My harrowing experience at an Outstanding Academy as a student teacher.

I’ve been passionate about working with children for over a decade. I have 7 years teaching experience, but 3 weeks in a British school on a placement, during my post graduate degree, almost put me off the profession forever. I wanted to share my story to highlight the precarious situation our education system is in, as well as prepare future students for the worst.

My first impression of the placement was positive. It is classified as ‘outstanding’ by Ofsted in an area of high deprivation. I have always believed that education is the silver bullet for solving social inequality, so I was very excited to develop my teaching skills in this particular school.  I was involved in a week’s intensive phonics program for 5-year olds at first. This is part and parcel of every child’s experience when entering primary schools to raise literacy standards set by the government. Despite the heavy concentration on one topic for the children, it wasn’t the worst way to start my placement given the importance of understanding the teaching methods behind phonics for early learning. At the end of the week I was given a chance to be fully creative and make my own lesson plan. My philosophy with primary school children is to always attempt to have multi-sensory learning environments with lots of movement, expression and discussion, so I created a phonics lesson which I called “Tiki Phonics”. It basically involved lots of benches for balance, floor mats, teachers running around in Polynesian face masks, children having to complete obstacle challenges for laminated paper diamonds and – most importantly – articulating all 44 phonic sounds at random points. There was tribal music, paper treasure chests and a giant animated Tiki mask on a projector ( this is an example of the kind of lesson plans I like to deliver on a daily basis). After a tough week I was delighted to see sixty five-year-olds laughing and smiling, when they had previously looked run down from having phonics picture cards thrust into their face for hours on end. At the time this felt like a big confidence booster; I thought I was going to excel at this school in the same way I had done in previous education experiences.

The classrooms were pleasant enough looking, but very cramped for 30 children. During carpet time, all children sit crossed legged on the floor to watch the teacher. This is useful for reading activities or presentations . However, at least 10 of the children were spilling over the edges, but then, to my disgust, they were made to squeeze back onto the carpet. Just think about being packed onto a carpet, crossed legged, brushing shoulders with 29 other students. And these 5-year olds are expected to sit upright and silent. I observed children wriggling, poking each other, chatting with the person next to them, fighting, whilst battling with the teacher who is trying to retain control and deliver presentation-heavy lesson plans. This could be argued as necessary, but this particular school had many days which involved five and a half hours of mathematics and English lessons, with only half an hour of actual play time outside. Is it any wonder these children cannot sit still or are yearning for discussion and social interaction? Lessons in creative subjects, or ones that at least involved movement were regularly rescheduled if the children hadn’t finished enough maths or English work. To my absolute horror, children were occasionally kept inside during break and lunch periods to catch up with class work. Children who were already made to feel guilty for exerting too much energy or interacting with each other during class time, were having their one chance of proper play during the day taken away from them.

The twisted logic of the school schedule only became clear after I had started failing in this placement. Because the government now expects to see evidence of children’s progression per lesson, with the focus on maths and English, children HAVE to complete the work set out or it sets the whole school schedule of learning back. For some children you could see this was visually stressful. In this one class, at least 10 were classified as “special educational needs”, yet what most of these children need Isn’t additional support to complete classwork, they need emotional guidance and social interaction. In short, they need to play, have fun and learn how to build relationships. I can see the arguments for sticking to a process, all children must move forward with their learning, but the stress of government intervention and its narrow definition of progress, do not take into account the emotional, personal or social needs of children. Ironically, there is heaps of academic evidence which suggests personal, social and academic achievement are mutually beneficial to each other. In-fact, it was taught to us as fundamentally crucial to a child’s development during teacher-training at university

The lessons were terrifying to plan. Usually in mathematics (and the way I was trained) I start with a simple concept and develop deeper meaning gradually. For example, I start with basic addition, and for children who excel I can move them on to harder questions and look at the groupings of numbers as a quick method for harder sums. It’s a great strategy as It works in a mixed ability group and doesn’t segregate children. For every lesson in this school however, I was expected to teach five-year-olds multiple concepts in an intensive hour every day. My first maths lesson involved addition, subtraction, multiplication, division, roman numerals and measuring with rulers with 10 minutes gap between each concept to practice.

Once I started, I realised I didn’t have the full attention of many of the children and behaviour was difficult to manage, I already had the stress of forcing children to basically sit on top of each other on this tiny carpet space. So, I decided to move the children into a circle and asked each of the children to teach me the rules of the school and what is expected of them. I already was aware of these rules, but the idea was to build a relationship with the children and to have them remind themselves and each other of what was expected. The rest of the lesson went ok, children were more manageable, but it couldn’t change the fact that this kind of maths lesson had far too many concepts to learn, I think it would be tough for most adults, let alone children one year out of reception.

This lesson was being observed by a class teacher (part of our assessment process during the Post-Graduate degree). She asked me how I thought it went. I replied, explaining that despite the class not finishing the worksheet, I was happy that we built some bridges and that I think it would be beneficial for behaviour management in the future. She turned to me and said “No, this lesson is a failure, they need to finish the sheets! We are all behind now, and I’m just not sure how you’re going to be able to build up to the appropriate teacher’s standards by the end of this placement”. At this point, my confidence was completely shattered, and I never actually managed to pick up the pieces until long after the placement finished.

After observing a few teachers, I realised that the strategy was to ask the brightest children to answer all questions on the interactive whiteboard, copy the answers on the board and send all the children back to their desks to copy this down. I was ready to do whatever was needed to get through the placement, but eventually I would need to be observed by my university tutor who would not accept this as adequate teaching. Another nightmare to deal with eventually.

The following two weeks were a barrage of criticisms, some of which were paradoxical.  I was told my voice was too loud as a man and that it could scare the children, so I became softer, then I was told my voice was not assertive enough. I couldn’t use my own tactics to gain the children’s attention, there was a school policy to tinkle a wind chime, which most children seemed to ignore at the best of times. Another school policy was to only ever point out the positive behaviour of children, which sounds great, until you have 15 out of 30 children talking and you’re only pointing out the positive behaviour of a few children whilst the rest ignore you. You weren’t allowed to ask a child to stop talking, you had to find another child in the class to celebrate as a good example for the other children, who are comfortably ignoring your attempts to quieten them with a soft but assertive voice.

One of the children in that class was particularly troublesome, he used to throw pencils, steal other children’s stationary and spend most of his time trying to distract the other children. I learnt that his parents recently went through a tough divorce which he wasn’t handling well for understandable reasons. This kind of child is the very reason I went into education. I didn’t want children to feel forgotten in the system or to be simply a statistic. I believe that teaching is more then simple fact regurgitating, but actually about developing little human beings to be able to cope with moving into a complex society. With this child, he needed more social interaction, especially with adults where his only recent experience was of aggression, disruption, neglect and trauma. What I wanted was to see him be given a little space from the robustly structured curriculum and for him to spend more time developing the emotional intelligence to cope with his fractured environment. Unfortunately, the school policy demands completion of his class work. My tactic to try and compromise with both approaches was to keep him on his desk during carpet time and spend as much time getting to know this boy, to give him enough attention and support during his classwork and to allow him to express his emotions. I even met with his mother and discussed his behaviour. He had a difficult day in class throwing pencils, stealing toys and throwing books. He hadn’t completed much work. She told me she would punish him and made it clear that she always punishes her children. I advised her that I thought this was counter-productive and suggested instead a few getting-to-know-you games and spending as much quality time with him as possible.

The next day I had an impromptu sit-down meeting with my class teacher, who pulled me aside to make it clear that “it had been noticed” that I was giving this boy an unnatural amount of attention which had raised warning flags with members of staff . Any teacher, especially a male teacher in primary education, will understand that this is a terrifying thing to be told. Even though there wasn’t any specific allegation, it caused me to completely panic about trying to build any professional relationships with any of the children for the rest of placement. Something counter-intuitive to my entire education philosophy. To my horror, she had also sat in front of my university tutor and failed me on my ability to interact with parents. Apparently, this child was on a behaviour monitoring system I was not made aware of, which was being deliberately doctored so that the parent only ever received positive news. My truthful dialogue and advice were different to the information given by the school. From then on, I was meant to ignore this boy and just accept his behaviour and follow the school policy which involved several visits to the “calm corner” where he had a behaviour card which he was meant to read and reflect on, the same card he used to chuck as soon as he sat down and proceed to jump on the chair and start throwing pencils again.

The worst period was straight after break or lunchtime. The children are meant to line up in front of the teacher on the playground before walking back to class. In my previous experiences, I used to wait until the children were quiet and settled before walking calmly to lesson. This helps with the transition between playground and classroom learning. However, this school had a policy of “get the children in as quickly as possible” and deal with the behaviour once in the classroom. I was explicitly (and hyperbolically) told during a meeting when I raised this issue “we’re not the military, we don’t expect our children to frog march into class!”

So, by my final lessons, I’m walking into the class with an energetic rabble behind me – children shouting, running, wrestling – I stand back as the children fly past me through the door. By the time I’m inside I’m watching what can only be described as an anarchic zoo, I’m tinkling these wind chimes which by now 90% of the children are ignoring, I’m desperately trying to gain control using my “don’t scare the children” soft voice, but only pointing out the positive behaviour of the two children sitting quietly as chaos reigns around them. The boy I was working with has proceeded to throw things at the other children, but I’m having to ignore his behaviour due to it being too “unnatural” to give him too much attention. Before attempting to teach all these five-year-olds six different mathematical concepts which they have to finish otherwise the children, school and myself all fail to keep up with appropriate progression.

My final meeting involves the worst grilling I’ve had in any job. I’m sitting whilst my class teacher highlights several areas in which I’m failing, watching seven years of positive experiences and a developed confidence go up in flames. I had fallen so far from my initial successful lesson. My “Tiki” phonics lesson involving sixty happy children rushing around a Polynesian themed sports hall, was still not enough to convince the class teacher not to fail me on my ability to inspire and motivate children in learning.

I hate moaning, but I literally have had positive experiences from all my jobs in education. I’ve received glowering references from every school I’ve worked in. But this school which destroyed me has convinced me never to teach in England again. If this is an example of an “outstanding school” then I don’t want to be part of that system. Ironically, I received a teaching qualification recognised round the world but didn’t achieve qualified status to teach in comprehensive schools in England. Since that traumatic experience I’ve worked in a short-term contract for an international school where I was presented an award for my creative teaching and dedication. I’ve now moved abroad and found further success, featuring in a national education magazine for my innovative lesson plans.

My advice to prospective teachers is that an “outstanding school”, based on our  government’s narrow definition of success, may be exactly the opposite of what you are trying to achieve as a professional educator. I also write this to demonstrate the awful direction education is going down in our country, where Ofsted completely misses the values of  holistic education. Literacy standards may be improving, but this heavy handed approach is turning away teachers, creating a recruitment crisis and ramping up a mental health epidemic in our schools for our children.

Tribalism is making this the most demoralizing General Election.

 

I wish I could have more hope with the upcoming General Election, Jeremy Corbyn is by far the most exciting leader in my lifetime, and although this should fill me with the  same giddy excitement of a One Direction fan winning a VIP tour to Harry Styles’s dressing room, I feel utterly demoralized. For the older generation, replace One Direction with Take That and Harry Styles with Gary Barlow. For my Labour friends in my constituency, replace One Direction with the Beatles, and Harry Styles with Paul Mccartney. 

Why should I feel gutted at the prospect of a General Election with one of the best leaders in my lifetime taking part? Because for the first time since joining the Labour party, my militant marching orders are to support Labour without a shred of critique, or a measure of cynicism. Do the Lib-Dems have any good ideas? No, no matter what policy they have, they are traitors, yellow Tories with no heart and a blood thirsty attitude towards poor people. How about the Greens, surely their lefty policies rub the right way with Labour supporters? Absolutely not, the Greens are crazy crusties with no hope of any power, and Caroline Lucas should really support Labour because we are right and she is wrong. This is literally the level we are at now. Corbyn’s hopeful “inclusive” politics, seems to only be inclusive if you’re part of Labour, otherwise you belong in Theresa May’s basement, eating the leftover crumbs of stolen primary school meals.

I grew up with Liberal Democrat parents, my mother as a councillor, and my father who is pretty much part of the woodwork which make up the foundations of the party. They worked closely with Paddy Ashdown during the Liberal Democrat renaissance of the 1990’s. My sister, a passionate scientist fighting for the environment, and tackling climate change, has worked with Caroline Lucas of the Greens. My mother and I have joined Labour, and are passionate about Jeremy Corbyn and his policies. If you heard any of us discuss politics around the dinner table, our differences in opinion are very subtle, nuanced and specific. We are all polar opposites to UKIP and the Conservative party. As are the parties actually policies if anyone bothers to actually check.

Here’s a few examples borrowed from each manifesto.

  NHS

Labour:

  “We will end health service privatisation and bring services into a secure, publicly-provided NHS. We will integrate the NHS and social care for older and disabled people, funding dignity across the board and ensure parity for mental health services.”

 

Lib-dems:

 “The Liberal Democrats will put an end to these sweetheart deals, block PFI contracts, prevent privatisation of the NHS through the back door and increase NHS funding each year”

We need services that fit around people’s lives, not ones that force them to fit their lives around the care they need. We must move away from a fragmented system to an integrated service with more joined-up care.

 

Greens:

  We will fight for a fair deal for those needing health care by opposing cuts, closures and privatisation and by demanding a full programme of locally accessible services.In particular, we will maintain the principle of a free NHS by implementing in England and Wales the scheme that provides free social care to the elderly in Scotland.

All these parties support the reinstatement of nurse’s bursaries.

So not much difference here, maybe some nuanced differences on funding, but essentially the same goal compare to the Tories; who want more privatisation, social care paid for by forcing people to sell their houses, along with UKIP who believe the NHS is a monolithic hangover of days gone by.

Then we look at domestic politics. Many lefty media outlets praised Labour’s manifesto as Keynesian, I wonder if they and Liberals understand that John Maynard Keynes was actually a Liberal? That investing in an economy in recession is how you grow the economy, rather than floating it on credit card debt? Well the Liberals have now clarified they would boost the economy with a major program of capital investment aimed at stimulating growth across the UK; Labour will take advantage of near- record low interest rates to create a National Transformation Fund that will invest £250 billion over ten years in upgrading our economy; and the Greens have stated “With scant evidence of the kind of strong recovery expected after previous post-war recessions, it’s time to admit that austerity in the UK has failed and that an alternative approach of significant investment to reduce the deficit is needed”

Obviously there are differences in how you invest in the economy between the progressive parties, but compare that to the Conservatives who are tripling private debt, decimating public services, and ramping up privatization in every corner of the country; why split each others votes in this election because of such trivial differences?

The Conservatives won just 24.3% of the population over last general election, why the hell do they deserve any kind of majority? If all the progressive parties had allied last election, they would have received 49% of the national vote. There is no guarantee that voters would switch, but why shouldn’t they? Considering the damage to the country done by this current slim Tory majority? And voters won’t switch on mass unless their supported party leads them that way.

What are the real dividing lines that stop a progressive alliance? For the Lib-Dems, it’s Labour’s position on Europe. Ironically for many in the Labour party the dividing lines in supporting Corbyn is his position on Europe. Personally, I’m immensely disappointed by Labour’s policy to accept Brexit for what it is, and given that Labour supporters voted 65% to remain, a significant majority in the party must, at some level, be feeling the same resentment. Tactically it hasn’t paid off either,  losing a lot of Remain voters to other parties, and lots of Leave voters to the Conservatives. So what’s the point in pretending Labour want to accept the Brexit result, when it’s neither honest nor tactically useful. At least in a progressive alliance, many in the Labour party would feel quite comfortable compromising for another vote on a Brexit deal, or at least staying in the Single Market.

For us in Labour, I would press the Liberals to fully endorse an anti-austerity program. From my experience Liberals are far more radical than the public notice, it’s always the hierarchy who caution patience, a cowardly tactical ploy to always appear in a mythical center ground, defining themselves from the other parties instead of focusing on their own beliefs. I cannot understand why re-nationalizing natural monopolies is not just a socialist ideal, but always a liberal one? You cannot empower people without taking them out of poverty either, so the Liberals should be far more on board with an anti-austerity program. Again if Labour compromised on Europe, something the party naturally wants, surely the Liberals can compromise by backing up a strong investment package? Which the party naturally wants!?

Now for many politically active, pro-European, Liberal Lefties, such as myself, I feel completely at odds and impotent In doing anything in this election. This tribalism is completely toxic for all people involved. Politics should be about values, policies, principles and morals, It shouldn’t be treated as religious, as many left of the Conservatives are doing now. Yes Corbyn is fantastic, but so is Caroline Lucas, and Farron’s defense of internationalism, refugees and civil rights, is equally inspiring. Nicola Sturgeon is also one of the biggest thorns in the current Conservative government . I see all these people as great politicians, but I must only support one, otherwise I’m a traitor to my cause. Not because I am against the policies, but because I don’t don my red rosette and demonize all the other progressive political parties simply because they are not Labour.

If you are truly inclusive, accepting of diversity, and passionately democratic, you cannot put all your hopes for a progressive future in one party. Under Blair, Cameron and May, every MP received their marching orders. You do as your told, or face sitting on the backbenches for the rest of your term. How can you defend a system which is effectively a democratic dictatorship? At least in coalition, people had to work to convince each other to vote for policies. You didn’t just have to turn up, vote with the whip, claim your expenses and salary, then go home again. Bearing in mind that over two thirds of European countries have proportional systems and continuous coalitions, and a reminder for the socialists in this country, that Corbyn’s type of politics is most prevalent  in European countries where there is proportional voting.

It’s far too late to ask candidates to withdraw, or have open talks with other parties. I ask as a passionate Labour supporter, to understand that by simply being in the Labour party doesn’t qualify you as morally superior, or politically more competent. That other progressive parties care as much about fixing social injustice and inequality as we do, with slightly different solutions to how to solve It. We can’t change what will happen this general election, but unless by some miracle we beat the Conservatives, we have to grow out of this primitive tribal politics, acknowledge the elephant in the room, and do something about the voting system if you care about the future of this country.

Theresa May has left us no choice but to ban Trump from his state visit.

Theresa May has left us no choice but to ban Trump from visiting the UK.

As the petition to stop Trump on a state visit, reaches over the million mark, the country is split 3 ways; a very slim minority with Islamophobic views, represented by our own deplorables from the darkest shades of Brexit phenomena; critics that disagree with Trump, but have the liberal values to at least give him a platform; and ardent critics of Trump who want to fully protest Trump’s values and policies in the loudest way possible.

I always believe that giving people a platform is important; we cannot force people away from debates because we think they’re wrong to have a certain opinion. This leads down the dark path of authoritarianism, the kind which put people like Stalin and Hitler in power.

During the build up to the 2009 general election, the BNP were gaining slowly in popularity, they managed to gain 2 MEP’s in the European Parliament, we thought then it was a scary time for politics! One memorable Question Time appearance by BNP leader Nick Griffin saw an abrupt end to any rise, and xenophobic nationalists fled to hide under a more covert banner with UKIP. Nick Griffin basically made a fool of himself, quoting memorably that he wanted better rights for British people who had been living in the country since the dawn of time, which to anyone with a remote grasp on our history, is palpably absurd. This is a great example of why you should debate everyone from any background, don’t let hate fester in the shadows where it builds credibility by being ignored by “mainstream media”.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4iKfrY9l2kY&spfreload=10

Surely one of the biggest winners of festering, dark shadow, conspiracy propaganda is Donald Trump. With the superficial and sensationalist mainstream media in the US, it’s understandable why people seek new sources for their information. But when people are pushed away from the regulated, centre ground of information sources, in our days of social media and the internet, they can get mopped up by any wondering lunatic with a Youtube channel or blog. In the run up to his election, Trump used information provided by the white supremacy news outlet Breitbart, and Alex Jones who regularly had stories about Obama being a real live demon.

So surely we should have him here to debate, or be interviewed by a Paxman or O’Brien who can hold his feet to the fire. Naturally I would definitely want him to have a platform, but we’re living in un-natural times. Brexit is a cliff-edge we’re all facing, whether you’ve opened your eyes yet or not. Leaving our main trading block of 28 countries, the Tories pretend everything will rosy, but in reality we have nowhere else to turn too, then the sweaty orange backside of an ego-maniac with a protectionist agenda. So Trump doesn’t represent all of America, of course he doesn’t, he lost the popular vote by 3 million people. However, we have to remember it is him in charge, and he’s leading a particularly ominous pack of rabid republicans, they will dictate terms of trade, and we will have little choice over what they will demand from us. Think access to our national healthcare, lower quality GM food, chlorine soaked chickens, and products made from prison slave labour.

So this doesn’t exactly answer why we should block him from coming, but it does show why Theresa May has to act submissive and friendly, to a man blocking women’s reproductive rights, cancelling climate change agreements, blocking entire countries from travelling to the US based purely on religion (unless they do deals with Trump’s business interests), endorsing the use of torture and breaking international law, and insulting Europeans, Asians, and Arabs as the rotten cherry on the cake.

The question is, should we British people really forsake our privileged position, as friends and equals to our European neighbours, simply to suck up to a man who is currently feeding our western values into the shredder previously used by dictators across history?

I sincerely hope not, I still believe we are a society better than this. And if Theresa May won’t stick up for the values of diversity, tolerance and liberty, which really make the backbone of our culture, than we have too. We have a lot of catching up to do with our damaged reputation across the world, lets show them what we’re really made of, and send a message.

Let’s ban the thin-skinned, sexist, racist, narcissist from coming here, sign below.

https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/171928

We’re stuck in the Land of Brexit Blues. We need more than ever for Labour to gain a brain, the Lib-Dems to gain courage, and moderate Conservatives to gain a heart.

Post referendum, we’re stuck in the Land of Brexit Blues. Now more than ever we need moderate Conservatives to gain a heart, Labour to gain a brain and the Lib-Dems to gain some Courage, if we are to get out of the tornado that bought us here.

As 2016 comes to a close, I’m sure we can all agree, we’re in need of some respite and mind-numbing quantities of fattening food and alcohol, before the horrible day comes when we finally start the process of leaving the European Union; a bit like prison inmates being given whatever dish they like, before sitting in an electric chair. As I write this, and I can hear the whispered murmurs of Daily Express readers,“Remoaner, talking the country down!!”. Well whatever way you spin it, the economic and social development prospects of this country look about as appetizing as cat sick. Let’s look at the facts:
Drop in value of the pound wiped 1.5 trillion – yes trillion – pounds off of house hold income in the UK. Households in Turkey and Columbia fared better than we did.
http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/investing/article-3979306/Investors-struggle-grasp-effect-pound-s-fall-Brexit.html, investment

Investment of up to £65 Billion has been abandoned by local and foreign companies
http://news.sky.com/story/business-investments-worth-163655bn-abandoned-after-brexit-vote-10657282

A significant rise in race hate crime, up by 41% since the referendum.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/brexit-hate-crimes-racism-eu-referendum-vote-attacks-increase-police-figures-official-a7358866.html

So off to the land of Brexit Blues we go, the good news is we managed to kill one wicked character on arrival; Mr Farage is now politically irrelevant, and after bemoaning foreign politicians taking part in the Brexit referendum, has taken it upon himself to make speeches for Donald Trump and be his diplomatic adviser. A note for the Americans, you’re welcome too him!

Now we take the first steps on the yellow brick road towards the Emerald city of the new Tory cabinet, whereupon we meet the mystic wizard, or in this case Boris Johnson our foreign secretary; who states he has a great plan for getting out of this Brexit situation, we’re just not allowed to know yet, and we should just trust him and his merry band of idiots for leading us on this path in the first place. In the story of the Wizard of Oz, the wizard turns out to be a fraud, just a simple old man. Well in this case Boris Johnson has definitely been not only a fraud, but a colossal buffoon who has endangered this country, simply to become the leader of the losing side in Brexit, and become Prime Minister. Boris has always been a life-long supporter of the EU, who saw a political chance, gambling with the future of our country, and is now busy insulting his way through every country he visits.

Back to our story, and our destiny as a county, first we need to topple the Wicked Witch of the West (Theresa May) who plots to steal our various worker’s rights.

https://www.theguardian.com/law/2016/nov/07/doubts-cast-on-theresa-mays-pledge-to-protect-workers-rights-post-brexit

Sadly there is no bucket of water to melt this witch in real life, we’ve already lost our privacy freedom with the Snoopers Charter, and post Article 50, be fully ready to lose further freedoms and human rights. Not only does Theresa May believe in watching our every move, cataloging internet browser history, but she has always wanted to deport foreigners to countries where they could be killed and tortured; Priti Patel (Secretary of State for International Development) wants to bring back hanging, and other forms of capital punishment; Liz Truss (Justice secretary) wants to restrict legal aid; Christ Grayling (Transport Secretary) wants a ban on giving prisoners books ( which has since been deemed unlawful by the High Court), Cut legal aid (by up to 30% in some cases, which led to the first ever barristers’ strike), Introduce a flat-fee court charge and back the choice of bed and breakfast owners to refuse gay couple patron. The rest of the party are dangerously worse.

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/jun/05/snoopers-charter-most-britons-unaware-tory-plans

With the far right holding the reins of the Tory party, the Conservatives continuously fearful of the UKIP threat and their compatriots on the Tory back-benchers, it’s time for moderates and the left to stop fighting each other, and sail us out of this Brexit mess.

Labour under Corbyn – the Tinman – need to start acting sensibly, they need to gain a brain. I’m extremely fond of Jeremy Corbyn, his unequivocal political philosophy is the most refreshing touch to politics I’ve seen for decades. The issue is that flat-out honesty is a very difficult position to take when you’re trying to win a general election. If you actually look at his policies they are very popular among-st the general public:

• Increased funding for the NHS
• Higher education grants
• Re-nationalization of the public services
• Building social housing
• Rent caps
• Increased tax on the wealthy, as well as challenging tax evasion.
• Protection of human rights
• Environmental business funding

Only 13% of the population believe austerity is a good idea, supporting the cuts; 22% believe that cuts should continue at a slower rate, and 45% believe directly in the policies of Jeremy Corbyn’s Labour, even if they don’t support the party.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/jeremy-corbyn-media-policies-labour_uk_57fe651be4b0010a7f3da76b

So why is Labour so low in the polls?

An Independent investigation found that 75% of media sources in the UK are deliberately biased against Jeremy Corbyn. They rarely focus on anything of substance, more about how many gaffs they can find in a simply out-and-out, vehement, character assassination campaign. His passion for helping vulnerable people can also be a barrier to votes, with the general public having a fairly right wing approach to welfare, immigration and criminal punishment. Again a symptom of the rampant and deliberately dishonest right wing media; how many stories in the Daily Mail start with “ Benefit claimant with 8 kids has mansion” or some other crap.

But this isn’t why I think Corbyn’s Labour need to gain a brain; I simply want Corbyn’s team to recognize the need for a smarter dialogue with the media, and the general public. The team devoted to spin in his office consistently get this wrong; who can forget when Corbyn sat down on a train, because he couldn’t find a seat, not that he was lying, but the media then developed multiple stories discrediting, and in very few cases supporting, his integrity and honesty, and everyone missed the point he was making about re-nationalizing transport.

When talking about foreign dictators like Castro, despite the good work Castro did redistributing wealth, providing healthcare and education, he did brutally murder his opponents. Corbyn called murder his flaws as a dictator. Now if he HAS to have an opinion that he can’t help but tell the media, given the tendency of the media to conflate Corbyn as a communist, couldn’t he have led with “Castro was a dictator who is guilty of murdering his opponents” rather than open himself up to media scrutiny?

Now over Brexit, the only time they try to hide their true feelings – which are pro-European – to behave tactically ambivalent, they fundamentally get their strategy wrong. For one thing opinion has actually changed in this country over the Brexit referendum. 7% of the Leave vote regret their voting choice, and that number is getting bigger every day, as well as the number of young people now eligible to vote, if we were to run the referendum again – maybe with an honest campaign from LeaveEU this time – we would see at least 56% of the country voting to remain.

I’m not saying Labour need to come out and say we should hold another referendum, unfortunately that would be electoral suicide, but to comprehensively say “we need to stay in the Single Market” would be a good start. Something Corbyn and Mcdonnell haven’t been able to do.

Now the Scarecrow who needs a heart; the moderate, pro-European Conservatives. As much as I dislike the direction of the Conservative party, I have found it interesting learning about the few Tories who have genuine political philosophies, rather than simply a centuries old movement to benefit only rich people.

After the Tories have systematically ripped up the manufacturing industry over the last few decades, they created the country’s wealth by being a center for world trade, and apart from the disastrous connections with a toxic American banking sector, this was fundamentally a major source of wealth coming into our country. The ironic thing is that our unique position in the European Union was the foundation to our economy, if any country couldn’t afford to give up trade treaties, it’s actually us. This is in stark contrast to the Brexiters who make up 76% of the Tory base, and a 3^rd of Conservative MPs. They, like their cousins in UKIP, hate the regulations on trade which protect worker’s rights and the environment and the freedom-of-movement for European citizens. The irony is we would be better prepared for Brexit if the Tories hadn’t destroyed our manufacturing base, and now it’s the same Tories who want us to leave the main source of our countries GDP.

The ideology of right-wing, hard-Brexit campaigners, is we will continue as a country, but we’ll force those at the bottom to work longer hours, with fewer rights, on low pay; for the benefit of corporations which will only stay in the country if they are offered extreme tax breaks. My appeal to the Tories, who don’t want to see the moral fabric of society burnt at the altar of destructive neo-liberalism, is too loudly call out the absolute lunacy of their back benches, and be an ever present thorn in the side of Theresa May. I know this is going on behind closed doors in Cabinet meetings, but bringing the flawed logic and lack of a Brexit plan to the public, would greatly increase the chances we have to save the country.

Last but not least, we have Tim ‘nice but dim’ Farron. The lion who needs courage. Now, many of the Lib-Dems I know will cry “he’s the only one firmly Pro-EU!”, but it’s not brave for the Lib-Dems to take this stance. They know full well that having public support of 9% in the polls, there is no risk in coming out as fully pro-European, making that their flagship policy. And I can’t necessarily blame them; this is a “smart” move unlike Labour. But for every other policy the Lib-Dems are incredibly silent, they know having any other views in media spotlight might hold them back, or distract from their main aim. The only issue I find is that Tim is focusing all his attacks on Labour, attempting to entice disillusioned Labour supporters to the Lib-Dem ranks. I find this very strange, considering Corbyn’s Labour share far more ‘Liberal’ values then the kind of Labour moderates who support ID cards, the Snoopers Charter, and the centralization of power.

The real issue is our voting system, which divides anyone left of the Tories, leaving the Tories a majority of MPs despite only having 25% of the population voting for them. Now I understand Labour’s faults in behaving tribally, but with 27% public approval, the time is right for the Lib-Dems to start forging a progressive alliance. Tim Farron once stated directly to me, that Corbyn was too toxic to form a coalition, yet hadn’t any ammunition as to why, other then I guess Farron’s weak servitude towards a biased right-wing press. If his excuse is Corbyn’s ambivalence towards the Single Market, what better policy would it be, in bringing the parties together, if remaining in the Single Market (and proportional representation) were the foundation to any agreements? Labour moderates would love it, and so would Corbyn’s base, which on the whole favor EU market access and a better voting system. Tim Farron would have to be brave enough to extend the hand of solidarity to Labour, and promote his party’s Liberal values proudly from the rooftops to show the parties distinction from Labour and everyone else, instead of burying them, hidden, in case of media scrutiny.

It’s time to wrestle back control of this country from the minority of right-wing nutters that are hell-bent in dragging our country back to the Victorian age, economically and socially.  But it will take far more cooperation to get us back to the Britain we used to be proud of. Or…. we fight each other, risking staying in the land of Brexit Blues forever.

Corbyn, Stein, and the Left’s Anti-Imperialism Problem

If you ask the British people what they think about Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn’s policies, it’s clear that any skepticism they may have about his economic agenda is far surpassed…

Source: Corbyn, Stein, and the Left’s Anti-Imperialism Problem

If you don’t oppose austerity, you don’t represent a credible opposition to the Conservative party.

So Corbyn wins again, the chicken coup rebellion by 70% of MPs and 10 MEP’s failed miserably and Corbyn gained an even greater mandate than he did previously. Small clusters of MPs have been rebelling against him as soon as he approached Labour’s headquarters In London. No other Labour leader has faced the shear animosity Corbyn faced within the first few weeks of his election.  If you combine that with the Independent’s study citing that 75% of media coverage has either deliberately misrepresented him, or simply waged a character assassination ignoring anything politically relevant – who can forget the stories about him not singing the national anthem, or not bowing low enough during a memorial service? – is there any wonder the members responded with stubborn resistance, which on rare occasions became aggressive?.

But to justify my opening statement, let’s look back to the reasons this country is in an economic and social mess; and I implore his critics to at least come up with some viable alternative policies, rather than repeat the same superficial abstract platitudes, that the right wing media uses.

Like most of my quibbles with Britain’s current predicaments, it seems that our most of my issues start with one person –cue the groans of Corbyn critics – yes you guessed it, Margaret Thatcher. The 1983 Big Bang was the start of a sudden deregulation of financial markets, coincidental (or not) with the same free market neo-liberal policy of deregulation by Ronald Reagan.  Combined with the lack of state investment in any public infrastructure, Thatcher’s focus was to make London retain its place as the financial capital of the world, and thus make our economy entirely reliant on a financial services sector in London. The only issue is that these financial institutions opened the floodgates to foreign investment, and all independent building societies and separate merchant banks where absorbed by universal banks and investment banking units. The practice of the financial sector changed dramatically, rather than smaller institutions investing in highly strategized safe projects, these big high street banks and foreign companies started gambling at risk, in a monetized feeding frenzy. Blair and Brown continued this trend of deregulation, something Labour “moderates” and Mr Tim Farron should recognize before leaping to defend the previous Labour Government.

Ok so you’re already bored aren’t you? Trust me it gets far more complex, but the gist of it is basically that our financial services became internationally entwined with the US, and this paved the way to the 2007/8 global financial crash. Once bad and risky loans were being bundled with safe investments (Collateralized Debt Obligations) then bought and sold across the world, this eventually led to the mass repossession of homes and ultimately crashed the value of housing , and the backbone of financial shares across the world. The greed of high street bankers destroyed lives, the same lives which are being crushed under austerity, whilst the perpetrators of the crash are now wealthier than ever before.  We bailed out our banks to the tune of 124 billion pounds in cash, and 333 billion pounds in the form of guarantees, where the Government will only provide cash if things go badly wrong.Now having read into this I could go on for hours about the implications of bailing out banks to this amount, because of the calamitous loans they themselves invested in. There are some atrocious stories about banks demanding to be privatized before paying back any money owed to the British government. Throw in a Brexit to this scenario and we go from a complex situation, to an all-around cluster-fuck, but that’s for another blog.

My point to all this is, why have we all bought into austerity as an excuse for a political strategy? especially considering that these cuts have hurt the most vulnerable in society and the Tories are in the process of systematically destroying the public services sector, all of which bear no responsibility for the greed and recklessness of the financial sector and the incompetence of previous governments. Tim Farron at the Liberal Democrat conference proclaimed that the Lib-Dems will become the official opposition as Labour is un-electable under Corbyn (fairly bold for a man leading a party with 8 MPs), and praised Tony Blair for his leadership, the man who not only led the way to further financial deregulation, but also introduced privatization into health, education, and that’s without mentioning the Iraq war.

Ironically, the talismanic, mystic and all round economic wizard Vince Cable – once favoured by the British public as being more competent with economics then Brown and Osborne – stated before the coalition the importance of investment over austerity as an economic policy. In fact one of history’s prominent economists (a lifelong member of the Liberal party) John Maynard Keynes, whose ideas led the revolution to modern day liberalism, stated the importance of saving in surplus and spending in recession. Yet during the coalition parliament Vince Cable changed his tune to support cuts to public services, excusing this attitude by blaming Labour’s  previous economic policies, incidentally ignoring the fact that deregulation of the financial industry started with the Conservatives, his partners’ in coalition . To this day on the Liberal Democrat website, their economic policy is still to inflict “necessary” austerity. Since the coalition, Vince Cable has expressed regret at defending the Liberal Democrats approach to coalition in regards to the economy, it turns out he was locked out of negotiations by Clegg, Alexander and Laws. Not as united on policy as Lib-Dems would like you to believe.

And now on to the so called ‘moderate’ wing of the Labour party. I was never a fan of Miliband’s Labour, ironically because I thought they were useless in opposition, always abstaining on any progressive policy put forward by the coalition and failing to show any enthusiasm for changing the voting system, something that could have dramatically changed the following general election, and may have averted a Brexit situation. The problem with old ‘New’ Labour is their obsession with electability, and their belief that principles can, and should be left at the gate, if you want to get to the corridors of political power.  This is fundamentally a toxic ideology, and why Blair should not be used as an example of a Labour party success story, given his close ties with the Murdoch media empire, and the neo-liberal policies which led to the recession and started the privatization of public assets.

And then after the slim majority win by David Cameron in 2015, with the crushed Lib-Dems and the meteoric rise of the SNP, acting leader Harriet Harman decided not to vote against the new welfare bill, restricting children’s tax credits, driving thousands of families into poverty. Yvette Cooper, Andy Burnham and Liz Kendell all advocated their limp leadership values based around an “austerity-lite” ideal, believing that what the public really need after consecutive years of public sector cuts, cuts to welfare, and pay freezes, is more public sector cuts, cuts to welfare, and pay freezes. All justified because both the Conservatives, then New Labour, messed with a global financial system, promoting greed at the expense of any egalitarian values.

And then we have Corbyn, the only leader advocating public investment, and harder regulations on the financial industry, the only leader (apart from Caroline Lucas of the Greens) who is anti-austerity. And this is painted as a mad, Trotskite/Communist belief by mainstream media, Labour moderates and Liberal Democrats? Don’t you think a little blame could go to the mad free market basket cases who caused the financial mess in the first place?

What’s worse is that Momentum and Corbyn supporters are now being demonized, vilified and misrepresented by the same self-righteous, facetious political pundits, whose only criticisms are superficial and sometimes simply based around gutter journalism. I understand skepticism from a self-serving Conservative, but anyone ‘Left’ of the Tories needs to actually have a little perspective, and stop treating us like idiots, and maybe, just maybe, talk about actual policies?.

The main criticism is that Jeremy Corbyn is un-electable, even if his critics can never fully explain why. My point all along is the now famous Jo Cox line “We have far more in common, than that which divides us”. If the Lib-Dems, and Labour moderates could focus more on their actual belief systems, go back to the drawing board and rediscover their own moral compasses again, rather than stick their finger in the wind to guess public opinion based around right wing media sources, then maybe they could see how many policies we have in common, especially in contrast to the Conservative party. Combine that with a pledge to change our voting system, and a focus on simply defeating the Tories in the interim, we could have real change in this country.

It’s time to stop the overt snobbery and contemptuous rhetoric against Corbyn. My plea to anyone left of the Conservative party is to start seeing who the real enemy is.

Grammar schools are an entrenchment of privilege and should belong in the past.

Grammar schools are an entrenchment of privilege and should belong in the past.

Theresa May has unveiled proposals to lift the ban on Grammar Schools banned by Tony Blair in 1997 – although at the time 167 schools were allowed to keep selective education. She also has stated that there will be an annual £50 million to support the creation of new Grammar Schools, as well as allowing current academies and free schools to introduce academic selection for enrolment.
The original creation of Grammar Schools in 1944, known as the “Butler Act” under the Conservative politician R.A.Butler, was hailed as a social revolution. It hailed a change in history when parents didn’t have to pay fees for their child’s education. You have to imagine a time when you had to pay for your children to attend a secondary state school after the age of 13, and money basically paid for the kind of future they’d live; not that this doesn’t happen now, but the distinctive lines of class were drawn  far more clearly in the sand back then . The system split education in 3 ways based around the 11+ examinations: Grammar schools for academics, Technical colleges for agriculture, engineering, and crafts, and secondary moderns for the rest. Again at the time this was part of a social revolution, suddenly fees were paid by the state, and there was a genuine chance for social mobility which was welcomed by all political parties. Ironically once upon a time, the Conservative party had values and idealism, whether you disagree with them or not, they had hard principles which distinguish them from the party of wealthy interests we see today.

However, the paternalistic idealism of Butler – and to some extent Labour at the time – failed to build many technical schools  , and allowed for a new form of class division in the resulting bipartisan system. Funding was unequal between schools, with grammar schools enjoying the lion’s share. Secondary Moderns perversely languished in the poorest areas in the country; resources were stretched to such an extent that a lot of schools used primary school furniture to get by and staff turnover was a continuous revolving door.

This doesn’t alone explain why grammar schools are a bad idea,  just that comprehensives should have no reduction in support. The real problem is the concept of segregating children based on a basic interpretation of intelligence.  It’s all very well creating a supposed meritocratic system in education, but unless your testing is varied , innovative, and complex, you are basically allowing a significant hand-up to a child who is simply exceptional at Maths and English.  Not only that , but you’re giving a golden handshake to children who pass these tests at 11 years old, not taking into account the variation in children’s development, emotionally, intellectually and socially at this age.

So let’s ignore history for a second, and pretend that suddenly the Tories have grown a conscience for publically funded education and social mobility, despite the damage they’ve done since David Cameron became Prime Minister. Let’s also imagine that the testing for Grammar Schools is fluid through all ages up to 18, and that it’s varied to take into account a range of abilities. Would grammar schools then be ok?

For me those problems still don’t underline the whole issue with segregation, and the ability for sharp-elbowed middle class families to rule the roost over school admissions. Even with my own family history, grammar schools divided people. There are thousands of stories where brothers and sisters become separated based on academic ability and sometimes those scars never heal.  How do you tell an 11 year old that they’ve already failed at an opportunity to change their life? There is also the issue that working class children will be up against the driven middle class parents who will not only pay for private tuition but regularly move to areas where their children’s chances of a Grammar School place is greatly increased. Wealthy parents also see the economic advantage of getting their child a Grammar School place, to avoid paying the high prices of private schools.

The worst part is yet to come however, as there are proposals to allow academies to become grammar schools, or at least have the freedom of a selection policy. School places are in total disarray around the country, as the Conservatives have created a centralised system which doesn’t take into account local issues, and is woefully bad in placing children around the country into their school of choice. Any complaint about admissions, instead of the previous system which was controlled by the local council, now has to be made to the office of the schools adjudicator, in London. So much for the devolved power Tories harp on about.

Now imagine a situation where academies can become grammar schools, and why wouldn’t they? You can guarantee good grades by cherry picking the smartest children in the area, but you would also force local children who don’t make the grade to travel to a worse school further away because they didn’t pass a maths exam at 11 years old. And how would admissions work then? With free schools, academies, and grammar schools all having their own selection policy? I can imagine the remaining underfunded state comprehensives turning into super-sized schools to allow enough places for the remaining children, stacking classes with 40+ children per teacher; sadly we can see this situation happening already without the added grammar school issue.

Personally I think Theresa May’s speech is an insult to comprehensive schools and the teachers that work there. I have experience working in a school with no sets, where children of all abilities share a class together through the years, and the teachers are skilful enough to push the lowest ability children without it affecting the highest achievers. In fact the school received the highest grades in the surrounding area. This is also a testament to the main ethos: that children learn the most productively when you take into account their social, personal and academic needs. These are all as important as each other and loosely resemble the famous Finnish model of education, where children achieve the highest levels of results in the world.

Our children benefit from sharing their education with a variety of abilities, as well as culture and religion. Social mobility is about building bridges not walls.

The Post Brexit Game of Thrones. Why we need to take control.

After a week of mourning and aggressive outbursts, combined with the removal of several friends on my Facebook, I have finally calmed down over Brexit; but the political dust storm certainly has not settled in this country, let alone the rest of the world.

I did tell a lot of people to get stuffed, and am still considering leaving a political passion for the birds, it’s consumed my parents for their entire lives, I’m not sure If I want it to do the same to me.

But now I’ve picked up my toys I threw out of the pram, and the dummy is back in place, I think now it’s important to acknowledge – in my opinion – the elephant in the room.

First let’s look at what do we know at the moment?

1. Remain campaigners are passionately marching in London
2. A majority of Leave voters are sticking to their guns, although 1.2 million according to Opinium online market researcher have now changed their minds.

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-news-second-eu-referendum-leave-voters-regret-bregret-choice-in-millions-a7113336.html

 

3. The Conservatives have begun their search for a new Prime Minister, the choice is now the far right nutter, or the far far right nutter. I think we may even miss David Cameron if either May or Gove get elected. They’ve already stabbed Boris in the back, whom I sense was actually relieved to not clean up the mess he significantly helped create.
4. Labour moderates have rebelled on mass, 170 to 40 voted a no confidence motion. But this is in stark contrast to the grass-roots, where Corbyn holds a mandate from 60% of the labour membership.
5. And the Lib-Dems who are united, are not trying to build a progressive alliance with anyone who is “left” of the Tories, but tactically only looking to persuade Labour moderates to join their party instead. Despite the fact that Labour moderates tend to have a more authoritarian stance then liberal, which would undoubtedly create rifts with left-leaning Liberals, or radicals as they like to be known.
6. Greens are in disarray but loosely backing Corbyn
7. UKIP are resting on their laurels, and look a little perplexed at what to do next. Other than Farage, who is actively shouting at anyone European, and making any future negotiations increasingly difficult.

The parallels between this and HBO’s Game of Thrones is incredible, despite the lack of mythical creatures, magic, violence and incest – Although, I wouldn’t be surprised if Farage had predicted hordes of Wildlings and White Walkers were poised to invade our country during the referendum, if we didn’t vote leave.

Everyone is hopelessly divided, but all are trying to playing their cards right to gain power. I find myself completely lost on who to believe in (although this may still be post-Brexit shock). I’ve yet to understand what it feels like to get over leaving an international democracy, mainly because we haven’t bloody left it yet. Unfortunately I think we have too; not because we may want to in the end, but because the Europeans have had enough of us faffing around, whilst there are serious global issues to address.

I’m not tribal with political parties, I believe more in principles like a publically run education system, nationalised healthcare, and energy. I like the idea of a basic income, a fair taxation system (which doesn’t only benefit the super-rich), and a high minimum wage. Despite these socialist ideals, I believe absolutely in the liberal values of privacy, competitive free markets outside of what I’ve stated, and the ability to work towards higher paid work. I chose Corbyn’s labour because this is the closest to me realizing what I believe in, although I’m increasingly disenfranchised from all parties who talk little about their belief systems, and more about electability.

The “elephant in the room” I’ve alluded to earlier is about devolving power, and allowing us a proportional democracy, rather than the archaic voting system we have at the moment. This isn’t a system that enough people, and most importantly politicians, are talking about at the moment. The Conservatives know that they cannot rule as a majority in this system, this is their secret weapon to keep power, and why they called a referendum in the first place – for fear of UKIP taking votes off them in a general election.  The problems with Labour are the same; they can never form a majority without First-Past-The-Post, and this is why they fear Jeremy Corbyn, who has rallied a significant left wing movement in the country, but not enough to win a majority either.

Although I think a lot of our problems with inequality, poverty, and austerity started with Thatcher in the 80’s, I would like to take aim at Blair’s government. They had a chance to bring in proportional representation whilst in power, and they didn’t to try to keep power to themselves. Under this system, less than 30% of the electorate are ever happy with their parliament representatives. I believe this is fundamentally why people voted to Leave the European Union, not because they had any genuine, tangible issues with international democracy, but because they thought for once their vote would count for something.

The media and the public talk about the rise in the radical left wing, and right wing politics in the world – Corbyn and Farage in the UK, Trump and Sanders in the States for example. But what do these “democracies” have in common? They both have a system which only represents a small minority of voters; people are forced to vote for the least, worst option; the lesser of two evils. This system quite often leads to a concentration of power. And this concentration of power allows big business and the ultra-wealthy to dictate government policies using their financial influence.

What people fundamentally don’t understand about the European Union, is that the system was proportional. Our (proportionally) elected MEP’s, formed coalitions with other MEP’s across the union, parties had to compromise on their views to put through legislations created by the Commission. Our system in the British national government is more like an elected monarchy – the Cabinet decide legislations and policies, and the whip makes sure every MP in the party votes with them. Those that rebel have to gamble whether their decision will hold them back from any promotion. You may cite Corbyn as being a contradiction to this (the man who rebelled  428 times since being elected as an MP) but look what his own party currently think of his values.  Tory rebels also tend to be ousted quickly, disloyalty is punished without mercy. Those that follow the whip, fearing retribution, don’t even have to turn up to any debates or meetings. You ever wonder why the chambers always seem so empty?. Despite the fact we elect 650 MP’s who are meant to campaign on our behalf?

Of course there are exceptions to the rule, but what is clear from the referendum is not whether being a member of the European Union is an issue, but more that our own national government just isn’t working.  I was shocked to hear a prominent Labour representative of the South West, that I needed to put my principles in a box, that I and many others were sacrificing power, and we didn’t believe in a Labour government. He was right in one thing; I don’t necessarily believe that this country needs a Labour government, it really isn’t about which party is in power. What this country needs is a redistribution of wealth, well-funded public services, social mobility and the liberty to live a healthy, happy and fulfilling life; and I will support a party, whether Labour or someone else, that is dedicated to this

We need to talk less about the people we put in power, and more about how we can further empower people.

*If you want more information about Proportional Representation, check out this awesome video.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l8XOZJkozfI

Brexit Lies and Misinformation From LeaveEU

Breaking down the Leave campaign propaganda

So I’ve been trying to figure out exactly which blog I would write in regards to the upcoming EU referendum. Those that know me will understand I’m passionately for staying IN for multiple reasons, but with such a number of different concepts to this debate, It’s been difficult to really nail down how I wanted to approach this subject.

Recently I’ve seen social media pop up a Leave EU video which has been making the rounds across Facebook and Twitter, so I thought I’d break each statement down. They are through this blog in quotations.

Hello Britain this EU Referendum has been made to look, really, rather confusing, but’s it’s actually all quite simple.

Leaving the EU is anything but simple, for one thing every Brexiter must realize that we would need to renegotiate 124 trade agreements with countries from around the world. Some of these trade agreements have taken decades to organize as part of the EU, the American Government  for one example , have estimated that it would be at least 10 years to hash out any trade deal with the UK.
The civil service (those un-elected bureaucrats from our own country ) are woefully underfunded and understaffed to be able to complete these trade agreements in any quick time frame. The LSE (London School of Economics) have concluded that we would need to hire thousands more consultants, at a considerable cost to the British tax payer; worth bearing in mind that Britain has not negotiated its own free trade agreements in 4 decades. This doesn’t even take into account the amount of funding needed to match EU subsidies into our businesses and services, and where that funding would actually come from if we left.  So even taking the best possible outcome for Brexit, the situation is far from simple.

Britain as part of the EU is in a free trade area that spreads from Iceland to Turkey. Free trade is great because it makes trade easier, however not all countries in this area of EU members and no one’s proposing we would ever leave this trade block, if we exit the EU; least of all Germany who earns billions selling us their cars.

Turkey is not exactly in the free trade area, it’s in a customs union, and it pays tariffs on a lot of its products into the EU.

The UK goods trade is 55% higher being part of the Single Market, this accounts for over 130 billion pounds into our country in the last year,and an extra 670,000 made from every business that exports to the EU. So of course we’d want to stay in the Single Market – in fact Ukippers, and the Ultra right-wing Tories backing Brexit, have stated quite clearly that they don’t want to leave the Single Market. But if that’s the case, then why would we want to leave the EU where we can have a say on how the Single Market works and operates? We would have to abide by all the same rules and regulations exporting or importing with the EU, without any power to change what these are.

Britain voted to join the EEC back in 1973, when it looked like regional trade blocks were the future, this was long before the internet or mass container shipping, and the Soviet empire was in full swing.  Technology has since made the idea of local trading unions obsolete, as it is as cheap and easy to do business anywhere in the world. Britain’s future is way beyond the EU, remaining in the EU means we can’t negotiate favourable trade or business deals, we’re stuck with whatever the un-elected commissioners think is best.

I have 3 issues with this;

The first is that the EU is set up to negotiate as part of a trading block of 500 million consumers, we pool our sovereignty, and together we are the richest trading block in the world; this leads too considerable advantages in negotiation up against the likes of China, US and India. It also is categorically NOT cheap and easy to do business anywhere in the world, you have to negotiate the conditions of products, warranties, and price, how these are transported, and whether they are environmentally friendly. There are always conditions, regulations and the effects of our own local trade to consider.

Second, no business outside of the EU wants Britain to leave, literally NONE.

Let’s also take a quick look at the world so, apparently open to favourable trade deals which can be done quickly and easily, once we leave the EU.

• Barack Obama President of the United States – “It could be five years from now, 10 years from now before we’re actually able to get something done,” he told the BBC, adding that the first priority for the US would be to complete ongoing talks on a trade deal with the EU”.
• XI Jinpin President of China and Chinese diplomats – “Britain’s potential exit from the EU worries Beijing, we believe free-market supporting Britain strengthens the EU, which we see as an important ballast to American market dominance
• Secretary general of theFederation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry (FICCI)  Dr A Didar Singh  – “Brexit could endanger the flow of investment and personnel by diminishing Britain’s role in providing access to Europe” Bharatiya Janata Prime minister of India – “We see the UK as an entry point into the EU”

The list goes on; one quick test to any Leave campaigner is to ask which country thinks Brexit is a good idea? The answer is only Russia for obvious reasons, but it does highlight the paradox to their argument that we can suddenly trade better with the rest of the world, whilst the rest of the world is saying “what the f*ck are you doing!”

My last point is that commissioners don’t decide who we trade with, we do. We sign treaties, we debate with our MEP’s and our Council of Ministers – all elected – and the commissioners are appointed by each member state, vetted by the European Parliament. They are chosen far more democratically to our national counterparts the British Cabinet.

In the past decade our trade with the EU has fallen from 55% to 45%, and this idea that we must merge our political institutions for the sake of a shrinking minority of our commerce, is just frankly stupid. But is Britain too small to compete?  Britain’s the 5^th largest economy in the world, has the 4^th largest military budget, is a founding member of NATO, a permanent seat holder on the United Nations Security Council, the G8 and the G20, has the world’s most widely spoken language, the World’s best universities, and has a cracking history of maritime trade and independence. If Britain isn’t big enough to compete on the world stage, who the bloody hell is?

I find this particularly ridiculous for a few reasons.

• One, we are one of the largest economies in the world, and have become so whilst being in the EU, can’t be that bad can it?
• We have the 4^th Largest military budget, I’m not sure what this has to do with trade unless we plan to threaten smaller countries with nuclear weapons – besides most of our funding goes on these expensive nukes which we would never use, and can’t be without the United States approval.
• All Nato allies and Nato Chiefs from 1984 – 2014 have come out against the idea of Brexit, claiming it weakens Britain’s role in the world, including Lord Carrington, who served during the Second World War and was awarded the Military Cross for his actions.
• We keep on talking about the UK being on the United Nations Security Council, but what happen if we left the EU? Remember that the SNP have fundamentally said this will pave the way to a new referendum. Northern Ireland are 75% in favour of staying, the idea of hard boundaries there is terrifying for some! So would little England really be able to justify a permanent seat on the United Nations Security Council? Especially considering the other nations (other than Russia) want us to stay in the EU?

“If Britain isn’t big enough for the international stage, who the hell is?” Erm…. The US, China, India, Brazil and the EU as a group of nations – on our own with little exports, a militia instead of a military, and useless nukes, mean jack sh*t compared to the big boys. We have to stop pretending we still rule the world.

Those wanted Britain to remain in the EU, are using uncertainty and doubt, to spread fear.

Ok, so there is obvious scaremongering from both sides of the camp, but this is just a Tory strategy and they have always used scaremongering, just look at the general election in 2010 – “A vote for Labour will destroy our economy even further!” – and in 2015 – “A vote for Labour will lead to a coalition with the SNP!” They’ve never been able to talk positively about running the country.

Can we please pull off the blinkers and look at the Daily Mail, Express and The Sun, and bloody UKIP! They’ve been banging on about the EU controlling our lives, and immigration destroying the country and our culture since their inception decades ago. UKIP have dedicated entire television adverts to focus on how Turkey joining the EU would lead to the Islamification of our country, despite the fact Turkey won’t be joining anytime soon, and the focus on Islam is simply racist scaremongering. They even had that famous billboard with the pointing hand, “immigrants coming for your job!”Since the start of this blog, whilst I was searching on google, just look at the the ad which I came across at the top of the page,

Take Back Control Of UK – voteleavetakecontrol.org‎/‎5.23 million EU immigrants coming to the UK by 2030. It’s TIME!

No, the Leave campaign can own the title ‘Project Fear’, they’ve been peddling it for decades, and now it’s behind all their flagship arguments. For the record the Oxford migration observatory has concluded that Immigrants are significant NET contributors to our economy, which means they pay more into our system then they take out, on behalf of sensible British people, I would like to thank them for keeping our public services going!

 They claim that each British household could lose as much as £3000 every year by leaving. But even if we pretend these idiotic claims were true, would £750 be really be all it takes to earn your democratic rights.

Nice to see they’ve just glossed over the amount of money you could lose from the decreasing amount of EU investment.

Is the ability to hire and fire our law-makers, democratic freedom’s fought for over 100’s of years, now only worth 2 month’s rent for a studio flat in Glasgow and a packet of Watzits. If 28 unelected British plutocrats tried to pull this crap, I’m sure we’ll tell them to bugger off too.

We do have unelected British Plutocrats, they’re called the British Cabinet, did anyone vote for them to be there? Let’s have a look and see which system is more democratic.

The Commissioners are appointed by member states, whilst the British Cabinet is appointed by the Prime Minister. Commissioners are also vetted by MEP’s who question their suitability and can force their withdrawal, the British Cabinet however is down to the discretion of the Prime Minister.  Commissioners can only exercise powers given them by treaties and can only make proposals on the basis of treaties and following a work programme agreed by the Council of Ministers. The Commission cannot integrate EU further. Only a treaty could do that and UK can veto if it wants to. It’s fairly straight forward to see that the EU Commission is far more democratically decided and has significantly less power, in fact it’s bloody crazy how we cannot get angry about our own democratic system, but go decidedly bonkers about the EU, which is so much more proportional to each  EU citizen.

However you vote, everything is going to change. The EU commission has made it quite clear they are on the path to closer, financial, legal and border integration. Staying on that bus would lead us having to ditch the pound sterling,

No one is saying this, I thought the Brexit camp were against “Project Fear”, besides we have our own commissioner, and we are an integral part of the EU, using the them vs us argument all the time is complete bollocks.

 ditch our entire common law judicial system ,

The European Court of Human Rights (EHCR)  which apparently is a problem, protects…

• Our rights to a fair trial,
• The rights to privacy,
• Freedom from torture and degrading treatment,
• Freedom of religion,
• Freedom of expression,
• Freedom from discrimination,
• Freedom from slavery,
• Protecting victims of domestic violence

Their is an argument is that we will keep these rights if we leave, yet I’m not sure what the problem is about staying the ECHR in that case?

ditch our borders; for the Euro, Bench trials, and Schengen in due course.

Remember when we heard about how we should leave the EU, but stay in the single market?  …. Now try to name one single country outside of the EU which is part of the Single Market, which doesn’t have Freedom-Of-Movement?. The truth is it is fundamental to the principles of the European Single Market, so if you want the same trade deals, you have too accept Freedom-Of-Movement. In fact our own border controls, whilst we’re in the EU, are outside of the Schengen area. We’ve already negotiated a deal where we have control over our borders, and be part of the Single Market. And again no one is suggesting we relax border controls if we stay.

The Union is of course desperate to maintain control,

Again we are in this Union…

but I don’t think that a few measly threats, mean we need to commit our future to this authoritarian regime.

Authoritarian? Compared to the British system? Remember only 25% of our population voted for the Conservative party who formed a majority, MEP’s are chosen proportionally in the EU.

Besides we’ll be getting on wonderfully well trading, emigrating too and allying with other countries, without needing to give their government control over our laws.

Just ask any Brexiter which EU law they’re against, I’ve so far not heard a single one. Shouldn’t we be worried that we’re being taken out of the EU because of laws that are meant to be taking our freedom, yet those Leave campaigners can never name a single one??

Then ask them which country we’ll suddenly all be able to ally with and emigrate too , that thinks leaving the EU is a good idea. Again the answer is NONE.

So let’s use this one chance, to wish the EU the very best; be their trading partners, business colleagues, military allies and friends. But let them know we’ll govern ourselves here on out, thanks all the same.

I’m not sure the EU, our trading partners, business colleagues, military allies and “friends” from any were in the world agree with the Idea of Brexit, but hey ho, it’s only our relationship with the world we’re talking about.

Vote IN June 23rd.

Lots of money and stuff, the sign of a high achiever?

Lots of money and stuff, the sign of a high achiever?

Shouldn’t the Prime Ministers critics admit that they really hate anyone who has a hint of wealth in their life? If we don’t challenge these critics we risk having a house of commons which is stuffed full of low achievers, who hate enterprise, hate people who look after their own family, and know absolutely nothing about the outside world

This is a statement made during a house of commons debate by Sir Alan Duncan, who has claimed in the past that MP’s effectively live on rations and are treated like shit – For the benefit of any readers Sir Alan gets paid £74,962 a year, plus the ability to claim for a expenses for transport, and a furnished flat in London. He was also forced to repay £5000 in 2009 for claiming expenses to renovate his garden.  To put that in perspective, the average wage in the UK is £21,000 a year.

I take real issue with this statement, of course there have been oppositional backlashes, he has been forced to issue a pathetic apology and this has already produced an aggressive debate on the definition of achievement; but even with this statement stuffed behind the greasy curtain of Tory political discourse, the fact remains that not only do Tory voters believe in this definition of success and achievement, the very structure of our society is moving in this cold, pitiless direction.

Whilst I was teaching in a secondary school, covering a range of subjects and different abilities, I took great fulfillment from working with children with behavioral issues or special needs. They carried me through every day, my life had some form of meaning and this led me to believe that teaching full-time should be my career. However with many friends,  about 75%  had gone into teaching and dropped out, or at least considered other career options. I was told repeatedly to try other careers first, to understand that teaching was a fraught profession struggling to cope with ever growing pressure of increased class sizes, endless paperwork, and receding wage levels.

I left to Australia to travel, play some rugby, and eventually try some other work. After one enjoyable party at the top floor of an apartment block In the centre of Sydney, I asked the hosts – who were the same age, with the same level of qualifications – “what jobs have led you to this amazing apartment and lifestyle?”, “Recruitment Consultant” they replied. This became an ultimate goal for me, surely a profession matching people to jobs would be fun, ethical and ultimately financially rewarding.

I first became a Career and Education consultant, a deceiving and pretentious job title, I basically sold highly expensive government diplomas in a telesales call centre. Unfortunately I happened to be quite successful, I was consistently hitting near the top of sales every month, I was quickly promoted to Team Leader, and even managed my own office after 5 months. I earnt enough money to rent a dreamlike studio in the centre of Sydney, in a big complex with built in swimming pool and gym, right next to Darling Habour. For all intents and purposes, under Sir Alan Duncan’s definition, I was, or at least on my way, to being “successful”

However I started realizing that a lot of the data gained to make phone calls, came from job applications to our sister recruitment company, who were creating fake jobs. Some of the people who I signed onto course’s, which would cost them $18,000 in the long run, were long term un-employed and desperate for anything in their life to change. Not that I realized at the time, they were a number on a board, they were the sale I achieved that I could smile about, as the directors treated the staff and I to free boozy boat rides round Darling Harbour on weekends.

Upon the revelation that I was in a soulless sales company with unquestionably disgusting sales tactics, I managed to build my sales rep enough to get into recruitment – I was advised that I needed to talk about two things for the interview, how driven I was, and how much money I wanted to make.
So I told them of the sports car I wanted (I can’t even drive), I told them of the houses I wanted to buy, the dream of an Armani suit (quite happy with Matalan) the sales I wanted to make so I could go on the company incentive trips to the Alps or Las Vegas ( all paid for), and I managed to gain employment with the recruitment company.

Now surely this couldn’t be as bad as sales, surely my last sales gig was an anomaly, private business can’t all be an unscrupulous, unsympathetic rat race in a consumeristic culture? I was proved wrong. Upon starting the indoctrination to change my character began, I was treated to luxury meals by the company, I was provided by free alcohol every Friday night in the city’s finest bars. Sounds great right? Well maybe if I was a promiscuous 16 year old again. My co-workers discussed money, everything they wanted to buy, how much they earnt, and if you were lucky something about football (I don’t even like football, but it was a nice change)

So the culture was superficial, staff lacked any depth to their personalities, but I still wanted to make money, I still wanted to be “successful” I wanted to make my family proud, and I had a point to prove to my all the doubters in life, so I persisted. My role was to ring as many specialists that had a CV or resume on our computer system as possible, I had to convince them that I had a job lined up for them ( I didn’t) and then ask them were else they applied for, and if they had any interviews. I would use this information and contact the managers of the jobs they had applied for, and try to sell them new candidates. This disingenuous tactic is called “Information Trading”  and was eventually the reason I left, to some extent I enjoyed the nice suits, the luxury, the idea of an opulent future, I just couldn’t become passionate about lying 8 hours straight every day.

I left my nice flat in Darling Harbour, I’m back living with my parents in England, and I’m developing educational programs for Autistic children, for about 4 times less then what I was earning, and I finish every day with a great sense of fulfilment. And my future in this profession won’t lead me to making millions of pounds; in fact the glass ceiling tends to be below Sir Alan Duncan’s wage of 75k a year, that’s if the Tories don’t continue the trend on downgrading my profession.

My point is not to demean salesmen, recruitment consultants, or any other private business. If you want to make money, then go ahead and make money, just don’t value yourselves above people who earn significantly less.

If I end my life without multiple houses, without that convertible BMW, without ever owning a Armani suit, and I’ve managed to build confidence, self-esteem and happiness into children’s lives, I will be successful – and people who agree with  arrogant prats like Sir Alan Duncan won’t take that away from me.