The news that the Government are going to try to give every child in the land 5 hours a week of cultural activities, should be a good thing. Unfortunately it isn't, they just don't get it - do they? To give up smoking you have to want to give up. It's no good being told that it's bad for you, and it's really expensive because you know all that already. You have to want to. Similarly, with cultural activities, you must have to want to go and see a play, see an art exhibition or go to a museum.
The point of teaching is to provide the foundations of learning for the rest of your life. To encourage pupils to see a play, they need to do be encouraged to read eye-opening literature and be encouraged to do drama classes. To get an interest in art, they need to be doing some drawing, painting or sculpture themselves. For a museum, the kids need to be taught the basics of history and encouraged to find out more.
All these things should be taught in school anyway. If they are not, why aren't they? They were when I was a kid. They've probably been pushed out by more trendy things like Parenting and Citizenship classes. At school we only had one nonsense lesson a week, Personal Skills Development - it was such a joke. None of the kids took it seriously. Similarly, forcing kids into 5 hours of cultural activities a week will be seen as a joke, time to mess about.
Give the £200 million to schools directly (it's £15 per pupil - maybe one decent play a year) to be used by teachers to supplement an English Literature, Drama, Art or History course when a topic is of interest to the kids. If the Government gets involve it'll be a disaster, think Millenium Dome as opposed to Tate Modern.
Squiffy.
Wednesday, 13 February 2008
Be afraid, very afraid
With the news that Jack Straw is going to attempt to start the processing of writing a Constitution for Britain, I have become more than a little agitated.
This Government has presided over a mass of ill thought out legislation which has needed to be revisited many times. How many Criminal Justice Bills have there been? How many times have organisations been re-organised and the re-reorganised back into something similar to original plan, NHS anyone?
The thought of this lot, no matter how good their intentions are, framing the basis for the relationship between the individual and the state is laughable. Almost as much as Tony Blair being announced as the peace envoy to the Middle East. They cannot seriously think that we trust them with individual liberties, this the most authoritarian of Governments in modern history.
A written constitution would have to provide a flowing prose describing British values. I don't believe this Government can provide anything in a flowing manner, more of a dithered sentence of PR speak. My English isn't fantastic, but the oratory required of the Queen when opening the yearly session of Parliament leads me to believe that a reasonably good G.C.S.E. student could do better. The country that gave the world Shakespeare, Dickens, Keats, Tennyson and Winston Churchill deserves so much better.
I only hope that they realise the futility of it all, before they spend a vast amount of money on pointless consultation exercises and focus groups. With any luck this will be dropped along with any proposed 'motto', before the Government commits any more un-British acts.
Long live the unwritten Constitution.
Squiffy.
This Government has presided over a mass of ill thought out legislation which has needed to be revisited many times. How many Criminal Justice Bills have there been? How many times have organisations been re-organised and the re-reorganised back into something similar to original plan, NHS anyone?
The thought of this lot, no matter how good their intentions are, framing the basis for the relationship between the individual and the state is laughable. Almost as much as Tony Blair being announced as the peace envoy to the Middle East. They cannot seriously think that we trust them with individual liberties, this the most authoritarian of Governments in modern history.
A written constitution would have to provide a flowing prose describing British values. I don't believe this Government can provide anything in a flowing manner, more of a dithered sentence of PR speak. My English isn't fantastic, but the oratory required of the Queen when opening the yearly session of Parliament leads me to believe that a reasonably good G.C.S.E. student could do better. The country that gave the world Shakespeare, Dickens, Keats, Tennyson and Winston Churchill deserves so much better.
I only hope that they realise the futility of it all, before they spend a vast amount of money on pointless consultation exercises and focus groups. With any luck this will be dropped along with any proposed 'motto', before the Government commits any more un-British acts.
Long live the unwritten Constitution.
Squiffy.
Tuesday, 12 February 2008
Time to get rid of Ken
The latest controversy to hit the Mayor of London is his plan to increase the congestion charge to £25 for gas-guzzlers. I have no particular sympathy for people who drive big cars in London, for the most part it's not needed when the public transport can adequately (not always on time and with comfort) transfer you to your destination, but this is a tax that is going too far.
Cuddly Ken has been mired recently in a series of controversies regarding his relationship with some of his staff and the financial dealings of the London Development Agency (LDA). He accepts that he uses the public purse to launch attacks on his opponents and accepts that public money is channeled through the LDA to some organizations which have nothing to show for it. To most people this would be the trigger for resignation, but not Ken. He wears it as a badge of pride. For some reason the public seem to let him off with it too.
When Mr Livingstone launched the congestion charge in 2003, only 5 years ago, the price was £5 to drive into central London. The majority of the profits were due to go into public transport. Ken announced that there were no plans to increase the charge, but soon increased it to £6. A proposed extension of the charge zone into West London was put out to consultation, but when the results indicated that the majority did not want the extension Ken trampled all over the exercise and imposed it anyway.
A second increase in the fare to £8 has since occurred, with the prospect of £10 not far away. And now £25 for bigger cars, for anyone short on Maths that's £125 in a week and £500 per month. It's nearly extortion! The original proposal was to reduce congestion, but recent evidence shows that congestion is now back to pre-charge levels. The scheme's profits have been minimal, the money has mainly gone into the administration of the scheme. Improvements to public transport have been marginal.
This is what happens when the public allow Socialists to get their hand on a new tax. It may seem reasonable at first but soon becomes an albatross around the public's neck. Give an inch and they'll take a mile. It is now time to set Ken free.
Squiffy.
Cuddly Ken has been mired recently in a series of controversies regarding his relationship with some of his staff and the financial dealings of the London Development Agency (LDA). He accepts that he uses the public purse to launch attacks on his opponents and accepts that public money is channeled through the LDA to some organizations which have nothing to show for it. To most people this would be the trigger for resignation, but not Ken. He wears it as a badge of pride. For some reason the public seem to let him off with it too.
When Mr Livingstone launched the congestion charge in 2003, only 5 years ago, the price was £5 to drive into central London. The majority of the profits were due to go into public transport. Ken announced that there were no plans to increase the charge, but soon increased it to £6. A proposed extension of the charge zone into West London was put out to consultation, but when the results indicated that the majority did not want the extension Ken trampled all over the exercise and imposed it anyway.
A second increase in the fare to £8 has since occurred, with the prospect of £10 not far away. And now £25 for bigger cars, for anyone short on Maths that's £125 in a week and £500 per month. It's nearly extortion! The original proposal was to reduce congestion, but recent evidence shows that congestion is now back to pre-charge levels. The scheme's profits have been minimal, the money has mainly gone into the administration of the scheme. Improvements to public transport have been marginal.
This is what happens when the public allow Socialists to get their hand on a new tax. It may seem reasonable at first but soon becomes an albatross around the public's neck. Give an inch and they'll take a mile. It is now time to set Ken free.
Squiffy.
Sunday, 10 February 2008
Charles Clark enters the fray
An extraordinary interview by Charles Clark appeared in the Daily Mail yesterday.
It's not surprising that CC has made comments about Gordon Brown, in fact I thought he would (see my 2008 predictions). But to do so this early in the year and with the ferocity shown is quite astonishing.
I suppose a re-entry into the Cabinet is now out of the question.
Squiffy.
It's not surprising that CC has made comments about Gordon Brown, in fact I thought he would (see my 2008 predictions). But to do so this early in the year and with the ferocity shown is quite astonishing.
I suppose a re-entry into the Cabinet is now out of the question.
Squiffy.
Friday, 8 February 2008
What's a manifesto worth?
Stuart Bower, a former police officer, and a former constituency secretary for Hove Labour Party has brought a court case against the Government for breach of contract with regards to the ditching of the referendum on the European Constitution Treaty.
It would be amazing if he won the court case, but very unlikely. It is fascinating though to hear that the defence for the Government stated "manifesto pledges are not subject to legitimate expectation". Blimey! I know that we are all sceptical about manifesto commitments but to hear such a statement from a representative of the Government shows how in little regard they hold the public.
A manifesto is a commitment to what a party would do if elected. As such, any mention in the published manifesto for an elected party is given an easy ride through Parliament. By convention, opposition parties do not vote down measures on which the public have directly had their say. Of course opposition is made to the proposals, but it will eventually end up on the statue book.
When the next election comes around, I hope that the opposition parties remember this betrayal and mention many times that a manifesto commitment from Labour is not worth the glossy paper it is written on. If we're unfortunate to have another 5 years of Labour (heaven help us), then I would not expect the opposition to give the Government such an easy time on manifesto commitments. After all "manifesto pledges are not subject to legitimate expectation".
Squiffy.
It would be amazing if he won the court case, but very unlikely. It is fascinating though to hear that the defence for the Government stated "manifesto pledges are not subject to legitimate expectation". Blimey! I know that we are all sceptical about manifesto commitments but to hear such a statement from a representative of the Government shows how in little regard they hold the public.
A manifesto is a commitment to what a party would do if elected. As such, any mention in the published manifesto for an elected party is given an easy ride through Parliament. By convention, opposition parties do not vote down measures on which the public have directly had their say. Of course opposition is made to the proposals, but it will eventually end up on the statue book.
When the next election comes around, I hope that the opposition parties remember this betrayal and mention many times that a manifesto commitment from Labour is not worth the glossy paper it is written on. If we're unfortunate to have another 5 years of Labour (heaven help us), then I would not expect the opposition to give the Government such an easy time on manifesto commitments. After all "manifesto pledges are not subject to legitimate expectation".
Squiffy.
Tuesday, 5 February 2008
Come on over Frank, Kate & Gisela
Apparently there are threats to expel Frank Field, Kate Hoey and Gisela Stuart from the Parliamentary Labour Party for their stance in standing up for the Labour party's manifesto commitment to hold a referendum on the EU constitution treaty.
I hope that the threats are the the final nail in the coffin for their Labour party membership. Cross the floor, each of you, and find a place on the other benches where your views will be respected.
Squiffy.
I hope that the threats are the the final nail in the coffin for their Labour party membership. Cross the floor, each of you, and find a place on the other benches where your views will be respected.
Squiffy.
Zero Tolerance
The Zero Tolerance rhetoric is bandied about quite regularly in relation to policing. I also believe in Zero Tolerance for MPs. They are the only body who set their own wages and allowances, they are exempt from libel laws, they set-up committees iof MPs to investigate themselves (the latest being 3 MPs chosen to investigate the implications of the Conway affair).
There should be Zero Tolerance of MPs' financial affairs. An external body should set the rules for MPs, it should monitor that the rules are upheld and also have the power to fire an MP, triggering a by-election. The MP could stand again and face the public. There should only be one register of member's interest to clarify the current rules.
While I'm at it, how about one secretary on a full-time wage hired by the Commons and also one researcher part-time? They would be in the employ of Parliament. Family members can apply but would be scrutinised by the House authorities. Also, why not scrap allowances. Give a bigger salary, with a weighting for distance from London, so that MPs get more money for living away and having to travel.
Squiffy.
There should be Zero Tolerance of MPs' financial affairs. An external body should set the rules for MPs, it should monitor that the rules are upheld and also have the power to fire an MP, triggering a by-election. The MP could stand again and face the public. There should only be one register of member's interest to clarify the current rules.
While I'm at it, how about one secretary on a full-time wage hired by the Commons and also one researcher part-time? They would be in the employ of Parliament. Family members can apply but would be scrutinised by the House authorities. Also, why not scrap allowances. Give a bigger salary, with a weighting for distance from London, so that MPs get more money for living away and having to travel.
Squiffy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
