Its a Sin to Kill a Mockingbird

Most of you in the UK (and many outside) can't have helped but hear about Michael Gove's latest ill thought out, poorly conceived piece of idiotic policy making. Mr Gove has made changes to both the GCSE and the A-Level English Literature specification which basically removes many stalwarts of both courses, such as Harper Lee's "To Kill a Mockingbird" and John Steinbeck's "Of Mice and Men" and hopes to replace them with twentieth century literature by authors from the British Isles. Once again (in concurrence with his ignorant ideas about the History curriculum) it shows Mr Gove pushing our education system towards a mono-cultural abyss. More and more it seems that Mr Gove sees Education, not as his job and his responsibility with the weight of millions of emerging character and intellects at stake, but as his own personal fiefdom in which to experiment and make changes purely based on his own view of the world and of education. At this point I will make the point that Mr Gove is, unlike many (though not all) Education Secretaries, not an Educator, he has no background in Education. His degree is in Journalism and it was this profession he pursed until he became an MP in 2005. Yet this lack of expertise has not stopped him from enacting a whole series of changes, most as foolhardy as the next leading teachers and educators everywhere to despair. All three of the major teachers' unions have passed votes of no confidence in him and he has been roundly criticised  by the Association of Headteachers in addition to this. Mr Gove makes it clear at all turns that he despises teachers and that the advice and expertise of experienced educational practitioners and academics has no bearing on his ideas nor his policies.

The most recent, the proposed change to the English curriculum has incensed both the teaching profession and public alike. Both Lee and Steinbeck have long been popular mainstays of the GCSE curriculum and I myself studied them. Gove's mistake seems to have been tied up in his massive disconnect between himself and the people he (and his government and party ) are supposed to represent. Scroll through Twitter discussions and Facebook posts and the amount of love for both these books is immense. So many point to them as books that made them love reading, or that taught them valuable lessons on race and class. Atticus Finch is oft cited as a role model of integrity that those of us who studied the books at school and are now parents our self aspire to be for our children and as the kind of man we would like to teach our sons to be. The importance of these books to our children and their education has nothing to with where they were written and everything to do with the stories they tell and the lessons they impart. That Gove can't see that makes him singularly unfit for the position he now occupies.

Please sign the position requesting that Mr Gove reverse his position here

Playing the Blame Game

Its been quite some time since I addressed UK politics in my blog, but its safe to say that I am sufficiently incensed that a good old Cranky Pants style rant is in order.

The Brits amongst you, whether residing in the Motherland or overseas will, I am no doubt sure be aware of the changes to the benefit systems and also the decrease in the top tax rate from 50% to 45% (as failure to close tax loopholes meant that people were able to get away with not paying it either by backdating their money or holding it over until the new tax rate came into play). Now even with this very cursory and none too detailed description you can probably already work out that these changed were very much skewed in favour of the haves at the expense of the have nots.

In terms of the benefits, several measures have come in such as the much derided "Bedroom Tax' whereby those in social housing who find themselves with a spare bedroom (because maybe one of their children was lucky enough to be able to actually afford to move out) will see their benefits cut by around 16%. The idea behind this ridiculous attempt at hurting the poor is that those living in larger houses can move into smaller ones thus freeing up larger houses for families. Okay, works in theory. Except that in actuality it doesn't work at all. There are absolutely no where near the number of single dwelling homes needed to shift people out the homes they currently live in so even if people wanted to leave their homes they couldn't and the reduction in benefits further punishes them for no greater crime than being poor already.

In addition to this many of those on sickness and disability benefits are losing their benefits and pushed into training schemes and before you rush to say that many of them are fakers anyways (as undoubtedly some are, but probably nowhere like the percentage the like of Osborne and the Daily Fail would like to have you believe), its worth bearing in mind that 1700 disabled people died last year within weeks of being found 'fit to work'.

Alas for the already poor and downtrodden of Britain the case of Mick Philpott and his wife Mairead was tried this week and both were convicted of killing six of their children in a house fire intended to frame Philpott's estranged girlfriend. Rather than focusing on the reality of this case, six innocent children who lost their lives in the perfect storm of poverty and domestic violence, the case has been politicized and Philpott, as practically the poster boy for 'benefit scroungers' (multiple children to multiple partners, criminal convictions and an appearance on the Jeremy Kyle show to boot), has been used by Osborne and the Tory lap dogs at the Mail to highlight everything they see as being wrong with 'poor people'. They have claimed that rather than the culture of domestic violence and extreme control that pervaded the lives of the Philpotts and eventually led to the tragedy that unfolded, that the fact this family largely lived on benefits was reason for this atrocity. And to me this link between being poor and criminal is not only grossly unfair to the majority of those on benefits (and its worth bearing in mind that not everyone receiving benefits are long term unemployed, or even unemployed at all, and of those who are long term unemployed only a small percentage of those are so through choice), unfair to the victims of domestic violence (be they adult or children) as there is the insinuation that it is a crime of the poor when quite clearly evidence presents to the contrary.

Shamefully, the Philpott children and lives and deaths have now become a footnote in this new Tory era of blaming the less well off for societies woes. Given a further excuse to make the lives of the most vulnerable even worse. When I worked in inner city Manchester I came across families in dire need, families where children came to school hungry, I know more than one colleague who actually used to buy toiletries and school uniforms for their pupils and I don't know a teacher in the whole school I worked in who hadn't fed a student at least once. And it is these children and families that are at risk. Most of these families are not in that position because of Mick Philpott esque parental figures, but because there just wasn't enough money to go round. Younger brothers and sisters got first priority when it came to being fed and a lack of jobs coupled with low levels of education coupled with lack jobs created a vicious circle of poverty that few of those children could escape from.

But if Osborne has his way, this hardship, this national shame that is going on all around us already and which will be significantly compounded by this latest round of cuts and people will be encouraged to look away because like, Philpott who hopefully will spend the rest of his days behind bars, he would have us believe they deserve all they get.

A big step back

Originally posted 6th June 2011

Things are getting scary. The Christian Right are getting their claws into social politics and social conservatism is rearing its head in a big way. Abstinence based education is being endorsed and anti - abortion groups are going into the business of main stream government.

But this is not the Tea Party's vision for America, it is the reality facing Britain in 2011 under the appalling ConDem coalition. Conservative MP, Nadine Dorries found herself in hot water a few weeks back, when, whilst endorsing her ideas on abstinence based sex education in schools, she insinuated (either purposefully or as a result of very poor skill of articulation - I'll let you be the judge of that) that if more teenagers said 'no' that sexual abuse would be drastically curtailed. At best a foolishly poorly worded statement, at worst a frightening insight into this woman's views of those most vulnerable in our society. And now it appears that the Conservatives (and by virtue their coalition partners, the Liberal Democrats) have decided to take this further. Several weeks ago it was reported that the British Pregnancy Advisory Service (BPAS) have been 'disinvited' from the governments new Sexual Health Advisory Board and replaced by the pro life group, Life. Life are against abortion in all circumstances lean heavily towards an abstinence based approach to sex education. I addition to this a new amendment to abortion legislation is being pushed through by Dorries and her pals. This addition to existing abortion legislation will mean that women seeking terminations, for whatever reason, will be required, by law to undergo a 'counselling session' with an organisation that does not carry out abortions. And its part of a bigger organisation known as Right to Know. In the interests of fairness I will point out that Dorries partner in crime in the former Labour minister Frank Field.

Currently the backlash to these, what can only be described as legalised incursions into our civil rights and personal lives, are causing much consternation and a big Pro Choice rally has been organised and is due to take place on July 7th. Foremost amongst those who see the threat of Dorries and her ilk and their attempts to push through antiquated and morally judgmental legislation is Labour MP Dianne Abbott and she had this to say;

"We cannot allow Nadine Dorries and some of the anti-abortion groups currently advising the government to turn the clock back for millions of women," said Abbott. "Mainstream medical opinion is united in its agreement that, when carried out in a legal setting where sterile facilities are available, abortion is a safe procedure carrying a low risk of complications. "And we must not underestimate the chilling news that the government has appointed anti-abortion group Life to their expert advisory group on sexual health. This appointment, coupled with the retraction of an invite to the British Pregnancy Advisory Service, one of the UK's leading abortion providers, signals a dangerous move." She added: "Increasingly, people up and down the country are looking to take a stand against what they see as an attempt to chip away at abortion access for women in England, Scotland and Wales. "There is a rising tide of opposition and concern about the agenda being pushed by figures in this Tory-led government, and David Cameron must come clean on where the Tories now stand on a woman's right to choose." (The Guardian, Sunday 5th June 2011)

Depending on your own personal stance on the abortion question you may applaud or deride the actions on either side. Personally, as some one who is passionately Pro Choice (which is not the same as being Pro Abortion any more that being Anti Abortion automatically makes you Pro Life), I fail to see the good in it. Of course the argument that the new amendment would promote a greater understanding of the choice being made and allow women to make a more informed decision will be put forward in defence of this. In theory, yes. However, the truth of the matter is quite the opposite. Women should be educated and they should be informed.  The decision to terminate a pregnancy should not be one that is made lightly. But that is not what the Right to Know campaign is offering. Instead it is taking women, many of whom will never again feel more frightened, alone or vulnerable and it is bullying them. By subjecting them to counselling by a biased and subjective body they will not be given the necessary information and support to make the 'right' decision (something which is highly dependent on the individual circumstances, not the agenda of an anti abortion organisation), if anything women, already facing, for many of them the hardest decision they will ever have to make, will be left feeling guilty, confused and utterly, utterly alone. What is needed is objective, non judgmental, open and honest advice and that will not be found within the frame work being laid out by Dorries and approved by the government. Women will be stripped of their power, their rights and in the case of the younger generation of women who may also fall foul of Nadine Dorries shortsighted and possibly dangerous push for abstinence based sex education, their chance to make an informed decision about their own lives and bodies based on a free exchange of views and information rather than the outdated convictions of others.