Further Tory contempt for democracy.

When I first started studying politics way back in the 1950s I was taught that, whereas in many wicked foreign systems opposition to the government was forbidden, sometimes on pain of torture or death, here in enlightened Britain opposition was not only permitted, but opponents  were actually  paid to do it.  "Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition "was a part of our wonderful, though unwritten, constitution, and its leader was paid a salary out of public funds.

Clearly this concept that freedom to oppose is an essential part of a healthy democracy does not form part of the Politics, Philosophy and Economics (PPE) course which David Cameron studied at Oxford, or if it does, then Cameron wasn't listening when they came to that bit of it.

Step by step this government is seeking to choke off opposition.

In the last parliament a bill which purported to regulate the activities of all lobbyists effectively only reduced the ability of charities to campaign during elections. Privileged access of private companies and interests such as the betting lobby to ministers and government departments remains unhindered. Google, for example, had umpteen conversations with ministers before their mouse of a tax deal with HMRC was revealed.

Charities which receive funding from the government are to be forbidden to use that money for any campaigning at all.

The "Short Money", which for 40 years has funded political parties other than the official opposition, has been cut, and the ability of the trade unions to contribute to the Labour Party is to be greatly reduced by the substitution of "contracting in" for "contracting out."  There is  no similar restriction to require share-holders to "contract in" to, or vote for, the massive contributions their companies make to the Conservative Party.

Today the Independent newspaper reveals plans for the latest outrage.

"Local councils, public bodies and even some university unions are to be banned by law from boycotting "unethical" companies. . . .Under the [government's] plan all publicly funded institutions will lose the right to refuse to buy gods and services from companies involved in the arms trade, fossil fuels, tobacco products or Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank."

Beyond the sphere of funding, "freedom of assembly" (ie to demonstrate) has become increasingly difficult, and the ability of public service unions to strike is to be made almost impossible.

Daily under this government we move closer to the (slightly adapted) conclusion of the Marriott Edgar poem popularised by Stanley Holloway:

And it's through that there Magna Charter
As were signed by the Barons of old,
That in England today we can think what we like,
So long as we think what we're told.

Political wind of change in US too

I have no expertise in American politics, but it does not need expert knowledge to discern that the results of the primaries in New Hampshire indicate the same weariness  with existing politics that has been exhibited here and in other parts of Europe.

Maybe it won't last.  Maybe Donald Trump's frightening lead will evaporate once the Republicans  settle on a single alternative.  Maybe the Democrats' surprising support for Bernie Sanders (a Socialist!) will eventually be squashed  by the might and money of the Clinton machine.  But it is clear that, for the moment at least, those more active in American politics are rejecting "the mixture as before" and crying out for something new and different.

Clearly, as in Britain, the existing party establishments  are terrified that what motivates the party activists may not be quite so appealing to the electorate at large.  In the case of Trump and the Republicans one fervently hopes they are right.  But on the left, as  Syriza in Greece and Podemas in Spain have so ably demonstrated, the enthusiasm of youth can generate meaningful support for concepts of fairness and change which the established left-of-centre parties are now too timid to embrace .

To my mind the message for British politics is clear.  Jeremy Corbyn has reached out to such a constituency of grass-roots enthusiasts.  The Labour Party establishment, instead of rejoicing (if one dare  use an expression tarnished by Mrs Thatcher), carps, criticises, and in Hilary Benn's case, openly opposes.  Journalists from whom one hoped for better, join the chorus.  The flip-flopping Polly Toynbee rarely mentions Corbyn without attaching the adjective "unelectable."  In yesterday's Guardian, referring to Corbyn supporters, Suzanne Moore writes: "the thrill of principle unsullied by the reality of power, appeals."  So far, alas, the Liberal Democrat leaders, such as remain, have been more "snipive" than supportive.

Although predictions of the political future in these uncertain times are mostly doomed to be proved false, of one thing I am pretty certain.  That is  that if the Labour establishment prevails, and replaces Corbyn with one of its pillars - Andy Burnham, Yvette Cooper, or either of the other two whose names I forget, and the Liberal Democrats continue to snipe Corbyn  rather than support those many goals of his which we share (though our method of achieving them may be different) then we are handing the government of our country to the Tory destroyers for yet another generation.

Crisis in teacher supply.

A report from the National Audit Office published today states that "The Department [of Education]. . . has missed its recruitment targets for the last four years and there are signs that teacher shortages are growing."

Equally disturbing particulars were published last week in an  article by John Harris (G 2 2nd February)  which claimed that the shortage of qualified teachers  is going to get much worse as the number on school rolls rises from today's 7 million to 8 million by 2022.

The problem is not just a lack of recruits, but of retaining them once they start.  An alarmingly high percentage leave  before completing four years of service, and 100,000 never even enter the classroom at all.  Presumably they discover in their training that teaching is not for them.

The unions claim that low pay is a factor, since, as part of the "austerity" policy, salaries were frozen for three years from 2010 and increases are now capped at no more than 1% per year until 2020. This, given there is still some inflation in the economy, is effectively a cut.  However,  I strongly suspect that it is largely the current nature of the job that is deterring new recruits, causing new entrants to leave, and making so many mature teachers absolutely desperate to retire.

I began classroom teaching in 1959 and finally retired from it  in 2003 (though I still do the odd  tutorial at a local university). I estimate that during my school teaching career only a very small percentage  of my working time and energy was spent on administrative and recording tasks.  The register, for example, had to be "balanced"  at the end of the week (  the horizontal tally of each pupil’s attendances had to balance with the vertical tally of the class totals for each morning and afternoon. This could occupy some of my less numerate colleagues  for much of Friday afternoon. )

More time  went on pupils’  physical needs - collecting and balancing the dinner money on Monday mornings, for example, plus supervising lunches and playgrounds. However these weren't particularly onerous, and could be quite enjoyable. "Dinner duty" at my first school, a Secondary Modern where we ate  at tables with the pupils, reminded me to mind my table manners.

But  90% of my time and energy was devoted to what I was vocationally motivated to do: preparing the lessons, giving them in as stimulating a manner as I could think of, setting homework and marking it, setting little tests for my and their enjoyment and feedback, preparing,  setting and marking  internal examinations, writing reports for the parents.  

Only in my first, probationary, year, was I required to prove to my superiors that I was actually doing what I was paid for by presenting  lesson preparation notes to my heads of departments and head teacher.  After that I was recognised as a competent professional and trusted to get on with the job.  I enjoyed it enormously.

From speaking with young teachers,  it is clear that most teachers now spend at least half their time proving to others that they’re doing  their job, often in very proscribed manner, rather than being trusted as I was.  This pointless recording, coupled with the bullying techniques of OFSTED, has squeezed out both the purpose and enjoyment of the job.   

No wonder they are leaving.

Maybe the laissez-faire regime which endured for most of my career was too much on the lax side, but the pendulum needs to move strongly in the direction of trusting the teachers if the job is to become rewarding and satisfying  again.

Cameron giveth - and Cameron taketh away.

David Cameron is to be congratulated in helping to initiate, and to host, the London Conference which has pledged a total of  $10bn  to help refugees from war-torn Syria, and in particular to ensure that as many as possible of the displaced children receive an education.

Cameron is also correct to emphasise the importance of helping those refugees  displaced to camps near Syria rather than concentrating only on those who have made perilous journeys and entered, or are on the borders of, the EU.  As a contributor to the  BBC Radio 4 programme " Start the Week"  last week (still available here) pointed out, those who have made the journey are not only among the most courageous refugees, but also the wealthiest who can afford the payments to the people-traffickers: there are many equally deserving cases back in the camps without these advantages. Unfortunately Cameron talks in terms of "either-or" whereas, in all humanity, we must cope with both.

Cameron boastfully reminds us that Britain is already the second largest donor to the Syrian Refugee cause, and that the additional £1.7bn he now promises (but over four years) will more than double our present contribution.

However, if I heard the BBC News correctly, this extra money is to come from the existing aid budget - the 0.7% of GDP we are so proud of achieving. So it is to be money taken from that which would otherwise be used to help others in poverty-stricken situations.

My father and his brothers were very fond of quoting a ditty:

It's the poor that helps the poor
When poverty knocks at the door.

. . .maybe from a Victorian or Edwardian music-hall song .

That seems to be an apt description of Britain's "extra" contribution.

I admit there is a certain logic to this, but I would be prouder, in these exceptionally distressing circumstances, if, rather than a transfer, this had been additional money raised from those of us who can easily afford it by:

an extra 1p on one of the income;
2p on a litre of petrol or diesel;
the proceeds of a tax on sugar;
1p on a pint of beer of 2p on a bottle of wine:
or a 0.01% capital transfer tax.:
or scrapping prestige projects such as HS2 or Trident

There are plenty of possibilities

Cameron and In-work benefits.

We're taught that in the Middle Ages scholars spent their time discussing abstruse topics such as "how many angels can dance on the point of a pin?"  This was thought to be pretty pointless (pun accidental) at the best of times and particularly irrelevant at times of crisis such as when Constantinople was threatened  by the invasion of barbarian (ouch) hordes.

There seem to be to be serious similarities between this situation and Cameron's obsession with in-work benefits for EU nationals working in the UK.  Last week I asked a friend who had served in the coalition as a junior minister if he had any idea how much these in-work benefits cost, or what proportion of the social security bill, or of total government expenditure, they formed.  He said he didn't know, and the Department of Work and Pensions (DWP) didn't really know either.

One of the complications (spelled out in this Guardian article) is that HMRC (the revenue collecting department, but also responsible for working tax credits) defines a family as "Non UK" if one adult in it is an immigrant (ie even if married to or living with a UK citizen.)  So some of this expenditure goes to families which many of us would  define as British (or at least part-British)

However, the same article reports the DWP as conceding that "EU migrants on “in-work” benefits cost the taxpayer £530m in 2013." That, according to the article, represents a modest 1.6% of the year’s total tax credit bill.

By my calculations, as the UK's national income is over £2 trillion, that represent about a quarter of one per cent, or £1 in every £400,a little bit more than peanuts, perhaps, though it must be balanced by the in-work benefits, if any (I haven't the energy to try and find out) received by the 1.3 million British nationals living in other parts of the EU.

Whatever the balance is, it is hardly sufficient on which to decide the great issue of whether to remain in or leave the European Union.

 While this nonsense is distracting us, Europe, and the rest of the rich world, is faced with the most demanding problem of modern times: how to deal with migration from poorer countries, often made so by conflict.  Given modern communications and relatively cheap intentional travel this problem is not going to go away, even if and when some of the conflicts are resolved. Any solution must involve not just European but international co-operation.

And here in the UK we have our own desperate problems, of insufficient housing, low productivity, a yawning balance of payment deficit, a health service stretched beyond its capacity, and growing inequality.

Angels on a pin, or fiddling while Rome burns?  It is hard to decide on the more apt analogy.

Holocaust Memorial Day.

Here is an extract from Primo Levi's astonishingly laconic account of his time in Auschwitz, If his is a Man.  A "selection" (of those to be sent to the gas chamber) is about to take place.

Our Blockbaltester knows his business.  He has made sure that we have all entered [their hut], he has locked the door, he has given everyone his card with his number, name, profession, age and nationality, and has ordered everyone to undress completely, except for shoes.  We wait like this, naked, with the card in our hands, for the commission to reach our hut.  We are hut 48, but one can never tell if they are going to begin at hut 1 or hut 60.  At any rate, we can rest quietly at least for an hour, and there is no reason why we should not get under the blankets of the bunk and keep warm.

Many are already drowsing when a barrage of orders, oaths and blows proclaims the imminent arrival of the commission.  The Blockaltester and his helpers, starting from the end of the dormitory , drive the crowd of frightened, naked people  in front of them and cram them into the Tagesraum, which is the quartermaster's office. 
[. . . .]
The Blockaltester has closed the connecting door and has opened the other two which led form the dormitory and the Tagesraum outside.  Here in front of the two doors, stands the arbiter of our fate, an SS subaltern.  On his right is the Blockaltester, on his left the quartermaster of the hut.  Each one of us, as he comes naked out of the Tagesraum  into the cold October air, has to run a few steps  between the two doors, give the card to the SS man and enter the dormitory  door.  The SS man, with a glance at one's back and front, judges everyone's fate, and in turn gives the card  to the man on his right or his left, and this is the life or death of each of us.. . . .

. . . Like everyone else I passed by with a brisk  and classic step, trying to hold my head high, my chest forward and my muscles contracted and conspicuous.   With the corner of my eye I tried to look behind my shoulders, and my card seemed to end on the right. . .

As we gradually come back into the dormitory we are allowed to dress ourselves.  Nobody knows yet  with certainty his own fate, it has first of all to be established  whether the condemned cards  were those on the right or the left.*

Those on the left went to the gas chambers, and Levi survived.

As Giles Fraser, former Canon of St Paul's Cathedral, points our in a thoughtful article in yesterday's Guardian  there is an argument that  comparison of other events with the Holocaust "posits a moral equivalence that downplays the horror of the death camps."  Yet we must recognise that there have been genocides since 1945,  in Cambodia, Rwanda, Bosnia, and, currently, Darfur.  All at base happen because one group regards another as less human than themselves.

Our casual attitude to migrants, asylum seekers and refugees drowning in the Mediterranean, "keep out" fences erected around some EU countries, the squalid conditions in the "Jungle" outside Calais, the pathetically small number of places offered to refugees by our government and our shameful opt-out of any EU sharing agreement, the incompetent treatment of applications for asylum, the hostile reaction of some to asylum seekers identified by red doors and red wristbands, are dangerous, if preliminary, steps down a slippery slope. 

Last Saturday I was engaged in (apparently animated) discussion with a friend on one of the main streets of Leeds.  A young man asked us if we were discussing politics.  We said we were and he asked us if we were for "In" or "Out" of the European Union.  Our enthusiastic response of "In" seemed to take him by surprise
.
"What about the refugees?" he demanded.

When I said we should treat them humanely and welcome them he exploded;  "African shit!" not once but several times.


When I said I had lived in Africa for several years and never met anyone I would describe in those terms I was told to "F--- off."

Given  the poison oozed out by some of our press, I suspect there would be no shortage of volunteers to be Blockaltesters  in this country should the opportunity arise.  We desperately need a civilised counter-argument and lead from our politicians before it is too late, and all of us need to observe the theme of this year's Memorial Day, "Don't stand by."

*If This is a Man, Primo Levi, pp 142/3,Abacus, 2013

Immigrants

Immigrants, fear of them, suspicion of them or jealousy of them, played a minor part in last year's general election and is likely to play a major part in the forthcoming referendum on EU membership.

Those who claim to be worried about immigration remain unconvinced by the evidence that immigrants add to  economic growth, pay more into the government kitty in taxes than they take out in benefits or the use of public services, and are often highly innovative people who contribute enormously to our way of life.  Michael Marks, an immigrant from the Polish part of the then Russian Empire, who with Thomas Spencer started the famous Marks and Spencer's high street  retailer as a "penny an item" market stall in Leeds in 1884, is a good local example. There are dozens of earlier  and more recent examples in Robert Winder's highly readable book "Bloody Foreigners."

Those not reassured by the "macro" arguments might like to do a more personal inventory.  I've just done this and find that immigrants, or the offspring of recent immigrants:

• sell me my morning paper;
• drill and fill what's left of  my teeth;
• clean my car;
• dispense my medicines;
• provide about a third of my health care (depends on which of my various ailments is being treated);
• provide the vicar, brilliant organist, one of the two Franciscan friars attached to us, and a goodly (godly?) portion of the choir and congregation of the church (firmly C of E) I attend;
• give me an opportunity to teach, as a volunteer, ESOL (English to Speakers of Other Languages), a highly interesting and entertaining weekly experience which makes me feel still useful;
• run my second favourite restaurant;
• provide me with my remaining few hours of paid employment.*

Altogether my life would be much less comfortable, and much less interesting, without immigrants.

*  This last group are post-graduate students on a business-studies at a local university.  In my view they shouldn't be included in the "immigrant" count as the overwhelming majority go home once they've completed their course. Their university fees and living expenses are a tremendous boost to our yawning balance of payments, and most return to their countries with a very favourable impression of the UK.  However, the government in its stupidity includes them  in the "immigration" count, tries to limit their numbers and discourages them from remaining for more higher degrees, research or opening up businesses here.