Michael Edwards

“The only reliable, durable, and perpetual guarantor of independence is profit.”  - James Murdoch, News Corporation, Friday night. 

Some have described the words as chilling for the BBC.  I just thought they were chilling. 

No role for a “self-governing public corporation with a constitutional remit to serve the public interest and the citizen”. 

Good to see a riposte from Will Hutton in yesterday’s Observer  -  http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/aug/30/bbc-murdoch-edinburgh-tv-festival 

And what choice is there for the customer who wants a news service that doesn’t consistently bring right-wing commentators to highlight what the largely right-wing newspapers say?  At a meeting I spoke at on climate change, in February last year, James Murdoch asserted that the editorial function is kept separate from the business.   I just don’t believe it.  If Sky News wasn’t on Freeview, I wouldn’t pay for it. 

As Will Hutton points out, the ideas in the speech are out of date.  “Profit” - as if the credit crunch never happened.  The public’s assets had to be borrowed against to stop a collapse of banks that would have destroyed people’s jobs and businesses – more like interdependence than independence. 

There is a challenge for the media when all sorts of people can publish on the internet, at no cost to the reader and with no guarantee of a sense of responsibility to those described.  The aggression that can be found in blogs can often be appalling. 

Meanwhile, journalists have developed a style that suggests that whatever the problem, they personally could have done a better job. 

Could a framework be drafted that builds a sense of mission for all who want to contribute to our common development?   Maybe it exists; maybe it's too hard to draft or police. 

For now let me offer one rule, taken from George Orwell. 

George Orwell had rules for seeking out the best in political writing, but would sooner see any of these rules broken rather than come across people writing anything “outright barbarous”.

- -

*** George Orwell’s six rules for writers

In "Politics and the English Language," George Orwell provides six rules for writers: 

· Never use a metaphor, simile, or other figure of speech which you are used to seeing in print.

· Never use a long word where a short one will do.

· If it is possible to cut a word out, always cut it out.

· Never use the passive voice where you can use the active.

· Never use a foreign phrase, a scientific word, or a jargon word if you can think of an everyday English equivalent.

· Break any of these rules sooner than say anything outright barbarous.   

http://orwell.ru/library/essays/politics/english/e_polit 

My Mum is recovering having had an artificial hip fitted at the orthopaedic hospital in Oswestry.  The hospital is only 5 minutes drive from my Mum’s home but it would seem it’s one of the best places to have the operation done.  http://www.rjah.nhs.uk/ 

The hospital’s history is celebrated with large photos, the length of the main corridor, before reaching the inevitable fish tank.  Some photos reinforce the notion of what a severe person a matron was; some show a different age - of recuperating chilrden wheeled out in their beds to take lessons in the sunshine. 

Too early to be talking about the success of the operation.  Instead, an opportunity to reflect on the marvel of the operation at all.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hip_replacement 

How far we’ve come, even in my Mum’s life-time.  In the late thirties, her brother was isolated in the ward for a month with Scarlet Fever cos they didn’t know how to cure it. 

The latest in the "education has been dumbed down" charge was a bizzare appearance this morning on BBC Breakfast by a spokesperson for "the Campaign for Real Education".  I wonder if it's even a real campaign - more like an "emotional spasm".  Not one sober fact but instead a kind of constipated distress - as students up and down the country were shown celebrating their achievements.  Yet it got national coverage.

The Daily Mail has been in on this one.  An article listing the failings of students in their history exams - ("One undergraduate wrote in an essay that French resistance fighters used the internet to publicise their cause.") - hmmm.   

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1209287/GCSE-results-2009-Gender-gap-narrows-boys-overtake-girls-maths-time-12-years.html#ixzz0PQ1c5ZWZ

More troubling for Daily Mail readers is the news that the colour red offers a psychological advantage in competitions. 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1209236/How-wearing-colour-red-helps-win-competitions.html 

Except of course it's not news.  Even in the 19th Century, yep, the 19th, teams were exploring choices of colours to help win matches.  My favourite story from this era was how Preston North End took to wearing white shirts with large red polka dots to put off their opponents.  "Come on you spots!" 

The Daily Mail offered decisive evidence for the advantage of wearing red shirts -  "England's victorious World Cup team in 1966, led by Bobby Moore (pictured) wore red - but have since switched to white." 

SINCE SWITCHED TO WHITE!!!!  Now, as any self-respecting football fan would say "IF, YOU KNOW, YOUR HISTORY", you'd know England's first colour has always been white.  Sure, two of our greatest performances have been wearing red - Duncan Edwards' destruction of Germany in the fifties and the 1966 cup final. 

But even 15 hours on, not one Daily Mail blogger has written to point out this basic error, nay, dare I say, key stage 2 error.  (We all knew that when we were 11).  Written about English history.  Written, by the way, outside exam conditions. 

- -

Of course, there are moments when I want to join in the "standards have been dumbed down" mantra.  And that's when I find out my 15 year-old nephew is on his way to getting a better grade in his physics O-level, sorry GCSE, than I got.  And his main subject is history. 

He suffered a full 10 minute interrogation into whether this knowledge and progress was real. (Apparently my Mum / his gran seemed to think I should be saying "well done" - as if.)  But he withstood the pressure - pointing out they'd prepped on exam papers from 10 years ago and he knows today's tests are just as challenging. 

Today's children have achieved the best results ever.  Let us rejoice at that news. 

Now, who's for forming a "campaign for real opinion holders".   Surely, that's worth a slot on BBC Breakfast?  Just don't expect me to wear a red blazer, with a polka dot tie, when I'm on. 

The Independent on Sunday highlights Tory plans to re-introduce hunting, and in the process creating a quango to oversee its conduct. 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/how-the-tories-will-bring-back-hunting-1776160.html 

Some mistake, surely.  I thought the Tories had vowed to hunt down quangos. 

I have to be a bit careful about celebrating the Ashes victory.

In 1922, my dad’s Auntie married and set off to Canada to emigrate, on a boat that stopped at Perth, Western Australia, on the way.  The couple got off and decided to stay, raising a family of 10 children; hence I have a lot of distant Australian relatives. 

So let me acknowledge that the Australians seemed to be generally better at batting and bowling. 

But England won, in part cos a mild shower at lunchtime created the circumstances for Broad to destroy the Aussies in a 2 hour session on a Friday afternoon (which I managed to hear all of cos I’d misjudged the nature of traffic on a Friday afternoon). 

Otherwise I’ve been wary of even checking on England’s progress.  A flick to teletext or freeview 302 always seemed to coincide with a loss of an English wicket.  Transpires I’m not alone about feeling vaguely suspicious about this – a market stall holder was telling me the same thing happened to him. 

By not listening to England’s 10 over last wicket stand, people like us must have contributed in some way to Monty Panesar getting a draw when defeat seemed imminent. 

So here’s to all the unsung heroes, who suspecting they might bring bad luck to England by checking on the progress of their batting, refused to, to help England win.  Oh yes. 

Visited Runnymede – the site of the signing of the Magna Carta - proclaimed by local signs as the birthplace of modern democracy. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Runnymede 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magna_Carta 

I think ancient Athens might have something to say about an agreement in 13^th century England between the King and its barons being anything like a democracy. 

And it is interesting that the memorial was actually paid for by American lawyers, who perhaps had the money to pay for it that others didn’t, and recognised the origins of their income.  (And a significant number of the visitors when we were there seemed to be American.) 

Notice boards at the site pick out reasons to celebrate the Magna Carta, which include  –

Clauses 1 to 5 – rights of inheritance;

Clauses 9 to 11 – setting of standards for the collection of debts;

Clause 13 – liberties and freedoms for cities and boroughs;

Clauses 17 to 40 – the end of feudalism and the birth of the rule of law;  including punishment to fit the crime, trial by jury, provision of a will, right of freedom under law,

Clauses 41 to 42 – the right of free and safe passage. 

If the Magna Carta signed at Runnymede was the start of modern democracy, what might constitute the tests for a free society now?  One list (drawn from a book by Bernard Crick) suggests the criteria to look out for in a free society are  –

1.       recognising society - is complex, consists of individuals, and consists of representative institutions (which can often be broadened),

2.       whose ruling elite should not be exclusive, should have a large citizen body, has largely secular gov’t,

3.       understands and institutionalises conflicts of interests,

4.       (to a degree) does not have extremes of wealth,

5.       has economic growth (at least in the long run),

6.       can defend itself (diplomatically and militarily) and control its military,

7.       recognises in law, custom and speculative thought the difference between “public life” and “private life” (civil liberties),

8.       has a tradition of political speculation (for alternative policies that can be politically auctioned), and

9.       where the governing elite acts politically. 

(No particular significance in the order.) 

Things to bear in mind I think, in all we do.

Had 2 funerals to attend last Wednesday. 

-

Margaret Snowden was a fellow Governor at my school, and died having served here for 30 years, just 3 weeks before the closure of the school. 

Her life had been given to the service of helping children, particularly children in need.  She had served as a teacher to children in a remand home in the seventies before becoming the first special needs teacher at a newly reformed comprehensive school. 

Up until last December, well into her eighties, she’d visited a local primary school to help children most in need, with their reading, 4 times a week. 

-

Marie Brown, of Linton, died in her sleep at the age of 34.  At one stage, it had been thought she might not live long at all, but almost hourly attention from parents Archie and Cynthia saw her through. 

She loved pink, so everyone at the funeral wore pink in her honour.   

-

The death was announced on Friday of Graham Jackson, who became a Notts County Councillor on the same day as me in 1993, serving Wilford until 1997 and West Bridgford East until 2005. 

http://www.thisisnottingham.co.uk/politics/Shock-loss-people-s-person/article-1277049-detail/article.html 

http://www.thisisnottingham.co.uk/politics/known-pub-manager-councillor-dies/article-1276267-detail/article.html  

Yesterday's presentation by David Cameron, alongside Nassim Nicholas Taleb, has produced a strong reaction. 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/aug/18/cameron-brown-borrowing-government-debt

The Guardian journalist reports that -

"Taleb outlined a series of contoversial views today -

• Climate change is not man-made.

• Barack Obama could be blamed for hyperinflation.

• Economic crashes are a good thing."

This follows Cameron's support for "Daniel Hannan, a Tory MEP who was given a prime speaking slot at the party's spring conference, described the NHS as a "60 year mistake".

A return to fox-hunting.  Extra help for the 3,000 wealthiest estates. 

All on top of a continued highlighting of a debt crisis, which has been described as irresponsible, and out of context of a drive to sustain businesses and jobs, and families in homes. 

Time for people to reflect on just what the Tories really stand for. 

Yesterday's presentation by David Cameron, alongside Nassim Nicholas Taleb has produced a strong reaction. 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/aug/18/cameron-brown-borrowing-government-debt

The Guardian asserts that -

"Taleb outlined a series of contoversial views today -

• Climate change is not man-made.

• Barack Obama could be blamed for hyperinflation.

• Economic crashes are a good thing."

This follows Cameron's support for "Daniel Hannan, a Tory MEP who was given a prime speaking slot at the party's spring conference, described the NHS as a "60 year mistake".

A level results due this week; GCSEs next.  That can only mean one thing - time to celebrate the progress of our young people?  Nope!  An attack on the standards of modern day exams - oh yes!   

Yep, it's started. 

And the latest interesting one is that there are easy subjects and hard ones.  Maths and physics are said to be the hard ones and media studies is easy.   Nice!  I got A in maths and B in physics (right on), but as you can guess form the quality of my prose (sorry - from - I try, I really do), C for English Literature (does anyone else find that Shakespeare only scans if you read it in a Brummie accent - try it - "What news on the Rialto?"). 

I never even thought of media studies as a soft option. 

But I guess what they might be saying (but if they were, not very well) is that there's more perceived value in training more mathematicians and physicists, and as a holder of a physics degree, I agree.  Indeed, the Gov't has already offered extra incentives for these subjects at degree level. 

But surely there are other reasons for more people passing exams than the standards have been lowered?  How about -

- nearly increasing expenditure on education threefold, including more teachers and support staff;

- a better understanding of the science of education, including effective use of data on pupils' progress and predictions of attainment; 

- higher expectations of children from all social backgrounds, especially by parents and carers;  

- a significant series of changes in the inspection regime on schools, with the current focus on a self-assessment system whereby you inspect at length those schools that don't assess themselves accurately, particularly on the quality of leadership, management, teaching and learning;

- a much more ambitious culture amongst students (certainly compared to my outlook in the seventies); 

- better facilities, including IT (or as teachers call it, ICT, which can allow more time to focus on what matters);

So loads of reasons to explain improvement, much of which I have witnessed as a Chair of Governors of a secondary school for the last 12 years.  So why the scepticism? 

Reform continues as the value of some of the exams at some of the key stages is reviewed and a report card for schools is proposed.  And I personally would like a better presentation of the value added by schools - plotting results against indices of deprivation, so as to allow all those interested to make an assessment of which schools have to explain a variation against the norm - sharing the practice of the best, helping improvement in the worst. 

The Tories have called for more focus on the average points score by pupils, so that extra help is more evenly spread.  Twist here, beyond their enthusiasm for the opportunities that they think cuts in education spending will bring, is that attainment to certain levels, such as 5 good GCSEs with maths and English, have the potential to be life changing. 

I met parents at a recent street stall in Swadlincote and we discussed their concerns over how to choose a secondary school.  There is of course no substitute for walking around the school and meeting the staff - something that I find headteachers welcome.  Assessing the campus, the facilities and the proximity to home.  But beyond that, understanding what self-assessments and Ofsted reports say about the quality of leadership, management, teaching and learning.  This tells you far more than league tables.

League tables in the end will lead to the demise of my current school at the end of this month.  Despite being as high as in the top 11% for value-added in recent years, the reputation of the raw results was too much to overcome and the school size was becoming too small to be viable.  In September, the school merges with one that is in the top 5% in value-added terms to form an academy, and a new opportunity arrives for some of the most deserving children in the East Midlands.  The site will host in September nearly treble the number of year 7's as last year's (140 c.f. 60).

In the last 12 years, the children at my school have gone from less than one in 10 getting 5 good GCSEs (from memory, 9%) to a fraction short of half (fingers crossed for this year's results).  helping the children most who needed most help.  Had the money and education reforms come 18 years earlier, perhaps 700-800 pupils would have moved on from my school with much better prospects in life.  (Wouldn't that have been a much better use of North Sea oil?) 

Finally, the Observer reports that "A survey of 144 party candidates in the 220 most winnable seats by ConservativeHome website had shown Cameron's new cohort in government would be solidly, and fairly traditionally, rightwing. Only 9% believed that as MPs they should send their children to a state school."  The ranks of millionaires on the Tory front bench tells us the Tories are for the few and not the many. 

Answered a poll on fox hunting via Facebook today.  Answers were almost 50-50, which surprised me slightly, cos I understood public opinion still to be overwhelmingly against the hunting of foxes with dogs.

But not as astonishing as the Tories make it such a priority for them at all. 

Before Friday, it just hadn't been raised on the doorstop at all with me.  So change is not a public priority.  But now the Tories are trying to put the issue up there, people are not telling me "no change" is a decisive reason for voting Labour next time.  

Now I know the priority has to be the economy; real help for people and businesses.  Investing in our future, including schools and hospitals, advanced manufacturing and green technology. 

Changing the law on hunting just can't be up there - both for what's right, and cos it might herald the return of one of the cheesiest political slogans in modern political times. 

Disappointing that the Tories' lead on MP's allowances has said that he feels like he's on rationing and treated like s***. 

The public are not really into deciding one party is better than another on this, so for the sake of politics as a whole, we need everyone to show that they get the public's concerns. 

However much individuals might or could earn elsewhere, an MP's salary is not trifling. 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1206435/DAILY-MAIL-COMMENT-Still-MPs-dont-self-pitying-expenses-ridiculous.html 

Along with other Labour prospective parliamentary candidates, I signed a new pledge on conduct in political life in June.  At the launch event, I got to ask Gordon Brown the first question, getting assurances on whether "we got it". 

So disappointing that the Daily Mail is still saying politicans don't get it.  

Yet all the characters named this week for their complacency are Tories.  David Cameron needed to take stronger action on Alan Duncan.  

The crankiness of the Tories in Europe showed again yesterday after Roger Helmer, Tory MEP in the East Midlands, said on BBC Radio 5 "If the Americans came to me and said would you recommend us taking up a system just like the British NHS?  I think I would have to say 'No'." 

  ( http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2009/aug/14/ministers-doctors-defend-uk-nhs   )

Why?  So so many Americans suffering, because they are not covered by health insurance.  Money wasted on the bureaucracy of the insurance companies.  The missed opportunity to say in matters of disease and ill health, we the people choose to care for all, free at the point of need. 

Helmer's intervention will have frustrated David Cameron, coming after the appearance of a Tory MEP on US television, attacking the NHS.  (Did Hannon think the Americans would keep the interview a secret?) 

The Tories say they will spend more on the NHS in the future – but failed to vote for increased spending on health in recent years.  

There’s good reasons for Labour’s authority on the NHS.  Principle.  Resources.  Reform.  Spending on health has trebled in cash terms under Labour and we have reformed to improve services to patients including guarantees of maximum waiting times. 

The Tories would not guarantee 18 months in 1997, never mind the 18 weeks we have now. 

Noticeable that BBC Radio 5 felt the need to challenge Health Secretary Andy Burham about using Twitter to campaign.  A bit sensitive. 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2009/aug/13/stephen-hawking-nhs-twitter-welovethenhs 

Alongside David Cameron, Sarah Ferguson also had a bad day in the media.  The Daily Mail article overstates the problems she had on BBC Radio 5, http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1206674/Ill-live-hole-says-Fergie-phone-battering.html ; it was understandable how in her position, she couldn’t answer some of the questions being posed (e.g. familiy security).  But the questions being posed like ‘why this location?’, ‘how are facilities being paid for?’ etc. are the kind that elected representatives are used to being asked about. 

Nearly 1% of people in England and Wales attended a Football League match this last weekend - 450,000 (representing the highest since 1963).

http://www.football-league.co.uk/page/News/FLNewsDetail/0,,10794~1749664,00.html

I was one of them. 

South Derbyshire borders nearly half of the town of Burton.  So the only surprise for me when my club, Shrewsbury Town, was drawn against Burton Albion for their first Football league match, was that the match was not at Burton.  (I declined polite suggestons to swap allegiences for the day.)

Shrewsbury's home record was the best in the league last season, we'd been in the play-offs, Burton had lost Nigel Clough as their manager, had scraped promotion despite a final losing runs of games, and since sold some of their best players.  It seemed like a banker home win. 

But then in the run-up to the game, Shrewsbury had sold their captain, their exciting winger, the league's top-scorer and the Managing Director had left.  They were to start the game with only 4 of the payers who played at Wembley in May.  Now it didn't feel so certain. 

However, Burton Albion started with only 2 of the players who got them promoted. 

So stange.  So different from 30 years ago, when Shrewsbury got promoted to the old second division with a tiny squad and bought one player in the summer break.  You really felt like you knew the team then. 

To say that players were introducing themselves to each other during the match would be an exaggeration ("did we play each other at school?"), but neither team particularly clicked. 

The game should have had a sense of history around it for Burton who I thought should have been seeking a series of firsts - first shot etc.  Instead their first defender - goalkeeper mix-up took place after 30 seconds, their first goal-mouth scare came after 3 minutes and they conceded their first goal after 10 minutes.  Their first effort on goal came after 30 minutes, their first shot on target after 44 minutes and their first corner was in injury time of the first half. 

Salop were 2-0 up within the hour and I was absently-mindedly listening to chatter about how Shrewsbury were already 4th in the divison, when Burton went and scored.  And then the rather palid Shrewsbury performance become abundently clear and for 10 minutes it looked liked Burton could draw, or even win. 

Salop were to hold on and then extend their lead as a weak free-kick from distance crept in under the keeper's fingers at the end of the game. 

The local press were to put the defeat down to 2 failings by the stand-in goalkeeper.  No mercy shown.