and he also seems to have learned lessons from the demise of the neo-liberal Chicago school of (voodoo) economics.

A Brownite he may be. A New Labourite he may be. But if he gives George Osborne a good kicking every so often, and if he manages to forcefully make the case for a more enlightened approach to running the economy and cutting the deficit,  then I'll be first in line to congratulate him. Sadly for Ed Miliband, Alan Johnson was never going to do either of those things.

They may look and sound pretty callow and uncharismatic right now, but in 4 years time Miliband, Balls and Cooper could have the appearance of a winning team - if they manage to properly gel and really take the fight to the coalition.

That's if the coalition manages to last another 4 years. On Question Time last night a very impressive George Galloway, who made mincemeat of Alastair Campbell, predicted that if the Scottish elections go badly for the LibDems, as predicted, then they will pretty swiftly find a reason to bale out and force a new general election.


............................


And Finally . . . 

Coulson has resigned. Fucking good riddance. Bad luck on Cameron, who would have liked today's news to stay focused on the Johnson/Balls saga. Serves him right for appointing a scumbag in the first place. Pity he didn't learn from his role model's mistake in appointing the likes of Campbell as his spinmeister.

Stand by for the return of Blair to the Iraq enquiry today . . .


.

Thursday, April 15, 2010

Layer 282 . . . Witch Hunts, Balls, Ofsted, The Big Debate and The Big Society

.
Another excellent column by Jenni Russell this week -

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/apr/13/baby-p-case-good-witch-hunt?

The Baby P inquiry shows witch-hunts still thrive

The pressure was on Ed Balls to serve up a head to the howling crowd – and the public checks to ensure calm utterly failed

The version of events we'd been fed – that the chief responsibility for the tragedy could fairly be laid at the door of one highly incompetent and publicly vilified executive, Sharon Shoesmith – turned out to be frighteningly unreliable.

Instead, we read about pressure on Ofsted to produce the results the secretary of state required, endless rewritings of a supposedly independent report until it did exactly that, and the stunning failure of Ofsted to produce any of the evidence of this happening until the court hearings dealing with it had ended. We can't afford to ignore a sequence of events that suggests how easily the government can manipulate information to suit its purposes, and how responsive public servants can be to political and media demands. They can't be relied upon, on this evidence, to be disinterested searchers after truth and solutions when things go wrong. Some simply want to protect themselves from criticism and find someone to blame.

In response to this, and a comment I posted, 1nn1t posted this excellent piece -

   @Oxzen
We can only remain hopeful that one day people who were involved in or are aware of school inspections where there was collusion between Ofsted and local authority officers to condemn and get rid of particular headteachers will have the courage to come forward with the evidence.

Ofsted has from from the beginning. Remember Islington Green:

    Chris Woodhead, a now-discredited former chief inspector of schools for Ofsted, condemned Islington Green as a "failing school" after ignoring the judgement of senior inspectors.

The leader of Ofsted, now and at the time of the Haringey case, is Christine Gilbert

    Divorced from her first husband, she met then councillor and later government minister Tony McNulty when she was Director of Education for the London Borough of Harrow. The couple married in September 2002 in Hammersmith and Fulham.

In Yorkshire Ofsted is used by LEAs as an attack dog to drive out heads. The story goes like this:

LEA and Head don't get on.

Ofsted starts programme of snap inspections.

LEA institutes agressive discussions of Osted reports.

More snap inspections - easily failed because, eg "the school Safeguarding Policy Document wasn't provided to the Inspectors within x minutes of their requesting it" or "The school has carried out all necessary CRB checks but the information has been stored separately rather than on "a single central record"." or more:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/7530212/Top-public-schools-fail-new-inspections.html

More agressive discussions. Heads by now suffering from stress.

Head called to meeting with big cheeses in Town Hall. Cheeses propose to Head that he take early retirement on grounds of sickness with pension enhancement.

Conditions of offer by cheeses:

1 Impending retirement not to be mentioned to staff/pupils/parents.

2 Retirement will take effect from this next mid-term Friday afternoon.

3 The 'retiring' head will sign a gagging contract preventing him disclosing anything of the events, circumstances and terms of his sudden departure.

Some heads have refused such offers. They then receive a series of off-the-record chats and phone calls from senior LEA staff pointing out to them the advantages of accepting the 'retirement offer'.

Why, do you imagine, so few teachers any longer wish to become Head Teachers?

...............................................................

Back to the Election - and the Big Debate

Tonight's the night - the moment political anoraks have been waiting for - the first of the 'debates' between between Brown, Cameron and Clegg, live on ITV.

The Tories are in big trouble, and I think they know it. What's more there's nothing they can do about it. Their brand is what it is.

The further this election goes on, and the more that voters come to realise that Clegg, Cable, Hughes, Ashdown and co are a decent bunch of people with genuine social democratic and liberal instincts, the more that many of these voters will make up their minds to switch their votes from the despised New Labour to the Lib Dems instead of to the other "major" party, with huge consequences for Tory hopes in the marginal and "winnable" seats.

What's more, as the campaign rolls forward, the Green Party and its very able leadership will attract not only protest voters but also those who like what they see in terms of policies that the Labour party should have but forward but in fact haven't.

Voters are not as stupid and as fickle as politicians often think, and the memory of Thatcher will last for more than a generation or two. During the years of the Thatcher ascendency the Tory party congratulated itself on having such a political colossus as their leader - right up to the point when they and everyone else suddenly realised that she was a true nutter who had exposed Toryism in all its true character by smashing the lingering post-war social-democratic consensus, with terrible consequences for British industry and the majority of the working class electorate. John Major, by winning an election, made matters worse for the long-term good of the Tory party and not better, since it was on his watch that the 'bastards' and the sleazeballs of Torydom were thoroughly exposed.

So mark my words - by the time this election takes place the Lib Dem share of the vote will have gone up by around 5% and the Greens by 3%, with the Tories down by 8% on current projections. What's more, the Lib Dems started the last campaign at around 18% and put on 6 percentage points, whereas this time they're starting from 24%. And this time they have the benefit of being the party of Vince Cable, who was virtually the only politician who foresaw the financial crash, and has become the man most voters would like to have as chancellor.

..........................................................


On the Today programme one of the presenters reminded us of one of the dictums of Groucho Marx - "Those are my principles, and if you don't like them - I have others."

A Hazel Bloody Blears interview was broadcast in which she was asked whether or not it's surprising that people are turned off politics thanks to the expenses scandals, Iraq, etc, - to which she replied, unsurprisingly, in her usual pathetic and useless way, by saying that people feel "excluded" because politicians too often speak in jargon.

So here's someone who's clearly learned a lesson. Her answer to all of this nation's ills is that politicians just have to stop speaking in jargon - and then all will be well again with our political culture.

..............................................

Meanwhile, in the Guardian, Marina Hyde's campaign trail has taken her to the launch of the UKIP manifesto:

Kicking off the launch proper, the deputy-leader, David Campbell-Bannerman, promised policies "from animal welfare to pubs" – truly, the full gamut of thinking from Y to Z.

When Farage announced he would be devoting his energies to standing against the speaker, John Bercow, in Buckingham, the party's top job was taken over by former Tory peer Lord Pearson of Rannoch, the sort of patrician dullard you pray not to be seated next to at dinner.

Before long, it was on to Ukip's proposed ban of the burqa and niqab in public "and some private" buildings. How were they going to enforce that?

"We haven't said private buildings," countered Pearson.

Well you have. It's in your manifesto. "Have we?" his lordship wondered of his more junior colleagues. Doubtless he'll get round to reading the 15-page document in good time.

Tag-teaming Pearson was the more seasoned media hand Nigel Farage, who has an enduring line in misplaced confidence. "I don't want to be rude about the other parties – that's not my style," he smiled knowingly, in the manner of a man who fondly imagines he has a style other than "affable berk".

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/apr/13/general-election-ukip-manifesto-launch

.....................................................

Simon Hoggart, meanwhile, was at the launch of the Tory manifesto:

DIY government? It's scary

The Tories launched their manifesto in Battersea power station, site of the Pink Floyd album cover with the flying pig.

Finally David Cameron introduced the Conservative manifesto, which is a dark blue hardback and looks like a tombstone. The theme is that the next government can save money by getting people to do the work themselves, whether taking planning decisions, holding elected representatives to account, saving local pubs and post offices, appointing the chief constable, checking wasteful public expenditure online or founding new schools.

"It's about we, the people!" said Mr Cameron, with great conviction and terrible grammar. "We're all in this together. Join us, in forming the next government of Britain."

Gosh, life is going to be busy under the Tories. It's lucky their campaign against waste means there will be mass sackings. Otherwise nobody would have the time to do everything the "Big Society" demands of us.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/apr/13/conservative-manifesto-simon-hoggarts-sketch

.........................................................

Labour, Tories and Lib Dems clash ahead of key TV debate

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/apr/14/general-election-tv-debates-row

Gordon Brown has received a boost on the eve of today's televised leaders' debate after more than 50 economists from around the world signed a letter backing his handling of the economy. The letter, from 58 academics, was organised by Labour, and comes as a response to a letter from business leaders criticising Labour's planned increase in national insurance.

The British signatories include the Labour peers Lords Layard and Peston; the crossbench peer Lord Skidelsky, who is the biographer of John Maynard Keynes; and Sir David Hendry, a fellow of Nuffield College Oxford. They are supporters of a Keynesian stimulus for the economy.


........................................


Gordon Brown admits banks needed more regulation

PM says the government should have been tougher on the banks

Gordon Brown has admitted mistakes in regulating the banks, accusing the City of lobbying against greater scrutiny before the financial crisis plunged Britain into recession.

Brown had previously blamed the scale of the recession mainly on the international financial crisis and the refusal of other countries to agree to tighter international surveillance of the banks.

In an ITV interview due to be broadcast tonight, Brown admits he had been influenced by bankers' lobbying.

"In the 1990s, the banks, they all came to us and said, 'Look, we don't want to be regulated, we want to be free of regulation.' ... And all the complaints I was getting from people was, 'Look you're regulating them too much.'

"The truth is that globally and nationally we should have been regulating them more. So I've learnt from that."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/apr/13/gordon-brown-banking-sector-regulation

WFTYS. We fucking told you so!

........................................................

Deborah Orr

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/apr/15/government-govern-affairs-powerful

[Here's] the part missing from David Cameron's vision of a grassroots-up, sober, self-help society. It was not ordinary people who needed the state to keep them in line – fearful authoritarian religious leaders did that. It was the ruling elite, who abused their power without restraint, that made "big government" necessary.

All Britain wants or needs really, is a government that will persuade the powerful that it is right to behave in a manner that is responsible, humane and generous, and help the people who can't help themselves.

We have had 13 years of a government that thought it could do the latter, without doing the former. Come 6 May, we might just end up with a government that is eager to do neither.

'stonepark' commented with this quotation:

"Before our white brothers arrived to make us civilized men,we didn't have any kind of prison. Because of this, we had no delinquents.Without a prison, there can be no delinquents.
We had no locks nor keys and therefore among us there were no thieves.When someone was so poor that he couldn't afford a horse, a tent or a blanket,he would, in that case, receive it all as a gift.We were too uncivilized to give great importance to private property.We didn't know any kind of money and consequently, the value of a human being was not determined by his wealth.We had no written laws laid down, no lawyers, no politicians, therefore we were not able to cheat and swindle one another. We were really in bad shape before the white men arrived and I don't know how to explain how we were able to manage without these fundamental things that (so they tell us) are so necessary for a civilized society."

John (Fire) Lame Deer
Sioux Lakota - 1903-1976

..............................................

Drunkeness, Violence and Spiritual Intelligence


Also on the Today programme this week was a piece about our culture of drunkeness and violence - and STILL nobody has any answers, other than more crackdowns and "toughness".

How long will it take before people in general and politicians in particular begin to admit that we have to begin at the beginning - with young children in school - helping them to develop emotional intelligence, social intelligence and spiritual intelligence, together with a capacity for lovingkindness, a belief in the value of meditation, and a determination to be non-violent?

...................................................

Pope in the Poop

The pope should stand trial

Why is anyone surprised when Christopher Hitchens and I call for the prosecution of the pope? There is a clear case to answer

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2010/apr/13/pope-prosecution-dawkins?

Sexual abuse of children is not unique to the Roman Catholic church, and Joseph Ratzinger is not one of those priests who raped altar boys while in a position of dominance and trust. But as so often it is the subsequent cover-ups, even more than the original crimes, that do most to discredit an institution, and here the pope is in real trouble.
.

Saturday, October 24, 2009

Layer 210 . . . Education, Equality, Transformation and Alexander

.
There were two columns in the Guardian yesterday that were worth reading on the subject of education.

Firstly, in the Response column, Warwick Mansell, author of “Education by Numbers: the Tyranny of Testing”, wrote a piece under the heading,

Targets are not the way to make schools accountable
Sats tests cause pupils great harm and the information they provide is often of little use
Peter Preston, in discussing the Cambridge primary review, repeated misconceptions which regularly feature in the debate about whether the current system of holding schools – and other public services – to account is working effectively (In praise of targets, 19 October).
First, he said that "around a fifth of all children moving on to secondary education at 11 remain fundamentally illiterate". In 2009, 20% did indeed fail to reach the government's "expected" level – level 4 – in English tests. But most of those achieved level 3, which has been defined, for reading, by the people who set the tests, as "pupils read a range of texts fluently and accurately". Level 4 was originally set at what the average pupil would achieve.
Second, Preston suggested that parents would be worse off if they "didn't know exactly what was going on" through the Sats tests. But this overlooks whether the information provided by the Sats is actually of much use. A report by Ofsted last year said schools could boost their pupils' performance in the maths tests without building underlying problem-solving ability, partly because the tests do not assess it well.
The English tests have been criticised for a mechanistic mark scheme which can overlook and marginalise imaginative writing. And the science tests were abandoned last year following widespread complaints from scientists that they sidelined practical science work.
More fundamentally, most of the difference between schools' Sats results is the product of pupils' backgrounds, while the artificial quality of the results generated after months of teaching to the test is reflected in many secondary schools' decisions to re-test pupils when they receive them.
Third, he implied that those – such as the authors of the primary review – who criticise this system simply want a return to the past and to do away with accountability. But the review was clear that it was not a question of whether there should be accountability, but of which type.
The targets/league tables/high-stakes testing system is widely disliked by teachers. But it is also letting pupils down. And while the "cerebral leader writers on the Times" may like it, other intelligent, disinterested people – including scientific and mathematical organisations and exam boards – have serious reservations about it: the government's was the only one of 52 submissions to a parliamentary investigation two years ago which backed it.
Read the rest of this piece here -

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/oct/23/cambridge-review-sats-targets

The quality of some of the comments on CiF after the article is enough to make anyone despair, but thankfully Warwick Mansell came back at them with this:
It's not the fact that children are tested, but the tests-plus-accountability system: the league tables, targets, Ofsted inspections, performance pay system which rests on the tests and says that the be-all-and-end-all for a school is its test scores.
Some schools clearly do resist this pressure, but for others it can and does lead to a narrowing of the curriculum so that non-tested subjects are marginalised, a narrowing of the school experience in the tested subjects towards months of revision/test practice in the run-up to the tests - official survey data suggests the typical school spends 10 hours a week on test preparation in the four month run-up to the KS2 tests - and a reminder to all children that they are being judged only in terms of test performance over a few days.
Here is some evidence on the downsides, taken from my website www.educationbynumbers.org
I'm not a parent myself, but I would say the best way that people can react to this system is not to obsess about the test levels, and the league table scores.
The evidence below is a set of selected quotations from evidence submissions given by various organisations to the 2007 Children, Schools and Families investigation into testing.
- Advisory Committee on Mathematics Education: The continual testing and practising for tests has resulted in a narrow and impoverished mathematics curriculum, and poor quality teaching of that curriculum.
- Institute of Educational Assessors: We may be churning out individuals who can pass tests and who can achieve good results to a given, known test but who cannot necessarily apply their knowledge and skills to other situations, hence the concern from employers about skill levels among young people.
- The Royal Society: It is clear that aspects of our current assessment system are holding back students and teachers performance and creativity, contributing to a declining popularity in the physical sciences and mathematics and inadequate recruitment and retention of specialist teachers in these subjects.
- Hampshire County Council: The assessment regime has become enormously burdensome for schools. National Curriculum (NC) tests have now expanded out of all proportion to their usefulness. It also calls for a more humane system.
- General Teaching Council: Tests are used for too many purposes and this compromises their reliability and validity. The tests can depress pupils motivation and increase anxiety. They do not adequately serve the interests of parents or pupils and they lead to a narrowed curriculum and encourage ‘teaching to the test.
- Institute of Physics: We believe that current assessment arrangements are promoting too narrow a range of skills and understanding, principally there is too great an emphasis on testing students ability to recall facts. This leads to a situation where there is insufficient teaching for understanding or creativity, with accompanying negative effects on students motivation and enjoyment.
- Association for Achievement and Improvement through Assessment: We believe the current testing system is limited in measurement of childrens performance across the National Curriculum programmes of study.
- Campaign for Science and Engineering: We do not doubt that students appear to work harder at school than those of ten or fifteen years ago, but too much of this extra effort appears to have been devoted to the narrow and unremitting demands of national tests.
- The Wellcome Trust: Primary teachers felt that national tests had a negative effect on childrens enjoyment of science, because of the increasing tendency to ‘teach to the test. An over-emphasis on curriculum content and pressure to prepare for national tests were felt to reduce opportunities for investigative work and lead to science frequently being taught as a collection of facts.
- Institute for Public Policy Research: The current national tests do not provide highly reliable or valid measures at the level of the individual pupil...The current assessment and accountability framework can impact on valuable elements of assessment such as assessment for learning. This can happen through narrow and shallow learning, questions-spotting and risk-averse teaching.
- Association of School and College Leaders: Assessment in Britain requires a radical review. In England, young people take externally set and marked examinations at the ages of 7, 11, 14, 16, 17 and 18. The system is at breaking point as more and more examinations have been added to an already over-examined system.
- Mathematical Association: Coaching for the test, now occupying inflated teaching time and effort in almost all schools for which we have information at each Key Stage, is not constructive: short term ‘teaching how to is no substitute for longterm teaching of understanding and relationship within and beyond mathematics part of a broad and balanced curriculum.
…..............................................

Meanwhile, on the Leaders page (Comment & Debate), Lynsey Hanley, author of “Estates: An Intimate  History”, wrote this piece -

Equality, not education, is the key to individual transformation

Political parties fail to understand or address the root causes of the country's failing education system
Reading the Archbishop of Canterbury's comments on the "extraordinarily anxious and in many ways oppressive climate in education at every level" that has been created in the 20 years or so since the imposition of the national curriculum, made me wonder yet again about the wisdom of the competing parties' plans for education: whether Labour's lowering of the starting age and expansion of the academies programme, or Tory proposals for parents to open their own state-funded "free schools". Politicians on both sides talk of education as the key to individual and social transformation – as Michael Gove put in his conference speech, "the opportunity to choose [one's] own destiny" – but none properly address the link between education and social segregation.
It comes down to economics: what you're worth, in other words. Those who are valued the least think the least of themselves and others. Those who are valued the most think well of themselves and award themselves, as they are rewarded, with education and mobility to attractive, affluent areas largely untroubled by the difficulties experienced by people in poorer ones.
This week, figures released by the University and College Union have shown the extent to which Britain is polarised by access to education, money, safe surroundings or their lack. Dividing the data available on qualifications by parliamentary constituency allows you to see the vast discrepancies between areas. In Bootle, for instance, you're far more likely to have no GCSEs than to have a degree, whereas in much of the south-east the opposite holds true. Areas are becoming less like each other, and less easily averaged out, over time.
Schools without banding and lotteries for places – though these practices are becoming more common – become microcosms of the area in which they operate. Successful schools are those where staff and students feel as though they can take charge of the raw materials of life and shape something good out of it; the less successful are those which struggle to find evidence that such a thing is possible. As an adult, the difference between being seen and unseen often comes down to how well you're able to articulate what the matter is.
The affluent and highly educated concentrate themselves in areas such as Sheffield Hallam and Richmond, gathering so much power that they can afford to pretend that power is irrelevant; poor and low-educated communities are so stymied by the imbalance that they come to believe they have no power.

Attempts made by the mainstream British political parties to interpret the needs of the "white working class" – and, as is the government's current strategy, to throw money at the symptoms of malaise rather than to address the causes – is a classic example of how social stratification leads to the warping and splitting of common values. A deep lack of entitlement and confidence felt by working-class people, structured in large part by a combination of powerlessness, poverty and snobbery directed towards them by those who are better off, ought not to be confused with the entitlement to "Britishness" that's often invoked by the same individuals.

Starting school at four, or attending a spanking new academy with no social mix, won't alter this relationship between perception and experience because neither proposal has equality, the healer of divisions both real and imagined, as its driving motivation.
Read the rest of it here:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/oct/22/schools-reform-equality-failure

I'd be interested to know what readers think of the comments on CiF about these two articles. Forget about MoveAnyMountain though – it's understood that MAM is a raving long-winded neanderthal.

oxzen@yahoo.co.uk

…....................................................

In today's paper have a look at this -

Ed Balls accused of 'lashing out wildly' at primary school review findings
• Head of review says Labour does not listen
• Growing anger among teachers at response


http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2009/oct/24/primary-schools-edballs

It's by Polly Curtis, the education editor.
The man behind a major inquiry into primary education today accuses Ed Balls and his ministers of "lashing out wildly" and dismissing his review findings without properly reading it.
Robin Alexander, head of the Cambridge review of primary schools, said the Labour government refused to "listen, engage and learn" from independent advice in its "micro-managed" system.
Writing for the Guardian's Comment is Free website, he sets out how the government's response to the review betrayed the fact that ministers had not properly read it, setting out inaccuracies in how both they and their Conservative shadows described it.
Alexander's intervention comes amid growing anger in schools and teacher groups about the government's dismissal of the review. It also comes after a tumultuous week in which Balls was accused of being a "bit of a bully" by Barry Sheerman, the chair of the Commons committee for children, schools and families, after he appointed Maggie Atkinson to the role of children's commissioner. He also faced heavy criticism at the national children and adult services conference in Harrogate.
The Cambridge review, the biggest inquiry into primary education in 40 years, was published last week after a three-year process which produced 31 interim reports, 28 surveys and thousands of submissions.
In a 600-word document it concluded that schools are in "good heart … highly valued by children and parents and in general doing a good job," but condemned the centralisation of the system under Labour and how the curriculum had shrunk to a narrow focus on the 3Rs.
t suggested schools should replace formal teaching with play-based learning until a child turns six and that national curriculum tests – Sats – should be replaced with improved end-of-primary tests.
The Cambridge review received support from every teaching union, agency and school support group but the government – led by the schools minister, Vernon Coaker – accused the review of being "out of date" and failing to acknowledge programmes that were under way to review testing, special educational needs and maths teaching.
Today, Alexander writes that after the government "instantly dismissed" the inquiry, "the review's email in-boxes [were] overflowing with messages not just about the findings that the press focused on – starting age, testing, centralisation – but with expressions of spluttering outrage shading into quiet despair at last week's statement."
"Nobody expects ministers to have the time to read every massive report that lands on their desks, not overnight anyway," he concludes. "But serious questions must now be asked about the advice on which the government's response was based, the advisers who provided the minister with such a hopeless script, and the wisdom of approaching a general election as the government which refuses to listen, engage and learn."
A spokesman for the Department for Children, Schools and Families said it had received a letter from Alexander about the issues raised in the article and would respond in due course.
…...................................

Robin Alexander's piece is here:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/oct/24/cambridge-review-primary-education
The government's instant dismissal of the final report of the Cambridge Primary Review has become as a big a story as the report itself. The review's email inboxes are overflowing with messages not just about the findings that the press focused on – starting age, testing, centralisation – but also with expressions of spluttering outrage shading into quiet despair at last week's statement from schools minister Vernon Coaker.

Coaker said that by virtue of having started three years ago, the report was out-of-date. What a strange and desperate ploy. One would have thought that this testifies to its depth and thoroughness, especially as when pressed this week by the select committee to explain, Ed Balls wrongly claimed that the report had ignored the Williams maths inquiry (mentioned on pages 38, 46, 49, 433 and 436), the "expert group" on assessment (seven mentions) and the Lamb special educational needs review (the report argues for an SEN review with a broader and different remit).
That was not all the minister got wrong. Like many others, he (and, in this matter, the Conservatives) misrepresented as a bid to raise the school starting age our proposal that the government's early years foundation stage should be extended to age six, thus confusing curriculum (which is what the EYFS is about) with organisational structure. Although we said that, in light of international evidence, the starting age needs to be discussed, that was as far as we went. Get the early years curriculum right, we argued, and school starting age is no longer an issue.
Hopefully this will be another nail in the coffin of the sinister Ed Balls and the execrable New Labour hierarchy.
.

Wednesday, June 10, 2009

Layer 168 Michael Rosen, Jim Rose, Ed Balls, Jim Knight, Uncle Tom Cobley and All.

.
Michael Rosen has always been a man to appreciate and admire. As was his dad, Harold. His two-year stint as Children's Laureate has just come to an end, and to mark it he had an article in yesterday's EducationGuardian. As a poet and a writer he has a genius for spotting and summing up the essence of things, for showing us the little things that say such a lot about the state of the world, or humankind, or whatever.

For example, in this latest article he starts with this anecdote:

“Now here's one of the nice bits ... going round the classrooms and having a quick chat in each room ... open the door ... in ... this is a year 4 group ... and the teacher says that she's been working with one of my poems ... little heart-flip of pride ... yes, she says, the "quicks" have been making up poems of their own and the "slows" have been doing a wordsearch, using words from my poems. OMG! Quicks! Slows! I had no idea that poetry could be streamed! What do I say? I nod. I smile. I say nothing. I want to say something but I can't say anything because my mind is banging to the tune of 10 years' worth of government statements about "delivering the standards agenda" and "rolling out entitlement" . . . ”

Wonderful. Sums up the bloody sorry state of our Primary schools in one paragraph. He then describes meetings he's had with the likes of Jim Rose, Ed Balls and Jim Knight, and details their sheer incomprehension as to what schools should be doing and what the damn government's been doing that's wrong, bad and mad.

Jim Rose says to Michael, "We've got the alphabetical principle in place, now the next one to crack is how do we make books come alive?" For chrissake! “The alphabetical principle”! There's no such thing! What he means of course is that he believes Primary teachers have finally been battered into believing that “synthetic phonics” are the answer to overcoming slow progress in learning to read. Which is bollocks, of course, but Jim thinks he's fixed it, thanks to his rubbish report on the teaching of reading.

And “making books come alive”?

“I'm thinking, why is it a problem to work out "how to make books come alive". Teachers were doing this 20, 30, 40 years ago. There are shedloads of books on the subject. There are teams of advisers working out of local authorities or places like the Centre for Literacy in Primary Education who are training teachers to do this. There are hundreds of writers visiting schools doing this. He says he'll get back to me. He doesn't.”

He meets with Balls and Knight in the House of Commons:

To my left are several people who haven't been introduced, who are probably from "the department". We are talking about books. I say to the ministers that they've put in place a compulsory programme to teach children how to read, but there is no policy on reading books. They look at me blankly. Ed has half a mind elsewhere. The press pack outside want a bite of him. It's the Haringey child abuse scandal. I say that what's going on is discriminatory. Children who come from homes where books are being read get access to the kinds of abstract and complex ideas that you can only get hold of easily through exposure to extended prose. The rest are being fed worksheets.

Ed doesn't believe me.

"What do you want from us?" he says. "A directive asking every local authority and every school to devise its own policy on the reading of books. I've got a 20-point outline that you could send out as a guideline for people to adapt." "Send it to me," says Jim. "I have already," I say. "Send it to me again," he says . . ."

Moving on from stupid politicians who are too full of themselves to take any notice of what much cleverer and wiser people have to tell them, Michael writes with great affection and pride about his father, who worked as a teacher at Walworth Comprehensive and later became Professor of Education at the Institute of Education. This is from Wikipedia:

Harold Rosen (25 June 1919 - 31 July 2008) was an influential educationalist, particularly in regard to the teaching of English, a socialist thinker and a political activist, born in the USA but active mainly in the UK. He was a Communist activist in the 1930's; after World war II, he became an English teacher and later a teacher trainer; he became a major figure on the New Left after leaving the Communist Party in 1957; and he played an important part in debates and developments in the fields of language teaching and Primary education, particularly in the 1960's and 1970's.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harold_Rosen_(educationalist

Michael writes:

"My father dies. He was 89. There seem to be so many layers to his life. To me and my brother he was the bloke on camping holidays singing French folk songs, telling rude jokes, or back home getting in a state about our homework not being done. But as the letters and obituaries are written, we are reminded of him as schoolteacher, as teacher-trainer, as storyteller, as "animator" of study groups.

An issue of the English teachers' journal Changing English appears that is entirely devoted to him and his work. Simon, one of his colleagues at Walworth comprehensive school in south London, has unearthed the English syllabus that my father helped to devise in 1958. I read: "Whatever language the pupils possess, it is this which must be built on rather than driven underground. However narrow the experience of our pupils may be (and it is often wider than we think), it is this experience alone which has given their language meaning. The starting point for English work must be the ability to handle effectively their own experience. Oral work, written work and the discussion of literature must create an atmosphere in which the pupils become confident of the full acceptability of the material of their own experience. Only in this way can they advance to the next stage."

I am overcome with feelings of admiration, sadness, regret and anger. I start to scribble a letter to the editor of Changing English, Jane Miller. How did the Thatcher and Blair governments succeed so quickly to wipe out years of such thought, theory and practice? Did my father, my mother and everyone else struggling to figure out how to give every single child the right to speak, write and read not lay out these kinds of theories clearly enough?"

No doubt Michael's asking a rhetorical question and in reality he's familiar with the Shock Doctrine, and with the neo-conservative idea that in order to defeat progressives and socialists it's important that right-wing prime ministers and presidents act with great speed and are ruthless in overturning the ideas of their opponents, claiming that there's a national crisis of some sort, an emergency, a need to fix a massive problem or to remedy a set of failures attributed to their opponents. Of course Harold Rosen and his progressive peers laid out their theories and their methodology, which they'd developed from actual experience of working in tough inner-city areas, with enormous clarity and cogency. Reactionaries like Balls and Knight don't need to engage with those ideas – as head honchos they just feel the need to act on their own elitist instincts, their pathetically limited knowledge, and their ludicrous assumptions about methodology and the learning process.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2009/jun/09/michael-rosen-creativity-in-the-classroom-teaching

http://www.michaelrosen.co.uk/index.html

---------------------------------------------------

Last year Michael wrote an article about SATs:

Sats: literally failing

The government is still wedded to Sats. Why, when the tests emphasise rote learning and cramp imaginations?

So, the government comes face-to-face with a failure. Someone better than me at basic numeracy might like to tot up the money spent on Sats, the various "strategies" and specific "hours", and Ofsted teams, along with the cost of schools closed and re-opened under new management. It's clear that Andrew Adonis is still wedded to the crumbling edifice of Sats, even though there is no evidence to suggest that the tests "lever up standards" as is claimed.

We know now that teachers teach to the tests. Every parent of a Sats-age child knows that the Sats year begins with your child's teacher announcing, "This is the year of the Sats", and sure enough, the lesson plans and homework soon come home. These are, in essence, mini-Sats full of the same kind of questions. In other words, the response to literature across the whole year (and indeed the whole school) is reduced to firing back answers on the facts in extracts in books, and reproducing the "sequence of events" as they put it. Literature is being shrunk into literacy.

The tragic fact is that [an] immensely potent way of giving children a reason to read and write has been turned into a series of dull, repeated exercises and tests, often conducted on books that are never read in their entirety – and all in the name of "delivering literacy". I suggest that whatever process of teaching children how to read is in place, this process on its own will never solve the problem of proving to children that reading is a worthwhile and interesting activity. In other words, any child might quite legitimately ask him- or herself, "why should I bother with this stuff?"

Ofsted inspects schools for literacy but not for whether children read often, freely and widely.

Only when all children are in a book-loving environment will they achieve literacy, yes, but a lot more: a confidence in handling abstract ideas, an understanding of a multiplicity of viewpoint and the complexity and diversity of human interaction that comes through reading widely and often. At the moment, the government is barking up the wrong tree. The regime of Sats, the literacy strategy and Ofsted will only carry on delivering failure.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/aug/21/earlyyearseducation.sats
---------------------------------------------------

I've just discovered, almost too late, an excellent comedy series on Radio 4 – The Secret World.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00jsxhl
.

Friday, January 16, 2009

Layer 114 Miliband and the School Bully, the Dracula Tendency, Results Factories, and Evil Spawn.

.
So our youthful-looking Foreign Secretary, David Miliband, has finally had the nerve to say publicly that Bush’s idea of a “War on Ter’r” is a load of nonsense, extremely unhelpful, counterproductive, etc, and he’s pleased that Obama is going to close Guantanamo Bay. It’s a bit like a child who’s heard that the playground bully has been expelled from the school, who then turns round and starts telling everyone he never really liked George and didn’t really want to be his mate and his henchman when he was going round beating everybody up. He knew it was a bad thing to do. In fact he now wants to talk to everybody and be their friend.

Well maybe it’s true that NuLabour hasn’t actually used the phrase “War on Terror” since 2006, as has been reported on TV and in the press, but it’s a bit late in the day to come out and draw attention to the fact that it was an imbecilic concept, and an excuse for bullying on a global scale. And it’s a bit late in the day to start saying we need to have a proper dialogue with those who take issue with the Shock Doctrine, or those who oppose the voodoo economics known as globalisation, those who reject neo-colonialism, etc.

Yes, of course it’s better late than never to make these statements, but Miliband must surely see that he, and NuLabour Mark II, just look stupid and pathetic, like they’re clinging to the coat tails of, and going along with, whoever’s the current big beast in the jungle.

Obama had the courage to say from the very start that the idea of a War on Terror was wrong-headed, and that invading Iraq was just plain wrong, for a variety of reasons. That took real courage and integrity - speaking truth to power, especially when the vast majority of Americans just went along with their government’s propaganda and their thirst for instant revenge for the Twin Towers. Such a pity that the Blair/Brown axis and NuLabour couldn’t manage it.

And neither could Miliband, at the time it was happening. Having been a close aid to Blair in Downing Street for so many years, and obviously politically very ambitious, he calculated that his political career was best served by deferring to his master and keeping schtum. And now he thinks the time is right to admit that it was a stupid concept and a useless policy. After all, George has already come out and said it was a mistake!

He’s been a silly boy, young David.. He was flattered by Blair’s patronage, and the nepotism he enjoyed, as Blair and then Brown gave him one promotion after another and facilitated his meteoric rise within the government. He should have been more patient, had the courage of his convictions, trusted in his innate ability to give him success in his political career in the long run, and he should have shown that he had the integrity and courage to speak truth to power, because now he can never achieve the stature of an Obama. Never, ever.

He ought to have realised that showing your integrity by speaking the truth will always be a requirement for anyone who aspires to be a true statesman, rather than a party apparatchik. He should have understood that in the long run you forfeit the trust and the support of the people if you even once participate as a member of the dominant mob, the gang of the playground bully, and fail to show that your conscience is your sole master.

He was no conscientious objector. He has the blood and the ruined lives of thousands of innocent people on his hands. Probably hundreds of thousands. And there’s no going back from that. He’s probably a very nice man. But he was a political prat.

Only 4 more days to Obama’s inauguration.

-------------------------------------------

The Dracula Tendency

The Guardian’s science correspondent reports that Victorian novels helped us to evolve into nicer people, according to scientists:

“Their research suggests that classic British novels from the 19th century not only reflect the values of Victorian society, they also shaped them. Archetypal novels from the period extolled the virtues of an egalitarian society and pitted cooperation and affability against individuals' hunger for power and dominance. For example in George Eliot's Middlemarch, Dorothea Brooke turns her back on wealth to help the poor, while Bram Stoker's nocturnal menace, Count Dracula, comes to represent the worst excesses of aristocratic dominance.

They found that leading characters fell into groups that mirrored the cooperative nature of a hunter-gatherer society, where individual urges for power and wealth were suppressed for the good of the community.


The effect of such moralistic literature was to uphold and instil a sense of fairness and altruism in society at large, the researchers claim in the journal Evolutionary Psychology. "By enforcing these norms, humans succeed in controlling 'free riders' or 'cheaters' and they thus make it possible for genuinely altruistic genes to survive within a social group," they write.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2009/jan/14/victorian-novels-evolution-altruism

In this context I suppose David Miliband could be seen as a sort of miniature and somewhat youthful Heathcliffe, or even a non-charismatic Mr Darcy - a conflicted character, admired by some, but struggling to cope with both good and bad traits.

-------------------------------------------

Results Factories

Meanwhile NuLabour’s mismanagement of education grinds remorselessly onward. Polly Curtis, the Guardian’s education editor, reports that schools have been accused of ‘hot housing’ to get results. Tell us something we didn’t already know, dear Polly.

Apparently figures released yesterday reveal a leap in the numbers of pupils who took their exams early in November, thereby allowing a resit for any failures - “a tactic that is being encouraged increasingly across the country by heads desperate to rise in the league tables.”

"Some pupils have taken the same GCSE exam up to three times in the space of a year, the Guardian has learned.

Teachers' leaders have blamed the government's pressure on headteachers to improve results and move up the school league tables for the increased focus on exams that was putting children under stress and detracting from the depth of their learning.

Last year the government announced that any schools where fewer than 30% of pupils achieved at least five good GCSEs - including in English and maths - faced closure unless there were improvements within three years.

Alan Smithers, professor of education at Buckingham University, said: "League tables have got all out of proportion and schools will now do all they can to improve their place. Early entry is one way they are doing it. Other ways include focusing on the pupils on the C-D border. We're in danger of producing a set of statistics that no longer accurately reflect pupils' progression but the work the schools can do to improve their scores."


Perry Beeches school in Birmingham has adopted early entry for its entire GCSE group, with nearly all of its pupils sitting their English exams a year early and maths six months early. The pupils were allowed to retake, or sit a harder paper to improve their result.

Liam Nolan, the school's head, said: "We are an exam factory, I have no issue with that. However, this is about the students. They've got to pass these exams to give themselves every opportunity in life."

John Bangs, head of education at the National Union of Teachers, said: "Retakes are bad for kids. There's a poisonous combination of parental pressure and league-table pressure to get as high a score as possible. There are kids who are ready to take their exams early but it should be on the basis of their readiness rather than part of a process to get the results.

"What it does is focus on the examination results rather than the use of English and maths across the curriculum - it's for the sake of the exam itself ... examination result-driven decisions to hot-house kids into taking an exam early are damaging."

A DCSF spokesperson said, “We are not aware of widespread issues with students being unduly pushed to take GCSEs early”.

Well now that you ARE aware of it - what ARE you going to do about it, you bastards?

We know what they’ll do about it. Nothing. They don’t give a shit about the wellbeing of pupils What they’re continuing to do is bully and threaten schools with closure if they don’t meet their government-set targets. So why shouldn’t the schools feel comfortable with being branded as results factories? That’s all they are. At least that headteacher had the integrity to admit it, even if he is a total tosser for engaging with the very idea.

Yesterday Ed Balls repeated what his illustrious macho predecessor Blunkett said all those years ago - poverty is no excuse for failure, and failure to reach the government’s targets will result in the closure of schools and the sacking of their staff. Fucking Stalinist. His lapdog Jim Knight, our schools’ minister, predictably yapped on about “the excuses culture”.

I can’t wait to see these arseholes disappear into well-deserved obscurity. There can’t be any excuses now for failure to promote the real interests and the wellbeing of pupils. Hot housing and a failure to understand how to run a decent education system cannot be excused. They’ve had 11 years to learn from the likes of Finland and Denmark how to promote real education and the professionalism of teachers. They’ve learned nothing at all, the dullards. All we have is more Blunkettism, and Stalinist demands to meet production targets. These people are evil spawn of the devil, and no mistake.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2009/jan/15/schools-tables-exams
http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2009/jan/15/secondaryschools-schooltables
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/jan/16/ed-balls-academies-exam-results
------------------------------------------

More Evil Spawn

Talking of which, we learned yesterday that Israel’s armed forces managed to blow up and destroy the one place in Gaza they really didn’t want to hit - a relief warehouse within the United Nations compound in which there was a huge store of humanitarian supplies - mainly food and medicine. There also happened to be 200 refugees within the compound. An Israeli spokesman admitted this was a mistake, but said something along the lines of, “Oh well, these things happen. Our soldiers are under a lot of pressure, you know.”

Actually, they said it was a “grave mistake”. Pity it’s not their own graves they’re talking about. This is actually the only thing the Israeli hard-liners care about - having to dig the graves of their own soldiers. Nothing else impacts on their attitude or their tactics. The recent attack on Lebanon proved this, when heavy casualties caused by well-armed militias forced their withdrawal.

The United Nations are said to be furious about this latest incident. It’s going to be interesting to see what action they take, because some sort of action is surely now inevitable. They’ve already passed a resolution calling for a ceasefire, and Israel’s taken no notice of it, as we knew would happen. So what happens next?
.

Tuesday, December 9, 2008

Layer 100 Justice, Democracy and Accountability

.
Interesting news from Greece - the cradle of democracy. It looks like people are in revolt against their government - taking to the streets and rioting. It seems the police can’t contain the situation - there are too many people who are clearly very angry with the government. A sign of the times? And of things to come? Power to the people?

-------------------------------------------------------

I’ve changed my mind about Christine Gilbert. Last week I wrote a couple of blog pieces about the way in which Ofsted had totally failed to make the correct judgment about the effectiveness of Haringey’s children’s services, and the fact that Gilbert admitted that Ofsted must take ‘some’ of the responsibility for the death of Baby P. I also said that I didn’t really care whether or not Gilbert remained in post as long as the Ofsted regime was reformed root and branch.

Well, actually, I DO care. I now realise that I care a lot. Gilbert has continued to say that the last inspection of Haringey’s children’s services was right to judge them a ‘good’ and effective local authority - she says it’s only that the quality of their work has gone down since that inspection.

Does anyone believe this, outside of the self-serving ‘I’ll scratch your back if you scratch mine’ circle of senior bureaucrats who run government departments and local authorities?

The reason Gilbert deserves to be sacked is because those who live by the sword should be prepared to die by the sword. Thanks to the regime she’s been responsible for, there are a great many decent and dedicated people who’ve been thrown out of their posts because Ofsted decided that their schools weren’t hitting arbitrary targets, and that there’s ‘no excuse for failure’.

Leaving aside the issue of whether those schools were indeed ‘failing’ because their targets weren’t being achieved, the point here is that natural justice and proper process demand that people who are accused of lacking competence should be given the time, opportunity, encouragement and support they need (we all need) in order to improve, and only if they fail to apply themselves diligently, conscientiously and energetically to improvement should they be recommended for dismissal.

Since this no longer happens in a pseudo-macho world where aspirational careerists like Gilbert have no time to waste in their determination to prove their value to the world by ‘driving up standards’, then neither should it happen when the advocates and drivers of the current system are seen to fuck up badly themselves.

Did Gilbert and Ofsted help to prevent Baby P’s death? No. Did they fail to identify Haringey as a failing local authority? Yes, of course. Is Gilbert now appealing to all local authorities to come clean and admit to failings that Ofsted itself has failed to spot? Yes. Is the Ofsted inspection procedure bureaucratic and lacking in rigour? Yes. Does anyone have any confidence that Ofsted has made correct judgments about other local authorities they’ve inspected, or about quite a lot of schools for that matter? NO.

Gilbert is a lame duck, and I for one want to see her dead in the water. After a short suspension the director of Haringey children’s services, Sharon Shoesmith, has been summarily sacked. Fair enough - if she was in fact directly responsible for the fakery and bullshit that was only discovered when inspectors finally got round to looking closely at what went on, or didn’t go on, within her department. Or indeed if she failed to make herself aware of what was happening. Now it’s time for Gilbert to go.

----------------------------------------------------

I slipped the following web reference into yesterday’s blog even though this piece wasn’t officially published till today.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2008/dec/09/sats-education-review-jim-rose

SATs are indeed the elephant in the room, as Jim Rose says. In an age of accountancy and ‘accountability’ we live and die by numbers. The number crunchers rule. Facts and figures are what’s needed, as Dickens might have said. Give these people nothing but facts and figures. These alone are wanted in life. Plant nothing else, and root out everything else.

Thomas Gradgrind would be proud of Ed Balls, our esteemed Minister of State for Education, etc. Dear Ed, ‘the scrote’ as he’s becoming known, has made up his mind that we need to adopt another great American idea - giving grades to schools.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2008/dec/08/school-report-cards

‘Every school in England could be rated on a scale of A to E under plans published today to introduce a New York style "report card" for schools.’

New York style eh? So that’s it then - reduce everything to a single letter in order to describe an entity as complex as a school. How fucking dumb can we get? What a great wheeze to appeal to idiot voters who need everything to be SIMPLE. Is the electorate so stupid as to welcome such a thing? Well, New Labour wouldn’t be New Labour if it hadn’t already run this one past some ‘focus groups’, so we have to assume it’s a runner.

Would any parent be happy to have their child categorized as a B, a C or a D? Would anyone feel comfortable with hanging that label on a child, knowing that the sum of its parts cannot possibly add up to a single letter?

----------------------------------------------------

Will New Labour never understand that the age of dumb-arse neo-conservatism is OVER? Stupid solutions to complex problems will no longer be tolerated. Obama is putting in place a team of intellectuals and experts. Could New Labour possibly do the same? Could they hell.

To the contrary - Brown is bringing back Mandleson and no doubt some of the old crew who screwed things up in the first place. Which speaks volumes about the bunch of supposedly bright young things that he promoted to the cabinet when he became PM. None of them have a clue about what’s now needed to deal with the issues of the day. They’ve been brought up in the age of Thatcherite and neo-conservative orthodoxies, and they have no other frames of reference, or ideologies or sets of beliefs. There’s no real wisdom or enlightenment in their thinking - just management-speak and business-school orthodoxies. There’s no capacity for creative thinking either. A useless bunch.

Interesting that Frank Field wrote a column in the Guardian yesterday suggesting that a government of national unity might be a solution to our problems.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/dec/08/government-debt-gilt-sales

He’s of the opinion that this is the way to show the rest of the world that our political class is united in its outlook and its economic policies. In principle a government of all the most able politicians from the various parties sounds quite attractive, but not when they all occupy the same middle ground with the same middling ideas and none of them has a real clue about what’s actually needed in order to forge a better and more prosperous society where fairness, social justice and equality are the guiding values.

My betting is still on a hung Parliament next time. (No more scrote jokes, please.) In which case it may make sense to try to build consensus through bringing together a cabinet of all the talents, and letting them debate issues properly before making policy. That at least would be better than letting the Tories take over and run amok.

The Commons itself would then have to do a damn decent job of scrutinizing the Executive. And we’ll need an elected second chamber that’s also seen to be an effective body with real powers of scrutiny and challenge. And we do need proportional representation.

---------------------------------------------------------

Returning to my opening paragraph, there are two columns of note in today’s Guardian.

1. In his, Terry Eagleton notes that John Milton was born in Cheapside 400 years ago today. “Our great dissident poet who did more than just hymn the praises of revolt.”

At the heart of Milton's political vision lay a belief in liberty and self-government. Pressed to an extreme, this doctrine could appear anarchic: grace freed humanity from law and authority.

Milton did more than hymn the praises of revolt, as Blake and Shelley did. He was also a political activist and propagandist, an architect of the modern liberal state. As a militant ideologue in the defence of liberty, he assisted in the revolutionary upheaval that brought modern Britain to birth - a revolution all the more successful for us having quite forgotten that it ever happened.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/dec/09/milton-republic-terry-eagleton

2. Polly Toynbee’s usual excellent column focuses on incomes, social justice and tax policy:

The hard truth is that a middle-class child is 15 times more likely to stay middle class than a working-class child is likely to move upwards: birth is destiny more than people know.

Thirty years ago people had a clearer idea of where they stood in the social hierarchy. The politics of class described the nature of social injustice. Widespread membership of trade unions and noisy public pay bargaining ensured that most people had some understanding of the distribution of incomes and the unjust inheritance of power. But once Labour - in need of the middle-class vote - abandoned the cloth cap for the illusion of classlessness, it stopped spelling out inconvenient class facts.

Instead Britain has absorbed the great American Dream - anyone can make it, opportunity is there for the taking. The celebrity culture encourages that statistical myth, with its images of Cheryl Cole or Alan Sugar, who made it against the odds. If religion was once the opium that kept the people in their place, the celebrity fantasy does it even more effectively now. If you don't escape a poor background, that's your fault for lack of talent: nothing structurally wrong with the chances you had. Without the politics of class, people are left to internalise their disadvantage: it's personal, not political.

Richer people simply [do] not believe that 90% of the population earn less than £40,000, or that the middle fifth of the population earn around £20,000. If people don't know these facts, how can they judge what's fair?

So if Labour wants to make fairness its guiding light, it will have to make up for lost time by the energetic explaining of some essential facts. Ignorance, even among the supposedly well-educated, is greatly underestimated by politicians. A few in the group who started out thinking the new top rate of 45% might be too steep revised their opinion greatly once they understood it. The more they knew about how incomes were distributed, the more they were inclined to opt for a progressive system.

Researchers working on these focus groups over several months note a marked change of opinion since the credit crunch hit. In recent weeks attitudes not just towards bankers but to all the rich have hardened into real anger about the greed that now puts jobs, homes and pensions at risk. Labour politicians have rightly sensed that change in mood. They have left it late; they are on the back foot now with polling data showing them not trusted to put across facts and figures honestly. How different it would have been had they talked more openly from the start about the unfair distribution of money and power. But better late than never - if that's what they mean to do.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/dec/09/gordon-brown-labour-tax-income-class

PS Yesterday I forgot to mention two excellent letters to the editor in the Guardian:

From Ross Sutton:

Christine Gilbert, head of Ofsted, now seems to be admitting what many workers in social services have known for a long time - Ofsted is incompetent, naive and not fit for purpose (We failed over Haringey - Ofsted head, December 6).

Successive governments have persistently signed up to the philosophy that every service provided can be evaluated in the same way as the sale of groceries, started, unsurprisingly, by Thatcher, but they are seriously mistaken. The government culture of avoiding risk at all costs while leaping to allocate blame has systematically eroded the professional judgment, confidence and optimism of the workforce in local government, and the health and education services.

Christine Gilbert appears unwilling to take responsibility for the serious failings of Ofsted, and likewise the government is much more inclined to blame the poorly paid, overworked and largely unsupported workers rather than accept any culpability for their part in the wasteful and delusional inspection process. Since the government stands four-square behind the inspection service, all stick and no carrot, why has neither the home secretary nor the children's minister resigned, and why is Christine Gilbert not considering her position?


From Ian Willmore
Former Deputy Leader, Haringey Council

Christine Gilbert's defence of Ofsted is a little more sophisticated than Haringey council's early efforts in that she is at least willing to appear to acknowledge responsibility for failure, but it is ultimately no more convincing. In particular, there is no good reason to accept her claim that Ofsted's 2006 review, which gave Haringey a three-star rating, was accurate. This is yet another shocking parallel with the Victoria Climbié case, where it emerged that the Social Services Inspectorate (Ofsted's predecessor) had only the year before Victoria died given Haringey a positive review. Until the Laming inquiry began to ask difficult questions, the inspectorate continued to claim that there had been a sudden deterioration in performance between the review and Victoria's death. This claim was rapidly exposed as nonsense.

Ms Gilbert's own remarks expose the truth of Ofsted's performance in the Baby P case. As long as inspectors took council officers' assurances at face value, everything seemed in order. As soon as individual case files were examined, multiple failures rapidly emerged. Of course, Ofsted had no choice but to conduct a review after Baby P had been killed. The issue Ms Gilbert and ministers need to address is how inspections can be improved so that problems are exposed before a disaster occurs. This is unlikely to happen as long as Ofsted continues to pretend that its previous inspections were accurate. So far, Ms Gilbert is simply accepting responsibility in theory while denying it in practice. At least Haringey's council leadership had the decency in the end to accept their failures and resign.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2008/dec/08/ofsted-schools-social-services-letters
.

Tuesday, December 2, 2008

Layer 93 Accusations, Recriminations, and Children’s Services.

.
Last month the headteachers of 61 state-funded primary schools and seven secondary schools in Haringey wrote an ‘open letter’ in support of their Director of Children’s Services, Sharon Shoesmith, saying that her resignation, or dismissal, would be detrimental to their pupils. They said they felt compelled to show their support for Shoesmith and they consider her “an outstanding public servant”.

They added: “Should the Child P case result in her loss from the borough, then our children and young people will lose one of their most effective, determined and committed champions.”

“Initially, in her role of director of education, Shoesmith transformed a demoralised education service, derided by many headteachers, into one with which we are now proud to be associated.

“The exceptional rate of improvement of many of the borough’s schools would not have been possible without the support of the service that Ms Shoesmith rebuilt, revitalised and led.

“Since more recently becoming the director of Haringey’s Children and Young People’s Service, Shoesmith has continued to work relentlessly and with a determination that the service she leads and develops ensures best practice in providing education, care, support and protection for all of our young people.

Well, I don’t know about you, but when a large posse of headteachers saddles up with the intention of riding to the rescue of their leader, then I’m inclined to pay attention to their views. After all, these are all people who are appointed and maintained in their posts on the basis of having a track record of good judgement, clear thinking and concern for children’s well-being.

Or at least that used to be the case . Further study is needed on the degree to which the new generation of headteachers has been appointed on the basis of their commitment to reaching arbitrary academic targets and their expertise in cramming children for mind- and spirit-deadening tests, first and foremost. As far as the culture of classrooms and schools is concerned the achievement of targets has become synonymous with well-being.

But hold on - where’s the open letter of support for Shoesmith from senior managers in the social services part of her empire? What are their views? Do they not consider her an outstanding public servant? Could this be a case of someone who has great vision and leadership skills as far as education is concerned, but NOT having any relevant experience or any great understanding of social work, and therefore no ability to impact on the quality of that part of the council’s service?

Similarly there are many instances of Directors of children’s services departments coming from a social services background with no experience or expertise in education. What makes such people equipped to be the head of a huge empire of schools and associated service departments? What real responsibility can they exercise when they are utterly reliant on the information they receive and the views they are presented with from their junior managers and their senior colleagues who do have a background in education? Are they not susceptible to having the wool pulled over their eyes? Do they even know the right questions to ask?

And was it such a great idea anyway for the government to create mega-departments for ‘children’s services’ in an attempt to ensure ‘joined-up thinking’ within local councils? I myself was privileged to witness at first hand how one of these departments came together within an inner-city LA. It was pretty obvious to me that the person who was being groomed for the top job had no real clue as to how schools should be led and managed, and no independence of judgment on pedagogy and curriculum, for example, let alone anything to say about creating quality learning environments.

But then that person didn’t need to. All that was necessary was to sign up for the government’s ‘standards agenda’ and away we go! Government thinking has been and still is that generic management skills of a high order are all that matter when it comes to leading bureaucracies. MBAs rule! OK?

But it’s interesting to consider what the curriculum might consist of on a course for the National Professional Qualification for Directors of Children’s Services. What would you need to know and to have done in order to get a place on the course? Possibly some experience of teaching as well as social work could be an advantage? Experience of team building within both a state school and a social services department? An understanding of pedagogy as well as therapeutic practice?

No matter - the government was in a rush to force all local authorities into creating huge departments of ‘children’s services’, whether or not individuals could be found who were qualified to lead them. And lord knows there were plenty of ambitious and willing candidates lining up to take on the top positions, whether or not they’d paid their dues and had at least SOME experience within both the relevant disciplines and professions.

And let us not forget - generic management and leadership skills are what we’re looking for! We’re all realists now - are we not? After all, we don’t expect the Prime Minister to be an expert on economics, education, health, social services, defence strategy, and the whole damned caboodle, do we? Not any more, at any rate.

There was no time to waste, apparently - and no time to prepare council departments properly, let alone to train and prepare people appropriately, for the huge amalgamation of departments that was proposed. And so it came to pass that a new generation of super-managers was put in place, with very interesting consequences throughout the land.

Meanwhile, the well-qualified Ed Balls, the minister for balls-ups in schools and families, has his own ideas about competence and leadership ability within Haringey council, and it turns out he has no regard at all for the views of the 61 Shoesmithite headteachers in that part of the world. So either he’s right to have dismissed Ms Shoesmith, in which case the 61 headteachers are all idiots for trying to keep her in post, or he’s wrong and Ms Shoesmith should not be slung out on the very day that an inspector’s report on the malfunctioning of her department is delivered. After all, if she’s not been in post very long, and she’s not yet up to speed with the social services part of it, is that her fault?

And what about Ofsted, which reported quite recently that Haringey provide ‘good’ children’s services? Christine Gilbert, Ofsted’s head honcho, witters on, with her tight little mouth and her pursed lips, about the need for unannounced inspections, but of course she’ll escape any blame for the death of Baby P, even though she’s ultimately responsible for the council in question being put into the second highest category for children’s services and therefore viewed as a successful local authority.

“Lightning Inspections” are what she now wants, but did it really take a hideous death like this to tell us that the system for carrying out inspections of children’s services has always been a total waste of time and money, in that it gave those departments months and even years to prepare for scrutiny - to put together all the bullshit statistics in the world to cover the backs of the top bureaucrats? At enormous public cost in terms of distraction from the proper task, and in officer hours spent on compiling huge dossiers with which to deceive the Ofsted inspectors and persuade them that targets were being hit, or at least addressed effectively.

Oh yes - it’s been OK to give the poor bloody schools 2 or 3 days’ notice of an Ofsted inspection - but bureaucracies are a completely different matter, are they not? Well Ms Gilbert, it’s fine being wise after the event, but it was YOU that’s overseen the introduction of a system for inspecting schools on the basis of data and statistics, and it’s YOU that’s gone along with the same approach for the inspection of children’s services.

“We can’t rely on statistics”, she now bleats, but that’s exactly what she and her Ofsted buddies have been happy to do, until now. And she now agrees that inspectors should talk directly to children and young people about their perceptions of what’s being done in their name.

More bullshit. It wouldn’t have made any difference to Baby P, and it won’t make any difference to those poor bloody schools that have been given the bullet and put into Special Measures under her regime, in spite of inspectors being told by the pupils that they enjoy their school, in many instances, and they believe that they achieve well in spite of all the adverse factors, like recruitment and retention difficulties, which so often impact on their schools and their well-being. It seems Ms Gilbert may no longer be so enamored of the ‘targets culture’. Now that the game’s almost up she may as well just come out and say, “I was just doing my job”. Carrying out orders, you see. Well aren’t they all?

So we may now be heading back towards a culture of inspections where human observation and actual analysis of what’s happening within schools and local authorities is the basis for judgments, rather than data and statistics. We may no longer need to tolerate Gestapo methods whereby headteachers are put in a chair and ordered to explain their lack of productivity and failure to hit targets, with a firing squad awaiting those who refuse to play the game or fail to satisfy with their answers. “Why is zis Value Added so bad!? Why is your school not reaching Floor Targets in Englisch? Answer me!!”

Sorry Germany, I mean you no disrespect. I’m just trying to draw some parallels with the methodology that’s been adopted by New Labour (and its running dogs like Ofsted) in its “refusal to tolerate low standards” or indeed to tolerate, let alone support, those who have tried to offer real education to their children rather than focus exclusively on the “outputs” demanded by the system we now have in this country. As I once heard a senior bureaucrat say, “Level 4 is the be-all and end-all”.

One thing’s for sure though. As of today there are going to be a lot of Directors of children’s services and their senior management colleagues who will be tearing around like the proverbial blue arsed flies in a frenzied determination not to have the double act of Ofsted and Balls do a Shoesmith on them at the drop of a hat. Lightning inspections will demand lightning and unceasing pre-emptive preparations.

I’d suggest that people in children's services departments who detect public money being wasted on this sort of self-preservation activity should do some whistle-blowing - but maybe we need to bear in mind what’s happening right now in the Damian Green affair, and consider that this might not be a wise move. Maybe someone should set up an anonymous call line, like Childline, for distressed civil servants and all those who work in the public services, who truly care about the public good, and in particular care about the wellbeing of children.

Maybe it’s time to think the unthinkable, to say the unsayable, and suggest that it’s only when people at the grassroots become activists in pressing for systemic change and in insisting on proper involvement in running our public services, that we’re likely to see a curb put on the wasteful and self-serving activities of the top bureaucrats, with their incessant conferencing and awaydaying and senior management huddling and cuddling.

But whilst you might get 60 or more people to speak out in favour of someone they like and think is doing a good job, just try getting even 6 people to put their heads above the parapet and publicly say something critical of those who hold the levers of power and who appear to be in a position to make their lives difficult.

--------------------------------------------------

Whassa Matta You? Itsa Not So Bad!

There’s an incredible centre-page photograph in the Guardian today of St Mark’s Square in Venice flooded to the level of café table tops, with the water flowing over the steps of St Mark’s Cathedral and the Doge’s Palace. Apparently 99% of Venice is flooded.

A high tide and strong winds have created a water level that’s a meter and a half above normal - the highest level in 22 years.

The conservation society Italia Nostra said that the flooding was proof of the inability of politicians and officials at all levels to manage Venice’s serious problems. This event would seem to be the equivalent of the failure of British weather forecasters at the time of the great gale of 1987, but given that the whole world’s been talking about rising sea levels it’s a bit much to say “we had no way of knowing”.

The Guardian reports that the city’s mayor, Massimo Cacciari, ‘ a philosopher by profession’, has shrugged off calls for a declaration of emergency. He’s reported to have said, “There were no deaths or injuries, and none of the buildings fell down”.

----------------------------------------------------

Given the grimness of what’s happening in the world it’s good that we can still turn to people and places where a good laugh is guaranteed.

From the current edition of Private Eye:

A cartoon of a grinning Sir Ian Blair walking to the bank carrying a massive kiss-off cheque for £400,000, over the caption The Laughing Policeman.

An old tramp warming himself next to an open fire by throwing on to it copies of Heat magazine.

A speech bubble coming out of Obama’s mouth saying, “Can the media hype me up any more?”, with another speech bubble at the side saying “YES WE CAN!”

2 skinny aliens standing in front of a flying saucer saying to an enormously fat guy, “Take us to you larder!”
--------------------------------------------------

Chris Rock’s latest show was broadcast on Channel 4 this week, and was, as expected, brilliant. He’s a complete original, pacing the stage for two hours, totally in command and never once resorting to comic cliché. His only ‘catchphrase’ is “There - I said it!”, which is what he says when he says the unsayable. Which he does on a regular basis. I love this man. He focuses on the topical, the real and the relevant, and makes people laugh till they cry at the outrageous absurdities we see around us every day.

He does a brilliant bit about rap-friendly white folks who rap along to the lyrics of the great rap artists, but choke when they get to the word ‘nigger’ - whenever they’re with him, that is.

Chris says it’s actually OK to yell it out in that context, but as to whether white folks can copy their black friends who use the N word in other contexts, the answer is “Not really”.

Not unless they’re saying, “Fuck me harder, nigger!”

Though he agrees that if you’re getting into a fight with someone it’s fair enough to pick on their defining characteristic, like being one-legged or black, since it’s unreasonable to expect someone to show respect for someone they’re in a fight with.

Sorry, Christine. That really is a horrible wrinkly little cat’s arse of a mouth you’ve got there.

--------------------------------------------------

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article5161092.ece

.