The answer, my friend, is blowin’ in the wind…

The ballad of Woodhouse Colliery

the siren blasts pre-dawn today
wakes the locals at five-thirty
it is time it screams for the chosen few
to get down deep and come up dirty

what we do is what our grandas did
it made some sense back then
when our father was nobbut a gangly kid
but (umm) have you seen the papers

our houses cost nearly nothing we’re told
too small too cramped so old and cold
yet there are some who fail to afford them
so they go and do what their grandas did
when their father was nobbut a kid

but not to power a nation this time
this time they’re making nowt
unless you consider the world’s biggest hole
the country’s nuclear dustbin
an achievement of sorts
rather than an act of futility
a great big hole of nothingness
devoid of all utility

they are scouring the planet’s intestines
not producing the value of old
as they know it’s only shit they shovel
not exhuming a dark form of gold

what we do is what our grandas did
it made some sense back then
when our father was nobbut a gangly kid
but (umm) have you seen the papers

dig it big enough they say
and all Sellafield will fit
but what will they do with the great big hole
where that festering factory used to sit

they’ll build a mountain of excrement
unneeded to the sky
and add another Wainwright
where the fulmars used to fly

With apologies to Zola…

For those who live in Tysoe: I have just received a copy of the Neighbourhood Plan Steering Group’s vile, solipsistic, spoilt, infantile, misleading and propagandist j’accuse-style resignation letter to the Parish Council. I think, from its wording and the misinformation it contains, that it may have been penned with the help of Jeremy Hunt, or possibly Grant Shapps. Its insulting lack of self-knowledge – blaming others for their own actions; not recognizing their own obvious faults… – and the absence of reason, are phenomenal (and yet somehow hilarious)! However, as tempted as I am to crow about vindication and my utter joy at this turn of events – and the painful, long-drawn-out, apparent victory for common sense – this paragraph is all I will write on the matter. If you need more information, please attend the next Parish Council meeting (on 7 December 2015); or contact your nearest Parish Councillor. The truth is out there.

Wall of separation – true humility…(Part 2: “Parts of it are excellent”)

The Clouds that gather round the setting sun

Do take a sober colouring from an eye

That hath kept watch o’er man’s mortality;

Another race hath been, and other palms are won.

     Thanks to the human heart by which we live,

     Thanks to its tenderness, its joys, and fears,

     To me the meanest flower that blows can give

     Thoughts that do often lie too deep for tears.

– William Wordsworth: Ode; Intimations of Immortality from Recollections of Early Childhood

For a short while, I lived very near to Terry Pratchett (“in the next village along,” as they say): but, never, as far as I know, passed close by him, or espied him in the cloisters or close of the cathedral we both loved (my photographs of which have illustrated some of this series of posts, as above). His writings, though – and his recent increasingly close relationship with Death: now, of course, brought to its inevitable (although far too early) conclusion (“AT LAST, SIR TERRY, WE MUST WALK TOGETHER”) – were always not just entertaining, but inspiring and educational, as well, for me. There was a deep, lightly-worn intelligence behind those gleaming glasses that would not be defeated by any cruelty this world could inflict on him. A man truly aware of his own strengths and weaknesses, I think: who returned Death’s gaze with a steady stare; and, thankfully, we are told, died what we are supposed to call an “easy” death (which is never such: even when it provides relief to the sufferer, those who are left behind inherit an everlasting pain…).

Recently – and which accounts for the gap in posts (and, believe me, I find it very hard, now, not to write; now that the authorial genie has escaped cheekily from its bottle of single malt…) – I too have had intimations of my own mortality (although nothing as serious as Sir Terry’s: just enough to remind me that I am human, and certainly no ‘supercrip’): and can therefore understand more readily why, for many people, such “intimations” provoke a desire for increased meaning in their short lives and the awful world they find themselves in; as well as prompting yearnings for what may lie beyond – why, in a nutshell, religions are born; how creation myths and figures in the night sky emerge… – are we really nothing more than “a flat disc balanced on the backs of four elephants which, in turn, stand on the back of a giant turtle”?

¶

I ended my last post – over a week ago – writing that “without religion the human race would be considerably worse off and there would be little hope for the future.” This is from a book provocatively entitled Is Religion Dangerous? by Keith Ward: who concludes, of course, that it isn’t – although, being a priest, you could say that he’s slightly biased. You will have to read the book yourself to see if you agree, though, that he does a pretty good job of being objective (more so, to my mind, than Richard Squawkins has ever been… – although see “bombastic pontifications”, below).

However, although religion is not where I find my solace (unless you include its buildings and music) – for me that lurks in good books; Wordworth’s “setting sun”; the kindness of strangers; the hesitant transformation of a mild winter into a wind-chilled spring; the serendipitous conversations that pull various parts of your life closer together in a fortunate net of hopes-made-tangible; the hesitant footsteps alongside the Avon as the swans, geese, ducks and coots prepare noisily for the next generation, despite the stinging rain, and the gormless lump of humanity that giggles at their antics standing far too close by (but offering no crumbs nor crusts of sustenance in consolation…) – I understand, and have no problem whatsoever with, those who do.

Surely, we say, glancing at the eclipse, life must have more significance than a mere blink of the universe’s eye (and a blink, at that, which may simply be to remove the discomfiting grit of which we are made). And ask: Do we have a rôle to play? Is there free will? Does anything we do actually matter? Does our vote make any real difference… – especially in an election where we keep being told that there won’t be an outright winner…?

(By the way, in their letter, the bishops warn against such despair: urging us all to vote in the General Election – “Unless we exercise the democratic rights that our ancestors struggled for, we will share responsibility for the failures of the political classes. It is the duty of every Christian adult to vote, even though it may have to be a vote for something less than a vision that inspires us.” A perfect summation, I think….)

In response to those questions, I challenge you to read, say, Rupert Brooke’s Dust and then tell me that any such life (again, too short) with the potential to create such wonderful poetry is unimportant; or listen to Vaughan Williams’, or Nielsen’s, or Beethoven’s fifth symphonies; or stand in the centre of the Rollright Stones at dawn; and tell me that any human life isn’t the most valuable creation possible…. As individuals, we can be great – even if only to our immediate family and friends (which is miracle enough) – but, together, especially, we have the ability, the power, to change the world we live in both for good and for bad. That is the value, the sacred gift, that we have been given. And we should use it wisely. (If only….) It also means, of course, that we, as individuals, should all be listened to by our “neighbours”….

¶

Whatever is true, whatever is honourable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is pleasing, whatever is commendable, if there is any excellence and if there is anything worthy of praise, think about these things.

So allow me to digress – slightly – for a moment. (Just for a change.)

A couple of days ago, I was informed that the Planning Inspector had said “no” (huzzah!) to Gladman’s proposed development on Oxhill Road, and refused their subsequent appeal. (And yet, at the time of writing, I see no emails flying around the village; nor parades marching down Main Street.) Although this, in my Lenten tribulations, obviously raised my spirits a little, and made me realize that the battles the village had fought along the way had proved my supposition, above; I also know that, in fighting those battles, we, as villagers, had sadly demonstrated both of our “good and bad” sides: with infighting (or, more correctly, insurrection) caused by the overgrown egos and immature self-beliefs characteristic, depressingly, of many political activities.

[126] The advice of St Paul in his letter to the Philippians [above] may help to defend us against the temptations of apathy, cynicism and blame, and instead seek – because we are disciples of Jesus Christ who long for a more humane society – a better politics for a better nation.

It is not my place to solve such an issue (although I can listen to the bishops, and then provide ‘encouragement’ so to do…) – despite a continuing strong urge to bang certain thick, disruptive heads together – although I will say (as I have said many times before) that, as a village, we could (and should) have simply stood on our obvious merits, heads held high, and trusted those already responsible for such fights – i.e. the Parish Council (PC) – and supported, rather than hindered, them.

We did not need to raise voices, polish swords, dust off cudgels. Instead of caring for the village (the original motivation, some eighteen or so months ago, for residents’ gatherings and efforts; and the production, back then, of – possibly – the only bulletproof defence required) – as the members of the PC obviously do – there were those who it would not be unfair to accuse of caring more for the sounds of their own bombastic pontifications. Politicians manqué, if you will. Some of them may have had good intentions; but, it appears to me, these few have been led astray (although, of course, should have known better…) by those who think a big old house gives them droit du seigneur over the rest of us mere peasants (especially those whose modern hovels were obviously not built out of ironstone by medieval vassals).

I do not want ‘my’ village ruled or overseen by such people – as the church once was and did – I want it governed collegiately: where everyone is given the opportunity to feel, and be, involved (and not just by belatedly dropping a slip of paper through the door: with no obvious means of return…); and certainly not one where the parish magazine seems to exist just to be unjustifiably spiteful, nasty and vitriolic about people who the author disagrees with, or who he or she feels to be beneath them. (They must be looking through the wrong end of the telescope.)

Is this truly what we as a parish have become? How does this make us appear to those who walk and cycle through this glorious countryside? Visitors must think we have all just emerged from the back door of Cold Comfort Farm; or have not moved on since Akenfield was first published. They must be astonished that we are not all chewing on stalks of hay.

¶

Despite its many shortcomings, to me, the church – and, indeed, many religious organizations – have democracy better ‘sorted’: especially in their regular meetings (and not just to worship) at all levels. Take, for instance, my favourite: Quakerism (where atheists and agnostics are welcome). Nothing is done without the agreement, “at all levels”, of every member. And, although this can mean that drying emulsion looks exciting by comparison, it also means that they are the perfect model of self-government – and one, as a village, we would do well to emulate. Otherwise, we will remain unduly shaped by external forces; rather than – as the (I increasingly believe unnecessary) Neighbourhood Plan is supposed to do – designing and building our own future: and being united as we do so.

To (try and) keep the religious theme going, the connection intact: I suppose what I would hope for is a reversion to ‘first principles’: similar to the initial, pure rules of the Cistercian order of monks, rebelling against the increasingly greedy and corrupt Benedictine brotherhood from which they split in the late eleventh century; or the Dominican and Franciscan friars who followed them, repudiating all personal possessions… – that is (in an extremely roundabout fashion), returning to what the village as a whole thinks is ideal, important, worthy; not just a self-appointed few, ‘in it’ for the power.

Perhaps this is naïve? I certainly seem to have typed that word a lot, recently. But, having shown, in January, last year, just how united the village can be, under threat; I believe it can come together, in the same way, for positive purposes, again – given the opportunity. I have a dream… – and it is one where every resident of the village helps develop, and shares in, a joint vision of our future; and actively takes part in developing that vision, where and when they can. And is not stifled by either jealousness, ignorance, or arrogance.

¶

So what does that have to do with Who is my neighbour? you may ask. Well, just about everything.

[101] But who counts as “we”? It is impossible to ignore the question “who is my neighbour?” It is a question familiar to anyone who has ever picked up a New Testament….

[102] In the gospel, the question “who is my neighbour?” led Jesus to recount the parable of the Good Samaritan. Jesus makes two subtle points, first calling people to follow the example of the Samaritan, the foreigner who went to the aid of the wounded traveller; and secondly, answering the question by suggesting that neighbourliness may mean receiving care from a member of a despised social group. Neighbourliness, then, is not just about what we do for others. It is also about what we are willing to receive from those we fear, ignore or despise.

Do you know your neighbour? (And I don’t just mean your literal neighbour – as the bishops also intimate.) How well? Do you know how they feel about the village’s future; the importance and relevance of the Neighbourhood Plan to them; or are they simply too busy getting on with the increasing complexity and austerity that most of us (who don’t live in “a big old house”, for whatever reason) face in our daily lives? Do they love living here; have they lived here long; and/or do they begrudge the long daily commute to their place of employment? Do they worry about their children’s ability to stay in the village; the affordability of local housing; that we are so environmentally unfriendly in our high consumption of fossil fuels to heat our homes, and feed our cars, that their grandchildren’s lives will be blighted by our inaction; the fact that it is nigh impossible to find a bus that can get you to and from work, if you can’t afford a car in the first place; or get you to the Job Centre on time?

[123] This letter is about building a vision of a better kind of world, a better society and better politics. Underlying those ideas is the concept of virtue – what it means to be a good person, a good politician, a good neighbour or a good community. Virtues are nourished, not by atomised individualism, but in strong communities which relate honestly and respectfully to other groups and communities which make up this nation.

[124] Strong communities are schools of virtue – they are the places where we learn how to be good, how to live well and how to make relationships flourish. They build on the traditions through which each generation learns its national, local and family identity. Virtues are ways of living that can be learned, but which too many trends in recent decades have eroded.

Well, the bishops’ letter discusses most of these things (as you have seen) – and in a way that doesn’t try to score points; that does its best to be inclusive and thoughtful; that shows that it cares about each and every one of us – even if we don’t share their faith. Having read through most of the major political parties’ websites, as well, the Church of England stands out as unique in having a truly moral backbone; and, despite my atheism, I would rather vote for them than any political organization. Why? Because they so obviously care – and, as I said above, that “care” appeals to me because it is for all of their ‘flock’, equally, rather than simply one “hardworking” part of it; and it is not “for the sounds of their own bombastic pontifications”. They therefore lead by example: showing just what is absent from our tawdry, hostile, debasing politics (both nationally and locally); and why those in power must (or should) feel utterly embarrassed and belittled by the Church’s much-needed intervention. (Oh, how “those in power” must sympathize with Henry VIII. “Bring me a glass of water, Cromwell – I’m going to dissolve the monasteries.”)

It is just a shame, that like most front-page news, the letter has quickly vanished from the media: to be overtaken by more important matters, such as Ed’s two kitchens.

¶

But you don’t have to be religious to think like this. Surely, I am proof of that…? (By the way, the obverse also applies: sadly, not all religious people truly care….)

I therefore ask three things of you. Firstly, whatever your religion, sit down, over the long Easter weekend, with a cup of tea or coffee, and read what the bishops have to say, please. Secondly, think what part you play in the village – could that rôle be widened and made more effective: either by expanding what you do; or by getting others, with divergent views and backgrounds, to help? Then, whatever your conclusions, put those thoughts on endless ‘repeat’; and never assume that what you are doing is either right or enough. Finally, next time you see your neighbour, say “Hello”, and with a smile on your face…! Thank you.

Being right is not the same as being righteous…. (Righteousness is usually a quality seen in people who are a pain in the arse.)

– Deborah Orr: The Guardian

Wall of separation – disability…

For various reasons, I’ve been doing a lot of reading, recently – even more so than usual… – including the superb 818-page biography (about the size of an HSBC ‘brick’) of J Robert Oppenheimer, Inside the Centre, by the philosopher Ray Monk – as great a work of literature, I think, as I have ever read. But what inspired this post was something a lot shorter: the Church of England House of Bishops’ ‘Pastoral Letter on the 2015 General Election’, Who is my neighbour? – which The Guardian welcomed as “a thoughtful and well-rooted Christian argument as well as a very different kind of political intervention”.

Although it has its faults (including the inconsistency of style you would expect of a committee-derived communication; and – to me – a strange mix of religiosity and plain-speaking commonsense), I found it rewarding and refreshing to read an ostensibly political message that:

• was neither adversarial, arrogant, nor haranguing;
• demonstrates a duty of care towards all fellow human beings;
• makes “an overarching philosophical argument about the state of modern politics”; and
• provides a coherent, sincere vision that no political party, to my mind, has come within a country mile of.

It is sad, though, that, immediately upon its publication, there was not only an instant – and ignorant – massed attack from many parts of the political continuum, accusing the church of being partisan; but also a parallel attempt by cynical – some may say disingenuous – politicians to render it, somehow, more pertinent to their ideology than their adversaries’.

Over the next couple of weeks or so (and possibly continuing up to the election itself), I will therefore try to delve deeper into this letter (all under the Wall of separation heading): examining (and meditating on?) some of its statements and manifold themes; and the way these contribute – subjectively, of course – to my feelings about, perspectives on, and connections to, current politics – in the same way, I suppose, as exegesis and hermeneutics are used to critically examine, and learn from, the bible and other religious and philosophical writings and scriptures.

¶

Tara Flood, a Paralympic gold medallist swimmer, speaks for the entire disabled population when she says: “I want to live an ordinary life in a society that treats me as a human being.”

– Tony Parsons: Disabled go from Paralympic winners to humiliated as ‘scroungers’ in space of a year

As it is a subject that is obviously close to my heart, as well as moulding the way I live, I have decided to begin with the emotive issue of disability – which is referenced in three paragraphs (quoted in full, below) in the bishops’ letter, all contained in the subsection entitled ‘The Person in Community’. (There are no such concerns, by the way, in the much shorter, less politically controversial, Catholic equivalent: released at around the same time. All its authors “suggest” is that, before voting, you ask “Where do your candidates stand on directly helping the poorest and most vulnerable people in the UK and also helping them to transform their lives?”)

[61] Most people, when asked, subscribe to some version of the idea that all people are created equal. Yet this is contradicted in the way that some categories of people are spoken about – people who are sick, disabled, terminally ill or otherwise unable to live the life that a consumer society celebrates; people who are unable to work, materially poor or mentally ill in ways which challenge “acceptable” ways of being unwell.

[62] There is a deep contradiction in the attitudes of a society which celebrates equality in principle yet treats some people, especially the poor and vulnerable, as unwanted, unvalued and unnoticed. It is particularly counter-productive to denigrate those who are in need, because this undermines the wider social instinct to support one another in the community. For instance, when those who rely on social security payments are all described in terms that imply they are undeserving, dependent, and ought to be self-sufficient, it deters others from offering the informal, neighbourly support which could ease some of the burden of welfare on the state.

[64] Restoring the balance between the individual and the community around them is a necessity if every person is to be truly valued for who they are and not just on a crude calculus of utility. It is vital to move beyond the superficial equality of free consumers in a market place of relationships and to see the virtues in the relationships of family and community which are given, not chosen.

¶ 

That perspicacious and challenging phrase “a crude calculus of utility” hit me right between the eyes; and made me ruminate not only on who the “disabled” actually are – a clumsy but useful label, I suppose, for collecting together the diverse people who are impacted by restrictions (social or medical) “in the ability to perform a normal activity of daily living” – but what rôles we, as a general group, are ‘allowed’ to play in society; and, chiefly, if we have any marketable ‘value’ in a world ruled by capitalism. (And, yes, a battered copy of The Ragged-Trousered Philanthropists lies proudly near the top of my Matterhorn-like reading pile!)

Many people – especially those “hard-working” folk so beloved of our current main party leaders – are defined (and would define themselves) by their jobs (which may, also, of course, provide a shorthand method of categorizing their class, or societal ‘level’): but not many disabled people are, by definition (as well as by the constraints of the workplace), able to work (especially those claiming benefits).

If, as a genuinely separate grouping, the disabled are only seen as contributing to currently accepted definitions of society by also working – otherwise we are simplistically labelled “scroungers”, or decried as “a drain on the economy” – does that really make us ‘in-valid’ members of it if we are not employed (even if we had already contributed large amounts of tax and National Insurance over, say, a quarter of a century…)? Perhaps if welfare amounts were more attuned to the real-world (additional) cost of actually being impaired, then they would not keep us trapped in a position of meagre subsistence. And ‘higher-level’ benefits – such as PIP (Personal Independence Payment) – would not only truly contribute to that “independence”, but would also enable more active entry into ‘the market’: with payees using it, for example, to purchase care, lease Motability vehicles, and pay for adaptations to their homes.

¶

The loss of employment after the fact, though – although (maybe) not as bad as the loss of a sense or other facility – has a devastating, explosive impact on that earned and earning identity (splintering it both inwardly and outwardly): especially if there is no chance (because of age, as well as impairment – although, in some people’s eyes, the two are not that different: a premature agglomeration of the sixth and seventh ages of man…) of returning to any form of work (although being disabled can be more than a full-time job in itself, for many…).

For instance, I have attempted to rebuild my persona (principally for my own desperate satisfaction) – especially its public-facing aspects – by producing this blog. Writing was always one of my major competences in employment (as a subset of wider natural and learned communication skills): and although the physical aspects of production are immensely painful and tiring – which then lead to the mental aspects also rapidly diminishing… – I can, however limited my capacities now are, carry them out in my own time (days and weeks, rather than minutes and hours; at three o’clock in the morning, rather than nine-to-five), sans deadline, sans supervision, sans inspection, sans employment. However satisfying, though, in its slow-mo accomplishments, it is no substitute for the camaraderie of the workplace; or the almost accidental absorption of additional aptitudes (never mind the necessary collaboration and quality control…). And it certainly does not pay as well….

The point I am trying to make here is that – although it does not fit the ‘norms’ of current employment practice (who is going to pay me the living wage for a couple of hours of self-selected ‘work’ per week; but not most weeks…?) – even though I am disabled, I still have a marketable skill, however much depleted. (And, even though Labour talk enthusiastically about “predistribution” – I cannot see this coming to my rescue: especially as it appears both extremely left-wing and, currently, completely without substance.) My intellect – although only available in disjointed, irregular chunks – is still some form of asset (as is that of my eighty-odd-year-old parents). However, there is no way – unless you count this blog as a ‘good’ (rather than just, ahem, good…) in itself – that I am adding much economic worth to society; nor does society, from its own perspective, appreciate me for it in any way. And therefore, because I am disabled, and because I am not appreciated, I am also not a voracious consumer (except of books). I am outside the wall – as the bishops say: “unwanted, unvalued and unnoticed”.

Timon will to the woods, where he shall find

Th’ unkindest beast more kinder than mankind.

The gods confound (hear me, you good gods all)

Th’ Athenians both within and out that wall!

And grant, as Timon grows, his hate may grow

To the whole race of mankind, high and low!

Amen.

– William Shakespeare: Timon of Athens

Children (and childcare) as commodities…

It’s odd how, every time there’s a news item or report, like there is today, on the BBC website, about the rising cost of childcare, there’s very rarely any mention of either the fact that it really should be a formal part of the education system – and therefore a public service: there’s a reason it’s called ‘early years education’ – or the absolutely abysmal wages that most childcare staff get paid (especially when compared against others working in the education sector).

One of the major reasons for this increase in cost – although tucked away at the bottom of the BBC article – is that, as pointed out by the National Day Nurseries Association: “some parents are subsidising the cost of the government’s free nursery places [as] the money which childcare providers receive to deliver these free placements falls short by an average of £800 per child per year for each three to four-year-old place and £700 for each two-year-old place.” In other words, although the Government is subsidizing childcare, its payments don’t actually cover anywhere near all the costs of providing that childcare, or enough of it – only some small part – which, when staff are paid so little, shows just how tokenistic the Government’s measly efforts are.

And yet, referring to the Birmingham ‘Trojan horse’ row, back in June, last year, David Cameron said that “Protecting our children is one of the first duties of government…”. If that is true – and I, for one, believe it is (but then I couldn’t afford to employ a full-time nanny for my son; or pay fees for his education; nor was private education the one and only experience my family had…) – why is the UK’s childcare in such a mess?

¶

As with most of government, nowadays, a large part of the answer to this question lies in the Coalition’s aims to subcontract out everything they can lay their hands on: including child protection – although, here, I am only concerned with early years education (which doesn’t, as some may think/wish, involve serried ranks of under-fives sitting at desks, memorizing their tables; but, instead, learning through what can best, perhaps, be summarized as planned play and interaction – both with their peers, and the adults looking after them).

The word ‘education’ seems to conveniently be forgotten, though (a bit like ‘sustainable’, when attached to development, in the NPPF), when pre-schools and nurseries are discussed by those not involved in their day-to-day running: as if such institutions are just glorified child-minding services – which is one of the main reasons why staff are paid such pitiful salaries; and not only is the National Minimum Wage the norm (although employees are then expected, in some private settings, to stay behind for ‘voluntary’ – i.e. unpaid – staff meetings: reducing their wages yet further…), but so, as a consequence, is the required level of qualifications (level 2 or level 3: which can now be fast-tracked). “The sector has suffered from stereotypical views that it is ‘women’s work that anybody can do’.”

On top of this – with “The care of young children [being] accepted as a vital social task for which well-trained staff are necessary” – there is lip-service paid to a need for early years educators with (relevant) degrees: which would raise standards (as well as wages: but be cost-effective, in the long-term) – but then nursery workers, as I have already said, are paid a great deal less than their equivalents would earn in industry (as well as the rest of the education sector): as the rates we pay per hour for the care of our babies and toddlers (although seemingly high, and ever-increasing) lack the government funding and support that is prevalent in mainland Europe: making it incredibly difficult for nurseries and the like to profit – especially in the short-term – unless short-cuts are taken.

According to Tom Rawstorne, in the Daily Mail (23 June 2011):

While the average UK hourly wage is £14.50, nursery staff earn, on average, £7.60 an hour. Managers are on £10.60 an hour, while the lowest paid get £6.40. Privately owned nurseries pay their staff the least: an average of £7.10 compared to £11.60 offered by local authorities.

He goes on to state that…

In 1981, only 24 per cent of women returned to work within a year of childbirth. Today, the Department for Work and Pensions says that more than three-quarters of mothers return to work within 12 to 18 months of having a child.

This is obviously driven by economic necessity – the need to survive and earn a living wage in times of austerity. However, it seems ironic that those people then paid to look after our children are not able to escape an even deeper version of the same trap. (Do we really value our children, and their wellbeing, so very little, when they are out of our sight…?)

Even though I – and I hope you – struggle to understand any justification for the privatization of childcare (indeed any part of education), too many settings are established and run solely as businesses, in response to this growing need: trying to grab a slice of the rapidly-expanding pie; but with profit coming before (or even instead of) care. Which is why our youngsters have become so commodified – unless you can find one of those rare community-led, social enterprise-based settings; or one attached to an enlightened primary school.

Go to a privately-owned nursery – the majority, I’m afraid (but not all) – and the chances are – should you be allowed to witness the daily goings-on – that anything moving and breathing (both kiddies and staff – who are predominantly female) will be treated with disdain: especially, as in many places with low wages, survival is guaranteed through gritted teeth, and emotionless graft, rather than vocational desire: resulting in “a culture of bullying that all-too-often exists among workers who are young and inexperienced”. This seems to be worse when the setting is part of a chain, or belongs to a large company.

As one employee I spoke to stated – with experience of both public and private sectors early years work:

The private sector is like the grey squirrel: eating all the food; taking it away from the increasingly rare red squirrel provision of the public and voluntary sectors; and destroying their habitat – all in the name of greed, not care.

¶

The situation is not helped by the lack of understanding and thought shown, typically, by Ofsted; and their refusal to end outsourced inspections for early years education:

Neil Leitch, chief executive of the Pre-School Learning Alliance, said the decision was disappointing. “We have heard far too many reports of providers being visited by inspectors who possess little understanding of early years provision – and in some cases being unfairly graded as a result…”.

But this, again, shows how education for those below primary school level isn’t really seen or treated as education. It is a very poor (disowned?) cousin – not only with regards to funding – but in attitude and treatment. It is almost as if we are handing over our children before we head to work, and then forgetting about them, not worrying about the long days they experience without us. (No wonder boarding schools are so popular amongst the supposed elite.) Contrast this with the delightful forest schools of Germany and Scandinavia, for example (and the very rare true example over here) – particularly the enlightened Finnish education system – where children are remarkably happy, as well as intellectually (but maybe not – yet – academically) mature.

¶

It certainly doesn’t help that the provision of childcare through Sure Start children’s centres has been slaughtered by the current Government – with a lethal combination of yet more privatization and a blitzkrieg against local council budgets – hitting, as always, those with the least resources; and leaving already deprived children with an even worse start in life. Thankfully, if he is to be believed, Tristram Hunt has promised, recently, “to double the number of childcare places provided at Sure Start centres to more than 118,000” if Labour wins this May’s general election. It’s nice to see my letter to Ed Miliband has achieved something…!

However, as I wrote there:

Whether by accident or design, Sure Start children’s centres – and the critical work they do – have remained invisible to those who don’t need and/or use them: and therefore aren’t seen as important as [the] NHS. However, they are fundamental to the wellbeing of many young children; and indispensable to their families. (Some of the centres even host those damned foodbanks.) They should therefore be a jewel shining in Labour’s crown just as brightly as Aneurin Bevan’s gift to the nation….

But there is next to no unionization in early years education (including Sure Start) – not only in the UK; but it is actively quashed in the US, as well – and those few workers who are members belong to a wide range of organizations: and therefore would find it hard to commit to any form of joint action (knowing, anyway, that to do so, would risk them losing their jobs). Voice – “the union for education, early years & childcare professionals” – won’t strike, though. And yet, like the recent NHS four-hour walk-outs, such action is probably exactly what is needed to attract the public’s attention to the little-known, but increasingly necessary services, that Sure Start provides (and which are being privatized, not very stealthily, just like the NHS); and to remind politicians of their importance.

It may also be what it takes for people to stop moaning about a service that, truly, costs them very little, compared to the value they gain from it (a bit like complaining that a Waitrose large coffee will now cost you the extortionate sum of 20p) – but I both admit and believe should cost them nothing, under an enlightened Government. It may also be what it takes for us to realize how little of what we pay actually makes it through to the pockets of those we entrust with our young children’s care; and how undervalued they are. It seems, though, that at the beginning and end of our lives, not only is care not really valued (often being provided by the lowest bidder), but neither are we.

The disintegrating power of a great wind…

I had believed that the man of few words, Chris Saint, in his struggle to find another Stratford-on-Avon District Council seat – after what Preston Witts recently described as “a classic case of turkeys voting for Christmas – but with public opinion holding a gun to their heads!”: that is “the district council’s membership… being reduced from 53 to 36, as part of a cost-cutting exercise” – was to be parachuted into Tysoe, in readiness for this May’s council elections. But it seems that his popularity within his party (as well as without) – apart from his use as sacrificial mutton – has vanished like a man overtaken by an avalanche: meaning that his desperate declaration that he was ready to “lead the campaign for all other Conservative party candidates” has probably gone unheeded (and possibly with some derision: bringing to mind David Simonds’ inspired reversal – Not quite behind you, Tony – of the famous Churchill cartoon, by David Low).

Here’s a little more background to Councillor Saint’s – deserved? – plight, from Preston Witts’ ‘special report’…

There have necessarily been major boundary changes, and councillors are having to fight it out among themselves to become the official candidates for their parties. For Cllr Saint this has not proved as simple as he might have hoped.

     He had already been defeated 25-0 in a vote among ward members following his bid to become the Tory candidate for the safe and expanded seat of Ettington. The victor there was Cllr Philip Seccombe, who currently represents Brailes.

     He was also beaten by former Tory leader Cllr Stephen Gray (Long Compton) in his bid to get the new Brailes and Compton candidacy. And then, just before Christmas, he lost out to local businessman Bart Dalla Mura in his attempt to win the candidacy for the new Red Horse ward….

… and it’s that last fact that woke me with a start from my depressing, now-happily-mistaken belief; and gave me hope – despite me standing quite a long way to the left of Bart (politically: which is why this was news to me, no doubt… – not literally: which, presuming he’s behind the till, would probably mean me standing somewhere between Barn Grounds and Lane End Farms; or, more likely, on Clopton Bridge).

¶

Nearly a year ago, I wrote about my definition of an ideal politician (and, yes, I know that sounds like an oxymoron):

If politicians – at all levels: from parish councillors to prime ministers – want to (and they should…) be held accountable, then they should not either need – or mind – being reminded of this, from time to time. They also should not act as if any contract they have with their voters ends the moment they gain power.

And this is – firstly – why I have faith in Bart doing a good job as our district councillor, when I am not remotely of his political ilk. Working in – and, most importantly, interacting on a regular basis with a large proportion of – our community means that he will, I hope (that is, not too tainted by his party membership), be more, ahem, representative than the average district councillor (especially one like Chris Saint: who seems, to me, to have been more interested in making deals, and getting his name mentioned – and not always in a good way – but you would obviously have to confirm that opinion with the worthy burghers of Tredington, Ilmington, Newbold; oh, and, of course, Shipston).

All Bart needs do to prove his worth, therefore (apart from, of course, continuing to run one of the best village shops I’ve ever encountered), is to use those regular interactions with his electorate – and the evidence they provide of our needs and wants as residents – wisely, publicly, consistently, and coherently. He wouldn’t even need to conduct dedicated surgeries – although wouldn’t it be nice to have a regular constituency-related cup of tea with him, say, every Friday morning? (Hint, hint.)

¶

Evidence, for any action, fact, plan, etc. is fundamental – and nowhere more so than in government: which affects every nook and cranny of our society. For example, if research demonstrates (which it does) that the accelerating growth in the number and usage of food banks is caused by an increase in benefits sanctions (as well as falling wages); and that benefit fraud is utterly miniscule – and will remain at that same miniscule level, whatever policies or targets you do or don’t implement (but that the use of food banks will increase concomitantly) – what is the point of implementing them? (An honest answer would be that there isn’t one – or that the Government is actually trying to wipe out a strata of society by stealth… – it is merely to sway opinion, and/or to make the Government look busy. The current political answer, though, is that it deters others – whoever those “others” are – and encourages ‘scroungers’ back into (non-existent) work.) Why not, instead, go after those who break the law with deliberate and serious intent – for example, those who actively avoid paying tax – and thus bring substantially more badly-needed money rightfully back into the economy?

In Monday’s Guardian, Zoe Williams wrote of ‘The strange new world of evidence-free government’:

From the point of view of governing… – it is illogical to make significant changes without research…. If you are taking even a medium-term view, it makes no sense to change systems without evidence….

     I begin to wonder whether the real radicalism we observe… is not political as much as formal: government with only the shallowest roots and no eye on the future, whose only interest is near-term PR wins. Is it a feature of coalition or of the new Conservatism to have no interest in an action’s consequences? Hard to say. But it is the antithesis of conservatism.

And I think it imperative that this axiom – that “it is illogical to make significant changes without research” – should be learned and repeated at all levels of government (and be at their heart): whether it be encouraging wind- and solar-power, to protect future generations’ enjoyment of our beautiful (whilst it remains so) planet; containing the rate of growth of our villages, for sustainability’s sake; or managing the economy in such a way that our rulers are not merely concerned with instant gratification and point-scoring. (In fact – digressing slightly – if I had my way, political parties would have to survive on their own merits (presuming they actually have any) – themselves governed by something like the comparative advertising rules which disallowed (in the UK, until 1994) ‘knocking copy’ disparaging your competitors – rather than simply whingeing all the time (often untruthfully) about how it was all the previous incumbents’ fault. And yes, I know asking for honesty, decency, logic and common sense in politics is about as pragmatic as asking louts not to litter; or most drivers on the A422 to obey speed limits… – but a bard can have dreams, can’t he…?)

¶

Secondly – getting back on topic – as well as gathering useful evidence, I would guess that the other half of my reason for having “faith in Bart” (T-shirt, anyone?!) chimes with many who support the idea of ‘mixed-member’ proportional representation: i.e. that if you have a good local (independently-minded?) spokesperson, then you would vote for them whatever their party; knowing that, nationally, you could then vote in line with your political allegiances. Good community service does not rely on political leanings; and can be – at least on the ground – quite neutral. Sadly, our antiquated ‘first past the post’ system – as well as probably leading to an endless stream of meaningless coalitions – neutralizes any chance we have of casting ballots that reflect such logic.

I do hope, though – with the taste of political success Bart will no doubt be rewarded with, come May, in Tysoe’s Tory heartlands (standing for the Conservatives at any level, here, is something of a turkey-shoot) – that it will not go to his undoubtedly wise head; and he will not be tempted by the trolling-spoon of two political posts (on top of his successful day job): i.e. representing us at both district and county levels – a vogue for which many of our local councillors seem to be keen; and which only adds fuel to the already-well-stoked fires of cronyism and political élitism. (Mind you, if you can be Mayor of London and an MP at the same time: what’s to stop you from adding county, district, town and parish councillor to your portfolio – especially if you pay so little attention, and put so little time and effort in to each rôle…? You might as well be party leader, as well. (But, please, for heaven’s sake, not Prime Minister… – that is the stuff of which nightmares are made.))

¶

In my earlier post, I wrote:

What I’m trying to get at – always naïvely hoping that others will try and live up to the expectations I have of them: because I would expect nothing less of myself (i.e. the curse of the idealistic perfectionist) – is that those curiosities (or nonpareils) who are voted in because they really do want to deliver what their constituents want and need, will always feel that – whatever public and private good they actually deliver – they are not doing enough; and what they are doing is not to a high-enough standard.

I therefore trust – remembering that my party membership card is of a different hue – that, however high those “expectations”, this is how we will learn to think of Bart’s political service to us; and that I have not misapplied my faith in either his abilities or his motives. We shall see.

To found a great empire for the sole purpose of raising up a people of customers may at first sight appear a project fit only for a nation of shopkeepers. It is, however, a project altogether unfit for a nation of shopkeepers; but extremely fit for a nation whose government is influenced by shopkeepers.

– Adam Smith: The Wealth of Nations

The only way in the village…

Politeness is the poison of collaboration.

– Edwin Land

It probably feels, at the moment, reading this blog, that – especially with regards to the nascent Neighbourhood Plan – I’m behaving like a rabid dog with an exhausted, broken bone, devoid of all taste, clenched between my yellowing fangs. But this is because, when I believe in something or someone, I won’t, and don’t, let go – not until my objectives are achieved.

I have never really conformed with the throng; nor its expectations of me. Neither have I been willing to hold my tongue, and simply obey unquestionable orders; or have respect for unearned authority and important titles (which I suppose makes me a bit of a ragged trousered anarchist; and I know makes me a lot of a pain in the asinine…). And these attitudes are amplified when it is such a strong, sincere, unshakeable belief that drives me: in this case, that our three hamlets – as a conglomeration of the wisdom and experience of all their residents, past and present – are extremely special; and will remain so, if all of those now living here are allowed to play a starring rôle in its future – “a sustainable and successful future, for a place which is clearly very special to the people who live and work there.”

But I am also convinced (and concerned) that, if such representation is merely paid lip-service to, and we are relegated to unidentifiable extras, just making up numbers in blurry, background crowd scenes, the outlook will not be anywhere near as rosy: as it will be governed (dictated) by the limited ideas and agendas of a very tiny minority, with no regard for identity, individualism, innovation, community, or collaboration (those qualities that have so moulded the generous spirit of the place we live in and cherish – and for a very long time…).

¶

If people work together in an open way with porous boundaries – that is, if they listen to each other and really talk to each other – then they are bound to trade ideas that are mutual to each other and be influenced by each other. That mutual influence and open system of working creates collaboration.

– Richard Thomas

Even if, as at the moment, there are many of us in the parish that feel our opinions, our needs and desires, are being ignored by those who – with a similar (but ill-founded, unjustified and amoral) stubbornness – refuse to listen (and take note(s)): I know there will come a time when we can, should, indeed must, stand up and be counted. (Not that I’m saying you should wait until then….) After all, the process that has currently been (in my ever so ’umble opinion) taken hostage – however much cynicism you may hold for the Government’s ‘big society’ gibberish, and its laughable attitude to localism – that of Neighbourhood Planning – actually has quite a lot of democracy built into it.

And I’m not just talking about the referendum that must take place in the parish before the Neighbourhood Plan comes into force… –

The draft plans and orders must pass an independent check (providing, of course, that Stratford-on-Avon District Council recommends that the plan should go forward to this “examination stage”). If they pass the independent check, they must then be put to a local referendum. If the majority of those who vote are in favour the local planning authority must adopt the plan….

But this “stage” is, thankfully, not just some dry, bureaucratic process (and we will all be brightly lit up and delineated by its footlights). Although the Neighbourhood Plan “must have regard to national policies and conform to local strategic policies”, the examination also provides an opportunity for all concerned to submit their opinions, objections, support… – similar to the way that you can comment on any application for planning permission (which the Neighbourhood Plan sort of is – just on a grander scale) – within a defined six-week period.

Generally examinations will be by written representations rather than by public hearing. However, the examiner can call a public hearing on two grounds:

• To examine a key issue in more depth; or
• To ensure a person has a fair chance to put a case forward.

If there is a public hearing, the examiner will decide the format. For example, how questions are to be posed to another individual and the time allowed for questioning. All the questioning will be done by the examiner. The cost of holding a public hearing remains the responsibility of [the council].

– Herefordshire Council: Examination of Neighbourhood Development Plans

¶

In August 2013, the fourth neighbourhood plan – Tattenhall and District’s – was ‘passed’ with the scrutiny of such an examiner – whose report contains the following:

I was informed during the Hearing of the extent of the significant and sustained collaborative working between the Council and the Neighbourhood Plan-makers. Cheshire West and Chester Council held membership of the Steering Group established by the Parish Council and I note that the officer support this provided “went over and above the call of duty” and was of huge benefit to the Neighbourhood Plan. I consider this collaborative approach to be exemplary. It sets a helpful precedent for other neighbourhood plan-makers. Such effective joint working is to the great benefit of plan-making and is to be welcomed.

Surely that, as well as being common-sense, this is the best practice we should be following?

Later on, the examiner describes how that Neighbourhood Plan was put together, stating that…

Building effective community engagement into the plan-making process encourages public participation and raises awareness and understanding of the plan’s scope and limitations.

     Robust, sustained and comprehensive public consultation can provide the foundations for a successful neighbourhood plan. It forms part of the evidence base. Successful consultation can also create a sense of public ownership, achieve consensus and provide the foundations for a successful ‘Yes’ vote at Referendum….

     Commencing in Summer 2011, the Neighbourhood Plan underwent several stages of consultation, prior to the formal, publicity stage, six week consultation period (3 June 2013 to 19 July). These can be broken down into:

• Raising awareness (Summer 2011)
• Pre-vision consultation (Autumn 2011)
• Vision and objectives consultation (Summer 2012)
• Draft neighbourhood plan consultation (Winter 2012)

I have considered the various stages of consultation undertaken prior to and during preparation of the Neighbourhood Plan, with particular regard to content, openness and transparency.

…and it gives me a warm, fuzzy feeling that the points I keep making about an ideal form of collaboration are both practicable and – more fundamentally – deemed important (if not necessary) by those we have to legally satisfy, if our Neighbourhood Plan is to have meaning and standing.

Public Consultation: Raising Awareness

I note that the Parish Council and Neighbourhood Planning Steering Group attended a number of public events to raise awareness of the forthcoming Neighbourhood Plan. People were given the opportunity to show where they lived and provide comments about the area. I find that the wide range of events – including a Beer Festival and a Garden Fete – provided for significant advanced publicity and the approach encouraged public involvement from an early stage.

Public Consultation: Pre-Vision

Five public open meetings were held at three venues…. This provided the opportunity for people to attend meetings in different parts of the Parish, as well as providing for more than one opportunity to attend.

     The associated publicity was comprehensive, with invitations sent to every household and widespread public notices. Notably, the invitations included a summary about neighbourhood planning, together with general information about the Parish. I consider that this enabled people to attend the meetings on an informed basis and provided an advanced starting point, thus helping make the most of the meeting time available.

     Discussion at the meetings was focused around questions relating to what people liked and disliked about the area and how, or whether, they would like to see the area evolve, change and/or improve in the future….

     Young people, especially teenagers, can be hard to engage in the planning process. The Parish Council and Steering Group recognised and sought to address this by adopting a highly innovative approach. They hosted a ‘rave,’ with attendees required to fill in a questionnaire prior to entry. The rave was very well attended and… demonstrated the pro-active approach and significant efforts made by the Parish Council and Steering Group to go beyond the legislative requirements for public consultation….

     The scale of response demonstrates the interest in and success of this stage of the consultation. In this way, the results of the consultation provided a significant input into and helped steer the content of, the draft Neighbourhood Plan, providing compelling evidence of its community-driven foundations.

Public Consultation: Draft Neighbourhood Plan

A copy of the draft Neighbourhood Plan was issued to every household in the Parish and to businesses…. Five neighbouring Parish Councils were also provided with copies and the draft Neighbourhood Plan was available to view on the Parish Council website. Over one hundred formal responses to the draft Neighbourhood Plan were received. The Parish Council and Steering Group demonstrated how these were taken into account to improve the form, content and structure of the Neighbourhood Plan. Taking this and all of the previous stages into account, there is plenty of evidence to show that the consultation process was comprehensive and conducted in an open and transparent manner from start to finish, with lots of opportunities for engagement, involvement and feedback.

Public Consultation: Range and Type of Consultees

Effective public consultation should encourage the views of as wide a range of people affected by the proposals as possible. In this regard, it was appropriate for consultation on the Neighbourhood Plan to focus on people living within the neighbourhood area. Tattenhall and District Parish Council has demonstrated that it did as much as it reasonably could to raise local awareness and to encourage people to get involved in the plan-making process. There is evidence that, as well as the views of local residents, input has been encouraged, from the earliest stage, from other interested parties including local businesses. There is no evidence of the Parish Council precluding anyone from the consultation process. The views of younger people, especially harder to reach groups, were actively sought. The involvement of the local school and the successful ‘rave’ were highly commendable approaches to community engagement and provide good examples for other neighbourhood planning groups to consider. It is apparent that the Parish Council and Steering Group went to a lot of effort to encourage participation in public consultation from a wide range of people, to the overall benefit of the Neighbourhood Plan.

Public Consultation – Summary

Given its fundamental importance to neighbourhood planning, I have scrutinised the public consultation process. There is no evidence of any dissatisfaction with the consultation process throughout the two year plan-making period. I am satisfied that the Neighbourhood Plan not only meets its statutory obligations, but exceeds them. Consequently, the Neighbourhood Plan is a community-driven document demonstrates an excellent approach to public consultation in neighbourhood planning.

I really don’t know what else to say… – except that I truly believe that this is just about the only way an area can – should – successfully develop a successful Neighbourhood Plan. Please, Tysoe, take note. For all our sakes.

¶

Breaking good

I have been told, by Mike ‘Tew’ Sanderson, that the planning inspector in charge of the Gladman inquiry has put back his decision date, whilst he reviews the latest five-year housing supply report from Stratford-on-Avon District Council. Watch this space!

The past is a foreign county…

Cottage hot-line

Computer centres will soon be linking villages in Lancashire

Lancashire country folk could get better jobs and hi-tech skills when a new scheme called “Telecottage” gets off the ground.

In a bid to promote enterprise in country areas, public and private sponsors will open five village computer centres in the county backed by British Telecom.

The idea is being promoted by the Lancashire Forum for Rural Initiatives. Richard Davy, Director of the Community Council of Lancashire, says: “We’re putting together a scheme for five centres linked to the Agricultural College at Myerscough. Telecottages started in Sweden as a focal point for villages. We think they’ll give people living in rural areas of the county a centre for equipment, instead of having to buy their own.

“People who currently stay at home will be able to work from there eventually. By giving them computer skills, telecottages will be fulfilling an important training role.”

Ian Goldman of the National Rural Enterprise Centre is also a member of the Forum. He adds: “We’re planning centres which have links with the world by telephone, fax, or online computer connections.

“Living in the country people have difficulties getting services, jobs, information and training. But, they’ve got advantages like attractive scenery, space and quality of life. With this scheme we can keep the natural advantages of rural areas but create chances to earn a living.”

Telecottages can be set up in a village room with a phone line, a computer, a fax and a photocopier. On-site management will help train and supervise the operation. Centres are likely to run as commercial businesses supplying training, clerical and information services to local firms. The organisers expect the result will be quality jobs created by new sorts of country businesses. With office services provided, they say, a business can start up without having to worry about buying equipment.

The Forum includes Lancashire College of Agriculture, the county council, ADAS, the Rural Development Commission, RASE Rural Enterprise Unit, Lancashire Enterprises plc, the Community Council for Lancashire and the Ribble Valley Enterprise Agency.

Teleworking and Telecottages, papers presented at a conference at the Royal Agricultural College, Cirencester, has been published by Acre (Action with Communities in Rural England), Stroud Road, Cirencester, Gloucestershire GL7 6JR.

The Guardian (2 August 1990, p.31)

The holes in Government promises – a rant…

I read the news today, oh boy

Four thousand holes in Blackburn, Lancashire

And though the holes were rather small

They had to count them all

Now they know how many holes it takes to fill the Albert Hall

– The Beatles: A Day in the Life

Two items in the news really got to me, over the last couple of days – firstly, from the BBC:

Ministers are considering changing trespass laws to make it easier for energy companies to carry out fracking beneath people’s homes without permission.

…and, in The Guardian:

In a speech to small firms, the prime minister will claim that he is leading the first government in decades to have slashed more needless regulation than it introduced…. Among the regulations to be watered down will be protections for hedgerows and rules about how businesses dispose of waste, despite Cameron’s claims to lead the greenest government ever.

Combine this with articles in CPRE Warwickshire’s latest Outlook magazine – one detailing “The Planning System in Crisis”; and another by CPRE’s chairman, Sir Andrew Watson: “Our country is under attack” – and I was in a right foul mood….

So, what happened to “Vote blue, go green”? Well, it went the way of all the coalition’s empty promises and obviously hollow lies… – straight into the rubbish bin. They haven’t even bothered recycling it… – yet.