A journalist from The Mail on Sunday apparently asked Liz Kendall about her weight.http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/liz-kendall-brands-journalist-unbelievable-over-questions-about-her-weight-10399838.html
She told him to "fuck off."
I hope that's true. I want it to be. She goes up in my estimation massively if that is the case. The same journalist; also according to The Independent obviously has a bit of a thing about weight as he had not only asked George Osborne a similar question , but also compared Liz Kendall to Catherine Middleton. Does it make it a feminist issue?
This is tricky. We have to be careful nowadays. It's not ok to be a bulimic or an anorexic. We used to have them at school, but now those conditions are treated as part of the increasing range of mental health issues that we face every day in school and are expected to be included in our normal teaching duties. And at least that means that we seem to recognise some of the complicated nature of these conditions as being about control and not just unrealistic visions of beauty.
It's also not ok to be overweight. We have no respect for fat people. We seem to approve of fat children being taken into care to save them from their evil parents. Fat politicians are a bit of a joke. Look at the response to Eric Pickles. Look at Cyril Smith; not so funny now.
Liz Kendall doesn't have children. That doesn't bother me. I still believe I may have more in common with her than David Cameron. I don't care how heavy she is. None of my fucking business.
I have been depressed recently and need to get back to blogging or I may explode with rage. I am not clinically depressed - at least I don't think so, I was depressed about the Tory government and the Budget 2015 may have just finished me off.
This summarises pretty much everything I disagree with about ... well, not the Conservatives, not exactly anyway, I think it's Capitalism, or Thatcherism or something similar. I believe that this budget was all about keeping up in our place, making sure that the working class stay working class, that the non-working class stay non working as long as possible.
Not everyone thinks this, but I don't want think we need to be aspirational. Why should we have to aspire to be at the top? It is just not ok to be earning so much money that you can't spend it. When I bought my first house I saw a Jaguar for sale for the same price. No one needs a car that costs more than a house. That is a thing that doesn't need to exist. People need somewhere to live and they don't necessarily need to own it. I'm not saying that we shouldn't all want to be something, or to do something, but why do we need excessive financial recognition.
Back to my specific problems with the the budget and why I believe it is part of a government policy to generally oppress the working classes and keep the richest people exactly where they want to be. Firstly it's the duties on tobacco; according to the 2014 hscic statistics (http://www.hscic.gov.uk/catalogue/PUB14988/smok-eng-2014-rep.pdf); although about 1 in 5 adults smoke, it's around 39% of unemployed people and between 1980 and 2013 household expenditure on tobacco has increased fourfold. I don't really think that there is a government conspiracy to increase the level of smoking in the unemployed to kill of the population, but I do think the rise in tobacco duties disproportionately affects the unemployed. Electronic cigarettes may be as saving in the long term, but the initial outlay is usually greater than a packet of fags. And clearly the government are not able to stop us smoking and are unprepared to take any kind of brave stance on drugs and tobacco, so that statistic is unlikely to change any time soon.
Oh yes, but petrol's frozen, so if you can afford a car then you've got it made. as long asyou have enough money to pay for your new or second hand car outright. For those of us who can only afford a small amount each month, and so may have been able to afford a new car on the hire purchase scheme, the reduction in tax for new cars is changing.
That may be superficial, but the attack on working class children is much greater than that. The government have abolished any grants for university, potentially this could just maker it harder for working class children to even consider going to university, or at least going away from home. If they live at home because it is cheaper for their parents then they are only experiencing half of the fun of university. University gives you the rehearsal for life. You learn to be a grown-up, to move away from home and see what it is like away from your small community. If only middle class children get that experience then only they will gain that confidence to move away from home and take on greater challenges. Anecdotally, I can think of lots of girls from school or girls I have taught who have ended up staying at home and marrying local boys who didn't go into any further education. Think of the teachers you know who taught someone's dad, whose children go to the same school, I'm falling into the same pattern myself, but at least I lived in a few cities first.
It's okay though, the government have thought of this. They are intending to set up lots of cadets training for kids, they are making sure that businesses are responsible for providing apprenticeships. I know I should be applauding these opportunities, but it doesn't sound to me like widening, broadening or improving opportunities for working people or non working people, it sounds like we are conspiring to ensure that the less able children in our society are being kept in their place - cannon fodder and manual labour. As a useful side-effect; if we have fewer well-qualified Brits then we can stop getting ideas above our station and be happy to sweep the streets and pick strawberries; all the things for which we currently have to import all those foreigners.
I am one of those who is guilty of having three children. I shouldn't expect any extra money for that. The government is operating a two-child policy to make sure that only rich people breed in excess. We used to get tax credits a few years ago. It was about £200 a month before we had our third. It didn't cover the £700 a month childcare costs, but it made a dent as I was part time, earning about £1000. I realise that means I was earning about £75 a week, but I couldn't think of any other way of getting £75 a week and being able to contribute to my pension. They changed the rules half way through the year and by the time we came to renew, we were no longer eligible. Not only that but we owed them £1200 for the overpayment that they were proposing to take in one go from our account. Good luck with that. This meant we were £200 down a month on our childcare and having to pay back £100 making us £300 a month worse off and although I eventually managed to increase my hours it didn't make it an easy year. I didn't know how to find £300 a month, I still don't, it has pretty much built up on the credit card ever since.
So the budget doesn't affect me much, but it doesn't stop me from feeling depressed about the erosion of opportunities for any change in society. I just see the people at the top barricading themselves in their ivory towers and shutting the rest of us out. I'm off to make a doctor's appointment, the holidays are coming and I should be able to get one before I go back to school. I need to do it now while there is still an NHS.
I haven't written a blog post for nearly a month. The reason was that I was so utterly depressed by the General Election result that I couldn't think of anything optimistic to write.
I still feel the same actually.I am incredibly concerned about the state of education in our country. I wonder what will happen when all the academies fail to get good results, when they've sacked all the teachers, appointed new young blood that can't hack it and quits within the first few years. Where will all the new teachers come from then?
The army, was that the latest plan? Qualified teachers aren't really necessary. Has it occurred to them that former army officers might not be any better than us in the classroom? I don't have behavioural issues in my class because I can't shout loudly enough, perhaps the army succeed because it can and does administer punishment and consistently. In my first school all the kids got the bus home or walked.They weren't school buses, they were public buses, so if they missed the 3:45 one there was another one soon. We were allowed to keep the students for up to ten minutes at the end of the day. And they all came to their tutors at the end of the day. Feedback was instant.Justice was instant.Very few issues went unresolved at the end of the day. Students didn't necessarily need detentions, unless they had work to catch up on but to know that they had to face consequences, to address the teacher they had tried to escape from was very effective.
This doesn't always happen, even in my school now. I have also heard of schools where students tell the teachers that there is no point threatening detention for missed homework, swearing at another student, sitting there and doing absolutely nothing for an hour as they "don't do detentions" and their "mum will phone the head". And they do. And the heads don't always back up the teachers.
There is nothing magic about army officers or unqualified science specialists. Look at the problems David Starkey had in that Jamie Oliver programme. Teachers are a very special blend when they're good or outstanding. I don't have it yet.at least not all the time. Not at the moment. A few of my colleagues do.
So I'm still grumpy. This is made slightly worse by worrying about a lazy year 12 and 300 exam papers I need to mark if I'm going to get the car fixed to drive to France this summer. Dan wants to leave the country. He did anyway, but the election result certainly hadn't helped. I'm dealing (or not dealing) with the most corrupt governing body of a school I've ever come across who seem to think they can convert to an academy after speaking to some bloke the chair (man) met at the golf course and the worst HR who seem to be advising schools to take no care of their staff whatsoever. But this is a blip. I know life isn't like this.it's been worse and it will get better. Normal service will be resumed.
Peter Kay has broken the internet with a BBC iplayer programme called "Car Share". It's quite funny. According to the article I was reading today it's about two people sharing lifts to a "Northern" supermarket.
I've been to them, they had them when I was growing up. Safeway? Gateway? Fine Fayre? Were they "Northern". They don't sell the same food. It's mostly internal organs and potatoes. It is virtually impossible to buy balsalmic vinegar and it's exclusively real ale in bottles and no lager.
Or not. In fact they're almost the same all over the UK, I challenge you to get kidnapped, blindfolded and dumped in a Tesco store somewhere and to identify the city you are in without leaving the store.
Would they say if "Car Share" involved Jack Whitehall travelling to a "Southern" supermarket? I don't think so, because "Southern" is just normal isn't it? It's a bit like regional broadcasting. Every region apart from London and the South East. I'm not being deliberately prejudiced against the South. I think the problem lies with London.
I remember on one of my first nights at University meeting 3 friends from Devon who pointed out to me that they never saw any good gigs in Devon. Nothing ever comes down south they said, it all stops in London. It was the first time I had thought about it, I hadn't realised quite far away Devon was from ... anywhere. I still thought Sheffield was in the Midlands. We went on school trips to London and to visit my Uncle. We travelled all round the UK to go to gigs, go on holiday, visit family. When I finally met real people from London however, many of them confessed that they had rarely travelled outside of London except to leave the UK, even to go to University; why would they need to?
On our school trip down to the Harry Potter studios I asked my colleague why the studios were so close to London. I was surprised to see house built right up to the edge of the studios and right to the edge of a dual carriageway. Why would anyone want to live there? They didn't of course, he explained, they build a ring road to avoid the residential areas and then build up to the new boundary. Like when you put a cat in a box and somehow they end up filling all the space. Wouldn't it make more sense to build a studio near East Midlands airport I asked? It's near an airport and the motorway, surely one airport is as good as another for international film stars. Then another film studio would spring up down south he told me and of course he's right.
So what is the government doing to regenerate the North and replace all the industry closed down in the 80s? Build a high speed rail link ... to make it easier to get to London. What if we don't want to go to London? The DVLA was moved to Swansea, but now all my friends seem to have been made redundant by the DVLA. Wouldn't it be a good idea if the new parliament buildings were somewhere near Birmingham? That's the middle-ish. I wonder what would happen to my 4 hour journey up home if the London MPs had to do it every week?
If the Houses of Parliament were somewhere else perhaps other business would follow. The government should be the ones taking the lead, Businesses provide work for the companies, their lawyers, the accountants, the cleaners, the van drivers, the window cleaners, the local Starbucks and sandwich shops.
Radio 4 implied today that politicians could be scared of the North. Shirley Williams suggested that politicians are cosseted within a world of other politically-savvy media people and media-savvy politicians. The special edition of Question Time filmed in Yorkshire was apparently a bit blunt for the politicians. The implication seemed to be that we don't really know how to behave when we meet politicians, that these Northerners got a little bit power-crazed and it somehow went to their heads. We're just not quite civilised enough to be trusted with the grown up stuff.
So that's what I am checking for in my last few days of manifesto-reading. What the plan is to spread the wealth, development and house prices across the nation. Great Britain, the United Kingdom is greater than the sum of its parts and it is certainly bigger than our capital city.
Last night I abandoned my pale pink flowery platform clogs by the front door and this morning Rex asked me if they were new. I bought them for my first grown up wedding 18 years ago. I had always wondered how my mother had managed to accumulate quite so many pairs of shoes and now I know.
"I don't worry about things being fashionable," my unbelievably beautiful and glamorous colleague said today when we were discussing her shoes and my shoe story. I believe her. I don't believe in fashion either, which is a good job, because you can't always buy fashionable on ebay or from ethically sourced hippie traders. That's the reason I give for second hand, I'm recycling.
I probably face the same criticism as Natalie Bennett has about her clothing. I have seen her described as "Too hemp", the party campaigners have been instructed to dress in a "mainstream" manner. Could the party end up alienating some of their key voters in an effort to appeal to the general voter? I quite like the idea of voting for a sandal-wearing, dreadlocked, candidate who doesn't believe in deodorant.
In fact, comments on clothing and appearance in general have been quite a feature of this campaign. That could be partly due to the number of women involved in the leaders' debates; suddenly the audience have something else to look at rather than 3 men in grey suits with different colour ties. Remember Karl Stefanovic? The Australian news anchor who wore the same suit for a year to highlight the sexist treatment of his female co-presenter. We don't notice the suits, I haven't seen the Daily Mail trying to induce my husband to "Get the Look" on the high street with this similar grey suit from Next and a slim yellow silk tie from Debenhams; £25.99. But Nicola Sturgeon , according to the Daily Mail again is "Living Proof" that women "become sexier with age, income and office". That's an article is it? A photo comparison comparing a picture of Sturgeon in 2001 and now. I wore a lilac suit to a job interview in 2001. And back then I used to try.
What's slightly messing with my head about all this, and undermining my argument up to a point is that the men in the campaign are being treated in a similar way. "Dead Ringers" tonight (www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b007gd85) imagined a sketch with Justine and Sam comparing manicures and hiding from Diane Abbott in a "Real housewives ..." sketch and made the joke that Justine had picture of "Wallace and Gromit" on her wall at university. I ended up googling Ed Milliband and Stephanie Flanders just because it all seemed a bit unlikely, rather like finding a friend on facebook who turns out to have worked with one of your former colleagues allowing you to say "Small world!" in surprised tones when actually I have lived and worked in the same town now for most of my adult life so it's not really that surprising. Last election campaign it was Naughty Nick with his notches on the bedpost and this week even Radio 4 thought it was newsworthy to play a recording from a voter in Cheadle telling Nick Clegg that he was "better looking in real life". Better looking than whom? David Cameron? Well, yeah?
I can't quite figure out if this is equality, or trivia, or something worse. I actually heard a woman on the radio today say that she wasn't going to vote for Labour because she didn't like Ed Milliband as soon as she saw his face, It reminded why I like listening to the radio, I never really know what politicians look like, I thought I'd fancy Andy Burnham more than Tristran Hunt. And if Steven Wolffe wasn't UKIP then who knows? We do judge on appearance whether we like it or not, so perhaps it is a reasonable topic of conversation during this election campaign.
There a two arguments in my life that I remember clearly on this topic. The first was when I was about 16 and I shaved my brother's long hair at the sides - it was acceptable in the early 90s. I had not anticipated my parents' reaction, or at least not the reasons for that reaction. They were worried he would get suspended from school, I knew he wouldn't, he was too invisible, I'd been too good. We could get away with minor infractions, I never once wore uniform correctly. My father was worried about people judging him, and that like it or not, people would see him as a yob. A less yobbish individual than the future vegan that was my brother could not be imagined. I argued, rather well I thought, although I don't remember it reducing my sanction, that that was exactly why people like my brother should have that kind of hairstyle; to alter perceptions.
Ironically, the second argument was almost the reverse of that. A boyfriend of mine had a job interview at the place where I worked. He chose not to wear tie, and wore a jumper over his shirt. I didn't care, I wanted him to marry me in his Converse, but I believed that he was making a statement, something that he wouldn't accept.
This seems to illustrate the fine line that politicians, journalists, commentators and all of us are treading; we want our politicians to look like politicians, and yet we don't like politicians. We want our politicians to be different and yet we don't trust them to do the job when they are. So if the female leaders look different, it's because they are different. If Nicola Sturgeon looks more the part now, then that is because she is, she is now a leader mixing with other leaders and she has to make a decision whether to continue to dress as she likes or to try and fit in. You can always spot Caroline Lucas on tv without the caption as she is wearing a floaty scarf, Theresa May's shoes caught attention once, so now she has to try and make a feature of them. It makes her more colourful and look less like part of a "nasty" party.
We all know we are judged on our appearance and to pretend otherwise is not very genuine. If we choose not to wear make up, shave our legs, let our grey grow, we are accepting the message that that conveys about us. If we expect our politicians to look a certain way before we take them seriously, then we shouldn't be surprised if they start behaving in the same way too.
There is a General Election this year. It is on Thursday May 7th 2015. Put in your diary, make sure you are registered (https://www.gov.uk/register-to-vote) and turn up to your polling station and vote. Vote. I care about this and I could spend a very long time trying to convince everybody which party to vote for, but at the moment all I care about is that everyone votes. And if you are a woman (which, let's face it, there may be more than a 50% chance if you're reading this) it's even more important.
Pip, my precociously intelligent princess has been wandering around the house saying "Ed Milliband" in various voices for the last few weeks. She likes the sound of it, more than many people would like the reality of it, and although she doesn't quite understand his job, she knows "He wants to be Prime Minister." That already puts her head and shoulders above approximately half of my sixth formers, one of whom, gazing at a picture of Nick Clegg displayed on the interactive white board asked; "Is that David Cameron?" She votes for the first time this year.
However, after an event organised by our sixth form team a few weeks' ago, she is now much better informed, and she cares, she even told me she would vote. They organised a "Question Time" style event with some of the local candidates and representatives of the main parties. For the students, the fact that anyone cared enough about this "stuff" was enough to ignite a very small pilot light. And it wasn't just that these people had turned up at the school, they got to hear some of their peers asking sensible, well-considered questions and they started to realise that politics wasn't just the shouty stuff at PMQs; it is wind farms and tuition fees and ooh did you know there used to be an EMA for 16 and 17 year olds? No, didn't think so.
I know people are disillusioned with politicians, but that should be giving us more motivation to vote, not less. We have a responsiblity to find out how to use that vote correctly on a national and local level. If you don't like the way things are done now then vote for a party that would change things. Liberal Democrats have pledged electoral reform although I'm not sure if they are still promising Proportional Representation. If you are worried something specific then look at the figures for your local area and make your vote count against the current MP - look for the candidate that would be most likely to remove him or her. Even if you can't remove your MP this time, putting a dent in an MP's majority changes the way that candidate is treated for selection next time, so may cause a change. Your vote can count.
Back to women voting though. Why is it so important? Not for the lecture, what these amazing women went through, the force feeding, the chaining to railings, although all of that counts, but because we have to make sure our voices are heard. 18 year olds also need to be heard but MPs don't always care about them, they haven't paid tax, they haven't earned the right. Parties and spin doctors know that most people who vote are old. Older than 18, older even than me. I love my parents, but we are worlds apart in our interests. My dad used to be a Labour voter and now seems to have moved so far to the right that he asked me not to talk to him last time, even though we have always had productive debates. At the moment the Houses of Parliament does not reflect the make up of the population and nor is it likely to unless we vote for change. While the only people voting are wealthy, or middle class, or male or old it is no wonder that they are the people who are being catered for, Become a voter and parties have to take account of what you say. Rick Edwards believes that 18 year olds should be made to vote at least the first time, but argues that if voting is compulsory then you need a "none of the above" option.(In his book; called None of the Above.) That could happen. There is a chance that things could change and it feels this time like it really might. Vote for change. Work out the best way of making it happen and vote for it. But vote.
A yougov poll says Nicola Sturgeon won the itv leaders' debate tonight, as the election campaign "proper" begins. ( https://yougov.co.uk/news/2015/04/02/leaders-debate/) Apparently the most "googled" leader was Leanne Wood. I'm not really sure that is surprising since most if us probably know very little about her.
Most of us can't vote for Nicola Sturgeon, not even me and I live near Corby. It's also easy to see her and Leanne Wood and possibly even Natalie Bennett as the Will Self contributor to Question Time, the Ian Hislop of Any Questions, the anti establishment political commentator who can make some off-the-cuff critique of all the political system in general and offer a trite solution or even worse - the Russell Brand - no solution because they do not have an election to win; they know they will never be called to account for their policies. Who cares if Natalie Bennett gets her sums wrong? She's never going to have to actually do them.
I think this new type of politics offers hope for our parliament. I disagree with all the commentators who told us that after the last election we got a government that none of us had voted for. In actual fact that seems to me to be exactly what everyone wants, the general public does not trust politicians, and the idea of them having to work together appeals to us. A rainbow coalition, a vote for consensus politics is what we hoped for.
Maybe it can work, Germany does ok. It's tempting to think that that is one of the reasons for the rise in popularity of minority or single interest parties such as UKIP. I find it difficult to watch Nigel Farage without wishing he spoke in "meeps" like Beaker from the Muppets of whom he reminds me. The idea that he speaks for the common people makes my skin crawl; I've never even met a banker. However I think our democracy is strong enough and established enough to accommodate even more than a handful of UKIP MPs. It's tempting to believe that they will be the first to shoot themselves in the foot even without a fake sheikh to catch them in another sting. If there are a number of parties represented with no overall majority then all policies will have to be negotiated and compromised on. Extreme views will not be able to dictate policy.
One of the reasons that Natalie Bennett, Leanne Wood and particularly Nicola Sturgeon may have come out slightly better than the three leaders of the three main parliamentary parties is one of the things they should be capitalising on. People do see Nigel Farage as a man of the people but maybe they can see the other three as women of the people. They don't look like our idea of the establishment. They are women. They don't sound like most other professional MPs from the Bullingdon Club, independent education or even London. They speak English with regional / national (!) accents. And Nicola Sturgeon actually has leadership experience. We may not all be able to vote for all of these parties but it may start to engage non voters in politics in a way that doesn't involve patronising working people by assuming we are fooled by a pint and a sneaky cigarette.
