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 ?

JOBS FOR THE BOYS.

I read that the Government has named former Conservative Cabinet Minister and Party Chairman, and Governor of Hong Kong, Chris Patten, as its preferred candidate for the soon to be vacant post of Chairman of the BBC Trust.

Talk about 'jobs for the boys' ! What possibly qualifies Patten for this job which, no doubt, pays an exorbitant salary ? If Patten is appointed, this would be a blatantly political appointment and would confirm this Government as being every bit as corrupt and self-serving as its predecessor. Surely there are other, far better qualified, candidates who do not have the same political baggage. Patten has never had a 'real' job. After leaving Oxford (!) he joined the Conservative Party Research Department in 1966, aged 22, and continued to work for the Party in one capacity or another until he lost his Parliamentary set in 1992; after that, he emerged as Governor of Hong Kong (a Government appointment), a post he held until 1997. Since then, he's had a number of other political roles, including European Commissioner, but what has he ever done in the world that mere mortals inhabit ?

Presumably, "Lord Patten", has already renounced his membership of the Conservative Party in readiness for this appointment. Nonetheless, is it really right that a person with such an overtly political background should be appointed to such a post ? Is it right that someone with no serious experience of broadcasting should be appointed ?

I think not.

CAMERON GETS IT WRONG AGAIN.

Everyone seems to be berating the Government for its supposed slow response to the situation in Libya, however, I have a slightly different view on the subject.

A relative handful of British citizens have found themselves in potential danger in a foreign country but I suspect that many of these people are there as employees of oil companies and are earning large, tax-free salaries in an industry literally awash with cash. They have chosen to live and work in a country ruled over by a vicious dictator for their own pecuniary advantage. How many of them pay UK tax ?

It should not be the responsibility of the UK government to rescue these people; it is the responsibility of themselves and their employers. If anyone should be criticised for responding slowly and inadequately to the deteriorating situation, it is the companies. Of course, our government is responsible for its own employees and has a responsibility for other British citizens who may be there for other reasons, but we should never forget that we are all responsible for our own choices. If a bad choice leads to a bad situation, that is our own fault, no one else's. We cannot expect the cavalry to come charging over the hill whenever danger threatens.

David Cameron's knee-jerk apology today is a huge insult and slap in the face for William Hague, a far more competent politician, and Mr Hague must surely now be 'considering his position'. If it was I, that consideration would already have occurred; I'd have packed my bags and said goodbye to 'Dave' and all his works.

TIMES THEY ARE A-CHANGING ?

I never cease to be amazed by the capacity of our Government to propose changes that are neither wanted nor required.

Apparently, we are to be graced with a 'tourism strategy' which will include a plan to adjust clocks in the UK to the same time as in a large part of Europe. This will produce darker mornings and lighter evenings, and is supported by the tourism industry and so-called 'safety campaigners'. The Scots, however, are not convinced, but 'Dave' is reported to be in favour.

The questions that arise from this idea are legion. Given that the tourism industry does not actually have a role in electing our Government, why should said Government take any notice of them ? Regarding, 'safety campaigners' who are undoubtedly a nebulous band of do-gooders with no right to speak for the majority, the Government has no business treating their pleadings any more favourably than those of any others.

Why should our Government change our clocks to match those of other European states ? Britain is the centre of world time keeping, with the international meridian set at Greenwich; what lunacy would it be to deny our own heritage ? 'Safety campaigners' claim that the proposed change would reduce road accidents; how ? Darker mornings, when people are generally more sleepy and less alert, will surely lead to more accidents, not less. In the far north, mornings will still be dark at a time when people are well on their way to work, even in summer.

Lighter evenings will cause people difficulty in getting to sleep and there will be more disturbance in the streets; there will be more drunkenness. More people will stay up too late and not be fit for work the next day; there will be more absenteeism. Those who want this change will not admit this, but then why would they ? They've decided what they want and that's that.

Are people not able to arise at a sensible hour and adjust their behaviour to the natural clock ? What idiocy is it for Government to try to meddle with a natural feature of our lives in this way ? What is to stop people, and business, from adjusting their working hours according to the time of the year, without needing to change the clock ?

Doesn't the Government have more important things to occupy itself with, or is this a useful diversionary issue ? Whatever the reasons for this stupid proposal, it should be kicked into the long grass forthwith.

EURO-LUNACY.

What a relief ! It seems that the European General Court - no, I hadn't heard of that one either - has ruled that it's acceptable for the UK Government to designate certain sporting events as too significant to only be on Pay-TV. This means that the football European and World championships will be available on free-to-air television services.

Pardon me, but can anyone explain what a UK Government decision about what is on UK television channels has to do with ANY European court ? What on earth is going on ?

WHAT A PICKLES !

Eric Pickles, the thinking man's John Prescott, apparently wants to introduce measures to control the pay of local council officials. No doubt similar measures to control the pay of other public sector employees, where they haven't already been introduced, will follow. This purely populist approach is imbecilic in the extreme.

What netherworld do Pickles and his idiot socialist-orientated pals inhabit ? The pay of even the most senior public sector officials is a tiny fraction of the pay of very many in similar positions in the private sector. The Government wants the public sector to be more like the private sector in terms of innovation and eficiency but, it seems, is unwilling to pay for the skills required to achieve this. In order to attract the most talented managers, you have to pay market rates; if you pay peanuts, you get monkeys. It may seem to many that salaries of £100,000 and more are vast and can't possibly be justified; the truth is that, in the private sector, such salaries are far from uncommon as can be seen from the enormous salaries paid to many lawyers, accountants, bankers, corporate managers etc.

If you want Chief Executives and Finance Directors who can really do the job, you have to pay a going rate, and if you don't do this you will never get managers of the required ability. The silly pronouncements of this Government in this respect are a sop to the increasingly left-leaning attitudes put forward by all our main political parties. Mr Pickles is a fool.

BIG SOCIETY ..... BIG CON.

David Cameron's catch-phrase of the 'Big Society' is again in the news and the main talking points seem to be simple - what on earth does it mean and what is it meant to achieve ?

In truth, I don't think anyone outside of the political elite can answer either question, as the whole idea is a political construct designed to divert attention from other things. However, in my view, a) the phrase, itself, is so vague as to be meaningless and b) it's about encouraging ordinary people to add to their already busy and stressed lives by taking on a variety of tasks previously undertaken by Government.

Years ago, when there was very little in the way of social support from the State, most local services were run by local people; philanthropists gave money to local causes and people helped themselves and each other as needs arose. Over a period of time, the Government took on more and more of these responsibilities and raised ever-increasing amounts of tax to pay for them, until we eventualy arrived at the position today. Now, the Government, in its desperate search for savings, has decided to try to return to the situation of decades ago but without returning any of the resources that it has stolen from its citizens in the intervening period. At the same time it is taking measures that will cost many thousands of people their livelihoods, and will increase the workload on others quite dramatically.

The basic idea is a good one; Government should not be involved in our lives in the intrusive and all-invasive manner that it has in recent years, but the quid pro quo has to be that money, and a lot of it, is handed back to the people through reduced taxation. The problem that arises is that the Government is already so over-committed financially that it can't give any money back, in fact it needs more, even with all the cuts.

Thanks to Governments of the last 60 or more years, and particularly thanks to 13 years of Labour Government from 1997, the financial state of our country is dire. We have been living so far beyond our resources for so long that the only answer is a massive retrenchment, the result of which will be that the majority of us are going to experience a huge reduction in our living standards in the coming years.

The 'Big Society' is Cameron's way of trying to con us into accepting all of this through a sudden wave of mass benevolence and altruism that makes us forget how poor we are all becoming. While he and his rich mates sit in Westminster, and elsewhere, assuring us that they understand our pain and difficulties, the rest of us will be working 60 and 80 hours a week for half the pay we get now, and then doing 'good works' in our spare time as well, all buoyed up by the knowledge that we're doing good and supporting the 'Big Society'. Get real, Dave, and stop treating the population like morons. That way lies bloody revolution.

MIDDLE CLASSES ARE NOT STUPID.

I see that Ken Clarke, the cuddly face of the Tory Party, has decided to point out to the 'middles classes' that they have yet to feel the true horror of the Government's spending cuts and other measures designed to address the calamitous state of the nation's finances.

He is, of course, quite right that the full weight of the cuts and tax rises has yet to strike home, however, to suggest that the nebulous 'middle classes' don't understand this is to be condescending in the extreme. Anyone with any claim to be 'middles class' already knows that VAT has gone up, petrol prices are increasing daily, their pay is being frozen and that their tax burden will rise exponentially. They already know that their child benefit and tax credits are due to be reduced, and whatever savings they have are not only returning nothing but are also been eroded by inflation at an ever-increasing rate.

Which parts of this scenario does Mr Clarke think people aren't aware of ? I fully accept that some, perhaps many, people have tried not to think about the horrors ahead and some may not quite understand the impact they will feel themselves, but that is not the same as 'the middles classes' not grasping the full scale of the problem. I have little doubt that many are already contemplating less exotic holidays, have already decided

not to replace that oldish car, won't be sending little Jimmy to private school after all, etc etc. 

The 'middle classes' are bearing most of the effect of the profligacy of the previous Government, having profited very little from it in the first place. Before long, we will have only 2 classes in this country, the rich ruling class and the rest of us, all poor as church mice, and that's when the trouble will really start.

MPs RIGHT BUT POWERLESS.

MPs have reportedly voted overwhelmingly, by a majority of 212, against the proposal to give prisoners the right to vote in elections. This rejection is, apparently, not binding on the Government but will add to the pressure on it.

As well as the sheer lunacy of the proposal in the first place, and the fact that our supposedly sovereign Government us being told by a foreign court how it must behave, it is also quite shocking to realise that a vote of British MPs in the British Parliament cannot legally over-rule a judgement by a disparate group of European judges.

What has happened to our sovereignty ? If anyone wants a reason for this country to distance itself from the European project, this is surely it. Let us start arranging the divorce without further delay and begin with the nonsense of this European Human Rights Court..