Personal Blogs

It is, perhaps, the understatement of the year to say that immigration is one of the most talked about issues within the political sphere at the moment.

Let me be clear, I don’t for one second think immigration is THE most important issue. Not by a long way. Housing, the social care crisis, defence, pensions, affordability of healthcare, the threats and opportunities of AI and taxation all come well above immigration objectively, but I would be the first to accept that immigration influences all of them to some degree.

Similarly immigration is more than just illegal immigration. It must take into account skilled workers, their families, high net worth migrants and asylum seekers. All fall under the spectrum of immigration and all should be treated in their own ways.

But illegal immigration is an important issue, with small boat arrivals being the most visible, if not necessarily the greatest in number (it is relatively easy to count small boat arrivals, but not those arriving or overstaying using other irregular methods).

It is particularly noteworthy that the significant majority of those arriving in the UK on small boats originate from countries with authoritarian regimes or ravaged by war and this will obviously, and rightly, impact the categorisation of migrants arriving in this way with many having justifiable asylum claims to be processed.

 

We are a country that has always been rightly proud of our role in supporting refugees and we should continue to be.

But, that isn’t the point of this post.

I want to reflect on that category of migrants that some, including the populist right, want you to believe all small boat arrivals fall into. I’m writing about illegal, economic migrants (which, to be fair, some asylum seekers may fall into the category too).

I have long questioned what is the best way to deal with this category of migrant and have come to the conclusion, which I am more than willing to be argued out of, that we are dealing with this category in entirely the wrong manner.

In order to arrive at this conclusion we need to look at the facts:

• If a young man, for this category is overwhelmingly young men, has left their home nation seeking a better life in Britain they have taken a hugely dangerous route. They have travelled through numerous countries and, often, across at least two seas in inflatable dinghies. They have faced a significant risk of death on multiple occasions and hostile authorities all for the promise of a better life. At a time when only 1 in 10 young Britons say they would be prepared to fight for their country, whether you agree with them or not, the bravery and desire of those ‘economic migrants’ in their determination to reach Britain really cannot be questioned.

• The populist social media commentariat would have you believe that economic migrants are only coming to the UK for benefits. The truth, however, is that whilst there is no direct comparison provision for asylum seekers is not overwhelmingly better in Britain than other comparable western European nations. It is unlikely that benefits is a key driver, much more likely is the overwhelming use of a global known and accepted language, England’s historical tolerance of incomers (and in no small part a holdover of empire).

But, if it is true that a significant number of small boat migrants are arriving here for economic purposes then my genuine question is why don’t we let them work?

Instead of placing migrants in hotel accommodation for an indeterminate time would it be better to provide hostel accommodation for a short term, fixed, period? A national insurance number with fixed term limitations on what can be claimed? And, perhaps, the offer of a ticket back to their home country if things don’t work out?

If these ‘economic migrants’ really are here in search of a better life, isn’t it more English to give them that chance?

And if they are working legally, paying tax and national insurance, they would become net contributors. At a time when the tax base needs increasing then they would contribute to doing so without drawing on the sizeable budgets currently needed to manage small boat arrivals.

And if it were true, as some would have you believe, that they are here for an ‘easy’ life (instead of fleeing from hostile governments to save their lives) then the sink or swim necessity of work would soon ensure the departure of those who really don’t want the hard graft.

Let us be very honest. If it is just about economic migration (which I don’t believe to be the case) then Britain could do an awful lot worse than having eloquent migrants such as this man interviewed at an Epping hotel in the workforce.

I don’t think that I have ever knowingly agreed with a Green Party policy in my life but a couple of days ago I saw the following post on X (as part of the party’s wider policy towards refugees):

 

The party has a serious point, whether they are approaching it from the same perspective as me I do not know, but public spending needs reducing, productivity needs improving, as a country we must continue to welcome immigrants who can make a productive contribution, and to deter those who wish to rely on the state.

What’s more it is an approach that has been adopted in other countries, admittedly with varying degrees of success.

I may be wrong but would suggest that there is a serious debate to be had based not on fear but rationality.

It is easy to arrive at a populist approach, but is it the right one? It’s time for a serious debate on whether irregular economic migrants should be given the right to work.

Earlier today Reform UK Mayor of Greater Lincolnshire, Dame Andrea Jenkyns, took part in a press conference for her party under the banner 'Women for Reform'. As you might expect it wasn't the most intellectually stimulating of press confereres - I don't think I'm Reform's target audience - but I did raise my head when Dame Andrea said the following:

"We have lived through decades when institutions, police and some politicians have turned a blind eye to the grooming of our children, and we've seen a rise in domestic abuse. Ladies and gentlemen there's no wonder that both men and women are turning to Reform, they need hope that this 1984 Orwellian nightmare, where the thought police are monitoring our every social media post yet letting off paedophiles, want this to end."

The reason that Dame Andrea's comment piqued my interest is this week, for the very first time, I have been reading Orwell's outstanding work of political commentary / dystopian science fiction in preparation for this year's Open University module.

It piqued my attention because like a great many others I have talked in the past about 'Big Brother', 'Orwellian' or 'thought-police', without ever reading the book. They are words and phrases that have worked their way into our vocabulary without the need for understanding them, or appreciating Orwell's warning.

So, as Dame Andrea was talking one thought kept popping into my head. I wonder if she has ever actually read 1984? My guess is that she hasn't.

So, having read 1984 only this week, and having loved it (save for having the least sympathetic protaganist ever) let me say this.

As far as I know our government, for all its faults, is not in the business of changing history.

Our government is one of law and order - arguably too many laws and too many orders - but isn't that the opposite to the party portrayed in 1984, where there was only 1 crime? That of thought?

But let me agree with Dame Andrea, and I'm sure having read 1984 herself she will see the irony, that it is no surprise that men and women are turning to Reform, because I'm sure Chapter III of Goldstein's manual will be at the forefront of her mind:

"They (the High) are then overthrown by the Middle, who enlist the Low on their side by pretending to them that they are fighting for liberty and justice. As soon as they have reached their objective, the Middle thrust the Low back into their old position of servitude, and themselves become the High."

Could there be a better description of the strategy being undertaken by Reform UK at the minute? Could we be living through an Orwellian nightmare?

In his Times essay this week Fraser Nelson writes "Journalism is anchored to facts: no one pays to read junk. And almost no one pays for social media. It’s a device selling people’s attention to advertisers, with algorithms designed to engage (or enrage), to keep you hooked. Yet most Brits now use social media as a news source."

It strikes me that in what many may argue is becoming a post truth world this is the most disconcerting and Orwellian aspect of our modern political sphere.

Many, including a great many of Reform UK's target audience, are not going to the news for impactis facts to consider, but rather are going to the news to reaffirm and reinforce their existing beliefs.

Once you realise that then you realise you are not too far away from Orwell's most disturbing prophecy "He who controls the present, controls the past. He who controls the past, controls the future"

When Reform UK (or, for that matter, any party) are able to shape facts as they choose to then they are not too far away from shaping our past and our future into a truly dystopian Orwellian nightmare.

In invoking Orwell Dame Andrea should ensure she is conisdering his whole vision, I'm not at all certain any Reform UK politician would be rushing to use the imagery of Orwellian nightmares if they were to do so.

Early in the second series of The West Wing writer Aaron Sorkin decides to have his Democrat President Bartlett employ a Republican lawyer, Ainsley Hayes, as a plot device to show that whilst political opponents can disagree they nevertheless are principled, decent people (if only politics was undertaken in that spirit in the present day and in the real world).

When asked by one of Bartlett’s Democrat political appointees why the Republican has chosen to work with and for her political opponents Hayes says that she feels being called to serve is her ‘duty’.

The concept of duty is a constant theme in Sorkin’s universe. Elsewhere when Hayes (again) is in a scene discussing which Gilbert & Sullivan operetta is about duty she notes “They’re all about duty”.

 

Duty, the dictionary definition being “a moral or legal obligation; a responsibility.” is a concept we talk too little of these days. The idea that in return for a social security safety net, education and health services we have obligations too has become an alien concept to countless younger people. It appears that for many tax and public services have become a transactional relationship rather than a concept aligned to moral obligation.

Earlier this year YouGov polling of Generation Z (young people aged 18-27) for The Times revealed just 11% of young Britains would be prepared to fight for their country in the event of war. (Albeit as history has shown that low number is probably soft when the country is actually facing the threat of combat.)

But it is undoubtedly the case that the concept of standing for a greater national purpose, you may call it ‘duty’, is one on the wain amongst young people in the face of individual rights.

The evidence on going to war is somewhat hypothetical. It is easy to say you are not prepared to do something when you are not facing an ultimatum, but the economic impact of individualism is a very real one.

Research undertaken by the Centre for Social Justice (and reported on in The Times) has today revealed the potential impact of persistent school absence. The think tank reports that almost 180,000 pupils are set to leave school and fall into unemployment or long-term economic inactivity as a result of persistent absence, at a lifetime cost to the taxpayer of £14 billion.

Although days lost have taken a slight dip since the height of the pandemic they continue to far outstrip the position prior to 2020 with more than 6 out of every 100 pupils being off on a typical school day. More than 2% of pupils were missing at least half of school sessions throughout the autumn 2024 term.

There is, of course, a well-documented link between school attendance and qualifications that correlates with employability, lifetime potential income, health and housing outcomes. Missing school persistently has a long term impact on all of these with their cost ultimately being paid by the taxpayer. This is where duty comes in.

We know that young people have had a tough time over the past few years. There is a real mental health crisis experienced by thousands of children (and exacerbated by the world of smart phones and social media).

But we also know from a quick trawl of that same social media, particularly TikTok, of the parents who demand to take their children out of school on holiday, or complain that they are punished for seemingly minor infractions of the rules.

Far too often it is about their rights and not their responsibilities.

In a representative democracy we expect our government to provide when we need assistance, to keep us secure, and deliver high quality universal services. But in having those expectations we have our obligations too. That is the social contract.

Gilbert & Sullivan, and to be fair the whole of Victorian society, understood and taught the importance of duty.

Perhaps the greatest failing of our digital age, and I appreciate I may be coming across as a grumpy old man, is that we are in danger of forgetting it.

I read an interesting fact today that in the year that I was born, 1973, the Lancashire seaside resort of Morecambe saw the value of its tourist trade measured as £46.6 million. By 1990 the same measure was £6.5 million.

Consider that in 17 years the tourist economy of Morecambe, a single seaside resort on Britain’s north west coast fell by 86 per cent.

But then consider that Morecambe is just one moderate sized seaside resort and consider the impact on larger towns: Blackpool, Brighton, Clacton.

The demographic challenges faced by the British seaside are well documented: some of the most deprived wards in the country, wide-scale unemployment, drug and alocohol dependency, poor health outcomes, shorter life expectancy and worse education opportunities for young people are all commonplace.

A visit to virtually any seaside resort in England will render all of the above problems readily visible. A quick search of walkthrough videos on YouTube will deliver dozens of hits of poverty porn for any resort you wish to query.

And the reasons behind the deterioration of our coastal resorts are readily apparent too. Towns with thousands of tourists beds no longer required them with the advent of package holidays and the wider availability of the family motor car, when day trips became so much easier - resort economy was entirely dependent on overnight stays.

Towns with empty rooms result in an oversupply of accommodation and an understandable tendency for landlords to move to cheap, long term housing in multiple occupation, commonly funded through benefits. As seaside resorts became ghost towns, what is the alternative? The poverty stricken or countless crumbling and empty properties?

I’ve just finished reading Madeleine Bunting’s thoughtful book ‘The Seaside: England’s Love Affair’, and whilst all of it is engaging the fact that I started this blog with most provoked my thoughts.

England between 1973 and 1990 in many ways is another country. There was no Ryanair, no internet, no smartphones. And, if you agree with the views of those on the populist right, England was ethnically a different country too. It was the country that that they often hark back to when talking about ‘Britishness’.

But the fact that Morecambe lost 86 per cent of its tourist economy in that period shows the England was already a country that was changing.

It wasn’t a country changing because of asylum seekers arriving in small boats, although we had refugees and economic migrants - largely resulting from the demands placed on us rebuilding a devastated post-war economy, a tide of desperate people risking their lives in rubber dinghies was not then a factor.

No, Britain was changing because its people were changing too. We no longer wanted what seaside resorts were offering. We wanted the cheaply exotic, the luxurious and not the windswept promenades and bad food experienced by former generations.

The decisions we made - consciously or not - resulted in the death of the seaside as we knew it.

The problem with the seaside, however, and with the wider challenges facing our country is that whilst bemoaning our problems we fail to consider our part in their causation, instead we look to blame others.

In this summer of 2025 there is no more recognisable scapegoat than ‘the migrants’, especially those arriving in unsafe craft of the shores of Kent. They are visible, they look different, they are easy to blame.

But in pointing our fingers at the migrants we fail to consider our own part in the challenges we face.

It is incredibly easy for the populist right to find an audience for their rhetoric. A rhetoric based in a nostalgic view of Britain that, if it ever really existed, we chose to change.

In her book Bunting argues ‘nostalgia is an unstable emotion, and can tip into resentment and blame quickly… as an emotion, it lacks accuracy.’ She is right.

Opinion polling shows a massive increase in support of political parties demostrating their anti-establishment credentials, but singularly we fail to question the real reasons for change in favour of the easy ones. Until we collectively consider the real reasons Britain is fated to deteriorate.

Part of the answer surrounds the short term nature of politics. Unrealistic promises are made and then not delivered, disatisfaction grows and more radical or extreme solutions are sought. Look no further than the aforementioned Clacton.

At a time when the electorate have returned councillors from populist parties decrying the concept of a climate emergency Bunting notes a 2022 report warned that many coastal communities ‘… might have to be relocated inland than had been previously thought; as climate breakdown accelerates sea levels are likely to rise by 35cm by 2050. That will deter investment in affected towns.’

It may be that report cited is wrong but its effective consideration is certainly not helped by a cohort of politicians focussing on the (short term) next election cycle instead of collaboratively adopting evidence based long term strategy.

Until we start to refresh the way our decisions are made, including taking a long hard look at our own role in producing the society that we live in, then the deprivation facing our seaside resorts is potentially the top of a very steep slide.

This weekend, as I do most weekends, I went out to umpire a game of cricket - a competitive match played very much in the right spirit of the game by two teams in Leicestershire and Rutland Cricket League Division 3 West if you’re interested, although my delusions of grandeur are not so embedded that I presume that you are.

I mention this because one thing that any cricket official will tell you if you are with them for long enough is a little known fact (outside the world of cricket umpiring) that the game of cricket does not have ‘rules’, instead it has ‘laws’.

I’ve never really understood why cricket has ‘laws’ but, if ChatGPT is to be believed, it has lots to do with emphasising the ‘foundational and unchangeable nature of the game’s fundamental principles’. But the fact is that dating back to 1744 ‘laws’ is the word that it is applied, not rules.

It’s worth noting at this point that Google defines ‘law’ as being ‘the system of rules which a particular country or community recognises as regulating the actions of its members and which it may enforce by the imposition of penalties.’ (My emphasis)

In this sense obviously the ‘laws’ of cricket apply to the community of those who want to play cricket. If you don’t want to play cricket then they really have no impact on your life whatsoever. Zero.

In other news over the weekend, and blowing a dog whistle so hard it could be heard by canines on Mars across the vacuum of space, populist politicians of the angry right have dug up a job advert posted on a DWP job site for the post of ‘Shariah Law Administrator’.

Now, let’s put to one side the fact that many of those politicians would have you believe that because it is a vacancy posted on a government website it is a government funded or endorsed job, it isn’t. With even the slightest digging it’s easy to evidence the site itself is effectively an online job centre, and the employer recruiting for the post is not a government body

But that tangent in itself is being thrown into the mix by the usual voices to divide and spread misinformation with their ‘two-tier’ rhetoric.

Let’s instead focus on the ‘sharia law’ aspect.

In the UK sharia law refers to the application of Islamic religious law, primarily within sharia councils, for resolving family and financial disputes among Muslims.

In a 2019 briefing the authoritative House of Commons Library noted that ‘Sharia councils have no official legal or constitutional role in the UK. Their work consists primarily of adjudicating on religious divorces, usually at the request of women…’

They are, in essence, no different to the laws of cricket.

Sharia laws in the UK only apply if you choose to be part of the Islamic community. Whether it is Islam or the MCC. If you don’t want to be part of a community then you do not have to be, and categorically, UK law whether common or statute takes precedence over any community’s set of rules.

But let’s go further, because in the UK Islam isn’t the only religion that could be argued to have its own set of rules.

As a practising Catholic when I got married I entered into a civilly regulated life long partnership. I very much hope that it will never happen but should I get divorced then that process would be governed by the English legal system.

But also as a practising Catholic when I got married I agreed to follow the rules of the Roman Catholic Church, which teaches that a marriage cannot be dissolved, only ‘annulled’.

In other words there is a quasi-legal process within the church that investigates whether a marriage was ever valid in the first place.

In the Catholic Church there are many grounds for annullment - lack of capacity, lack of knowledge, force or fear - but equally there many grounds for the petition to be rejected. Just ask Henry VIII!

The point is that in this respect there is little to differentiate between a Sharia Council adjudicating on a religious divorce and a Catholic marriage tribunal adjudicating on an annullment.

Well, little apart from one of those religions is socially acceptable and the other is used as a tool to spread division. I shall leave you to decide which one is which.

It is only Islam where MPs are calling for a ban on ‘Sharia Courts’, for a prohibition from ‘operating as parallel legal systems’.

It’s not the Catholic Church that is facing calls for prohibition. It certainly isn’t the Marylebone Cricket Club. Despite both operating ‘parallel legal systems’ sudsidiary to national law.

One final point.

At the end of June Liberal Democrat backbench MP Chris Coghlan made the news because after voting in favour of the Terminally Ill Adults Bill in parliament, as a practising Catholic he was publicly denied communion by his parish priest (the Catholic Church being highly vocal against the principle of assisted dying).

Now, without going into the rights and wrongs of being denied communion (that is an entirely different post), it is clear Mr Coghlan’s parish priest was making a quasi-judicial decision on whether to allow him to receive the host.

The priest - quite probably incorrectly - was adjudicating based upon his interpretation of the laws of the church. Effectively he had taken a decision on the eligibility of Mr Coghlan to receive communion. Some may describe it as ‘following the rules’, others may suggest the priest was operating a ‘parallel legal system’.

Only they won’t. Because the Catholic Church is acceptable to the angry mob. Not all religions are.

It’s interesting to note that on social media I can find no mention of the angry right, and particularly its politicians, castigating the Catholic Church for operating it’s own set of rules against the MP. In fact, where they did comment - in that case - there was overwhelming support for the Church with one account saying ‘Time for baby (Coghlan) to realise that the Catholic Church has its rules, just like any other organization. If he rejects its teaching he can always go elsewhere.’

And isn’t that the point about sharia law? If anyone wants to reject the teaching of Islam in the UK they are free to do so, to ‘go elsewhere’. None of us are bound by those rules (or the Catholic Church or the MCC) unless we agree to be bound by them.

It is the right of living in a free country.

But living in a free country also means we don’t prohibit things just because we don’t like them, or the people that adhere to them.

That’s what the angry right will never tell you.

With President Trump seemingly intent on reshaping America's relationship with Russia and Europe I have been thinking about historical precedents and in my reading have come across three passages reflecting on post-war events that have struck me as being particularly pertinent at the present time.

In his outstanding book recounting Britain's 1975 European Community referendum 'Yes to Europe!' Saunders reflects "The alliance with the United  States, sacralised by Churchill as the 'Special Relationship' pointed to another possible destiny, in the union of 'the English-Speaking Peoples' across the globe...Churchill had spoken of 'a special relationship' between Britain and Europe - the same language, interestingly, that he applied to the United States - but the sense that Europe was a partner for Britain, rather than an element in its own identity, was not uniquely Churchillian." (Saunders, 2018)

Elsewhere, Judt cites the hugely influential American diplomat George Kennan who wrote in January 1945 of the USA's potential future relationships with Russia "could we not make a decent and definite compromise with [the USSR]? - divide Europe frankly into spheres of influence - keep ourselves out of the Russian sphere and the Russians out of ours?... And within whatever sphere of action was left to us we could at least... (try) to restore life, in the wake of war, on a dignified and stable foundation." (Judt, 2005)

Judt goes on to quote US Vice-President Henry Wallace speaking on his country's relationship with Great Britain "aside from our common language and common literary tradition, we have no more in common with Imperialistic England than with Communist Russia."

The three passages above provoke a number of thoughts and questions:

• We hear time and time again about Britain's 'special relationship', indeed it has become sacral, but we never hear or talk about our special relationship with Europe. Perhaps because of the lack of a common language we have chosen to ignore the latter special relationship to the point of effective divorce in 2020.
• Are President Trump's intentions - even if based solely on transactionality - little more than Kennan's view? Can the world potentially sustain two superpowers with spheres of influence, effectively able to trade with each other and dictate policy, if not to the detriment of others then at least without the significant consideration of them?
• Is there a clear and long held view in the United States that aside from that common language, and plenty of historic antagonism, that there is nothing particularly special about our two nation's relationship?

It seems to me that Britain's alliance with America has never been more strained, if - with one or two notable exceptions - it hs ever been truly strong. It seems that there is an argument, at least, that President Trump is restoring an order. 

It seems that if we believe that countries who work together are most successful then Britain should be looking to our other 'special relationship' of nearest geographic neighbours. 

Yesterday I was a guest in a webinar 'The New Educational Landscape' hosted by the School Partnerships Alliance in which a number of respected luminaries from the education sector (and me) talked about the potential for partnerships between schools across the world of education, and other organisations, to improve outcomes for children.

At these type of events there is always an understanding that independent and maintained schools are different, an outside observer might uncharitably suggest that there is an element of "them and us", but what becomes clear when you start talking is that there is common conviction that everyone working in education is fundamentally working for a common goal. Progress. A better world for our children.

Whilst there are differences amongst us, as the late MP Jo Cox said during her maiden speech "we are far more united and have far more in common than that which divides us." 

Isn't exploring those things that we have in common and turning them into something productive what partnerships is, ultimately, all about?

One of the largest challenges in delivering partnerships is being able to quantify whether they are worthwhile. In a world of ticking boxes we are always urged to measure outcomes, and simply put, when a partnership is just one aspect of a child's life quantifying success is often impossible.

But sometimes success isn't about a grade or a check box. It's about a feeling or a memory that can swerve outcomes, even if sometimes in only a small way.

It's about the qualitative, and not always the quantitative.

I'm sure there is another truism at work here too. It doesn't matter whether you work in the independent or state education sector you understand that experiences often matter as much as the measurable. We have that in common.

Collectively what we must do is get better at explaining that to a wider audience. And that very much includes policy and decision makers.

Last Saturday Bridget Phillipson, the Secretary of State for Education, posted this tweet (I'm still not sure what an individual post is called) to the social media platform X:

Despite misgivings from many who understand the long held political beliefs of many Labour Party members, to this point the Labour Government have maintained that the policy to add VAT on to independent school fees isn't about harming that sector, but purely about raising revenue for state school spending.

With over 6 millions views Ms Phillipson's post has caused some to question that stance.

But, once again, it is the accusation of hypocrisy that is levelled at Labour - who in opposition maintained that they would be different from the last Tory government.

It has taken the Daily Telegraph just four days to uncover that only five hours before posting her tweet the Secretary of State was playing hockey on an AstroTurf pitch at a local indendent school. The irony has not been lost that hockey is a sport that in many ways relies upon access to private school pitches for its growth, and its players benefit from. Will Ms Phillipson choose not to make use of those facilities in future?

Ms Phillipson also criticises independent schools for the use of embossed stationery yet anyone with a cursory knowledge of parliament will know that MPs personalised office stationery is always embossed, and now as a minister, departmental stationery too.

In her 14 years as an MP has Ms Phillipson ever made use of parliamentary embossed stationery? Will she be calling for its use to be ended and any savings made used to recruit more teachers?

It will be laudable if she does. But she find some ministerial colleagues are not particularly pleased with the idea.

It's becoming increasingly clear that in a social media world, and particularly with this Labour government, the media will always find a way to highlight perceived hypocrisy.

In their report 'Strong and Stable' the think tank Make Votes Matter, an organisation promoting a proportionally representative electoral system, note that in the parliamentary term following the 2019 general election the average period of time a newly appointed cabinet minister spent in office was just eight months.

Whilst that figure was undoubtedly impacted and made lower by mass resignations and two changes of Prime Minister it is nevertheless eye-catching. An average eight months tenure points to turmoil, it points to a government running out of both ideas and talent, it suggests an administration more intent on fighting internal battles than serving the public.

8 months also happens to be an historically low figure too. According to Make Votes Matter 'ministers appointed between the 1970s and 2005 generally remained in one office for between two and three years.' Indeed the United Kingdom was already at the lower end amongst comparable countries when it comes to ministerial tenure. Sweden, the Netherlands and Germany all average a length of term around three years in office, Switzerland over six.

At this year's general election one of the principle selling points of the Labour Party was that they would bring stability and, yes, decency back to a broken political system. Even if he never claimed it publicly Sir Keir Starmer made a virtue of his moral superiority.

In less than 100 days however, that fabled milestone for all viewers of The West Wing, we have seen a spate of entirely appropriate questions on the acceptance of gifts, we have witnessed first hand the Prime Minister's disdain at having his decisions scrutinised, and now, in the wake of his Chief of Staff, Sue Gray's enforced resignation, the final component of competence is rightly being reviewed.

Of course, Ms Gray, is not a minister. In many respects as Chief of Staff for the Prime Minister she was even more important. The nature and timing of her appointment, in most people's eyes, already looked a little shady.

But sacking her after 93 days? A fraction of the time most ministers are in office? That brings the Prime Minister's judgement into question more than anything than has gone before.

On Saturday I took my youngest son to visit Warwick University for an open day, doing very much the same thing as my parents did with me 35 years ago. Coming from a mining area and very, very working class stock - even though I would have liked to attend - at the time university was not for me. What we now describe as the barriers to education were as high as they could have been for anyone. 

My mum would tell me "you don't need education, get a job in the hosiery factory", my dad would tell me "you can't afford education, get a job in the hosiery factory".

Within a decade, of course, all of the hosiery factories had gone. Just like the impact of the pit closures that came before them too many young lads who left school at the same time as me had little in the way of a future.

I didn't go to university, but I was relatively fortunate that I learned from an early age that if you could talk a good game and, more importantly, understand the meaning of the word 'nuance' doors would open for you.

I went from working in a butchers, to working at the council, in IT, education, journalism, politics and now public affairs.

Last week I flew to Belfast to chair a panel at a conference of headteachers of some of the world's leading schools. It amazes me that in thirty years that I've gone from plucking turkeys to that.

But, you know what?

More than anything I've learnt for all their good intentions my parents were wrong. There is nothing more important than education. I have been incredibly lucky in taking an irregular route, so many are not so fortunate.

Sadly, there are still far too many white working-class households who don't value education and with each passing generation they, and the outcomes they experience, keep falling behind.

There is nothing more important in Britain today than addressing the cultural challenge of improving educational outcomes amongst the white working-class. Until that happens the inequality gap will only ever become wider.

This morning The Daily Telegraph reported that almost 100% of last week's A Levels were passed after the Government's u-turn on using an algorithm that included standardisation against a school's past performance to determine grades.

The u-turn was, of course, brought about by the very simple fact that it was patently unfair to judge a child's future based on how other, previous cohorts had performed. In hindsight such injustice should have been obvious to everyone - politicians, educationalists, unions and teachers alike - but in truth most of them missed it.

The algorithm was introduced for the very best of reasons, to maintain the integrity of the examination system, and whether we like it or not the u-turn has brought the integrity of this year's results into doubt.

Of 718,226 A Levels taken this year only 2,155 were failed, 99.7% of candidates passed. There were 18,418 failures last year.

Astonishingly, according to The Daily Telegraph, not one single candidate failed German, Spanish, Classical subjects or performing / expressive arts.

A failure to have failures matters because by its very nature it devalues the attainments of those who have passed.

U-turning on grades last week was the politic and immediately expedient move, but those who benefitted may come to regret it yet. 

There is a distinct possibility that 2020 will become known as the year that grades didn't mean what their certificates proclaimed them to be. That an A, B or C this year never did mean quite as much as it did in 2019 or 2021.

Of course, for most, A Levels will be a stepping stone to another stage of education and in time the anomaly of 2020 will be forgotten; but for some it will forever be an albatross that hovers over their academic careers.