I think we all know that Christmas and New Year is a tricky time of year.
We're urged by the media to spend, spend, spend and have loads of fun.
This is despite the fact that an increasing number of people in the UK do not think of themselves as Christian and know little of Christ's teachings.
The original Christmas story (and its up to you how much of it you believe) was of someone, eventually, opening their door to a couple of asylum seekers, desperate for somewhere to give birth.
Its a long way from online sales, binge drinking and Simon bleeding Cowell.
Not that I'm a grump!
I've had a great Christmas!
I just remember times when I didn't. I'm sure we've all had our difficult days at this time of year. When its cold and dark, everything's shut and the whole world (apart from you) seems to be happy, its not surprising that organisations like The Samaratins get record numbers of calls.
That's the difference between being alone and being lonely. Being lonely is grim. Being alone, sometimes, is just about essential!
I've actually always liked being on my own a wee bit at Christmas. I think it goes back to childhood when I'd get my new ball or tracksuit and go out for a kick-a-bout. None of mates would be allowed out as they had relatives visiting. So, I'd go over to Bellahouston Park and kick the ball about myself. For hours. It was great.
(Immediate post-Revie era Leeds tracksuit, now, quite rightly, a retro classic, was my favourite present ever and my mum gave me a terrible row for getting it dirty the first time I wore it, which I felt was a wee bit unfair. Give a 10 year old a white tracksuit to play football in?)
This year, in between the various get-togethers, I've managed a bit of solitary quality time to read Harlan Cobden's Hold Tight. Highly recommended if you like your crime thrillers.
My six year old son has had a brilliant time and he's lit up our Christmas they way only kids can. He's up at 6am every morning and he drags me out of bed for his usual games and now his new ones. The other morning, once my mrs got up and took over duties, I sneaked out and took some photos of the Winter Wonderland Aberdour has become these last few days.
Aberdour really is one of the most gorgeous places on earth and I'm really lucky to live here. I haven't always lived in Winter Wonderlands and I haven't always had happy family Christmases. But the bad times just make you enjoy the good times all the more.
Saturday 26 December 2009
Saturday 5 December 2009
Money for Something
Bankers are in the news again. In case you missed it, amongst all the really important stuff about Katie & Peter's Christmas plans and Tiger's motor, senior executives at RBS have threatened to resign if they don't get the Christmas bonus (from us that is, the taxpayer) they feel they deserve.
More than 5,000 investment bankers expect a Christmas bonus of around £1 million each. They say if they don't get it, they'll resign and go to a bank that will pay them this kind of money. We as taxpayers will, they claim, lose out even more if we don't give them the money, as without their talents, RBS will have no way of ever paying back the £20,000,000,000 the Government lent the bank when it squandered its, er, investments, making daft purchases and lending money to people who couldn't pay it back.
The reality is that RBS hasn't paid back its loan and is after even more money from the Government. If this happened to you or me and we didn't pay the bank our loan for our house the bank would put us out in the street. If the bank doesn't pay back its loan to us, the bankers want a bonus! Yes, you couldn't make it up.
There are two common responses. The first is to support these guys, on the basis that they have a decent case, or you are one of them, or you're the Duke of York. You actually believe that RBS investment bankers have such rare talents we'd all be worse off without them.
The second response, one I have a bit of time for, I'll admit, is to call their bluff and say, sorry boys, you just haven't earned it yet baby. But, I think there's another option, a third way, if you like. Give the bonuses to the people in the public sector who really do deserve it.
The Government owns 84% of RBS. So, its employees are public sector workers in the same way state school teachers, NHS doctors and nurses are. Let's say for example that the Government/RBS has £5,000,000,000 (sorry for all the zeros but we rarely see billions spelt out like this. £5bn just doesn't have the same effect) to give out.
Is it really so crazy to take that sum, and the many others that have been given out in MPs homes etc to the people we really couldn't do without? Let's say there are around 6 million people who work in the public sector. These are the June 2005 National Statistics figures. They are a wee bit out of date, but they give us something to work from.
If we gave this £5,000,000,000 to every public sector worker (including RBS bankers), that would be £833 each for Christmas. Now, I'm not arguing that we should. Not all of them deserve it. There are public sector workers, like private sector workers, who just bad at their job and they don't deserve any bonus. So, for the majority who do do their jobs well, often highly stressful ones, there could easily be £1,000 up for grabs, if their performance merits a bonus.
Would it be too much for the Government to come up with some kind of incentive scheme whereby public sector workers could earn this bonus? Would £1000 at Christmas for public sector workers not be good for the economy? Surely it would be better for lots of £1000s to be spent, or saved, all over the country rather than being spent in car dealers and jewellers in London? Would £1000 not be very, very welcome for millions of families? Would this not be a massive vote winner for the Government?
Is it me that's mad or this idea just too sensible for the Government ever to carry out?
And, before private sector workers get all shirty, going on about public sector holidays, job security and pensions, if being a teacher, a social worker or a nurse is such a cushy job, why don't you do it?
More than 5,000 investment bankers expect a Christmas bonus of around £1 million each. They say if they don't get it, they'll resign and go to a bank that will pay them this kind of money. We as taxpayers will, they claim, lose out even more if we don't give them the money, as without their talents, RBS will have no way of ever paying back the £20,000,000,000 the Government lent the bank when it squandered its, er, investments, making daft purchases and lending money to people who couldn't pay it back.
The reality is that RBS hasn't paid back its loan and is after even more money from the Government. If this happened to you or me and we didn't pay the bank our loan for our house the bank would put us out in the street. If the bank doesn't pay back its loan to us, the bankers want a bonus! Yes, you couldn't make it up.
There are two common responses. The first is to support these guys, on the basis that they have a decent case, or you are one of them, or you're the Duke of York. You actually believe that RBS investment bankers have such rare talents we'd all be worse off without them.
The second response, one I have a bit of time for, I'll admit, is to call their bluff and say, sorry boys, you just haven't earned it yet baby. But, I think there's another option, a third way, if you like. Give the bonuses to the people in the public sector who really do deserve it.
The Government owns 84% of RBS. So, its employees are public sector workers in the same way state school teachers, NHS doctors and nurses are. Let's say for example that the Government/RBS has £5,000,000,000 (sorry for all the zeros but we rarely see billions spelt out like this. £5bn just doesn't have the same effect) to give out.
Is it really so crazy to take that sum, and the many others that have been given out in MPs homes etc to the people we really couldn't do without? Let's say there are around 6 million people who work in the public sector. These are the June 2005 National Statistics figures. They are a wee bit out of date, but they give us something to work from.
If we gave this £5,000,000,000 to every public sector worker (including RBS bankers), that would be £833 each for Christmas. Now, I'm not arguing that we should. Not all of them deserve it. There are public sector workers, like private sector workers, who just bad at their job and they don't deserve any bonus. So, for the majority who do do their jobs well, often highly stressful ones, there could easily be £1,000 up for grabs, if their performance merits a bonus.
Would it be too much for the Government to come up with some kind of incentive scheme whereby public sector workers could earn this bonus? Would £1000 at Christmas for public sector workers not be good for the economy? Surely it would be better for lots of £1000s to be spent, or saved, all over the country rather than being spent in car dealers and jewellers in London? Would £1000 not be very, very welcome for millions of families? Would this not be a massive vote winner for the Government?
Is it me that's mad or this idea just too sensible for the Government ever to carry out?
And, before private sector workers get all shirty, going on about public sector holidays, job security and pensions, if being a teacher, a social worker or a nurse is such a cushy job, why don't you do it?
Thursday 26 November 2009
Should politics be left to the politicians?
I didn't intend to post anything else relating to the Glasgow North East by-election. It was just that after spending the best part of an hour with John Smeaton I was fascinated by last week's BBC Scotland documentary on him.
John did much worse than he expected. Perhaps when he first threw his hat in the ring with The Jury Team he had hopes of winning. By the time I spoke with him he was hopeful of coming third. In the end, more people, in one of the poorest parts of Britain, voted for the Tories rather than this "man of the people".
How come?
The documentary told me a lot more than my interview did about John. To be honest, the interview with John, as with all the other candidates, was pretty apolitical. On the stump, John's selling point to be an MP was the fact that was a "normal guy", as opposed to the other, "career" politicians.
My first concern about this approach is that I'm not sure that John any longer is a "normal" guy. "Normal guys" don't get showcased at the Labour Party conference, invited to Congress, gigs with the First Minister or get a column in The Sun. Underneath the celebrity status, John may well still be a normal guy, and he was great company when I met him, but he won't be "normal" again any time soon.
John's political stand, that he wouldn't put his views forward, but would support "the people's" views, was also a bit suspect.
How was John to work out what "the people" wanted on the many many decisions an MP has to make, day in day out? Who are these "people"? Are they Sun readers? Guys who turn up at his surgeries? Randoms who stop him in the street? Are their opinions any better or more representative or than anyone else's?
John had one popular policy; that he would get MPs' noses out of the public trough. But all the other parties committed themselves to doing that as well. And Labour (possibly the Tories soon) will actually be in a position to do this.
Other than that he is/was a normal guy, John struggled to come up with any other plausible reasons for voting for him. How he would bring in jobs was never really explained. I'd guess there's another 648 MPs committed to the same thing and it isn't really happening for them, so how John can do it needed to be spelled out.
Ultimately voters want a bit more from their politicians than just simply offering themselves to stand up for, er, whatever, you want me to. If people are going to elect an MP, that MP or his/her party, has to have credible policies on a wide range of issues. One of the inescapable laws of politics is that you can't please all of the people all of the time. Voters appreciate a bit of honesty about this.
Another political fact is that money and organisation goes a long way too. I really didn't know that John's team was pretty much him, his mate and his mum and dad. The Jury team appeared to chip in when they got annoyed with John, and perhaps the film did the Jury Team a disservice, but John seemed to be easily brushed aside by the big boys' machine.
The moment which really captured my attention though was the comment by one of the voters. Exhibiting that classic, awful, Scottish cringe, she commented "he's just a baggage handler, he's got carried away with himself".
Presumably she'd rather be represented by "Robo-MP", the kind of MP/MSP we see far too much these days. Guys and gals straight out of uni or party research who've never done any real job in the private sector or the sharp end of the public sector, but see politics as a career just like any other. They say what they're told, voter as they're told, dress as they're told and never depart from the script. I'm sure you can name loads of them.
My hope is that with the reform of MPs pay and expenses we do get more baggage handlers, nurses, police officers, fire fighters as well as teachers, doctors etc getting involved in politics.
John's experience proved that its very hard for a guy on his own (especially one allied to a fringe political party) to beat the party machine. Its to be hoped that those within the major parties who have selected the candidates of 2010 have selected people who are both representative of the public and are committed to the public.
John did much worse than he expected. Perhaps when he first threw his hat in the ring with The Jury Team he had hopes of winning. By the time I spoke with him he was hopeful of coming third. In the end, more people, in one of the poorest parts of Britain, voted for the Tories rather than this "man of the people".
How come?
The documentary told me a lot more than my interview did about John. To be honest, the interview with John, as with all the other candidates, was pretty apolitical. On the stump, John's selling point to be an MP was the fact that was a "normal guy", as opposed to the other, "career" politicians.
My first concern about this approach is that I'm not sure that John any longer is a "normal" guy. "Normal guys" don't get showcased at the Labour Party conference, invited to Congress, gigs with the First Minister or get a column in The Sun. Underneath the celebrity status, John may well still be a normal guy, and he was great company when I met him, but he won't be "normal" again any time soon.
John's political stand, that he wouldn't put his views forward, but would support "the people's" views, was also a bit suspect.
How was John to work out what "the people" wanted on the many many decisions an MP has to make, day in day out? Who are these "people"? Are they Sun readers? Guys who turn up at his surgeries? Randoms who stop him in the street? Are their opinions any better or more representative or than anyone else's?
John had one popular policy; that he would get MPs' noses out of the public trough. But all the other parties committed themselves to doing that as well. And Labour (possibly the Tories soon) will actually be in a position to do this.
Other than that he is/was a normal guy, John struggled to come up with any other plausible reasons for voting for him. How he would bring in jobs was never really explained. I'd guess there's another 648 MPs committed to the same thing and it isn't really happening for them, so how John can do it needed to be spelled out.
Ultimately voters want a bit more from their politicians than just simply offering themselves to stand up for, er, whatever, you want me to. If people are going to elect an MP, that MP or his/her party, has to have credible policies on a wide range of issues. One of the inescapable laws of politics is that you can't please all of the people all of the time. Voters appreciate a bit of honesty about this.
Another political fact is that money and organisation goes a long way too. I really didn't know that John's team was pretty much him, his mate and his mum and dad. The Jury team appeared to chip in when they got annoyed with John, and perhaps the film did the Jury Team a disservice, but John seemed to be easily brushed aside by the big boys' machine.
The moment which really captured my attention though was the comment by one of the voters. Exhibiting that classic, awful, Scottish cringe, she commented "he's just a baggage handler, he's got carried away with himself".
Presumably she'd rather be represented by "Robo-MP", the kind of MP/MSP we see far too much these days. Guys and gals straight out of uni or party research who've never done any real job in the private sector or the sharp end of the public sector, but see politics as a career just like any other. They say what they're told, voter as they're told, dress as they're told and never depart from the script. I'm sure you can name loads of them.
My hope is that with the reform of MPs pay and expenses we do get more baggage handlers, nurses, police officers, fire fighters as well as teachers, doctors etc getting involved in politics.
John's experience proved that its very hard for a guy on his own (especially one allied to a fringe political party) to beat the party machine. Its to be hoped that those within the major parties who have selected the candidates of 2010 have selected people who are both representative of the public and are committed to the public.
Sunday 15 November 2009
Wednesday 11 November 2009
Willie Bain (The Labour Party) - The North East By-Election
Willie Bain, The Labour Party candidate talks to Modernity Scotland about his priorities for Glasgow North East as well as what ringtone he has on his mobile phone, his favourite film and other personal interests.
John Smeaton (The Jury Team) - Glasgow North East By Election
John Smeaton, The Jury Team candidate talks to Modernity Scotland about his priorities for Glasgow North East, what he would ask the Prime Minister the next time he met him as well as other personal interests.
David Doherty (Scottish Green Party) - North East By-Election
David Doherty, Scottish Green Party candidate talks to Modernity Scotland about his priorities for Glasgow North East, his favorite film, album and other personal interests.
North East By-Election Nov 2009
2009-10 is a big year in UK Politics. We plan to have a lot more video content, to hopefully, heighten our young people's interest in the political process. I'll do some video myself, we'll interview some teachers/pupils (please get in touch if you're game for an interview) and we'll also profile many of the candidates. We couldn't ignore the Glasgow North East by election, which takes place tomorrow. We couldn't get all the candidates to respond back to us, but the ones we did get; Willie Bain, David Doherty, David Kerr and John Smeaton were all fantastic.
Thanks guys!
Tuesday 10 November 2009
Why I Love Country Music
I know I took the micky out of country music at the MSA conference but I really do like the good stuff. This is my current fave, from a great new album (Bruce even sings along on this track on the album).
Sunday 8 November 2009
Modern Studies Association conference 2009
The Modern Studies Association (MSA) held its annual conference at the University of Strathclyde (Jordanhill)on Saturday.
The first thing I'd like to say about it is an enormous thanks to the MSA conference organisers. An event such as this, which attracted an incredible 230 teachers, requires months of (unpaid) planning. There are speakers to be invited, halls and classrooms to be set up, catering to be booked, goody bags to be packed, all of which takes an enormous amount of time. All of the organisers are full time teachers who do this kind of work in their own time. So, from one guy who had a great day on Saturday, thank you to Alison, Gordon, Guch, Henry, Irene, Jayne, Jim, Melanie, Pamela and Ruth, hope I never left anyone out!
I'd like to thank the teachers who stayed on for my talk on teaching the USA in the afternoon. The MSA conference is a demanding day. Its a packed programme. So, I'm indebted to the USA workshop teachers for being in such good humour. I'm particularly indebted to the two (any others?) American teachers present; Ted Hall at St George's, Edinburgh and John Zehner at Holy Cross High School, Hamilton.
At the end of the talk I had a little bit of fun at President George W Bush's expense, which the two Americans, thankfully, took in good spirit. If you know me at all, you know I love the USA so the last thing I'd want to do is offend any Americans over here, especially in John's situation as he is a Fulbright teacher, here for a year. How would I feel if I was in America and teachers were all laughing at Alex Salmond or Jack McConnell?
I didn't get to any of the workshops as I nipped out in the morning to interview the Labour candidate for the Glasgow North East by-election, Willie Bain, for Tuesday's blog. I'm interviewing John Smeaton, the Greens' David Doherty and, hopefully, the SNP's David Kerr and the SSP's Kevin McVey tomorrow night. The post will be a light hearted one. It won't be heavy political analysis, just a showcase of the more human side of people who want to represent you.
I spent most of the conference trying to get people to support Cross Out Poverty. Neil Galbraith, who is the main organiser of COP, had to go away to do a funeral. I suppose that's what happens when you have a Minister running a campaign. You'd be mistaken though if you think COP is some kind of mad religious thing. It's not. Neil is the kind of guy who is danger of getting organised religion a good name. You can do something for COP, whatever your religion or none.
Its all about a) celebrating, in the best possible way, Scottishness, on St Andrew's Day. Not party political and certainly not in any way anti anyone else, just the many things Scots have done and are doing. It can be the Modern Stuides dept, the Art dept, the Music dept, any part of a school, on 30 November, celebrating Scottishness.
But, then b) while we're doing this, asking, why are there still children living in Scotland in poverty? Why is this scandal still happening? What can be done? What can I do and what should others be doing?
This year's COP is really a dummy run involving some Glasgow schools in Neil's parish. But, next year, I really think this campaign will be very high profile. Children in Need is alright, but there is no political focus at all. It's almost as if the event is a core BBC show itself, part and parcel of the organisation like Strictly or MOTD. Our Children in Need raised more millions this year than last year! Wey-hey! Next year will be even better! Its a disgrace that there's any need for Children in Need at all.
I'm all for helping children in need, but let's ask why they have to be in need in the first place and what can be done, rather than just ask people, who already pay plenty in taxes, to hand over even more of their money.
The first thing I'd like to say about it is an enormous thanks to the MSA conference organisers. An event such as this, which attracted an incredible 230 teachers, requires months of (unpaid) planning. There are speakers to be invited, halls and classrooms to be set up, catering to be booked, goody bags to be packed, all of which takes an enormous amount of time. All of the organisers are full time teachers who do this kind of work in their own time. So, from one guy who had a great day on Saturday, thank you to Alison, Gordon, Guch, Henry, Irene, Jayne, Jim, Melanie, Pamela and Ruth, hope I never left anyone out!
I'd like to thank the teachers who stayed on for my talk on teaching the USA in the afternoon. The MSA conference is a demanding day. Its a packed programme. So, I'm indebted to the USA workshop teachers for being in such good humour. I'm particularly indebted to the two (any others?) American teachers present; Ted Hall at St George's, Edinburgh and John Zehner at Holy Cross High School, Hamilton.
At the end of the talk I had a little bit of fun at President George W Bush's expense, which the two Americans, thankfully, took in good spirit. If you know me at all, you know I love the USA so the last thing I'd want to do is offend any Americans over here, especially in John's situation as he is a Fulbright teacher, here for a year. How would I feel if I was in America and teachers were all laughing at Alex Salmond or Jack McConnell?
I didn't get to any of the workshops as I nipped out in the morning to interview the Labour candidate for the Glasgow North East by-election, Willie Bain, for Tuesday's blog. I'm interviewing John Smeaton, the Greens' David Doherty and, hopefully, the SNP's David Kerr and the SSP's Kevin McVey tomorrow night. The post will be a light hearted one. It won't be heavy political analysis, just a showcase of the more human side of people who want to represent you.
I spent most of the conference trying to get people to support Cross Out Poverty. Neil Galbraith, who is the main organiser of COP, had to go away to do a funeral. I suppose that's what happens when you have a Minister running a campaign. You'd be mistaken though if you think COP is some kind of mad religious thing. It's not. Neil is the kind of guy who is danger of getting organised religion a good name. You can do something for COP, whatever your religion or none.
Its all about a) celebrating, in the best possible way, Scottishness, on St Andrew's Day. Not party political and certainly not in any way anti anyone else, just the many things Scots have done and are doing. It can be the Modern Stuides dept, the Art dept, the Music dept, any part of a school, on 30 November, celebrating Scottishness.
But, then b) while we're doing this, asking, why are there still children living in Scotland in poverty? Why is this scandal still happening? What can be done? What can I do and what should others be doing?
This year's COP is really a dummy run involving some Glasgow schools in Neil's parish. But, next year, I really think this campaign will be very high profile. Children in Need is alright, but there is no political focus at all. It's almost as if the event is a core BBC show itself, part and parcel of the organisation like Strictly or MOTD. Our Children in Need raised more millions this year than last year! Wey-hey! Next year will be even better! Its a disgrace that there's any need for Children in Need at all.
I'm all for helping children in need, but let's ask why they have to be in need in the first place and what can be done, rather than just ask people, who already pay plenty in taxes, to hand over even more of their money.
Saturday 7 November 2009
Tuesday 3 November 2009
Great Political Studies guide in this week's New Statesman, print version only. The website is excellent as well. http://ping.fm/h2VhP
Sunday 1 November 2009
Fun in Glasgow North East
The Glasgow North East by-election will be held on Thursday 12 November. It promises to be fun, even, as First Minister Alex Salmond says, "a brammer".
The by-election is the result of the elevation of sitting MP Michael Martin's to the Lords after his resignation as Speaker of the Commons over the expenses scandal.
In 2005, Michael Martin won 53.3% of the vote and a majority of 10,134 over his SNP rival. Glasgow North East should be a safe Labour hold. But will it be?
I love by-elections. General Elections, to use a football analogy, are a bit like league championships. Generally, over the 645 games, the best team wins. Yes, there's the odd dodgy result, injustice or slip up along the way. But, usually, the party with the best leader, the best ideas, the best campaign and the most money wins.
By-elections though are like cup games. Surprises happen. The big teams cannot guarantee a result. The outcome cannot be taken for granted.
Labour, struggling as it is nationally, should still win. In Willie Bain, it has an able candidate with no expenses baggage to hide. While opposition parties have questioned the depth of his "localness", he knows the constituency and appears to be, as they say, a safe pair of hands. How much of a kick back Labour will receive from the expenses scandal remains to be seen.
The SNP, likewise, are fielding a strong candidate. David Kerr is a former BBC journalist. As you would expect, he is media savvy and presents himself well. After winning neighbouring Labour heartland Glasgow East in 2008, the SNP would dearly love to triumph over Labour again.
But, the Scottish Government's decision to abandon support for the Glasgow Airport Rail Link (GARL) cannot help the party's cause. Glasgow is proud of hosting the 2014 Commonwealth games. GARL is seen by Labour controlled Glasgow city council and its articulate leader, Steven Purcell, as central to its success. The city, and this constituency in particular, could do with the jobs GARL would create. Labour are sure to go to town on this issue.
As in Glasgow East 2008, the Conservatives have unearthed a strong female candidate in the shape of Ruth Davidson. The problem is, there's as much chance of the Conservatives winning this seat as nearby Partick Thistle have of winning the Champions League. Last time around, the Tories never even bothered putting up a candidate in Glasgow North East (neither did the Lib Dems or the Greens). But, this is the new, de-toxed, poverty tackling Tories. Glasgow North East won't be on the hit list for the Tories winning the next General Election, but the party won't want a humiliation either. If it saves its deposit, it'll be a result.
The real fun comes in the shape of two Scottish media darlings who are standing; Tommy Sheridan and John Smeaton.
"Smeato" is representing the newly formed "Jury Party", a political party which doesn't believe in, er, political parties. The appeal of The Jury Party is obvious. There is widespread public resentment towards professional politicians, in particular at the lifestyle many of them live at public expense. The appeal of John Smeaton is obvious too. Local Glasgow guy who sorted out the airport terrorists in time honoured Glasgow style.
Smeato's credentials are good, but, I suspect, his chances of election would have been better if he'd stood as a white suited Martin Bell style "clean up politics" campaigner rather than as a candidate of the Jury team. Apart from criticising MPs over their expenses (which everyone is doing anyway), no-one really knows what the Jury Team stands for on a whole range of issues affecting the constituency.
Tommy Sheridan, as always, provides more intrigue. The former Celebrity Big Brother star will, along with his Mrs, be back in the High Court in January. Who needs Celebrity Big Brother when there's the Sheridans Trial! In the meantime, Tommy is standing as a candidate for his Solidarity Party which he formed after leaving the Scottish Socialist Party (SSP) after the last court case in 2007. His appeal is, largely, the Tommy Factor. His is asking the voters to elect him on a "try before you buy" basis, before the General Election of 2010.
I don't think Tommy Sheridan or John Smeaton will win. What will be of interest is who they take votes from. The SNP would have hoped, like in Glasgow East 2008, to hoover up all the anti-Labour votes. But, the anti-Labour votes will now go in several directions. Labour itself will be content to retain most of its "core" vote. It can afford to lose several thousand and still win. But, how many of its core vote will take the chance, always offered by by-elections, to give the governing party a punch on the nose?
Tommy Sheridan's chances will also be curtailed by the other socialist parties. Tommy's former comrades, the SSP, are running. The Socialist Labour Party (SLP) are also standing. You may well ask what the actual differences are between any of these parties?
Curiously, the SLP actually finished third in this election back in 2005, beating the SSP quite comfortably. Unlike the SSP, the SLP really has little presence in Scotland. It's performance underlines, at this political level, the effect a party's name has. Everyone knows who Tommy Sheridan is. The SSP and the SLP would, in their heart of hearts, settle for beating Tommy, but his brand recognition will see him win this particular battle of the smaller parties.
The Greens and the Lib Dems are, of course putting up candidates, this time. They will do their best to get whatever votes they can, but I suspect the cheque for their lost deposits has already been written. Glasgow North East is not fertile territory for environmental politics or liberalism. Perhaps it should be. But its not.
So, my prediction is, with 12 days to go, a Labour win, albeit with a reduced majority. Labour will settle for this. To return to football-speak, its all about the result. It won't be pretty and it won't be spectacular, but Labour will pick up a much needed three points at home.
PS, Just for a laugh, my wider prediction. 1 Labour, 2 SNP, 3 Solidarity, 4 Jury Party, 5 SSP, 6 SLP, 7 Conservatives, 8 Lib Dems, 9 Greens, 10 Others.
The by-election is the result of the elevation of sitting MP Michael Martin's to the Lords after his resignation as Speaker of the Commons over the expenses scandal.
In 2005, Michael Martin won 53.3% of the vote and a majority of 10,134 over his SNP rival. Glasgow North East should be a safe Labour hold. But will it be?
I love by-elections. General Elections, to use a football analogy, are a bit like league championships. Generally, over the 645 games, the best team wins. Yes, there's the odd dodgy result, injustice or slip up along the way. But, usually, the party with the best leader, the best ideas, the best campaign and the most money wins.
By-elections though are like cup games. Surprises happen. The big teams cannot guarantee a result. The outcome cannot be taken for granted.
Labour, struggling as it is nationally, should still win. In Willie Bain, it has an able candidate with no expenses baggage to hide. While opposition parties have questioned the depth of his "localness", he knows the constituency and appears to be, as they say, a safe pair of hands. How much of a kick back Labour will receive from the expenses scandal remains to be seen.
The SNP, likewise, are fielding a strong candidate. David Kerr is a former BBC journalist. As you would expect, he is media savvy and presents himself well. After winning neighbouring Labour heartland Glasgow East in 2008, the SNP would dearly love to triumph over Labour again.
But, the Scottish Government's decision to abandon support for the Glasgow Airport Rail Link (GARL) cannot help the party's cause. Glasgow is proud of hosting the 2014 Commonwealth games. GARL is seen by Labour controlled Glasgow city council and its articulate leader, Steven Purcell, as central to its success. The city, and this constituency in particular, could do with the jobs GARL would create. Labour are sure to go to town on this issue.
As in Glasgow East 2008, the Conservatives have unearthed a strong female candidate in the shape of Ruth Davidson. The problem is, there's as much chance of the Conservatives winning this seat as nearby Partick Thistle have of winning the Champions League. Last time around, the Tories never even bothered putting up a candidate in Glasgow North East (neither did the Lib Dems or the Greens). But, this is the new, de-toxed, poverty tackling Tories. Glasgow North East won't be on the hit list for the Tories winning the next General Election, but the party won't want a humiliation either. If it saves its deposit, it'll be a result.
The real fun comes in the shape of two Scottish media darlings who are standing; Tommy Sheridan and John Smeaton.
"Smeato" is representing the newly formed "Jury Party", a political party which doesn't believe in, er, political parties. The appeal of The Jury Party is obvious. There is widespread public resentment towards professional politicians, in particular at the lifestyle many of them live at public expense. The appeal of John Smeaton is obvious too. Local Glasgow guy who sorted out the airport terrorists in time honoured Glasgow style.
Smeato's credentials are good, but, I suspect, his chances of election would have been better if he'd stood as a white suited Martin Bell style "clean up politics" campaigner rather than as a candidate of the Jury team. Apart from criticising MPs over their expenses (which everyone is doing anyway), no-one really knows what the Jury Team stands for on a whole range of issues affecting the constituency.
Tommy Sheridan, as always, provides more intrigue. The former Celebrity Big Brother star will, along with his Mrs, be back in the High Court in January. Who needs Celebrity Big Brother when there's the Sheridans Trial! In the meantime, Tommy is standing as a candidate for his Solidarity Party which he formed after leaving the Scottish Socialist Party (SSP) after the last court case in 2007. His appeal is, largely, the Tommy Factor. His is asking the voters to elect him on a "try before you buy" basis, before the General Election of 2010.
I don't think Tommy Sheridan or John Smeaton will win. What will be of interest is who they take votes from. The SNP would have hoped, like in Glasgow East 2008, to hoover up all the anti-Labour votes. But, the anti-Labour votes will now go in several directions. Labour itself will be content to retain most of its "core" vote. It can afford to lose several thousand and still win. But, how many of its core vote will take the chance, always offered by by-elections, to give the governing party a punch on the nose?
Tommy Sheridan's chances will also be curtailed by the other socialist parties. Tommy's former comrades, the SSP, are running. The Socialist Labour Party (SLP) are also standing. You may well ask what the actual differences are between any of these parties?
Curiously, the SLP actually finished third in this election back in 2005, beating the SSP quite comfortably. Unlike the SSP, the SLP really has little presence in Scotland. It's performance underlines, at this political level, the effect a party's name has. Everyone knows who Tommy Sheridan is. The SSP and the SLP would, in their heart of hearts, settle for beating Tommy, but his brand recognition will see him win this particular battle of the smaller parties.
The Greens and the Lib Dems are, of course putting up candidates, this time. They will do their best to get whatever votes they can, but I suspect the cheque for their lost deposits has already been written. Glasgow North East is not fertile territory for environmental politics or liberalism. Perhaps it should be. But its not.
So, my prediction is, with 12 days to go, a Labour win, albeit with a reduced majority. Labour will settle for this. To return to football-speak, its all about the result. It won't be pretty and it won't be spectacular, but Labour will pick up a much needed three points at home.
PS, Just for a laugh, my wider prediction. 1 Labour, 2 SNP, 3 Solidarity, 4 Jury Party, 5 SSP, 6 SLP, 7 Conservatives, 8 Lib Dems, 9 Greens, 10 Others.
Thursday 29 October 2009
Sunday 25 October 2009
Higher Prelim 2010
I can understand why Standard Grade prelims are more of a pressing concern for Modern Studies teachers just now, but, as ever, teachers need to multi task and think of the kind of questions Higher pupils will be asked in January or February.
In an ideal world, teachers wouldn't teach to any exam. You'd teach the syllabus, then come up with an assessment. But, in reality, come next February, the Higher course won't be finished before Prelims need to be set. Perhaps only three units (out of four or five)will be completed, as well as preparation to sit Paper Two.
So, its wise to think ahead. The Prelim is a very important exam. Its the only opportunity for pupils to experience what its like to attempt 4 x 15 mark questions in 90 minutes, closely followed by a Paper Two, with all its unique demands.
The prelim can then be invaluable in providing pupils with the kind of feedback that can move them on to the next level. Writing a great essay is a lot easier when you have the books in front of you and all night to write it. Learning how to revise, manage time, answer questions in a short time span (especially when there's maybe another three or four Highers to prepare for at the same time) is a different matter altogether.
Lastly, the Prelim is vital for SQA appeals. No-one wants to go through the business of hoping to get the right result by appeal. But, its better than not getting it at all and it counts just the same as an A,B or C in August.
A prelim which replicates the demands of the May exam is essential to this outcome. That requires the same kind of question, the same time allocation and the same exam conditions. It also depends on the marking being of the same standard as SQA marking, which isn't easy as teachers, as human beings, see things in their pupils' work the completely neutral SQA marker might not.
To better understand SQA standards, this website may be of assistance. Teachers who have experience of SQA marking are, naturally, better able to apply that standard than those who haven't.
Our prelim is going to the printers this week and will be in the post to those who have ordered it next week. It costs £40 incl postage.
If you would like to order the prelim (teachers only!!), either do so via the online store or by traditional school purchase order. I plan to run a webconference at the end of January for teachers with any queries on any aspect of the prelim, so please let me know if you'd be interested in this also.
PS It should, of course, be stated that this Prelim paper is, like all commercial papers, completely independent of SQA.
In an ideal world, teachers wouldn't teach to any exam. You'd teach the syllabus, then come up with an assessment. But, in reality, come next February, the Higher course won't be finished before Prelims need to be set. Perhaps only three units (out of four or five)will be completed, as well as preparation to sit Paper Two.
So, its wise to think ahead. The Prelim is a very important exam. Its the only opportunity for pupils to experience what its like to attempt 4 x 15 mark questions in 90 minutes, closely followed by a Paper Two, with all its unique demands.
The prelim can then be invaluable in providing pupils with the kind of feedback that can move them on to the next level. Writing a great essay is a lot easier when you have the books in front of you and all night to write it. Learning how to revise, manage time, answer questions in a short time span (especially when there's maybe another three or four Highers to prepare for at the same time) is a different matter altogether.
Lastly, the Prelim is vital for SQA appeals. No-one wants to go through the business of hoping to get the right result by appeal. But, its better than not getting it at all and it counts just the same as an A,B or C in August.
A prelim which replicates the demands of the May exam is essential to this outcome. That requires the same kind of question, the same time allocation and the same exam conditions. It also depends on the marking being of the same standard as SQA marking, which isn't easy as teachers, as human beings, see things in their pupils' work the completely neutral SQA marker might not.
To better understand SQA standards, this website may be of assistance. Teachers who have experience of SQA marking are, naturally, better able to apply that standard than those who haven't.
Our prelim is going to the printers this week and will be in the post to those who have ordered it next week. It costs £40 incl postage.
If you would like to order the prelim (teachers only!!), either do so via the online store or by traditional school purchase order. I plan to run a webconference at the end of January for teachers with any queries on any aspect of the prelim, so please let me know if you'd be interested in this also.
PS It should, of course, be stated that this Prelim paper is, like all commercial papers, completely independent of SQA.
Friday 23 October 2009
Never Again
Said I wouldn't watch it, but like 8 million other people I did. Confirmed my opinion that the BBC was wrong. Yes, Griffin came across to all right-minded people as an idiot but the BBC has given the BNP publicity it could never buy, even, unbelievably, sympathy.
The justification for putting Griffin on was the BBC's commitment to balance and impartiality. But there was precious little balance and impartiality on the programme. Griffin was hounded by every panellist, just about every member of the audience, even David Dimbleby himself.
He had to be. Denying the holocaust. Cherry picking stuff from The Koran to whip up Islamophobia. Bragging about his links with the KKK. How can you not challenge nonsense like this?
But, that wasn't Question Time last night, it was Question Griffin. It was awful television. A guy whose party got 6% of the vote in elections in which only 34% of the people voted occupied 100% of Question Time and the front pages of newspapers for weeks. Christmas did come early for the BNP.
BBC. Never again. Heard that phrase before?
The justification for putting Griffin on was the BBC's commitment to balance and impartiality. But there was precious little balance and impartiality on the programme. Griffin was hounded by every panellist, just about every member of the audience, even David Dimbleby himself.
He had to be. Denying the holocaust. Cherry picking stuff from The Koran to whip up Islamophobia. Bragging about his links with the KKK. How can you not challenge nonsense like this?
But, that wasn't Question Time last night, it was Question Griffin. It was awful television. A guy whose party got 6% of the vote in elections in which only 34% of the people voted occupied 100% of Question Time and the front pages of newspapers for weeks. Christmas did come early for the BNP.
BBC. Never again. Heard that phrase before?
Wednesday 21 October 2009
Will The Sun swing It?
So, The Sun (English version) has abandoned Labour and will support the Conservatives at the 2010 General Election.
The, er, Scottish Sun, hasn't made it's mind up yet. This may have something to with the fact the Conservatives in Scotland constitute around 13% of Scottish voters.
How many of this minority actually read The Sun can only be speculated. I'd guess that the hardy band of elderly Scottish Conservatives who make up the Tories core vote in Scotland these days would risk a heart attack reading The Sun. The Sunday Post it ain't.
England is different. Gordon Brown's Labour Party has trailed David Cameron's Conservatives by at least 10% in the polls for over two years. A poll today put the gap at 17%, more than enough to give the Tories a Commons majority.
So, will it be The Sun that swung it? Hardly. The Sun is just gambling that, on the basis of two years of opinion poll evidence, Cameron will win and that it, in its self appointed status as conscience of the nation, is in touch with the normal, hard working citizen.
Labour is doing its best to say that its not bovvered. Aye right. So, why did Tony Blair make getting Rupert Murdoch on board one of his priorities? Why has David Cameron appointed Andy Coulson, former editor of News of the World, his Director of Planning and Communications?
Its not because The Sun, or the News of the World, will swing it. Its because the support of the biggest selling newspapers in the UK (what a thought) helps seal the deal.
It lowers Labour morale. The decision to support the Tories was released the night of Gordon Brown's speech at the Labour Party conference. There was a big front page splash and a pull out poster, (probably written about six months previously) on Labour's "broken promises".
The Sun's switch won't make white van drivers start quoting Tory election commitments on their tea breaks (are there any?).
But it will add to the momentum the Tories already have that this time is their time. It may well be. In fact, it probably is, unless Labour ditches Gordon Brown.
But, IMHO, it wasn't The Sun what swung it. The Tories wisened up, got a smart, telegenic leader and cleaned up their image. Post Iraq war Blair's Labour alienated its core voters and post-Brown Labour has scunnered the floating voters in marginal constituencies, who really decide the election, with its lack of conviction and drive.
The Sun is simply jumping on the bandwagon again.
The, er, Scottish Sun, hasn't made it's mind up yet. This may have something to with the fact the Conservatives in Scotland constitute around 13% of Scottish voters.
How many of this minority actually read The Sun can only be speculated. I'd guess that the hardy band of elderly Scottish Conservatives who make up the Tories core vote in Scotland these days would risk a heart attack reading The Sun. The Sunday Post it ain't.
England is different. Gordon Brown's Labour Party has trailed David Cameron's Conservatives by at least 10% in the polls for over two years. A poll today put the gap at 17%, more than enough to give the Tories a Commons majority.
So, will it be The Sun that swung it? Hardly. The Sun is just gambling that, on the basis of two years of opinion poll evidence, Cameron will win and that it, in its self appointed status as conscience of the nation, is in touch with the normal, hard working citizen.
Labour is doing its best to say that its not bovvered. Aye right. So, why did Tony Blair make getting Rupert Murdoch on board one of his priorities? Why has David Cameron appointed Andy Coulson, former editor of News of the World, his Director of Planning and Communications?
Its not because The Sun, or the News of the World, will swing it. Its because the support of the biggest selling newspapers in the UK (what a thought) helps seal the deal.
It lowers Labour morale. The decision to support the Tories was released the night of Gordon Brown's speech at the Labour Party conference. There was a big front page splash and a pull out poster, (probably written about six months previously) on Labour's "broken promises".
The Sun's switch won't make white van drivers start quoting Tory election commitments on their tea breaks (are there any?).
But it will add to the momentum the Tories already have that this time is their time. It may well be. In fact, it probably is, unless Labour ditches Gordon Brown.
But, IMHO, it wasn't The Sun what swung it. The Tories wisened up, got a smart, telegenic leader and cleaned up their image. Post Iraq war Blair's Labour alienated its core voters and post-Brown Labour has scunnered the floating voters in marginal constituencies, who really decide the election, with its lack of conviction and drive.
The Sun is simply jumping on the bandwagon again.
BNP on Question Time
Question Time is one of these programmes that, over the years, has frequently frustrated me.
I usually tune in and more times than not get mad at the comments made by the professional politicians (bland and predictable) or by the token celeb (idiotic and pointless).
I'm not arrogant enough to think that I have all the answers, or even any of them, but I normally cry out for someone to just get off the script and give an informed, opinionated answer.
Where I am these days politically, I don't look for total agreement, just respect for someone with a compelling point of view.
What Nick Griffin, the British National Party's leader is doing on the show beggars belief.
What exactly does he bring to it?
A bit of racism? Yes. It's in the party's constitution and he's the leader. Racism is what he does.
A bit of fascism? Yes. The Germans don't have a monopoly of fascism. We've always had our own homegrown little Hitlers and Griffin is just the 21st century version.
Oh, but the BNP deserve to be on the show. They've two MEPs and represent the views of those who voted for them. That's what democracy is.
But, democracy is what the BNP oppose.
Democracy is what they would, by definition, deny non-caucasian British people.
They can't have their cake and eat it.
I'm really sorry that the BBC have provided a platform for the odious views of the BNP.
I won't tune in. I know Griffin's views. I just hope the other panellists, and the audience, expose the BNP for what they really are.
Call me naive if you like, but fed up with MPs expenses, bankers bonuses and disillusioned by the political process as many voters undoubtedly are, I don't believe half as many would vote for the BNP if they knew what they really are.
I usually tune in and more times than not get mad at the comments made by the professional politicians (bland and predictable) or by the token celeb (idiotic and pointless).
I'm not arrogant enough to think that I have all the answers, or even any of them, but I normally cry out for someone to just get off the script and give an informed, opinionated answer.
Where I am these days politically, I don't look for total agreement, just respect for someone with a compelling point of view.
What Nick Griffin, the British National Party's leader is doing on the show beggars belief.
What exactly does he bring to it?
A bit of racism? Yes. It's in the party's constitution and he's the leader. Racism is what he does.
A bit of fascism? Yes. The Germans don't have a monopoly of fascism. We've always had our own homegrown little Hitlers and Griffin is just the 21st century version.
Oh, but the BNP deserve to be on the show. They've two MEPs and represent the views of those who voted for them. That's what democracy is.
But, democracy is what the BNP oppose.
Democracy is what they would, by definition, deny non-caucasian British people.
They can't have their cake and eat it.
I'm really sorry that the BBC have provided a platform for the odious views of the BNP.
I won't tune in. I know Griffin's views. I just hope the other panellists, and the audience, expose the BNP for what they really are.
Call me naive if you like, but fed up with MPs expenses, bankers bonuses and disillusioned by the political process as many voters undoubtedly are, I don't believe half as many would vote for the BNP if they knew what they really are.
MSA Conference Saturday 7 November, Jordanhill, Glasgow
I'm really looking forward to the MSA conference which is only a couple of weeks away.
I'm honoured to be invited as a speaker, on The USA, in one of the afternoon sessions.
I don't plan on delivering some kind of masterclass on US politics or social issues as there are guys out there who are much more informed than me on these matters.
(I haven't actually been to the States since November 2002).
Instead, what I intend to do is to focus on some teaching strategies which could raise attainment in Higher Modern Studies and also reflect the capacities of A Curriculum for Excellence (ACFE).
All schools are being asked to raise attainment and deliver ACFE and my intention is to show that these two priorities are not mutually exclusive.
The USA is one of the great Higher courses. How can you not be excited about teaching this course? Whether you're a fan of the country or not (and I am, as it happens), there are so many issues to explore and so many great resources.
It would be great to see you at the conference, either as a familiar friendly face or if you're an online colleague I've yet to meet. The MSA conference is great value. It's a fantastic CPD opportunity and also a place to meet up with old friends, sorry, network :-)
Are you coming along?
I'm honoured to be invited as a speaker, on The USA, in one of the afternoon sessions.
I don't plan on delivering some kind of masterclass on US politics or social issues as there are guys out there who are much more informed than me on these matters.
(I haven't actually been to the States since November 2002).
Instead, what I intend to do is to focus on some teaching strategies which could raise attainment in Higher Modern Studies and also reflect the capacities of A Curriculum for Excellence (ACFE).
All schools are being asked to raise attainment and deliver ACFE and my intention is to show that these two priorities are not mutually exclusive.
The USA is one of the great Higher courses. How can you not be excited about teaching this course? Whether you're a fan of the country or not (and I am, as it happens), there are so many issues to explore and so many great resources.
It would be great to see you at the conference, either as a familiar friendly face or if you're an online colleague I've yet to meet. The MSA conference is great value. It's a fantastic CPD opportunity and also a place to meet up with old friends, sorry, network :-)
Are you coming along?
Tuesday 20 October 2009
Great Resource for Social Issues
You can view or download a fantastic short film about social/economic facts relating to Glasgow.
www.miniatureglasgow.com
www.miniatureglasgow.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
