The ban on parents taking their kids out of school for holidays during term time is a classic Tory divide and rule tactic. It is wrong, unfair, and a risible example of the sort of collective punishment we seem to lap up in the UK for reasons that defeat me.
As we, the 'plebs', argue about the rights and wrongs of the issue (and quickly start throwing accusations about poor parenting at each other), the Tory toffs remain immune to their own divisive dog-whistle politicking.
Taking kids on holiday abroad - or indeed in the UK - is a costly business at any time of year. But outside of term time prices leap up thanks to our wonderful 'free' market system that allows companies to profiteer whenever the inelasticity of demand increases.
These rocketing costs hammer the least well off but have zero effect on the rich. If you earn a six-figure salary and have a heathy sum in the bank, a few hundred quid extra means nothing to you. You can afford to go on holiday whatever the bill, wherever the destination. But if, like most people, you're on a regular wage, the difference can determine whether you actually take a holiday or not.
Supporters of the ban point out that going abroad is not a human right and education is more important. But since when did travel not represent education? Are we really saying a week in a foreign country has no educational benefits to a young mind? Really? Is it better to learn about, say, Spain from a book - or to go there?
And since when did our state system get so good that missing a week or two made a massive difference anyway? Be honest: would a fortnight out really be impossible to catch up on for an averagely bright kid? I really doubt it.
But here's the other key point. This ban is a blunt instrument that hits all parents when in reality the problem of repeated pupil absences is down to a minority of problem families. Most responsible parents want their kids to go to school and don't want them to miss classes unnecessarily.
However it's true that in life there are, sometimes, competing needs, pros and cons, advantages and disadvantages (you get the drift). A short vacation that expands a child's horizons might only be affordable in term time and financially unreachable during the official school holidays. In such a scenario, is it really in the kid's interests to force them to remain at school doing their times tables instead?
The bottom line is this: if the politicians want to ban parents taking their kids out of school during term times, fine. But make it fair. Regulate to ensure holiday companies can't hike their prices to exploit the situation. Or, better still, invest sufficient money into state schools so they have the same resources and garner similar results as the exclusive private sector educational establishments that most of the Cabinet attended.
They won't do that though because the last thing they want is for the oiks like us to have what they have: power, money, and real freedom. And the cash to pay for such an investment isn't available in the Treasury in any case - it's in the bank accounts of the multi-national corporations that refuse to pay taxes on the vast profits they make in Britain.
If people were really concerned about the education of their kids they would demand real change and an end to the obscenity of rich politicians sending their kids to private schools (thereby entrenching nepotistic power structures) while the rest of us have to move house to get our kids into schools that Ofsted optimistically deems not to be complete shite.
In the end it comes down to who you think knows what's best for your children. Our deceitful, hypocritical, well-off politicians - or you. You don't need to have gone to school to work that one out - it's a no-brainer.
Piers Morgan has declared he is “with the science” on the issue
of climate change.
The journalist and broadcaster’s response to a question posed by this blog on Twitter seemed unambiguous.
But it wasn’t long before some people opted to interpret his
answer to match their own skewed views.
It seems that while Piers is able to accept the science, many
others would rather trust their own bizarre prejudices, or the propaganda of
the organisations that make vast profits and wield huge power through the
control and sale of fossil fuels.
Despite human-caused global warming being “the ruling
paradigm of climate science” (see here for more on this), there are still
countless bar-room experts, contrarians and conspiracy theorists who refuse to
accept that it is happening.
Many of these individuals base their denial on the belief that a so-called 'green blob' has some sort of sinister agenda and
therefore must be making the whole thing up for their own mysterious ends.
What these ends could possibly be isn’t clear. What is
glaringly obvious though is that any accusations about the propagation of agenda-driven
pseudo-science should surely be leveled at those who are really pedaling misinformation about climate change.
As Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders pointed out on an edition
of HBO’s Real Time with Bill Maher last November (2014): “The truth of the
matter is that the oil companies and the coal companies have spent tens of millions
of dollars on a disinformation campaign.”
And the top climate scientist James Hansen told the BBC: “The
deniers want the public to be confused.”
Why is it that so many people believe that reasonable,
rational guys like these are wrong at best – or liars at worst – when they
should be aiming their scepticism at the obvious target: the multi-billion
dollar fossil fuel industry that has so much to lose from a major switchover to
clean, renewable energy sources.
This issue is really a no-brainer. Even if you disregard the
science, it surely stands to reason that we should be looking towards a future that
minimises waste and pollution; a future in which we develop and use clean energy
and fuels that don’t have damaging by-products.
There is another well-worn point to raise here. If those who
are campaigning for drastic action to halt climate change prove somehow to be
wrong in the future, what exactly will we have lost by switching to renewable
energy sources and creating new green industries? Nothing. We’ll have built a sustainable
future for our children, created new jobs, protected biodiversity, and
emasculated regimes whose appalling human rights records are wilfully ignored
by Western nations desperate for their oil supplies.
On the other hand, if the deniers are wrong and climate change
accelerates, as predicted by James Hansen and many others, where will we be then?
We’ll be living on a planet that becomes increasingly uninhabitable. Ocean
levels will rise, severe weather will become the norm, flooding and famines will
devastate vulnerable communities, governments and economies will buckle under
Why would any sensible person take a gamble on those outcomes?
They wouldn’t. So, like Piers Morgan, I’m with the science.
It’s bad enough to conduct a lame, sycophantic interview
with a high-profile celebrity on what is supposed to be a news programme. It’s much, much worse when the issue at stake is so
But the BBC’s dismal Breakfast programme managed to pull off
a rare achievement on Wednesday morning (28/05/14): handing Pharrell Williams
valuable publicity and allowing him a free hit to somehow depict himself
as a feminist.
Williams was one of the unholy trinity behind 2013’s ‘Blurred Lines': the Horst Wessel song for misogynists. In a pop video of astonishing
cynicism, a fully clothed Williams danced around half-naked young
women singing the toxic line he wrote: ‘I know you want it!’
Described as ‘rapey’ by critics, Blurred Lines caused a storm
of protest. There were plenty of apologists but whatever the intentions, the
song and video served only to objectify women and undermine the concept of
When it comes to sex, no must always mean no; Blurred Lines
suggests otherwise, an appalling message. The power dynamic in the video is
also clear. The clothed men are in charge, the women merely playthings.
No Nugent – or Nugget as she will henceforth be known – said
the following: “The thing that I notice from your latest songs is you really love women.”
You may need a minute to digest that statement. I did. Even
Williams looked a bit taken aback. His eyes said it all. He looked at Nugget
and seemed to think: ‘I know she wants it.’
Williams then went on to paint himself as a tireless campaigner
for women’s rights.
He said: “There's a lot that women go through that us, as
men, that we just will never be able to understand. We can read about it, we
can study it as much as we want but until we walk in your shoes, we won't know
what it's like.
“And so, for me, I intended to talk about that a little bit
and spread some of that message in my album and just try and push your fight.”
Nugget leapt on this, demanding to know how exactly Blurred
Lines had pushed the fight for women’s rights. Except she didn’t. She continued
to fawn as Williams said how he would ‘love to see’ a female US President and
would be supporting Hillary Clinton if she made a bid for the White House.
Williams said women were “not treated equally in politics...(and)
definitely not treated equally in society”.
Again, Nugget sensed the blatant hypocrisy of this statement
and almost shouted at Williams to explain how on Earth stripped, mute women dancing
around clothed men singing ‘I know you want it’ helped women get equal
treatment in society. Except she didn’t.
It wasn’t in any sense journalism. It was unabashed PR. It
Maintaining a professional distance: Nugget and Williams.
It’s an unfortunate irony that it took a male journalist to
make amends for Nugget’s embarrassing capitulation.
Channel 4 News’ Krishnan Guru-Murthy did what she should
have done in an interview held with Williams directly after he had spoken to
Williams did his best to justify Blurred Lines. Ultimately
he came across as intelligent but wholly disingenuous: a man content to enjoy
the financial rewards of chauvinism but unwilling to hold his hand up and admit
As for Sally Nugget, perhaps she could conduct her next
interview with Williams stripped down to her smalls.
Perhaps then she might feel the sense of sinister intent inherent
in Pharrell Williams’ famous lyric and realise that when it comes to
intelligent, responsible journalism - and women's rights - there are no blurred lines.
In the showbiz scoop of the year, Rhubarb Grumble can exclusively
reveal that arch-rivals Jeremy Clarkson and Piers Morgan have been lined up to
co-present a new big-budget programme combining motoring and travel.
Entitled ‘Clarkson Drives a Morgan’ the show will see the
Top Gear presenter take the wheel alongside his nemesis in a roadtrip around the world, visiting some of the
most beautiful - and dangerous – places across the globe.
And, yes, the vehicle
chosen for the journey is a Morgan: the new six-cylinder Roadster 3.7 to be
Speaking on condition of anonymity, a programme insider
said: “We envisage a show that’s a cross between a series of Top Gear Specials
and The Trip (the hit sitcom starring Rob Brydon and Steve Coogan) but it will
be on steroids because these two really f***ing hate each other.
“When we pitched the idea to Jeremy he laughed and told us
to f*** off but when we told him Piers was on board he agreed, just so it
wouldn’t look like he’d chickened out. The truth is, we got Piers to agree by
saying Jeremy was up for it and he had mocked Piers, saying he would chicken
“So we kind of tricked them both into signing up by playing
on their huge egos and unbelievably childish rivalry. Now they’ve both contractually
bound to deliver. It’s literally unbelievable!
He added: “We’re expecting fireworks when we finally bring
them together. Actually, we’re expecting military-grade explosives. It will be absolutely
unmissable, appointment TV.”
A TV match made in Hell?
Because Clarkson and Morgan are both globally recognised brands
due to the success of Top Gear and Piers’s CNN profile, producers are
expecting the show to be snapped up by networks in multiple territories. Shooting is pencilled in for 2016.
Clarkson is expected to announce
soon that the next series of Top Gear will be his last. The controversial presenter has been under fire in the media
for his apparent use of the N-word in out-takes from the show which went viral.
He apologised and revealed in a newspaper article that the BBC had given him
his last warning. It seems he has jumped before the inevitable push.
As for Morgan, the former tabloid editor has been dumped
from his CNN show ‘Piers Morgan Tonight’ after lacklustre ratings.
Clarkson - who once broke a finger punching Morgan at the British Press Awards –
welcomed this event as manna from heaven but it didn’t stop him writing an
excoriating column in which he claimed Morgan was axed because 'everyone hates
When asked about the new show, a source close to Clarkson
said: “This is fantasy. Jeremy would rather join The Green Party than spend
even five minutes in a car with Morgan.
“Actually, that’s not true. He’d happily drive him but
only if Piers was bound and gagged in the boot and Jeremy could jump out before
the car plunged into a deep ravine.”
A friend of Morgan said: “Piers has bigger issues on his
mind than rescuing Jeremy Clarkson from himself.
"But when the inevitable
happens, and Clarkson’s career is ended by his own stupidity, Piers will be
happy to give him a job. He understands Jeremy makes a great cup of tea.”
Despite the denials, ‘Clarkson drives a Morgan’ is an idea
that could net the two men millions. Whether they would survive long enough to
spend it though is more difficult to say.