The Burns Column

2004-02-18T18:23:00.000Z

The Burns Column ... The End

'Spin' was the last contribution to a column that served a purpose and got me writing again. But politics and satire is far too wearying for me, and I've given up writing in this style.

My future is to learn the craft of creative writing. I've even given up a daily fix of The Guardian in order to have more time to write (and read fiction). Short stories, novels, poems: my future. No more Blogging - my goal is publication upon receipt of a suitable advance, under a different pseudonym.

2004-02-08T12:09:00.000Z

Spin

Clearly my fever was much worse, and went on for much longer, than I realised. There was silly old me thinking the Government had something to do with dodgy dossiers, spin and lies but it turns out it was all the BBC’s fault. All those stories about the UK being 45 minutes from doom were clearly products of my fevered imagination. I feel so much better now. Just one minor detail remains to be cleared up: it seems everyone knew 45 minutes was the time it took to ready battlefield weapons i.e. not the sort that would leave Iraq, never mind make a nasty mess in Downing Street. Well, everyone except Tony Blair, who apparently never thought to ask. Or who did know but thought it best not to clarify matters when the papers got hold of the wrong idea. Anyway, I’m sure Lord Butler will rid us of all this confusion (the fog of war? More the fog of politics) and we’ll all be able to get back to normal; and the high standards of spin we try to keep in the middle of, lest we’re thrown off the edge, will return.

Do you remember the children’s game ‘Battling Tops’? A large plastic bowl of an arena, some small spinning tops, and a rip cord. Set your top spinning and, if launched with sufficient power and skill it would knock out your opponent. At one stage it was advertised as being ‘all in the wrist action’ which was an adventurous slogan for a toy aimed at young males but let’s not go there. Time to bring the tops back. ‘Political Battling Tops’ would feature tops based on political figures and their spin masters. Campbell would be there, of course, along with Blair, Howard, Hoon, Kennedy, Gilligan; and an international version would include Bush and his Hole in the World Gang. Hours of fun for all the family, but there would have to be some way of limiting the length of a game; with that lot spinning like crazy it’s difficult to see who would blink first.

Given the increasing difficulty in getting people to vote, maybe this is the best way of deciding the next general election. A giant game of ‘Battling Tops’ refereed by David Dimbleby and with Peter Snow offering the statistical detail. The two winning tops would go on to play a game of ‘Mouse Trap’ for the right to form the next government. Potential Chancellors of the Exchequer could play ‘Monopoly’ to decide who gets that job, except Gordon Brown would always win by suddenly producing more money he found stashed behind the sofa.

There was another epic game called ‘Diplomacy’. Maybe Hutton thought he was playing that? “Cripes, all this evidence showing Her Majesty’s Government not being honest, that can’t be right. Need a diplomatic solution. I know, I’ll ignore all that and blame the BBC … yes, that’s best. Now, anybody seen some crisp, clear, short sentences? They were round here somewhere …”

2004-02-02T19:34:00.000Z

After years of struggling to catch even a slight cold, I've now managed to go down with a virus which has wiped me out completely. During one of the most momentous weeks in British politics for years. During which two of the issues I've commented on have been resolved. So much happening and I've got the concentration span of a goldfish. Hey-ho. (Actually it occurs that possibly Lord Hutton was suffering from the same virus when he wrote his report).

Anyway, waiting for the antibiotics to kick in and then normal service should be resumed. In the meantime, Hands Off The BBC.

2004-01-25T17:26:00.000Z

Life on a Chip

We still think we have many freedoms in the UK, although if we go shopping it’s more likely than not that we’ll end up starring on CCTV. We voluntarily carry a tagging device that beeps our location home every few seconds (or ‘mobile phone’ as we call it) and we don’t really mind handing over a piece of plastic at the checkout so the supermarket owners can update their database of our purchasing preferences. We do all this and more because of convenience offered by technology. The ‘phone allows us to hear a soft female voice advising that the call cannot be connected; or, once through, a remixed version of a friend’s voice and an opportunity to play a game of guess the word. The loyalty card sends even more junk mail and spam to our inboxes in return for a penny off digestive biscuits or a free extra head of broccoli that no-one will eat.

However, in a few years, even more technology will make the current attempts at manipulation seem crude. The government are keen to have us all carry an identity card complete with chip containing details of social security benefits, health record, employment, and how we voted at the previous election (well, okay, I made the last detail up but is it really so implausible?)

Now it seems everything we carry is likely to have a small chip embedded in it, which will (for example) enable the bank manager to greet us individually as we come through the door, and advertising be beamed at us as we sit and negotiate a higher overdraft level. Well, the example in The Guardian shows a customer who has a million pounds in his account. It will be a slightly different experience for the less-flush customer who has to go round the long way to buy a lottery ticket in case someone from the bank leaps out in an attempt to discuss the lack of money going into the account (and the even higher levels of money leaving it). After being interrogated about the state of our finances we’ll get a text message when we leave the bank – The Guardian suggests it might be “Have a nice day, see you again soon”, but it could equally be “By the way, we’ve added a £30 daily charge to your account until it’s brought into line, and how can you afford a mobile phone anyway?”

The thing is these chips will be everywhere: attached to every product we buy. So what happens if this chip is linked to the one in the identity card? Will there be some underpaid civil servant reading a printout? “Hold on, that bloke’s on JobSeeker’s Allowance but has just bought an MP3 player.” Green with envy he’ll call the hapless JobSeeker in for an interview. “We need to know how you can afford one of those – you should be regarding a large can of baked beans as a luxury item. Oh, and by the way, an iPod would be a better choice.”

“Nah, the battery fails and can’t be replaced.”

Have the MPs that are so keen on ID cards thought this one through? A little chip in their Commons pass could mean the Whips would know where they are and what they’re doing at all times. Slightly tricky when a spineless MP wants to abstain from voting on, say, tuition fees and says he’s visiting a sick relative.

All of the above rests on the assumption that the technology will work as intended. More likely it will function perfectly when we don’t want it to (e.g. when passing the bank) but fail when we need it to work (e.g. when trying to claim a large win on the lottery).

Apparently the next generation of chip will be able to store our whole lives – yep, everything from cradle to grave; conversations, images, contacts, the lot. No doubt further articles will be published when that becomes a reality, depicting an MP with a trillion pounds in his bank account being sold an upgraded chip that enables his receipt of bundles of cash in brown envelopes to be wiped from the record.

* * * * *

In my first column I asked why fees for attending school aren’t on the agenda, given that university fees very much are. Thought I was being a little satirical until I read this week’s New Statesman. Under the heading ‘You Ain’t Seen Nothing Yet’ (p15-16) Francis Beckett discusses the secret plans for charging 16-18 year-old college students and concludes: “For the moment, the LSC [Learning and Skills Council] is taking money from students over 19 to keep 16- to 18-year-olds at college without fees. How long will it be before we hear that this is unfair, and that 16- to 18-year-olds must pay fees, too? And if 16- to 18-year-olds at college pay fees, it would obviously be wrong for those still at school to be exempt. Are we witnessing the slow destruction of free state education?”

2004-01-18T15:41:00.000Z

Reversal of Order

The results of both the Commons vote on education fees, and the Hutton Report on the death of Dr. David Kelly, will be known within 24 hours of each other at the end of January. This is a defining moment for this government in general and for Tony Blair as Prime Minister in particular. But possibly for Blair, Britain’s Teflon man, this order of events will save his skin; the same events in reverse order (Hutton followed by fees) would not. Rebel Labour MPs, who might have helped defeat their own government, will not do so as this action may destabilise Blair the day before Hutton reports. So, it seems to me, Blair will win on fees (even if only just) and not be forced to resign by Lord Hutton’s findings.

The same events in reverse order could have left Blair criticised by Hutton and then facing a vote in which the critics of fees (or any other MP who just wants to see the back of Blair) had the opportunity to finish him off. It may be luck, or fate, or some sort of conspiracy but not matter – Blair survives. Conspiracy? Well, maybe – Hutton can publish, within reason, whenever he likes, although January has always been the target date. Maybe the government have an ulterior motive for bringing the fees issue to a head around the same time as Hutton reports? The cock-up theory of history, I think, is usually the closest to the truth but we wouldn’t have laws against conspiracy if no-one ever conspired. The law as a guide to behaviour? Well, okay, maybe not; it’s still the case that British men are legally required to practice their archery skills every Sunday morning.

More events in our lives depend on seemingly random acts of timing than, perhaps, we realise. What if, at that famous dinner, Blair and Brown had reversed their plans? Blair: “So, Gordon, we’ve agreed that you’ll be leader first and will remain PM for one parliament, then hand over to me.” Brown: “Yes, Tony, and then you’ll carry on all the work I will have started to redistribute wealth, create a socialist society and laugh at the Third Way.”

Note that this ‘reversal of order’ theory can apply to values as much as events. Suppose ‘President’ Bush had given priority to his stated Christian values over his lust for power. Then he would have been horrified at the flawed election in Florida, refused to take power, and we would now have Al Gore as President. Some snags there, of course – I’m letting Bush off too lightly to suggest he didn’t know exactly what was planned in Florida (not just the hanging chads, but voters being prevented from reaching the polling stations and so on). He would not have allowed such events if he was acting morally. And a Gore presidency only really has the ‘not Bush’ factor to recommend it. Sometimes sequences are decided at random, sometimes they are manipulated; it’s tricky to know which is which but vital to ask the questions.

‘Reversal of order’ theory leads to all sorts of ‘what ifs’ in general. There’s a theory – backed up by sound research – that the whole British royal line is corrupt because King Edward IV was illegitimate, and so the real current monarch is an Earl now living an ordinary life in Australia. A brief event a long time ago – far-reaching consequences.

But Blair and Brown remain the best current examples of reversal of order. The sequence in which the vote on tuition fees and then the Hutton Report falls favours Tony Blair. The procession to the premiership agreed with Gordon Brown awarded Blair years in power. If Brown now becomes premier, he will inherit a government from which the PM has been forced to resign, and facing it’s strongest opposition yet under an increasingly confident Michael Howard.

Events, dear boy, events. Timing is all.

2004-01-17T15:25:00.000Z

Higher Education Free for All

Even under New Labour, the principle that the health service is free (at least at the point of delivery) has not been breached. Chipped away at the edges maybe, but not fundamentally undermined. Clearly no such principle applies to education.

To see the notion of tuition fees for universities in their true light, consider another sector of the system – schools. Imagine for a moment Charles Clarke announcing that parents would have to find fees amounting to thousands of pounds in order to gain a place in a state school for their child. Imagine the uproar. Yes, some families do pay fees for public school. That’s their choice. But if at this point you’re objecting “school is compulsory, university isn’t” then remember it is perfectly legal to home educate – ‘education otherwise’ (and parents do, in many cases very successfully). Yet ‘free’ schooling – paid for by taxation, of course, but I’ll return to that in relation to higher education in a moment – is not even up for debate. It’s just the way the system works. So why shouldn’t further and higher education be free to anyone who can benefit, at any stage of life? As the famous sticker puts it – ‘if you think education is expensive, consider the cost of ignorance’. We all, in society, gain from being part of an educated population. Yes, all of us, not just the recipients of degrees. The Government agree with this statement – see their target for 50% to attend university, and see this taken from the new higher education strategy:

‘A comprehensive review of the academic literature suggests that there is compelling evidence that education increases productivity, and moreover that HE is the most important phase of education for economic growth in developed countries, with increases in HE found to be positively and significantly related to per capita income growth.’

Modern governments require an economic growth case to be made above all else and here is New Labour making just that case. Isn’t free education precisely the type of investment an advanced nation with a booming economy ought to be proud to make?

Let’s look at it another way. There is now, and has been for many years, and agenda for widening participation and lifelong learning: hence, partly, the 50% target. Will the HE system really open up to new participants if the reward, along with a degree, is a large burden of debt even before any serious employment has been found? Naturally, some people will either ignore the level of debt (as a society we’re not reluctant to treat credit cards as free money and worry later about how pay the bill) or never have to pay the debt back because they earn too little. Others, though, surely, will either avoid HE entirely or choose their course purely on the basis of which subject promises to bring the highest income.

In addition, where are the postgraduates of the future to come from? The temptation to get out and start earning, not continue to study for a masters or doctorate, will surely be great for many if the alternative is yet more debt. When an academic career is so poorly paid, where is the carrot to stay in the system and conduct the research, practice the teaching, which will enable universities to stay in business and justify their top of the range fees? Has the government even thought about this, just for a moment?

By this stage I’m sure many readers are saying that’s all fine, free education for all is a lovely fantasy, but just one major snag – how to we pay for it? The answer is – without great difficulty. The ‘funding gap’ in the HE sector is somewhere around £8 – 10 billion (£8bn The Guardian 13 January 2004, £10bn Universities UK). So far we’ve spend £4 billion on the invasion of Iraq with no obvious way out – and to hear Tony Blair speak, other targets are being lined up – and the need to spend that £4 billion came out of the blue. (Well, maybe not quite out of nowhere to be fair, as there is mounting evidence that the invasion was planned years ago, but still the £4 billion had to come from somewhere.) Spending is a matter of priorities.

Another argument is that graduates benefit from higher earnings, so why shouldn’t they invest in their comfortable futures? Well, that doesn’t apply to all graduates. Some want to go into – and as a society we need them to go into – lower paid careers … such as academia, the health service (not all health service employees are highly paid consultants), social services, posts in developing countries, and so on. Those that do earn higher salaries automatically pay more tax under the existing system, and if absolutely necessary the very top earners could pay a graduate tax.

As a society we could choose to make all education free. Why don’t we do just that and become a real learning society?