Interesting Times

The Labour party's election of a new leader after their underwhelming display at the last general election was, even for disinterested observers like myself, interesting, intriguing and dare I say, not a little entertaining. Even I, as someone whose interest in politics could best be described as distant, could see that as soon as Jeremy Corbyn threw his hat in the ring, Andy Burnham, Yvette Cooper and Liz Kendall might as well have packed up their tents and gone home. It was less an election more a procession, followed by something akin to a coronation.

With many staunch left wingers being considered a little too left of centre once they applied for membership of the party, while those so far on the right that they were actually fully paid up Tories appeared to be accepted, it seemed that there were as many staunch Conservatives who wanted Corbyn elected as there were Socialists, their expectation being that Corbyn's particularly left wing views and policies would make unelectable as Prime Minister come 2020. So, is he unelectable? Who knows; he may not even be Labour leader the next time Britain goes to the polls, and no one knows what sort of fist the Conservatives will make of the next five years after having some of their excesses reined in by the Lib-Dems during the last Parliament. With David Cameron having already announced that he will not stand again, Corbyn's opponent in 2020 could be as unpalatable to the electorate as Ed Miliband was this year. Mind you, the allegations made in Lord Ashcroft's unauthorised biography of David Cameron may sink Cameron before the end of this Parliament anyway.

The early days of Corbyn's tenure as Labour leader have seen a lot of emphasis placed on image and style rather than policy, particularly over his failure to sing the National Anthem, with the Daily Telegraph suggesting that he should appoint a spin doctor tout de suite. All things considered, given that Corbyn is supposedly differentiated from most other politicians by his lack of superficiality, that is probably the last thing he wants.  With the somewhat alarmist and at times bizarre criticisms that have been levelled him however, perhaps Jeremy could do with a spinner to refute some of the more extreme stories. On the other hand, despite his beard and initials he is far from being the new messiah despite what some Labour supporters, who feel that criticism of JC in the press is unjustified and disproportionate, may think. Given the well known right wing leanings of most of the print media the criticism is scarcely surprising. Besides, a forensic examination of any new leader of any party is only to be expected. Labour supporters have also accused the BBC of bias, going so far as to start a petition to call upon the BBC to describe David Cameron as "the right wing Prime Minister" in retaliation for the Beeb's frequent reference to Jeremy Corbyn as the "left wing Labour leader." The difference of course is that Jeremy is left wing in comparison with some of his party whereas Cameron is no more right wing than many in the Tory party. In fact accusations of an anti-Labour stance at the BBC are somewhat off the mark, since the organisation is frequently charged with being too left leaning. If anything I would say it does have a tendency to favour the left, even in light entertainment. The News Quiz for example features Jeremy Hardy and Mark Steel, both staunchly left wing,  as regular panellists and in recordings I have seen these two have launched into vitriolic anti-Tory, anti-Cameron diatribes at every opportunity,  even when the question has relates to the mundane, like a poisonous spider found in a bunch of Waitrose bananas. At one recording one panellist described Cameron as "a nonce" which I am sure was not broadcast, but if ever there was an instance when those who live in glass houses should not throw stones...The fact that the BBC is accused of bias by both sides of the political spectrum tends to suggest that on the whole it is pretty even handed.

But what of Jeremy Corbyn's policies? A well publicised goal is to take the railways back into public ownership, line by line as each franchise expires. Given his stated aim of fairer fares and proper integration, this is not such a bad idea, especially given the current over complicated fare structure. But since British Rail wasn't exactly synonymous with reliability, efficiency or punctuality I'm not entirely sanguine about a "People's Railway" being any better than our current set up.  The name alone evokes images of a Soviet style network, bloated and bureaucratic.  UKIP leader Nigel Farage claims it  would be illegal under EU law to renationalise the railways due to European Union directive 2012/34/EU, but there again Mr Corbyn aims to renegotiate Britain's deal with Europe...which has worked well in the past, hasn't it?

Then there are the energy companies. Currently the focus of much criticism for their complex tariffs, their poor customer services and the difficulty in switching from one supplier to another, a return to public ownership might be a good thing except for the complexity and cost of such an undertaking. The fact that some, like eDF, are foreign owned is perhaps as good a reason as any to bring them back into British ownership, public or not. Perhaps Mr Corbyn would seek to fund such a purchase, and other projects, by returning to the days when Labour sought to "squeeze the rich until the pips squeak" with his plan for a national maximum wage and higher taxes for the rich.  Mind you I can't fault his idea to crack down on tax avoidance and evasion. After the years of a Tony Blair led Labour administration that was in many ways so indistinguishable from a Tory government that I often wondered if Blair was actually a Conservative Central Office plant, it is perhaps refreshing to see a Labour leader returning to the party's roots. Certainly  a strong opposition is important to keep government from excess, but as we have seen in the past, opposition parties often find that they have to compromise on a lot of their beliefs once they discover the realities of being in power, and JC would be no exception if he became Prime Minister.

One interesting outcome, should Jeremy Corbyn ever reach 10 Downing Street, could be that we all have the opportunity to enjoy a lot more romantic, candle lit dinners. I appreciate that it isn't one of his stated goals, but renationalising the energy companies and in all probability reducing the constraints placed on the trade unions by the Tories could make them a thing of the future, just like they were in the literally dark days of the 1970's.

However Jeremy Corbyn's term as leader of the Labour Party, and possibly as Prime Minister one day, turn out, I can't help but be reminded of the curse, "may you live in interesting times," because I have a feeling we may be experiencing a very interesting few years one way or another.

Uniform Rules

The new academic year has started, the children have gone back to school and if the press are to believed, a lot of them have promptly been sent home, or put in isolation, because they have infringed school rules on uniform.

Apparently, 75 pupils at Felixstowe Academy were put in isolation and had to have lunch separately from their classmates for breaching school rules on footwear, despite, in some cases, wearing the same shoes as they had before the summer holidays. Meanwhile in Leeds, Allerton Grange sent over 50 students home for wearing clothing that failed to meet the school's new uniform code. In Stoke-on-Trent, Trentham High School, which banned its female pupils from wearing skirts last July on the grounds that their short skirts were embarrassing the male teaching staff, sent home some pupils (male and female) at the beginning of this term for wearing trousers that were deemed to be too tight.

Some schools, including the one that my daughters attended, have such strict uniform policies that parents can only buy the uniform from approved outlets. Anyone who has had to buy new blazers, skirts and the like from such shops will know that this does not come cheap, especially in a child's first year at such a school. We spent a small fortune the first year our younger daughter went to secondary school. Then there are the items like shoes, winter coats and bags that parents can buy elsewhere but must meet the twin demands of school rules and a teenager's fashion preferences.

Shoes in particular are a minefield for parents. They must be durable enough so that they don't have to be replaced every term, fashionable enough to satisfy the wearer but bland enough to meet the very exacting strictures the school set. It seems often, from the newspaper stories at least, that this is where parents most often fall foul of the rules. It has been reported that Ormiston Venture Academy in Gorleston sent a female pupil home because the soles of her shoes were brown, not black; the school suggested that the soles were painted black.

The offending black shoes with brown soles.

Winter coats are difficult too. Must be black, no logos, no fur trim. And bags; no backpacks, must be black, no logos, no shiny buckles or the like. Some years buying a bag for our daughter for school has involved multiple shopping trips and in the end, an element of compromise.

But while it is difficult not to sometimes have some sympathy with pupils and parents who fall foul of school dress codes, the other old faithful that the press love to churn out year in, year out, is the unacceptable haircut. If it isn't hair that has been died it is the "extreme" or unorthodox style. Usually it is boys who have had a severe haircut, normally involving at least part of the head shaved to a short stubble, that fall foul of these rules and it is harder to understand parents allowing this than it is the odd pair of shoes of which a headteacher may disapprove. Given that my blog is called "Rules, Fools and Wise Men" and I largely subscribe to the idea that rules are for the obedience of fools and the guidance of wise men, then you may think that on the whole I would be on the side of the parents and pupils in matters of dispute over school uniform and hairdos; on this occasion, not. An argument floated by many a parent whose son or daughter has gone to school with the wrong colour coat, or a skirt that is too short, is what does this have to do with academic attainment? Directly, not a lot; indirectly, plenty. In one word it's about discipline.

Blind obedience of the rules is not something I would advocate in all walks of life, but in the military and at school, to give two quite different examples, it is important. You have to know when to challenge rules and there is a world of difference between questioning a rule and wilfully disobeying it. School uniforms do help schools maintain discipline; if you are sloppy about uniform you are likely to be sloppy elsewhere, and uniforms teach an important lesson about life after school, where many employers have strict dress codes . Being a rebel over uniform at school might gain you some kudos with your peers, it won't do you any good when working at Tesco. Oh, and without a uniform, peer pressure inevitably means that parents will end up paying for designer or at least fashionable, up to the minute attire because no child wants to be seen in last year's trainers or last year's hoodie, now do they?

Where I do have a gripe with schools on the uniform issue is, as I have experienced, the necessity of buying a particular outfit from a particular store. My old school uniform was black blazer, dark grey trousers (skirts for girls) and while shirts. These could be sourced anywhere and a tie, blazer badge and PE kit could be bought cheaply at Pollards (there's a name that has disappeared from our High Streets). Apart from the odd "lad" (or "ladette") told to tie their tie properly (the huge knot and tiny length of tie were de rigueur with many pupils in the 1970's, and it appears, to this day).  I cannot recall anyone being sent home for a uniform infraction and discipline at my school was no worse than anywhere else (apart from the time the Bomb Squad were called after a chemistry class made an explosive device, but that's another story).  So while a green blazer for my daughter's school costs £28 from the approved, and only supplier (a case for the Monopolies Commission, perhaps?) [1] a generic, grey blazer can be had for less than half that price from Asda.

Pollards, with another familiar name now absent from our High Streets, Freeman, Hardy, Willis.

The articles about children sent home for uniform violations are beyond parody; they all feature pictures of the child and one of his or her parents staring wistfully at the offending item of clothing accompanied by an article bemoaning the draconian uniform policy adopted by the school. The  thing that interests me about these stories that are so beloved of the newspapers is how they get hold of them.  From parents presumably.

Double whammy. This lad was sent home for having the wrong shoes and an inappropriate haircut.

I'm just imagining the conversation at home when little Jimmy is excluded from school because his shoes have the wrong colour laces. "You've been sent home because of your shoes? Right, where' s the phone number for the Daily Mail?"

---

[1] The Monopolies Commission no longer exists, it is the Competition & Markets Authority now, but the old name has more of a ring to it.

You Can't Please All Of The People

You can't please all of the people all of the time but when it comes to the current refugee/migrant/displaced persons (delete as applicable)[1] crisis, it seems that politicians, especially David Cameron and the Conservative government, can't even please some of the people all of the time or all of the people some of the time.

Having been criticised for failing to meet its own targets for limiting immigration, the government finds itself under pressure to allow greater numbers of refugees or migrants into Britain. Even accepting that immigration and asylum are not the same thing, limits on immigration conflict with the well publicised needs of British industry to address the skill shortages they frequently complain about, but for whatever reason people seek to come to Britain, the current levels  of people coming or seeking to come won't enable the government to meet those pesky targets.

Even the language that politicians use to describe the refugees/migrants/displaced persons comes in for scrutiny and criticism. David Cameron's use of the word "swarm" to describe migrants camped in Calais was seized upon and condemned for "dehumanising" them. Since swarm is " a large number of people" it seems a wholly innocent, and accurate description, but some people are ever keen to take offense, especially on the part of others who may be unaware of or totally unconcerned by the imagined sleight. Besides, the people to whom Mr Cameron referred have more pressing concerns than how the British Prime Minister has described them. The fashion for taking offense where none is intended or even inferred spread recently to condemnation of BBC reporter Paul Adams after he asked a migrant in Calais if he was going to ‘go back to the Jungle now’. Despite the fact that Adams was referring to the accepted name for the camp where migrants are staying, he was nonetheless pilloried on social media. Rather than get on their high horse about one word, perhaps these uninformed commentators would have been better employed venting their spleens about the problems the refugees face, not how their camp was described.

Meanwhile the Prime Minister's office was attacked for refusing to answer questions as to whether he would personally take in refugees after Nicola Sturgeon and Yvette Cooper had indicated that they would. The former, asked on Sky TV whether she would take a refugee into her home, answered that she would, but to her credit later called the question "gimmicky," which it certainly was. Cameron has received further criticism despite his announcement that Britain would accept 20,000 Syrian refugees because that figure covers the lifetime of this parliament and is a mere spit in the ocean compared with the 4 million Syrians who have left their country and the 8 million displaced within it.[2] Accepting 20,000 refugees, or 200,000 or even 2 million could be described as an inadequate response given those numbers, but for every person who criticises the response as inadequate, there will be those who claim it to be too many. And opposing those who clamour for more to be done, for more refugees to be accepted, there will be critics condemning the fact that to fund these people's arrival and support in Britain, other services would need to be cut or additional tax revenues raised.

Whether central or local government need to find the money to pay for processing and supporting incoming refugees, local authorities will find themselves under pressure. Local government asylum teams were disbanded several years ago when the number of asylum seekers fell and those already here came under the umbrella of other areas of social services. For local authorities already under budgetary constraints, the cost of processing a whole new influx[3] of refugees would inevitably mean cuts in other areas, cuts that would equally inevitably be condemned, even including by those who want more money spent on the refugees. You can't get a quart into a pint pot; something will have to give, somewhere. Having disbanded their asylum teams, local councils may have to rebuild them to cope since it is improbable that the National Asylum Support Service (NASS) would be able to provide the infrastructure as it was barely coping when responsibility was in the hands of local government agencies in years gone by.

It may be an unpalatable point of view for those who believe that all refugees are deserving cases, but it seems to me that some, not all, but some, of the refugees arriving in Europe, especially those who have landed in Greece and in Hungary, have shown more attitude than gratitude. Beggars, as the saying goes, can't be choosers and to arrive in Greece, a country with its own well publicised and very significant problems, and complain about conditions, or to arrive in Hungary and demand passage to Germany because they don't like conditions in Budapest seems unreasonable. If you have made huge personal sacrifices to flee a country where you are oppressed and in fear for your life, I would have thought they would be happy to be fed and accommodated, however basic that accommodation might be, at least initially.

 Suggestions that European countries should share the load of these refugees may seem reasonable, but it is not as simple as just divvying them up and sending them on their way. For instance Slovakia has said it will only accept Christians; Interior ministry spokesman Ivan Netik said Muslims would not be accepted because they would not feel at home (apparently the country has no mosques). For their part many refugees may be unwilling to be settled in a country not of their choosing.

Just this week I have been invited to sign two petitions on the subject. One seeks to petition the government to accept "its fair share of refugees seeking safety in Europe" although it doesn't actually say what it means by "fair share." Presumably more than the 20,000 the government suggests, but how many is anyone's guess. The other, and it isn't the only one framed in a similar manner, wants to restrict immigration, especially from Middle Eastern countries. Little chance of government pleasing all of the people even some of the time, then.

They say that if you aren't part of the solution you are part of the problem and it is easy to slate David Cameron and the Conservatives for their actions or inactions, but the same would be the case if Labour were in power; their solutions would be just as unpalatable to many. What is the answer? I don't have one, but there seem to be plenty of people criticising what is being done; perhaps we should put them in charge of managing the issue.

In fact one might go as far as to say that when we next have a General Election we should put the party that loses and assorted other critics of government into office, after all they always seem to have the answers that the elected government doesn't. Just a thought.

---

[1] Depending upon your outlook. One man's refugee (a person who is outside their home country because they have suffered (or feared) persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, or political opinion) is another man's migrant (a person who moves from one place to another in order to find work or better living conditions). For one reason or another, they are all displaced.

[2] I'm quoting figures given by the BBC on Tuesday here; I am assuming they are correct.

[3] Influx merely means entry, or the act of flowing in, which is pretty neutral. If you want you can call it pejorative by saying it is a synonym of incursion, or invasion, which have negative connotations. You can take offense if you wish, but none was intended.

A Gun And A Girl

The director, critic and screenwriter Jean-Luc Godard said, " All you need for a movie is a gun and a girl." It seems that many film makers subscribe to this maxim as you only have to look at the posters for the latest films to see guns and girls a-plenty. Then take a look at the covers of the DVDs in your local supermarket and you will see that the majority seem to carry a picture of Liam Neeson or Bruce Willis or Jason Statham or some other hero figure brandishing a handgun. Even comedies frequently feature characters carrying some weapon or another, and yet while there are undoubtedly a large number of on screen deaths attributable to gunshots, considering the amount of fire power expended in the average Hollywood blockbuster the ratio of deaths is actually quite low. I often feel that this blasé use of firearms and the frequent lack of severe consequences from their use is at least partially responsible for many of the gun related tragedies that occur each year.

Gun? Yes. Girl? Yes.

In the UK the police are not routinely armed so unless you are at an airport or sometimes a major rail terminus, chances are the average person won't see a gun from one year to the next, although as of March 2010 there were firearms certificates issued for 1.8 million guns in this country, which still represents one gun for every 35 people in the country. In the USA, if the figures are to be believed, the ratio is one gun for every 1.14 people (270 million guns for 308 million people in 2010). That sheer number of weapons means that gun crime and associated tragedies are inevitable, but news of events such as the shooting by Vester Williams of a TV reporter and cameraman in Virginia last week still have the power to shock and appal.

Vester Williams.

And every time such an incident happens, the debate over gun control in the US opens up again. "If you ask me where is the one area where I feel that I have been most frustrated and most stymied, it is the fact that the United States of America is the one advanced nation on earth in which we do not have sufficient, common sense, gun safety laws." "Even in the face of repeated mass killings," said President Obama in a recent interview with the BBC. In the aftermath of the Dunblane shootings in 1996, UK gun controls were tightened to the extent that even Olympic marksmen had to train abroad but that doesn't mean that gun crime has been eradicated and it probably never will be, because guns are not the problem, people are. The debate over US gun control sees people like rock star Ted Nugent quite obviously diametrically opposed to his president: " Where you have the most armed citizens in America, you have the lowest violent crime rate. Where you have the worst gun control, you have the highest crime rate, " he has said. I'm not sure that stacks up against countries with strict gun controls and where gun crime is much lower than in the States, but of course the issue as ever is that controls, indeed all laws, only work if the populous buy into the concept of observing them. Just as guns are not the problem, so gun controls are not the solution (well, not the only one), people are.

It is often claimed that violent video games and films are responsible for aggressive, anti-social behaviour, but there are just as many people who refute this idea as there are those who support it. It is my opinion, opinion mind, I have nothing to back this up other than gut feeling, that video games of many types have had an effect on people's behaviour. Principally this is driven by an inability, albeit unconscious, to differentiate between what is acceptable when it happens within the confines of a video game and what is acceptable in the real world. It may be difficult to support the idea that there is a direct correlation between consumption of violent video games and films with an increase in violence generally and gun crime particularly, but I am convinced that playing violent video games has a direct effect on behaviour.

First person shooter games and those that feature aggressive driving, like Grand Theft Auto[1] reward intolerance, impatience, aggression and selfishness. Tolerance, patience, passivity and the like are qualities that will get "Game Over" flashing in next to no time; can it really be a coincidence that the very qualities which these games demand bleed into real-life?

Touch wood, I've never seen a gun in a public place other than in the hands of a policeman or member of the armed services, but I have frequently seen equally lethal weapons wielded by members of the public quite evidently under the influence of violent, aggressive multi-media experiences, like the motorists who think that the A13 from Dagenham to Southend is some freeway in Los Santos. Just last week some cretin in a Porsche decided that veering between the lanes, and other vehicles, at high speed and at close proximity was appropriate; it isn't. The worse that can happen in a video game is that you lose a life; it's equally possible that a life is lost in the real world too.

A rare sight.

Obviously it is neither practical nor reasonable to suggest that video games that might encourage violent or anti-social behaviour should be banned and withdrawn from sale; there are millions of responsible gamers just as there are millions of responsible gun owners. And the misuse of guns and inappropriately aggressive driving habits may be exhibited by people who have never played anything more violent than Donkey Kong, but Call Of Duty, Grand Theft Auto and the like cannot help but exacerbate and reinforce aggressive tendencies among the impressionable.

Where my argument falls down, as does that of many others who hold similar views, is that there was gun crime and other brutal crime long before the first violent video game was released, just as there was road rage and aggressive driving before GTA.

Quite clearly the answer isn't to ban guns, it isn't to ban violent video games. What is needed is for someone to do something about other people.

---

[1] Not to place all the blame on one game; others are available and in my view, equally culpable.