.
Liam Byrne MP may well be a very decent chap, but he's a bloody useless advocate for the Labour party. He popped up on the radio this week, trying to explain what the leadership of the party is trying to do to make themselves more relevant and make the party more electable.
Gone are the days when the Labour party was led by people who could speak with passion and conviction about what the party actually stood for. Liam Byrne is like some sort of insurance salesman - a systems man, a grey man, a bureaucrat, a beige person, a dull apology of a politician. We, the people, need and deserve a lot better than this - by way of spokesmen for a party that's supposedly of the people, for the people.
As Jackie Ashley says in her column this week, these people appear responsible, reasoned, and rather bland. Which may be fine in government, but is no good in opposition.
Personally I think Ed Miliband is the best of the bunch that are now leading the Labour party, and it's a pity that the New Labour Blairites are out to get him. Sadly, however, Ed has a very long way to go to become a figure of inspiration, and a motivational speaker.
......................................................
Time for a round-up of recent articles about education.
Mad professor goes global
As New Labour's backroom boy, Michael Barber had lots of influence but very little publicity. Now he has his dream job, he tells Peter Wilby, with 'the world's leading learning company'
by Peter Wilby
http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2011/jun/14/michael-barber-education-guru
I love this headline. But it's not so much that Barber is completely mad - he's typical New Labour / New Tory in his world view and his ideas about education are ignorant, reactionary and destructive.
Sir Michael Barber was New Labour's mad professor and master of the flow chart, the man responsible for the literacy and numeracy strategies of the first term and, later, when he worked for Tony Blair as head of the Prime Minister's Delivery Unit, for top-down targets across the public sector. He moved in 2005 to the world-renowned management consultancy McKinsey, and its unofficial motto could be his own: "Everything can be measured, and what is measured can be managed".
If teachers hated the Whitehall commands of the New Labour era, they should blame Barber as much as Blair and his education secretaries. On the domestic front, he was the nearest thing to a New Labour guiding spirit, more consistently influential than any of the intellectual gurus Blair briefly took up with.
But Barber was the backroom boy, absorbed in graphs and charts. Newspapers hardly mentioned him, except to mock or denigrate. The columnist Simon Jenkins called him "a control freak's control freak", while the Mail's Quentin Letts compared him to the speaking clock. When he gave PowerPoint presentations on "delivery" before Blair's monthly press conferences – described by one Downing Street official as "excellent punishment for the hacks" – one journalist muttered "bullshit, bullshit, bullshit" throughout.
Now Barber and his graphs have gone global. As McKinsey's hubristically titled "head of global education practice" . . .
Barber nearly became the top civil servant in Michael Gove's education department this year. The prospect caused panic in Whitehall, where officials feared a return of his top-down regime. But the mad professor clearly regards England as too small a laboratory for his ambitious experiments. His decision to decline the job was no reflection on Gove, he assures me when we meet just before his move to Pearson is announced. "Broadly, Gove's doing the right thing," he says . . .
He insists that invading Iraq was "the right thing to do" – he says Quaker values still guide his life, particularly the belief that "you're on the planet to make a difference".
Despite giving off a sense of restless energy, he seems wholly comfortable, even serene, in his own skin. "What's wrong with counting beans?" is his response to those who dismiss him as a mere bean-counter.
Reflecting on the literacy and numeracy strategies, he says it was a mistake to underestimate their negative effect on teachers. "I thought being enabled to do their jobs better and see children in their classes doing better would have a transformative effect. I thought teachers would say: that's great."
Which seems an odd misunderstanding for one who worked inside classrooms for six years and spent eight years in the largest teachers' union. But though he's a good and polite listener, he is apt, I think, to hear what he wants to hear and, like many people who derive their values from religious belief . . . is a little too confident of his own rightness. "I've always enjoyed bouncing ideas around with him," says Tim Brighouse, former chief education officer of Birmingham and Barber's predecessor at Keele. "But I could never be as convinced as he is that my ideas are right."
All in all I have the greatest respect for Peter Wilby, but in this article I think he's too soft on Barber, who may be a jolly fine fellow for all I know. What you can't get away from is the fact that Barber was one of a group of New Labour bastards (including Blair, Blunkett and their pal Woodhead) who were a totally malign influence on English and Welsh education. The horrific damage wrought by their regime of bean counting, SATs tests, Ofsted terror and league tables has had the most profoundly damaging effect on children, teachers and schools in this country. What they did is unforgivable, no matter how fine their motives. Whilst the rest of the world was moving towards a more enlightened approach to education these stupid fucks were driving schools back to a Victorian model of cramming and bean counting, targets, payment by results and teaching to tests - as if ANY of this was in the best interests of schools, children and teachers. This man is unforgivably stupid and a complete arsehole for what he did in his time in government.
...........................................................
Poor children's life chances face a new assault from the right
New research taken up by the Tory right is sneakily reintroducing the idea of 'innate' intelligence
http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2011/jun/14/poor-children-research-innate-intelligence
by Fiona Millar
Feinstein's conclusions were stark. Children's test scores at 22 months could predict, though not determine, educational qualifications at 26 and were related to family background. The offspring of educated or wealthy parents who scored poorly in the early tests had a tendency to catch up, whereas the low-achieving children of worse-off parents were unlikely to. Early high-achievers from disadvantaged backgrounds were gradually overtaken by early poor-achievers from advantaged families.
Over the years, Feinstein's graph, illustrating the last point, has been heavily used by the left and right.
It is quoted frequently by Michael Gove; most recently, and crudely, to MPs in defence of the hasty passage of the 2010 Academies Act. Inequality, he explained, was so entrenched that "rich, thick kids" achieve more than their "poor, clever" peers even before they start school.
Schools do have a part to play in breeding academic success, vital personal skills and attributes. But money, parenting, relationships, culture and community also matter. Bright children can easily lose competitive advantage if they are battling with poverty and chaotic home lives in poor neighbourhoods. Others can develop ability and confidence if they have aspirant, supportive parents, good schools, cultural capital and (often) private tuition.
None of this is rocket science to those working with children from a range of backgrounds. The real question is why there might now be a political class searching for evidence to undermine such a powerful and widely accepted basis for more progressive policies.
My own theory is that we are moving into an era in which what Willetts once described as the "parental arms race" will be increasingly fierce and give rise to a mean, rancorous streak. The better-off already fight like tigers to protect what they perceive to be their children's right to a place at the top. What better way to up the ante than by sneakily reintroducing the idea of "innate" intelligence, subtly linked to family background, restoring the idea of a natural order, which social policy cannot interrupt.
.............................................................
The fierce, mean, rancorous, competitive streak that's such a strong feature of bourgeois life is something I've been thinking about a lot lately. There's a great body of basically unintelligent, though intellectually capable, spiritually barren middle class people who excel in rancour, meanness, egocentricity and aggression. I'll maybe write more about spiritual and emotional intelligence later this week, if I can be bothered.
.
Showing posts with label Labour. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Labour. Show all posts
Tuesday, June 14, 2011
Sunday, May 22, 2011
Layer 469 . . . Dylan, No Direction, New Labour, The Beat, The Rapture, and a New Morning
.
Thought For Today
It's often through teaching that the teacher learns more about a subject.
..................................................
"He's got the holy spirit about him. You can tell just by looking at him. He can't help what he does."
This was said about Bob Dylan by one of the people interviewed for Martin Scorcese's film, No Direction Home, broadcast (again) on BBC4 last night and the night before (parts 1 and 2).
Bob himself was filmed speaking directly to camera, giving simple and straightforward opinions about his life and times, and his work. The man, of course, is a genius, and of course he's driven by a spirit that neither he, nor anyone else, can control. As were Jimi Hendrix and Janis Joplin. As is Leonard Cohen.
You'd have to say that this is in contrast to someone like John Lennon, whose desperation for love and acceptance put him in thrall to Yoko Ono. Also Paul McCartney, who needed people like Lennon to give him musical direction, and also needed his wife Linda to keep his ego intact. I pretty much can't bear to look when potentially strong, capable and independent people put themselves under the influence - if not the command and control - of partners who reinforce their weaknesses and sap their strength.
Part of the genius of Dylan is that he called himself "just a song and dance man", and he long ago realised that living as a hermit - afraid of and in retreat from the world's madness - was no way for a genius and an artist to live.
To live in the world you have to be part of it - you have to participate in it and you have to interact with it. Otherwise - what are you going to write about, or make art about? What's going to stimulate, feed and ultimately move your soul and spirit? How, as an artist, are you going to describe the world if you're not out there experiencing it?
Therefore, even at the age of 70 - like John Lee Hooker before him, and BB King and Leonard Cohen in the present - Dylan constantly tours and constantly makes music . . . he practices his art and offers his genius to those of us who seek inspiration, stimulation and nourishment for our souls and our spirits.
......................................................
The Beat - live at the Half Moon last night - were good, but not great.
Their ska-based music is still tremendously lively and energetic - with lots of audience interaction and participation. The drums, bass and sax work together extremely well, and the lead vocalist is a great character as well as a good singer.
However - the acoustics of the Half Moon are crap, and the quality of the amplification was extremely poor. The keyboards were totally inaudible, the guitar was rarely at a high enough volume to be heard properly, and the vocals were muffled and incomprehensible.
All in all, very disappointing - though worth going to - to see a very good band and in order to support live music. This country desperately needs a good live music scene, and as many venues as possible to support it. Music is good for the soul, and brings people together. South London desperately needs to bring its people together.
.......................................................
The thrilling thing about this morning is that the world is still in existence, in spite of the line-up of planets, and forecasts that it would come to an end yesterday because of this rare cosmic configuration. This morning started off wet and dull, but the sun's already broken through and we have another beautiful morning of blue skies and sunshine.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2011/may/19/rapture-end-of-the-world
http://gawker.com/5799742/a-friendly-reminder-that-the-worlds-ending-in-two-weeks
http://www.businessinsider.com/end-of-world-may-21-2011-4
.......................................................
Still, Ed Millibean, in spite of his posh-boy-with-an-Estuary-inflection voice and his schoolboy looks, is making a steady start. And of course he's dead right that Labour MUST admit to its past mistakes AND must pledge to tackle inequality - things that New Labour could never, ever, do.
................................................................
...........................................
This is Andrew Rawnsley's article from last Sunday, which might have given Ed Milli the push he needed to get going with his latest speeches -
Thought For Today
It's often through teaching that the teacher learns more about a subject.
..................................................
"He's got the holy spirit about him. You can tell just by looking at him. He can't help what he does."
This was said about Bob Dylan by one of the people interviewed for Martin Scorcese's film, No Direction Home, broadcast (again) on BBC4 last night and the night before (parts 1 and 2).
Bob himself was filmed speaking directly to camera, giving simple and straightforward opinions about his life and times, and his work. The man, of course, is a genius, and of course he's driven by a spirit that neither he, nor anyone else, can control. As were Jimi Hendrix and Janis Joplin. As is Leonard Cohen.
You'd have to say that this is in contrast to someone like John Lennon, whose desperation for love and acceptance put him in thrall to Yoko Ono. Also Paul McCartney, who needed people like Lennon to give him musical direction, and also needed his wife Linda to keep his ego intact. I pretty much can't bear to look when potentially strong, capable and independent people put themselves under the influence - if not the command and control - of partners who reinforce their weaknesses and sap their strength.
Part of the genius of Dylan is that he called himself "just a song and dance man", and he long ago realised that living as a hermit - afraid of and in retreat from the world's madness - was no way for a genius and an artist to live.
To live in the world you have to be part of it - you have to participate in it and you have to interact with it. Otherwise - what are you going to write about, or make art about? What's going to stimulate, feed and ultimately move your soul and spirit? How, as an artist, are you going to describe the world if you're not out there experiencing it?
Therefore, even at the age of 70 - like John Lee Hooker before him, and BB King and Leonard Cohen in the present - Dylan constantly tours and constantly makes music . . . he practices his art and offers his genius to those of us who seek inspiration, stimulation and nourishment for our souls and our spirits.
......................................................
The Beat - live at the Half Moon last night - were good, but not great.
Their ska-based music is still tremendously lively and energetic - with lots of audience interaction and participation. The drums, bass and sax work together extremely well, and the lead vocalist is a great character as well as a good singer.
However - the acoustics of the Half Moon are crap, and the quality of the amplification was extremely poor. The keyboards were totally inaudible, the guitar was rarely at a high enough volume to be heard properly, and the vocals were muffled and incomprehensible.
All in all, very disappointing - though worth going to - to see a very good band and in order to support live music. This country desperately needs a good live music scene, and as many venues as possible to support it. Music is good for the soul, and brings people together. South London desperately needs to bring its people together.
.......................................................
The thrilling thing about this morning is that the world is still in existence, in spite of the line-up of planets, and forecasts that it would come to an end yesterday because of this rare cosmic configuration. This morning started off wet and dull, but the sun's already broken through and we have another beautiful morning of blue skies and sunshine.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2011/may/19/rapture-end-of-the-world
http://gawker.com/5799742/a-friendly-reminder-that-the-worlds-ending-in-two-weeks
http://www.businessinsider.com/end-of-world-may-21-2011-4
.......................................................
What's this about winning back the middle classes? Labour has an awful lot to do to win back the working classes, or indeed anybody. Particularly socialists and the Left in general. Labour has a problem with anyone apart from its core vote of uncritical deadheads. Who else could support what the Labour party became, thanks to the Blair/Brown years?
Ed Miliband: Labour must win back middle classes
Labour leader sets out mission to regain trust of voters by admitting to past mistakes and pledging to tackle inequality
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/may/21/ed-miliband-labour-middle-classes
Still, Ed Millibean, in spite of his posh-boy-with-an-Estuary-inflection voice and his schoolboy looks, is making a steady start. And of course he's dead right that Labour MUST admit to its past mistakes AND must pledge to tackle inequality - things that New Labour could never, ever, do.
"In a speech to the Progress thinktank in London, Miliband pledged to tackle the "new inequality" between the rich and the rest of society, but also admitted the gap had grown under the last Labour government."
In a direct pitch to middle-class voters in the south of England, Miliband said their living standards were being squeezed in the same way as those in poorer parts of the country.
Labour needed the humility to acknowledge that the inequality between "those at the top and everyone else" had grown under the last Labour government, although the coalition was exacerbating the problem.
"Inequality is no longer an issue just between rich and poor. But between those at the top and those both in the middle and on lower incomes," he said.
"Since 2003, those at the top have seen their living standards continue to rise at extraordinary rates, while those of the rest have stagnated."
He said he was committed to tackling Britain's budget deficit, but that the current government's austerity measures were loading more of the financial burden on to those who were already struggling.
Improving jobs and wages would mean "asking less of the state", although he did not eloborate on whether this meant something akin to Cameron's "big society".
"The truth is that we cannot create a society that is equal to the aspirations of the British people in a world of wide and growing inequalities – a world in which there are bailouts for bankers and austerity for the rest.
"Asking more of our economy, good jobs and wages, means asking less of the state. At times, we hung on to a picture of Britain in which people were either poor, and desperately in need of our help, or affluent, aspirational, and doing OK.
"We failed to understand that for millions of people in the middle, life was becoming more and more difficult.
"In the future the Labour offer to aspirational voters must be that we will address the new inequality by hard-wiring fairness into the economy."
................................................................
Our ignorance was bliss for Fred Goodwin
A supine and compliant judiciary has allowed too many corporate wrongdoings to go unpunished
by Nic Cohen
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/may/22/nick-cohen-fred-goodwin-superinjunctions
As a journalist, I have learned to notice the stories that aren't printed and the witnesses who don't come forward. Chief among the people we ought to hear from but never do are bankers not only at RBS but also at HBOS, Barclays, Lloyds, Goldman Sachs, Abbey National and Northern Rock prepared to tell us about the blunders their banks made and how they might be avoided in future.
Bankers know that the judges would issue a gagging order if they spoke out. Their employers would fire them and no other bank would hire then because they had broken the omerta of the City. Privacy law does not work in isolation. It meshes with commercial confidentiality and fear of the sack to form a conspiracy against public understanding.
...........................................
This is Andrew Rawnsley's article from last Sunday, which might have given Ed Milli the push he needed to get going with his latest speeches -
To have a hope of power, Labour must turn from dull into dynamic
Ed Miliband's party needs to forget complacent assumptions and remember that the task is both big and urgent
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/may/15/andrew-rawnsley-labour-should-sharpen-up
The most recent meeting of the shadow cabinet turned into a long discussion of Labour's performance in the local and devolved elections. A rigorous postmortem is certainly required.
Let me suggest five things that Ed Miliband and his party ought to forget and five things they need to remember if Labour is to look serious as a contender for power.
The time frame to think about is the mid-term of this parliament. By then, Labour ought to have demonstrated that it has learned from its mistakes in office, developed a persuasive critique of the coalition's record, and started to look like a convincing replacement. Even if this parliament goes the full five-year stretch, the midterm is now only 18 months away. That is not long at all. In fact, for the Labour party, I'd say it is frighteningly little time to establish themselves as a credible alternative government.
Remember parties get the attention that they deserve. Labour frontbenchers moan that the media won't pay them any attention. With a few honourable exceptions, watching slow-drying paint is more gripping than most of the output of Labour spokesmen and women.
Labour's transport team should be getting out more, travelling the world to learn what works best abroad. Ditto the education team and the health team. They ought to be hungry for new ideas and seek them from people you would not always expect Labour to engage with. And they need to be seen doing so.
The anniversary of the coalition has been marked by a welter of pieces saying that David Cameron looks good in the part of prime minister. Voters prefer Mr Cameron to Mr Miliband on questions such as charisma and strength, and they do so by big margins. Building himself into a more prime ministerial figure is the Labour leader's greatest personal challenge. An operation on his adenoids isn't going to be enough. He needs to demonstrate much more verve and daring, and articulate a much clearer sense of direction, if he is to show the stuff of successful leadership. Given a more dynamic lead by its chief, his party might then start to follow and look interesting again.
Or Labour can carry on being what it is now: risk-averse, ill-defined, dull and complacent in its assumption that the failings of the other side will coast them to power. Well, that worked a treat in Scotland, didn't it?
.
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.
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 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
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.
.
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 . . .
.
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 . . .
.
Saturday, January 15, 2011
Layer 422 . . . More Music, BBC4, Sister Rosetta, Hugh Masekela, Chess Records, Roots of Rock, Tests, Exams, Children Under Pressure, Education, the Oldham Verdict, Barack and Cuba
.
Three wonderful programmes, back to back on BBC4 last night -
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00xf8k7
.........................................
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00s6bln
......................................................
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00vv0zz
.................................................
The Tonight Programme (ITV) - presenter: Julie Etchingham
http://www.itv.com/news/tonight/episodes/kidsunderpressure
Are our children in crisis?
Why is there continuous testing in schools?
Are we raising a generation of troubled children?
Grounds for concern - Britain was ranked bottom in a UN survey of children's wellbeing in 21 countries around the world.
Are today's kids happy? A Mumsnet survey revealed that 1 in 4 parents think their kids are less happy than they were at the same age. "A large majority of mums and dads are worried about the education system, the freedom for kids to play, and the pressure on kids to grow up too soon."
"Even David Cameron has said that happiness is an important indicator of child wellbeing." Well - duh! Genius.
The Mumsnet spokeswoman said, "We expect children to perform in ways that we didn't so aggressively before . . . competitive pressures now appear very early on in children's lives."
The programme talked about the devastating consequences of all this for a significant minority. There's been a 70% increase in children suffering from serious emotional problems since the 1970s. We're failing to protect the children who are most at risk.
10% of all adolescents have diagnosable mental health problems. 80,000 of our young people suffer from depression. Kids who were healthy, confident and outgoing become ill as a result of adult expections for them to achieve test and exam targets. "My emotions felt out of control, and I couldn't see a way forward. I thought my parents would be better off without me. I was causing them so much misery. I was desperate. Really desperate." So said one articulate and intelligent girl. "I decided that enough was enough and I tried to kill myself."
"I love walking the dog now. It gives you space to think. It's my way of de-stressing." This young woman is now 20 and still talks about anxiety and stress. This is an appalling situation. So many of our young people are burnt out, afraid of life, troubled every day, incapable of joy, incapable of embracing life.
"It's been hell," said Anabelle's mum. "The pressures on young people are so hard. Academically there's SO much pressure. Greater than there's ever been. They find it so difficult to cope."
Of course we were treated to a look at Wellington College's "happiness classes". "The focus is on helping a child develop meaning in their own lives," said Anthony Seldon, head of the college. "Also a sense of self worth and self esteem. An ability to face the trials and problems that will inevitably be part of anyone's life."
Yes, Anthony. But PLEASE don't call them 'happiness classes'. That's just ammunition for your enemies. I do like it though when he goes on to say, "An excessive emphasis on testing is putting unneccessary pressure on our children. The whole school system is skewed towards the passing of these frankly pretty meaningless bits of paper. How sad when schools could move towards truly identifying and nurturing every single child's innate and unique gifts. Because if they're not drawn out when children are at school they'll remain dormant for the rest of their lives."
Two thirds of the parents who took part in the Mumsnet survey said there's too much testing in our schools. Sarah Teather, Minister for children and families, rather pathetically said the usual rubbish - schools and parents need feedback on how children are 'getting on', blah blah . . . As if she's never heard of continuous formative assessment for progress through clear learning targets. As if regular weekly and monthly feedback on coursework isn't far more useful than high-stakes exams.
She rather unexpectedly went on to say, "However, we do recognise that there's a tendency in schools to teach to the tests, and that's the last thing we need. It's not good for children, and it's not good for teachers."
So why not get rid of "these frankly pretty meaningless bits of paper" and ensure that proper systems for pupil progress tracking are put in place? Afraid that schools might 'cheat', minister? Well then - get rid of league tables as well. Do that, and there's really no point in cheating. And in any case groups of schools can organise their own verification and moderation procedures, which need cost very little in either time or money. Unlike our disgracefully wasteful exam systems.
The programme went on to consider children's needs to explore their own worlds, make their own discoveries, and just play together.
78% of parents say their children don't spend enough time playing outdoors.
Independent, non-structured activity is crucial for developing life skills, forming friendships, developing emotional intelligence, etc.
75% of parents say their working day is too long, leaving them too little time for their children.
Typical working mums and dads spend just 19 minutes a day 'looking after their kids'.
The programme also dealt with the pressure put on kids to look "attractive", "sexy", etc. And to buy and own all the 'right' gadgets and gizmos.
How do we "give children the tools they will need to tackle the challenges of growing up"?
There was mention of a "Roots of Empathy" programme on the Isle of Man - to help children to "strengthen their emotional ties to other people". The idea is to "reduce aggression and improve social skills". The children learn to "understand how other people feel - through being able to put themselves in other people's situations." Bringing babies into classrooms is an important part of this scheme.
"We're giving them the emotional literacy that will last a lifetime."
"We want them to be able to share their emotions so that we don't have so much aggression in society." Almost there. Empathy - emotions - feelings: we still have some sorting out to do.
"If our kids are happier and more considerate they'll be better able to face the challenges ahead."
Dr Tony Sewell of the charity Generating Genius appeared in the programme, talking about 'targeting the cleverest kids and preparing them for university'. Though it seems like an elitist programme, at least Sewell is advocating learning science through proper first-hand experience and experimentation. This, of course, should be available to all children.
The presenter summed up by saying, "It may now be a matter of political will to drive through the changes that could benefit ALL of our children."
MAY be a matter of political will? Let's just say the current generation of teachers and headteachers can barely even organise a boycott of KS2 SATs, so they're hardly going to drive through the major changes that are needed of their own accord. SATs have to go. Tracking systems for pupil progress in ALL areas of learning - academic, social, emotional, etc - have to be brought in. Pedagogy has to change to give all children the ability and the opportunity to learn through activity, experience and interaction. Pupils should be setting their own learning targets. All of the ideas of Paulo Freire, and of the New Learning Revolution need to be adopted. Other countries are already doing it. It's outrageous that Britain isn't.
.....................................
............................................
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/jan/15/editorial-oldham-byelection-conservative-party
...................................................
This piece on Miliband is well worth a read:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/jan/13/ed-miliband-new-labour
..................................................
This is brilliant. I was beginning to think this would never happen. Great timing Mr President - a brilliant challenge to the Tea Party mob, in the aftermath of Arizona.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jan/15/barack-obama-us-embargo-cuba
.
Three wonderful programmes, back to back on BBC4 last night -
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00xf8k7
The Godmother of Rock & Roll: Sister Rosetta Tharpe
During the 40s, 50s and 60s Sister Rosetta Tharpe played a highly significant role in the creation of rock & roll, inspiring musicians like Elvis Presley, Jerry Lee Lewis, Johnny Cash, Little Richard and Chuck Berry. She may not be a household name, but this flamboyant African-American gospel singing superstar, with her spectacular virtuosity on the newly-electrified guitar, was one of the most influential popular musicians of the 20th century.
In 2008 the state governor of Pennsylvania declared that henceforth January 11th will be Sister Rosetta Tharpe Day in recognition of her remarkable musical legacy.
.........................................
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00s6bln
Hugh Masekela: Welcome to South Africa
South African musician Hugh Masekela celebrates his 70th birthday and reflects on his career in performance and interview, from first picking up a trumpet in the 50s through the apartheid years, exile and stardom in America, his return to South Africa on Nelson Mandela's release, and concluding with his vision of the future for his country.
The programme also features performances from his 70th birthday concert at the Barbican in London in December 2009, where he was joined by the London Symphony Orchestra, their Community Choir and guest South African singers.
......................................................
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00vv0zz
Roll over Beethoven - The Chess Records Saga
Chicago's Chess Records was one of the greatest labels of the post-war era, ranking alongside other mighty independents like Atlantic, Stax and Sun. From 1950 till its demise at the end of the 60s, Chess released a myriad of electric blues, rock 'n' roll and soul classics that helped change the landscape of black and white popular music.
Chess was the label that gave the world such sonic adventurers as Chuck Berry, Muddy Waters, Bo Diddley, Howlin' Wolf and Etta James. In this documentary to mark the label's 60th anniversary, the likes of Jimmy Page, Mick Hucknall, Public Enemy's Chuck D, Paul Jones and Little Steven, as well as those attached to the label such as founder's son Marshall Chess, pay tribute to its extraordinary music and influence.
The film reveals how two Polish immigrants, Leonard and Phil Chess, forged friendships with black musicians in late 1940s Chicago, shrewdly building a speciality blues label into a huge independent worth millions by the end of the 1960s. Full of vivid period detail, it places the Chess story within a wider social and historical context - as well as being about some of the greatest music ever recorded, it is, inevitably, about race in America during these tumultuous times.
.................................................
The Tonight Programme (ITV) - presenter: Julie Etchingham
http://www.itv.com/news/tonight/episodes/kidsunderpressure
Kids Under Pressure
We look behind the statistics that show a dramatic rise in the level of childhood depression over the course of a generation as Julie meets a young woman who has battled with the disease through her teenage years – and she hears from her mother about what it was like to support her daughter through such difficult times.
The programme investigates whether the current education system is adequately preparing children for the challenges they face in modern society and discovers how some schools are looking at new ways to improve pupils’ social and emotional skills, such as a revolutionary scheme involving children interacting with a baby in classes, as well as a ‘happiness class’ at one public school whose head teacher is critical of the emphasis on testing in mainstream education.
Do children have enough freedom nowadays? We meet the parents who have blocked off their own road to traffic to give their kids the chance for the kind of free independent play that was once commonplace. The programme also questions mental health issues and behavioural problems children are experiencing, as well as body image anxiety.
Are our children in crisis?
Why is there continuous testing in schools?
Are we raising a generation of troubled children?
Grounds for concern - Britain was ranked bottom in a UN survey of children's wellbeing in 21 countries around the world.
Are today's kids happy? A Mumsnet survey revealed that 1 in 4 parents think their kids are less happy than they were at the same age. "A large majority of mums and dads are worried about the education system, the freedom for kids to play, and the pressure on kids to grow up too soon."
"Even David Cameron has said that happiness is an important indicator of child wellbeing." Well - duh! Genius.
The Mumsnet spokeswoman said, "We expect children to perform in ways that we didn't so aggressively before . . . competitive pressures now appear very early on in children's lives."
The programme talked about the devastating consequences of all this for a significant minority. There's been a 70% increase in children suffering from serious emotional problems since the 1970s. We're failing to protect the children who are most at risk.
10% of all adolescents have diagnosable mental health problems. 80,000 of our young people suffer from depression. Kids who were healthy, confident and outgoing become ill as a result of adult expections for them to achieve test and exam targets. "My emotions felt out of control, and I couldn't see a way forward. I thought my parents would be better off without me. I was causing them so much misery. I was desperate. Really desperate." So said one articulate and intelligent girl. "I decided that enough was enough and I tried to kill myself."
"I love walking the dog now. It gives you space to think. It's my way of de-stressing." This young woman is now 20 and still talks about anxiety and stress. This is an appalling situation. So many of our young people are burnt out, afraid of life, troubled every day, incapable of joy, incapable of embracing life.
"It's been hell," said Anabelle's mum. "The pressures on young people are so hard. Academically there's SO much pressure. Greater than there's ever been. They find it so difficult to cope."
Of course we were treated to a look at Wellington College's "happiness classes". "The focus is on helping a child develop meaning in their own lives," said Anthony Seldon, head of the college. "Also a sense of self worth and self esteem. An ability to face the trials and problems that will inevitably be part of anyone's life."
Yes, Anthony. But PLEASE don't call them 'happiness classes'. That's just ammunition for your enemies. I do like it though when he goes on to say, "An excessive emphasis on testing is putting unneccessary pressure on our children. The whole school system is skewed towards the passing of these frankly pretty meaningless bits of paper. How sad when schools could move towards truly identifying and nurturing every single child's innate and unique gifts. Because if they're not drawn out when children are at school they'll remain dormant for the rest of their lives."
Two thirds of the parents who took part in the Mumsnet survey said there's too much testing in our schools. Sarah Teather, Minister for children and families, rather pathetically said the usual rubbish - schools and parents need feedback on how children are 'getting on', blah blah . . . As if she's never heard of continuous formative assessment for progress through clear learning targets. As if regular weekly and monthly feedback on coursework isn't far more useful than high-stakes exams.
She rather unexpectedly went on to say, "However, we do recognise that there's a tendency in schools to teach to the tests, and that's the last thing we need. It's not good for children, and it's not good for teachers."
So why not get rid of "these frankly pretty meaningless bits of paper" and ensure that proper systems for pupil progress tracking are put in place? Afraid that schools might 'cheat', minister? Well then - get rid of league tables as well. Do that, and there's really no point in cheating. And in any case groups of schools can organise their own verification and moderation procedures, which need cost very little in either time or money. Unlike our disgracefully wasteful exam systems.
The programme went on to consider children's needs to explore their own worlds, make their own discoveries, and just play together.
78% of parents say their children don't spend enough time playing outdoors.
Independent, non-structured activity is crucial for developing life skills, forming friendships, developing emotional intelligence, etc.
75% of parents say their working day is too long, leaving them too little time for their children.
Typical working mums and dads spend just 19 minutes a day 'looking after their kids'.
The programme also dealt with the pressure put on kids to look "attractive", "sexy", etc. And to buy and own all the 'right' gadgets and gizmos.
How do we "give children the tools they will need to tackle the challenges of growing up"?
There was mention of a "Roots of Empathy" programme on the Isle of Man - to help children to "strengthen their emotional ties to other people". The idea is to "reduce aggression and improve social skills". The children learn to "understand how other people feel - through being able to put themselves in other people's situations." Bringing babies into classrooms is an important part of this scheme.
"We're giving them the emotional literacy that will last a lifetime."
"We want them to be able to share their emotions so that we don't have so much aggression in society." Almost there. Empathy - emotions - feelings: we still have some sorting out to do.
"If our kids are happier and more considerate they'll be better able to face the challenges ahead."
Dr Tony Sewell of the charity Generating Genius appeared in the programme, talking about 'targeting the cleverest kids and preparing them for university'. Though it seems like an elitist programme, at least Sewell is advocating learning science through proper first-hand experience and experimentation. This, of course, should be available to all children.
The presenter summed up by saying, "It may now be a matter of political will to drive through the changes that could benefit ALL of our children."
MAY be a matter of political will? Let's just say the current generation of teachers and headteachers can barely even organise a boycott of KS2 SATs, so they're hardly going to drive through the major changes that are needed of their own accord. SATs have to go. Tracking systems for pupil progress in ALL areas of learning - academic, social, emotional, etc - have to be brought in. Pedagogy has to change to give all children the ability and the opportunity to learn through activity, experience and interaction. Pupils should be setting their own learning targets. All of the ideas of Paulo Freire, and of the New Learning Revolution need to be adopted. Other countries are already doing it. It's outrageous that Britain isn't.
.....................................
The Labour party still has to change
Despite the victory in Oldham, the next election won't fall into our lap. We must become the progressives' champion
by Ed Miliband
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/jan/14/labour-oldham-progressives-champion
The first real electoral test for this Conservative-led government has revealed people's deep sense of unease about the direction in which our country is being led, and their anger at promises so solemnly made and yet so casually broken.
I believe that unease stems from misgivings shared right across Britain on the three arguments that will dominate the year ahead: the economy; the damage being done to the next generation; and the way we conduct politics. From the trebling of student debt, to capitulation on bankers' bonuses and a VAT rise squeezing working families, this government is showing it shares neither their values nor their hopes for the future.
............................................
Oldham East and Saddleworth byelection: Trouble for the Tories
David Cameron faces the anger of the Conservative right after the party lost more than half of their votes in the constituency
Editorial
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/jan/15/editorial-oldham-byelection-conservative-party
...................................................
This piece on Miliband is well worth a read:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/jan/13/ed-miliband-new-labour
..................................................
This is brilliant. I was beginning to think this would never happen. Great timing Mr President - a brilliant challenge to the Tea Party mob, in the aftermath of Arizona.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jan/15/barack-obama-us-embargo-cuba
Barack Obama acts to ease US embargo on Cuba
President brings end to travel and finance bans in place since 1959 in move which will help his standing with American left
Barack Obama has eased America's long-standing embargo on Cuba, allowing many Americans to travel there for the first time and increasing the amounts that they can invest in the island.
Other changes announced by the president will allow all US international airports to accept flights to and from Cuba; at present, chartered flights are restricted to Miami and a handful of other airports. The moves represent an important step to rapprochement between the US and Cuba.
.
Sunday, January 9, 2011
Layer 417 . . . A Generation Under Strain, Old and Sad, Parris & Portillo, Brandreth, Clive Rowe, Panto, and the Secret Mediterranean?
.
Having watched the first programme of Trevor McDonald's new series, 'The Secret Mediterranean', I felt moved to write something about it - but really, I don't know if I can be bothered. This is OK! TV for the retarded. This is Hello! TV for couch potatoes. You can get a pretty good flavour of what it's like from Sam Wollaston's review, and the spot-on CiF comments following it.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/tv-and-radio/2011/jan/05/secret-mediterranean-with-trevor-mcdonald
This is a stinker of a TV production. How can anyone possibly make a bad documentary about an amazing place like the Med? Sir Trev and the people from Plum Pictures can - with ease. Traipsing round ludicrously expensive 'yachts' and the super-luxury hotels favoured by the super-rich and famous, making fatuous comments in his plummy accent - this what Sir Trev McWhicker does best.
He and Plum even managed to make Venice look boring, whilst Trevor himself looked slightly seasick as he was gondoliered around the less well-frequented canals of this jewel of the Mediterranean. The reason some of those outlying, dare I say backwater, canals are infrequently visited (though hardly 'secret') is because they are boring. I'd rather take a cruise down the Grand Union through the Black Country. As long as I didn't have Sir T as a companion.
You can never expect Trevor to say anything interesting about anything - but surely we could expect more than, "This is very narrow," "Oh, it's lovely!", "Quite marvellous!", "It's quite soothing in a way, isn't it?" "We made our way along the calm waters, as the city slowly drifted by, as if in a hypnotic haze." I kid you not.
"It's not very easy getting around in this city - on the water."
Quite so, Trev - that would be on account of the narrow canals.
"But it's more beautiful!" said the gondolier.
"That's a very Venetian view of life!" said TM.
Er - No, Trev. That's just a fact. Venice is, on the whole, incredibly beautiful.
The final straw was hearing Trevor calling the canals "canarls", as in "gnarls". Is this what elecution lessons do for someone? Is this what gets bland people knighthoods?
........................................
By way of contrast, and for some brilliant laugh-out-loud entertainment, you could go to see Clive Rowe in Jack and the Beanstalk at the Hackney Empire. Except you can't, since it's the last show today. Mr Rowe is fantastic as the Dame in this excellent production - dominating and carrying the show with his incredible voice, timing and comic persona.
Pantomime is such an amazing artform - consisting of spectacle, audience participation, singing, dancing, drama, comedy, storytelling, men dressed as women, women dressed as men, etc. The giant in this production was really something special. Get a flavour of it here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=koQg8mJ3MAE&feature=player_embedded
Arise Sir Clive: Dame Extraordinaire!
.............................................
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/jan/08/unthinkable-ashes-free-to-air
http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/blog/2011/jan/07/ashes-england-bowlers-reverse-swing
...........................
"Live in the moment!" said Giles Brandreth, on Desert Island Discs. Zennist (!) Giles admitted he has no music in his soul, like so many of these desert islanders. He's a man of the theatre, a man of the spoken word, he told us, by way of non-explanation. As if you can't be passionate about musical expression as well as spoken language . . .
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00x8f2l
However, he did select "Boum!" by Charles Trenet.
Is it legit on this programme to choose a speech by Laurence Olivier (from Othello)?
His love of musicals is interesting, given his lack of interest in music. Clearly it's the words and the drama that appeal to people who love musicals.
He also loves Gilbert & Sullivan - more camping about and more wordfests for people who aren't interested in music.
"I wasn't young like other people were young in the Sixties."
"It's been useful being camp and having people think I'm gay. Very good cover!"
"You can't imagine anyone with more advantages than I had - a middle class child of the mid-Fifties."
"I am the world's most spoilt and self-centred man."
Even so, there's something a little bit endearing about Giles, as his many fans will no doubt attest. He certainly doesn't come across as a hard-line Thatcherite, or a fully paid-up member of the Nasty Party.
In a similar vein, there was an excellent panel on Any Questions? this week - Ken Livingston, Matthew Parris and Michael Portillo. And Vivienne Westwood.
Parris and Portillo are a couple of interesting Tories - which you can't say about very many of them. Is it 'cos they is gay? You may not agree with their views, but you get a real sense of individuals who have long ago given up on parroting the party line, and who usually say what they truly believe. What's more they are knowledgeable, open-minded, decent, unbigoted and they think before they speak. And you can hardly say fairer than that. They may not have a complete grasp on economic theory, but then who has these days? They may not be egalitarians, but then neither were New Labour. And it's not entirely clear whether Ed Miliband's Latest Labour is going to be, either.
I particularly respect Parris for saying this:
Classic symptoms of a psychopath, as I've said so many times myself.
As for Portillo, you have to have some respect for a man with enough of a sense of humour to say, "My name is now synonymous with eating a bucketload of shit in public".
That's right, he's talking about "the Portillo moment".
...........................................
A couple of very worthwhile articles in the Observer today:
In contrast to Giles Brandreth's gilded youth -
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2011/jan/09/young-people-generation-under-strain
Gary Watts said some very sensible things, including, "When you're growing up, no one tells you what life really is going to be like. It's constantly exams and then stress, more stress, coursework. By the time I reached 18 I was virtually burnt out from all of that."
Someone commenting on CiF said, - "Surely mankind will develop through education. If one generation is educated, and they educate more than the last generation, and that goes on in a long process with each generation more educated than the last, then surely that is a good thing?"
Well - it depends on what you mean by education. Learning to pass examinations doesn't necessarily equate with becoming wiser, more enlightened, more able to see the wood for the trees. Neither does it equate with becoming more emotionally intelligent, more empathetic, more intuitive, etc. In many respects our schools, through a relentless concentration on academic success, stifle the development of other crucial intelligences. Is this what our planet needs? Clever little academics with little in the way of human/spiritual values, little in the way of emotional and social skills and understanding? Is this not why we see so much drug-taking and violence in our society? No wonder some universities and some businesses are now beginning to see the need to produce more rounded individuals with more "life skills" and "employment skills", as they call them. Plus more creativity and more imagination. Thank goodness they do things differently in other, more enlightened, countries, such as Finland and Denmark, where education is still pupil-focused and pedagogy and the curriculum are still driven by respected professionals. Why are English pupils the most examined, the most miserable and the most burnt-out - as Gary Watts attests in this article? We do indeed have much to learn.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/jan/09/andrew-rawnsley-oldham-saddleworth-byelection
..................................
It was Derren Brown night on C4 last night. This guy is a phenomenon. What it must be like to be that clever, and to have that much nerve and originality? He must have some fun times too, with friends as funny and brilliant as Matt Lucas and Bill Bailey.
.
Having watched the first programme of Trevor McDonald's new series, 'The Secret Mediterranean', I felt moved to write something about it - but really, I don't know if I can be bothered. This is OK! TV for the retarded. This is Hello! TV for couch potatoes. You can get a pretty good flavour of what it's like from Sam Wollaston's review, and the spot-on CiF comments following it.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/tv-and-radio/2011/jan/05/secret-mediterranean-with-trevor-mcdonald
This is a stinker of a TV production. How can anyone possibly make a bad documentary about an amazing place like the Med? Sir Trev and the people from Plum Pictures can - with ease. Traipsing round ludicrously expensive 'yachts' and the super-luxury hotels favoured by the super-rich and famous, making fatuous comments in his plummy accent - this what Sir Trev McWhicker does best.
He and Plum even managed to make Venice look boring, whilst Trevor himself looked slightly seasick as he was gondoliered around the less well-frequented canals of this jewel of the Mediterranean. The reason some of those outlying, dare I say backwater, canals are infrequently visited (though hardly 'secret') is because they are boring. I'd rather take a cruise down the Grand Union through the Black Country. As long as I didn't have Sir T as a companion.
You can never expect Trevor to say anything interesting about anything - but surely we could expect more than, "This is very narrow," "Oh, it's lovely!", "Quite marvellous!", "It's quite soothing in a way, isn't it?" "We made our way along the calm waters, as the city slowly drifted by, as if in a hypnotic haze." I kid you not.
"It's not very easy getting around in this city - on the water."
Quite so, Trev - that would be on account of the narrow canals.
"But it's more beautiful!" said the gondolier.
"That's a very Venetian view of life!" said TM.
Er - No, Trev. That's just a fact. Venice is, on the whole, incredibly beautiful.
The final straw was hearing Trevor calling the canals "canarls", as in "gnarls". Is this what elecution lessons do for someone? Is this what gets bland people knighthoods?
........................................
By way of contrast, and for some brilliant laugh-out-loud entertainment, you could go to see Clive Rowe in Jack and the Beanstalk at the Hackney Empire. Except you can't, since it's the last show today. Mr Rowe is fantastic as the Dame in this excellent production - dominating and carrying the show with his incredible voice, timing and comic persona.
Pantomime is such an amazing artform - consisting of spectacle, audience participation, singing, dancing, drama, comedy, storytelling, men dressed as women, women dressed as men, etc. The giant in this production was really something special. Get a flavour of it here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=koQg8mJ3MAE&feature=player_embedded
Arise Sir Clive: Dame Extraordinaire!
.............................................
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/jan/08/unthinkable-ashes-free-to-air
by SalvadorDarley
I'm not used to England having a highly organised, utterly competent and ruthless cricket team. I preferred the days of collapso cricket, Gower in the Tiger Moth, Devon Malcolm swinging the bat to get the hundred up, Tuffers wheezing around the outfield looking for his fags and the occasional, heroic match-saving innings or tight victory (when the series is already lost).
Subsequently I've gone off cricket as I don't really understand it any more.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/blog/2011/jan/07/ashes-england-bowlers-reverse-swing
...........................
"Live in the moment!" said Giles Brandreth, on Desert Island Discs. Zennist (!) Giles admitted he has no music in his soul, like so many of these desert islanders. He's a man of the theatre, a man of the spoken word, he told us, by way of non-explanation. As if you can't be passionate about musical expression as well as spoken language . . .
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00x8f2l
However, he did select "Boum!" by Charles Trenet.
Is it legit on this programme to choose a speech by Laurence Olivier (from Othello)?
His love of musicals is interesting, given his lack of interest in music. Clearly it's the words and the drama that appeal to people who love musicals.
He also loves Gilbert & Sullivan - more camping about and more wordfests for people who aren't interested in music.
"I wasn't young like other people were young in the Sixties."
"It's been useful being camp and having people think I'm gay. Very good cover!"
"You can't imagine anyone with more advantages than I had - a middle class child of the mid-Fifties."
"I am the world's most spoilt and self-centred man."
Even so, there's something a little bit endearing about Giles, as his many fans will no doubt attest. He certainly doesn't come across as a hard-line Thatcherite, or a fully paid-up member of the Nasty Party.
In a similar vein, there was an excellent panel on Any Questions? this week - Ken Livingston, Matthew Parris and Michael Portillo. And Vivienne Westwood.
Parris and Portillo are a couple of interesting Tories - which you can't say about very many of them. Is it 'cos they is gay? You may not agree with their views, but you get a real sense of individuals who have long ago given up on parroting the party line, and who usually say what they truly believe. What's more they are knowledgeable, open-minded, decent, unbigoted and they think before they speak. And you can hardly say fairer than that. They may not have a complete grasp on economic theory, but then who has these days? They may not be egalitarians, but then neither were New Labour. And it's not entirely clear whether Ed Miliband's Latest Labour is going to be, either.
I particularly respect Parris for saying this:
Criticism of Tony Blair
Parris has suggested that Tony Blair has a deep flaw in his personality which made him unsuitable for the role of Prime Minister. On 18 March 2006 he wrote:
I believe Tony Blair is an out-and-out rascal, terminally untrustworthy and close to being unhinged. I said from the start that there was something wrong in his head, and each passing year convinces me more strongly that this man is a pathological confidence-trickster. To the extent that he even believes what he says, he is delusional. To the extent that he does not, he is an actor whose first invention — himself — has been his only interesting role.
- Wikipedia
Classic symptoms of a psychopath, as I've said so many times myself.
As for Portillo, you have to have some respect for a man with enough of a sense of humour to say, "My name is now synonymous with eating a bucketload of shit in public".
That's right, he's talking about "the Portillo moment".
...........................................
A couple of very worthwhile articles in the Observer today:
In contrast to Giles Brandreth's gilded youth -
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2011/jan/09/young-people-generation-under-strain
No country for young people: is this generation under strain?
Young people confront a radically different social landscape to that of their parents, who stand accused alongside bankers and politicians of bequeathing an economic and environmental mess. Tracy McVeigh hears their views
Gary Watts said some very sensible things, including, "When you're growing up, no one tells you what life really is going to be like. It's constantly exams and then stress, more stress, coursework. By the time I reached 18 I was virtually burnt out from all of that."
Someone commenting on CiF said, - "Surely mankind will develop through education. If one generation is educated, and they educate more than the last generation, and that goes on in a long process with each generation more educated than the last, then surely that is a good thing?"
Well - it depends on what you mean by education. Learning to pass examinations doesn't necessarily equate with becoming wiser, more enlightened, more able to see the wood for the trees. Neither does it equate with becoming more emotionally intelligent, more empathetic, more intuitive, etc. In many respects our schools, through a relentless concentration on academic success, stifle the development of other crucial intelligences. Is this what our planet needs? Clever little academics with little in the way of human/spiritual values, little in the way of emotional and social skills and understanding? Is this not why we see so much drug-taking and violence in our society? No wonder some universities and some businesses are now beginning to see the need to produce more rounded individuals with more "life skills" and "employment skills", as they call them. Plus more creativity and more imagination. Thank goodness they do things differently in other, more enlightened, countries, such as Finland and Denmark, where education is still pupil-focused and pedagogy and the curriculum are still driven by respected professionals. Why are English pupils the most examined, the most miserable and the most burnt-out - as Gary Watts attests in this article? We do indeed have much to learn.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/jan/09/andrew-rawnsley-oldham-saddleworth-byelection
Oldham and Saddleworth: All three leaders are jumpy about the verdict of the Pennines
The Oldham and Saddleworth byelection highlights the challenges facing each of the parties in the year ahead
by Andrew Rawnsley
This Thursday, the good folk of Oldham East and Saddleworth will vote in the first byelection of the coalition age. Some of the bad and ugly folk will take part as well. The result will be part-verdict on what has happened since last May, including the performance of the coalition and the leadership of Ed Miliband, and part-harbinger of how voters are likely to react in the 12 months ahead, a year of sharp tax rises, deep spending cuts and threatened strikes. What's not so agreed is precisely what and whom is being tested in Old and Sad.
..................................
It was Derren Brown night on C4 last night. This guy is a phenomenon. What it must be like to be that clever, and to have that much nerve and originality? He must have some fun times too, with friends as funny and brilliant as Matt Lucas and Bill Bailey.
.
Tuesday, September 28, 2010
Layer 356 . . . Cocks, Roosters, Ed Miliband and the New Leader's Speech . . .
.
Hazel Bleeding Blears was on the Daily Politics show panel today, chatting with the Neil Scotsperson. I've no idea why.
In the leadership contest it seems she voted for the other three guys in the contest ahead of Ed Mili. Interesting. Clearly, for Hazel, New Labour isn't 'over'.
....................................................
Cocking It Up
Boost for Ed Miliband as new poll puts Labour ahead of the Conservatives
As Ed Miliband prepares to give his first major speech as party leader, a new poll shows support for Labour on 40% compared with 39% for the Conservatives
Hmmmm. So who is this Ed Miliband? Does anybody really know him? Oxzen's exclusive research has come up the following personality profile.
Ed is a Cock. Or Rooster if you prefer. Such people are found in professions where security is assured without excessive risk-taking. Deep down they are extremely conservative. Oh dear.
It seems Roosters are dandies who feel that appearance is everything in life.
What's more, Ed, being born in 1969, is an Earth Rooster. This means that this particular Cock is egotistical, and preoccupied with his own success, security and appearance. He's happy to profit from other people's work, and is not overly imaginative. And he's realistic, pragmatic and shrewd rather than creatively intelligent, insightful, enlightened, visionary, radical or imaginative . So much for Red Ed.
So far, so New Labour. So very Blair/Brown.
And it goes on. Due to his egotism, he's not burdened with too many principles. Earth Roosters rapidly climb to the top in their profession, especially in politics, property and banking, not hesitating to elbow others out of the way. These people need activities that flatter their pride while assuring them of fame and comfort. They need to be seen and admired.
As it happens, Ed is also a Capricorn, and all of the above can also be said of most Capricorns. So now we know. You read it here first, folks!
I'll continue.
The Rooster is the incarnation of the forces of youth, hope and clarity. "With his mixture of conformity and eccentricity, aggressive impulses and meditative leanings, the Rooster is a rather strange and paradoxical animal. This captive king is a bizarre and contraDicTory creature (my emphasis), a ruler and a slave whose bravery and despotism are confined by the narrow limits of his farmyard. In this sense the Rooster is an analogy for the frailties of prestige and power, confined within the inevitable enclosure of time and death."
Honest, frank, obliging, courageous, vain, thoughtless, preoccupied with appearance.
Hates any attempt to probe his private being or expose his motives.
"Sooner or later one begins to question whether the Rooster superficiality is real or a game. The answer is that they conceal their inner selves with near desperation, obstinately camouflaging their lack of inner confidence the fact that, at bottom, they are only fragile birds. What remains of a Rooster when one takes away his feathers and his cock-a-doodle-do?"
We shall see.
On the positive side - "Rooster/Capricorn is just and full of integrity. he is also the most hard-working and clear-sighted of all the Roosters."
Which is all very well, but the likes of Thatcher, Blair and Brown were also hard-working. The question is - to what ends?
.........................................................................
The Big Speech
Ed walked into the conference hall hand in hand with his partner - with her bump, and her tragic haircut. A purple tie day.
More boring displays of brotherly love. More silly grins from his bro. Hello Ed! - We don't fucking care about your family and your sibling history! You've said too much already!
Tedious tributes to Darling and Straw. Dullards and hacks. Visionaries - not.
"The new generation of Labour is different."
"Why I'm here. It starts with my dad. His escape from the Nazis. His family arrived in Britain with nothing. They worked hard and got on. My dad learnt English. He joined the navy to fight for Britain.
Secure and loving homes. The aspiration to succeed. People of courage and conviction can make a huge difference. We do not have to accept the world as we find it. Never walk by on the other side of injustice.
Freedom and opportunity are precious gifts. My values are my anchor. My sense of right and wrong. Dedication, energy and the determination of activists makes the difference.
But we had a very bad election result. Now we're out of power and we cannot change our country for the better. We must make sure this is a one-term government.
But we need humility. We should blame ourselves, not the electorate. This will require strong leadership. And lead I will.
Tony and Gordon took on conventional wisdom. They were reforming, restless and radical. They lifted hundreds of thousands of children out of poverty. Newly-built schools and modernised hospitals. Saviours of the National Health Service. We helped deliver peace in Northern Ireland.
Development spending around the world. Working for malaria eradication.
Tony and Gordon had the courage to take on Establishment attitudes. But where did we go wrong - how did we lose so many votes.?
Trapped by our own certainties? Over time we looked more and more like an old Establishment. Failure to re-regulate the City. Immigration. Personal debt. Tuition fees. Claims of having ended boom and bust. The scandal of MP's expenses. Our style of politics and our remoteness from the people.
We cannot claim we know all the answers. But we have to set a new direction. We know there's more to life than work and money. Foreign policy must be based on our values.
To change Britain we need a new politics. We need to build a new economy. We need to reduce the deficit. We need to win back fiscal credibility.
We were too exposed to financial services. We should take responsibility for not building a more resilient economy. Growth should now be our priority. We should go on rebuilding schools. We need to lead the world in new technology. No plan for growth means no credible plan for deficit reduction.
We need a higher banking levy to protect the services that people rely on. We need an economy and a society fit for our kids to live in.
My ambition is for us to learn deeper lessons about changing our economy for the future. There are too many people stuck in low pay. We must redistribute prosperity. Labour must be the party of enterprise and small businesses.
We did not do enough to address the concerns about globalisation and its consequences - wages driven down by immigration. Those consequences should have been dealt with. Migrant labour should never have been allowed to undercut people's wages. We need proper protection for agency workers. Workers need to make their voices heard. Basic standards of decency and fairness. Trade unions are part of a decent society.
But we need to win the public to our cause - not alienate them through irresponsible strikes.
And we also need responsibility from business. Decent wages. Living wages. Fair pay. Not just a 'minimum'. A living wage must be the foundation of our economy in the future.
High quality apprenticeships.
The gap between rich and poor DOES matter. What does it say about the values of our society? Excessive salaries must be challenged. The lives of the poor can be transformed. Those in need must be protected.
Work is central to life - but it's not all that matters. Strong families, love and compassion, time with our families. Do we just know the price of everything and the value of nothing? We must shed old thinking.
Post Office closures? Identikit high streets? We believe in community and social solidarity. How do we protect families? People working 60 - 70 hours a week - how does this help kids?
How do we think about the State, and what it can achieve? Government must be accountable and responsive.
Flannel flannel comprehensive schools flannel flannel failing schools flannel flannel.
Civil liberties must never be given away lightly. Protecting freedoms.
The new generation must challenge old thinking in foreign policy.
Our boys in Afghanistan . . . thanks. Stabilising the country. Supporting our mission.
But Iraq! I criticise nobody - but I do believe we were wrong. War was not a LAST resort.
Our alliance with America . . . Our values . . . International support for the problems in the Middle East. Israel must accept and recognise the Palestinian right to statehood. The attack on the Gaza flotilla was wrong!
We must change our politics - its practice, its workings, and its reputation. Vote yes to AV! Fully elect the House of Lords! More local democracy and decision-making.
Protecting the environment.
Working with the other parties. Praise for Liberals like Keynes and Beveridge. And Ken Clark on prisons. Teresa May on stop and search.
Let's have a grown up debate about ourselves and our country - not silly name calling.
A difference in attitudes and ideals to the Tories. Optimism! Let's be humble about the past, and inspire people with our vision.
.........................................
He spoke well. His delivery was good. His voice is not unpleasant. Infinitely better than Blair or Brown. A decent effort. And he might well get better.
He deserves support AT LEAST for what he said about inequality, the gap between rich and poor, re-regulating the City and financial services, values, work-life balance, civil liberties, Palestine, Iraq, support for the Alternative Vote, creating new businesses and industries, and above all redistributing prosperity, tackling low pay, and introducing a living wage.
This is indeed a new beginning. Bye bye New Labour. Well done Ed.
.
Hazel Bleeding Blears was on the Daily Politics show panel today, chatting with the Neil Scotsperson. I've no idea why.
In the leadership contest it seems she voted for the other three guys in the contest ahead of Ed Mili. Interesting. Clearly, for Hazel, New Labour isn't 'over'.
....................................................
Cocking It Up
Boost for Ed Miliband as new poll puts Labour ahead of the Conservatives
As Ed Miliband prepares to give his first major speech as party leader, a new poll shows support for Labour on 40% compared with 39% for the Conservatives
Hmmmm. So who is this Ed Miliband? Does anybody really know him? Oxzen's exclusive research has come up the following personality profile.
Ed is a Cock. Or Rooster if you prefer. Such people are found in professions where security is assured without excessive risk-taking. Deep down they are extremely conservative. Oh dear.
It seems Roosters are dandies who feel that appearance is everything in life.
What's more, Ed, being born in 1969, is an Earth Rooster. This means that this particular Cock is egotistical, and preoccupied with his own success, security and appearance. He's happy to profit from other people's work, and is not overly imaginative. And he's realistic, pragmatic and shrewd rather than creatively intelligent, insightful, enlightened, visionary, radical or imaginative . So much for Red Ed.
So far, so New Labour. So very Blair/Brown.
And it goes on. Due to his egotism, he's not burdened with too many principles. Earth Roosters rapidly climb to the top in their profession, especially in politics, property and banking, not hesitating to elbow others out of the way. These people need activities that flatter their pride while assuring them of fame and comfort. They need to be seen and admired.
As it happens, Ed is also a Capricorn, and all of the above can also be said of most Capricorns. So now we know. You read it here first, folks!
I'll continue.
The Rooster is the incarnation of the forces of youth, hope and clarity. "With his mixture of conformity and eccentricity, aggressive impulses and meditative leanings, the Rooster is a rather strange and paradoxical animal. This captive king is a bizarre and contraDicTory creature (my emphasis), a ruler and a slave whose bravery and despotism are confined by the narrow limits of his farmyard. In this sense the Rooster is an analogy for the frailties of prestige and power, confined within the inevitable enclosure of time and death."
Honest, frank, obliging, courageous, vain, thoughtless, preoccupied with appearance.
Hates any attempt to probe his private being or expose his motives.
"Sooner or later one begins to question whether the Rooster superficiality is real or a game. The answer is that they conceal their inner selves with near desperation, obstinately camouflaging their lack of inner confidence the fact that, at bottom, they are only fragile birds. What remains of a Rooster when one takes away his feathers and his cock-a-doodle-do?"
We shall see.
On the positive side - "Rooster/Capricorn is just and full of integrity. he is also the most hard-working and clear-sighted of all the Roosters."
Which is all very well, but the likes of Thatcher, Blair and Brown were also hard-working. The question is - to what ends?
.........................................................................
The Big Speech
Ed walked into the conference hall hand in hand with his partner - with her bump, and her tragic haircut. A purple tie day.
More boring displays of brotherly love. More silly grins from his bro. Hello Ed! - We don't fucking care about your family and your sibling history! You've said too much already!
Tedious tributes to Darling and Straw. Dullards and hacks. Visionaries - not.
"The new generation of Labour is different."
"Why I'm here. It starts with my dad. His escape from the Nazis. His family arrived in Britain with nothing. They worked hard and got on. My dad learnt English. He joined the navy to fight for Britain.
Secure and loving homes. The aspiration to succeed. People of courage and conviction can make a huge difference. We do not have to accept the world as we find it. Never walk by on the other side of injustice.
Freedom and opportunity are precious gifts. My values are my anchor. My sense of right and wrong. Dedication, energy and the determination of activists makes the difference.
But we had a very bad election result. Now we're out of power and we cannot change our country for the better. We must make sure this is a one-term government.
But we need humility. We should blame ourselves, not the electorate. This will require strong leadership. And lead I will.
Tony and Gordon took on conventional wisdom. They were reforming, restless and radical. They lifted hundreds of thousands of children out of poverty. Newly-built schools and modernised hospitals. Saviours of the National Health Service. We helped deliver peace in Northern Ireland.
Development spending around the world. Working for malaria eradication.
Tony and Gordon had the courage to take on Establishment attitudes. But where did we go wrong - how did we lose so many votes.?
Trapped by our own certainties? Over time we looked more and more like an old Establishment. Failure to re-regulate the City. Immigration. Personal debt. Tuition fees. Claims of having ended boom and bust. The scandal of MP's expenses. Our style of politics and our remoteness from the people.
We cannot claim we know all the answers. But we have to set a new direction. We know there's more to life than work and money. Foreign policy must be based on our values.
To change Britain we need a new politics. We need to build a new economy. We need to reduce the deficit. We need to win back fiscal credibility.
We were too exposed to financial services. We should take responsibility for not building a more resilient economy. Growth should now be our priority. We should go on rebuilding schools. We need to lead the world in new technology. No plan for growth means no credible plan for deficit reduction.
We need a higher banking levy to protect the services that people rely on. We need an economy and a society fit for our kids to live in.
My ambition is for us to learn deeper lessons about changing our economy for the future. There are too many people stuck in low pay. We must redistribute prosperity. Labour must be the party of enterprise and small businesses.
We did not do enough to address the concerns about globalisation and its consequences - wages driven down by immigration. Those consequences should have been dealt with. Migrant labour should never have been allowed to undercut people's wages. We need proper protection for agency workers. Workers need to make their voices heard. Basic standards of decency and fairness. Trade unions are part of a decent society.
But we need to win the public to our cause - not alienate them through irresponsible strikes.
And we also need responsibility from business. Decent wages. Living wages. Fair pay. Not just a 'minimum'. A living wage must be the foundation of our economy in the future.
High quality apprenticeships.
The gap between rich and poor DOES matter. What does it say about the values of our society? Excessive salaries must be challenged. The lives of the poor can be transformed. Those in need must be protected.
Work is central to life - but it's not all that matters. Strong families, love and compassion, time with our families. Do we just know the price of everything and the value of nothing? We must shed old thinking.
Post Office closures? Identikit high streets? We believe in community and social solidarity. How do we protect families? People working 60 - 70 hours a week - how does this help kids?
How do we think about the State, and what it can achieve? Government must be accountable and responsive.
Flannel flannel comprehensive schools flannel flannel failing schools flannel flannel.
Civil liberties must never be given away lightly. Protecting freedoms.
The new generation must challenge old thinking in foreign policy.
Our boys in Afghanistan . . . thanks. Stabilising the country. Supporting our mission.
But Iraq! I criticise nobody - but I do believe we were wrong. War was not a LAST resort.
Our alliance with America . . . Our values . . . International support for the problems in the Middle East. Israel must accept and recognise the Palestinian right to statehood. The attack on the Gaza flotilla was wrong!
We must change our politics - its practice, its workings, and its reputation. Vote yes to AV! Fully elect the House of Lords! More local democracy and decision-making.
Protecting the environment.
Working with the other parties. Praise for Liberals like Keynes and Beveridge. And Ken Clark on prisons. Teresa May on stop and search.
Let's have a grown up debate about ourselves and our country - not silly name calling.
A difference in attitudes and ideals to the Tories. Optimism! Let's be humble about the past, and inspire people with our vision.
.........................................
He spoke well. His delivery was good. His voice is not unpleasant. Infinitely better than Blair or Brown. A decent effort. And he might well get better.
He deserves support AT LEAST for what he said about inequality, the gap between rich and poor, re-regulating the City and financial services, values, work-life balance, civil liberties, Palestine, Iraq, support for the Alternative Vote, creating new businesses and industries, and above all redistributing prosperity, tackling low pay, and introducing a living wage.
This is indeed a new beginning. Bye bye New Labour. Well done Ed.
.
Wednesday, June 2, 2010
Layer 322 . . . Hopper, Laws, Ashley, Balls, Conservative Pretenders, Gaza, Deficit Hawks and Lessons in Economics
.
Style and Substance
Dennis Hopper died this week. A strange guy. I'd never heard of him before Easy Rider, and his character in that film was certainly HIM - a money-oriented bastard making lots of cash from flogging hard drugs whilst masquerading as some kind of spiritual freewheeling hippy on wheels.
Whereas the Peter Fonda and the Jack Nicholson characters clearly had depth and something to say about life, about freedom and the state of humanity, you had the feeling about Hopper that he didn't really give a shit about anything except taking care of business and looking after himself. He reminded me of quite a few people who were students at that time - growing their hair and dressing in denim but essentially on their way to making as much money as possible through the pursuit of cruddy careers in accountancy and business.
In real life Hopper spent many years addicted to hard drugs and booze, and was an anti-liberal paid-up Republican far-right-supporting nihilist. He also liked guns. Not a very attractive character. What the hell's a 'hell-raiser' anyway? A loud-mouthed drunken egomaniac. About as far from hippy ideals as you can get.
Hardly in the same class as Hopper, but David Laws is another anti-liberal dressed up as a Liberal caring sharing good guy. He's a City man through and through, an Orange Book believer in Chicago-school neo-liberal economics. It seems it was only his sexual proclivities that kept him away from entering politics as a Conservative.
And then there's the strange case of Jackie Ashley, who this week shed her left-wing political make-up and came out as a defender of the indefensible - Sex and the City 2. This film has been widely panned as a total dog of a movie - about four women who used to be strong characters in favour of freedom and fun, now reduced to hankering after marriage and endless shopping trips in places like Abu Dhabi. Ashley is a waste of space. She defends these women's indulgence in frivolity and air-headed materialism on the grounds that such escapism is no worse that men's indulgence in football and gadgets.
Nobody sensible should be mad enough to pay extortionate amounts of cash to see a bunch of millionaire footballers running around a football pitch for 90 minutes, agreed, but nobody should enjoy the sight of grown women doing stupid stuff either. Weird, Jackie.
And finally we come to the other weirdos of the week - the other style over substance attention-seekers vying for the leadership of the Labour party. A feature on Ed Balls in G2 was just as vacuous as the man himself, who had nothing interesting to say at all. This is a man who didn't even realise that you need to go to Paddington and not Euston in order to catch a train to Swindon. Duh!
............................................
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/jun/01/iain-duncan-smith-ignorance-welfare?
Lots of interesting comments here, prompted by this piece, and by Iain Duncan Smith's proposals.
It's surely a mistake for those who see themselves as anti-Tory to attack someone like IDS when he's a lone Tory voice making at least some constructive points about work and poverty.
For example, when he says, "If you are unemployed, and you come from a family that is unemployed, all you can see when you think about work is risk", he's surely not mistaken. He's talking about thousands of people who receive benefits and are likely at present to lose those benefits as soon as they take a job, no matter how temporary that job may be, no matter whether they will be able to cope with its demands, and therefore could soon find themselves having to go through all the hassles of re-applying for their benefits.
IDS seems to be saying, let's allow people to keep their benefits for some time until it's established that they have some job security, and are doing work for which they have some capacity, some aptitude and perhaps even some liking. I know from personal experience within my own family just how hard it can be for people to cope with being laid off several times within a matter of weeks or months from jobs they'd understood to be long-term .
Secondly, the author of this piece says, "In fact, very few are materially better off unemployed, as there are numerous financial incentives to ensure that taking a job is financially rewarding. Jobcentre advisers are trained to offer "better-off calculations" that detail claimants' potential earnings from these benefits."
What this is failing to address is that financial benefits are only part of the equation when someone's deciding whether to take certain, usually low-paid, jobs. Being unemployed and cash-poor, but time-rich, for example, which might permit a poor but pleasant lifestyle, especially if it involves being able to offer more care for one's children and elders, may also be a key factor. And we shouldn't forget that those who are unemployed, time-rich and claiming benefits also have more opportunity to do odd days of work for cash in hand.
If I understand him correctly IDS is proposing to help create a fairer society partly by persuading parliament to approve measures that will allow those on benefits to keep most of what they earn when they take a job, without any fear of losing their benefits, for a reasonable stretch of time. This is surely the only way to get people to give up an unemployed and cash in hand lifestyle - to make work pay and to make people significantly better off by taking even a low paid job.
It's only by finding a niche in the world of work that people can acquire the habit of working and a desire to acquire further skills. I believe IDS, through his work with his Centre for Social Justice, genuinely believes that it's worth the state spending more on the unemployed, or rather, not immediately grabbing back state benefits when people start work, in order to spend less on unemployment in the long run. He sounds to me as though he means it when he says that it's wrong for people to pay back proportionately more to the state when they start work than even those on 50% income tax are paying.
If I'm wrong about this, then maybe this is an idea that the Labour party ought to consider, and maybe should have considered already. If I'm right, then let's give IDS the credit he deserves.
..................................................
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/jun/01/labour-leadership-hustings-john-mcdonnell
Labour leadership hustings: Lead resistance to the cuts
We must again become a grassroots social movement
............................................
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/jun/01/labour-leadership-hustings-diane-abbott
Labour leadership hustings: I voted against the Iraq war
We need to rediscover our sense of moral purpose
...............................................
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2010/may/31/deficit-hawks-social-security-wall-street
Why should we listen to deficit hawks?
Calls to cut social security come from economists who want to line Wall Street pockets with money from ordinary workers
...................................................
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/may/31/david-laws-cuts-agenda
David Laws's life goal was to cast people out of work
I regret the manner of his fall, but he wasn't honest with public money, while his cuts agenda is terrifying to contemplate
.................................................
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/dec/22/lift-the-gaza-blocade-nick-clegg
Lift the Gaza blockade
The suffering is shocking. And nobody will benefit from the radicalism that confinement engenders
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/may/31/israel-peace-activists-murder-sanctions
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jun/01/attack-on-gaza-aid-flotilla
......................................................
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/jun/01/gaza-blockade-bloodshed-editorial
Gaza: From blockade to bloodshed
Nothing has done more to establish Israel's status as a pariah state among its neighbours than the actions of its armed forces
....................................................
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/may/31/state-market-nothern-rock-ridley
This state-hating free marketeer ignores his own failed experiment
Matt Ridley, the former head of Northern Rock, is peddling theories riddled with blame-shifting and excruciating errors
....................................................
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/may/31/world-crisis-economic-experimentation
In a financial crisis, what counts is what works
Free-market capitalism has imploded, and Europe's moment has not come: big-picture explanations of the world rarely hold good for long
This is an excellent piece by Larry Elliott, the Guardian's economics editor. Heavy stuff, but worth persevering with for the quality of his analysis and his conclusion:
Style and Substance
Dennis Hopper died this week. A strange guy. I'd never heard of him before Easy Rider, and his character in that film was certainly HIM - a money-oriented bastard making lots of cash from flogging hard drugs whilst masquerading as some kind of spiritual freewheeling hippy on wheels.
Whereas the Peter Fonda and the Jack Nicholson characters clearly had depth and something to say about life, about freedom and the state of humanity, you had the feeling about Hopper that he didn't really give a shit about anything except taking care of business and looking after himself. He reminded me of quite a few people who were students at that time - growing their hair and dressing in denim but essentially on their way to making as much money as possible through the pursuit of cruddy careers in accountancy and business.
In real life Hopper spent many years addicted to hard drugs and booze, and was an anti-liberal paid-up Republican far-right-supporting nihilist. He also liked guns. Not a very attractive character. What the hell's a 'hell-raiser' anyway? A loud-mouthed drunken egomaniac. About as far from hippy ideals as you can get.
Hardly in the same class as Hopper, but David Laws is another anti-liberal dressed up as a Liberal caring sharing good guy. He's a City man through and through, an Orange Book believer in Chicago-school neo-liberal economics. It seems it was only his sexual proclivities that kept him away from entering politics as a Conservative.
And then there's the strange case of Jackie Ashley, who this week shed her left-wing political make-up and came out as a defender of the indefensible - Sex and the City 2. This film has been widely panned as a total dog of a movie - about four women who used to be strong characters in favour of freedom and fun, now reduced to hankering after marriage and endless shopping trips in places like Abu Dhabi. Ashley is a waste of space. She defends these women's indulgence in frivolity and air-headed materialism on the grounds that such escapism is no worse that men's indulgence in football and gadgets.
Nobody sensible should be mad enough to pay extortionate amounts of cash to see a bunch of millionaire footballers running around a football pitch for 90 minutes, agreed, but nobody should enjoy the sight of grown women doing stupid stuff either. Weird, Jackie.
And finally we come to the other weirdos of the week - the other style over substance attention-seekers vying for the leadership of the Labour party. A feature on Ed Balls in G2 was just as vacuous as the man himself, who had nothing interesting to say at all. This is a man who didn't even realise that you need to go to Paddington and not Euston in order to catch a train to Swindon. Duh!
............................................
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/jun/01/iain-duncan-smith-ignorance-welfare?
Lots of interesting comments here, prompted by this piece, and by Iain Duncan Smith's proposals.
It's surely a mistake for those who see themselves as anti-Tory to attack someone like IDS when he's a lone Tory voice making at least some constructive points about work and poverty.
For example, when he says, "If you are unemployed, and you come from a family that is unemployed, all you can see when you think about work is risk", he's surely not mistaken. He's talking about thousands of people who receive benefits and are likely at present to lose those benefits as soon as they take a job, no matter how temporary that job may be, no matter whether they will be able to cope with its demands, and therefore could soon find themselves having to go through all the hassles of re-applying for their benefits.
IDS seems to be saying, let's allow people to keep their benefits for some time until it's established that they have some job security, and are doing work for which they have some capacity, some aptitude and perhaps even some liking. I know from personal experience within my own family just how hard it can be for people to cope with being laid off several times within a matter of weeks or months from jobs they'd understood to be long-term .
Secondly, the author of this piece says, "In fact, very few are materially better off unemployed, as there are numerous financial incentives to ensure that taking a job is financially rewarding. Jobcentre advisers are trained to offer "better-off calculations" that detail claimants' potential earnings from these benefits."
What this is failing to address is that financial benefits are only part of the equation when someone's deciding whether to take certain, usually low-paid, jobs. Being unemployed and cash-poor, but time-rich, for example, which might permit a poor but pleasant lifestyle, especially if it involves being able to offer more care for one's children and elders, may also be a key factor. And we shouldn't forget that those who are unemployed, time-rich and claiming benefits also have more opportunity to do odd days of work for cash in hand.
If I understand him correctly IDS is proposing to help create a fairer society partly by persuading parliament to approve measures that will allow those on benefits to keep most of what they earn when they take a job, without any fear of losing their benefits, for a reasonable stretch of time. This is surely the only way to get people to give up an unemployed and cash in hand lifestyle - to make work pay and to make people significantly better off by taking even a low paid job.
It's only by finding a niche in the world of work that people can acquire the habit of working and a desire to acquire further skills. I believe IDS, through his work with his Centre for Social Justice, genuinely believes that it's worth the state spending more on the unemployed, or rather, not immediately grabbing back state benefits when people start work, in order to spend less on unemployment in the long run. He sounds to me as though he means it when he says that it's wrong for people to pay back proportionately more to the state when they start work than even those on 50% income tax are paying.
If I'm wrong about this, then maybe this is an idea that the Labour party ought to consider, and maybe should have considered already. If I'm right, then let's give IDS the credit he deserves.
..................................................
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/jun/01/labour-leadership-hustings-john-mcdonnell
Labour leadership hustings: Lead resistance to the cuts
We must again become a grassroots social movement
............................................
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/jun/01/labour-leadership-hustings-diane-abbott
Labour leadership hustings: I voted against the Iraq war
We need to rediscover our sense of moral purpose
...............................................
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2010/may/31/deficit-hawks-social-security-wall-street
Why should we listen to deficit hawks?
Calls to cut social security come from economists who want to line Wall Street pockets with money from ordinary workers
...................................................
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/may/31/david-laws-cuts-agenda
David Laws's life goal was to cast people out of work
I regret the manner of his fall, but he wasn't honest with public money, while his cuts agenda is terrifying to contemplate
.................................................
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/dec/22/lift-the-gaza-blocade-nick-clegg
Lift the Gaza blockade
The suffering is shocking. And nobody will benefit from the radicalism that confinement engenders
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/may/31/israel-peace-activists-murder-sanctions
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jun/01/attack-on-gaza-aid-flotilla
......................................................
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/jun/01/gaza-blockade-bloodshed-editorial
Gaza: From blockade to bloodshed
Nothing has done more to establish Israel's status as a pariah state among its neighbours than the actions of its armed forces
....................................................
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/may/31/state-market-nothern-rock-ridley
This state-hating free marketeer ignores his own failed experiment
Matt Ridley, the former head of Northern Rock, is peddling theories riddled with blame-shifting and excruciating errors
....................................................
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/may/31/world-crisis-economic-experimentation
In a financial crisis, what counts is what works
Free-market capitalism has imploded, and Europe's moment has not come: big-picture explanations of the world rarely hold good for long
This is an excellent piece by Larry Elliott, the Guardian's economics editor. Heavy stuff, but worth persevering with for the quality of his analysis and his conclusion:
The postwar era of strong trade unions, full employment policies and capital controls produced stronger, more equitable growth than three decades of deregulation, liberalisation and flexible labour markets. The more integrated Europe has become, the worse it has performed..
China and India prove that it is possible to thrive without a meta-narrative. Both countries have systems of managed capitalism fully in the tradition of the mixed economies that prevailed in the west during the heyday of social democracy. What counts is what works. There is a lesson in that somewhere.
Friday, May 28, 2010
Layer 319 . . . John McDonnell MP, the Labour Leadership, the Socialist Alternative, and IDS
.
Let’s start this piece with a little quiz. Which politician said the following:
Got it yet? Yes – it’s the former leader of the Tory Party, Iain Duncan Smith, who’s saying things that are completely bleeding obvious and yet no Labour party politician seems to have said them – ever. Certainly no member of the Labour government has said anything like this.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/may/26/coalition-welfare-reforms-duncan-smith
IDS and his Centre for Social Justice got stuck into this issue sometime last year, and this latest quote is from the front page of the Guardian yesterday, which had a heading, “Duncan Smith starts welfare revolution”. Basically, what he’s now proposing to do, as the new minister for work and pensions, is allow people who are on unemployment benefits to keep those benefits until they are well established in a new job and until they are earning a decent amount, after which there will be a gradual withdrawal of benefits. Sounds sensible? More below.
…………………………………………………………….
Another World Is Possible
In the meantime, this is part of an interview with John McDonnell, one of the declared candidates for the Labour leadership, by John Spence of TheVibe.co.uk
http://www.the-vibe.co.uk/2010/05/23/spenny/another-world-is-possible-an-interview-with-john-mcdonnell-mp/
....................................................
Re David Cameron, this piece in the MailOnline is actually worth reading.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1218964/David-Cameron-cool-says-Rasta-cafe-owner-befriended-Tory-leader-Oxford.html
................................................
Iain Duncan Smith, again
These quotes are from his interview with the Guardian:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/may/26/iain-duncan-smith-interview-welfare
Ironic indeed.
.
Let’s start this piece with a little quiz. Which politician said the following:
"The present benefits system is so complex and unfair that no one understands it. It leads at the bottom end to one of the most regressive tax and benefit withdrawal rates that it is possible to imagine.
"We ask people to go to work for the first time and then tell them to pay back 70%, 80% and 90% back to the state. These are levels none of the wealthiest bankers are asked to pay – they are moaning at 50%.
"If you are unemployed, and you come from a family that is unemployed, all you can see when you think about work is risk. It is a real risk because for all the efforts you make the rewards are very minimal and in some cases none at all.
"Socially, everyone says: 'You are a bloody moron – why are you doing this? You don't have to do this.' So taking responsibility is a real risk for you."
Got it yet? Yes – it’s the former leader of the Tory Party, Iain Duncan Smith, who’s saying things that are completely bleeding obvious and yet no Labour party politician seems to have said them – ever. Certainly no member of the Labour government has said anything like this.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/may/26/coalition-welfare-reforms-duncan-smith
IDS and his Centre for Social Justice got stuck into this issue sometime last year, and this latest quote is from the front page of the Guardian yesterday, which had a heading, “Duncan Smith starts welfare revolution”. Basically, what he’s now proposing to do, as the new minister for work and pensions, is allow people who are on unemployment benefits to keep those benefits until they are well established in a new job and until they are earning a decent amount, after which there will be a gradual withdrawal of benefits. Sounds sensible? More below.
…………………………………………………………….
Another World Is Possible
In the meantime, this is part of an interview with John McDonnell, one of the declared candidates for the Labour leadership, by John Spence of TheVibe.co.uk
http://www.the-vibe.co.uk/2010/05/23/spenny/another-world-is-possible-an-interview-with-john-mcdonnell-mp/
JS: It’s clear from the interview that McDonnell is one of those old fashioned things – a principled politician. His time in parliament has been characterised by the unwavering articulation of those principles in word and deed, which has seen him branded as one of the ‘awkward squad’ by members of his own party.
It’s also clear that McDonnell is a politician who has not forgotten who he represents and who put him into the position he holds. What struck me most was that in the interview he seldom referred to himself with the terms ‘I’ or ‘me’; it was almost always ‘we’ or ‘us’. I don’t think this is an accident. As the interview shows, McDonnell is a staunch socialist, and thinks of himself in terms of his place amongst a groups of people and workers, not distanced from them.
JM: The reason I didn't vote for Gordon Brown was political. It wasn’t personal.
I can’t support people who have voted for things like the Iraq War, for privatisation, for cuts in welfare and benefits, for the implementation of the renewal of Trident. I can’t support candidates like that because I think it undermines our credibility, and what we’ve got to do is keep a clear distance from those people who have brought about a Tory government (sic) because of their support for these policies.
JS: Turning now to the [general] election; what’s your assessment of the election result, firstly, in terms of the Labour Party?
JM: The Labour result was better than expected, because what we saw was an element of class solidarity where people went to the ballot boxes and decided they wanted to keep the Tories out.
So it was clear that there was a positive Labour vote on the basis of opposing the Tories, but it wasn’t by any means, certainly in my constituency, and based on discussions I’ve had with others across the country, it certainly wasn’t an endorsement of New Labour policies. It was one of solidarity against the Tories and, in places like Dagenham, against the fascists with… regret… about what New Labour has done to the Labour Party.
Now, if you look at what happened in the election itself, it was exactly what we predicted: the coalition of people that we put together, as we always do when Labour is elected, was systematically alienated by New Labour policies – public sector workers alienated by privatisation; trade unionists alienated by a lack of trade union rights and the failure to address the issues of their wages and conditions and the security of their work; students alienated by tuition fees; pensioners alienated by a failure to address pensioner poverty and a refusal to restore the link between pensions and earnings; peace campaigners alienated by the Iraq War and Afghanistan; people who came to us because they saw us as the party of honesty against Tory sleaze alienated by expenses.
So you can see how every element of our coalition was alienated in some form, and that’s what brought about the breakdown in trust, and people no longer recognised the Labour Party as the party they knew and had trusted over the years. New Labour destroyed that bond between working class people and the Party itself, and it was only anti-Toryism that got us those voters out at the end of the day.
The issue for us now is how we re-establish that trust, and I think what people were saying on the doorstep is they want Labour back. We’ve got to re-establish the ‘Labour Party’ because New Labour has destroyed trust in us.
JS: What is your assessment of the Coalition Government in its early days?
JM: I don’t think people should underestimate the ruthlessness of this government. They will seek to solve this crisis on the backs of working class people; they’ll cut services and be ruthless about it, they’ll come from pay cuts, they’ll come from pension cuts and they’ll come from people’s basic services. I think we’ll see a growth in inequality in the same way that we did in the 1980s, and we’ll also see a growth in poverty and deprivation amongst working people whilst others make themselves richer and more prosperous. The discussion we’ve got to have now is about how we organise the resistance against that.
There will be things done by this government, the part of the Lib Dem agenda, that the rest of us [on the Labour left] have been calling for anyway – the scrapping of ID cards, restoring elements of the right to protest, things like that, but that shouldn’t mask or cloud the class nature of this government. The class nature is about the restoration of the casino economy, restoring profitability to the City in particular on the backs of working people through cuts in public services, wages, pensions and the rest.
JS: Given the policy agenda articulated in the Labour manifesto ahead of the election, can the Labour Party in its current guise actually be an effective opposition to the new government?
JM: The problem at the moment is that New Labour is implicated in bringing about the economic crisis that we now face – the deregulation of the City, the continuation of the policies of Thatcherism from the 80s and 90s, into New Labour and through to 2010.
They’re completely implicated in it and, actually, have completely adopted the ideas and ideology of Thatcherism. They believe in ‘the market’, they believe in privatisation as the best option for the delivery of services, and as a result of that it’s very difficult to see how [the candidates closely attached to new Labour] could have some Damascene conversion to socialism or even weaker forms of social democracy, and I think that’s what is going to hobble them, particularly if we get a new leader like one of the Milibands, or Ed Balls or Andy Burnham. If they come from the New Labour stable then ideologically they’ve adapted themselves to neoliberal policies anyway.
The struggle will be, yes, within the Labour Party from the rank and file, but I think also the struggle will be from within the communities themselves, with trade unions and other social groups coming together to resist what this government seeks to do. Eventually, I think the PLP will catch up with what’s happening in wider society.
JS: Turning now to policy related areas, how will your 2010 campaign differ from the 2007 campaign?
JM: It has moved on. 2007 was pre-major credit crunch. I was arguing the case then in the book that we did ‘Another World Is Possible’ that we needed to come to terms with the world as it then was, which was facing the impact of globalisation, how it had created a new world, new forms of exploitation, the opening up of the welfare state in this country to privatisation and profiteering, how it had undermined old securities in terms of state provision of housing , trade union rights, and how it had allowed the plundering of our environment for profit.
So I was trying to explain, at that stage, what globalisation meant, and how we needed to understand the world before we could organise in a way to combat the impact of globalisation in this country and in others across the world.
That was the intellectual debate we were having in 2007. The credit crunch then hit almost as predicted, in terms of a classic crisis of capitalism. What we are now into doing is sharing that understanding of how the capitalist system has gone into crisis again, but more importantly there is a sense of urgency now about what the implications are of that for working people. I think now it’s about motivating people to recognise they’ve got to stand up and fight back, that there will be a movement of resistance and they’ve got to join it.
JS: What are the other key planks of your policy platform?
JM: What I’m trying to say is, let’s understand the world as it now is, let’s understand why this crisis came about, and let’s have a look at those policies, therefore, that we now need to put in place.
The most important question that people face now is, “Who is going to pay for this economic crisis?” The government has quite clearly made its decision that working people are going to pay for it.
Our argument is, no, it doesn’t have to be like that, there is an alternative, and the alternative is basically that we start planning and controlling our economy. It means basically that instead of tackling the deficit by cutting services, you tackle it by introducing a fair taxation system where the corporate sector is paying its way, we tackle avoidance and evasion of taxes, we introduce a transition tax, it was called a Tobin tax, we now call it the Robin Hood Tax, and in that way we introduce a system whereby we tackle the deficit straight away, but we increasingly use mechanisms for regulation and public ownership that give us control of our economy in the long term.
At the same time, we do recognise that if people are going to have the opportunity to resist they need the tools to do that, so what we’re campaigning for basic civil liberties and the restoration of trade union rights that can arm people with the arguments with which they can control their lives in the long term.
It’s also about trying to explain to people that there are very simple solutions to our problems. We’re the fifth richest country in the world yet we have a housing crisis with homelessness doubling under New Labour. The question is “How do we tackle it?” and the way we tackle it is by building council houses again in the way we haven’t done in the last 13 years.
We pour money into public services, but see more and more of it laundered out for private profit. The simple solution is that we end privatisation.
We want our children to have the best education possible, but they’re deterred from that, because instead of having free education we’re now charging them for their education. How do you overcome that? You scrap tuition fees.
If you want to tackle pensioner poverty, with two million pensioners in poverty at the moment, you increase the state pension and you restore the link with earnings. It’s the same with child poverty, you simply increase child benefits to the level which cover the cost of rearing a child.
If you want to ensure that families can lift themselves out of poverty, you increase the Minimum Wage to a ‘Living Wage’.
All of these are simple solutions, and they’re all premised on the redistribution of wealth which in turn is based upon primary control of our economy.
JS: The main audience of ‘The Vibe’ will have grown up under the Thatcher government, like me, or the Major and New Labour governments. How would you go about rationalising your policy agenda to that age group, specifically?
JM: The whole point of every political discussion at the moment should be about breaking through the mystification of the economic crisis. We can control the future of our lives. We can control the future of our economy. We can control what happens within our workplaces and our local communities, and the solution is through democratic control of our lives and our economy.
What the Tories have done, and what New Labour have done also, is that… the Tories have told us there is no alternative, while New Labour have told us there is only one alternative, and that alternative is to allow the markets to run free and allow privatisation to happen with limited government intervention at best.
What we have got to reassert for this generation is that it doesn’t have to be like this! What we should be doing now is saying “We should control our lives, and to control our lives we have to control our economy.” To do that we have to band together and use the democratic mechanisms available to us, and if we do that we can control our future.
For three decades now there has been a defeatism inculcated in people. What we have to do is break through that and say, “We’re not putting up with this anymore! We don’t believe the lies. We don’t believe it’s complicated.” There are simple solutions, but they will only come about if we assert control.
JS: Your support for traditional labour elements such as trade unions and public sector workers has been unstinting in the face of wider political, media and private sector hostility. To put it bluntly, what do you think makes you right and them wrong?
JM: Let’s go back to the economic crisis. You can look at this from any part of the cycle you like, but let’s start at the beginning.
If you suppress trade union rights, that allows employers to suppress wages. If at the same time you stop building council houses and you rely solely upon the private market and you create a shortage of houses then that means house prices are going to go up.
If you’re a worker whose wages have been suppressed by privatisation, outsourcing or a lack of trade union rights the one thing you need is a roof over your head. If there is a shortage of housing because no council houses are being built and house prices are going up you have to borrow to buy a property. If at the same time the government deregulates the City and they can lend to you and charge you whatever they want, you’re forced to borrow at en extortionate rate, leading to the build up of a debt bubble which is unsustainable, and then a credit crunch occurs.
That is reality of what happened. It stems from the undermining of trade union rights and the balance of forces between labour and capital being deliberately skewed in the favour of capital. There is a clear analysis there of why the credit crunch occurred, and now we’re having to pay for it, and what we’re being told to do is replicate the same circumstances, – suppress trade union rights, cut wages and public services so the casino economy can spin again.
I think that when the process of how we’ve arrived at this point is explained to people, and people understand what is happening as it reflected in their real lives than I think people will get angry, and they want to vent that anger. Our job politically is to mobilise that anger and use it to make political change.
JS: Do you think you’ll get the space and airtime in the mainstream media to articulate those points?
JM: No. A few years ago someone described me as being like a cult movie – you’ve sort of heard about it, but you’ve never seen it. It’s because most of the mainstream media aren’t interested in any detailed political discussion; it’s all 24-hour, short, sharp, media hits.
Even newspapers like the Guardian, which are supposed to be more liberal and open-minded, are not interested in a proper discussion of radical policies or fundamental analyses of society, so they’re as glib as most of the others as well.
So what we’ve got to do is create our own media. Part of that is using whatever we can in terms of new technology, of course, but also going back to traditional mechanisms like word of mouth, talking at large meetings, small groups, demonstrations, picket lines, climate camps… using the mechanisms that social movements are using all the way across the world to provide an alternative media to enable people, not just to receive information because it’s not about talking down to people, but to get involved in the dialogue and the debate.
JS: Last question; If you were successful in the final ballot, what would be your first action as leader of the Labour Party?
JM: I’d go out to people and tell them we’re now going to produce our own Bill of Rights which would restore trade union freedom, which would restore local democracy, and which would give people social rights – the right to a decent home, the right to a decent health service, the right to a decent education all of which would be enforceable and also the right to have a say, not only in your local community but also when you go to work as well.
I think the whole basis of having a real Labour government is about establishing freedom and that Bill of Rights would establish people’s freedom to control their own lives.
....................................................
Re David Cameron, this piece in the MailOnline is actually worth reading.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1218964/David-Cameron-cool-says-Rasta-cafe-owner-befriended-Tory-leader-Oxford.html
................................................
Iain Duncan Smith, again
These quotes are from his interview with the Guardian:
IDS: I will tackle root causes of poverty
Former Tory leader outlines plan to help the worst off
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/may/26/iain-duncan-smith-interview-welfare
A dangerous political force has been let loose in Whitehall: a politician with no personal ambition whose only aim is to preside over the wholesale reform of his patch.
He [will] press ahead with his new task as work and pensions secretary. This is to reform what he regards as Britain's bloated and inefficient welfare system, which he believes discourages many of the 5 million people who rely on state support from working.
“I am here because I want this to be the most reforming government on benefits for a generation. I think we have a once-in-a-generation opportunity."
David Cameron brought Duncan Smith back into the frontline after he rehabilitated himself following his unhappy experience as leader by becoming one of the Tories' most influential thinkers in decades on social breakdown. As leader, the former Scots Guards officer was introduced to searing levels of poverty, and the cycle that is often impossible to escape, when he visited the Easterhouse estate on the eastern outskirts of Glasgow. His experience prompted Duncan Smith to establish the Centre for Social Justice, which produced a lengthy report on Breakdown Britain
These ideas will be informing his work as work and pensions secretary and also as chairman of the first cabinet committee dedicated to promoting social justice by tackling the root causes of poverty.
Thatcherite Tories, who believe the welfare budget is ripe for cuts, may be disappointed by Duncan Smith's language.
"The purpose of my life here is to improve the quality of life of the worst off in society." he says. "If somebody tells me I have to do something different then I won't be here any longer. Tattooed across my heart is that I didn't come here in any shape or form simply as a cheeseparer. What I have come to do is look root and branch at how we deliver welfare which is aimed at groups at the bottom end of society who need help and support, either because they can't work or because they can but they are unable to get back to work, or because they are disabled."
The CSJ report proposes the merger of eight benefits into just two, the withdrawal of benefits much more slowly for low earners, and the removal of rules that stop people claiming out-of-work benefits entirely if they do only a few hours' work a week.
Duncan Smith will chair a cabinet committee on social justice, saying it is ironic that it has taken the Conservative party to set up such a committee.
Ironic indeed.
.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)