GOVE FAILS BACCALAUREATE.

It's been reported today that many schoolchildren had no chance of obtaining the new 'English Baccalaureate' last year as they'd not been entered for the right GCSE subjects. Apparently, some head teachers have complained that this was because the Baccalaureate was only introduced after the children had actually taken their exams, while the Secretary of State for Education, Michael Gove, has said that the Baccalaureate is an aspirational measure' which will 'drive up standards'.

Yet again, I find myself living in a parallel universe.

Why do we need this Baccalaureate at all, when it is simply a recognition that a child has already achieved a required standard in a range of subjects ? Additionally, many may argue that the omission of Arts subjects devalues it, and others complain that the inclusion of only 2 allowable Humanities also does so.

In order to achieve the Baccalaureate, children have to gain good passes in English, Maths, a foreign language (ancient or modern), History or Geography, and a confusing arrangement of sciences. Apart from the last, which of these should not be part of every child's education ? How can any school head teacher complain that the Baccalaureate has effectively, taken them by surprise ? In my view, the only possible area for complaint could be around the sciences in which many children probably have no aptitude or interest, and will never use in any practical sense. That said, a basic knowledge of the world around them is of value and, perhaps, sciences should be included but with a little less emphasis. Why the Arts have no place at all is a mystery.

Turning to the ludicrous figure of Mr Gove, does he ever actually listen to his own words ? 'Aspirational measure'; 'drive up standards' ? What do these expressions mean ?

The aspiration for children and their parents is the GCSE, or A/S-Level, or degree, not some manufactured and entirely unnecessary piece of paper called a Baccalaureate. It seems that the worse our education system becomes, the more ways those in authority find of making it as confused and unintelligible as possible. When I was at school, we had O-Levels, A-Levels, and degrees, backed up by CSEs for those less academically gifted. Colleges awarded ONCs / ONDs and HNCs / HNDs for the more vocational subjects. This sytem, by and large, worked, and was clear. Now we have an array of weird and wonderful qualifications that everyone seems to obtain while remaining horribly uneducated.

Mr Gove's love of the meaningless 'drive up standards' is a measure of the extent to which our language has been degraded by falling standards over many years; we do, of course, have the equally daft 'drive down costs' being used in a variety of arenas as well. I know that I can drive up the road, I can drive down the road, I can drive around the countryside, I can drive a golfball, and even a cricket ball, but these are all tangible objects; how on earth can I 'drive up' or 'drive down' something which is entirely insubstantial and intangible ? Why can Mr Gove not refer to 'improving standards', a far simpler and less silly phrase ?

Yesterday, 'Call me Dave' was pretty rude in the House of Commons, both to the Shadow Chancellor, Ed Balls, and a Labour MP whose name I can't recall. He accused Mr Balls of being the most annoying person in politics but, to me, the most annoying are those who continually fiddle with systems that work until they no longer work, those who invent new and meaningless phrases to promote their policies and those who suddenly bring archaic words into use in an atempt to bamboozle the public. Mr Gove is very near my list of 'Most Annoying' people in politics.

BOOTS, BALACLAVAS & CUTS.

Yesterday's events around the anti-cuts demonstration in London were a disgrace.

Most of the demonstrators were there to protest, misguidedly, against action that our Government is taking and really have no choice about. The gross profligacy of the previous administration has left such a financial mess that there is only one course of action that can sensibly be taken and that is to rein back, dramatically, on public expenditure. This may be painful and some may feel unfairly affected, but that's life. We have lived, for far to long with far too much Government support, which really means with far too many people living off the taxpayer.

There is no doubt that some services ought to be given priority and, personally, I would pay for the local library long before I'd pay for a Gay or Lesbian centre or other minority interest service; I'd also prefer to pay for decent end-of-life services before I absolved parents of their direct responsbility for looking after their children in terms of free nursery and other services for the under 5s, but then that doesn't seem to be a popular choice.

What is clear is that the demonstrations were subverted by groups which had an entirely different agenda. The scenes of yobs kicking in shop and bank windows, and the occupation of a major store, Fortnum & Mason, were indications that there is a subversive element which will use any opportunity to further its own ends. The police have, reportedly, arrested just over 200 people after the protests, but how many of these had committed any serious breach and how many will ever come to court ? How many of the yobs in balaclavas were rounded up ?

Ed Miliband's appearance at a rally in support of the demonstrators was a horribly misguided and opportunistic attempt to garner support and was in no way worthy of a would-be Prime Minister. No party leader with genuine credentials should ever be seen in such a light and his performance was more that of a rabid union leader than of a potential leader of his country. The epithet of 'Red Ed' never seemed more apt and one has to suspect that his lack of judgement in overtly supporting this campaign will come back to haunt him.

The Government has said that, while it is 'listening' to the protests, it will not be swayed from its course; all well and good if the words mean anything. These are difficult times and we need strong and steadfast government; whether we shall get it, and for long enough, remains to be seen.

LIBERALS ON THE SLIDE.

The people of Barnsley Central have spoken and made it clear that they only have eyes for Labour. On a pretty miserable turnout of 36%, the Labour candidate romped home with over 60% of the votes, while the 2 Government Parties, Conservative and Liberal Democrats, could only just manage to outdo UKIP, with a combined share of 12.4%; even the BNP and an Independent beat the sad Liberals whose haul was a mere 1,012 votes. The Liberals' prized 'Alternative Vote' system would have made no difference - they were well and truly spanked.

Given that the Liberals are likely to receive another mauling at May's local council elections as well as those for the Scottish and Welsh parliaments, the future of the Conservative-Liberal coalition must be in real doubt. As the electoral fortunes of the Liberals decline, party moral will suffer; party activists will begin to voice their concerns ever more loudly and the danger of a split will loom large. Nick Clegg may be able to drag his side through this year's turmoil but any repetition in 12 months time may be a calamity too far. Hold on to your hats, it's going to be a bumpy ride.

As for the Conservatives, Barnsley is not exactly their kind of territory, but they also had a bad night, falling almost 1,000 votes behind UKIP, while also being only 500 ahead of the BNP. Yes, this was a By-election and yes, By-election results are often strange, but these are also desperate times. Cameron has yet to demonstrate that he has any real leadership abilities or that he has any rapport with the 'man-in-the-street' and, unless he improves his own performance pretty soon, he could find UKIP becoming a genuine nuisance before very long.

One can only wonder what May will bring.

WIKILEAKS PARANOIA

I understand that US authorities have now charged Private Bradley Manning with 'Aiding the Enemy', a charge that can carry the death penalty. However, prosecutors have also said that they will not actually seek the death penalty if Manning is found guilty.

What a paranoid and neurotic lot the Yanks are. They're so terrified of everything and everyone that they operate an enormous network of clandestine operations around the world, gathering up whatever information they can about supposed friends and foes alike. They squirrel all this stuff away, together with vast amounts of analysis and when they're found out they scream and stamp their feet like a naughty child who's collection of smutty pictures has been confiscated.

For heavens sake, children, grow up. The more you blow this whole affair out of proportion, the more childish and ludicrous you look.

CRISIS; WHAT CRISIS ?

For decades, western governments have treated Colonel Gaddafi with kid gloves. Now, he is transformed almost overnight into an evil tyrant who must be removed.

Is this not an example of the extreme hypocrisy of governments ? Gaddafi has always been a mad, tyrannical thug and nothing has changed in recent weeks. Cameron and Miliband talk loftily about the measures needed to resolve the Libyan 'crisis'; what utter bollocks. This is a 'crisis' that results directly from the inaction of western governments over many years and it is time someone said so. Forget the niceties of diplomacy, tell it as it is - and be just as honest about the other dictators still in power elsewhere. Early action prevents crises developing.

But I forgot, that's not the way politicians work, is it ?

AFGHANISTAN BANANA SKIN.

While Governments continue to plug away in Afghanistan, the House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee has reported that, in its view, the whole exercise needs to be reconsidered.

For anyone with any knowledge of history, this is hardly surprising. For centuries, Afghanistan has been a graveyard for invading armies and none, the mighty Russians included, has succeeded; in fact, they've all eventually left, tail between legs, and with thousands of their own dead as their principal memento.

Afghanistan is a country in name only. In reality, it's a collection of tribes, ruled independently with little if anything in common with the western world. The tribal leaders owe little allegiance to the central government, such as it is, and for the West to believe it can achieve any sort of settlement by imposing its own values is, frankly, ridiculous. 

How much longer will it be before the subliminal messages from Washington and London begin to talk of withdrawal ?

INSURANCE NO LONGER A RISK ?

Yet another piece of lunacy from a European Court. Now, it seems, insurance companies will no longer be permitted to use certain well established criteria for assessing risk or life expectancy when determining premiums as this is deemed to be discriminatory towards women. The fatuous nonsense of 'gender equality' has been used to bring about a completely ridiculous interpretation of the law.

Let's be clear. Men and women are NOT equal; they are different shapes and sizes, have different bodily structures and functions and different outlooks on life. Women tend te be more risk averse than men and, on average, they live longer; to reflect these differences in insurance, and other, premiums is simple commonsense. For a court to come to a decision that, effectively, denies these fundamental facts of life is farcical in the extreme.

What more idiotic rulings can we expect from European courts ? We still have the 'votes for prisoners' fiasco rumbling on and, no doubt, the anonymous and unaccountable judges have many more acts of lunacy lined up for us. Will our Government never come to its senses and separate us from all this madness ?