Libby Purves writes in The Times about an astonishing piece of micromanagement in the British state education system (to which over 90% of children are subjected from 5 to 16). She rightly picks on the most horrific element.
… Michael Gove, the Shadow Education Secretary, instead of tossing his hat in the air and singing “Let my people go!”, proved that he is well in training to be a modern minister (aka an annoying, bossy pest) by criticising the decision to abandon the compulsory 30-song list. “This Government,” he thundered, “is so paralysed by political correctness and terminally afflicted by dithering that it cannot even decide on a simple thing like the songs children should learn.”
There’s a lot of this. Shadow ministers continually criticise the government for “not doing enough” on this or that, or for insufficiently oppressive use of its draconian legislation, rather than offering an alternative policy involving some presumption in favour of liberty.
Unlike some of my colleagues, I do not mistake the public utterances of politicians as a direct expression of their personal beliefs. They are doing this in order to foster the impression that the Government is incompetent in the mind of the public, not as an adumbration of any particular policy of their own. The real horror is that the opposition has done expensive research and hard intellectual work to come up with this approach. They do not offer the public freedom, and not just because the public no longer finds liberty attractive. They know the message would not get through. In fact, for most people in Britain – and a very average most-person is the undecided voter a democratic politician must address – liberty is no longer intelligible.
Does the word “liberty” appear in the national curriculum, I wonder? … Not here. But … a Google site: search at www.curriculumonline.gov.uk brings up just two items.
The first is, a rather icky, PC, citizenship teacher’s guide to the internet:
This unique and invaluable resource is a guide to the best of a huge collection of Citizenship resources available on the Internet. Fifty nine sites are included and each site is evaluated in terms of its content, usefulness, links and suitability. Sites included: ActionAid Schools and youth groups anti-slavery Central Bureau for International Education and Training Council for Education in World Citizenship Global Citizenship Global Dimension The Institute for Citizenship Montage Plus QCA Subjects Citizenship Hampshire Citizenship Project United Nations Home Page Knowledge and understanding about becoming informed citizens Campaign for Freedom of Information European Citizens’ Rights The Citizenship Foundation Commonwealth Secretariat Council of Europe Education in Human Rights Network Europarl Explore Parliament The Hansard Society ippr Local Government Information Unit Local Government Association WEB SITE: Oxfam’s Cool Planet Save the Children’s Fund Scottish Human Rights Trust Department for International Development Understanding Global Issues Developing Skills of Enquire and Communication The Bar Human Rights Committee The Commission for Racial Equality : The Council of Europe Portal The British Institute of Human Rights The Runnymede Trust PICT Developing Skills of Participation and Responsible Action Amnesty International UK The Anne Frank Educational Trust UK The British Youth Council The Centre for Alleviating Social Problems Trough Values Education CEDC Community Education and Development Centre Community Learning Scotland Development Education Association Democracy 88 The Global Caf?? Age Concern Centre for Citizenship Studies in Education Human Rights Unit The Institute for Global Ethics NSPCC Kid’s Zone : Liberty Peace Child Schools Council The Howard League The Human Rights Centre of The University of Essex Changemakers Windows on the World Worldaware This book comes with a disk that you can run through you web browser so that you just have to point and click to be connected to sites without having to type the address (you will need Internet access on your computer)
Not a huge variety of viewpoint there, though at least the “Liberty” referred to is the organisation of that name, which (in its soft-left way) definitely understands the meaning of the term.
The second is rather more sinister – a published standard lesson product, entitled “Why Obey the State”:
Product Details
Description: Information about obedience to the state, with activities, for KS3 and KS4.
Publisher: Pearson Publishing (Publication date-15th Nov 2002)
Covers: Lesson
Teaching subject: Citizenship
Key Stage: Key stage 3 [11-14], Key stage 4 [14-16]
[…]
Resource Information
Product type: Drill and practice
[…]
Education Information
Covers: Lesson
Who is the resource for? Learner
General keywords: state, obey, democracy, intervention, liberty
National curriculum keywords: Citizenship and PSHE (Responsibilities – general information)
I wish I were making this up.
The Obey the state thing looks quite sinister…
Do you have a copy of the full version of the “obey the state” document? It deserves a thorough fisking on this site, I think.
The alarming thing is that Gove is one of the best of the recent new intake of MPs. Imagine what the crap ones are like.
knirirr,
It is a commercial product subject to copyright, so I’m not going to do that.
Jonathan,
My point is not that Gove is bad. He isn’t. He’s quite a decent chap. It is that competent politicians in Britain are even more trapped into statist rhetoric than American ones are into religiosity.
The tin eared twats in politics have no business decide what songs people should sing.They are Philistines to a man.
“I can’t hold it back any more; I love Tony (Blair)!”- Michael Gove, 2004.
Gove is a jackass.
From the sample provided by Pearson Publishing Co.:
“How is the state able to rule?
* It has the power (army, policy) to enforce its decisions;
* It has supreme authority; that is, it is recognised as having a rightful claim to obedience from its subjects.”
The passage goes on to point out that the state has a rightful claim to obedience “in so far as it rules in accordance with a set of laws or constitutional rules which define its jurisdiction…”
Nothing too sinister on the sample. “State” and “rule” are a little jarring to an American ear, but I think in the UK they’re just legacy words for “government” and “govern,” right?
I followed the link to the National Standards site for Key Stage 3 and 4. Does the UK still test kids at 14 to see who goes into trade school and who stays on an academic track? If so, then you’re aiming this program at kids who will wind up in college.
The magic is in the word “Should,” in the phrase “…the songs children should learn to sing.”
Some might prefer “…songs that should be made available for children to learn.”
Whilst the latter shows the difference between requiring and providing, both predicate that someone(s) knows better, and ought to determine what “should” should be.
As long as individuals cling (used for emphasis) to the designation “Subject,” rather than citizen, there will be an implied relationship of subordination of the individual to the government.
Is there not a difference in being a subject of a government, from being a citizen who sustains a government?
Trade school?
🙁
There’s a good post on the Adam Smith Institute blog today addressing another aspect of the culture of control. There’s even a nice comment from a certain reader displaying the ignorance and fear of his fellow humans that this culture encourages and thrives upon.
The thumbnail here is worth a squint:
http://www.instantteaching.net/pages/thumbnail.asp?itr=IGDH
Simon
I think this post is off base.
The vast majority of students are going to be going to the government-run schools (or other schools with government-set curricula) for the forseeable future, and the school curriculums are too important to be left to the Gramscians and others of that ilk.
I don’t think we can look the other way, say it’s statist and we shouldn’t concern ourselves with it, and then let the Marxists write the textbooks.
Where do I do any of that, Phil Fraering?
My post was pointing to the absence of the concept of liberty from public debate, nothing more.
Some days you get more sense from a bunch of puppet rats on children’s TV than anyone in government.
“Everybody sing,
Na na-na na na,
Space Pirates!
Na na-na-na-na na,
Space Pirates!
Na na-na na na,
Space Pirates!”
We’ve been subjects for a good long time without any such sense of subordination. Indeed, the relatively recent spread of the ideology of citizenship has helped along the development of our binge legislation polity. Subjects of the crown were understood to have certain limited duties and a corresponding set of hereditary and hence inalienable immunities and privileges; our duties to “the people” or “the community” are, apparently, endless as are our “rights” to substantive benefits.
Americans often appear genuinely surprised that people can exist without a Bill of Rights, written constitution, formal separation of church and state and republican government in anything but base tyranny. However, most of the places where the above have been tried, have been nightmares and the non-nightmares (i.e. contemporary France) are hardly anything to coo over. (Relative) American success is the exception, not the rule and has far more to do with the legacy of the common law and other leftovers from our monarchic system than either Left or Right cares to admit. By contrast parliamentary monarchy, a church established, maintained and controlled by law, concrete legal protection of individual freedom of action (i.e. the Habeas Corpus act vs. nebulous rights) and a continuous and contiguous constitutional development (i.e. in sum, the Tory-Whig consensus) are recipes for success wherever they are possible.
This is not to say Britain is not up shit creek and doing rather worse than the U.S.; it is on both counts, but not at all for the reason you posit.
**
Anyway, the problem is not in kids being given a list of songs to learn because this violates some moronic concept of “child-rights” or whatever, but the, frankly bizarre, belief that the current barbarian government or any of the prospective alternatives are remotely competent to create any such thing. Micro-management of education, from Gladstone onwards, has been justified at every step by the desire, in blunt terms, to keep nutters and losers away from children. The National Curriculum was a well-intentioned attempt to restrain left wing teachers from their child-abuse ‘education’ and reverse (with some initial success) the, almost historically unprecedented, explosion of illiteracy* caused by progressive education and comprehensivisation. However, the problem is that, eventually, a Labour government would come on the scene and use the centralised education apparatus to enforce their wicked lunacy. So, instead of having a education system that is 70% rotten as before Thatcher came to power, New Labour are fast working towards one that is 100%.
On a related note, new regulations of the HRC mean that academics must justify their research proposals not based on the contribution to human knowledge, understanding and civilization they hope to achieve, but on its economic impact and – I am not making this shit up – effect upon social cohesion. New Labour are nothing more than a collection of savages. Boris Johnson’s election should be greeted with joy mainly because he is the only prominent politician who has demonstrated himself to be a genuine friend of learning.
As a general rule, though, Libertarians are firmly aligned with the enemies of civilization that run the country, regarding culture and tradition as an impediment to their dreams of universal hedonism.
*Not in the sense that people can’t read a road sign, but in the sense that they can’t read a book.
OK, then, I misunderstood.
As a general rule, though, conservatives are firmly aligned with the enemies of civilisation that run the country, regarding culture as a rule system devised, maintained and imposed by governmental institutions as a means to control the base urges of the
cattlesubjects, in the vain hope of actualising their dreams of a collectivised utopia.Well if the little shavers get a songbook of 30 tunes
foisted on them by big Gov,
Let’s hope they change the words to something lewd and crude…
Like my generaton did with such impositions as Hymns,
Carols and National Anthems (you should hear what we did to the Welsh one!)
Have you never heard that, very much like love, markets will find a way?
Not everything is economics in action; however, education is one of those things that are economically governed in a way, and hence, susceptible to free market intervention.
Point is, school is, what, 6 hours of a day? What do you think kids do the rest of the time? Forget the pollies and their TV time, what public discourse really is is what the little tykes are saying outside of school. Cuz those little tykes will be the future Thatchers, Cromwells and Harrys, God help you all.
Actually I would (and have) argued that the US has a better claim to that its people are ‘subjects’ than the UK or most other countries. By and large you can avoid the jurisdiction of a government and its claims against your property by leaving the territory it controls.
But not so the US. If you have a US passport, the US claims a pecuniary interest in what you do and earn even if you live outside the USA, make 100% of your money outside the USA and never take that money into the USA. Unlike most states, the USA does not just claim rulership over land and the people on that land, but also anyone who is US national regardless of where they live. That sounds like a ‘subject’ to me.
Yeah, Perry,our gov’t sucks too.They all do.
On a similar subject, did anyone else notice the comment at the security conference, being held in London, that the CCTV system had only helped in 3% of crimes? Can anyone verify that?
No; it is actually less effective than that. Beware policemen bearing statistics.
This is the predictably mangled press version of the story:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/the-big-question-are-cctv-cameras-a-waste-of-money-in-the-fight-against-crime-822079.html
The actual statement was that 3% of London street robberies are solved by CCTV. That begs at least two questions: 3% of what, exactly – of those “solved” or of those “recorded”, of those actually taking place (a much bigger number)? And, what does “solved” mean?
It is actually part of another ACPO play for yet another database, and more centralised control of CCTV. This isn’t, “It doesn’t work as people think it does, is intrusive and expensive, so let’s drop it.” This is “It doesn’t work as we want it to, so we need to do more of it, much more oppressively, at further taxpayer expense.”
RRS, like a lot of people obsessed with tha particular bit of constitutional verbiage, both misunderstands it and is behind the times. I am both a British Citizen and a citizen of the European Union. British subject means someone who is under the government of the United Kingdom, and doesn’t anymore denote citizenship. In the days of empire, the two were equivalent, and we had no separate citizenships, because any imperial subject could live freely in Britain.
My high school, in a midwestern suburb in the 1990’s, inflicted something vaguely like that on us when I was fifteen. I had that class right after lunch.
I think it was to help us be good citizens. It mostly helped me to be motivated to get thoroughly stoned over my lunch break.
I guess you’d have had to have been there. It was mind-bending fascist brainwashing, but they were so nauseatingly sweet and nice about it. It’s neat to do the same damn thing as everyone else, fingerpaint as a group, share with your classmates, the class bully just didn’t get enough hugs, and to be alone is to be lonely. I must have had my head up my ass: I didn’t really like loud music or being left the hell alone and nowhere near anyone else. I just thought I did. (Perry, can I have an eye-rolling smiley?)
It was like a happy clappy bible summer camp without the bibles.
I don’t think I have the heart for that. Even if it’s the lyric version of “Backdoor Sluts, Part 33” nobody will understand it and possibly not even the Welsh.
Gabriel is right (ye gods!). I don’t think it makes a lot of difference what people call themselves so long as they carry, in a culture, a strong sense of individual liberty. As the historian Alan MacFarlane wrote in his book, The Origins of English Individualism, the basis for a strong sense of liberty in English culture goes back to the early Middle Ages and beyond. It worked reasonably well alongside the notion of monarchy, at least in the sense of a monarch constraint by the law.
That’s the key. What counts is equality before the rule of law. The only problem, I guess, with the word “subject” is where this leads people to ascribe certain magical qualities to the sovereign and the state he or she represents.
I actually got the complete works of Hegel on tape so I could play them whilst I sleep. Anyway, it hardly matters what conservatives think because there are hardly any of them and, unlike your lot, they don’t even have a role as the media’s enfants terribles and a common ground with the elite over issues like foreign policy etc. which leads me on to…
Oh really?
The Human Rights Act 1998 is a vital tool for protecting our basic human rights and fundamental freedoms.
Also, barf.
We must recognise that children and young people are the holders of a wide range of rights, including the right to express their views and to participate in the making of decisions which affect them.
We welcome the appointment of the Children’s Commissioner for England & Wales and the post of Minister for Children, Young People and Families. We hope these individuals will provide a strong voice for children’s rights.
We must recognise that children and young people are the holders of a wide range of rights, including the right to express their views and to participate in the making of decisions which affect them.
We welcome the appointment of the Children’s Commissioner for England & Wales and the post of Minister for Children, Young People and Families. We hope these individuals will provide a strong voice for children’s rights.
I am not a great fan of ‘Liberty’ (the organisation, that is) as they are mostly just a collection of soft-left statists that cannot see the dissonance between supporting a regulatory ‘redistributive’ (kleptocratic) welfare state and yet wanting a state which allows, well, liberty. Try going to a Liberty event and dissing the welfare state if you don’t believe me.
They do not want a state which does not infringe on people’s liberty, they want a state which gives us ‘liberty’, tax-funded, committee approved ‘liberty’. I have no time for them whatsoever even if they are on-side on certain issues.
I know whereof I speak. I have a lot to do with Liberty and similar organisations. They are not all hopeless statists. Even someone who believes in the redistributive state, but still supports rule of law. is more worthwhile than the despotic authoritarians we currently have in charge.
The point is not that Liberty is comprised of muddle-headed welfarists with mashed banana where others have brains. Everyone knows that. The point is that they believe the Human Rights Act is the cornerstone of our liberty, wheras in fact its repeal will be an essential step in the restoration of English liberties (should anything of the sort of occur). Hence, they are enemies of freedom, plain and simple.
I find myself in the unease position of agreeing with Gabriel…
That said, Guy works right at the coalface whereas we just write about it. He takes his allies where he finds them as he has a very practical job to do fending off the undead legions of the database state. And if ‘Liberty’ are a useful tool (must.resist.tool.pun…arrrggg)… then he cannot be criticised for working with them.
Perhaps the question here is, “how can we turn Liberty to our ends?” That’s how the left would approach the problem. Get their own people in there, long march through the institutions, all that jazz.
For instance, should many Libertarians join Liberty then start voting “our” people onto the board or however it’s organised? That’s the strategy used over and over by the left, e.g. radicalising the older environmental groups (e.g. Sierra Club) and christian fundamentalists in the US (Republican Party entryism, school boards etc).
Coming from one who has dwelt in the U S, that is a surprising phraseology.
Other than “Public Land,” the U S Gov’t does not claim “rulership” over land, nor over people, though some states and commonwealths of the Union do (historically) over some lands and properties.
The peoples of the U S are bound together in its social organization by laws and legislation (they differ) which require adherence to the principle of jurisdiction.
It is that jurisdiction and adherence to it that follows the U S citizen wherever he or she may be.
The term: “Subject to the jurisdiction…” is quite different from the use of “subject” which indicates the derivative relationship of individuals to the governments of their social orders. That phrase does not mean “Subject of the jurisdiction…;” nor is it so applied.
On a personal note: Given the era of my primary and secondary education, I am well aware of what the U S derived from its fundamental English heritage (though mine is Swiss and Norwegian) and what was “filtered out” as well. My study of law (again by era) encompassed Common Law (its practice and procedures) and Equity, both as derived from that great body of English jurisprudence. I am not totally unfamiliar with A.V. Dicey.
That said, to observe the vestiges of the derivative nature of peoples relationships with the governments of their social organizations is not demeaning, nor even comparative as to value.
It may well be that much of what is complained of in the attitudes of those comprising the U K government, its “Establishment,” civil service, parliament, its police, and even its judiciary is a regard from them for the members of society as “subjects,” whilst those members may have a totally different sense of their standing as individuals. In the light of those relationships, I would certainly not trade that for “Citoyen.”
Isn’t this all just semantics? The people of the US, like the people of the
UKprovinces of the EU, have in practise the same relationships with their governments. They are obligated to obey laws. The government can arbitrarily seize their property. There is a democratic system that allows limited choice among rulers, and those rulers extend their powers at whim. The rulers can be challenged in the courts system by citizens/subjects. The rulers are not hereditary (yet).Yes, the EU province formerly known as the UK has a monarchy, which technically is the ruler, and in an entirely imaginary sense the
parliamentprovincial council are subject to the monarchy, but this is not practically adhered to other than in ritual, and if the monarchy attempted to rule her subjects directly this would not be allowed. We may as well have a lottery winner sign the royal assent to laws for all the difference it makes.So really, this is all meaningless. Governments rule subjects and enforce that rule ultimately by threat of violence. The only restraint on government in “liberal western” states is that of tradition, and that’s breaking down all around us. The differences being discussed are idealistic, not a reflection of any meaningful reality.
I would like to believe that you are wrong Guy – that the politicians have not done good research (rather than just messed about with badly worded opinion poll questions and silly focus groups) so that their conclusion that most voters oppose freedom and want endless more regulations and control is false.
However, you may be correct.
Sadly when a poltician does offer a smaller government many of the friends of liberty oppose them – because of personality clashes or because of differences on certain buzz issues.
For example, someone who has long campaigned not only against the pet projects of politicians, but also against many farm subsidies and has pointed out that the basic Welfare State “entitlement programs” must be reformed to restrain their cost.
And has offered not just tax reductions (for both individuals and companies) but also an optionial flat rate income tax for anyone who wishes to escape from the “progressive” tax code (with all its endless regulations and controls).
A good past voting record (on most matters) and a good set of proposals for reducing regulations (especially in the health care market) and for rolling back government spending and taxation.
But if I mentioned his name the screams of rage from many of the friends of liberty would be very loud.
No wonder politicians do not normally bother with us – we are too hard to please. If you differ with us on any issue most of us will never forgive you – so what is the point of seeking our support?
Plainly, and if I was interested in attacking Guy Herbert for his connections, then I could choose much worse examples . (shudder)
However, if Guy was to claim that “Globalise Resistance”, Respect, or (FFS) The Scottish Green Party were (in their soft left way) friends of liberty, then I’d raise an eyebrow and so would you.
Of course it does, there is a paper mountain of Federal regulations over great swathes of life in the USA. Hell, try building a house anywhere in the USA without reference to Americans With Disabilities Act… but in any case I do not really pay much mind to the distinction of which tier of the state (Federal, State or Local, it is all state) is exerting rulership over me as I do not think it is really that important, even though it may have significant practical implications (locals tyrannies tend to be more effective as well as easier to attack, although it is a bit dangerous to generalise those notions).
My view is that as the US government demands a share of an American’s income (indeed even a green card holding non-American) even if you do not live in the US any more and do not make any money in the US and do not even bring the money onto the US, how is that not exerting rulership over that American simply on the basis that the state owns part of his arse?
RRS,
To expand on what Perry said: let’s say that you fly to London to enjoy the summer weather and world-class British cuisine. And after a fine meal of god-only-knows-what baked into a pie, you decide you want a cigar. And you buy a Cuban.
If you are a US citizen, you have now violated US law.(Link) According to the Dep’t of the Treasury Office of Foreign Assets Control, the embargo applies to “US citizens and permanent residents wherever they are located…”
Well, I’ve gone off any idea of a Green Card, even when I do have the necessary investment capital on hand. Why should one take the major disadvantages of US citizenship with none of the advantages? The US’s pretensions to extra-territorial jurisdiction are quite bad enough without voluntarily subjecting oneself to a purported universal control.
The UK’s tendency to extraterritorialise is pretty bad, but not quite that bad. One can, however, see why they make such keen partners in the drive to the worldwide surveillance of travellers.
Sunfish First (because it is simplest):
Quite true, and though I had given up (1963 – age 39) cigars even whilst working over many years in London (and indeed enjoyed La Cuisine), as a U S citizen – in the very words of the regulations cited (and authority of the statute) – I remained, and remain “subject to the jurisdiction…”
It is that acceptance which with other commonalities binds the American social order together.
However, that said, it is doubtful that the Theodore Roosvelt Carrier Group would be dispatched if even a large group of U S citizens (and perhaps a number of politicians) were to partake of those forbidden, seditious, aromas in London or Stavanger. And many would not even be aware of the restrictions, nor care if they were; because legislation is not law, though it may be given, or acquire, the “force of law.”
If the USCFR (terrible as it has become) were to be taken as the Koran of some sort of U S social police, and people actually believed in its contents, or were “convicted’ of its veracity, the “rulership” PdiH alludes to might exist. But, it does not.
Much of the USCFR is the chocolate coating on the dogpiles of political pandering, usually of a past era.
Ian B:
Hopefully, this explication will not seem offensive, given the previous attempt to affirm:
To your points:
If each nation followed the original (Athenian ?) concept of democratic action, in which the citizenry could elect only from the “Elite” (which were those persons who were qualified to be amongst those who could be chosen), your point might be valid (except for the term “rulers”). That is certainly not the case in the U S, nor does it appear so in England to this outside observer.
What does seem more likely is the lack of attention to qualifications for election. Rather than limited, anyone can be elected – and many of those are. But, they do not become rulers. At most they have been ephemeral distractions in the evolution of our two great Open Access Orders.