Spitzer Resigns Over Prostitution ScandalDemocracy Now - 12 Mar 2008New York Governor Eliot Spitzer is expected to resign today over his involvement in a high-end prostitution ring. No charges have been filed against Spitzer, who became governor last year after campaigning to reform Albany. We speak with Wayne Barrett, senior editor at the Village Voice, where he’s been covering New York politics for over twenty years. [includes rush transcript]
Headlines for March 12, 2008Democracy Now - 12 Mar 2008US Middle East Commander Resigns Over Iran Stance, Bush: Attacking Iraq ?Will Forever Be Right Decision?, Obama Wins Mississippi Primary, Ferraro: Obama Contending Because of Race, 31 Killed in Pakistan Suicide Bombing, Father of Injured Student Accuses Colombia of ?State Terrorism?, US Could Add Venezuela to Terrorism-Sponsor List, Spain Marks Fourth Anniversary of Madrid Attack, East Timor PM Gives First Public Comments Since Assassination Attempt, House Dems Fail to Override Bush on Torture Bill Veto, Family of Black Teen Slain by Police Awarded $28M, US Drops China from List of Worst Human Rights Abusers, New York Town Shuts Down Exhibit of Iraqi Artist, Witnesses: 7 Iraqis Injured in US Raid
Back to the 1980sUKWatch.net - 12 Mar 2008Anyone hearing business and enterprise minister John Hutton this week might be forgiven for thinking they?d been transported back to the 1980s. All you?d need to complete the picture is Kylie Minogue?s dulcet tones on the radio and Harry Enfield?s Loadsamoney sketch on telly every week. Mr Hutton, in case you?re wondering which millennium we?re in, has been waxing lyrical about ambition. Greed is good, he almost said. What he did say was that there?s no conflict between aspiring to the lifestyle of the super-rich and tackling child poverty: ?Our overarching goal that no one should get left behind must not become translated into a stultifying sense that no one should be allowed to get ahead.? Having just seen my team of super-rich so-called footballers thumped 4-0 three times in succession, I?m not so sure about the value of celebrating huge salaries. A few months on jobseekers? allowance would do them the world of good. More to the point, there?s simply no evidence that the poor are held back because the rich can?t fulfil their ambitions. That?s classic trickle-down economics: if you have more money than you know what to do with, it creates jobs for butlers and valets. People thought the slave trade was justified because it created jobs, too. Mr Hutton declared this week that ?any progressive party worth its name must enthusiastically advocate empowering people to climb without limits.? So we should stop bashing the rich. But ?bash the rich? is a slogan I haven?t heard since the poll tax protests. And as Tony Blair has demonstrated since resigning as prime minister, the Labour Party can be as good a road to riches as any. Yet policy after policy leaves the poor in poverty. And an important paper from the Joseph Rowntree Foundation this week showed how far we need to go to solve that conundrum. The paper investigated whether people-based or place-based policies were most successful. Its conclusion was that we really don?t know. Some programmes aimed at the poorest, such as Sure Start, appear to have been hijacked by the ?less disadvantaged?, it reports (there?s ambition for you). Others have made a difference, but how much is impossible to tell because there hasn?t been any rigorous assessment of what would have happened otherwise. Anyone who walks the streets of our poorest areas will know that it isn?t the tax burden on the richest that holds back progress. It?s the scarcity of support for the frontline services and community organisations that help to generate ambition and aspiration where there is none.
London: Capital’s CapitalUKWatch.net - 12 Mar 2008The reaction from much of the press to government plans for the City of London’s non-domicile super-rich might make you think they were about to hand control of the square mile to the RMT. The outrage from non-domicile fat cats was coupled with threats to leave Britain altogether and for a raft of bizarre claims that London-based capitalists were being driven out of the country. Digby Jones, once CBI boss and now Gordon Brown’s trade and investment minister, publicly turned on the rest of the cabinet when he said that the policy has caused “non-doms” to ask, “Does this mean they don’t want us?” The proposal is for non-domicile capitalists in Britain, but “resident” elsewhere on the planet, to pay either a one off sum of 30,000 or have their overseas income declared and taxed. The non-domicile law was introduced 209 years ago as an incentive to those who had benefited from the spoils of imperial conquest; who they had pillaged remained a private matter of conscience. The recent proposal actually originated in Tory HQ before autumn’s election-that-never-was after a YouGov poll had shown it to be a big vote winner. Seeing this, Gordon Brown quickly nabbed the policy as his own, not realising that he might have to stick to the commitment even if he managed to dodge an early election. Considering there is currently 120 billion held by British business in overseas trusts, this doesn’t sound too controversial – even the US already has similar tax structures in place. Yet when the hapless Alistair Darling attended a recent bash held by the “Worshipful Company of International Bankers” (a Livery Company of the City of London – more on these later) at which he eulogised in his speech about how great and good the super-rich are, the reaction was an attack on government tax policies and regulation from the Lord Mayor of London and for the 450 diners to bang their tables and jeer. There followed a series of U-turns as the chancellor “clarified” (ie watered down) his position. Even London Mayor Ken Livingstone – who has noticeably steered clear of the row and received only warm applause following his own fawning speech during the same dinner party – now genuflects to the City. “There isn’t an ideological conflict any more,” he said in an interview with Prospect magazine in April 2007. “The business community has been almost depoliticised.” Undemocratic Livingstone and his advisers lobbied heavily for Crossrail, the commuter rail link to ferry City workers from the Home Counties largely at the expense of residents and taxpayers, while his economic adviser, John Ross, has been defending the obscene profits, payrolls and bonuses of hedge fund managers. The position taken by government towards the City has always been one of kneeling before it. This has made Britain in the words of the neoliberal International Monetary Fund (IMF) a tax haven, due to the way in which City authorities actively assist businesses to avoid tax. (In a telling show of arrogance, the Treasury financial secretary, Jane Kennedy, retorted that the methodology used by New Labour’s usually beloved IMF was therefore “seriously flawed”.) But the City is more than just a tax haven. To really make sure that there is nothing in the way of wealth accumulation, several elements of regular local authorities must be kept at a distance. These elements include democracy. In a parliamentary debate in November 2002 the then Tory MP (now New Labour minister) Shaun Woodward said: “The City of London is indeed unique – unique in its national role, in its size, its population, its local finance, its responsibilities, its work in the arts and its charitable work. The City is unique too, in having an electoral system that was unaffected when, in 1969, the non-residential vote was abolished for local government elections.” (Incidentally, it was Labour chancellor James Callaghan who argued through this exception to the rule.) Woodward was certainly right about the uniqueness of the City of London – it is the most undemocratic local authority in Britain. While the 7,800 residents of the square mile have the vote, business based in the City can appoint a further 32,000 voters. In November 2002 a private act of parliament, submitted by the City of London itself and gushingly (and arguably unconstitutionally) endorsed by Tony Blair, doubled the business vote from 16,000. But it doesn’t stop here. The City of London Corporation is governed by three institutions: the Court of Aldermen, the Court of Common Council and the Lord Mayor. Residents and business are allowed to vote for the aldermen and the Common Council, but only “freemen” are able to stand for election. You can become a freeman either by “servitude” (apprenticeship to another freeman), by appointment by the part-ceremonial, part-business associations of the Livery Companies, by heredity, or by payment of a 30 “freedom fine” (if the sitting Common Council accepts you). If you want to be an alderman you must also have the blessing of the Lord Chancellor. The Lord Mayor must have previously been a sheriff, and sheriffs are appointed by the Livery Companies. Additionally, standing under a party banner is severely frowned upon. This basic structure has existed since AD 886, and was preserved by William the Conqueror to maintain a degree of autonomy for European merchants. All public expenditure comes from the interest earned on the corporation’s billions of pounds of wealth, hoarded away over centuries. And just to make sure this “better than everyone else” attitude continues, it runs two private schools for the wealthy (one for boys, one for girls), and the City of London Academy school in Southwark (with its own City run curriculum of business and commerce) for everyone else. But this is more than just another Great British anachronism – it ensures that the City is not held up to any unnecessary accountability. A democratic system might, for example, block the building of a new skyscraper or insist that the amassed wealth held inactive in its vaults be put to better use. So with local and national government on side the City has a free rein. In 2007 City bonuses hit 14 billion, a figure equal to annual national spending on higher education – and this was up from 10.9 billion in 2006. The rationale for all this, of course, is that wealth then trickles down through the economy. But a brief look at how the City treats its own workers puts the lie to this myth (and by “workers” I mean waged labourers rather than those paid to make a few phone calls between checking the size of their wallet). Barclays’ 2007 profits were 7.08 billion. But the people who clean the bank’s offices are paid just 7.50 per hour. Meanwhile, Goldman Sachs (or “Golden Sacks” as it is often known, owing to its obscene bonuses) part-owns cleaning contractor ISS who pay their workers just 5.60 per hour. Marsh, the world’s leading insurance broker, recently suspended 12 cleaners in its City offices, contracted out from ISS, for demonstrating against poverty pay (only after completing their regular 12-hour shift). There are 20,000 cleaners working in the City on similar wages, yet average pay across the board stands at 971 per week (600 more than that of Devon and Cornwall). If the wealth has trickled down, the cleaners have obviously not managed to mop it up. The City boasts of its contribution of 10 percent to Britain’s gross domestic product. This, it claims, means it should be a special case when it comes to taxation. But what good is this contribution to the economy if even the people at its heart, vacuuming the floors and cleaning the computer screens, are paid up to 2 per hour below what Ken Livingstone himself considers a living wage? What good is having the richest square mile on the planet if the government claims poverty when it comes to paying the public sector? What good are champagne-quaffing City boys when in Tower Hamlets, a step over the border to the east of the City, two thirds of all children live in poverty? As profits in the City increase, so does the gulf between rich and poor, and as the rich purchase obscene levels of housing as investments and drive up prices elsewhere in the capital, it is the rest of us who have to tighten our belts. And it is important to remember that they are rich through lending, earning interest and gambling with money we as workers struggle so hard to produce. So the argument that asking for a few crumbs from the Livery Hall banqueting tables will cause the rich to leave the City is like arguing that you shouldn’t ask someone to stop punching you in the face because if you do they might stop punching you in the face so hard. New Labour’s attitude to the City is unsurprising. “True to his neoliberal belief in the market Gordon Brown has allowed the worst excesses of corporate greed to let rip in the City,” John McDonnell, the only MP to attempt to challenge Brown for the Labour leadership, told Socialist Review. “For a decade under New Labour finance capital has been given a free hand to profiteer at the expense of many who have lost their jobs, savings and pensions through City speculation. By turning a blind eye to the award of obscene levels of City payoffs and bonuses Brown has created a scale of inequality in our society not seen for three generations.” Lindsey German, the Respect candidate for Mayor of London and the London Assembly, said, “It’s time the government stopped giving such a favourable tax burden to the City. We’re always told that if they are taxed any more they will go elsewhere. “My attitude is that if they’re going to use blackmail then let them leave the country, and see how well they get on somewhere else. If we want to pay for transport and housing in London then the City is the obvious place the money should come from.” The City of London is, of course, the real constituency being represented by Brown. His arrogant belief that unbridled capitalism will bring an eternal boom for the benefit of the country has led to the City being allowed to do as it likes.
English Primary Education CriticisedUKWatch.net - 12 Mar 2008A major report has criticised the extent of testing imposed on primary school children in England and the trend to begin formal education at an ever-earlier age. The report by the Primary Review, based at the Faculty of Education, Cambridge University, highlights how primary age children (under 11) in England are subjected to a regime of testing, testing and more testing?more so than their counterparts in other developed countries. It is part of an ongoing review of British primary education that is the biggest undertaken since the Plowden report was issued over 40 years ago. The report noted the changes that have taken place in primary education in England since Plowden. One of the most significant is the reduction in the age that children start school from five years old to four. The number of primary schools has fallen by 3,000 in this period but the size of schools has increased by around 15 percent. The report questions the assumed benefits of starting younger and having a longer school year. The authors say, ?There is little evidence to support common-sense assumptions that spending longer in primary schools… results in higher attainment… The assumption that an early school starting age is beneficial for children?s later attainment is not well supported… and there are concerns about the appropriateness of provision for four-year-olds in schools.? It is highly critical of the type of teaching meted out to four year olds when they first enter school. It notes, ?It has been suggested that starting school at such a young age may be stressful for children… Several qualitative research studies have shown that young children?s opportunities to learn through play are curtailed in reception classes due to insufficient staff, lack of early years training, physical constraints… lack of equipment (especially sand and water and large play equipment) and adherence to primary school timetables.? Under-fives are also to be subjected to a proscriptive curriculum and testing. Beginning in September of this year, The Early Years Foundation Stage will lay out standards to be reached in reading, writing and numeracy for under-fives. It prescribes no less than 72 learning goals. The report also looked at the extent and level of testing used in English primary schools. From entering primary school, young children are faced with an assault course of testing. These include an assessment just seven weeks after beginning school, Key Stage 1 tests at the end of their second year and Key Stage 2 tests at the end of their sixth year. Children may also be subjected to additional tests at the end of years 3, 4 and 5. The researchers compared the regime of testing in English schools to those in other parts of the United Kingdom, Europe and Japan. Whilst these other countries also set tests, the report comments, ?The scale of assessment for the purpose of monitoring and accountability is of quite a different order in England compared to our other reviewed countries… There is more external, standard testing in England: it occurs more frequently and starts at a younger age; more subjects are covered by the statutory assessments; test results are published in league tables; testing is high stakes… assessment in England… is pervasive, highly consequential…? The report on assessment in English schools concludes by stating that ?the high-stakes nature of the assessments designed to make the system accountable compromises its potential benefits.? Since the publication of the report last month, teachers and parents have joined in expressing concern about the pressure that the emphasis on testing is placing on children. John Dunford, general secretary of the Association of School and College Leaders, told the Independent, ?The whole testing regime is governed by the need to produce league tables. It has more to do with holding schools to account than helping pupils to progress.? Mick Brookes, general secretary of the National Association of Head Teachers, explained, ?There are schools that start rehearsing for Key Stage 2 SATs [Standard Assessment Tests] from the moment the children arrive in September…other schools…rehearse SATs during Christmas week… They should be having the time of their lives at school, not just worrying about tests. It is the breadth and richness of the curriculum that suffers. The consequences for schools not reaching their targets are dire?heads can lose their jobs and schools can be closed down. With this at stake it?s not surprising that schools let the tests take over.? An increasing number of parents are seeking alternatives to state primary schools. Around 50,000 children are being educated at home. A recent paper issued by James Conroy and colleagues at Glasgow University noted, ?Both the numbers opting for home schooling and the range of motivations of those wishing to do so have expanded considerably in recent years. One substantial and growing group is comprised of those who have abandoned formal schooling because they believe it is too constrained.? The new Early Years Foundation Stage will also apply to independent bodies offering childcare. Under the new curriculum every child will have to be tested at the age of five whatever kind of school they attend. The government will have the power to close schools, kindergartens or nurseries that do not comply with the Early Year Foundation Stage Curriculum. Even childminders who care for young children in their own home will be subject to the new curriculum. It will in effect become illegal not to teach literacy and numeracy to under-fives. Parents at an independent Steiner school at Wynstone, near Stroud, Gloucestershire are opposed to its introduction. They are campaigning to force the government to exempt Steiner schools and kindergartens. The Steiner schooling movement puts the emphasis on young children learning through play. Steiner kindergartens do not teach literacy or numeracy, which are not begun until the child begins school at the age of six. At the same time the government is increasing fees for the registration of child care providers. A number of organisations involved in the care of under-fives recently wrote to the Times saying, ?we are alarmed at the potential impact of these proposed increases upon parents and providers.? Steve Biddulph, an Australian educational psychologist, speaking at a recent conference in London warned, ?Forcing learning destroys that learning. It makes children go backwards. The harm may well be life-long,? He cited evidence from an American study that showed that children?s language learning slows down in a formal academic setting, but speeds up the more they are allowed to interact through free play. The same relationship was observed in the development of children?s reasoning skills. The government claims that its statutory approach is intended to ensure that children from poor backgrounds get the same educational start as children from better off families. Biddulph pointed out that this could be achieved more effectively through properly resourced programmes aimed at disadvantaged communities. Penelope Leach, the childcare expert, called for home visits to assist disadvantaged families rather than a prescriptive approach. Lilian Katz, Professor of Education at the University of Illinois, presented evidence demonstrating that children who are pushed to read and write at an early age do less well in later years. This was particularly true of boys, she said, arguing against a ?hothouse? approach to education. ?Research suggests the benefits of formal academic instruction for four and five-year-olds seem to be promising when they are tested early,? Katz said, ?but considerably less so in the long term. When these children are followed over a period of three or more years, those who had early experience in more intellectually engaging curricula were more likely to do well in school than their peers, who had early exposure to academic instruction.? Beverley Hughes, Labour Children?s Minister, has dismissed the protests of parents, child psychologists and educationalists as ?unrepresentative.? The Cambridge report confirms the picture presented by last year?s UNICEF report, which showed Britain to be one of the worst countries amongst the most developed economies in which to be a child. The high level of risky behaviour of children in Britain was a reflection of the psychological impact of their experience of childhood. The pressure of constant testing and loss of esteem of children failing to reach set standards can only add to the psychological pressure being imposed on young children.
