Speaker John Bercow Survives Cowardly Tory Plot to Unseat Him

  The Tories' cowardly attempt to bring down Speaker John Bercow has failed. The last-minute vote in the House of Commons today saw the government defeated by 2228 votes to 202 on a motion to make the process of voting in the Speaker of the House a secret ballot. This, despite being an apparent blow for democracy, is actually a very good thing.

Speaker John Bercow

  The election of the Speaker takes place at the beginning of each Parliament. Usually, if the sitting Speaker does not choose to step down and holds their Commons seat (which they always do, as they traditionally run unopposed by any major party) then they are re-elected as a matter of form. It is theoretically possible, however, that they could be voted out of office.

  Bercow, a former Conservative MP, has been one of the most progressive voices in terms of the conduct of Parliament, eschewing the traditional robes of his office in favour of a simple gown and frequently taking MPs to task for poor behaviour in the House. He has introduced a creche to Parliament to take the pressure off of those MPs who are parents - particularly mothers; he helped drive the creation of the Backbench Business Committee in 2010; and he has called for reform to the undignified, often appalling spectacle of PMQs - only to be blocked by the Tory backbenches. He is also a determined promoter of political participation to young people, appearing at numerous events. 

  The Conservative Party, however, don't like him - they look upon him as a traitor, who has abandoned his early right-wing views for a more socially liberal stance. They claim he is biased against the government, and would like to see him brought down. However, many are unwilling to vote against him in the division chambers, for fear of reprisals if they fail.

  I am instinctively torn on this issue. My instinct is that Parliament should move towards using secret ballots - not only would this allow the system to be made electronic, and thus save huge amounts of parliamentary time, it would also break the power of the whips and stop party leaderships from bullying their MPs into voting through legislation against their consciences. But to introduce it specifically for Speaker elections, and for no other votes, is both ludicrous and clearly politically motivated.

Charles Walker MP

  Moreover, the way this entire affair has been conducted is shambolic. Charles Walker MP, who chairs the Parliament's Procedure Committee, gave a speech declaring that he had been 'played like a fool' - the law had been based on a report he had given in the last Parliament, but had been ignored until today. He and many other senior parliamentarians had only been informed of the vote's imminence at the last minute. Michael Gove, the government Chief Whip, faced calls from the press gallery to resign after the debacle, having ordered a whipped party meeting before the vote.

  Speaker John Bercow has been fantastic for Parliament, and the cowardly attempt to unseat him reflects poorly on William Hague - who brought the bill - Gove and the entire Tory Party. Another disgrace to add to the list.

Education, Education, Education: Aspiration Tax

Tuition fees do not help fund higher education - they are a punitive tax on aspiration

The Genesis of Tuition Fees

  It is a fundamental principle of socialism that education should be provided equally and freely to all. It is a fundamental principle of neoliberalism that aspiration should not be taxed. And yet the Labour governments of 1997-2010 broke both of these principles - the socialist one they claim as their heritage, and the neoliberal one which they adopted under Tony Blair in a bid for power.

  How did they do this, you ask? Simple - Labour first introduced, and then trebled, tuition fees for University courses. Before 1998, you did not pay for your education - it would be to go against both the post-war social democratic consensus and the post-Thatcherite neoliberal consensus for such a thing to happen. John Major first floated the idea of alternative sources of higher education funding, but it was the Blair/Brown New Labour project which finally implemented the policy.

  The Coalition government, of course, are now most linked in the minds of the British people with tuition fees - as well they might be. The spectacular way in which the Liberal Democrat promise to scrap tuition fees entirely was broken is the stuff of political legend; what is even more worrying, though, is that the Conservative party wanted to remove the cap on fees altogether, leaving the UK higher education system completely open to market forces in a way even the USA cannot match (not all American colleges are for-profit institutions). As it stands, students are now saddled with a £9,000-a-year debt.


A Tax on Aspiration

  It is pretty clear to see how tuition fees violate the principle of free and equal access to education - in short, it makes education no longer free and restricts access to it on the basis of wealth (or willingness to accrue large amounts of long-term debt). It is somewhat less straightforward to see how such a policy constitutes an aspiration tax, but all it requires is a moment's consideration.

  Education can be seen as a way of improving one's chances in life: it is no secret that even fairly mundane jobs these days often require a degree, and access to many professions - law, teaching, the civil service etc. - is almost impossible without one. Possession of a higher education degree, then, can improve your quality of life quite considerably; it is, in short, a key to what is for many a lifestyle they aspire to. Simply put, someone with a degree earns on average 85% more than someone with only GCSEs, while someone with only A Levels earns just 15% more. A degree, in the brutal monetary terms in which we are forced to see it, equals earning potential.

  Slapping a £27,000 price tag (more if it's a longer course, plus the cost of paying back your student loan, plus interest, plus other costs - the true cost of getting a degree is estimated around £100,000) on this potential makes it harder for people to access. Though loans are of course available, taking on that kind of debt is a terrifying prospect for many young people. It puts them off furthering their education, and application levels - despite having risen this year - are still below the level they were before the tuition fee hike. Consider that the economy has 'recovered' during that time, and population has grown by three-quarters of a million, and this is an alarming thing.

  So, tuition fees are a method of imposing what is in essence a tax on the aspiration of young people to improve their lives. They also discourage degrees which do not translate directly into a high-earning job at the end of it, such as finance or law - in order to pay off this huge debt, students are leaving behind courses in the arts and humanities in favour of the physical and social sciences. The true purpose of learning - the acquisition of knowledge - has been supplanted by bald monetary calculations.

  It should also be noted that tuition fees are not equal across the UK - in England, they are capped at £9,000; in Scotland, they do not exist; in Wales, grants exist to cover the first £5,315; in Northern Ireland, they are £3,685. Even more ridiculous, EU students in Scotland and Wales receive the same tuition fees as Scottish/Welsh nationals; whilst English and Northern Irish students have to pay. This patchwork system of fees means that the English in particular are grossly discriminated against.


What's Their Motivation?

  So, why would the establishment parties want to impose such an aspiration tax? It isn't for the economic benefit to the country - it is estimated that the average student won't actually pay back 43% of their loan - they'll just be saddled with a huge debt for 30 years - and the increase to £9,000 will actually end up losing the government money. Furthermore, Higher Education in total costs £27.9 billion a year; the UK spends £45.6 billion a year on defence. What would YOU consider more important?

  No, the real reason behind the aspiration tax is an attempt to prevent students from furthering themselves. It stands to reason: knowledge is power, and the ruling elite are quite fond of having all the power, thank you very much. A degree also, as we have discussed, translates directly into economic benefit - and as we know, thanks to the neoliberal deregulation of the financial sector, there's only so much money to go around. It is in the interests of those who have it to prevent others from acquiring it - hence the aspiration tax.

  Overall, tuition fees are a policy designed only to hurt students. The recent rise is going to end up actually costing the government £5 billion a year anyway; why not just scrap it? The Treasury saves money, students aren't faced with mountains of debt and education might actually come to be seen as a priority again. 

Education, Education, Education - Part Two: Take It On Faith

  As will be news to absolutely no-one paying the slightest bit of attention to the universe, a number of schools in Birmingham have recently been criticised by Ofsted for enforcing a conservative Islamic curriculum and creating a 'culture of fear and intimidation'. Five schools, out of 21 which were subjected to snap inspections, have been placed in special measures.

  This move comes in the wake of a (probably faked) letter leaked earlier this year threatening a 'Trojan Horse' plan for Islamist extremists to take over a number of schools in the area, in order to inculcate the children their with strict Islamic values. This story has been churning away for over three months now, and up until this point I have steered clear of it. The reason is pretty simple: there wasn't actually any evidence on either side of the debate. 

  This didn't stop the mainstream media, of course, who are traditionally rather less concerned with facts than selling newspapers/attracting web views. Indeed, the 'Trojan Horse' story has been run in the usual overdramatised way, with helpful interjections by the likes of Theresa May and Michael Gove making it all the easier to sensationalise the story and cloud the actually very important issues with senseless mud-flinging. Once again, this should surprise exactly no-one.

  Now that the inspections have been completed, steps have been taken and the dust has at least started to settle, perhaps we can take a sober and rational look at the issue. Let's give it a go.


Trojan Horse or Red Herring?

  Red herring is the short answer. Despite the absolutely incredible scrutiny that has been brought to bear on these schools over the past few weeks, there remains no credible evidence that the original 'Trojan Horse'  plot ever existed. Ofsted have stated publicly that 'no evidence of radicalisation' is to be found within the classrooms of the schools so accused. So that's that. Time to go home, then?

  Not quite. The original letter, hoax though it is now thought to have been, has actually had the benefit of unearthing some very disturbing goings-on in the five schools mentioned above. Whilst nothing on the level of an Islamist conspiracy, there are some things here which we have to take very seriously indeed. One school in particular - Oldknow Academy - was described as 'trying to promote a narrow faith-based ideology', and all five show serious signs of an unhealthy relationship with the Islamic faith in what are - ostensibly - secular academies.

  Whilst banning Christmas and organising Muslim-only trips to Saudi Arabia at the taxpayers' expense  are hardly evidence of an extremist plot - and those who have decribed the Ofsted report as a 'damning verdict' are clearly guilty of some serious overexaggeration - they certainly aren't the kinds of things we want in our schools. The fact that this situation has been allowed to develop, threatening children's education and their ability to interact with those of other cultures, is a damning indictment of existing scrutiny procedures - not only Ofsted, who should have picked up on this much sooner, but also Birmingham City Council and the Department for Education itself (which, as most of these schools are academies, is directly responsible - see my earlier article on just what exactly I think of that). 

  The relevant authorities have been shown to be woefully incompetent, and we need an urgent review of procedures to make sure this kind of thing never happens again. The sad fact is, though, that the government in general is perfectly happy for such 'narrow faith-based ideologies' to dominate education - as long as the correct protocol is observed.


Give Me A Child Until He Is Seven, and I Will Give You The Man

  This old (and sexist) Jesuit quote belies the fact that indoctrination of the young is no modern problem. Yes, the religious orders have been doing it for centuries, if not millennia - and the sad fact is, if Park View Educational Trust (which runs three of the five schools placed under special measures) had registered the schools as a faith-based academy or free school, all would most likely have been well.

  Faith schools have always existed in the UK, of course - indeed, go back far enough and they were pretty much the only schools available anywhere. A modern faith schools has to follow the national curriculum, except that they are not required to teach about other religions - just their own. Now, I happen to think that is unacceptable in a multicultural society - children have the right to be educated in ALL areas, not just those selected for them by religious demagogues - but I realise that many people are perfectly okay with this. 

  What I don't think many people would be okay with is a curriculum entirely dictated by the faith of a schools leadership; one which teaches creationism in science lessons or forbids arts subjects such as music on religious grounds. But this is exactly what is allowed under the academy and free school systems, which makes explicit provision for faith groups to take over schools and gut the curriculum accordingly.

  The mistake Park View made was registering their schools as secular academies. If they'd thought to classify them as Islamic free schools - or Catholic, Sikh or Jewish for that matter - their actions would have been perfectly legal. Other faith academies have already been investigated for similar, and in many cases worse actions, but whilst the Al-Madinah school was closed down for making female teachers wear headscarves, the Yesodey Hatorah Jewish girls' school in London is still going strong, despite censoring students' exam papers to remove evolution-based questions.

  It is no surprise that Yesodey Hatorah serves an Orthodox Jewish community which is so culturally isolated that some of its members, born and bred in London, have German accents because the only adults they were exposed to growing up were German-born Jews. These kinds of 'narrow, faith-based ideologies' are allowed to persist, though they are easily as damaging as that in Park View, if not more so.

  I do think there is an element of Islamophobia to this - Muslim schools like Al-Madinah or effectively Muslim schools like Park View and Oldknow are, rightly, cracked down on whilst Jewish schools like Yesodey Hatorah and Christian schools like those run by the sinister-sounding 'Exclusive Brethren' escape notice. There's also the fact that some of these schools are free schools or private schools rather than academies, and thus have even more freedom to manipulate their pupils' education. But whatever the reason, it's got to stop.


A Not-so-Radical Solution

  Free schools, Academies, Faith Schools, Private Schools - all of these allow unacceptable intrusions of faith into children's lives. All of these allow religious organisations to indoctrinate the young and vulnerable with their beliefs. Whether you agree with their doctrines or not is immaterial - as adults, the choice is yours. But as children, you tend to believe what you are told. And if you are being blasted with religious dogma at schools as well as at home, what chance of developing into a free-thinking, sceptical individual do you really have?

  The solution is obvious: Abolish all Faith, Free, Academy and Private schools. Replace them with state-maintained, secular schools which can protect children against indoctrination rather than being complicit in it. Let's give our children a rounded, full education, covering all aspects of the sciences, arts and humanities - as well as technical and vocational skills training - to allow them to become well-balanced adults.

  Then, if they wish, they can pick a religion, when they have all the evidence, all the facts and all the cognitive skills at their command to do so properly. I reckon I know what the result of that will be, though. But that's a topic for another time...

Education, Education, Education - Part One: Who Rules the Schools?

  When the Blair government created the Academy Programme in 2000, their intention was to lift the performance of failing schools in deprived areas to match the standards of more affluent areas. As of May 2010, and the end of New Labour's tenure, there were 203 academies in England (devolved authorities not having implemented the programme). 

  An academy, for those who don't know, is a publicly funded school which is independent of local authority control. Generally constituted as charities, academies' most important feature is that they have private 'sponsors'. These can be individuals or organisations such as the United Learning Trust which sponsors 36 academies across the country. In exchange for providing 10% of the academy's startup costs, a sponsor gains considerable influence  over the curriculum, ethos, specialism (academies specialise in a particular subject area such as technology or languages) and even the buildings of the school. They also have the power to appoint governors to the school's board. 

  This is a considerable amount of power to transfer into the hands of a third party - especially to large organisations which, as shown above, can control large numbers of different academies. The ability to appoint governors is particularly worrying, as this allows major decisions about the school - including the appointment of the headteacher - to be unduly influenced by the sponsor. For the relatively modest asking price of 10% of capital costs, anyone with the cash can essentially buy control of a school.

  Now, though it pains me to accept that New Labour was anything other than a poisonous blot upon the history of this country, it must - reluctantly - be admitted that the initial run of academies largely fulfilled their aims. Transforming 203 poorly-performing schools into relatively good ones is not a bad outcome for such a programme, and indeed many academies towards the end of the New Labour period began to significantly outperform local state schools. All well and good, you might think, and maybe the surrender of power to private individuals is just about compensation for the vast increase in performance. I disagree, but it's an argument at least - power for results.

  Until, that is, the coalition got involved. *sigh*

  Michael Gove in his infinite wisdom (NB: for 'wisdom', please read 'idiocy') removed the need for academies to be poorly performing schools - in fact, whilst such academies can still be forcibly created, the vast majority of new academies ask for the status to be granted. And, of course, in order to do so they have to have achieved at least a 'good', preferably an 'outstanding', in their Ofsted report. This has the effect of completely ruining the point of academies in the first place, and of completely scuppering the above argument which is the only possible justification for their existence.

  Now, power is not exchanged for results - the schools are already good - but simply surrendered in return for a paltry contribution towards the cost of establishing the academy, a cost which wouldn't of course exist were the sponsor not involved in the first place. The Coalition, in effect, is allowing rich individuals and large organisations to buy schools. 

  And why wouldn't you? You look philanthropic and you get the ability to force your own views and ethos upon the children of tomorrow. What's not to like?! Well, from the perspective of the sponsors, nothing - which probably has had something to do with the vast explosion of academy numbers since the Coalition came into power. As of November last year, the most recent data available, 3,444 schools in England have converted to academies - including around 45% of all secondary schools.

  This is not good. And there's worse. Academies are bad, sure, but compared to Free Schools, they seem tame and gentle. 

  A Free School is essentially a super-academy - the logical extension of the decentralisation principle behind the academy programme. The difference is that they are entirely, rather than partially, controlled by the group which establishes them - and that group doesn't even need to pay the 10%. Groups which can establish Free Schools include parents' groups, education trusts and universities - but also private schools, businesses and religious organisations.

  The extra powers of Free Schools mean that, whereas Academies can vary the national curriculum, they can depart completely from it. This has led to fears that some groups, particularly religious organisations, will be able to avoid teaching topics which do not fit their particular ethos, such as natural selection, or to teach entirely discredited theories such as creationism as if they were scientifically valid.

  These fears were confirmed in July 2012 when Grindon Hall Christian School, Exemplar Academy, and Sevenoaks Christian School were found to be doing just that - despite assurances from the government that religious fundamentalists would not be able to use the Free School system to indoctrinate children. Concerns have been raised about the possibility of an Islamic fundamentalist takeover of schools in Birmingham, while the Al-Madinah Free School in Derby has already been closed due to a series of increasingly worrying reports of sinister goings-on, including the forcing of female teachers to wear headscarves and the segregation of students along gender lines. 

  The Free School system is clearly open to abuse, and to cap it all it's not even been successful. Many Free Schools are failing their pupils: the closure of the Discovery Free School in December 2013 was the first sign of this trend, and official papers recently leaked to the Observer show that Michael Gove has targeted a number of other Free Schools for high-priority improvements to limit the 'political ramifications of any more free schools being judged inadequate'.


  This evidence of Free Schools being given undue prioritisation for political reasons is typical of Gove's DfE. More shocking is the Education Act 2011, which states that local authorities can only open a new school in an area which needs one once they have put out a request for proposals for Free Schools and Academies. This not only means that residents will have to suffer an even longer consultation process before a new school can be built, but also that free schools and academies are essentially being forced upon local authorities by central government, purely to advance the Coalition's political agenda.

  The bottom line on these schools is this: they are failing children, open to abuse and must be stopped. We must call on Gove and his team to roll back the academies and free schools programme, repeal the Academies Act 2010 and Education Act 2011 and return openness and educational independence to our schools.

  That'll might mean voting the Tories out of power, though. What a shame...