review | ukwatch.net

The Great City Academy Fraud

Ellie Keen — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 23:52:55 +0000

book Review

The Great City Academy Fraud, by Francis Beckett

It is impossible to commend this book highly enough. When the whole City Academy saga started Brent was chosen as one of the first 3 proposed in the country. As local NUT Secretary I was intimately involved from the start. We witnessed the deceit, the spin, the secrecy, the bribery and the downright dishonesty and lying. I collected the papers and the evidence and thought of writing a book. In common with most people I never got round to it. I’m glad I didn’t, I couldn’t have done the job a tenth as well.

It’s an elegantly written book packed with killer quotes and facts. I have the rather desecrating habit of turning the ears of pages down if they have a particularly important or germane fact or quote. By the end of the book almost every other page had been dog-eared.

I read the book whilst camping out at the occupation ‘tent city’ we have set up to oppose an Academy on the Wembley Park site. You can imagine that I and my colleagues have been absorbed in studying and finding out as much information as possible about the academy programme, yet still I found out so many things I didn’t know and gained more insights into the depth and perfidy of these would-be state education privatisers.

Amongst many things, the book shows how Primary schools will not escape and will be included in the academies’ increasing trend to be all-through 3-18 schools (the bigger the school, the cheaper the cost per unit – sorry – child); how private schools are being allowed to become academies; how academies are now being built entirely with public money with so-called sponsors only being expected to make annual revenue contributions to the academy trust; how Local Authorities, as being responsible for education, are to be ended; how democratic consultation and procedures have been trampled into the dust and the legal goalposts bent, ignored and moved with the regularity and speed of atomic clocks; and how there is a determined plan by religious groups to turn the clock back.

So, to quote two brief extracts from the book, the first regarding the role of religion in education, and the second regarding the role of charity, or rather the role it shouldn’t have, in education (but if you use them I want you to promise me that you won’t do it without buying the book, because you’ll miss so many other good ones).

He points out that long before the academies became the vehicle for it (1995) a booklet from a Mr Burn and Mr McQuoid, now involved with the Vardy foundation, said, “In Britain the Christian churches were active in the field of schooling long before the state took over….in retrospect it is a matter of regret that the churches so readily relinquished control of education to the state….”. And there you have it says Francis, “the state must be driven out of education and it should be handed back to the churches, our function as tax payers should be confined to providing the money with which people like McQuoid and Burn can make sure we can bring up a generation in their own image”.

He quotes Clement Atlee, who was later to become Labour prime Minister in 1945, writing in 1920. He said, “If the rich want to help the poor then they should pay their taxes gladly. A right established by law, such as that to an old age pension, is less galling than an allowance made by a rich man to a poor one depending on his view of the recipient’s character and terminable at his caprice”. He quotes Robert Louis Stevenson who called taxes “the true charity, impartial, impersonal, cumbering none with obligation, helping all”.

“ Charity” , Atlee wrote, “is always apt to be accompanied by a certain complacency and condescension on the part of the benefactor and by an expectation of gratitude from the recipient which cuts at the root of all true friendliness”

Francis then writes, “For these reasons, in the early part of the 20th century it became the view of the Labour Party – and broadly speaking remained so until 1997 – that the rich should aid the poor through the tax system, rather than by charitable gifts; and that education, health care, social security – all the elements of the 1945 Atlee settlement – should be paid for from taxation”.

“What city academies represent, therefore, is a return to the idea, condemned by Atlee, that the rich should contribute voluntarily, rather than through the tax system. But there is a new twist. The sponsor can get all the things a nineteenth-century philanthropist could get, and which Atlee grudged him: control of how the money is spent, a ‘monument’ to himself, the gratitude of the recipients. But unlike the nineteenth-century philanthropist, he does not have to pay the cost of the thing he is ‘giving’ – or even a substantial contribution towards the cost”.

Francis, you have done a service to all of us, full credit to you. As you point out, “Each funding agreement contains conditions upon which the Academy can be returned to the public sector”. We should repay you by defeating this attempt to end state education. This means all out war to stop new academies being built, and campaigning and fighting by any and all means to bring all existing academies back into a fully integrated state education system. Over to you, readers. A journey of a thousand miles begins with the first step. We have started and this is an excellent guide.

War and Lies

Ellie Keen — Mon, 12 May 2008 23:15:02 +0000

“We are going to war, the world be damned.” This was the clear message from the White House, backed strongly by 10 Downing Street. It was evident to the world that the war on Iraq was illegal and was not waged for a just cause. September 11 was the only reason Tony Blair would use to defend both his support for the war and the White House. In the unfolding of this catastrophic drama, the world saw no commitment to the United Nations charter. The international will to find a peaceful solution was ignored outright. Imperialist politics, hungry for oil and geared for political hegemony, was the chief concern of the Western alliance. Iraqi pride and right to self-determination were brushed ruthlessly under the carpet.

Imperial history is replete with revelations about the evil capabilities of the human race, as is evident in the genocide of the natives in Africa and America, the holocaust accompanied by unimaginable fascist brutalities, the two World Wars and now the violence unleashed in West Asia. This crisis in late capital society is stubbornly located in the structures of technological dominance, military violence and ideological legitimation.

European violence is evident in its political and economic adventures, in the very savagery that lies under the veneer of civilisation as is apparent in the art of Picasso and Gauguin, who reflect the dark side of the European man. The wars waged by the West are an example of this deep-seated aggressive behaviour in the Western psyche wherein lies the supremacist attitude of setting goals for the world. If not Pax Britannica, then it is Pax Americana.

In the last days of his tenure, Blair would look back and rationalise his alliance with Bush: “And then came the utterly unanticipated and dramatic September 11th, 2001, and the death of 3,000 or more on the streets of New York, and I decided we should stand shoulder-to-shoulder with our oldest ally, and I did so out of belief. And so, Afghanistan and then Iraq, the latter bitterly controversial. And removing Saddam [Hussein] and his sons from power, as with removing the Taliban, was over with relative ease. But the blowback since from global terrorism and those elements that support it has been fierce and unrelenting and costly. And for many, it simply isn’t and can’t be worth it. For me, I think we must see it through. They, the terrorists who threaten us here and around the world, will never give up, if we give up. It is a test of will and of belief, and we can’t fail it.”

This expression of Blair’s foreign policy has been critiqued by Tariq Ali in his book Rough Music. In the sustained opposition to the Western alliance by the Iraqis he sees heroism justified by Herman Melville’s statement about Lucifer: “Milton’s Satan is morally very superior to his God, as whoever perseveres despite adversity and torture is superior to whoever, in cold vengeance, takes the most horrible revenge on his enemies.”

Undoubtedly, the American giant stood injured after 9/11. If it was Pearl Harbour that awakened it in the Second World War, it is the attack on the twin towers that provoked it to take on the Muslim world. But this time, it was without some of its allies, except Britain, who were not in a mood to back its military ambitions. Whereas the United States regards the U.N. more of a constraint, the dissenting nations in Europe regard it as one chief controlling factor in international politics.

Though we witnessed demonstrations on both sides of the Atlantic against the war in Iraq, we cannot deny the wedge that slowly crept in down the Atlantic. However, the tremendous bonding between Blair and Bush, the two seemingly delinquent school buddies with their arms around each other, superseded the public wrath in both countries, while in Iraq it gave rise to deep public despair and an inspiration to die for one’s faith.

The situation was indeed alarming. Bush and Blair failed to build a broad international coalition against Saddam to bring about disarmament through peaceful means. The ensuing war only exacerbated tension, millions died and suffered, and future generations will question why we allowed it. The turbulent social, political and philosophical movements of our time will interrogate the ethical quandaries of our positions regarding peace and unjustified political interference in the sovereignty of other independent nations.

The preponderance of force over diplomacy; contemptuous double standards in foreign affairs; clandestine nuclear proliferation in nations such as Israel, which the U.S. totally ignores on the one hand and bludgeons Iraq on the other for possessing weapons of mass destruction: these are some of the issues that are passionately taken up in his honest and revelatory book. It is a fuming account of the devastation caused by the war and its aftermath that far exceeded the threat posed by Saddam.

As Tariq elaborates, his motives are to “lay bare the vengeful platitudes of Blair’s war on civil liberties, mount a scorching attack on the cozy falsehoods of the government’s consensus on what the threat amounts to, and how to respond, and denounces the corruption of the political-media bubble which allows it to go unchallenged”. For him, it is imperative that overseas interventions have to be governed by a new instrument of international law. Indeed, Tariq has the uncommon ability to evoke common yet very intense emotions of anger. The book is candid and precise, sure to speak to anyone who has passed through the anguish of this war-torn period.

It is clear that foreign policy, in essence, is all about protecting, sustaining and furthering national interests. And these can be broadly categorised as economic and security interests that could well present contradictory choices at times. The Iraqi threat had been simply exaggerated and Blair went headlong into the war. Tariq examines Blair’s folly as well as the mounting anger at hoodwinking the public into believing the seriousness of Saddam’s military might.

He is livid at the propaganda techniques and doctoring abilities that the government employs in its information war to be in command of information at home. The media controlled by Rupert Murdoch comes under furious criticism.

As he elaborated, the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) was apparently pulled up for its honest report of the massive February 15 demonstration by over a million people who stood up against the war on Iraq. Alistair Campbell, Blair’s public watchdog, would ring up Greg Dyke, the head of the BBC, for its “exaggerated” response to the demonstration. All those who stood up against the regime would have to quit or die. Notwithstanding it, the public outrage became so visible that Blair himself finally had to exit.

Tariq writes provocatively: “The fact that he’s leaving is because he’s so hated. And the reason he’s hated is because he joined the neocons in Washington and went to war against Iraq, which now 78 per cent of the population in this country opposes. And when people are being asked what will Blair’s legacy be, a large majority is saying Iraq. And I think that’s what he will be remembered for, as a Prime Minister who took a reluctant and sceptical country into a war designed by Washington and its neoconservative strategists, all of whom are in crisis.” However, until the end he refused to recognise public anger and asserted, “Hand on heart, I did what I thought was right.”

After Tariq Ali’s two discerning books, The Clash of Fundamentalisms and Bush in Babylon: The Recolonisation of Iraq, Rough Music shows his deep concern for democracy, preservation of civil society and the role of the media, which had gone blatantly silent at the hypocrisy of the government. He envisions an end to the war and a day when a united party to the left of New Labour could mark a return to the robust position of the traditional socialist world view.

In such a scenario there would be a more democratic parliament in Britain where the demise of leaders like Blair would be the logical corollary.

The title Rough Music is, therefore, apt. A term borrowed from E.P. Thompson’s book Customs in Common, “it has generally been used in England since the end of the seventeenth century to denote a rude cacophony, with or without more elaborate ritual, which usually directed mockery or hostility against individuals who offended against certain community norms.”

Implicit in it is the notion of dissent and true democracy which are the early casualties of such policies.

Seething public anger is another fallout of the July 7, 2007, suicide bombings in London and the police callousness towards people of Third World origin. The shooting of a Brazilian, Jean Charles de Menezes, at the Stockwell Underground station on July 22, 2005, was the sad event behind Tariq’s provocation and response to the infringement of civil liberties and human rights. His rejoinder is intrinsic to his Left orientation and to his ideological motives to arouse dissent against the moral depravity of a regime that has pretensions of the rule of justice and egalitarianism. For him, security has to be preserved but not at the cost of legality.

Tariq’s plea is aimed at the immediate withdrawal of British troops from Iraq and Afghanistan and with the claim that Britain “quit its role as automated adjutant to Washington’s neoimperialism and develop a rational, independent foreign policy”. War against Islamism has to discontinue and Britain must realise that Anglo-American experiments to forge expansionism in West Asia has been a downright failure.

The defence of civil liberties, opposition to the corporatisation of the state, doing away with religious bias in the British education system and the replacement of the House of Lords by an elected chamber are some of the other steps that he says will revolutionise Britain in the wake of Blair’s disastrous regime.

He succinctly and ironically concludes his book by castigating state authoritarianism: “This new authority is fundamentally opposed to mass-democratic political activity. To be a good and loyal citizen you should be an individualist to the core, motivated primarily by competitiveness and personal greed. You must learn calmly to accept the unjust structures that institutionalise inequality. And, yes, it would be helpful if you understood that all the wars fought by your state are designed to protect your interests.” In such a utilitarian state the loudest slogan could be ‘Long live Milton’s Satan!’