Politics is education’s worst enemy

With the exception of 2 days for the annual celebrations of GCSE and “A”-Level results, media and political comment on education is constant and uniformly negative. “What is going wrong with xxx?” “What dreadful teachers!” “Labour’s way is wrong”. etc etc Even Labour spin is more about how its approach is marginally less bad than that of the Tories than visionary.

True, government initiatives over the last few years will surely damage the sector:

·         Reduction of funds for SureStart and nursery schools, so crucial as foundations for social mobility;

·         Fragmentation of school models, abandoning the comprehensive principle and universality;

·         De-valuation and de-professionalisation of teaching;

·         Loss of local strategic input, oversight and accountability;

·         Giving away of public assets such as playing fields;

·         Constant messing about with curriculum;

·         Focus on snap-shot monitoring instead of proper assessment of pupil progress;

·         Cuts and geographic variations in funding, resulting in patchy results for children;

·         Lack of proven improvement process for schools in difficulties;

·         Debt burden for students;

·         Neglect of FE sector; and more

Yet students are generally reckoned to be happy and able to achieve what they want from school and college, despite this apparent chaos. The unhappiness seems to lie with teachers, whose profession is so under attack; and with the inexpert but opinionated commentariat. Whose satisfaction should be paramount?

Labour must surely move on from its tentative critique of whatever the government proposes onto the high ground of its own vision, in education as in other fields. National standards; universal excellence in a common model; letting teachers take the lead; encouraging enquiry over information; investing in capacity to meet community economic and demographic needs; removal of divisive faith and private schools from State support; and enabling best practice to be identified, validated and shared, instead of being hidden away to protect competitive advantage. A strategic approach instead of a political, tactical one. A true alternative to the doctrinaire privatisation of the current government. And when it succeeds, education will be in the headlines only for those celebrations, without the negativity in between.

When Leaders had a sense of humour....

A past Labour leader’s response to pressure to engage in a progressive alliance [to the tune of “The Red Flag”]:

“The people’s flag is palest pink

It’s not red blood but only ink.

It’s sponsored now by Douglas Cole*

Who plays each year a different role.

Then raise our pallid standard high

Wash out all trace of scarlet dye

Let Liberals join and Tories too

And socialists of every hue…

With heads uncovered swear we all

To have no principles at all

If everyone will turn his coat

We’ll get the British people’s vote.”

Clement Atlee, 1939

[courtesy of “Citizen Clem” by John Bew. Riverrun, 2016 – highly recommended]

[*GDHCole was a socialist theorist and Fabian, 1889-1959. The reference to Tories is only partly ironic – there was much talk in 1939 of anti-appeasement MPs of all parties cooperating]

Christmas Cheer for Labour?

The last 100 years were recently described as the transit from Empire, to Democracy then Kleptocracy, as an increasing share of the world’s assets are sucked into the maw of a tiny minority of hugely wealthy individuals. Yes, individuals, for what are corporations but vehicles for multiples of individuals to acquire yet more that they cannot usefully use, without working for it?

No wonder then, if in such a world, large numbers who see this inequity happening around them are dissatisfied with those they have voted for merely perpetuating the status quo, albeit with minor tweaks of differentiation between parties. No wonder that such “indignados” [as they are known in Spain] respond when they hear a siren voice. This may be a voice from Left-field, as has occurred in Greece [Syriza] and Spain [Podemos], USA [Sanders] and here in UK, with Corbyn; or it may unfortunately and more commonly these days come from the Right: Farage, Trump, Le Pen, Wilders etc.

Political sirens must offer a braver new world, with charisma, articulacy and passion if they are to convince not merely their tribal followers but a substantial proportion of the voting public too. Herein lies Corbyn’s problem. He offers a socialist alternative model, true, with honesty and sincerity, which has brought to his banner thousands who had long felt disowned by politics and thousands more who were hearing the possibility for the first time of a politics in tune with their values. But his message stops there. Beyond the converts lie the public, deaf to his way. Sad as it makes me to say it, socialism is a minority sport, even within the Labour Party, at least at present.

Unless he can create a credible vision of a country people in their millions want, we will not go much further with Corbyn. To date, with open goals available for social ownership of rail, opposition to Brexit, mass council house building, State care and more, his Labour Party has devoted itself to infighting and invisibility.

Brexit has done it. Trump has done it. The people wanted them, despite their being palpably flawed. Labour, the people’s party, is no longer seen by the people as in tune with what they need. We who care about the values only it espouses, will patiently have to ride out a period of survival whilst we try to look for the role, the leadership, the political philosophy and policies which may bring us one day back to the fore. Trump, Farage and the other demagogues of hate will be found out, surely, by events which it will be painful to witness and experience.

Sorry. Happy Christmas

"You say you want a revolution" Well......

It is a huge irony that whilst the Left endlessly looks inwards as its factions bicker over who has the right to lead, those it aspires to lead flock to the parties of the Right. How can the Left’s natural constituency vote Right? Clearly, we must challenge old assumptions. Values and habit alone do not sustain loyalty.

The revolution which many on the Left felt to be needed – the peaceful uprising of the left-behind - has happened but not in the way any imagined. No socialist intifada; no new economic model but the rousing voices of nationalist demagogues. Same revolutionaries; different slogans. Sanders and Corbyn tried but Trump and Farage succeeded.

Political mainstreamers need to reassess how and why this has happened and is happening elsewhere. They no longer represent many of those they believed they did. The workforces of the old industries and their communities, cast out by Thatcherism, have been neglected ever since. Labour is no longer the political voice for millions in large workplaces or even their homes. With fewer workers unionised or organised, Labour’s relevance to voters is in question. The demagogues have heard, seen and had the nous to respond, not only by showing this but by applying their common touch to politics. It works.

So this is a watershed in democracy in the West, in UK, USA, France and more. Old assumptions have been blown away by a failure to listen or to keep abreast of people’s real needs. Speeches in Parliament and machinations in the capital no longer work for voters. New media can foster new allegiances.  So can new parties. Labour has an existential problem but this presents Labour Coast and Country with an opportunity, to offer unrepresented voters a platform for sharing common interests. Labour Coast and Country also offers the Labour Party the means to turn attention to millions of its followers it has ignored for too long. Recognising and structuring policy around communities shared needs could be a new model for Labour; now, where are OUR demagogues to take the voters along with it?

Am I a traitor?

I disagree with the use of a referendum in a parliamentary democracy

I disagree with the arguments made by both Remain and Leave in the recent referendum.

I disagree with a straight majority having sway over constitutional change.

I disagree with Brexit “meaning Brexit”. This is meaningless.

I disagree with the government’s refusal to allow parliament the final say over leaving the EU.

I disagree with the demonization of foreign students and workers, skilled or unskilled.

I disagree with the mean spirit preventing the generosity of citizens being allowed to help thousands of refugees in need.

I disagree with the tone of the national conversation since the referendum and the failure of the government to address this.

I disagree with the government subsidising nuclear power far more generously than renewables.

I disagree with the imposition of boundary changes favouring one party to reduce the size of parliament whilst increasing the size of the unelected Lords.

I disagree with first-past-the-post.

I disagree with cutting functions and budgets of local authorities.

I disagree with grammar schools.

I disagree with cutting entitlements of disabled and the poorest citizens.

and so much more. Am I a traitor?

Let us head for a Progressive Government

Every Labour member wants a Labour Government. How many can believe that such a thing is conceivable within a decade, when so many factors stand in the way: a resurgent Tory Party; the adoption of alternative parties by those whom Labour used to think of as tribal; the wipe-out in Scotland; the forthcoming boundary changes; the lack of a compelling Labour narrative; and the endless infighting within the party? So what are we who share socialist values to do, not merely to belong but to win power through which to restore such values to the governance of the country?

There is much talk of a Progressive Alliance, in which those sharing liberal values – Greens, LD, ScotNat, Plaid and Labour – agree seat by seat on a single candidate. This sounds attractive, with less in-constituency competition and aggregation of the votes from supporters of all progressives, like defeating a government bill in parliament. A set of values which are sufficiently shared by all could be conceived as glue.

But are there not flaws in this idea? Oh yes. When members of the same party frequently fall out over its direction or leadership, how realistic is it for tribes usually in conflict to agree, not for a Big Idea but simply to defeat A N Other? How enthusiastic and well-briefed on another party’s agenda can be those who are motivated enough to campaign? And will a socialist, say, feel truly empowered by an elected LibDem? Personalities may play a part in making this possible in some wards, divisions or constituencies; but what about those where this does not apply?

For a Progressive Alliance to work on a scale sufficient to win power in parliament, it will have to work across the nations. Can the leadership and supporters of our parties ever arrive at such an alliance in a system designed for and steeped in conflict? Until the system is itself addressed, probably not. Acceptance is needed first that the old 2-Party structure is no longer relevant. Labour’s tribe is a shrivelled rump searching rather cluelessly for a true purpose. The Tories hold themselves together by constant reinvention and iron discipline but could and probably should be at least two parties. Other parties clamour to be heard but with first-past-the-post never will be.

People all over the country are searching for inspiring leaders who seem to understand them, not necessarily within traditional political parties. So there is a need for a system which can accept all of these realities, enfranchising and engaging more [especially younger people] in the governance of their country.

Any alliance must surely be preceded by two initiatives, therefore: Proportional Representation, so that every vote counts and all voters feel a chance of being represented; and a revitalisation of properly funded local government, not just embodied in a few metropolitan mayors but everywhere, so that voters feel that they are influencing their own lives. Given these two building blocks, a Progressive Alliance may become not just an idyllic dream but a practical possibility. Multi-party representation in a given geographical area may lead to cross-party collaboration or at least organised tactical voting in a way unlikely today. Change has to start with fair voting and engagement of the public in matters to which they can relate: local housing, jobs, transport, healthcare; and with people they see working for them closer to home than the Ivory Towers of Westminster. The old duopoly will not give up its power base without a fight but Labour may just be in a position where it has to change or die. Maybe that change may lead to a part in a Progressive Government.

Mutually assured ...

Regular or indeed accidental readers of this blog may notice an uncharacteristic gap since its predecessor. Frankly, as an English socialist I have been lost for words. Even now that the latest Labour leadership election has at last ended, there is little left to say, either because it has been said a thousand times already or because nothing has really been resolved on which to pass comment.

However, on Saturday I was discussing the state of the world with a friend even older than me who reminded me of the phrase "mutually assured destruction". He was referring to current Labour factions but I had just opined that the world today seems more unsafe and unpleasant for its inhabitants [not including, of course, the "1%" - never them] than at any time since 1962. 1962? Because "mutually assured destruction" as a theory was close to being tested in practice, via the Cuban missile crisis. One of my daughters recently found it hard to believe that people once quite genuinely feared that we were on the brink of nuclear war; but such is my memory of 1962.

Happily, there were leaders at the time with the nous to pull back from the brink. Today's leaders, be they concerned with national or global affairs, do not deserve to place themselves in the same category as those of 1962. How confident can we feel in our chosen ones dealing with: Climate Change [fracking anyone?]; Syria [arms but never a food drop; and certainly no ideas]; refugees and migration [nationalism and xenophobia to the fore]; inequality [lovely if you are rich and powerful]; let alone domestic matters like care for the disabled or elderly, housing shortage and inflation, education for all children or destruction of public services? I see no potential leaders or solutions on the horizon with which to cheer myself; and look at my own Party and despair.