A test with no good purpose

I've just taken a quiz based on the KS2 Standard Test (SAT). Thanks to the Enfield Independent for producing this. I got eight out of 10; I guessed three answers!

Now I'm an author and member of the society of authors. In 30 years as a writer and editor I have never needed to know most of this grammar and I'm sure that knowing it would not have improved my writing. We all need to know how to write correctly but no-one except a researcher in linguistics needs to know this kind of stuff. It's a gross waste of time for both pupils and teachers. Worse, it drives out things that do matter like comprehension, creative writing and critical thinking.

Even worse, it creates huge anxieties amongst pupils and teachers.  My wife, who teaches KS1 and 2, has seen children in tears due to the pressures these tests create.

Their main purpose seems to be to allow ministers to claim to be improving standards. What rot!

Let's give teachers more control. Let's keep ministers and their obsessive grammatical compulsions out of our classrooms!

Was Livingstone right?

As widely reported Ken Livingstone said

“Let’s remember when Hitler won his election in 1932, his policy then was that Jews should be moved to Israel. He was supporting Zionism – this before he went mad and ended up killing six million Jews.” 

Was this true?

There's a technical denial: "No, as Israel didn't then exist" but this is a quibble. The land now occupied by Israel certainly existed (roughly - the British Mandate of Palestine) and many Jews moved there in that period.

So did Hitler support the movement of Jews to Palestine? The answer, oddly, is yes. Here's Peter Beaumont in the Guardian admitting reluctantly that:

The "Haavara (transfer) Agreement [of] 1933 [was] an agreement between Germany and German Zionists to facilitate the emigration of Jews to British Mandate Palestine ... by ensuring would-be Jewish emigrants could transfer part of their property."

But Livingstone's use of the anachronistic term Israel links with his claim that Hitler supported Zionism, and that's not true. Zionism wanted a Jewish state as well as the transfer of people and Hitler did not want that. His support for the transfer was essentially tactical - he wanted to defuse the Jewish boycott of Germany.

So much for the rather partial truth of Livingstone's words (for truth matters). But words say more than their literal meanings. They are said in a context and the context here was Naz Shah's remarks in 2014 suggesting that Israeli Jews should go to the US.

And in that context there are at least three objections to Livingstone's comments:

1. Hitler's policies in the 1930 are completely irrelevant to the current state of Israel. Those who condemn many of its policies (me for one) must base their criticisms on its recent behaviour.
2. Linking Hitler and Zionism was bound to be highly offensive to many Jews. Now it may sometimes be necessary to give offence by telling a truth if the issue is important and the truth cogent. But it's otherwise merely rude. Gratuitous rudeness has no place in civilised politics. and this was gratuitous.
3. Making this point was bound to reflect badly on his party and to distract attention from the many serious issues - from air pollution to security - raised by the London elections.

 (And, actually, I thought discrediting the Labour Party was my job!)

So in a few words Livingstone has introduced a very smelly red herring (or possibly a gefilte fish), discredited his party and offended an influential minority community. He has provided the Tory Party, and especially Zac Goldsmith, with an electoral boost whilst raising his own profile.

I don't know if Livingstone is an anti-semite - though his words surely point that way. I do know that his words were offensive and stupid.

Perhaps his friends (there are doubtless some left) should remind him that he is no longer standing to be Mayor of London. His relentless self-promotion has become tiresome.,

Enfield rent now 54% of average pay

Green mayoral candidate Sian Berry has published data on rents at http://www.sianberry.london/rents-map-london/

The data shows that rents in Enfield average £1,248 per month - that's 54% of average household take-home pay. In short, rents are unaffordable - 18,525 local households get housing benefit and 2,934 families are homeless.

So, no news there. Everyone knows that London housing is increasingly unaffordable and beyond the reach of ordinary working people.

There can be no quick solution to a housing problem in which we have been investing for over thirty. For let's be clear - this is a problem that's been created by decades of government policies aimed at creating good feelings amongst the Baby Boom generation. A combination of more money for housing, more people needing housing and historically low build rates has driven up prices making my generation feel rich. And thus likely to vote for the government in power.

But there are things that the Mayor could do. Sian has proposed rent controls and a London Renters Union that would represent renters' interests. These policies would help shifty the balance of power from landlords to tenants. She would also close City Airport and use the land for  housing and businesses. A future Green government would go further, of course, with extended rights for tenants.


Sign up to support Sian Berry's plan for a London Renters Union

Air pollution in Enfield

New measurements by Enfield Green Party show that air pollution is a threat to everyone in the borough - and particularly to children.

We measured the average levels of toxic pollutant Nitrogen Dioxide during January and found them to exceed the legal level at half the sites measured. In Bowes ward, for instance, four out of six measurements exceeded the level whilst the other two were only 5% below it.

“This has shocked even me” said Ronald Stewart, the Green Party candidate for the London Assembly (Enfield and Haringey), “though I expected the results to be bad.” Previous research has shown that air pollution kills over 9,000 Londoners each year (1, 2). The new data shows that some of these must be Enfield residents despite Enfield’s being a leafy outer London borough.

Children are particularly at risk from air pollution as their developing lungs are especially vulnerable. “We measured levels outside three Enfield schools” Ronald explained. “and found illegal levels outside Bowes and Tottenhall Schools. The Bowes level exceeded the legal limit by 66%! The level outside Eversley Primary was legal but still worryingly high.”

“I am really worried about these figures.” said Anna Wilkinson, a Bowes school mum. “I knew the air was bad along the North Circular but the problem is clearly much more widespread”.

Air pollution causes more premature deaths than alcoholism or obesity. Only smoking causes more early deaths than air pollution in Britain (3). It has been strongly linked to asthma, lung cancer and cardiovascular illness. It also causes substantial economic losses (4).

Most of London’s air pollution is due to emissions from road vehicles. It is a London-wide problem and requires decisive action from TfL which should extend the Ultra Low Emission Zone to the North Circular.

Green Party mayoral candidate Sian Berry is also determined to reduce air pollution. As mayor she would speed up the switch-over to cleaner buses and taxis, exclude of the most polluting vehicles from our roads, improve public transport and support local authorities in reducing speed limits to 20 mph.

“The 20 mph limit has just been introduced in Haringey’, says Ronald Stewart. “It’s time to extend it to Enfield.”

Green Party activists distributed information about air pollution and Green Party commitments for action at various locations around Enfield on Monday March 14^th.

Notes

1) Walton, et al, 2014:  Understanding the Health Impacts of Air Pollution in London. Report for Transport for London and the Greater London Authority.

2) From ref 1:

“The total mortality burden in 2010 from PM2.5 and NO2 [was] …  equivalent to 9,416 deaths at typical ages.”  Of this:

• 3,537 deaths were due to fine particles (PM2.5) and
• Up to 5,879 deaths were due to long-term exposure to NO2.

 Also “in 2010 PM2.5 and NO2 were associated with approximately 1990 and 420 respiratory hospital admissions respectively with an additional 740 cardiovascular hospital admissions associated with PM2.5.”

3) Clean Air in London, Guide to health impacts. By Simon Birkett, 2012. http://cleanair.london/health/guide-to-health-impacts-invisible-air-pollution-is-the-biggest-public-health-failing-or-cover-up-for-decades/

4) Also from ref 1: “The estimated economic costs of the above health impacts ranged from £1.4 billion … to £3.7 billion …. Inclusion of other less well established health outcomes would increase the economic costs.”  Thus the per person cost is somewhere between £160 and £430 per year.

Ritz Parade: The 'community hub' we need

The Notting Hill Housing Trust (NHHT) plans to build 1,400 homes along the North Circular Road in Enfield. These will probably house about 3,500 people of which a significant proportion are bound to be children. All these people will need the obvious services: shops, nurseries, schools and medical care. And, because the new homes will have relatively few parking spaces, the facilities need to be on the doorstep.

So far so obvious - but all the relevant public services are full or overloaded. A local GP practice has to cope with twice the planned number of patients but can't get funding for additional space. The local schools are full, as is Bowes School nursery.

All of this is well-known to the local community, the Council and the NHHT. Yet nothing has been done.

But now we have an opportunity. The Council has just finished a consultation on the future of the Ritz Parade. It even said that the Parade should be developed as a community hub - but was vague on the details. 

What we need
Enfield Green Party is pleased to help out.  In our submission we said that the initial facilities should include:

• A range of shops sufficient to the meet the daily and weekly shopping needs of local residents
• A medical centre serving as a base for community health professionals as well as a GP surgery.
• A nursery
• Meeting rooms for community events – at least matching those now available in the Jehovah's Witness's Hall.

As Greens we believe that community is important and that it’s very desirable that there should be a community hub – one place where facilities are concentrated and people can meet. And the Ritz Parade already provides such a place. We'd therefore like to see these facilities on or near the Parade. And, since the North Circular blocks north-south movement in this area there should be a new crossing.

The proximity of the North Circular Road is a problem of course in terms of road safety and air pollution. Air pollution causes an estimated 9,000 deaths per year in London alone.  Therefore any development should ensure that air pollution within buildings is kept to a safe level.

But it won't be enough to just produce the cheapest buildings that meet the initial needs. Good design is essential and there must be flexibility. Therefore there should be sufficient non-residential space to allow for expansion of the community facilities in the future. Facilities should be provided in ways that allow for changes in the use of space.

There are some technical needs too since buildings are so long-lived. So all development should be to the highest environmental standards. In particular, energy-efficiency should reach the passivhaus standard. 

Who should pay?
Schools are obviously the Council's responsibility. We recognise that all local authorities face appalling financial pressures due to the government's ridiculous and inhumane austerity policies (but that's a topic for another occasion). We also recognise that the new residents will pay millions of pounds in Council Tax whilst NHHT will, by law, contribute to infrastructure costs. In nay case, school places are essential both socially and legally.

The other facilities and the road crossing pose different questions. We start from the fact that the NHHT is a charity that will, when it's finished, have made a great deal of money from property development. It would therefore be wholly appropriate, in terms of both corporate social responsibility and fulfilment of the Trust's charitable objectives, that NHHT should provide or pay for these facilities.

Meeting these needs should be seen, by the Trust, the Council and the local community as one way in which it discharges its fundamental charitable purpose – not as a distraction from house-building.

Ritz Parade: What is a 'community hub'?

Who wouldn't want a community hub? That was the question at last Wednesday's Ward Forum at Bowes School. And that's what the Council said it wants as the future of the Ritz Parade on the North Circular Road. Sounds good doesn't it?

But there's a problem, well actually two problems.

Firstly no-one knows what a 'community hub' is. Is it a GP surgery, meeting rooms, a school, a row of shops or a cinema?  All these suggestions were made at the Ward Forum but the six councillors present were notably silent. And they were careful NOT to ask the local residents present what they specifically wanted. Asking them – rather than the waltz around the houses that we got – would have provided clarity to the Council's negotiations with the developer. 

Which brings us to the second problem. Whatever the local people want, the Council probably can't provide it. The Council doesn't own the land and it couldn't afford to develop it if it did. And it can't instruct the developer, the Notting Hill Housing Trust (NHHT), which despite its charitable status seems determined to maximise its profits.

Councillors should have used the meeting to get clarity about local needs. They could then call on NHHT to deliver what's needed both on and adjacent to the site. For instance, a new road crossing would be very useful. With the money it’s made from its other sites on the North Circular it can well afford to!

Why Sir Philip should break his silence

There's been a lot of criticism this week of Sir Philip Dilley, chairman of the Environment Agency, for basking in the Barbados sun whilst his staff fight the floods. Nor has public regard been enhanced by EA claims that he was at his London home.

But does it matter?  We don't expect the EA chairman to be filling sandbags, driving a rescue boat or even allocating staff to jobs. The EA doubtless employs skilled people to do all that. Sir Philip is only at fault if he's neglecting his duty. So what is his duty during this crisis?

I think it's two-fold. Firstly, he should act as a sounding board for the chief executive - the man who actually makes the key decisions. But second, and more importantly, he should seize the moment to explain to government, press and people why we keep facing "unprecedented" floods which are nothing of the kind and what needs to be done about it.

Of course there's no great secret about either matter. The causes are climate change, El Nino, foolish agricultural policies, building on flood plains and neglect of flood defences. The required actions follow directly - more rigorous support for climate change mitigation, changes in planning rules and the agricultural subsidy regime, more flood defences and a rethink about the real carrying capacity of our land.

It's not difficult to understand but it is hard to get a government committed to austerity and shrinking the state to listen. That's why we need a strong message from the chairman of the EA. And that's why he needs to be here - making the case and communicating the message.

His silence is a neglect of his duty to the public; and merits criticism