Are they us or are they them?

How much should public servants earn? Even during the boom years, public sector salaries and work conditions were under immense scrutiny and that has increased in the current economic circumstances. A recent survey showed that 9000 people in the public sector now earn more than the Prime Minister. The Coalition's cuts will mean a huge number of jobs being lost across the public and private sector, whilst public sector entitlements like pensions are under threat. So it was with some interest that I watched Local Government 'fat cats' come under the microscope on Newsnight.

Given his £300,000 salary (including pension) - I thought it was very brave of John Ransford, Chief Executive of the Local Government Association, to step into the debate. How often do we find that Government ministers are not available under similar circumstances? But, at a time when councils were being forced to make thousands redundant, could he justify his salary?

Grant Shapps, Housing Minister, argued that he would expect the Chief Execs to "lead by example", he pointed out that MPs had accepted a pay freeze. The fact that our 'Austerity' Cabinet has 18 millionaires means they are probably in a position to get through these hard times. However, his general point seemed a good one. Phillip Blond from the think-tank Res Publica suggested there was no evidence that "higher pay will lead to higher performance. " He continued, "What public services need is ethos led, mission statement driven  leadership." He also concluded that, "The role of the state is to lead by example."

So on one hand the public sector has to accept market conditions but on the other it must somehow set itself higher standards? Ransford's argument that the market rate for getting people with the right skills and experience had increased with the rigors of public scrutiny and improving performance is plausible. However, for Chief Executives not to be taking some of the pain themselves seems, at the very least, politically naive and lacking in leadership qualities. At first glance it does seem strange that Chief Executives earn twice as much as the Prime Minister. However, the Prime Minister will have a place in history. Westminster Council is is a £800 million organisation that provides services that people depend upon. It's a big job but no Chief Executive will be remembered for long. It's a market. Aren't we all in thrall to the market these days?

Well no. On 1st Nov, BBC reported that FTSE-100 directors saw total earnings increase by 55%  on average over the year, while the average increment for the FTSE 350 as a whole was 45%? 2010 city bonuses are predicted to hit £7 billion. At the same time the Institute of Directors survey showed the majority of directors across the private sector received a pay cut in 2010: 46% of directors either had a pay freeze or pay reduction in cash terms in 2010; the 54% who had a pay rise received 2.5% in 2010, which is equivalent to a cut when inflation is taken into account. 

Why is the debate always framed as the private sector versus public sector? Most of us should be on the same side. Big business and the City are playing on the fears of small businesses and its employees off against the interests of the public sector and reaping the benefits in huge payouts, whilst everyone else does the paying. Isn't it time to taget the real 'fat cats'.

What can the Wombles teach us?

I find it very easy, as you may have noticed, to moan. I am aware that a relentless stream of criticism might tax everyone. So today I wanted to talk about some good news. Bathwick St Mary's, my childrens' school has just been voted the best primary school in the country and for once it seems like the accolade is well deserved. Now it might not be to everyone's taste but in my experience the school sums up a lot about what I think is important about education and teaching. So what makes a good school?

Bathwick won the award for it's exceptional record at Key Stage 2 exams over a number of years, however, Mr Burnett, the Headmaster told The Sunday Times: “We celebrate achievement and academic results but what matters every bit as much is that our children leave us as well-rounded individuals on course for happy, fulfilled lives. I live and breathe this job – it is a privilege because what we are doing here can change a child’s life for the better for ever.” I agree, the results are great but their focus on producing independent young people who have learnt to learn is a harder task and a greater achievement. That is a real education.

When I was looking for a school for my children, I asked Mr Burnett, what was Bathwick's secret? He told me he believes a school should be a learning environment for everyone: children, staff and parents. It was inspiring stuff. The expectations on performance therefore extend across the whole school and there is certainly a bearable but conscious pressure for everyone in the school community to do just a little bit more. The school sets high standards.

When I was a young boy, my mum set high standards as well. The standards of the 'genteel' working class. High expectations about behaviour, a spotlessly clean house, smart clothes for public appearances and a slightly patronising attitude to anybody she knew who did not match up. This did not extend to anybody from a 'posh' background. In mum's eyes, they set their own rules - rules that she could never fully understand but that she knew, with every aspirational breath, were superior to her own. A confident, gossipy woman when chatting to other women on our street - just a word from a teacher or a doctor, pretty much the poshest people we ever met, would reduce her to a state of awed subservience.


Unfortunately, my house is a mess and my general appearance is unruly to say the least. However, her standards gave me a good start and I did take to heart two things from my mum's prejudices. 'Posh' people got an education and ''posh' people got away with more stuff because they were educated. Instead of calling it anti-social, you could call it bohemian or relate it to something Evelyn Waugh had once written. My long-term lesson, for good or bad was that 'posh' people had more fun, experienced more things and had more variety in their lives. Whatever my motive that became the focus of my aspirations.


Education, therefore, has always been close to my heart. In one way or another I have spent my whole life 'in education'. From the first inspiring Topsy and Tim stories, through school, several universities, LEA and political jobs, a period as a school governor and currently working for exam boards, I have had almost pathological attachment to education. 20 years ago, despite being at a Grammar school, expectations were low and I didn't set myself high enough standards. For a naturally bright but incredibly lazy boy with parents who had never taken a public exam, it was far too easy to coast. Many talented and bright kids fell out of the system completely. What a waste.

So, how is Bathwick St Mary's award good news to anyone not related to the school? My limited experience of schools meant that I thought Bathwick was setting truly exceptional standards. However, in the last month or so I visited a large number of schools, from private to bog standard comps in different parts of the country. Schools facing a much greater variety of challenges than a Bath primary school. I've had the opportunity to observe classes, talk to staff and pupils and even take part in some lessons. It struck me that the things that had grabbed my attention when I visited Bathwick were actually evident in all the schools I visited. Nowadays,  it seems, there are less places to hide.

Things have changed a lot in the classroom since my day. I observed extremely well-trained and committed teachers using a variety of traditional and IT methods to relate their knowledge. The structure of the lessons and the syllabus' seemed to engage the children. Despite the large numbers of pupils in some classes, teachers kept everyone on their toes and the children seemed engaged and capable of performing an impressive level of analysis for their age and 'ability'. High standards were being set and they seemed to be underpinned by the national curriculum, excellent teaching and consistently high expectations.


Now class please don't be cynical. Poor mistreated schools. No matter what they achieve, there are always Cassandras predicting tales of educational woe due to easier exams and falling standards. They simply can't win. Of course there are still massive problems, especially within some big cities, but there is a lot of very good work going on out there. Polly Toynbee's book 'The Verdict' concluded that education had been one New Labour's genuine success stories. You can't make children succeed but if a child wants to succeed they probably have a much better chance than 20 years ago.

Education unlocks doors. For some children it is the only key they will ever have.

(Answers on the comments board about what the Wombles can teach us)


Please pass this on to all your friends!

Arise Queen Posh and King Becks

The news that Prince William is engaged to be married to Kate Middleton has sent ripples of indifference through the nation. Long gone are the days when the bunting would be out on every street. After 30 years of sordid marital betrayal only the deluded can believe in fairytales anymore. Cameron's statement that the Coalition cabinet members were cheering and thumping the table with glee should give us all pause for thought. 

Even the BBC's Royal Correspondent Peter Hunt, who must have given a sigh of relief given the cuts the BBC are facing, found it hard to summon-up any enthusiasm. It is hard to believe his claim that, "I know many people who are actively thinking about where they will place their picnic tables and chair once they have a date." Really? Yet in our supposed meritocratic and classless age, perhaps the decision of our future, next-in-line to a feudal symbol of hereditary privilege and entitlement - or king, if you prefer - to marry into 'trade' should be a signal for all of us to celebrate.

Many aristocratic families over the centuries, facing financial difficulties, have sought to marry into money. I'm sure that the choice of Ms Middleton, the daughter Carole and Mike - successful children's party entrepreneurs, must have pleased the whole family, especially the Duke of Edinburgh who's famous for his common-touch such as asking a Edinburgh driving instructor, 'How do you keep the natives off the booze long enough to get them through the test?'

Despite the regal smile, getting the begging bowl out must be particularly hard on the Queen. To many she has been a beacon of our nation's dignity, rising above the grubbiness of modern life. Only in September we learnt of her dignified attempt to tap into a £60 million poverty fund earmarked for schools, hospitals and low-income families. In these tough times how can the the world's largest landowner with a personal fortune of £349 million and an annual contribution of £7.9 million from the state make ends meet? She is a lesson to us all.

The eight years 'living in sin' have given the Middleton's a long time to prepare for the news and they have needed it. Universities are not what they used to be and your children can easily get involved with the wrong types. William actually seems like quite a nice young man. However, it must be trying for these middle Englanders to accept that Kate will be marrying into to a immigrant family characterised by immorality, unemployment and welfare dependency. 

Like an embarrassing dad in 'Shameless', Prince Charles' comment that the couple had been 'practising' for long enough must have sent shivers down their spines. It is only to be hoped that the Middleton's influence can help the Windsors reach the higher moral standards set by Daily Mail readers. Family occasions could be particularly trying. 

It is to William's credit that he has tried to avoid many of the pitfalls that his family have fallen. Although, I do wonder how Kate felt being given his mother's ' The one to rule them all' engagement ring given the luck it brought Diana? The Royal Family are on the offensive with a wedding and then the jubilee to galvanise support. However, I think the tide is against them although it is seldom recognised. Even the Tories refused to increase the Civil List this year - the 20th year in succession it has stayed the same - and in the long run do we need a monarchy that has the air of a provincial door-to-door salesman? Doesn't the monarchy need a touch of glamour? Will's attempt to 'do' ordinary may just be another nail in the monarchy.

I hope that Will and Kate have a long and happy marriage but if we have to have a monarchy, couldn't we keep the palaces and install Posh and Becks, just think what that would do for tourism?

Goodbye to Berlin

 

Is Viggo Mortensen the new Henry Fonda? In modern cinema few actors are able to bring such a quiet dignity to roles. His off-screen interests and lifestyle appear to give weight to the integrity of his screen image and like Fonda he appears to have sold his soul to the devil in exchange for permanent youth. I'm pleased to say that the 2009 announcement of his retirement was premature and we can look forward to a number of new films including two new films with David Cronenberg, one of which will be a sequel to their 2005 collaboration 'Eastern Promises' for which he received an Oscar nomination.

Like Fonda playing a villain in 'Once Upon a Time in the West', Mortensen is seldom better than when our expectations are confounded and in this respect he is perfectly cast in 'Good', an adaptation of CP Taylor's stage play. Set in Berlin during the 1930s Mortensen plays John Halder, a mild-mannered Professor of Literature confronted with the personal challenges of living and working under the Nazi regime.

Mortensen gives an excellent performance as we watch this essentially 'good' man fall under the influence of the Nazis. This is Hannah Arendt's 'banality of evil'. Naive, flattered and scared in equal measure - it is an entirely believable portrayal of a seduction and the small moral compromises that lead inexorably to the
concentration camps.

Unfortunately, as a film the dramatic tension cannot be sustained. Why? Simply because we know where this is going to end up. A Jewish friend, ably played by Jason Issacs, is little more than a cypher. Good humoured, intelligent and generous, a veteran of the First World War - he ticks every box as a victim worthy of our sympathy. Yet as Halder's star rises within senior Nazi circles - Glückstein's decline, which should have been tragic was merely inevitable. Serious, worthy but ultimately boring.

Over the weekend I asked a friend who works at the Imperial War Museum if she fancied writing a piece about Remembrance. 'Make it funny and controversial' I added in a flippant moment. She put me in my place as only a teacher can. However, I thought of her again during this film because she had given me a copy of Isherwood's 'Goodbye to Berlin'. Best known for the Oscar-winning musical adaptation 'Caberet', it was originally published in 1939 and tells the story of a young Englishman's adventures in the bohemian city as the Nazis tighten their grip on power.


I had always thought of Christopher Isherwood as a blagger.  Charming and entertaining but not really of any consequence. I was wrong. Isherwood somehow walks a line between the frivolous and the profound. His battlefield is beautifully developed in the seedy world of nightclubs. Drinking, singing and dancing become conscious political acts, their demise mirrors the democratic institutions that were being dismantled. Isherwood recognises that a Nazi politely collecting money is just as threatening as the stormtroopers smashing windows. He was there.

Isherwood's great achievement, however, is the way he deals with his Jewish characters, most notably the Landauers, a wealthy family who owned a large department store in Berlin. His friends, Bernhard and Natalia Landauer, are snobs, intolerant and prudish but thanks to Isherwood we also discover the things that made him like them. They are real people - not mere cyphers for a race. When he overhears two businessmen talking about the death of Bernhard from 'heart-failure' - "there's a lot of heart-failure in Germany these days", it is as a personal tragedy but we understand the wider implications. His happiness upon hearing that Natalia has married and is living in Paris is simply chilling.

I suppose we should applaud the ambition of 'Good'. It is film with with serious intentions but by being boring, well it's not a crime, not in this context, but let's say it is unworthy. Try reading Isherwood instead.

Abu Hamza and the Tiddlywinks AGM

What does Abu Hamza's right to be British have to do with my fight for the Tiddlywink 'One'?

You have to understand that the impassioned plea that I should get all the awards was not argued from a selfish perspective. This is part of my continuing philosophical battle against tyranny in all its forms. The fact that I could possibly clean up at the AGM awards dinner was besides the point. The stats had been added up and the figures as far as I could see inarguable. I not only had the best 'tiddling' average but had also 'winked' myself to the top of the league as well. In fact, according the stats all fourteen awards should be mine. El Presidente de Tiddly Winks de Barrio de Bathavonton sees things differently.

Tyranny is defined as the 'cruel and arbitrary use of authority'. Now clearly, to deprive me of my rightful awards would be cruel but I want to talk more about the arbitrary aspect of the discussion. El Presidente has always been keen to point out that the club manages to exist without any formal rules, without elections and guided only by his benign leadership. In practice this has seen our little banana republic  rub along very nicely and in recent years go from strength to tiddly winking strength. This state of affairs is, of course, fine until there is a possibility of me losing out on awards due to an arbitrary decision by the ruling junta.  

'British nationality is a privilege'

We live in a world that is overwhelmed with rules, it tests the patience of most of us and it provokes editorials in the Daily Mail. Why do we have so many? The rules have developed through case law and legislation to protect rights. They may be annoying but they are a sign that our society has reached a high level of political and social maturity. We should expect to be safe in our work place, we should expect standards of cleanliness in restaurants. You can quibble about the extent of the rules but in principle we can agree that they are a good thing. It's just annoying when they sometimes stop us doing exactly what we want, isn't it?

What seems to get people particularly annoyed and provoke 'political correctness gone mad' headlines are the extent that human rights get extended to...well, everybody who is British. The fact that a European Court is seen to repeatedly overturn British decisions merely exacerbates the problem for many. In this context the decision of a British Special Immigration and Appeals Commission (SIAC) to allow Abu Hamza to keep his British citizenship will no doubt have some scratching their heads.

Hamza has been found guilty on 11 charges including 'encouraging the murder of non-Muslims and intent to stir up racial hatred'. Yet, I think, we should all be proud of this decision. If the battle against Islamic extremism is a battle of liberal democratic culture against a religious tyranny then this is a victory for our way of life. Would we be given the same protection under Hamza's kind of government? No, and that is why our culture is worth preserving. Hamza, a British citizen for 20 years has rights. This tells the world about the strength of our values. It's a powerful message.

"If a normal, vanilla-flavoured Brit did something wrong, we would simply bang them up in prison"

The Home Office have said they will consider the decision carefully and added: 'British nationality is a privilege and the Home Secretary has the ability to remove it from dual nationals when she believes it to be in the public good.' British nationality is a privilege because it affords a 'citizen' a certain level of protection from the type of arbitrary action the Home Secretary is proposing. By throwing people out rather than dealing with suspects through British courts are the government not just passing on the problems to other countries, but also admitting that they can not protect us?

As the appropriately named Sarah Left argued in the guardian: 'Not every citizen is a credit to this nation, but when, say, Jeffrey Archer embarrassed the Conservative party by committing criminal acts, he was imprisoned. No one mentioned exile. As a Home Office spokesman put it, if a "normal, vanilla-flavoured Brit" had done something wrong, the justice system would simply "bang them up in prison".'

Hamza is currently fighting extradition to another country where he faces charges for terrorism. In another one of those seemingly ironic decisions, the European Court has repeatedly defended Hamza's right not to be extradited to the country because it can not be certain that he will be treated humanely. That country is the USA. Our biggest ally in the 'War against Terror' and we can't extradite a suspected terrorist to them on human rights grounds. In the battle for hearts and minds is our cause helped by that sort of message?

Save the Tiddlywink 'One'

Meanwhile, on a more serious note, I pledge to continue my single-handed fight against tyranny. I will  await the announcements of the awards at the Bathavonton Tiddlers' AGM. Will democracy overcome tyranny? Will enlightenment principles override El Presidente's arbitrary brand of decision-making, or will the awards be distributed to the throng like gifts at a Christmas party. Such utilitarianism might keep the majority happy but it wouldn't be just.

Oh, hang-on, there are some men with balaclavas at the door, I wonder what they want?