Oxbridge and the great escape

Poor old Nick Clegg, he just can't win, can he? On Wednesday's BBC 10 O' Clock News, a student said he was "either mad, stupid or malicious" for raising student fees. Then, after retreating from that meeting, looking very angry and rather ruffled, he was confronted with a Commons motion, signed by 25 Tory MPs, criticising his attempt to encourage 'fair access' to England's most prestigious universities.

Not that long ago Clegg had the appearance of an enthusiastic fresher with a disarmingly straightforward manner. We now realise that most of it was achieved through sleight of hand and being taught the magical trick of looking straight into the camera when answering questions during election TV debates. Now, he and his team are looking increasingly beleaguered as they tie themselves up in knots trying to keep their own party happy while at the same time remaining in government.

For his next trick, Clegg will find himself tripling student fees and at the same time berating top universities for not accepting enough students from poor backgrounds. At the moment, children from private schools, about 7% of total students, take up half of the places at Oxford and Cambridge. Private school pupils are 55 times more likely to get a place. According to the Sutton Trust, out of the one in five children currently eligible to 'free school meals' in England, only 2% of make it into England's top 25 universities. It's been quite an achievement for successive governments to make 98% disappear.

Fees are due to rise to £9000 from 2012, but Clegg wants to ensure that poorer pupils will not be put off applying because of the increase. Out of his hat he has pulled the proposal that any university wishing to charge more than £6000 will have to agree a target with the Office for Fair Access (OFFA) each year. The highest fee charging universities will have to agree how many students from state schools or poorer backgrounds they recruit in future years. Speaking to the BBC, Clegg argued,

"These statistics demonstrate just how closed many of our universities are to students from disadvantaged backgrounds. Universities should be the greatest agent of social mobility that we have in this country, but too often instead they are serving as instruments of social segregation."

Meanwhile, the threat that their children might not be able to get a place at their old college has provoked Tory MPs and the Tory press. Yesterday they were accusing Clegg of pushing this issue as a way to make the tuition fee hike more palatable to his fellow Lib Dem MPs. Probably true. They also argued that it was social engineering and said universities should not be be forced to compromise educational standards in order to fill quotas. I would also agree that there is social engineering going on, just not in favour of state school students.

The Russell Group, representing the UK's top universities responded to the proposals by saying,

“It is important to be very clear about the underlying cause of under-representation of students from low-income families at university. As the report acknowledges, the primary reason why too few students from lower socio-economic backgrounds go to university is under-achievement at school.  Ensuring that students from low-income backgrounds fulfil their potential at school is by far and away the most effective way of increasing their chances of going to a leading university."

As an undergraduate I shared a house with a young Muslim man from Burnley. He had managed to scrape into university after completing 'A' levels during the evening while working full-time at a clothing store. Having left school with a handful of GCSEs, his manager spotted some talent and encouraged him to sit more exams. The university, too, felt he was a worthy candidate and he was given a  low offer. He worked hard, but not obsessively, was the life and soul of the department and got a 'first'. He is now a very successful man.

His story is exceptional. He was exceptionally lucky to have a boss who encouraged him to go back to school. He was exceptionally lucky the university were prepared to take a risk and gave him a low offer. Once he got the chance there was nothing lucky about his success. He was an exceptional candidate. Yet luck had to play such a huge part in the process. Compare his experience to the luck of being part of a family that puts you down for Eton the moment you are born.

I often think of my university friend when I hear organisations like the Russell Group talk about 'under achievement' at school. From what he told me, getting to school every morning had been an achievement. He came from a poor background, in a deprived neighbourhood and with English as a second language. He is an extreme example but like many state school pupils he was playing catch-up from day one. If the Russell Group were really interested in 'attracting students with the most potential from all backgrounds' they would have to adopt a more flexible approach to assessing that potential. 

One way of addressing potential is through 'value added' monitoring. The idea of 'value added' is much maligned by everyone in education except those at the sharp end who realise that a child's ability to learn can not be judged purely from their final results. It aims to measure a child's educational development with reference to where they were developmentally when they started at school. It is not a level playing field. On a very basic level, it's a lot easier to discover and read 'the book' when it's on the shelf at home. There is a big difference between being better educated and being more intelligent. At the moment many state school pupils are playing against a stacked deck. 

Obviously, development can be enhanced by a number of variables. The three Bs from a child whose parents left school with no qualifications, who does not get taken to cultural events and sat in a class of 34 might demonstrate enormous potential compared to a child who has had all the advantages and gets three As. I'm not trying to denigrate the success of three As but I do want the achievement of three Bs to be properly recognised. Who has the greater 'potential'? 

Last year in The Observer, Will Hutton argued that privilege not talent continued to define opportunity in this country. It was a damning indictment of our 21st Century democracy,

"For while most people would like to believe we "have got past" worrying about the role of Eton and private education because it is no longer said to matter, the social truth will out. Britain is a chronically unfair and increasingly closed society and private education plays a central role."

What better demonstrates Hutton's conclusion than the current cabinet? Eton - Oxford - Prime Minister. Cameron is the nineteenth Prime Minister educated at Eton. Only in a cabinet dominated by Old Etonians could Nick Clegg, a product of lowly Westminster School - £29,000 per year - think he is qualified to be the voice of the 'common man'? With these sorts of contradictions, no wonder his political career is looking increasingly like one of Houdini's more daring tricks. 

In my experience, if you ask state school students what studying at Oxford or Cambridge was like, they will tell you that the culture was dominated by an atmosphere of public school 'entitlement'. They belonged and the state school kids didn't. Clegg's solution, is quotas and targets. In these circumstances, to 'give' state school and poor students places at top universities, is dripping with that 'entitlement'. How very Victorian and paternalistic. State school students don't need to be 'given' a place. Many of them have already earned one. 

Luckily, just in case my kids don't get the grades, I've already put my kids down for an X Factor audition. 

Who will have the last laugh?

"The replacement of Trident is going ahead". It's the type of announcement that is guaranteed to raise the morale of Tory backbenchers and constituency foot-soldiers. After all, the ability to wipe out millions of people is the reason that most people get involved in politics, isn't it? David Cameron's announcement was met with loud cheers by his MPs and produced a muted response from the Labour members, recognition that they also support a replacement for Trident. So general agreement during PMQs? Not quite. Did I hear the sound of Coalition partners, the Lib Dems, voicing dissent?

The statement came as a result of Tory MP, Julian Lewis, asking the Prime Minister to assure his party that scrapping Trident would not be the price for continued Lib Dem support if there was a hung parliament following the next election. However, the decision to go ahead with the replacement has been deferred until 2016. I was not entirely sure if Dr Lewis (a Phd in Strategic Studies), was more concerned about the Trident replacement or the Lib Dems getting 'one over' their coalition partners: "...the Liberal Democrats from their President downwards had been boasting that this was their achievement." It would be so annoying wouldn't it?

Particularly annoying because during the Coalition talks, David Cameron personally guaranteed a meeting of all Conservative MPs that the Liberal Democrats would support the replacement of Trident.  Cameron explained the delay had absolutely nothing to do with the Lib Dems, but was because the Government had referred the proposals for a "value for money study because we desperately need to save some money in the Ministry of Defence so we can invest in some frontline capabilities." 


In giving out some reassurance the PM may have let slip the true situation. It is rare that you hear a politician, never mind the Prime Minister, admitting to 'desperation' but it would tie in with the evidence. Back in February last year it was widely reported that army chiefs were questioning the usefulness of Trident. The Guardian reported that 'senior army sources felt that British military capabilities lacked relevance and were still equipped for the Cold War.' The Commons' Defence Select Committee have warned the Government that the armed forces have been deployed above their planned resourced levels for eight consecutive years.

The National Security Strategy, published in October 2010, highlighted the need of our armed forces to adapt. 'A Strong Britain in an Age of Uncertainty' summed up the challenges:

'Britain today is both more secure and more vulnerable than in most of her long history. More secure in the sense that we currently do not face, as so often in our past, a conventional threat of attack on our territory by a hostile power. But more vulnerable, because we are one of the most open societies, in a world that is more networked than ever before.'  


The change in emphasis was highlighted once again in Cameron's speech to the Munich Security Conference last week. While the Prime Minister refuted the accusations that the UK, 'the fourth biggest military power in the world', were retreating from an activist role, almost the entire speech focused on defence needs associated with terrorism. He argued that the conventional forces in Afghanistan had a vital role in this battle and he highlighted the need to, "beef up Britain's cyber security programme and our readiness to act on counter-proliferation." Dirty bombs and chemical weapons in the hands of terrorists, possibly in the hands of British citizens. In Cameron's worldview the frontline is on our city streets. Nuclear weapons did not merit a mention.

I've been told that having costed the reductions announced in the Strategic Defence Review last year, the MoD have come up a long way short and there will have to be a further round of cuts. With resources stretched to breaking point and the MoD already taking a lighter hit than other departments, there are some difficult decisions to be made. 'Boots on the ground' are the operational priority according to the SDR. Back in February, General Richard Dannett, former head of the army and ex-Tory advisor, said that renewing Trident, 'on balance, on a very narrow points decision - is probably right for now.' Hardly a ringing endorsement and would that still be the conclusion?  

Since launching a strike against Commercial Road in East London is highly unlikely, it would appear that the 'delay' not only suits the Lib Dems but is quite convenient for Cameron. After all, having a button to press is one thing, but British politicians of all shades seem to love that 'activist role.' Nothing like strolling around with the troops and wearing a flak jacket. So what will Cameron do?

Despite Cameron's initial statement saying the Trident replacement will go ahead, no vote will be taken on Trident during this parliament. Nor did he confirm it would be a submarine based replacement. More interesting was his later comment, "In terms of the future, I am in favour of a full replacement for Trident, that is Conservative policy and will remain Conservative policy as long as I'm the leader of this party." Does that sound like prevarication to you? Not really answering Lewis' question. No guarantees about Liberal support and, is it me, or does the phrase 'I am in favour' sounds a long way from the categorical assurance that was demanded from his Party?

I wonder if Lib Dems might just have the last laugh?

A minor irritation?

Are the Government feeling the pressure? I only ask because it seems as if they are already playing to the galleries. Less than a year into their first term and the Tories have followed up their rabble rousing speech attacking Muslims with an attack on another oppressed minority. Yes, Little George Osborne from the Lower House has made his voice heard above the cries for a 'Plan B' and asserted himself with an attack on the only people less popular than Muslim 'extremists' and, of course, the dear old Liberal Democrats. Who? Bankers, of course.

The Chancellor has announced that he is increasing the levy on banks to £2.5 billion. It means an extra £800 million for the Treasury than had originally been announced. In December, Osborne said that the levy would be introduced at a reduced rate of 0.05% this year would rise to 0.075% for future years. However, in the last two months it appears the Chancellor has changed his mind over the state of the bank finances and now believes they are healthy enough to carry the full levy from this year. The change of heart will mean that the Treasury will have to play catch up and charge a higher rate until April.

If it seems like George is making it up as he goes along you may be right. Only last week, the Chancellor  was asked to visit the 'headmaster's study' for a chat in the shape of the Institute for Fiscal Studies' 'Green Budget'. While the IFS conclusions supported the Tory's fiscal strategy, the body of the report raised an alarming number of concerns which they underlined publicly by suggesting that it would be useful if Osborne has a 'Plan B'. It was as if the Head had given George an encouraging pat on the back for his ambitious application to Oxford University but then asked what he thought of Derby?

City analysts were arguing that a 'Plan B' would be reassuring rather than unsettling to the markets. The papers concluded that the refusal to countenance a 'Plan B' was because the Chancellor did not want to be seen to change direction so soon. Most agreed that to do so would weaken his personal authority within the government. It has been interesting to hear him barracking Ed Balls as Miliband's 'second choice' because young George was originally Michael Howard's third choice, behind Hague and Cameron. His appointment astonished Conservative MPs. Could his personal ambition and insecurity be driving economic policy?

After all, it is extremely rare for a Chancellor to make such announcement anywhere but in a budget. Ed Balls, called the change 'panicky' and a 'damp squib'. Balls claimed that even after the rise, the Government would be raising less from the banks than they did last year. A 'damp squib' - yes. The BBC's Robert Peston, called it a 'rounding error' as the total raised will amount to 0.1% of the fiscal deficit. Next week the banks are expected to announce bonus payments of £6 million. Peston concluded, 'the tax rise is probably of more importance from a symbolic point of view - perhaps indicating a touch more iciness in ministers' attitudes to the banks.'


The Banks, themselves, have been less poetic and attacked the rise as 'purely political'. Osborne has been in negotiation with the banks to reach a settlement on a range of issues, including a pledge to make £190 billion of credit available to small and medium size businesses this year. The agreement under the ludicrous name 'Project Merlin' (wasn't Merlin the name for the false source of information in the John Le Carre novel Tinker, Taylor, Soldier Spy? Someone has got a sense of humour) is due to be announced some time next week. However, as banks work under regulations that mean they must operate for the benefit of their shareholders, the Government simply doesn't have the authority to force the banks to lend. On one hand they are being asked to lend responsibly and on the other the Government are asking them to take extra risks. Like Labour before them the Tories are discovering that they are fighting with their hands tied behind their backs.

George might be flexing his muscles but no one is really watching. Although a few senior bankers were described as 'livid', the announcement had no effect on the share price, the true test. This suggests that something like this was expected. 'Panicky'? Well, inflation is rising, the IFS have suggested that he needs a 'Plan B' and we have the image of a Tory Chancellor making political capital from the City of London. As Louise Armistead explained in the  The Telegraph, 'the initial bank reaction has been irritation'. The fact is that the success of 'Project Merlin' ultimately rests on the 'goodwill' of the big clearing banks.

Perhaps, he has good reason to panic.

Do we need 'muscular liberalism'?

"We need much more active muscular liberalism." No, it's not Nick Clegg pushing steroids on his colleagues but rather David Cameron attempting to promote a national identity based upon core values:

"Let's properly judge these organisations: Do they believe in universal human rights - including for women and people of other faiths? Do they believe in equality of all before the law? Do they believe in democracy and the right of people to elect their own government? Do they encourage integration or separatism?"

In many ways a worthy aim. Liberalism produces multi-culturalism. Liberalism produces religious and political tolerance. For me, liberalism is the bottom line. The spring from which our rights flow and a healthy democracy can florish. Unfortunately, this was Cameron, not Abraham Lincoln. Although, to put it in context, I think even Norman Tebbit would have thought twice about making this speech.

So, with no sense of irony or...well, sense, for that matter, the Prime Minister, chose to attack "state multiculturalism"... in Munich. Yes, Munich, home of the world famous Oktoberfest, and, oh, the birthplace of the Nazi Party. This was the Prime Minister's first speech on the subject of national identity, a pretty contentious subject, which means that he deliberately waited for this opportunity to reopen the debate. With an eye to historical integrity, Cameron even managed to single out one particular religious group for vilification, Muslims. 

Some Muslims are a threat to our values and our security according to Cameron, well at least he said some. He went on, "Frankly, we need a lot less of the passive tolerance of recent years." Could they not afford TV's or newspapers in opposition? If thousands of innocent civilians killed in Iraq and Afghanistan was 'passive tolerance' then I am not looking forward to seeing the the results of a more 'active muscular liberalism'. Whether the change in emphasis leads to an even higher death count remains to be seen. But, from his Munich platform, language like active and 

muscula

r take on a rather unpleasant ring. 

In his 

speech Cameron highlighted a different standard for Muslim groups: according to the BBC, 'Mr Cameron suggested that there would be a greater scrutiny of some Muslim groups which get funds but do not tackle extremism. Ministers should refuse to share the platform or engage with such groups, which should be denied access to public funds and barred from spreading their message in universities and prisons.' 

I must admit, I am a little confused. Who is the government currently funding to spread extremist messages across the country? That's a pretty important admission. I think part of the problem is the word extremist. I'm not sure what 'extemist' means. I'm sure I could be characterised as an extremist, I own a lot of 1930s Hillbilly music. But that extremism, thankfully, is not covered by any legislation. We do, however, have a statute book that is brimming with legislation covering 'hate-crimes' or 'terrorism'. 

The fact is that most 'extremist' rhetoric, may not be illegal. 

Of course, 'some' Muslims are a threat to our liberal values and some might also be a threat to our security. But then, so are some of our most patriotic, union-jack underpant wearing Brits. Extremists, in the shape of the BNP, are as equally protected as restrained by laws and regulations. After all Nick Griffin gets a seat on Question Time. Dr Hans-Christian Raabe, who is a member of a Church that has accused gay men of promoting paedophilia, has recently been appointed onto a government committee. Does he pass Cameron's test? Does he believe in 'universal human rights?'

Muslim groups, however, seem to have to meet a higher standard. Muslim groups must 'tackle' extremism. I'm intrigued how you 'tackle' extremism. Does Cameron mean that it is not enough for a Muslim group to be law abiding. Is he suggesting that to keep their funding, using the Nazi analogy, they have to be conducting street fights with the Nazi storm troopers? Does that standard apply to Christian groups when they come up against other Christian Churches preaching extremist views? Or do they continue to get government appointments?

Cameron has made this speech on the day that the English Defence League held a major protest in Luton. Labour MEP Richard Howitt, who spoke at the counter-rally to the EDL demonstration, told the BBC,

"The phrase 'muscular liberalism' in particular sadly endorses the climate of threat, fear and violence which is present on the streets of Luton today. The attack on multiculturalism surrenders to the far-right ideology that moderate ideas cannot be distinguished from each other, and actually undermines respect and co-operation between peoples of different faiths."

I think the key difference between the different shades of 'extremist' is summed up neatly by the word 'Christian'. As well as prompting thoughts of Dr Goebbels,

 'muscular' and 'active' would no doubt have struck a chord with Thomas Arnold, the 19th Century Christian moralist and Headmaster of Rugby School who developed the idea, if not the name, of 'muscular Christianity'. Is this the unconscious or even conscious reference? The far right express a strong attachment to 'Christian values' and there is certainly a constituency that sits between the Conservative Party and more far right organisations. Was that Cameron's audience?  

In his 2011 book, 'Going to Extremes' - Cass R Sunstein, Professor and adviser to Obama, argues, "when people find themselves in groups of like-minded types, they are especially likely to move to extremes." Football crowds or MPs at Question Time illustrate this point. Obviously not all extremists become terrorists but psychologists and sociologists agree that 'abuse, humiliation and injustice' are the fermenting grounds for terrorists. By marginalising any section of society we are increasing the probability of terrorists emerging. 

We can't have a single 'national identity.' No matter what the BNP or certain religious extremists may believe. Not without an awful lot of hatred and suffering. We need consistency. We need a leader who dares to promote those principles expressed by Cameron but aimed at protecting or restraining all sections of our society, not just groups who happen to lay a historical claim to some sort of cultural pre-eminence. Cameron's 'little Englander' rhetoric would be laughable for its cynicism, if it wasn't for the fact that it promotes the terrorism it claims to be fighting.

Now, where did I put that Skillet Lickers' 78?