Shameless And Sordid.......And Education

Shameless And Sordid

Strong and stable became weak and wobbly and has now become shameless and sordid. When the Grenfell Towers disaster happened everybody rightly praised the fire and paramedic services for their heroic (I can't think of a more apt word) efforts to contain the disaster. They put their own lives at risk. If anybody ever deserved a reward, they did. What did they get? They got Parliament voting to deny them a pay rise above 1% which, with inflation running at close to 3%, equates to a pay cut of around 2%. That is shameless. What is even worse is that some members of the government were reported as cheering when the result of the vote on an amendment to pay them more was rejected, only through the intervention of mercenary DUP MPs known as bigoted. That is not simply shameless it is also sordid. Any decent Britons who voted, in good faith, for what has been revealed as a bunch of bigots, mercenaries and conscienceless power seekers should now be ashamed of their vote.

What is the aim behnd this nefarious enterprise? It would appear to be a determination to hang on to power for as long as possible to ensure as hard a Brexit as possible, the dream of the extreme right, and to make it as difficult as possible for any succeding government to undo their work. Short of a 1968-style French revolution, I don't see any immediate remedy in the UK. It may be that the UK will have to rely on the goodwill of the EU, which has the whiphand in Brexit negotiations, to resolve this problem for us.

It may be worth recalling that the beginning of this whole sad story was a result of an internal spat in the Conservative party, a referendum to appease the extreme right wing. The extreme right wing won that and the tail is now wagging the dog, showing itself in its true colours, red (paradoxically) in tooth and claw. Appeals to patriotism, «the last refuge of rogues», or party before country? Either is despicable.

Dubito (again)

Daniel and his most recent lady friend came to eat this evening and we got to talking about the Internet for some reason I can't remember. Daniel surprised me by saying it had made things very difficult for him (and other teachers) because students could come up with model answers for tasks/projects, answers that they had found on the Internet. In fact I was really shocked that this could be considered a real difficulty. My immediate reaction was that, as a teacher, you investigate the student's basis for the model answer and should quite easily be able to ascertain whether the student had worked this out for him/herself or simply «borrowed» it. Daniel's response was that that required a lot of work on the part of the teacher, more than was involved in evaluating an original answer. I realise that teachers' time is scarce but «Tough», I said, «that is what you have to do».

In fact that is what I now believe teaching at the senior level should be all about. It is less about what you think you are supposed to know about history, geography, economics or whatever but why you think you know it. I quoted Descartes at Daniel and he blithely quoted Descartes back at me with the «dubito» and «cogito» the wrong way round. In his subject, French literature, that probably doesn't matter much, which is no doubt why he made the mistake, but in education more generally, in my view, it matters enormously. The «dubito» has to come first. It may not be easy but it is essential if people are too be truly educated. And, in current circumstances, it may even be essential for the future sanity of the world.

The first time I formed a company in the UK I had, as it turned out, a very good lawyer who proved his worth again when I signed my first office leasing contract. He said he could do the necessary paper work for me but suggested I should do it and he would approve it (or not). His stated reason was that if I did it I would understand the process intimately and therefore be able to answer any questions on it, rather than referring them to him. That was education; lawyer by trade, he was also a teacher and I'm immensely grateful to him, even if I can't remember his name (Leopold something?). It also gave me an insight into law which was analogous to computer programming: you need to know the precise meaning and implications of every statement and clause.

House Of Cards

House Of Cards: A Conspiracy Theory

We live in interesting times, particularly in the political sphere. As I've said before, I regard the referendum result as an opportunistic extreme right-wing coup. If that is indeed so, for how long has it been going on? Think: House Of Cards, that wonderful TV series of yesteryear in the UK and book by Michael Dobbs.

After the 2008 crash everybody accepted the need for a period of austerity, even if the degree of severity was debatable and not everybody swallowed the easy catch-phrase «we're all in this ttogether». As it happened, the UK embarked on more severe austerity than any EU country other than Greece and, well, the rich didn't suffer quite as much as the rest of us; theywere given a few tax breaks. What almost inevitably suffered most were public services: the NHS, of course, care servies, the police, fire services, etc. At around the same time the UK government omitted to sign off EU directive 2004/38/EC, which placed controls on intra-EU immigration.

Now, consider that you are a member of very rich, extreme right-wing cabal angling for power. How can the ground be prepared? Given the target of the UK as an offshore tax haven, austerity is good. It guts public services, which an offshore tax haven doesn't noticeably have; so austerity has to be continued, even increased (we can always promise that it is necessary so that conditions can be better tomorrow). What about the EC directive? Implementing it would require increasing the number of Border Agency staff, currently being cut. Not implementing it means we can continue cutting Border Agency staff and control of immigration will be aggravated as an issue, which is what we want. What we now need is a referendum on EU membership. We have virtually all the popular media under our control, what else do we need?

It's pure speculation of course but not beyond a House Of Cards.

The problem, of course, is to know what to do if the grand plan gets a bloody nose, as it did in the last general election. Except that it is not really a problem for the cabal; the plot failed so they simply walk away and try elsewhere. It follows inevitably that there is no plan B, as is blindingly obvious now. Any kind of compomise is of no interest; that is simply politics as usual. So what happens next? Who knows? Except that Brexit is now looking to be a tired issue; is it really worth all the expense, fuss and bother? What does a soft Brexit achieve for anyone? And public services are now at the forefront of the political agenda.

School Celebration

School Celebration

This Saturday saw the planned celebration of the village school take place, with an exhibition of old photos of the school and former pupils (three members of our English conversation class started their schooldays together here), various children's games, an evening meal in the 14th of July square and friend Jo's impromptu choir. I «sang» in the choir. Bass, tenor baritone? Maybe a mixture of all three at various points or maybe just undefined. No one ever bothered about these nice distinctions on the terraces at Chelsea. We sang four songs. Sacré Charlemagne accuses Charlemagne of ruining kids'childhoods: Qu'as tu appris à l'école aujourd'hui is an ironic take on what is taught at school: L'école est fini is an end of term celebration and Adieu monsieur le professeur a rather sad tribute to a retiring teacher. All were sung lustily and received enthusiastically, which hopefully rewarded Jo adequately for her efforts to make us sing properly. The whole event served, among other things, to raise some money for the school.

Schools here, as in the UK, are strapped for cash but to nowhere like the same extent as in the UK. Mollans with 1000 inhabitants has a school as still does nearby Brantes, a village of about 200 inhabitants stuck on a mountain side. Scholarship is still valued here and blatant cynicism still rare. The Minister of Education does not sneer at those who have acquired enough knowledge to be labelled experts, especially before becoming Minister for the Environment, having previously voted against all environmental measures. Different countries, different values.

Raoul Balurdin

Movement in the village has been disrupted for the past two weeks because a film is being made in the rue du Faubourg, my street, a hundred yards further along from me. The first inkling we had of this was when plastic trees and foliage started appearing on the fronts of houses along the street. I asked what was going on and was told that they were props for a film entitled Raoul Balurdin that was about to be made. So who is/was Raoul Balurdin? Nobody seemed to know anything other than that he was a bicycle repair man who couldn't ride a bike. Mention of a bicycle repair man immediately called to my mind the Monty Python sketch, the spoof of Superman: «wherever in the world there is a bicycle in trouble, bicycle repair man will be there!» Friend Daniel enlightened me a bit more this morning when I had a coffee with him, saying the story was from a novel that nobody seemed to have read. Nobody other then myself seemed interested in knowing anything more either. That doesn't augur well for the film but I guess a good film could overcome that handicap, even encourage more people to read the book.

Grandfather

My daughter and son-in-law, Nat and Andy, have now informed everyone they wanted to about the birth of their daughter, Eilidh, and so I am free to announce this in my blog. 

She's beautiful, of course, and I already have plans for her as a future captain of the Chelsea ladies' team and so have sent a teddy bear, a romper and a bib all in Chelsea colours. She'll undoubtedly show herself to be a good dribbler in the coming months. I've installed Skype so I can see her over the next few weeks until I go over around the end of July to see her in the flesh. Proud grandfather!

2017 UK Election: On Reflection

2017 UK Election: On Reflection

On the face of it the election result showed that the government has no mandate for a hard Brexit. This, now, is self-evidently the «will of the people» but don'expect the government to respect that. «The will of the people» was never more than a convenient excuse and the extreme right has never had much time for democracy anyway, as its numerous attempts to avoid parliamentary scrutiny have demonstrated. I think it would be foolish though to assume that the extreme right is as yet defeated. Hammond apart, most senior government posts are still held by the extreme right. Moreover, the mooted alliance with the DUP, with its overtones of cosiness with terrorist-linked groups and threat to peace in Northern Ireland, shows a desperate attempt to cling to power at whatever cost. However, the beauty of the extreme right is that it cannot embrace compromise and must cling to its path, even if that path leads to self-destruction. I hope it does in this case but the extreme right is not dead yet.

Nor should the revival of the Labour party's fortunes be overestimated. There was an undoubted large element of tactical voting in the election which may not be repeated in any future election. However a revival of some dimension must be accredited and I suspect that Corbyn's focus on social issues was crucial and hopefully will keep those at the top of the political agenda. Corbyn is to be congratulated on that and on securing his place at the head of the Labour party for the forseeable future.

The result obviously brings into question the form of Brexit the government can go for. The Daily Telegraph suggests that the government may already be in secret talks with the Labout party regarding the possibilities for a soft Brexit. The talks, if they exist, would have to be in secret because if known they would split the Conservative party completely in two. May has said she will get the Conservtive party out of the mess she has got it into but it is very difficult to see how she can do this. If, again, the talks are happening, they would be in line with declared Labour policy for a soft Brexit but the Labour party would be in position to demand more for any cooperation. It could demand some safeguards on social issues or a parliamentary vote (even a second referendum?) on any final Brexit deal. Needless to say, any of that would be anathema to the extreme right. I suspect that answers to much of this will become clearer once talks with the EU are underway and the initial issues of the rights of EU citizens and financial payments are decided (or not). On the former point, I note that EU Directive 2004/38/EC, which limits free movement for longer than three months, was never implemented in the UK. Now how did that happen?

It will be interesting also to see what line the gutter press in the UK takes in the future. It's campaigns of hate and misinformation patently failed but, if Rupert Murdoch and Lord Rothermere have to give up on their apparent dream of a UK tax haven for the moment, they cannot but react with anger to any soft Brexit deal. We can expect howls of headline protest against «27 countries lined up against us» (they're called the EU) and against the EU totally unreasonably sticking to its treaties and regulations (how dare it?) but what else? Has its readership started trying to use its brains, Heaven forbid? If blatant lies and slurs don't work, could a subtler approach be applied? But then asking the gutter press to be subtle is like asking an elephant to be dainty and, anyway, their readership would probably miss any subtlety. Like the Conservative party, the gutter press will need a rethink.

"Stable and strong" has become weak and wobbly. Time for a rethink indeed.

UK Election 2017: Immediate Reaction

UK Election 2017: Immediate Reaction

I woke to some good news this morning and, since good news is normally better to read than bad news, I shall relay it as I see it.

A hung Parliament is the best result I could reasonably have hoped for, so that pleases me. A wag has suggested that someone is going to have to explain to Donald Trump what a hung Parliament means, which should slow him down for a week or two (add coalition government and make that a month). Nigel Farage is upset, which should please everyone, and Rupert Murdoch is reportedly very angry, which means the Sun newspaper has failed in its campaign and puts it in the rubbish bin where it belongs. The best tweet I saw was football commentator Gary Lineker's, that Theresa May should be awarded own goal of the season. All good news.

A hung Parliament increases uncertainty and confusion and why should I want that? Because it gives the idea of a hard Brexit a good kicking and, to paraphrase May herself, shows that maybe no prime minister is better than a bad prime minister. Brexit means Mexit? I still regard the referendum result as a speculative extreme right-wing coup and the extreme right-wing got a good kicking too. Going in no certain direction may not be ideal but it is certainly better than going hell for leather («stably and strongly») in the wrong direction.

The financial markets reacted predictably by marking down the pound and the UK economy. But the financial markets typically change their minds every few days/weeks, in line with in-play betting saloon that they really are. I happen to believe that the election result could be good for both the pound and the UK economy in the long-term, which is never a concern of the financial markets.

A catch-phrase among opposition parties was that June should see the end of May. It has. She's staying on as Prime Minister for the moment, even though the honourable thing to do would be to resign. By her own declared criterion («if I lose 6 seats or more I will have lost the election») she lost the election. But what has honour to do with the current government? Still the knowledge that Tory bigwigs' knives must be hovering somewhere in the region of her kidneys should concentrate her mind wonderfully. If no one removes her earlier, perhaps a complaint registered with north Yorkshire police will do it. She lied about Diane Abbot in a pre-election speech there and to do so is a criminal offence with a precedent of a Conservative MP banned from public office. Who will eventually replace her must be problematic. Boris Johnson is surely too much of a clown and too lightweight to contemplate and I think that David Davis is not really trusted even by his own party. Maybe we can borrow Emmanuel Macron for a while.

I have been puzzled for months as to why neither of the major political parties appears to be interested in the middle ground, where most votes are generally considered to lie. The middle ground, though, has shown that it is still interested by apparently rejecting both extremes. Will some party please pay attention?

Some interesting statistics emerged in the pre-election wrangling. Pre-election polls showed around 70% of the over-65s intended to vote Conservative while the same percentage of under-25s intended to vote Labour. Interestingly almost exactly the same split appeared in the post-referendum analysis: 70% oldies to leave and the same percentage of youngsters to remain. The people with most at stake in the future of the UK have clearly shown what they want, even if they are unlikely to get it.

Some financial statistics were also of interest. It turns out that, over the last 50 years, Conservative administrations have borrowed significantly more and repaid significantly less than Labour administrations. So, contrary to popular belief, Labour has been the financially responsible party and the Conservative party the spendthrifts. Conservative complaints that Labour proposals haven't been properly costed are countered by David Davis admission that the hard Brexit for which we were headed hasn't been costed at all. Furthermore, since the last cut in corporation tax (with another promised by the government) investment in companies has gone down, not up as claimed, the extra money going to shareholders. So cuts in corporation tax do not encourage investment by

companies. The more Alice in Wonderland claims are made by politicians and myths promulgated the more reliable financial statistics become relevant.

What will be the effect of a coalition government, with the DUP? I've no idea, like most people probably. However, immediate post-election analysis showed Brexit to be the principal issue among Consservative voters and social matters to be that among Labour voters. Northern Ireland voted in favour of remaining in the EU and social concerns there will certainly be paramount, if not necessarily with the DUP. The Irish border and peace agreement dependency on the EU will also certainly be a major issue. Whatever the case, May may not get away with her apparent plan to sell off the NHS and turn the UK into an offshore tax haven with no appreciable public services.

The NHS, Naylor Report And Election

The NHS, Naylor Report And The Election

The suggested, by the Leave campaign, £350 million for the NHS if the UK left the EU is now generally accepted as the lie that it always was. Some, however, still think that there should be some extra money for the NHS. The Naylor Report nails (sic) that. Theresa May's assertion that she will implement the Naylor Report means that not only is there not £350 million extra for the NHS there is actually no extra money at all, not even a penny. NHS Trusts will first have to sell of any property assets they have (buildings, land) if they want extra money. All NHS assets are to be transferred to a new body, NHS Properties. The government will then double, for the NHS Trust in question, whatever sum is raised by the sale of its asset, up to a total of £10 billion for all NHS Trusts. This will be trumpeted as a further £10 billion investment in the NHS. NHS Property Services is to be run by a person with strong connections to American healthcare.

Let's take an example. An NHS Trust strapped for cash and urgently in need for more (all of them?) has an asset worth £20 million. It very urgently needs at least some of that money and so must sell, urgently. What is the negotiating position of a potantial buyer? The buyer could say: «We'll give you just £10 million, then the government will give you another £10 million, and so you will get the £20 million you need». That must look like daylight robbery to the NHS Trust involved but it can't wait and the investor can. So what happens? With competition for the asset, most probably some compromise is reached (£12 million say, even £15 million?) and so the investor gets a bargain. The overall result? The NHS Trust loses something and the investor gets rich. The rich get richer and the poor get poorer.

Those who bought the £350 million on the side of that famous bus now must know that they were conned. The to-be-trumpeted £10 billion investment in the NHS is another con. The principal referendum conmen are now senior government figures. They are good at conning; it makes them successful. So do you think they are going to stop doing it? If you like being conned, vote for them; you can be sure you will be conned in the future.