The Polltergeist - the imaginary being that tells pollsters what to say

Polltergeist - the imaginary being that appears in pollsters' minds about one week before an election who 'tells' the pollsters how the outcome of the election is changing every five seconds due to sudden last minute events like how the leader says 'Alright', or eats a bacon sandwich, or what is in some emails, or what the last poll said. 

The Polltergeist appears to the pollsters at night so that early in the morning the pollsters can appear on major news outlets with something they call 'News'. After the real election, the Polltergeist returns to its home in Bullshittia where it dies of laughing until it is resurrected by the news outlets in time for the next election.

Tory Fudge on Grammar Schools

Tory Fudge: sweet, sticky, rots the body politic.
Grammar Schools
1. Tories say that at present there is selection by post code with schools today. Perhaps there is. Why do they never tell us how much? Just how significant is it? Why do they never share with us the ways in which local authorities have tried to mitigate that?
2. Tories do not tell us that many schools are operating covert selection by exclusion. This was revealed from the research about headteachers who get success (Newsnight 'exclusive). If there is abuse of all-ability comprehensive education, and holding people back, that would be a good place to start.
3.. Tories say that grammar schools are great and every area should have them. Why do they not tell us about the other schools in areas where there are grammars? Are they good for those pupils? Do the pupils in those schools do better than pupils in comprehensives? No.
4. The Tories say that Grammar Schools are popular. Are the non-grammar schools in areas (where there are grammars), popular? Do people in those areas say, that they want those schools rather than schools for all? Do they say, "We love the idea that some kids went off to the grammars but ours didn't"?
5. The Tories say that these new Grammars won't be like the old ones because they will have to show that they are educating poor kids. If these new Grammars have to admit poor kids on other grounds other than the entrance exam, they won't be Grammar Schools. The whole point of Grammar Schools was that they had an entrance exam which decided if you could get in or not. Yes, there were some kids who got in on 'headteacher's recommendation' but that was for kids who the headteacher claimed had scored high on tests throughout the year the children were 10/11 years old, (the old fourth year juniors), and were therefore the Grammar School type. It was nothing to do with poverty. So, if these schools are forced to admit poor kids (in some kind of phoney show of 'fairness', they won't be Grammar Schools!

Money has no passports

Money has no passports.
It whizzes across borders
untroubled by journalists or politicians
not noticing it
closing industries,
ending jobs.

Blame the 'other' to control all.

Pause a moment
politician, journalist.
Think of the times you have
hinted or suggested or stated
that the problem yes the problem
is foreigners, migrants, immigrants,
refugees.
Think of the times you have hinted
or suggested or stated
that hard times were caused by the people you call foreigners, migrants, immigrants, refugees,
as if hard times were not caused by
bankers gambling with trillions,
not caused by governments
deliberately holding down pay
and sacking people or cutting
social services public services
and the health service.
Think of those times that you thought you could shore up your position, garner more support,
get more power by saying these things,
using the excuse you are 'listening to
peoples concerns'
the very concerns you stirred with your headlines and speeches which blamed foreigners for people's hard times, rather than your own part in the shenanigans that let the bankers run off with billions, or the government say that the people had to pay for that with their wages, and how chasing tax avoiders is too, too difficult.
And just watch what you unleash.
See what voices rise to the surface after your hints and suggestions:
people emboldened by what you said,
People emboldened to put forward plans to dismiss, fire, exile, intern, detain, deport .
And in so doing win and use powers to control, contain, restrict, deprive, intern, detain everyone.
That's how it works: blame 'the other' to control all.
Blame the other to control all.

Listen up, students, only study what you know will get you a job.

Listen up students:
only study what you know will get you a job.
we don't know what will get you a job
but only study what you know will get you a job.
We don't know what will get you a job
for two reasons:
1. We can't read the future.
2. We've got rid of many jobs because we don't
think we should make things in this country.


This leaves accountancy, banking, insurance
and people who make it all possible:
company lawyers.

Those are jobs.

Listen up students:
only study what you know will get you a job.
We don't know what will get you a job.
What's more
we don't even know if those jobs I mentioned
just now will be jobs
because maybe the firms that have those jobs
will disappear off this island too.

Listen up students
only study what you know will get you a job.

Pity of War - Poems on the Underground, Nov 2.London Transport Museum

Poems on the Underground and Apollo Chamber Players, conductor David Chernaik, with guest poet Michael Rosen present THE PITY OF WAR at London Transport Museum, Wednesday November 2, 6.30 for 7pm.
Tickets: £15/12 concessions (include wine) from LTM Box Office 020 7565 7298 or email: ltmuseum.co.uk/whats-on/events-calendar#pityofwar

We hope you can join us for the premier of WAR POEMS by the composer Evelyn Ficarra, for chamber ensemble and recorded sound, including poetry by Wilfred Owen, Sassoon, Apollinaire and other war poets. Our guest poet is the well-known children’s poet and novelist Michael Rosen. The programme opens with Bach and ends with Strauss’s searing lament for the destruction of war, Metamorphosen, arranged for chamber ensemble.

Financial services: 'Having gambled and lost..."

Having gambled and lost,
our financial services waited to see
which way the vote would go
and, then, as a next step
thought it wise to pack their bags
and head for Frankfurt.


Our leaders who had
made financial services
the core of the nation
even though their reliability
and stickability were always doubtful
gasped;
then responded by
blaming anyone poor and foreign
for our troubles.

Housing: Rich and Poor (Newsnight)

According to the Tory chair of the all-party committee on housing, trying to house everyone is very difficult, very complex, very, very, very difficult. He knows because he once worked for a charity that tried to house people. And it was very, very, very difficult. We heard all about it on Newsnight. And it was very, very, very difficult.

Earlier in the programme, a Tory ex-pensions minister explained that the consequence of economic policy (the banks apparently, not the government) was that the rich had got richer and the poor poorer. She didn't quite put it like that. She said the policy had favoured those who held assets (the rich) and had been hard on those who had no assets. She described this as a 'side effect'.


Anyway, trying to house everyone, is very, very, very difficult.

(At the height of council house building in the 50s, they were building over 250,000 council houses a year.)
(The glory of the council house sell-offs was alluded to as a policy which had helped home ownership.)

My thoughts on A-level Archaeology and Art History being banned.

Welcome to Tory Britain:

Not just petty nationalists (Brexit means 'controlling immigration), not just class warriors (bring back grammar schools) but pathetic philistines (banning Archaeology and Art History A-level).

Like studying Archaelogy or Art History (or anything actually) somehow narrows you down to being either an archaeologist or an art historian! Like somehow knowing such things is of no 'use' in life, work, or for you as a person! Like education shouldn't be concerned with such things! Like having teachers who teach these things or students who study them doesn't have a contribution to play to everyone's life in a school, in ways that aren't measurable!

If you have humanistic attitudes to life, education or identity, prepare to shed them now.

Progress 8, ebacc, thoughts from a retiring teacher

I put up some questions on Facebook about Progress 8 and ebacc. A teacher, Susan Singfield, who i don't know, replied as follows:

"'Progress 8' means the students' best 8 grades are averaged out to give them a points score. The 8 have to include ebacc subjects, which are grouped in 'buckets.' There is officially space for creative and technology subjects (depending on how the school organises its timetable) but they are all in the 'last' bucket, I.e. the optional one that you can go to after you've got all your ebacc subjects out of the other buckets. There are a few things standing in the way of those who want to take more than one of these 'extra' subjects:

A) the doubling of points for English and maths (now worth twice as many points as other GCSEs in terms of a school's ranking) means that they are given more and more time on the timetable. Currently 5 hours a week each in a lot of schools. This time obviously has to come from somewhere else. It usually means the kids can take fewer GCSEs, thus limiting their options and making it less likely they can take more than one arts or technology subject.

B) schools need to ensure that kids meet ebacc requirements, so 'encourage' (sometimes this means 'attempt to force') students to take extra ebacc subjects instead of arts or technology, to give them a better chance of getting an ebacc, e.g. taking history as well as geography when only one humanities subject is actually a requirement. 

C) in order to get students on board, ebacc is talked up, even though it's a performance measure for schools and doesn't actually affect kids much so long as they pass a variety of subjects. This means that arts and technology subjects are sometimes belittled by options staff, as students are talked in to taking other subjects that they haven't initially selected. This leads of course to a smaller uptake and a downgraded status.

D) A lot of schools are only allowing students who are unlikely to meet ebacc requirements to pursue more than one arts or technology subject. This makes them look like subjects suitable only for less able candidates, when really they can be valuable to students of all abilities. 

E) the GCSEs themselves have changed so that they are much more theoretical. For example, GCSE drama is now 70% written work and only 30% practical. This makes them much less attractive.

It's a long post. I hope it helps. I'm happy to try to clarify further if necessary. I have just quit after 22 years as an English and drama teacher. I have no appetite for it any more. It's a travesty."

Reluctant ex-Labour Minister finally agrees to come on and make a comment about Jeremy Corbyn for the 327th time

"I am very unwilling to comment on Jeremy Corbyn
very unwilling indeed
and everyone knows that my loyalty to the Party
is unmatched
my record in government stands for itself
and as I say
I am very, very unwilling to comment on Jeremy Corbyn
but seeing as you ask me
and seeing as you've twisted my arm
to get me on to the radio
and the tv
and reluctant though I am
Yes I can't say how reluctant I am
in fact
I'd have to say that if anyone ever votes for
Jeremy Corbyn
we are heading for something like a nuclear winter:
decades in the dark
decades in the wilderness
decades of disaster
(take your pick which of those 'decades'
you'd like to quote me on)
But as I say
I'm very, very reluctant to make any comment
and very, very reluctant to come on air like this..."

I've applied for the job of a mainstream commentator to comment on Jeremy Corbyn

I've applied for a job as a mainstream political commentator,
I've written two pieces as examples of what I could write:
they are both about Jeremy Corbyn
on the day before he did the reshuffle.


One of the pieces 'imagines' that Corbyn brings in people from all sides
of the Labour Party
and it condemns him for being weak, dithering, undecided
unable to control the Parliamentary Labour Party
not having the courage of his convictions
and is now the prisoner of some big hitters from the past.

The other 'imagines' that Corbyn has a cabinet made up
largely of people who have been his supporters
and it condemns Corbyn for seizing the levers of power
of surrounding himself with yes men
of creating a mood of fear amongst the more moderate
forces in the party
of behaving like some tin pot South American dictator
or trying to run the Labour Party as if it was his.

How am I doing?

I'm not on the list, I'm not on the list

I'm not on the list
I'm not on the list
All I have to do is tell them
if I know someone who should be on the list.


If I don't tell them
that I know someone who should be on the list,
then I'll be on a list of people
who don't help them make the list.

And people in my family 
will be on a list of people 
in families of people
who don't  help them make the list 
of people who should be on the list.

And people (who people in my family know)
will be on a list of people 
who know people in the family of someone 
who didn't help them make the list of people 
who should be on the list.

So, if you're not on the list
or the list of the people 
who don't help them make the list
or the list of people who know people who
don't help them make the list
you're OK.
It's all OK
It's going to be all right.

Lists, lists of foreigners, lists of foreign born people

Lists
Lists of foreigners
Lists of foreign born people
living and working alongside
those not on lists
Lists of children sitting alongside
children not on lists
Lists to be sent in to government
departments
Lists of names, addresses that can
pass from official to official
from department to department
so that what starts out as 'information'
drifts into ways of saying to those
on the lists that they should have less
they should have no guarantees of the
right to work or live alongside or amongst
those not on the lists
And when it comes to a time when
those who want to say that hard times
are not the fault of people in government
and not the fault of those who own and control
everything
the lists are ready and waiting
Look who's on the lists, they'll say
The lists say it all, they'll say

I was listening to a pogrom on the radio today

I was listening to a pogrom on the radio today
coming from a party conference where they had a lot to say
about people who move, people who move here
and I got it from the pogrom this is something to fear
I should worry about the people next door
I should worry about the woman cleaning the floor
I should worry about the student on the bus
I should worry about anyone moving amongst us
I got it from the pogrom we need more checking
I got it from the pogrom we need more inspecting
'cos any troubles we have, any troubles we know
never come from the people running the show
let's put our hands together and please give thanks
to the people we trust - like those running banks
please give thanks to those who own stocks and shares
they're the ones we can trust to wipe away our cares


I was listening to a pogrom on the radio today
it sounded more like a programme coming our way
a programme, a plan, a strategy, a dream
a way of building up an idea of a nation
based on selection and segregation.
I know going on about it makes me sound like a bore
but, tell me, haven't we heard this sort of thing before?

Security alert: Before you read this...

Before you read this
I have to ask you some questions:
Could you tell me if you are any of the following:
migrant, immigrant, refugee, asylum seeker, emigre, clandestine, sans papiers, foreigner,
or a son or daughter of any of the
above
or if you LOOK like as if you could be any of the 
above?
In which case please
state your name, date of birth,
height, weight, inside leg measurement, blood group, hospital records, skin colour, income, 
preferred sandwich type.

Are you are in receipt of any loans or any imported meat products?
Do you intend to stay in this country longer than two minutes?
Do you intend to study anything that is not maths? Do you have a wife, husband or both?
Please sing the national anthem when I say the word 'Queen'
And answer the following questions:
why is Britain great?
why everywhere else is not so great?
what is the Anglo Saxon word for great?
do you wear red, white and blue underwear?
Please step this way
To see if you have answered all these questions truthfully,
we need to do a rectal examination. 

Philip Hammond, Chancer of the Exchequer

Philip Hammond (Chancer of the Exchequer) explained on Today programme that the Tories will invest government money in productive areas of the economy like transport and housing and this will bring growth and jobs.

Reminder: Hammond is a Tory. What he said is classic mainstream Labour economics. I'm not one to say that this either works or not works. It's not socialism. It's the state pump priming bits of the economy. What's odd is that a) it's Tories saying this (having attacked this view for years) and b) that they think putting money into things like transport and housing is of itself suspect because it's rather 'public use' sort of stuff...


Of course, when challlenged on this, Hammond said that it was nothing like Labour.

Then he said that the point about leaving the EU is that it would enable them to 'control immigration'. Nick Robinson pointed out that that might mean that exactly the same number of migrants might come to the UK. Hammond didn't deny this.

I take this to mean that the main purpose of going on about migrants is to shore up political power by constantly talking about migrants as 'the problem' when quite clearly some people in government don't think they are.

ON both counts, Hammond does indeed go down as the Chancer of the Exchequer.

It's not going to be grammar schools of the 1950s. It's going to be all-out war between schools.

We have to be clear that what the Tories are unleashing in their schools policy is not a state-directed 11+ Grammar-Sec Mod system. It's going to be a local, devil-take-the-hindmost, hand-to-hand fighting between schools. One school in an area will announce that it's going to be selective. Another school will say 'Therefore, so will we!' Then the other schools will all say, 'We have no choice, it's not what we wanted, but we're going to be selective.' There will be local turf wars over what kind of selection, what kind of selection procedures - academic, aptitude or whatever. Schools will stop co-co-operating and start doing whatever it takes to get pupils.


This is really important when we're thinking about strategy on how to fight this. The Tories will say, 'This is not us 'deciding' this. It's the localities. It's 'free' choice.' They will say, 'We choose between Sainsbury's and Tesco's so why shouldn't we choose between schools? That's why we get the 'best' food shops.'


This will neatly wipe out the difference between buying food and being selected for an education. The analogy would be if we tried to choose between Sainsbury's and Tesco but Mr Entrance-guy stood on the door and only let in people he said could come in.

The politician is listening to concerns...

.The politician is listening to concerns
so though he is in favour of equal pay
he thinks that slightly less equal pay would be reasonable.
The politician is listening to concerns
so though he thinks there is no point in spending billions
on nuclear weapons
he thinks that spending a bit less on nuclear weapons
would be reasonable
The politician is listening to concerns
so though he is against selection in secondary schools
he thinks that some selection in selected area
would be reasonable
The politician is listening to concerns
so though he thinks that migration is not the cause of
worsening living standards
he think that he should say that migration is the cause of
worsening living standards
The politician is listening to concerns so though he is against capital punishment he thinks that partial execution would be reasonable
The politician is listening to concerns.