I’m not really an Observer fan, have yet to find a Sunday paper that I click with completely, but I generally buy it for Nick Cohen’s insightful articles. But today’s edition was a real let down - a muddled piece on education, with no clear thesis and a conclusion that appeared to implicitly support grammar schools - at least if you go by the title: “Long live grammars”.

He starts well, taking as his starting point the slightly odd debate on selection at the Professional Association of Teachers conference (well, what would you expect of a trade union pledged never to strike?), and moving on to rehearse the statistics about the relative social mobility of the 1958 and 1970 cohorts. (BTW, I’ve never understood why there wasn’t a 1982 cohort and a 1994 cohort, and why we aren’t preparing for the 2006 cohort - they’re so useful for all sorts of things, and policy formulation, not least education, labour force and teenage pregnancy policy, still relies on findings from studying them. I’d be much gratified if someone could enlighten me on this.)

Back to Nick. So far, so good. And, indeed, I don’t disagree with anything he’s saying until, with a jolt, I’ve reached the end without finding the advocacy of grammar schools promised by the title, that I was so looking forward to vehemently disagreeing with. Is this just an example of sexing up headlines by subeditors at the Observer? The drink-soaked trots have a variety of examples from today’s Observer here, so it could be. I hope so.

There are some implicit threats implied in the article, not least in the highlighting that Tony Blair’s Downing Street Policy Unit are actively considering the problem. I suppose I should get less paranoid, but since when have education reforms coming from number 10 meant good things for those of us who care about equality and social justice? Having said that, though I’m still cross about the watering-down of Tomlinson and I’m not sure about the whole Academy programme, I do like one academy-ish idea - schools selecting by banding, where there is a committment to taking a certain number of children from each band. I used to be an advocate of children going to their nearest school, and that still appears to work in Oxford, but I don’t see how how that would combat the moving to get in the catchment area that is gerrymandering the idea of a “local” school.

And so to Stephen - Pollard that is, who I don’t normally read but came across earlier today. Was slightly surprised to find him through Bloggers for Labour, as after reading a few posts he seems not Labour at all for me, but maybe that’s a symptom of the sad breadth of my party these days.

He says:

It is precicely because educational opportunities which are currently the preserve of the better off should be based not on wealth but merit that the grammar schools debate is so important. And it is those who believe in selection by ability, rather than the cheque book, who are the real progressives.

No, the real progressives are those of us who don’t believe in selection at all, Stephen, not by ability nor by cheque book, but who value the potential of every child. This is not a defence of the status quo, which, through the failure of some authorities to implement the comprehensive changes, the underfunding of Thatcher’s years and yes, some trendy and discredited teaching ideas, failed a generation of young people. I know, I was at school in the 1980s, and my generation were failed. But we are turnign that tide now - through literacy hours and numeracy hours and preparation time and better pay for teachers and many other great differences a Labour government makes. It’s not fast enough, and we still have a disgraceful number leaving with no qualifications, but I cannot accept that the way to solve this is a bridge out for the few whilst thousands of young people are consigned to the rubbish heap at 11. We can do better than that.

Finally, to Neil - Harding, at Brighton Regency Labour, undoubtedly proper Labour, though with odd views on PR. To be fair to Stephen and to Nick, Neil, I don’t think that either said that SureStart and Working Families Tax Credits were “slowing the process of redistribution” - Nick’s prose is tortuous, but his point is that they merely slow down the widening of the gap between rich and poor.

But I love this idea, Neil - I’ll suggest it to college next time I visit:

The best and simplest solution I have heard is that every state school in the country (around 3000) gets a place at Oxbridge for their brightest pupil. This would mean that middle class parents would no longer have the incentive to concentrate their children in a few schools. They would have to take an interest in all schools as the best way of getting their children to the top universities. This would mean all children will benefit.

There’s more to come on this topic - gotta run now.

Yet again I’ve managed to prove that maybe the discipline of blogging isn’t for me by failing to post for a week. Sorry loyal readers (all three of you). Maybe the answer is to buy a laptop of my own, as it appears that in a contest between Jo and me for our current laptop (she’ll say her laptop), I always lose, usually by dint of waking up later than her and going to bed earlier than her. Just don’t have the tenacity, it would appear.

Maybe getting a pet would help. I’d like to be a Friday dog blogger. Or, at a pinch a Friday cat blogger. That would give you a guaranteed Friday post. Unfortunately, property prices and landlords being what they are, I can’t. So I’m always pleased to see photos of other people’s pets up as Friday fillers. And now, in a prime example of blogs creating topics to be blogged about, and the MSM (that’s American for “mainstream media”, but I don’t think it means the Guardian) eventually deciding to look like it gets this brave new world, the New York Times is talking about cat blogging and why cats are more popular on the internet than dogs. I can’t currently remember my NYT password to look at it again, but it was worth a read the first time.

Amanda, as usual, gets to the heart of it:

Why are cats and not dogs the major pets of the internet? Because cats are inside animals and it’s a lot easier to get a decent cat shot than a dog shot. … But dogs aren’t as easy to photograph. The very thing that makes dogs great pets–they love you more than life itself–makes it really hard to catch them doing something cute or funny with the camera. Why? Because when you point your camera at the average dog, they get so excited that you’re looking at them, they quit doing whatever they are doing to come over to you to say hi.

So, in lieu of me having anything interesting to say to you, or indeed me having a dog or a cat to photoblog, here’s a Sunday hamster blog. She’s called Honey, by dint of being honey-coloured, and is, in fact, an illegal immigrant, as she lives in a land (our flat) where such four-legged creatures are prohibited. Don’t worry, she’s not claiming benefits and is, in fact, existing on mine and Jo’s charity, which runs to two palatial cages and an unending supply of chocolate (yoghurt) drops. I don’t think we’ll be seeing her on the front page of the Daily Express any time soon, though her family have featured, famously, in the Sun:

So here she is, and yes, those are my hands and a bit of my chin!

So for the past weeks, I’ve been reading mainly trash, and Harry Potter. I normally get ideas for reading by wandering around Borders, and by reading the review pages of the Guardian, Observer and New Statesman, but none of these sources are inspiring me at the moment. I’d like some suggestions about what to read next from the limited number of other people who read my thoughts.

Despite having left formal education four years ago this month, I’m trying to keep my mind sharp (or if not sharp, at least not entirely dulled by the distance from Dr Miriam Griffin and her politely-concealed but reasonably evident disappointment in the bright female ancient historian who spent her time otherwise than in the Bod.) Working with youth workers, you get used to their cycle of reflective practice; I’m not sure what one looks like for a full-time campaigner and part-time Labour activist, but I guess having a full library of books exploring human ideas and influence must help.

As a guide, I like non-fiction about political figures, movements and ideas; history - but definitely not biographies about “great men”; society, anthropology, women. I may well have missed some great feminist books published in the last few years, particuarly those working from the practical viepoint of trying to find a 2000s feminism. Ditto politics - my rather haphazard political education may have missed vital books. More superficially, I like paperbacks, modern typefaces and striking covers, though I daresay I should attempt to retreat from my prejudice against anything written in a serif font in favour of more considered judgements on content.

Has anyone got any ideas?

So it seems that the unite against terror statement has provoked a little discussion in the blogging community. It’s definitely worth reading the discussions at Jo’s and at Perfect, both the original and subsequent posts.

I find it all very interesting. On the one hand, I feel uncomfortable at the outright pro-war-ishness of some of the views of those who signed the statement. On the other, I feel outright frustration at the visceral anti-Labourism of some of those critical of UAT.

I’m still a member of the Labour party. It’s not easy, after the war, after everything, still being Labour. But I’m certain that the only way to create that equal, democratic, even socialist society which is our aim is through the Labour party.

But to do that means re-engaging not just the working class who feel that Labour doesn’t care about their issues anymore*, but also anti-war people who’ve given up on us as an engine for socialist change. I’m not advocating fighting every seat in the land, treating Muswell Hill as of much importance as Hackney – on the contrary, having fought OxWAb in May, I don’t think Labour candidates should do much more in non-heartland seats than turn up and smile. I am advocating a critical dialogue with non-organised (by which I mean not those in another fringe party) socialists outside Labour. I had hoped that LFIQ could do that, bringing together lefties inside and outside the party in a spirit of solidarity with the emerging Iraqi trade union movement, but maybe I’m wrong.

* NB - that “not just” might make you think that I think re-engaging the working class is an easy or a less important task – it’s not either of these things. Although we’ve had some great results recently in places like Becontree and Northfield Brook, where the Labour message was less about immigrants and more about quality of life, ending anti-social behaviour and improving housing and facilities, we’ve by no means cracked that one yet either. (Although I’m not going to say that just yet to the Oxford Labour campaign team, whose euphoria last night was so great that I really think we might soon see t-shirts emblazoned “were you up for Northfield Brook?”!)

UPDATE: Tim Worstall has pointed me towards this post by a guy going by the name of Lenin about the statement. Never calm, it rises in tempo to this disgraceful point:

I’m afraid I haven’t gone far enough. The Palestinians are right to fight the Israelis, and I support their being armed with the tanks and helicopters that their opponents have. The Iraqi resistance is right to fight the occupiers, and I support attacks on UK & US troops. The resistance in Chechnya is right to fight the Russians, and I support attacks on the Russian army. I am a supporter – nay, glorifier – of terrorism. Potentially, under new legislation, I could be locked up or deported – if only my skin were brown and my face bearded.

Over at Normblog, Alan Johnson of Labour Friends of Iraq after having a justified rant about apologists for the London bombers, asks a number of interesting questions.

He’s talking to “the community of bloggers that cluster around HP / Engage / normblog / Labour Friends of Iraq“, and I’d count myself as one of those, admittedly usually a rather silent one.

So far, so good: I’ve signed the Unite Aginst Terror statement, I’m a member of LFIQ, I’ve earned my spears in battle with the SWPers and shouted at the radio when some idiot blames Israel; this is making me angry with the apologists, but not challenging me so far.

Then something happens that makes me a bit queasy:

“Now, with words that will lose me my last remaining friends, I guess, let me say this. I agree with every word of Blair’s speech. It’s a bloody marvellous speech. Just what needed to be said. I could hardly say much else, could I?”

Maybe it’s brave for an anti-war Labour member like Alan to admit to this; certainly it’s not fashionable. I hope that I’m not as closed-minded as to dismiss anything that TB says because it’s him saying it. I certainly believe that by staying an active member of the Labour party and putting myself up as a candidate for that party, I have demonstrated that I’ll run with what Labour do right (which they do the vast majority of the time), and make clear my objection when they go wrong. (And just because he may be right on this, doesn’t mean that I’ve forgiven him for Iraq, or, for that matter, for privatisation, a rightwing immigration agenda and selling off council housing.)

But I question the use of Unite against Terror if it is to become a cheerleading squad for government policy. I got involved with LFIQ precisely because it offered another way for those of us who opposed the war, but don’t believe that pulling out of Iraq right now does any service to those struggling for democracy there - if you like, a middle ground between pro-Islamists and uncritical cheerleaders for Bush and Blair.

I’m lucky enough to have a great bunch of real-world friends to argue these issues through with, Dan, Jo and Tamanou, and what I’m saying is unashamedly influenced by them, particularly by this post at Trees for Labour.

I don’t think that it is apologising for the terrorists to say clearly that I do think that the war in Iraq contributed to a situation where the events of the 7th become a possibility, in that the mobilisation against the war played a part in radicalising young Muslims. The blame for the tragedy undoubtedly lies with the bombers and those who trained, equipped and encouraged them.

So, what were these questions? They’re here in full, and certainly the answer to many of them must surely be because we spend too much time talking to each other and not enough time talking to people whose views we might sway but who at the moment are just getting their opinions unchallenged from the large variety of apologist mouthpieces. The most interesting question is this:

• Why has the Labour Party stopped doing politics? If it’s because the party goes to sleep in government, well, listen up… It’s. Not. The. Normal. One. Term. Deal. Loosen up. Speak out, give interviews, write columns, organise vigils. Wake Up!

Firstly, I think you’re doing the party members a slight disservice. As a student, finding out about politics, I was involved in campaigns about student funding, against our local asylum detention centre, for LGB and women’s rights. I joined the Labour party because in each of those campaigns, the people who were most active and who I was most inspired by were Labour party members.

And that’s still the case - in Oxford at least, which is where I know best. Labour members propping up the credit union and the Close Campsfield Campaign and the local trades council and 1001 other local campaigns and committees. Yes, we’ve forgotten how to campaign as a party except around elections, but we created that party by our desire to win those elections. We told ourselves that “discipline” and “restraint” and “loyalty” and accepting leaders and policies that weren’t quite good enough, well, those were sacrifices that were worth making. Which another reason why the adulation of TB seems odd to me, because he’s the architect of that emasculation of local CLPs, and a policy that seeks to re-engage members with reasoned political debate and the struggle for democracy needs to reach out to those very people that some pro-war leftists profess to despise - the members and no-longer members who are still furious with TB.

So I guess I’ve come full circle. Is praise of TB the right tactic to win the support of those we need to? And politically, given the diversity of views on other issues, not least the war, from which LFIQ members come, is it right? And when, in all the criticism then praise of TB and the praise then criticism of Ken, are we going to realise there is no wonderful leader on a white charger who will show us the way? That it’s always going to be up to us?

Okay, so having got that off my chest, now I’d better get out for the evening shift for today’s bye-election.

Another blow for democratic control of social housing, from the Guardian:

“Voters in Tony Blair’s constituency have rejected government-backed plans to transfer Sedgefield’s council houses to one of the north-east’s biggest housing associations. … Nearly 60% voted against the transfer.”

Glad to be an activist for a city party committed to no sell-offs of council housing.

If you’re interested, there’s lots more info at Defend Council Housing.

So what happens when on the one hand the UK and US are trying (imperfectly, but they are trying) to promote autonomy and democracy for the people of Iraq, and on the other, said autonomy and democracy leads to things like this?

A working draft of Iraq’s new constitution would cede a strong role to Islamic law and could sharply curb women’s rights, particularly in personal matters like divorce and family inheritance.
The document’s writers are also debating whether to drop or phase out a measure enshrined in the interim constitution, co-written last year by the Americans, requiring that women make up at least a quarter of the parliament.
The draft of a chapter of the new constitution obtained by The New York Times on Tuesday guarantees equal rights for women as long as those rights do not “violate Shariah,” or Koranic law.

Recently, our local SWP accused me of using women’s rights as a figleaf for supporting Bush and Blair against the supposedly anti-imperialist “resistance”; I guess now it’s even more important to support the women’s movement and trade union movement in Iraq.

Jo says that I have to expand the range of topics I write about on my blog, because I’m probably the only person interested in abortion, young people, sex, women’s stuff and American politics almost exclusively. So I will try, presently, to do just that. But for the meantime, please indulge me posting about a few US things that have caught my eye today.

Over the past few weeks the American bloggers have got really exercised about the leaking of a CIA agent’s identity, apparently from the White House staff, apparently because they didn’t like the stated position of her husband on the war in Iraq. I must admit I’ve been skipping over the details a bit - I know there are big issues involved, but it all seemed a bit process to me. But now I get it - why? Because those clever guys at the Swing State Project have turned it into an episode of The West Wing:

So play this out. Let’s say there’s an episode of The West Wing where Josh is accused of treason for outing an undercover CIA agent. In such an episode, we know some scenes that would be included. There would be the scene where Leo yells, “Get Josh in here” to find out why Josh got caught in such a petty political smear. There would be the scene with Tody prepping C.J. for the White House press briefing. There would be the scene where President Bartlett asks Leo what is going on.

Also at Swing State, I found out that yesterday was the second annual Blogosphere Day, when the US progressive bloggers get together to give money to an election campaign for a Democrat running somewhere unlikely. Last year the beneficiary was Ginny Schrader, who was the subject of the attack ads I saw in Philadelphia. This year they’ve raised hundreds of thousands of dollars for a guy called Paul Hackett who is running in a bye-election in Ohio’s second district - apparently he got $105k from the internet in a day. Pretty bloody impressive.

Finally, GW has announced his nomination for the supreme court - it’s John G. Roberts, as I’m sure everyone reading this knows. Worth looking at his Wikipedia page, which is changing all the time as enterprising investigators delve into his life and opinions.

Hurrah.

Evan Harris re-opens that can of worms. Cheers mate.