Jan 102012
 

On the day that the Guardian announces schools will be seen “as they really are”, as they have to endure no-notice Ofsted inspections, I stumble across this introduction to Parent View, a subsite of the Ofsted web (the bold is mine):

Parent View gives you the chance to tell us what you think about your child’s school.

Parent View asks for your opinion on 12 aspects of your child’s school, from the quality of teaching, to dealing with bullying and poor behaviour. We will use the information you provide when making decisions about which schools to inspect, and when.

By sharing your views, you’ll be helping your child’s school to improve. You will also be able to see what other parents have said about your child’s school. Or, if you want to, view the results for any school in England.

Interestingly, and quite by the by, it concludes by saying:

Please note that Parent View does not currently include independent schools.

Lucky them, then.  But not unusual in a wider context.  More of that anon.

Incidentally, I looked up my children’s school and at the time of writing this post there have been exactly zero responses.

The idea, however, is worth pursuing.  But I do wonder why, in our fascination for achieving transparency, where we have it – that is to say, in social media and other online activity – we are critical of its presence; where we half-do – that is to say, in the public sphere – we can’t wait to use it to knock sensible discourse on the head; and where it refuses to exist – that is to say, in the private sector – we are letting our governments give companies (as well as “independent” schools) of all sizes the sorts of freedoms to hide stuff which we don’t allow our state education system; don’t want to allow our MPs and public sector environments; and now think totally preferable even where of late impossible to maintain when ordinary people take matters into their own tweeting hands.

So what is it really that we want of life and truth?

Why are we so disconcertingly uncertain about whose transparency we want and where we wish to apply it?

And when will we be able to order no-notice inspections of executive boardrooms, CEOs, financial services whizzkids … in addition to all the other supposedly “private” sector actors whose behaviours impact so fiercely – as well as so clearly – on the wealth and material living standards of a generally blameless public?

For surely if you want to make money out of hapless consumers, you ought to admit the existence of a wider constituency interested in whether you’ve done it on a level playing-field.

Unless, of course, that’s only good for teachers.

The rest of society having absolutely no obligation to anyone.

A View Of Top Executives anyone?

No.  I didn’t think so.

Jan 102012
 

Thus tweeteth Andrew Neil this morning:

@lewis_goodall So Labour now stands for fair capitalism? What happened to socialism. Or even social democracy.

Meanwhile – and I hope Peter doesn’t mind me quoting the priceless first paragraph from his latest post – more evidence, if evidence were needed, of Labour’s absolute lack of a guiding principle which doesn’t depend on what the other side is doing:

If you press a Labour politician hard – and you may have to press very hard – he or she will admit to being a socialist and an internationalist. The reason that the admission is reluctant is because Labour’s most successful attempts to gain and hold power in the last sixty years have relied in downplaying both to the point of invisibility, and their actions when in power have been a denial of both beliefs, the exception being the great Labour Government of 1945-51 that created the welfare state and the NHS. Perhaps only by considering this government’s achievements, it’s towering figures and what they stood for can we truly understand how far Labour has fallen since 1951.

Alastair Campbell, as perhaps befits his career trajectory, tries to see a silver lining in all that is being thrown at Labour, as he gives us a fascinating lesson in communication strategy:

I have written here many times about the concept of the ‘prism’, the layering that media conventional wisdom lays over a person or issue, and which then dictates whether something is news or not. The current prism re Ed is negative. So a poll that reflects well on his performance does not get covered. One that reflects badly gets big coverage. Minor errors – the Blackbusters typo is a good example – are turned into major stories. Major interventions are reduced, and dismissed.

So where should we stand?  What do we do?  Who do we turn to?

And how can we manage to be good Party members?

The thought that occurs to me is that the “fair capitalism” meme – which, according to Campbell, Ed is developing quite successfully (even if he gets no credit for it upfront) – is a classic example of traditional top-down message-forging.  You know the sort of thing I mean: where the first lot to find out about new angles on the broader policy brushstrokes and maybe wider political thought are the media outlets the political party in question is trying to cultivate – even as the very last in the queue are the bemused members who either clam up and only ever go so far as to admit, as Peter so cleverly points out, that they’re socialists and internationalists, have always been and always will be … or, alternatively, wonder if they’re guilty of cowardice for not saying more; of disloyalty for pointing out how this is the first they’ve actually heard of it; or – God forbid – of being in the wrong party for not being far more enthusiastic about everything.

Surely, when our leader speaks out, as a listening and consulting socialist grouping of the caring, none of what he ever says should come as any of a surprise.  If he truly listened and really consulted – and these verbs were effected in both directions – embarrassed silences of bemused stares would never have space to take place.

I suppose, in a sense, when he tweets what he tweets, Neil is looking to sustain the old two-party dynamics.  It makes writing about politics and interpreting its functioning much easier, of course.  Imagine, alternatively, if political parties were really like good charities (which is what Ed Miliband might be trying to achieve) – customer focussed; masses of volunteers; low overheads; and capable of continually reinventing themselves as per the real needs of their client base.

What a political party that would be!  And how lost most journalists would find themselves …

So when I ask the question “How can we manage to be good Party members?” in the current circumstances, I suppose what I’m really doing is wondering whether I should change myself, shut up, close down and accept that we live in an imperfect world I can’t change – or become evermore vociferous, engaged, critical and active?

What do you think I should do?  Should I settle for what there is or believe – as they say – in better?

Jan 102012
 

I’m back in Chester now.  After a night train from Madrid, the Eurostar from Paris and the coach from London, I arrived safe and sound last night at around 10.30.

But the panorama which presents itself is not very pleasing – nor, indeed, hopeful.

The left is wrangling, the right is imposing itself – it would seem the long-term plan is beginning to emerge.  Reassert a big government executed by those who would claim the virtues of small government; terrify the weak in order to control the middle classes; and then give some kind of wearisome sequence of sops to the rest of the country with the intention of making clear that anyone who complains will be left to suppurate in their bitterness, whilst anyone who wants to get on in life must play by the rules of the game they choose to initiate.

The most recent news, that Cameron is attempting to kick the Scottish independence referendum into touch, is no surprise – but when dictators attempt to channel their forces by referring to the importance of legality, those who would deal with them must remember how sovereign nations have been allowed by Western civilisations throughout history to deconstruct all morality and human rights.

Meanwhile, just take a look at this photo of a present I was given for Christmas.  A pity it wasn’t a raspberry jam, eh?  (And paradoxically, it’s made by a company called Mrs Bridges …)

Happy New Year to one and all – and remember that whilst to be free may not be the most important thing of all, it nevertheless comes up pretty high on the list.

And needs to be fought for.