Jeremy Corbyn
Teachers deserve top marks for standing up against Education Bill (The Morning Star)
WELL done to the National Union of Teachers for holding its annual conference at Easter, which means that its view gets across at a time when news is often light. New Labour forced its Education Bill through on a second reading vote with Tory support.
Quite rightly, teachers realise that the best way to defeat this Bill is to unite with parents to persuade MPs to amend it out of existence in coming months during the crucial committee and report stages.
The Bill, like many of new Labour’s ideas, is an unholy brew containing the illusion of choice for the worried parent, the further undermining of local government, and an insidious view that donors of private or “charity” money should be able to buy into the education system to pursue their own agenda. The headline news that a former Blair adviser on city academies had been arrested in connection with the honours scandal is only part of the story. The Tory legacy of league tables and investigations in the style favoured by ex-chief inspector of schools Chris Woodhead, coupled with the idea of “choice” has created secondary schools obsessed with image and marketing in their quest to attract pupils. Those left behind in this dubious competition have to deal with a demotivated school population which will underachieve.
It is absurd to believe that this problem can be solved by allowing successful schools to expand at the expense of others. The secondary schools in inner-city constituencies like mine are now much better funded than under the Tories and have improved beyond recognition in the past five years. But the Bill would end this by creating a free-for-all, as anxious parents in inner cities manipulate the system to send their youngsters to the expanding schools in the suburbs. The losers will be the less articulate, less able parents and those whose first language is not English. More children will be educated outside their areas, removing their sense of community. Our education system is under threat from privateers who want to buy into academies. We have already seen wealthy creationists buying into the education system, bringing a US brand of far-right politics directly into our classrooms. Tony Blair claimed that the Bill will resolve what is mainly a London problem. In fact, it will intensify the current problems and dump them on the rest of the country. State-funded local education authorities can plan and develop all the educational requirements of a community. There is actually a very efficient way of bringing private finance into education. It is called taxation.
RAF refusenik is just the tip of the iceberg
THE imprisonment last week of RAF doctor Malcolm Kendall-Smith for refusing to serve in Iraq for a third time is an example of the enormous opposition that exists to the war. The invasion of Iraq on March 18 2003 set in motion many terrible events. The deaths of tens of thousands of Iraqis, over 2,000 US soldiers and more than 100 British troops since the invasion are a tragedy. The political fallout will never go away. In no other recent conflict or deployment have serving army personnel demonstrated openly against government policies on the war. The support and growth of “Military Families Against the War” is unprecedented. The occupation has also endangered all our liberties as legislation rushed through Parliament in the name of the “war on terror” pushes aside normal court processes to make way for instant detention and control. Last week, a High Court judge observed that control order legislation makes it impossible to mount a legal defence. This is a major step towards preserving our liberties. Untrammelled power in the hands of the security services is the root of the danger. Wise heads predicted that the Iraq invasion would make any peaceful settlement in Palestine harder and create an atmosphere of conflict across the region. War is again raging in Afghanistan. We have witnessed vocal debate about what constitutes a civil war in Iraq and open threats to Iran. The supreme folly of following the Project for a New American Century makes the case for withdrawal of British troops stronger than ever.
Why Britain backs Nepal dictator
ISOBEL HILTON wrote an excellent article about Nepal in last week’s Guardian. This was followed by news that the general strike was still holding and that, despite the inevitable shortages and price rises in Kathmandu, popular support remains strong. Crucially, the alliance between the Maoist guerrillas and the opposition political parties has held. The struggle in Nepal is rooted in the appalling poverty endured by the masses on the one hand, and the absolute power of the monarchy and the army on the other. Following murder and intrigue within the royal palaces, King Gyanendra is obsessively holding onto power in the face of popular protest. The majority of the population might be poor, but the army is comparatively well resourced. It is using foreign-supplied equipment to pursue a brutal counter-insurgency campaign. Britain has been a major supplier of weapons to Nepal and the murkiness of arms sale and short-sightedness of controls is now becoming obvious.
In 2004, Britain spent nearly £5 million from the oddly named Conflict Prevention Fund to purchase surveillance aircraft for Nepal on the clear and, apparently, strict understanding that they would not be used for military campaigns. UN observer Ian Martin, representing the UN Human Rights Commission, has since registered concern over these planes being used to indiscriminately drop deadly mortar shells. News from Nepal is followed closely throughout south Asia and, in particular, in the poor neighbouring areas of India. The reasons for their discontent are the absolute power and brutal methods of the monarchy and the systematic discrimination of the caste system as well as the poverty of remote villages in this stunningly beautiful land. But the main concern in Washington and London is that the defeat of the Nepalese monarchy will encourage similar campaigns elsewhere. The logical conclusion of the State Department thinkers is, therefore, that the West should back the brutal and undemocratic king.
