How far does 'parliamentary privilege' extend?

The whole saga concerning MPs expenses has taken a particularly interesting turn over the last few days. The Director of Public Prosecutions, a man with the curious name of Keir Starmer (I've only come across one other person with the name 'Keir' - his last name was Hardie and he created the Labour party. Anyway, I digress..), has announced that three Labour MPs and one Tory peer will be charged under the Theft Act for their dodgy expenses claims.

Over the weekend as leading politicians were saying that the issue can now finally be put to bed (presumably because justice is finally being seen to be done), a potential shitstorm began brewing after it was suggested that the Labour MPs may invoke something called 'parliamentary privilege' - this is part of the Bill of Rights which goes back to 1689 and followed in the wake of the Glorious Revolution (Protestant William and Mary replace Catholic James II in a bloodless coup blah blah blah...). It says "that the freedom of speech and debates or proceedings in Parliament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Parliament." Fair enough - parliament had fought a war earlier in the century against the power of the monarchy. The Bill guaranteed the supremacy of parliament and was responsible for reforming absolutism a full century before the French tore themselves apart over the issue.

The law stuck. In 1999 a committee was set up in order to clarify several issues (nice to know our government reviews legislation regularly), one of which was the idea of "proceedings in parliament". The conclusion was that the law protected "members of both houses from being subjected to any penalty… in any court for what they have said in the course of the proceedings in Parliament."

Now, as far as I see it, whilst the word 'proceedings' is still a nebulous concept and_could_include expenses claims, the letter of the law still clearly says that MPs are protected 'for what they have said'. I agree - MPs should be able to speak their mind in the House of Commons without fear of being prosecuted for libel. However, the whole crisis of expenses in grounded not in what MPs have said, but rather in what they have_done - namely (allegedly) stolen from the British taxpayer in making fraudulent claims. Claiming expenses is an everyday 'proceeding' in the work of an MP. So, as I see it, the 1689 Act only protects MPs for any comments they make in relation to expenses, not for the act of theft itself...am I right? What is the fuss about? These guys should go down!

Some of my legal friends may wish to comment - there is a particularly useful article here.

Some thoughts on Tory education policy

In the preamble, the Tories make their usual jibes against ‘big government’ and the need to redistribute power. However, when you get into the detail they seem to be contradicting themselves. They talk about ‘more unannounced inspections’, the publication of all DCSF data and an even bigger rolling out of the Academies program, which will admittedly reduce the role of local authorities, but still I don’t think Labour or the Tories have got the right idea on interference with education. On the radio the other day a teacher with thirty years experience made an analogy with the health secretary – you wouldn’t get Andy Burnham going into an NHS hospital and telling consultants how to do their job. However, because nearly all of us have been through the state system there seems to be a constant desire to ‘tinker’ because experience gives them some sort of right. This goes all the way back to the creation of the National Curriculum by the Thatcher government in 1988. Since then the paperwork has come thick and fast; there is a constant need to be showing that you can ‘do the job’ by producing paper evidence. When I did my PGCE I handed in two ring binders worth of material at the end which probably had more of influence on whether I passed or failed than the actual classroom observations of my teaching. If someone sees you teaching properly you should be allowed to get on with it.

Cameron talks about using the Swedish model – in Sweden there is a much greater emphasis on letting the teacher get on with the job. The actual act of transmitting knowledge has been sidelined to such an extent by ‘bureaucracy’ that it’s seriously driving down the morale of teachers. The first thing that either party could do – but neither is committed as yet – is getting rid of Key Stage 2 SATs in Year 6. This would end the ‘teaching to the test’ culture that exists in Year 6 and actually allow the teachers to teach in the final year of primary school.

In Sweden, too, teachers are paid more and are held in much higher esteem. I think its something quite specific to the UK in that teachers are not considered to be as important or worthy as GPs, solicitors etc…which is surprising considering the vital role they play (how many Oxbridge graduates are teachers? Admittedly possibly more during a recession but there’s not the same ‘made it!’ success culture with teaching as there is in medicine and law). I like Cameron’s idea of making teaching ‘brazenly elitist’ but I’m sceptical, as are many teachers, that the brightest graduates make the best teachers. I think I’ve got good subject knowledge but that forms about 5% of the repertoire of a good teacher – something that I’m still learning. He also says that graduates on ITT programs will need at least a 2:2 in his government. I would be surprised if any university in the country accepts a student with a Third. Also, why is he offering to pay off the debts of maths and science graduates? Well, I suppose it’s because they’re core subjects but there’s no mention of the humanities. 70% of pupils quit history at 14 – surely that’s a problem if we’re trying to get kids thinking about ‘Britishness’, Citizenship, prejudice etc…

I support what he says about making it easier for teachers to use reasonable force to restrain pupils. The unions are in agreement that the law is currently on the side of the pupil – there have been countless careers ruined due to the false claims made by pupils of their teachers to the extent that many will refuse to take trips out of school or intervene in fights.

Finally, talking about education within the ‘theme’ of a broken society is extremely offensive to all those people who do brilliant work in schools. Any teacher reading this will be filled with doom and gloom. If the Tories want to extend Labour’s Academies surely they must have something good to say about them. Furthermore, they also claim that ‘safe classrooms, talented and specialist teachers, access to the best curriculum and exams’ are ‘currently only available to the well-off’ – what a load of bollocks! Now I admit that in poorer areas you tend to get poorer schools. That’s probably because the best teachers aren’t tempted by living in rough areas, I don’t know. However, my school is a comprehensive, some of the kids aren’t well off, some are in children’s homes, and they get a fantastic education from what is a ‘good’ school – according to Ofsted.

Televised debates

The three main party leaders announced yesterday that before the general election (which most pundits believe will happen on May 6th 2010) three ninety minute TV debates will take place, with Sky the BBC and ITV each assuming hosting responsibilities. The academic Bill Jones, who works tirelessly in politics education, offers his comments here..

It is perhaps worth noting what this means for Prime Ministerial politics in the UK. Let's start with theory. The 'Prime Minister' was a role introduced in the 18th century to help the Monarch with his duties, i.e., Robert Walpole was appointed by George II because of the widening role of government. Indeed, even in the era of the 'fiscal military state' it was felt that a specialist full time role needed to be created.

During the democratic advances of the nineteenth century, the 'Prime Minister' (as he became known, only officially, in the 1880s - hitherto it had been a term of abuse and mocking. PMs had gone by the title 'First Lord of the Treasury', which is still emblazoned on the letterbox of Number 10) became primus inter pares or 'first among equals' as cabinet government developed. However, even as he assumed greater power and responsiblity in the 1900s, rising above his cabinet ministers and wielding the power to make or break a career, he was still merely the leader of the party with the most seats in the Commons. In theory that's all he or she is today...

However, in our media age things have taken on a slightly more Presidential edge. Presidents, as we know, are much more powerful than PMs because of their dual role as head of the government and the state. At a time when image had become more important and ideology less of a sticking point, our leaders have taken on this role with gusto. Thatcher made inroads in the later 1980s when her tenure became increasingly authoritarian (this 'taking power for granted' approach cost her dearly in November 1990). She behaved more like a Head of State than a lowly Prime Minister and earned the ill will of the sovereign, her party and the people as a result. New Labour's fascination with spin and image manipulation has seen Blair and Brown behave more like Presidents than Prime Ministers. Now, we are going to have 'Leader's Debates' in the run up to the election. What does this mean - effectively we are being asked to vote for individuals (like Americans voted for Obama or McCain in 2008). However, in reality we still vote for a local MP. Those less in tune with with how our democracy works may be fooled into thinking that they will vote for the face that most appeals to them on the television screen. The reality is that they will be voting for a candidate in their local area. Only if candidates of the same party are returned to Westminster in large numbers next year can any one of those three faces stand any chance of forming a government. That's how Westminster democracy has functioned for nearly 200 years.

Surely it would be more democratic for constituency MPs to engage and become more visible with local residents by holding many more town hall meetings rather than this 'sham democracy' that will appear on the TV screen. The broadcasters, surely, only approached the leaders with the idea because they were thinking about ratings and potential advertising revenue?

The implication that we are voting for an individual leader at election time has led to people suggesting that our politics is looking increasingly presidential despite that fact that we still elect all of our politicians on the basis of single member plurality. At the moment, theory does not match practice and whilst one could welcome these debates for putting the leaders on the spot and making them appear accountable, they are still rather misleading given the constitutional role of the PM.

Review of my year 2009

As predicted, this year has been much more 'straightforward' than the previous 5 or 6, mainly due to the fact that I have carried on doing the same job. There has been no new university course starting, or no new job to get to grips with - in short, no major life changes, albeit for moving house and that's something that I intend to avoid in the new year. At the very least this should free up some time to travel a bit longer (and further afield) in 2010. After all, once I start my Masters the option of spending my free time galavanting may be seriously impeded.

The early part of this year ran relatively smoothly; the snow caused a minor crisis - I've never had to dump my car before, but the 'snow days' proved to be welcome addition to the school calender; day on, day off, day on, day off...I could live with that. Around this time I went on the first of two trips to Stoke Rochford Hall in Lincolnshire, in this instance to have a full debrief from the Israel trip. It was good seeing friends, all of whom were wearing many more clothes than last time I saw them (English Januarys are colder than Israeli Augusts so no smutty comments please). I recently went back for a weekend working with fellow HET educators. The snow wasn't there but I still have to navigate my way down the A1 which after dark is nothing short of suicidal..

At easter I went to Poland for the first of three trips this year (although this was the only one which was not Holocaust related). Myself, Christian, James and Rachel went to the northern port town of Gdansk, famous for being the spot where the Germans attacked in September 1939, as well as being where the Solidarity trade union first opposed communist rule in Poland in a movement which soon extended to the whole of the eastern bloc. Although a charming place, with a nice coastline and several lovely neighboring resorts (Gydnia, Sopot...) it's not a place that I would hurry back to.

Following a trip to Essex to see PGCE friends I settled into the final term of my first full year at Crompton House. The highlight of the term was a trip the the battlefields of northern France and Belgium. This was following very shortly afterwards (about 12 hours) by a trip to Krakow for my LFA educator training. These have been covered in a previous post so we'll leave it there.

Not much needs to be said either about my trip to the Balkans during two weeks in summer as they have been written about elsewhere. As I said earlier I am keen about a bigger trip taking place next summer; current options on the table are Morocco (by far the easiest), India (by far the hardest) and Australia (somehwere inbetween as I can stay with family). EasyJet fly to Morocco, as well as Israel - I could fly to the latter and visit the places that I didn't have the opportunity to because of the rush to get back in order to move house and start a new job in 2008. The one plan I have made is to visit Stockholm between 13-17th February 2010 and my next LFA takes place in late March.

Foreign jaunts, along with the part time Masters (application still pending) provide the most exciting prospects for the new year. In the meantime I am enjoying living in Manchester (although for perhaps the first time in my life I would not completely rule out London) and the job is very_slowly getting easier.

Finally, here are the names of the bands that I have seen this year (or can/care to remember):

Bloc Party
The Ting Tings
Bob Dylan
Green Day
Klaxons
Blur
Florence and the Machine (x2)
White Lies
Modest Mouse
Glasvegas (awful)
Bombay Bicyle Club
The Answering Machine
Franz Ferdinand (surprisingly, perhaps the best gig I've been to this year, improved no end by meeting the band afterwards and realising that they were thoroughly nice chaps)
The Travelling Band
The Temper Trap
Secret Machines (the loudest band I've seen this year, but in many ways the best)

The music industry holds its breath...Craig speaks..!

So as we skip nonchalantly to the end of the ‘Noughties’, maybe it’s about time that I did what the cool people are doing, as well as Q and NME, amongst others, and “publish” my preferred ten albums of the decade. So, in no particular order:

1. The Strokes – Is This It (2000)
2. Arcade Fire – Funeral (2004)
3. Modest Mouse – Good News For People Who Love Bad News (2005)
4. Interpol – Turn On The Bright Lights (2002)
5. Arctic Monkeys – Whatever People Say I Am, That’s What I’m Not (2005)
6. The Killers – Hot Fuss (2005)
7. Bloc Party – Silent Alarm (2005)
8. Elbow – The Seldom Seen Kid (2007)
9. Radiohead – In Rainbows (2007)
10. Mogwai – Mr. Beast (2006)

I was listening to The Strokes’ first album on my way home from work today. ‘This Is It’ is one of those albums that hasn’t been on my Ipod for a long time, sits in a CD case on the shelf, and rarely makes it into CD player. However, when it does my love and respect for this album is renewed, every time. It’s easy to say that it sounds like all of the other ‘trendy indie’ that’s around at the moment, but the truth is, The Strokes reinvented the genre – at least in its current guise. It’s the earliest album on my list; released in the year 2000 when I, admittedly, was more interested in bands like Limp Bizkit, Linkin Park and The (reasonably more redeemable) Defrtones and System of a Down. At the height on ‘Nu-Metal’ it’s hard to remember what a refreshing sound The Strokes were producing.

Now there are thousands of bands who sound like The Strokes and, I think, music is much better in 2009 than it was in 2000. Part of this is also down to the Arctic Monkey’s debut. This is one of two albums that I say (and others will perhaps also say…) sums up the whole university experience for me. Between 2004 and 2007 it was ‘Whatever People Say I Am, That’s What I’m Not’ and ‘Hot Fuss’ by The Killers which were heard on pretty much every nightclub stereo in Manchester and elsewhere up and down the country. Now I realise that Mr. Brightside is an overplayed track, but that doesn’t get away from the fact that it is an awesome song. Furthermore, all of the other songs on the album, some of which I’ve seldom heard on anything other than my Ipod, are incredibly good.

“Funeral” by the Arcade Fire is perhaps one of the most mesmerising albums that I have ever heard. Radiohead produced an album that rivals OK Computer in its scope and ambition and “The Seldom Seen Kid” rightly wrested the Mercury Music Prize from the soon-to-be ‘has beens’ who would sooner rely on image than produce anything of real musical integrity.

Modest Mouse have slowly become my favourite band this year. I have been working my way through their back catalogue these past few months and will be seeing them live at the Manchester Ritz next month. They are one of four US bands in my selection of ten. One is Canadian and five are British. This goes against the argument of an American friend who claims that the 1990s were the decade of the British band, whilst the ‘Noughties’ have been the decade of US music. To some extent I agree with him, however considering the fact that ‘Hot Fuss’ cites New Order as a major influence, ‘Turn on the Bright Lights’ would not have appeared had it not been for a reasonably famous late 1970s Manchester band called Joy Division and ‘Good News For People Who Love Bad News’ follows in the best traditions of British indie music, the claim becomes hard to sustain. All are truly great albums, produced by American artists; however, in my opinion, ‘This Is It’ is the only true, great ‘American album’.

Bloc Party deserve a mention; whilst their subsequent albums have been rather disappointing, ‘Silent Alarm’ is a great post-punk album with a bouncy indie twist. ‘Turn on the Bright Lights’ is a brilliantly dark and disturbing album and Mr. Beast proves that you don’t have to sing over the tracks in order to make a truly great record.

I don’t think this list is too pretentious! All of the albums you’ll recognise, people play them a lot – but that’s because they’re good, really good.

The Sun. Film. Masters degrees

I thought I’d start by weighing in on the ‘Jacqui Janes’ saga of last week. After all, I love nothing more than bashing The Sun. The background to this story is the death of Mrs. Janes’ son, Jamie, who was killed in Afghanistan recently. Since the Falklands War, Prime Ministers have followed the convention of writing individually to the families of the bereaved. This is understandable given the fact that we no longer seem to fight wars where inordinate numbers of troops are killed. Don’t get me wrong, a single death is one too many; however, during wars past when thousands have perished, it has been customary for impersonal telegrams delivered by the postman to convey the awful news. The MOD can today however contact individual families literally hours after a soldier has died, and this is usually done in the form of a chaplain and a military officer who visit the bereaved family in person. Letters from the PM follow soon afterwards.

Brown will have been sitting at his desk on many an evening these past few months writing letters to the families of the 230+ service personnel who have received news of the ultimate sacrifice. These letters are handwritten which can’t be easy for a man who is blind in one eye and, rumour has it, is slowly going blind in the other. Therefore, imagine my surprise (or lack of, they do stoop pretty low!) when The Sun used the memory of a dead soldier to exploit a bereaved mother in order to smear Gordon Brown. It must not be forgotten that the paper changed its allegiance to the Conservatives about a month ago. Imagine their glee when an understandably upset Mrs. Janes contacted them about the hastily scrawled letter. I can just see the exchange – “Well that’s awful about the poor soldier Mrs. Janes, but…erm…IMAGINE how we can use this to really nail Brown. May we publish your letter?’ Using a dead solider as a way to score cheap political points is indefensible, and that’s all I have to say on the matter.

I was saddened today to hear of the death of Edward Woodward. To many, including me, he is most famous for his portrayal of the high Anglican policeman sent to a remote Scottish island in the film ‘The Wicker Man’. Made in 1973, it has always set the standard for British horror films. With little or no use of blood and a building tension, the film seems to tap into our greatest fears about paganism, the occult and sheer helplessness. I’ve often watched the end of the film and wished, or hoped, that the Sgt. would be rescued by the authorities; I’ve thought similar thoughts when watching Steve McQueen vault barbed-wire fences but that’s by the by... All in all, it’s one of the best films this country has ever produced, helped along by a mesmerising performance by the late Woodward and shocking in terms of its imagery and power of suggestion. In fact, I may just go and watch it this week.

In terms of film, my subscription to Lovefilm is coming along nicely. Recently I’ve watch Amelie, Notes on s Scandal, The Shipping News, Hot Fuzz and Milk. Waiting on my desk is Katyn, a film about the Soviet slaughter of Polish troops in the eastern part of the country in 1940. This act of mass murder was covered up once the Poles and Russians became ‘allies’ after 1941 and has only recently, through testimony, been fully explained and accounted for (although the Russians have not necessarily been gushing in their apologies).

Whilst we’re on the subject of genocide and mass murder, my Masters application for Holocaust Studies has finally been sent to the University of Manchester. It’s all feeling very real now. I went into the University over half term to discuss the practicalities of studying for the course part time whilst still remaining in a full time job. The prospects look good; over two years I can expect to be in university no more than three hours a week and the tiny number of students on the course (there are currently five) means that seminars are planned to times that suit everyone. My application was sent electronically the other day. Now I need to wait to see whether I have been successful before I can apply to the various Jewish organisations (kindly researched by HET) for funding. The university should also be able to help there too. Watch this space.

Question Time

Dear David,

I support you in the BBC's decision to accept Nick Griffin on to Question Time. Only in a public forum where sensible debate is held can we hope to destroy the hate-filled claims of the BNP.

I support neither Labour nor the Conservatives. Yet I know that both parties have a range of talented parliamentarians who, through the subtlety of their argument, will be able to rip into the BNP's message more effectively than the bottles thrown by the UAF hope to achieve.

(In this case, Baroness Warsi and Jack Straw are good choices - however I would like to see Bob Marshall Andrews because he'd turn Griffin into mincemeat!)

The BNP now have European seats. They need to be dealt with head on - on our terms (sensible debate), rather than theirs (violence and protests - doesn't this feed their propaganda machine?). My passionate hope it that Griffin and his party are made to look like a bunch of fools on Question Time. And I think they will be. Their arguments rest on suspicion and lies, and this is no substitute for what is right and good.

If we defeat them honestly with WORDS Griffin et al can no longer claim that they are the victim of a Liberal Conspiracy - rather, he will be a victim of the TRUTH! Surely the party will then lose its raison d’etre.

At present I do not believe that the Unite Against Fascism gets to the shaky heart of the BNP's message. Yes, protests are effective but to what extent do they challenge the party's policies? This should be very easy to do on television.

Mug the BNP of their right to free speech and we may have no reason to distrust them. Allow them to speak, and in the words of JS Mill, 'truth will prevail'.

'I may not agree with what you have to say but I will fight to the death for your right to say it'
Voltaire



Craig Owen
Writing in relation to a request made by ‘Hope not Hate’
http://www.hopenothate.org.uk/index.php

PS - I really do hope you send this guys

Vote for a Change (rather than moan about the Tories?)

Today I went to a meeting chaired by ‘Vote for a Change’ at the Friend’s Meeting House in Manchester; a mere stones throw away from the Tory party conference at the G-Mex. I first came across this group when my 6th formers hijacked a protest organised by themselves and Peter Tatchell on College Green in Westminster. The group has two aims – 1. To replace the ‘first past the post’ electoral system with one that is more democratic, accountable and breaks apart the majoritarianism of British politics, and 2. Bring about a revolution in British politics in the wake of the expenses scandal. Delegates want to see an end to the so-called ‘Westminster Gravy Train’ and a return to real MP accountability.

Daniel Hannan, for example, argued that at the moment MPs in safe seats (he calls them “modern ‘pocket boroughs’”) are accountable only to whips who can have them deselected at election time should they fail to ‘toe the party line’. He argued for the abolition of safe seats (i.e., other PPCs can challenge you to your candidature) and for Primaries (recently trailed by the Tories in Totnes) to be rolled out across the country.

The associate editor of the New Statesman, whose name I forget, argued vociferously against Primaries by pointing out that the Totnes experiment cost £38,000, a sum that the Tory party isn’t likely to want to spend again. He also poured cold water on any hopes of the Conservative party cleaning up politics if and when they are elected. He said that the party came out worst from the expenses scandal and Cameron meted out punishments according to individuals’ usefulness to the ‘government in waiting’. In other words, backbenchers like Steen were forced to fall on their sword whilst not one member of the front bench was disciplined. Only Alan Duncan lost his job when he was recorded saying that MPs were forced to live on rations. Needless to say, Duncan is a millionaire.

Martin Bell, another speaker in this incredibly diverse bank of speakers (I can’t imagine that these people have all been in the same room together ever before) said that Labour won in 1997 off the back of Tory sleaze and have spent the best part of the last 12 years managing to replicate many of the Tory misdeeds. John Strafford holds a role within the Chairmanship of the Tory Party (I can’t remember which) and he actually impressed me most. He offered a convincing and accurate argument against the FPTP (when many in his own party are happy to keep it as it is – after all, it will probably return them to government next year) and seemed upbeat about the prospects for change, at least until Mr. Hassan (New Statesman) ‘urinated on his bonfire’. Lewis Baston of the Electoral Reform Society said that bribery and disenchantment were nothing new in politics, the only difference was that today the two parties have a lot less support that they used to enjoy – nevertheless, power still swaps between these two elites in our democratically questionable majoritarian system.

Polly Toynbee chaired proceedings. She did a brilliant job of appearing impartial despite the musings of Daniel Hannan, Conservative MEP and darling of the American right wing media for his statements that he ‘wouldn’t wish the NHS on anyone’. I hadn’t expected this to come up – we were having a debate about political renewal after all, and it seemed as though Hannan was reasonably articulate in his observations of our political system and offered a few decent arguments, albeit without much support from the left leaning members of the panel, Hassan, Toynbee et al.

And then something happened which made me think ‘right, Labour have really lost the election’. A member of Manchester Young Labour sitting behind me (who I’d recognised from our meeting with the Health Secretary) asked when proceedings were opened up to the floor if there’s any real choice next year when members of one party come out with spurious comments such as Hannan’s on the NHS. I had a problem with this for several reasons:

1. Hannan’s recent notoriety is down to his irksome views on national health, However, that’s not why he was there – he was talking about changing the political system and was making some reasonably decent points (for a hard right Tory MEP)
2. The girl who asked the question showed her disdain for Hannan by playing with her phone and not looking up when she was asking the question and during his answer.

MYL clearly came to the meeting with the intention of scoring some political points despite the fact that ‘Vote for a Change’ had aimed to have a frank and nonpartisan discussion about our broken political system. One of the things that has persuaded me that active involvement in the Labour party is perhaps ‘not my thing’ is that I’m getting increasingly pissed off by those annoying minor apparatchiks who are so wedded to the party, so blindly faithful to everything it stands for that they end up criticising everyone but themselves. What the young lady hoped to achieve by asking an off topic question at a public meeting is open to debate. Labour needs to question its own record – it has been in power for 12 years now. There are still those who prefix every sentence with ‘Before 1997…’ We need to start talking about ‘Since 1997…’ Numerous commentators, including Toynbee, argue that Labour is crap at talking about its successes. Even the Spectator is so confident of a Tory victory that it has started to talk about the good stuff that Blair did. However, to return to this little stunt in the Friend’s Meeting House, it represented in microcosmic form everything that has become so pathetic about the Labour party. It is tantamount to a KO’d boxer blithely still trying to throw limp wristed punches when flat on his back on the canvas because he has to be seen to be still putting up a fight. It was ill-informed, pointless and depressing to hear for people like me who like to think that there is life in the old dog yet. Labour needs a cleansing period out of office, that’s when groups like MYL will really come into its own and, I hope, find the ability to attack the Tories on less superficial lines.

That being said, the Vote for a Change meeting was interesting and informative. Conservative party conference in Manchester? Next Ethiopia will be hosting Live Aid for us….

Why I won't lose sleep over The Sun's political alliegence

The Sun is like a chameleon. Just like this creature changes its colours to match surroundings, this 'news'paper changes its stripes to match the political landscape. Indeed, whatever claim that the paper had in being able to dictate public opinion has now clearly gone. Today it merely follows in the wake of the changing tide, dutifully preaching to an already converted majority.

In 1992, The Sun famously printed the headline 'If this man [Kinnock] is elected tomorrow, will the last person to leave Britain please turn off the light?' In 1997, they switched sides with the notably less imaginative headline 'The Sun backs Blair!' and yesterday it claimed that 'Labour's lost us'. The paper loves to back a winner, in fact I'm sure that it's written in the paper's rule book that it has to pick the right time before any election when the outcome can be reasonably predicted to choose its party. Incredibly unprincipled I know, but this is a paper which is blatantly homophobic, ruins lives by referring to people as 'paedos' before they are convicted of any offence and contributes no end to Islamophobia and other types of xenophobia. You've got to ask yourself why any well meaning party would want to support of this toilet paper?

For a long time the answer has been clear. The Murdoch-owned paper is one of Britain's most read dailies. Its simple language makes it accesible to the almost anyone (I think the required reading age is about 7) and, yes, it has an uncanny abiity to predict election winners. I wonder why that is! Unfortunately for the Sun, however, its ability to control public opinion is on the wane. The age of 24 hour news coverage and the internet has seriously reduced its impact. No well meaning individual would go to their website for their daily dose of news. All newspapers are suffering, however it seems that The Sun's illiberal, bawdy and tawdry sensations are particularly out of kilter with the modern consensus. The internet has given us the ability to blog about issues such as this. The Sun no longer controls the agenda or seems to sum up the public mood (as it did with 'Gotcha' http://barorny.com/archives/gotcha1.jpg), it trails in its wake.

Yesterday, Cabinet members were rightfully angry, not about the switch, but rather The Sun's cruel timing. It took the limelight from a buoyant and promising Labour conference. That's all the paper can do nowadays - pick the right time. After all, it has lost its 'voice of the nation' moniker. By getting in bed with an old Etonian it has proved itself to be one of society's biggest hypocrites. Watch out Dave, give it a few years and you'll be splashed across the front page when the party has had enough of you - or smells another winner...it never fails to back one you know!

Trip to Westminster

So on Friday 18th September, most of the Year 12 G&P cohort, along with a few Year 13s, travelled down to London for a trip round Westminster. Mr. Owen was saved from having a panic attack when everyone arrived at Piccadilly in plenty of time, we boarded the Virgin train and had a smooth ride. Even the Underground was trouble free. The trip leader was perplexed, things were not supposed to be this straightforward. So, as I gingerly escorted the pupils through the Westminster crowds, I tentatively entertained the idea that everything would pass off without a hitch.

I think it did. In fact I think I speak for everyone in saying that we had a hugely enjoyable and successful day. Even the sun shone down on us. After being denied entry to Westminster Abbey for free (should such places be free as a public right? Discuss) we found ourselves joining Peter Tatchell and a group of electoral reform campaigners. This certainly wasn't in the trip leader's plan. 'Vote for a change' are a recently created pressure group, a result I suspect of this period of so-called 'broken politics' following the expenses scandal. They basically want to see the end of FPTP and the creation of a fairer voting system. One of the alternatives being thrown around at the moment is the Single Transferable Vote (STV), the details of which I wont't go into here, needless to say that it is fairer.

With Year 12 studying Pressure Groups later this year and Year 13 'steeped in it', thanks to Mr. Owen's lessons (!) this was certainly exciting stuff. The pupil's enthusiasm soon got the better of them and before the trip leader could step in, placards were being waved and slogans chanted. It was a fantastic photo opportunity and a journalistic coup for the photographers and promo people wandering round the green. Indeed as I returned home in the evening I was able to find the photos published on the internet. It was a very surreal experience; nevertheless it was one that contributed to the enjoyment of the day no end.

After our foray into political remonstrating we entered Portcullis House for the start of our package. It began with 45 minutes in a Select Committee room. Pupils used 'Quizdom' to vote on and debate a range of issues. After this we had a question and answer session with Neil Gerrard MP. In my opinion, for someone about to leave Parliament and able to 'say what he wanted', he was still incredibly guarded and dry. On several occasions he didn't actually answer the question but did that thing which politicians do best - read from the well-versed song script. I asked him if he was a socialist. He said 'I hope so' (there seems to be an element of doubt there...) and proceeded to argue that he 'wasn't New Labour'. He also failed to sing the praises of FPTP when challenged on electoral reform, preferring instead to rubbish the alternatives. Nevermind, at least the pupils gained an insight into a 'typical' politician.

After this we had our tour. I think for all of us this was the highlight of the day. Both Houses, Westminster Hall, the works. The Houses were, as I expected them to be, small - much smaller than you would expect from seeing them on television. Parliamentary and elected privilege meant that we weren't allowed to sit down. Our guide Emily was knowledgeable and informative - I learned a thing or two, including the fact that UKIP do not have an MP, something that I had automatically assumed up till now!

Following our visit we walked down Whitehall and took in Downing Street, Horse Guards (cue poses with Guards soldiers - poor guys) and Buckingham Palace (again, rather smaller in real life!) This took us in the direction of the Victoria tube. So after Mr. Clayton nearly met a sticky end at the hands of a white van man we caught the now much busier underground back up to Euston and then went home.

Overall, a successful day. The pupils were very lucky to visit a place like this so early into their studies. It was a first for me - Politics degree notwithstanding.

History repeating itself?

Another contribution to my 6th Form blog (published elsewhere)

To say that History repeats itself is the biggest cliche in the book - of course it does. In fact, the repetition of history is so self evident that my mind scarecely registers this circular motion when I see murders being committed in the name of a religion (again), intolerance (again), political ideologies becoming mainstream (again), blue being the 'in' colour this season (again), music styles being repeated (again) and so on. However, one story in this weekend's news did catch my attention.

Have a look at the following article http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/sep/13/right-wing-groups-palestinian-march Now, we're all familiar with the BNP and their racist message. However, a new disturbing racist organisation has emerged - the English Defence League. This 'patriotic' association, like its partners in SIOE (Stop the Islamification of Europe) have been causing riots and disturbances in areas with a high Muslim population, or, as the report says, where various Islamic events and marches have been taking place.

As disturbing as this is, it is not without precedent. In the 1930s a new political party was formed called the British Union of Facists. Like now, the country was in a deep recession - some economists would say that it was a depression. However, the country was not supposedly 'swamped' with Muslims back then. Just like in Hitler's Germany it was the Jews who were targeted. In the so-called 'Battle of Cable Street' in London in 1936, 'Blackshirts' (Fascists), anti-Fascist protestors and police clashed. Is history repeating itself at the moment. The Spectator would not have us believe so http://www.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/5324466/john-denhams-mosleycomparison-merely-sensationalises-racetensions.thtml However, to discount the admittedly minor problems caused by the EDL runs the risk of falling into another of the 'traps' of History. The BUF started as a small organisation too - it was only WW2 which saw it being disbanded. The BNP were written off until they won 2 seats in the North West and Yorkshire European elections. The EDL may be small, however their tactics are echoed in History, and just as History shows, far right hate groups have the power, means and the message to increase their scope and success. Watch this space.

The US vs. The NHS

N.B. Originally written for my A-Level politics groups

You may have been aware of a furore over health care that has taken place in America over the summer. The political battles have been very insightful for students of AS and A2 politics. Below, I will try to outline some of the main points.

At the moment, healthcare in America is funded mainly by private insurance companies. In other words, it is not free. In order to cover the costs of a stay in hospital Americans need to purchase insurance with one of the many big insurance conglomerates such as AETNA or AmeriHealth - see http://www.amerihealth.com/. Insurance, however, is not cheap and 47 million Americans go without, leaving them at risk if they develop health problems. In the 1960s the American government stepped in, creating "Medicare" and "Medicaid" - to help retirees and the destitute (you'll have to check which is which). However, these by no means provide the kind of universal health care that the likes of Clinton and Obama have campaigned for.

When Bill Clinton became President in 1992 he tried to pass a bill guaranteeing "Universal Health Care". It failed, and now Obama is trying for a second time. Basically what it means is that a "National" Health Service along the lines of the British and Canadian model will be created. This will guarantee health care for those currently too poor to pay for insurance. Ideologically it recognises that health care is a right, not a privilege of the rich. Also, by covering ALL Americans, it carries rather a lot of moral clout. In the world's richest country, the only superpower left, many people are dying needlessly. Charities originally set up to help third world patients treat Americans in converted sports stadiums. The system at present seems wholly unworkable and unethical. Why, then, is it coming up against so much opposition?

There are three reasons for this:

1. Money. The Health Insurance Companies make a lot of money. It the government suddenly dipped its hands in its (deep) pockets and guaranteed health insurance for all Americans these companies would face a serious drop in profits. They therefore use their influence to flood Washington with lobbyists who get politicians to block healthcare reform in return for financial help at election time. It's a neat situation which keeps everyone happy - the incumbents are re-elected due to well financed campaigns; health reform stays off the statute book. Given this state of affairs, the White House appears incredibly isolated.

2. Ideology. This is perhaps even more important; Americans are incredibly fearful of the growing influence of the state on ordinary people's lives. They see government intervention as the preserve of the failed social democratic countries of C20th Europe. Some right wingers even go as far as to say that universal health care is one small step on the slippery slope towards communism. Amercians are fiercely conservative, they don't like change and they don't like the idea that the government is interfering in their lives - which, as they see it is a waste of money and personnel.

3. Fear. Unfortunately, this is the ugly side of American politics. In order to stop this so-called 'communist' system being passed, some Republicans and opponents have said that:

-National Health Care is a breeding ground for terrorism - they cite the failed Glasgow airport terrorist attack (perpetrated by two NHS doctors) as an example.
-Elderly or sick patients would face government "death boards" where bureaucrats decide whether you should live or die (assuming than continued care would be at too great a cost to the state)
-Obama and his supporters are socialists (a dirty word in America ever since the days of Cold War hysteria), a communist, a fascist, a Hitler-lover etc...

Worryingly, some even say that health care is not a fundamental privilege for anyone but can be used a tool of "social cleansing" - the worthless sections of society can be allowed to die off, thus improving the collective 'lot' of the 'good' sections of society.

Conservatives have also cited the NHS as symbol of everything that is wrong with government controlled health care. It is claimed that death boards exist, hospitals are dirty, primitive and if you get cancer "then you're a gonner". American news networks have interviewed British conservatives who support their views, most notably the MEP Daniel Hannan who has said that he 'wouldn't wish the NHS on anybody': http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FiSPRkq28iU

This has let to an almost patriotic outpouring of support for the NHS in the UK this summer. The Labour Party has jumped on Hannan's remarks as symptomatic of the ambivalence felt by the Opposition for Britain's most cherished national institution. David Cameron has dismissed Hannan's remarks as "eccentric" and pledged his party's support behind the NHS. Nevertheless, the Labour Party are bound to claim again and again before next year's election that the NHS will not be safe under a Conservative government: http://www.liberalconspiracy.org/2009/08/18/labour-keep-up-nhs-attacks-on-tories/. This is quite clearly a piece of political opportunism by Labour. Everyone knows that the NHS is safe with either party - as Tony Benn puts it, if it were disbanded "there would be a revolution". The bigger problem is how to reform a system which, no matter how much you love it (as Brown's twitter on 'welovethenhs' contends), still provides a number of challenges to a government no matter its colours. This is where the real dividing lines will be drawn before the next election.

In the meantime, American Universal Healthcare seems to be stalling. Town Hall meetings are descending into shouting matches, Democratic congressmen are hiring bodyguards to protect themselves during the heated exchanges and Obama has had to go on TV telling Americans that the government will not kill the extremely ill (as Hitler's euthenasia programme of the late 30s did...this was suggested by one woman at a meeting here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nYlZiWK2Iy8). In short, this is a battle for the very soul of America and it reflects the divided nature of this young democracy. If healthcare passes, and I doubt it, this will mean more than the extension of insurance to the needy - it will be a sea-change in American politcs. But then again, this country elected a black man less than a year ago. Anything is possible...

Some thoughts on tourism...

Yesterday morning ı got up early in order to make my way down to Sultanhamet before the crowds so that I could go get into the Aya Sofıa and the Blue Mosque. Both were, as expected, beautiful but were spoıled by tourists. I recognise that İ am one myself and that by going to such places İ am contributing one iota to the commotion. Nevertheless, İ still feel that İ am not 'one of them'...

The way İ see ıt, tourism today has reduced once important and hugely important and influential sıtes to public 'frıpperies'. The advent of the digital camera means that we can snap away without a second thought or glance at what we're actually taking a picture of. Gone are the days when we had only 36 exposures and had to pick and choose carefully.

But do people actually know they're taking photos of? Or do they snap away because ıt 'looks nıce'? Posing is something else that bothers me. By posing you are ıdentıfying yourself wıth an object/paıntıng/buıldıng..whatever. You may share an ımage wıth a 10th century mosaıc of the Vırgın Mary wıth Christ, but what point is beıng made - 'look Frank, I was actually here..!' Does thıs need proving? Cynıcal. It provıdes a nıce background to a pıcture of Bob and Phıl? I'm sorry mate but a 10th century mosaıc deserves to be ın the foreground. Get the fuck out of my pıcture!

Photography ın the Blue Mosque (and in any place of worshıp) bothers me (lıke most thıngs? Another rant..) If you lıke the look of the place, buy postcards. They're probably better qualıty anyway. You're measly flash ıs not goıng to fıll the dome of the Aya Sofıa. What ıs partıcularly dıstressıng about photography ın the mosque ıs that ıt ıs stıll a place of worshıp (as well as a tourıst productıon lıne). Tourısts are allowed ın only between prayers..however, there are people prayıng here all the tıme. The thought of someone takıng photos of thıs sacred act ıs pretty sıckenıng - 'Look ^^generıc mate/relatıon from home^^, a real Muslım prayıng ın a real mosque.' WTF! The crowds move through one door and out of the other - lıke a tourıst productıon lıne..and stıll yet the quıet serentıy of the Blue Mosque ıs unmoved. It's almost as ıf the Gods or the buıldıng ıtself are lookıng down wıth a quıet aır of dısapproval or bewılderment at the waterıng down of thıs sacred place. Sure, let us foreıgners and tourıst see ıt. However, we should behave ın a way that shows gratıtude that these places are opened to us ın the fırst place. Photos I don't have a problem wıth, as long as they are taken at the rıght tıme and place. On the beach, at the restaurant, of a hugely ımpressıve buıldıng - not of you ın front of a mosaıc wıth a belıever prayıng ın the background.

As İ knelt down ın the Blue Mosque among the hordes I trıed to ımagıne what the place would be lıke wıthout people such as myself - to tap ınto the 'quıet serentıy' ıf you wıll. Then I heard 'so ıs thıs stıll a ral Mosque mom?' Shame.

A visit to a Turkish Hamam

İf you go to the right sort of place (i.e., neither a tourist trap, nor a place where men go to cruise - unless you're gay in which case go crazy..), a visit to a Turkish Hamam can be a very invigorating experience. The place İ went to was called Park Hamam and was in Sultanhamet in the centre of İstanbul. For the princely sum of 60TRL (about 25 quıd) you get the works...

First of all you are escorted to a camekan where you undress - all clothes are left ın here, the door ıs locked and you keep the key to your belongıngs. Although ın some hamams women can bathe nude, the men's sectıon is strıctly modest...blokes wear a pestemal (a cloth round the waste) and rubber cloggs. You then get taken ınto a steam room or a hararet where you sweat for a whıle.

After about ten mınutes a man comes ın to wash you. He douses you wıth water and scrubs you wıth a kese - a course mıtten whıch removes most of the muck that showers never quıte manage - ıf you enter thınkıng that you're already reasonably clean then ıt's a bıt of a surprıse. After thıs you lıe down on a belly stone - called a gobektası and the washıng begıns.

Nothıng quıte prepares you for thıs experıence. I was expectıng a gentle soapıng down - what I got left me feelıng that I'd been abused ın some way - ın soapıng you up the man squeezes pretty much every muscle, stretches every sınew and beats every ınch of your skın. The massage whıch followed was sımılar, albeıt perhaps slıghtly less paınful (apart from the bıt when the man seemed to squeeze to death every dısc ın my spınal column)

Nevertheless, after an apple tea, feelıng some 25 quıd lıghter, I dıd come out of the hamam feelıng around 5 years younger. Thıs made me wonder why Turkısh men look so unhealthy, and then I saw some kebap on a skewer and I stopped wonderıng.

Yesterday I went for a haırcut and a shave - the former was pretty standard. The latter ınvolved clıppıng nose and eyebrow haır and sıngeıng 'ear haır' wıth a lıghter. I thınk that I'm goıng to return from Turkey a new man, or a least one who has enjoyed mezes and kebaps enough to warrant a few laps round Chorlton park. C'est la vıe.

In the Ottoman lands..

I am currently halfway though my trip around the old Ottoman Empire, or for those of you whose heads are not filled with History junk, Romania, Bulgaria and Turkey.

It all started a week ago when I landed in Bucharest. Fresh from a dizzying experience in London in which I got lost on my way to the British museum, I arrived at a European capital that could not be more different to our own. Stray dogs, crumbling buildings and abandoned cars will be my defining memory. Although the place had an odd, quirky charm about it, I cannot help thinking that if the Prime Minister himself has to park amongst overgrown weeds and broken concrete (as seems to be the case at the People's Palace), then the country has some way to go. Like Sarajevo, this will be an interesting destination to visit in 10-15 years.

Then it was over into Bulgaria and the charming medieval town of Veliko Tarnovo. This place was literally bursting at the seams with history. Nevertheless, I opted for a tour of the churches and monasteries of the local area - one of which - Ivanovo - is on the UNESCO list. I travelled with an Australian girl called Lucy and a Dutch brother and sister. Before I left Veliko I went to the top of the Tsaverets Fortress - a great symbol of Bulgarian pride and nationalism.

I then intended to go to Varna, but the complicated nature of the cyrillic alphabet dictated that I would end up in Sofia. The only good thing I can say about this is that I can tick off another European capital city. It was much nicer than Bucharest, though.

And now here I am in Plovdiv, 1 week into my trip and still with a week to go. This place boasts a Roman ampitheatre that was only discovered after a freak landslide in 1972. Tomorrow I head for Burgas for a few lazy days by the beach in preparation for an onslaught of the senses - Istanbul will hopefully be the highlight of my travels this year. I can hardly hide my excitement.

I will write at greater length soon!

Back..

So here I am, back in the UK after a hectic couple of weeks. It all started a few Tuesdays back. After a full day of teaching I went home, only to return to school at 12 midnight to meet 64 children a 6 colleagues for a trip down to Dover and then onwards to the battlefields of WW1.

We travelled through the night, stealing bits of sleep here and there. After a trouble free crossing we went to the 'Trench of Death' in Belgium. I had been told that I'd be feeling reasonably OK despite being up all night and this was pretty much true. I was on working on adrenaline and the repetitive counting of kids and trench exploration meant that tirednes ddin't catch up with me until about 10. I was even happy to have a few beers that evening in the main square in Ypres. The reconstruction has been immaculate (comparisons could be drawn with Warsaw - my residence over last weekend).

So we visited 'the usuals' - Vimy Ridge, the Somme etc.. very interesting to visit the places I've studied (and taught about) for a good while - one worrying point though. A few of the kids said 'it isn't as bad as I thought it would be'. I suppose that this is one of the main differences between a place like the Somme and Auschwitz (my next port of call). The WW1 battlefields have been maintained in pristine condition and, quite frankly, look 'beautiful'. Graves are tended with flowers and grass is diligently mown. The trenches themselves, if they have not been filled with concrete, are covered in thick grass which hides the mud, the rats, the barbed wire and general shit that the trip was supposed to give pupils an insight into. Regrettably, I still think that some of the pupils don't quite recognise the 'horror' of the trenches. Ironic, really considering we have visited the sights themselves. What more is a teacher to do?

So bearely 10 hours after arriving back in Manchester I was out on the road again, this time to Krakow, Poland. I visited with Mike and Owen in 2007 for a 'Lad's break' and we did the usual touristy things - Wieliczka (?) salt mine (crap) and Auschwitz. But of course, this week has taught me one thing - tourism and Auschwitz are uneasy bedfellows. Of course this is a site of mass murder and I visited on two occasions this week, not as a 'tourist' but as a Freelance Educator with the Holocaust Educational Trust. I applied for the post back in May and was successful (thankfully my current employer, Crompton House School, doesn't mind about the time off that this role will entail). What I've just done is a week's on the job training. We studied at both camps (Auschwitz I and Birkenau) with the intention of bringing 16-18 year olds on one day visits over the next year. We also spent a lot of time in the town of Auschwitz (or, to use its correct Polish name - Oswiencim), the Jewish Kazimierz district of Krakow and various Synagogues here and there. Overall it was a rewading, albeit tiring experiences and I look forward to working with HET on its LFA and Outreach programme over the coming year.

At the weekend I got the train up to Warsaw and continued my 'Jewish journey' - finding a surviving section of ghetto wall and visiting the only surviving Synagogue in a city that suffered like no other in WW2. After two days of this and monging in the hostel/drinking Zywiec off Nowy Swiat it was back down to Krakow for the flight home.

Overall a very rewarding two weeks - which is that same amount of time that I have to wait until Bucharest-Istanbul. It is going to be interesting!

Without egalitarianism, what is the point of Labour?

In a speech to the Fabian Society (a Labour think-tank) last week, Communities Secretary John Denham said that the party must abandon..

"...the purely needs-based approach to fairness, and inequality which has dominated much left-liberal thinking since the 1960s...The left needs to stop holding up egalitarianism as the ideal. If we continue to believe that the egalitarian approach is really the right one, and we, somehow, have to find more cunning ways of getting there, we will fail."

I only came across this speech having seen it reported in the Manchester Evening News. Their political commentator Andrew Grimes (whose 'Opinions you can't ignore') gushingly agreed, claiming that 'egalitarianism discriminates against common sense. It prescribes largesse for the idle, paid for by the diligent'. This, of course, assumes that the poor are not only idle, but that the rich are diligent. Perhaps more often than not it is the other way round.

Grimes goes on, perhaps much further that Denham would be able to stomach...'But the political notion of equality is an absolutist notion (!?), and it always has been. It its extremist modern manifestation, Pol Pot murdered millions in the killing fields of Combodia because they wore spectacles, read books, dressed nicely, earned more than paddy field labourers, or just fearlessly argued back against the egalitatian goons.'

This is sensationalist reporting at its best/worst (?) Grimes clings to the right, and in order to smear the left, like Tebbit, he will liken their current ideas with the most despicable moments in the history of the left (Tebbit, like I said in an earlier post, goes one step further by saying that the National Socialist Party of 1919-1945 in Germany was 'left wing')

What's perhaps most disturbing, however (I'm not bothered about what Grimes has to say - were he any good as a writer he wouldn't be commenting in a free paper)is that a Labour cabinet minister has come out against egalitarianism. A very good friend of mine argues against clinging tirelessly to old left-right arguments. To a large extent I agree with him. What I cannot do, however, is disassociate the Labour party from egalitarianism. The two go hand in hand - like day and night, fish and chips..whichever analogy you which to pursue. In the last 20 years much of the ideological baggage has been stripped away from the Labour party. This was necessary in order to fight the Militant Tendency and make Labour electable again. It is no longer committed to public ownership as a means to achieving equality - today is it an ideal to which the party strives rather than a policy goal. To take away this ideal removes Labour's raison d'etre. The post Clause IV period has seen Labour become a candidate for the 'Trades Discription Act' - take away egalitarianism and the party will have no reason to exist.

What is Sarkozy's motivation for this?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8112821.stm

President Sarkozy of France has spoken out against Muslim French women wearing the full burkha, saying that it 'reduced them to servitude and undermined their dignity'. This is widely regarded as a prelude to the establishment of a parliamentary commission which may in the long run ban the wearing of burkhas in public. This is a sickening denial of an individual's human right to practice their religion and whatever that entails - provided that, of course, this does not inpinge on the liberty of others.

Quite frankly, I do not mind if women wear the burkha in public (so, no, it doesn't inpinge on my liberty and nor should it one anyone else's). The negligable, quite frankly miniscule minority who have in the past used it to disguise suicide bombs (and bombings have never been carried out in the West this way it must be said) number less than that other minority who say that it excludes these women from society. Unfortunately, the French government seems to fall into this latter category.

Yes, the women look 'different', but so do hassidic Jews. So, to be honest, do monks. Sarkozy's arguments completely contradict what most women who wear the burkha would say. Rather than reducing them to servitude and undermining their dignity, they serve as a very visible manifestation of women's deep religious beliefs. Sarkozy claims that they are a symbol of the paternalistic, submissive nature of conservative Islam synonymous with (although he doesn't specifically say this..) forced marriages, beatings and the like.

He has clearly missed the point. 99.9% of women wear their veil because it reflects their deep belief. It is a human right. Surely, Sarkozy must recognise this to some extent. The question is, then, what is his motivation? Is he racist? Unlikely. Is he so caught up in France's famous secularist culture that he is tripping over himself to deny the legitimate rights of thousands of French women? Possibly. This is significant because it has precedents in history, not least Nazi Germany in the 1930s when Jews started to emigrate as a direct result of the harsh policy of Nazis.

Oh, isn't it terribly awful about the Speaker..

It's a feature of British politics that really annoys me; politicians, the public, the media, you name it - they will call on a public figure to go, they will hound him or her, they will rake up all manner of arguments to support their claims. Then, when the individual finally gets out of their bunker and resigns, caving in to the pressure, it is followed by a collective "oh, he wasn't that bad", "we'll really miss her", "she was an excellent so-and-so".

I watched tributes to the former Speaker of the House of Commons, Michael Martin, today with a certain degree of cynicism. MPs and in some cases party leaders (Nick Clegg) who called for Martin's head gushed with praise for 'Gorbals Mick'. As a result, I was quite happy when Martin used his last address to attack party leaders for not supporting his plans last year to overhaul MP's expenses.

Praising individuals after you have stuck the knife in is nothing new in UK politics. A couple of years ago, after a sustained attack on former LibDem leader Ming Campbell about his age (65) and apparent unsuitability for the job, the former Olympic medal winner stepped aside and this paved the way for the younger Clegg. Again, immediately afterwards praise was heaped onto Campbell as a very able leader who, indeed, is well respected across the political spectrum and in the country (dodgy expenses notwithstanding!)

Historians among us will recognise that age is no barrier to success in politics: Gladstone - 85 years old in retirement in 1894. Churchill - 81 years old in 1955.

This leaves me with a simple conclusion. In both the Westmister 'soap opera' and civil society we all love to see someone dragged through the mud even if their credentials or record do not merit this. We lick our lips with anticipation as we wait for the axe to fall. When it does, we face sober realisation - we've dispatched with one of the 'good guys'. Gushing praise is one way to compensate for these guilty feelings.

An apologist for right wing conservatism

Don't get me wrong, I don't mind some Conservatives. It's a belief that certainly bucks the trend of late, however, I passionately believe that there are politicians in all parties who go into politics because they want to change things. They are fundamentally decent people. David Davis comes to mind...Lord Tebbit is NOT a decent person.

In a letter to The Spectator, Tebbit says that he does not think that there is anything right wing about the BNP. He believes that the party displays the old left wing policies of Labour before Blair et al. He regards history's greatest racists as leftists - Pol Pot, Mugabe and Stalin. To top it all he points out that 'Nazi' is short for NDSAP, or - National Socialist German Worker's Party.

Let's make one thing clear. Tebbit refuses to believe that the far right is the place for objectionable views because it provides room and justification for his own arch-conservatism. Indeed, he was the biggest right winger in the Thatcher cabinet - and made Thatcher herself look like someone whom Michael Foot was regard as a 'a bit of a lefty'

Of course Tebbit forgets to mention that the Nazis hated communism. Hitler campaigned for 20 years prior to becoming Chancellor on a platform of destroying the 'Reds' whom, for him along with Jews were responsible for the defeat of 1918. In power, Hitler banned the party (along with all others) and abolished trade unions. Economically, the extreme right and left do favour state control, the former through massive state corporations, the latter through worker's control. However, a fundamental difference remains - for fascists the state must become even more powerful. For communists and socialists it must wither away.

Furthermore, I don't think the BNP would take kindly to being regarded as 'left wing'. Only this week, Griffin railed against the 'liberal left' in the Unite Against Fascism movement for egging the leader a 'legitimately elected political party'. Opposition to Europe is a fundamentally right wing principle (socialists, by their very nature are internationalist), as are old fashioned attutudes to education and reluctance to invest in foreign aid (see BNP website http://bnp.org.uk/). We all know that anyone who criticises the BNP is, in their eyes, a Marxist nut, the 'mob' who attacked Griffin outside Parliament on Wednesday were under the auspices of the 'hard left'.

Clearly, Tebbit simply wants to pile the responsibility for the more extreme variants of his ideology on the left. Yes, communism has been responsbible for the deaths of millions (Stalin's purges and famines), however, to call fascism a left wing ideology is a complete contradiction in terms. At its heart fascists believe that life is a struggle between races, some of which are fundamentally better than others. Socialists don't see races, merely classes. Stalin fell into the old fascist trap of seeing some people as 'more equal that others', however true socialism has none of the hatred, bigotry and plain old idiosyncracies of its cousin on the far right. I am saddened that a former cabinet member will engage such a cheap argument not only when the old left-right argument is dead in the political mainstream but just so he can legitimise his own extreme views.

Is it any secret that he finds himself more akin to the BNP than the Tories? To make himself feel better Tebbit has had to dispense with some of the 'baggage of history'.