Bel is thinking

A previously unheard-of Government Minister resigned today. David Cairns (for that is his name) is unhappy with Gordon Brown’s leadership, and feels that he can no longer serve under him.

I have just been reading his resignation letter, and, goodness me, what a frightening document.

Here are some excerpts:

“Dear Gordon,

As someone who has never uttered a public word of criticism of our Labour Government, far less ever cast a vote against it in the years that I have been an MP, the concept of loyalty to my Party and our Leader is at the very heart of my political beliefs.”.

Interesting. People go into politics for all sorts of reasons. Their intentions are oftentimes honest, although the underlying philosophy might be misguided. Some wish to alleviate poverty, improve educational standards, advocate greater personal responsibility, reduce the tax burden, and so on.

But David Cairns? Just read the above excerpt: at the heart of what he (without irony) refers to as his political beliefs is the self-serving, unthinking “virtue” of loyalty to party and leader. (I note without further comment his telling capitalisation of the word “leader”.) Loyalty no matter what. To this politician, it matters not what the party or leader may decide, he has no independent principles, no settled beliefs of his own against which to weigh those decisions. If it comes from the party or from the leader, then it’s good enough for Mr Cairns.

He states, as a matter of pride, that he has never cast a vote against the Labour Party in all his years as an MP. What David Cairns is telling us is this: that when it came to Parliamentary votes on serious decisions, decisions on which rested weighty issues such as life and liberty, he voted, not for the good of his constituents, but for the good of the Labour Government.

So the interests of the Labour Party were of primary consideration to him during the Parliamentary votes on detention without charge of suspected terrorists, the EC Treaty, and the declaration of war on Iraq? At no point did his conscience ever kick in to lead him to depart from the Government position. (Perhaps I err in my assumption that he has a conscience independent of the Labour Party.) Of course, I am not so naive as to think that politicians of all parties do not act in so partisan a manner. What shocks me is that, with his chest-beating declaration, he obviously sees such behaviour as a virtue, vainly puffed up in his arrogant mind.

Some more from the letter:

“For me it is an article of faith that the worst day of a Labour Government is better than the best day of a Tory or SNP one.”.

Isn’t that lovely? In other words, whatever an opposition party does or says is, prima facie, bad. To him, the Labour Party alone has all the answers. Truly saddening. What crime did we commit as a nation to deserve such representatives?

At least he has now resigned. Thank heavens for this brief moment of lucidity, but don’t expect it to last. His delusion has truly taken hold, as this letter plainly shows.

Just watching the Question Time debate between the Labour Deputy Leader candidates.

On being asked a question about education, Alan Johnson started bragging about how the quality of education has improved in the past ten years. To back up this ludicrous claim, he stated that the GCSE pass rate has increased by 25 per cent.

Does this man not understand that improvement in GCSE results does not necessarily imply an increase in the quality of education? It could just mean that the exams have been made much easier to pass.

From the Daily Mail, we learn that the Department of Education has ‘called on teachers to create an atmosphere in which it is trendy to work hard and “boffins” are not bullied for being too brainy.’

Yes, teachers and all those in authority should ensure that bullying is stamped out in any place where they have a say, whether or not it is a ‘boffin’ being bullied, so that goes without saying.

I am more interested in this new assignment to teachers to ‘create an atmosphere in which it is trendy to work hard’. For starters, if any school can achieve this, it will be the first school ever on the face of the earth to do so. Schoolchildren have never, since the beginning of time, seen hard work as ‘trendy’, and they are not about to start now. In any case, I do not think they should be encouraged to do so. They are children, after all, and it is only to be expected that there are some things (school work, etc) that they will not embrace with the same enthusiasm as they do other things (playing, etc).

In addition, the notion that something must be made ‘trendy’ before we can encourage our children to do it, is something I find baffling. What about instilling in them the idea that hard work may not be fun, but in the end, it yields the fruits of success, a sense of achievement, and respect among peers? What about the idea that applying oneself to something, whatever the difficulties, frustrations, and challenges, might be something worth doing? What about the idea that sometimes we may not feel like doing something, but that self-discipline and dedication, irrespective of the views of others, are values to be exalted in every case? These are the lessons we should be teaching our children.

By trying to get teachers to pretend that hard work is ‘trendy’, the Department of Education is sending out a message that nothing is worth doing unless one can get superficial pleasure from it. They are preaching to children, telling them that they can attain things in life on their own terms. This is grossly irresponsible. Children do not rule the world, and sooner or later, they will learn that ‘trendiness’ does not make things happen. Far better to put trendiness in its real place, as a sometimes fun, often times diverting, ineffectual concept. In the real business of life, there is very little room for trendiness. There are many issues in this life in which the views of children are irrelevant. They need to be told that some things (eg hard work) are necessary, whether or not they are trendy. And they need to be told why.

Children should be encouraged to reach out for the tray of goodies that life can offer. However, with all this ‘trendiness’ talk, what the Department of Education is doing is kneeling at the feet of children and offering them the world on their (the children’s) own terms. Instead of encouraging them to aim high, and reach for a world outside their own, the Department is reshaping the valuable things in life so that they accord with the fleeting values of children. This I find surprising, and somewhat saddening.

I have written my maiden post for the Ghost Cabinet. It is entitled ‘Public schools and charitable status’ and can be accessed here. In it, I discuss Alan Johnson’s recent suggestion that public schools volunteer their teachers etc to work in the state sector, and question why, instead of such vindictive, publicity-grabbing stunts, the Government does not simply copy from public schools the things that make them so successful.

The Ghost Cabinet is a team of bloggers who examine Government policy, and where appropriate, present alternative ideas. All the main policy areas are catered for by bloggers with experience or interest in each area.

Today brings news of a gloomy ICM poll for David Cameron. He falls behind Gordon Brown on strength, capability, the economy, and much else besides.

Serves him right. Perhaps now he will learn that the British public are not impressed by arrogance, especially when they suspect that there is not much substance behind the swaggering pose. By attacking grammar schools and selection by ability, David Cameron deliberately picked a fight, not only with grassroots Conservative Party members, but also with hardworking parents all over the country who want the best education for their children. Having then seen the disquiet he and David Willetts had caused with their ill-judged policy, he attempted to dismiss these genuine concerns, crassly referring to opponents as ‘delusional’, and then making some off-putting macho attempts at leadership.

In all this, David Cameron forgot one very important fact: he is not yet in 10 Downing Street. The public still have the opportunity to say ‘no thanks’. And as unappealing as a Brown premiership is to many (look at previous polls, for example), people have now decided that even that is preferable to being led by an arrogant man with no substance, and no real understanding of the issues that affect the ordinary voter.

One of David Cameron’s key selling points with the public was that he appeared to be an ordinary man who could empathise with ordinary folk. Many were therefore prepared to look past his seeming lack of substance. However, his chest-beating arrogant performance of the past few weeks has put paid to that. People now see a different Cameron: a conceited, lightweight politician whose bullishness and unwillingness to listen could actually ruin the country. Together with George Osborne, the impression is of two adolescent schoolboys who have been left in charge of the house while the parents are on holiday. While it was alright to watch them thrashing about and losing the spoons, concerned citizens are now sitting up in alarm as these two have now tired of their hitherto harmless game and turned their attention to mummy’s precious antiques. There is now genuine concern that they have no clue what they are doing, and perhaps someone should do something before they destroy something of value.

So the polls are bad for Cameron, but there is one small comfort: we are still far from a general election. There is still time for him to recover from this. I would advise him to don the garb of humility and find some way of ditching this mad grammar schools policy. For a start, he could perhaps endeavour never to mention it again, and hope everyone forgets all about it. More importantly, he and David Willetts should keep their traps shut until their education policy review group reports back with its findings. Then they will have something of substance to put before the public.

David Cameron and his band of men need to learn the purpose of policy: the lives of many, their education, and their future, depend on Government policy. Policy making should therefore be approached with humility, with a sober mind, and with a sense of responsibility. It should never be used as a red rag (or even a sop) to grassroots supporters, to make headlines in the media, or to wrongfoot political opponents.

Perhaps these polls will teach David Cameron this lesson. If that happens, well and good. If not, then God help him.

Now here is a book I am going to get. The Daily Telegraph has published a compilation of annoying phrases, cliches etc in the English language. It is entitled She Literally Exploded: The Daily Telegraph Infuriating Phrasebook.

Curious to know whether any of the cliches, phrases etc that annoy me the most, have made it into the book. At the moment, the following set my teeth on edge: ‘close down the debate’, and ‘capture the public imagination’. I even hate that I have had to type them out here.

The Conservative Party has been thinking about marriages involving non-EU spouses. According to the Telegraph, here are some of their proposals, in respect of entry into the UK:  

• increase in qualifying age of entry from 18 to 21;
• English tests; and
• citizenship tests.

In making these proposals, the Tories are thinking about immigration, sham marriages, and integration, but they need to tread very carefully.

Damien Green, the party’s immigration spokesman, is quoted as saying:

“Too many young women are brought to England to marry when they cannot possibly integrate with our society. They need better protection.”

If so, why increase the age from 18 to 21? Is it not better for the spouses to come in when they are younger, and have more chance of getting an education, perhaps going to a college, joining an apprenticeship, or learning a trade? Many employers looking for trainees will happily take on an 18 year old, perhaps more so than they would a 21 year old; so if it really is integration that the Tories are concerned about, they should not be raising the age of eligibility. The younger one is, the greater the chances of integrating, I would have thought.

I also suspect the Tories are on dodgy human rights grounds with these proposals. So if a bride fails the English test, she is to be sent back whence she came until such time as she can pass? Also consider these two scenarios: an English man who marries a Canadian woman who speaks only French, and an English man (from say, Bradford) who marries a non English-speaking girl from Islamabad? Both are non-EU foreign brides, but somehow I think that only one couple is the target of these proposals. What then happens? Will the immigration officers apply the law literally, and turn away the Canadian, in the name of ‘consistency’? Or will they disingenuously find some narrow grounds for admitting her, while turning away her Pakistani sister?

As for citizenship tests, I have no problem with them. Everybody applying for citizenship should sit a test, regardless of whether or not the applicant is a ‘non-EU spouse’. Perhaps a foreign spouse could be granted indefinite leave to remain, and then upgraded to citizenship on taking, and passing, the test.

These proposals come very close to interfering with the right to marry. Earlier this week, the Court of Appeal ruled that regulations requiring non-European citizens to obtain a certificate of approval before marriage were illegal, and breached the right to marry. Of course, the Tories would argue that they are not restricting the right to marry. Their argument would probably be that one may marry as one wishes, as the restriction is not on marriage per se, but on the right of entry to the United Kingdom. Maybe so, but these proposals, at the very least, interfere with family life.

Take another example: an English man marries an 18 year old girl from Islamabad, who speaks perfect English, and is in every respect ‘fit for UK society’. However, because she is only 18, they are told that she can’t come in until she’s 21. There is nothing he can do to fix that. All he can do is wait three years. Interference with family life? Most certainly, especially given the fact that in the United Kingdom, one may legally marry at 18. At least in the case of a 21 year old, non-English speaking Pakistani bride, a few months in a language school should ensure she passes the English test, and can therefore enter the country. In the case of her 18 year old sister, no such advantage. She stays out of the country until she ‘comes of age’.

My message to the Tories: it is good that you are thinking, although quite why one should credit you for doing that most basic of functions, I don’t know. Still, thinking is good, and there has not been much evidence of that in recent days. However, these ideas are still half-baked, and need a lot more work. Please think about them a bit more before putting them out for consultation.

Now I’ve heard everything. This from the Telegraph:

The Conservative Party will officially sever links with academic selection in the state sector today, accusing grammar schools of entrenching social advantage.

David Willetts, the shadow education secretary, will warn grammar supporters in the party that they cannot harp back to the past.

“We must break free from the belief that academic selection is any longer the way to transform the life chances of bright, poor kids,” he will say.

“This is a widespread belief but we just have to recognise that there is overwhelming evidence that such academic selection entrenches advantage, it does not spread it.”

On that note, I am terminating my membership of the Conservative Party. Someone let me know when they return to their senses. Failing that, I will be supporting any party that offers a true conservative manifesto. I think it’s time to take another look at Ukip.

Boris Johnson has described Portsmouth as “too full of drugs, obesity, underachievement and Labour MPs.’’

There is anger in the town.

But why? He is right, after all. The only thing Portsmouth has to complain about is that this description applies to many towns in the UK anyway, so why single them out?

Now about this report in the Daily Mail yesterday:

Schools are dropping the Holocaust from history lessons to avoid offending Muslim pupils, a Government backed study has revealed.

It found some teachers are reluctant to cover the atrocity for fear of upsetting students whose beliefs include Holocaust denial.

There is also resistance to tackling the 11th century Crusades - where Christians fought Muslim armies for control of Jerusalem - because lessons often contradict what is taught in local mosques.

I spent yesterday evening thinking about it, and concluded that we should not  be surprised. After all, as the Patrick Mercer episode taught us, where Truth conflicts with political correctness, Truth must bow the knee.