Rule Britannia: the wong U-turn

 

Yesterday the "powers that be" caved in to the indignation of the right-wing press and the  words of "Rule, Britannia" and "Land of Hope and Glory" will, after all, be sung at the BBC's "Last Night of the Proms. "

 Sadly in the same week, a genuinley damaging move to Britain's reputation went ahead, and the  Department for  International Development, the record of which on helping to reduce World poverty is genuinely "world beating," was demoted to being subsidiary of the Foreign Office.  

This, in spite of the protests and petitions of the just about everybody concerned with the elimination of World Poverty, both in this country and abroad.

We have become a La-La Land in which rose-coloured  fiction about the past  triumphs over facts about the present..

Land of Hopeless Tories

 

According to an article in today's Guardian by Nesrine Malik the  "plot " to drop "Land of Hope and Glory" (LOHAG) et al from the Last Night of the Proms was a piece of "fake news" created by right-wing propagandist to stir up among their followers the idea that our  "glorious heritage" was under threat from we woke liberals and Liberals.  

The article is worth reading, and explains how the technique is  being used in the US to create a debate about the totally false idea that Joe Biden will empty the prisons and defund the police.

M/s Malik argues that by creating a debate the right achieves its objective by highlighting the imaginary "danger."

However, I've found the "Last Night" shenanigans an embarrassment for years, and when choirs of which I've been a member have put on "Last Night" tributes I've always refused to wave a Union Jack (although on the last such occasion I manage to stick a small EU flag on the conductor's rostrum).  So I'll take the risk.

LOHAG and "Rule Britannia" are stirring tunes and good fun to sing along to.  I'm sure that a large proportion of participants, (is 80% to generous a guess?) think they are just that: "good fun."  But for a minority, and for many of the watchers, they legitimise and perpetuate the myth of British exceptionalism: that we are superior, better than others, others can be slaves but not us.  

It's  a tradition that goes back a long way.  Shakespeare was good at it, as in Richard II, Act 2 Scene 1, for example,  in which the "Silver sea...." serves us 

". . .in the offcie of a wall,/ Or as a moat defensive to a house/ Against the envy of less happier lands."

It's time we grew out of it.  

 We didn't "win the war" single-handedly, certainly haven't done all that well economically since, and plenty of "less happier lands" are making a far better fist of dealing with the coronavirus that we are.

There are plenty of other rousing tunes:  "Men of Harlech" for the Welsh, "Scotland the Brave" for the Scots,  "Ilkla Moor Bah't at" for Yorkshire (though that's not good to sing along with: too great a range). 

 And of course, Beethoven's "Ode to Joy" to the words of the EU anthem

It's said  that, at an event in honour of Lord Beaverbrook, then owner of the Daily Express with its  Empire Crusader on the masthead, when guests were invited to sing LOHAG most journalists present knew only the parodied version, some say written by the conservative politician R A Butler, which began:

Land of Hope and Glory, Mother of the Free;

Keep in voting Tory till eternity.

I don't know if there was any more

I've tried to put together an up-to-date parody and got as far as:

Land of hopeless Tories,

Governing by their seats:

World beaters at U-turns

And ignominious retreats.

There my muse, such as it it, gets stuck. If any of them read this, I invite the authors of Yorkshire's Remain Voice Choir's lyrics  to have a go: they're far more gifted than I am.

The "Bad Chaps" theory of government

 When I first  began studying it in the mid 1950s we were taught that, while never formally codified into one document, the British Constitution really did exist and consisted of a mixture of historic documents (Magna Carta,1215; Bill of Rights,1689), Statute Law (the Reform Acts, Parliament Acts), Common Law, Case Law and a series of customs and conventions. 

 Above all, said our lecturer, a Mr Checkanovski (I may have misspelled that, it's a long time ago), it depended on the British sense of fair play.

As the historian Peter Hennessey, who I believe coined the phrase "the Good Chap theory of government," put it more recently: politicians "knew what was expected and would not cross the line.

Sadly, "crossing the line" has become frequent  in recent years. 

 In attempting to implement Brexit, designed, so we were told, to restore the sovereignty of parliament,  Mrs May tried to sideline parliament so that they had no say in its negotiation.  That attempt having been over-ruled by the courts, Mr Johnson tried to avoid parliamentary scrutiny by dissolving it. That too was declared illegal.  

Despite that and other pieces of chicanery Johnson went on to win an election and a majority of 80+.

The British sense of fair play seems also have been trumped,  for in that election campaign the Conservative received, and presumably spent  £19.4 million in registered donations, Labour £5.4 million, the Liberal Democrats £1.3 million and the Greens £0.2 million.

Of the conventions in our "unwritten constitution" one of the least honoured in modern times was that if a government department made a cock-up then the minister responsible would resign. In my student days the only modern example which the test-books could give was that of Sir  Tom Dugdale, who, as Conservative Minister of Agriculture, had prevaricated of the resale of a piece of farmland  back to its original owners, finally gave in and resigned, in 1954.

A more recent example is that of Lord Carrington who resigned as Foreign Secretary  in 1982 for having sent the "wrong signals" to the Argentinians, which tempted them to invade the Falkland Islands.

So that our Education Secretary,  Gavin Williamson, is still in post having presided over the shambles of the "A" level results is not remarkable.  What is remarkable is that the "buck" has been passed, not to him, but to the civil servant Permanent Secretary of the Department, Jonathon Slater. 

Alarmingly Mr Slater is not the first senior civil servent to be sacked or "let go."

 

The Permanent Secretary of the Home Office resigned in February (and is to sue the government), the Cabinet Secretary and Head of the Civil Service is to go in the Autumn, the Permanent Secretary to the foreign office early next year and the Permanent Secretary to the Ministry of Justice some time this month.

The convention the our civil service is non-political, gives  advice, but  that ministers take the decisions and the responsibility for them is being torn up.

The sad thing is that flaunting  of the sacred tenets of our constitution is now so commonplace that the sacking of Mr Slater, which in normal times would have deserved front-page headlines, was relegated to page six of today's Guardian.

Back to school?

The government's PR machine is in full swing with a carefully choreographed campaign to try to ensure a smooth opening of the new school year.  All four Chief Medical Officers (one each for England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland) were "put up" (I believe is the phrase) on Sunday to  to assure us that that the children would be, if not perfectly safe, then almost, and that keeping them out of school would be far worse for their mental and physical health than would the danger of catching the virus, which is less likely than getting run over on the way to school.  I wonder if they tested that conclusion by an algorithm?

A former government chief scientific advisor, Sir David King, was more cautious and said that: "It’s important that we focus on elimination before opening schools . . . .. That doesn’t mean hurting the economy - just hurting the virus better."

However, there hasn't been much about that in the papers.  I wonder why? 

 

Yesterday Prime Minister Johnson was brought back from his holiday in Scotland to instruct us that it was his and our moral duty to get the children back to school. 

 

Given that both Mr Johnson's private life and political life are more associated with immorality than morality this is a bit rich. Clearly the man not only has no sense of shame, but no sense of irony either

 Curiously little so far has been heard from the actual Education Secretary, Gavin Williamson, he of the "A" level results shambles of the last ten days.

If the government is really so concerned about the children's  education, then they could  demonstrate this more effectively by funding it properly: perhaps up to the same level the  private sector enjoys.

 

It is true that we are faced with an almost intractable problem.  Yes the children need to get back to school and, yes, their parents, guardians and careers need to  be released from home schooling and child minding in order to get back to their jobs, both for the sake of their own incomes and to restore as much economic activity as possible.

 

I suspect the government's focus groups have told them that "kids back to school" will be the most popular decision whatever the danger.

 

it is probably perfectly true that, as far as we know, the young are unlikely to catch the virus, and even if they do they will experience only a mild form of the illness, at least in the short run.  The virus has not yet been around long enough for us to know its long-term effects.

 

What seems to to be downplayed is that, although the children might not suffer much, they are fully capable of infecting the teachers and the many other adults  involved in running schools.

 

Schools are stuffy, smelly, sweaty, unhygienic places.  Classrooms crowded with thirty individuals, all breathing, coughing and spluttering, generate quite  a germ-laden soup, especially in the winter with the windows firmly closed and the heating (if it works) full on.

And schools built on the cheap have pretty narrow corridors in which passing at  a responsible physical distance is extremely difficult, even for adults behaving maturely, and hardly likely to be the norm for excitable children .

 

A full return to school for all children clearly poses many dangers, especially to the adults, and then the people they in turn may go on to infect.  The right-wing press accuse the teachers and our unions of being over-cautious and even obstructive.  I think the unions  are right .

 

One solution which would reduce  the danger is to take in only half classes, either one half  in the morning and the other in the afternoon, or one half one week and one the next.  This ,of course, would not have the advantage of releasing all the parents and carers to return to their jobs, though an adjustment to the furlough scheme would help.  

 

This could lead to a slower economic recovery, but surely it would be preferable for more of us to survive, but at a slightly lower level of luxury.

"A" level schadenfreude

 I'm happy to admit to a huge level of enjoyment at seeing the government on the rack for the past few days as they struggle to justify the "A" level results debacle.  

Some will argue that it is unfeeling to to take pleasure in a farce that has caused so much upset to so many young people, not to mention their teachers and university admissions tutors.  But, unlike other government failures,  nobody has died, the young are pretty resilient and will get over it very soon.

If they'd had such things as grades, youngsters in 1348 (the Black Death) or 1665 (the Great Plague) would have been happy to trade a minor educational setback for another thirty or so years of life.  

 It is alarming that so many people fail to realise the seriousness of the situation the world is in as a result of this pandemic and, from international travel through education to going to the pub or having a party on the beach,  think they're entitled as of God given right to carry on with life as normal.

The Black Death probably carried off  60% of the population of Europe, the Great Plague a quarter of London's population.  Despite the wonders of modern science there is as yet no guarantee that the present pandemic will not have equally catastrophic results. 

We need more of the sprit of the Derbyshire villagers of Eyam.

Back to the "A" level results. I think it was right to make the attempt to moderate this year's results, based on teachers' expectations since the actually examinations were not held, so that they conformed roughly to those of previous yeas in order to curb grade inflation.  Unfortunately , the method of doing it, the now infamous algorithm, was flawed.  

Statisticians warned repeatedly whoever was supposed to be responsible that the chosen method would result in downgrading 39% of the results with a disproportionate effect on students from larger classes at state schools compared with  those in the smaller classes of the private sector.

With hubris the responsible authorities (and who they are is being vigorously muddied) ignored the warnings, resulting in five days of confusion which is sure to continue for  quite a while yet as the universities are forced to revise their offers.

The Scottish government saw the problem the moment their results were announced and took the immediate decision to revert to teacher predictions.  That demonstrates "the smack of firm government."  

An even firmer reaction from our own government would have been to heed the warnings, accept teacher  recommendations as the least worst option well before the imperfectly moderated results were announced, and simply regard any grade inflation as a "one off" in difficult circumstances.

 Our European neighbours suffered, of course, from the same problem but appear to have coped successfully and without the drama.  In Germany the exams went ahead as normal, but with smaller groups of students sitting 1.5 metres apart.  In France the famous Baccalauréat was cancelled for the first time since its establishment in 1808 and teachers' recommendations moderated by local juries were used.

GCSE results for the 16 year-olds should be announced later this week.  

 

Here the real question here is why we bother with an an external examination at all at this stage.  Its origins lie in the "School Certificate," then "Ordinary Level General Certificate of Education" (GCE) when the normal school leaving age was still 14, then 15, and the "élite"did an extra year, when the bulk either left to join businesses and  professions such as local government, accountancy, law,  and the even more élite studied for a further two years for entry to the universities. 

Now that the minimum school leaving age is 18 (until when all young people are expected to continue in some form of education, apprenticeship or other training)  there seems to be no point in an external assessment of a pupils' abilities or potential. Internal assessment would be perfectly adequate  for giving the guidance that young people need.  I believe that is what most other developed countries do.

Provided that grade inflation for examinations at 16 (if we must continue to have them) and 18 is consistent between regions, types of school and subjects there is nothing really worth worrying about.  It is an internal mater.

Much more serious is grade inflation in university results.  

 A degree from a British university is an international qualification which, for the moment at any rate, is highly regarded world-wide.  Witness the large number of foreign students who come here to obtain one.  If we allow this qualification to become devalued  by unjustifiable inflation  (some universities are awarding 80% of their finalists a First or 2:1, the top two grades of degree) then there is a danger that both our academic prestige and a useful foreign currency earner will be seriously undermined.

Asylum Seekers: another league table

 

The numbers applying for asylum in our neighbouring rich counties in 2019 was
 

Germany: 165 516

France:    151 070

Spain:      117 800

Greece:     77 275

UK:            36 000

Yet our politicians have for years given the impression that we are being uniquely targetted as a "soft touch."

 Worse, Prime Minister Johnson has described the current attempts of migrants to reach the UK across the Channel, as "criminal" (it isn't), a letter to him from 20 Tory MPs speaks of an "invasion" and a junior minister on the radio this morning talked repeatedly (she was clearly "on message") of people trying to "break in" to our country.

My own reaction is: "Thank goodness some of them still want to come here."

Refugees who have taken the initiative to flee tyranny, war, environmental or climate devastation, or abject poverty, constitutive some of the bravest and most resourceful in the world.

 Apart from the teachings of Jesus, (later), and common decency, why on earth can't we recognise the enormous contribution they are likely to make to our society once they have settled?

 Michael Marks and Montague Burton are just two star examples who  have contributed to the prosperity of us in the Leeds area (and eventually well beyond).  There are dozens of others.  

The 2020 TV film  The Windermere Children gives a moving account of the experiences of Polish refugees brought to the UK in a generous spirit in the immediate post-war period (though the  generosity was largely on the part of private individuals rather than the Home Office.)

I am very conscious of how much the quality of my own daily life is enhanced  by the contributions immigrants or the children of migrants:  from cleaning my car and delivering of the morning paper, to dentistry; dispensing of prescriptions; about a third of my NHS treatment; vicar and organist of the church I attend, along with two thirds of the choir; and Indian and Italian cuisine, to mention but some.

So instead of the Home Office's hostile environment and  request for military  assistance to keep them out, I should prefer to see them set up booths on the French coast saying "Welcome to Britain,"  safe passages  with a cup of tea and a sandwich on the ferry, travel warrants for where they wanted to go and a settlement grant to keep them going until they find their feet.

Such a scenario is unlikely to happen under the present government , but it would be encouraging to hear opposition leaders demanding a more humane approach to our fellow world citizens.  And cries of outrage from the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Cardinal Archbishop of Westminster, Chief Rabbi, Chief Sikh, Presidents of the Muslim Council,  Methodist Conference, Baptist Union et al.

Here's what Jesus taught, regarding the rather surprised  "sheep" at the Last Judgement

Then shall the righteous  answer [the King] saying, Lord when saw we thee an hungered, and fed thee, or thirsty and gave thee to drink?  When saw we thee a stranger and took thee in? or naked and clothed thee?  Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison and came unto thee ?

And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it  unto one of these the least of my brethren, ye have done it unto me.

Matthew 25 vv 37-40

The scriptures of other religions all have similar, though possibly less graphic, passages, and I expect the Humanists have something  on  these lines to say as well, if only "Do as ye would be done by."

Planning rules bonfire: a bonanza for builders

 The government's decision to replace the existing rules for urban planning with a much looser system is apparently based on the ideas of a Cummings type special adviser, Jack Airey, who believes that "Market conditions should ... determine how urban space is used."

One of the first points made  in any economics course is that, although although economists freely use the stand-alone term "demand" what we really mean is "effective demand."  This constitutes not just wanting a product but also the ability to pay for it and the willingness to pay for it.  

Hence, if the housing market is to be determined by supply and demand, then the needs of those who would like a house but do not have the ability to pay for one are not considered.

Given that in this sixth (is it now?) largest economy in the world affairs  are so skewed that a considerable number of families cannot even afford  to feed their children, never mind buy a house, some measure must be taken to ensure that, somehow, their basic need for shelter is supplied.

The obvious solution is that a public authority (it used to be the local council, who built "council" houses) works with the building industry to ensure there is a just and equitable provision of all types of housing.  That is essentially what the existing system is designed to achieve, although it has been seriously weakened since its inception by the sale of social housing to the private sector, central government's  grabbing of the proceeds rather than allowing local  authorities to use the money for replacement building, and the ease with which developers seem to be able to evade the requirement  for a significant proportion affordable housing to be included in every new scheme.

The government's proposal that  in designated "growth" areas and "renewal" zones developers can build more or less what  they like means that there will be a steady supply of ill-defined but profitable "executive" homes and a dearth of the less profitable but allegedly "affordable"  houses. What less expensive housing is built is likely, according the the President of the Royal Institute of British Architects, Alan Jones, "to lead to the next generation of slum housing."

The local environment should be used for the public good and a civilised society should provide for measures to ensure that everyone, regardless of their income or wealth, has a reasonable chance of enjoying it.  This means partnership and co-operation between the national government, custodians of our land; local government, custodians of local interests; and the building industry -  the very opposite of the tearing up of the rule book.

A genuine and equitable shake-up of  the planning system could include :

 measures to reduce the hoarding of available land, presumably in the hope  that its value with increase with time;

measures to ensure that most if not all of the increase in land values when land is rescheduled for building goes to the state or local government, rather than the private owner;

penalities when building permissions have been given but no building done (there are about a million of these already in existence - so much for the planing system being a cause of the housing shortage;

an end to the "right to buy" social housing;

effective minimum standards for size and safety for all domestic dwellings  (akin to the famous Parker Morris standards  which were abolished by Mrs Thatcher's government in 1980);

capital gains tax to be levied on the increased values of homes.

Paradoxically, as well as opposition from Shelter, other housing charities and the architecture profession,  the government could well have opposition from the affluent shires. One newspaper this morning (I didn't catch which) jokes of  a developer claiming: 

  "Of course we'll observe social distancing.  We shall ensure at least two  metres between your house and the next."