The value of time

Time. It’s a commodity that we take for granted when it appears to be in abundance yet frantically despair when we realise it’s slipping through our fingers with no redress. And for all its value, once it’s gone, it’s gone. Sadly, many of us only realise this when it is indeed too late and we’re ruing over lost opportunities or experiences that we chose not to embrace.

We reflect on our naivety, how green we once were and often how plain ignorant our younger selves now appear in hindsight. But despite this inevitable regret, many people never really appreciate the value of time. Rather than making good on time lapsed, we soon consign our regret to a place of nonchalance; forsaking the chance to reflect and shape our subsequent approach to how we appraise the commodity of time.

I’m someone who is filled with regret at how I once valued time. In my youth, I arguably placed time on a pedestal to the extent that I wasn’t willing to take risks or explore new opportunities because I felt it might have represented a waste of time; time that I couldn’t get back. I was right. However, there is no reward without risk and rightly or wrongly, every risk we turn down represents a lost experience. I valued time but I didn’t appreciate the nature of how it escapes all of us.

That caution developed into complacency. I thought I was preserving time but I was allowing it to pass while I made little or poor use of it. Furthermore, my mindset had now turned to one where my stance remained due to an inability to act otherwise as a result of circumstance and anxiety.

Steve Harvey spoke of a similar experience of those who fritter their time away in their youth, just to try and play catch up once they’ve realised their mistake. I didn’t exactly waste my time out of overt recklessness. Nonetheless I was reckless in how I considered time and it had exactly the same result.

I lost years to this period of my life and who knows what else. Though this gave me the jolt I needed to view time in the way it should be. I realised I needed to make good on my folly and, almost predator-like, I did just that. If I had an interest in something, I was pursuing it. If an opportunity presented itself, I was seizing it. Good, bad or indifferent, I realised that every experience in life contributed to our being. And in ways we might not imagine or appreciate at the time but might actually serve us in the future. I had been denying myself this with my failure to see the worth of my time.

I’ve maintained said approach and it’s served me and my mental health well as I feel more confident that I’m making good use of a commodity that I can’t get back once it’s gone. Alas, I can’t make good on everything; ‘tis the nature of time. But wherever possible, I’m salvaging from the wreck of my earlier failure.

In doing so, I’ve also learned to value my time as mine. Not in a selfish way of not wanting to share my time and efforts with others but in perceiving my time and the journey I take via the path it represents, to be mine.

Years ago, I bumped into a friend in my old neighbourhood who I’d not seen for a while. We got to talking and it was around the period when I started to realise how my value of time hadn’t exactly been prudent. I was lamenting at what I hadn’t done based on what was ‘expected’ by society; not what I hadn’t done to my own detriment due to what was good for me. My friend responded with a deeply apt rebuttal and said “life’s not a race”. That’s stuck with me since and I pay little regard to what I should have done based on society’s expectations or what others are doing and instead focus on myself and those important to me.

We can’t care about using the lives of others as a gauge for where we should be in our own lives because our allocation of time is ours, not theirs. Although so many people are caught up in doing just that. They don’t see the worth in their time because they measure it against someone else's or society’s. And when they do realise their error, it’s often too late as they’ve used their time to create a life that isn’t necessarily for them and with little or no recourse. People chase the job, house, marital status, children, superficial notions of success and anything else they assume they’re ‘supposed’ to have based on a futile comparison. All the while they’re failing to appreciate their time as their own. Why chase a life that isn’t yours just to later realise you’re out of time to get to your own destination?

Our perception of time goes beyond recognising the worth of our own time but that of others too. So many of us have an inability to understand the finite nature of time, either in a discrete sense within a given period or as life itself. We make demands on others, totally indifferent to the impact it will have on their own time, and fail to see or appreciate this through our own blinkered perception.

How many times have we taken up the time of someone as we see their time as akin to ours? We see their x hours in the same regard as what we have prioritised for the same period. It’s the selfish nature of the human condition that even with a commodity as valuable and finite as time, we find ourselves unable to recognise the value of someone else’s time with their perception rather than our own.

Conversely, we need to learn to share our time. Spending excessively long days at a job to only neglect our partners, friends and families clearly doesn’t signal a true valuation of time. Nevertheless, it’s a common story for many as society has realigned our priorities to prevent us from recognising where our priorities should lie. We need to need to find the sensibility and balance to see our time for ourselves while apportioning it accordingly for others around us. This requires an altruistic approach that seems sparse when considered in tandem with the notion of our time.

Like good health, we appraise time with nonchalance when it is plentiful and desperately when it becomes scarce or reflects regret of past actions or lack of. Yet both commodities are rarely given the status we give wealth and material and tangible possessions that can come and go - with the proviso that we have the time and health to afford us the chance to do so. Clearly we need to reappraise the commodities in life that we should view as valuable with more esteem than those that we can always make good on should we mess up. Unfortunately, time isn’t so forgiving and once it’s gone, it’s gone.

Channel 5’s Gangland wasn’t about uncovering gang culture, it merely perpetuated ignorant and negative stereotypes of black youths and the black diaspora

As part of a two-part documentary, Channel 5 recently aired the first episode of Gangland (at the time of writing, the second episode is yet to be aired). Gangland was advertised by Channel 5 in fairly broad terms as essentially an exposé into London’s gang culture. In fact, here’s exactly what Channel 5 said on its website:

Gangland is an original two-part documentary that gains unprecedented access to London’s most notorious young gangs, as they document what life is really like as part of a contemporary gang.

Like many people who decided to tune into Gangland, I expected balanced journalism that would explore the factors that led some youths to gang culture, the failures of society and the individuals in gangs that prefigured their involvement of said life and cautionary tales of those that have since renounced being in a gang through their own expectedly dire experiences or indeed lucky escapes.

Given it was set in London, I also expected the programme to cover gangs of all ethnicities in reflecting London’s ethnic diversity. All of this I thought would be presented against a backdrop of life in a gang that would reflect Channel 5’s social responsibility as a mainstream broadcaster, but also with an approach that showed the seriousness of gang culture in the city.

Alas, perhaps I asked for too much as all Channel 5 delivered with this show was an epic failure that perpetuated ignorant and negative stereotypes of black youths. That’s right, only black youths. Aside from the white girlfriend of one of the protagonists (who felt he was going to beat a case due to no evidence - yet Channel 5 have hours of footage of him incriminating himself), every person interviewed was black.

Gangland’s producer, Paul Blake, spoke of his motivation in making the documentary in the Guardian. The Guardian wrote ‘Blake spent over a decade trying to get a documentary made which would give voice to the thoughts and motivations of gang members’. Blake added “this documentary was born from the fact that I am a black man, born in this country, and I was just pissed off that no one cared about these young black kids who are dying”.

Perhaps that was his motivation and maybe even what he presented to Channel 5 before they requested he amend it to what we saw on our screens. Unfortunately, it isn’t what was achieved with Gangland.

For anyone aware of gang culture, the majority of what was aired on Gangland would not have tallied up with that perception. As a friend said to me, it was like watching a parody for the most part. If you’re in a ‘notorious’ gang and willing to come on a terrestrial channel, barely, if at all, disguising your appearance, and never disguising your voice while talking unimaginably recklessly in incriminating yourself and your peers, you really aren’t about that life. And if you really are in that lifestyle yet still talking like that, then as DJ Khaled would say, “you played yourself” and everyone else around you.

The black youths (because just to remind you, Channel 5 either couldn’t find any non-black gangs or gang members because they seemingly don’t exist in London) who were willing to brandish guns while talking about what they were willing to do, started off as uber cringeworthy. It was akin to many of the American rappers we’ve seen in the UK doing their very best to convince us they’re “from the hood” or a bad caricature of World Star Hip Hop. Attack the Block (and I don’t say that with any kudos for that film either) had more credibility than their utterances and I couldn’t take them seriously. But I quickly went from cringing to being flabbergasted at what I was watching.

One alleged gang member, safe in the knowledge that Channel 5 would never betray his location or any other personal information by which he could be located and identified, spoke about how he’d save a bullet for the police. All the while, they brazenly exposed operations as they spoke more and more with zero caution for themselves and anyone connected to them. Section Boyz might have said ‘trapping ain’t dead’ but those that appeared on Gangland appeared to be trying to bring it to death’s door via Channel 5 along with lengthy prison sentences supported by copious amounts of evidence. The lifestyle they purported clearly isn’t one to be glamourised but their incautiousness beggars belief.

The documentary portrayed the black community as idiots and individuals for whom the price of life is cheap. The reason I don’t caveat that as ‘black gang members’ rather than the black community is because if you aren’t acquainted with black people and perhaps live in a largely ethnically homogenous part of the UK, you might think all black people were like the image shown on the documentary as every person on the show was black.

It’s not as if the mainstream media don’t already drive a racist narrative to the extent that the black diaspora is still faced with prejudice based on such portrayals that we spend our lives refuting. Just look at the media’s annual reporting on the Notting Hill Carnival in contrast to the class A drug-fests that are many festivals yet the latter rarely gets bad press. I commented to a friend that I hoped my in-laws weren’t watching Gangland as they might think whenever I said I was cooking hard food for dinner I might have actually meant drugs rather than breadfruit and green banana.

Gangland left me angry and confused at those who agreed to be on the show but also at Channel 5. I don’t expect Channel 5 to do any favours for the black diaspora but I do expect a broadcaster to show some social responsibility and they have failed in achieving that with Gangland. The documentary wouldn’t actually be amiss on Fox News in a UK special presented by the vile Katie Hopkins.

Of the participants of the show, they were young and presumably eager for a platform to portray themselves in a way that they felt was credible. That in itself is incredibly sad that they’ve mistaken a life of violence and reckless talk as something to pursue and perhaps had no mentors, elders or voices of reason and experience in their lives to show them otherwise and more so so advise that featuring on this documentary was a terrible idea. Any ‘serious’ members in a gang, past or present, would have promptly advised them of that. Nonetheless, I should add that I’m not excusing those that appeared on the show.

The only credible individual of the documentary was Quincy, a former gang member who sought to be a cautionary tale for the life he once lived. Yet even the final edit of the programme seemingly tried to suppress that message. Furthermore, the ignorance that filled the remainder of the broadcast was what Channel 5 deemed more appropriate to air.

Gangland was an opportunity to raise awareness of real problems in London on a platform of balanced, investigative and analytical journalism that explored causes, motivations and solutions. Instead it became a showcase for 60 minutes that lacked credibility and furthered the media’s often racist narrative of negative stereotypes of black people.

Is the Uber model the future of taxi use?

Unlike most millennials, I’ve never booked an Uber. This might make me seem like a luddite but I’ve had little use for it and little incentive to download the app. However, there’s another reason for my resistance to Uber. It’s their business model that’s caused a few raised eyebrows amongst many onlookers and their competition who feel Uber aren’t operating on a level playing field.

Like other sectors that have experienced a drastic shift in the digital age, the internet and smartphones have transformed the consumer experience of hailing a taxi. There’s no need to rely on the chance of seeing a taxi to hail or even ordering a taxi in advance. No middle man via a controller, just low prices and convenience. Yet that’s left traditional taxi services, historically used to an unchallenged monopoly, with an aggressive breed of competition in Uber and similar services such as Lyft and Grab.

Uber is great for consumers as it offers convenient and efficient transport with incredibly competitive prices. Who could argue against that? Indeed, despite my reluctance, and with some trepidation for the double standards it presents with my own ethics, I will probably eventually succumb to using the service for those very reasons. In exchange for the service provided, consumers give Uber's owners frequent custom and consequent profits.

Like most capitalist ‘success stories’, Uber seemingly leaves the owners and the consumers winning while the drivers get a raw deal (which a demand for drivers provides a distraction to). Uber’s competitors in traditional taxi services are also losing out and some would argue unfairly so. Therefore with what appears to be a controversial business model, and working within a sector where it’s viewed negatively, does the Uber model represent the future of taxi hire? And if so, where does that leave the previously unchallenged players and the drivers who provide the service?

Uber allows a taxi to be ‘hailed’ via its app from a growing network of drivers who drive their personal cars having signed up to the service. Albeit subject to some background checks (which critics have argued don’t go far enough and aren’t as extensive as those traditional taxi drivers are subject to), becoming a driver for Uber is relatively easy. That makes it not only an attractive service for consumers but also potential drivers looking for work. That’s without the rigmarole and effort of say doing ‘the knowledge’ for black cab drivers, the demanding training that requires drivers to learn and recall any route in London without the aid of a sat nav or a map. As a result, drivers have initially flocked to Uber but with varying perceptions of the service.

Uber undoubtedly offers flexible working arrangements insofar as it allows drivers to drive as little or as much as they want. Although with Uber taking a 20% cut of an already low fare, drivers need a lot of rides to make it worth their while as a main and sustainable source of income. Drivers either drive with Uber on a part time or ad hoc basis to supplement their income elsewhere or are forced to make an obscene amount of journeys just to break even.

For the former, it’s probably quite a welcome revenue stream. Nonetheless, if it’s your main source of income, it’s not a great situation to say the least. Furthermore, once factors and overheads such as car depreciation, tax, insurance, fuel and amenities are deducted, Uber’s been criticised for paying less than minimum wage. Not to mention, if drivers need to drive excessively to make a reasonable wage, that raises safety issues for passengers. Amongst other criticisms, Uber is yet to provide any clarity or response to refute either suggestion.

Whenever I’m in a taxi, I often like to ask the driver how they feel about Uber and to date responses go from lukewarm to vitriolic regardless of where in the world it might be. The allure of Uber has seemingly faded since its advent and it’s not gone unnoticed. A new taxi hailing app service, Juno, recently launched in New York with its hopes pinned on the premise of happier drivers leading to happier passengers which in turn increases their customer base and revenue. Juno takes 10% commission from drivers, half of Uber’s commission, and promises to give drivers a stake in the company. Even if Juno is unsuccessful in its attempt to dethrone Uber, it’s surely onto something in ensuring drivers aren’t losing out while only consumers and its owners win.

Competition is healthy for any sector. Particularly in contrast to the prices Uber is able to charge, it could be said that traditional taxi fares have long been too high because of higher overheads and a lack of competition to drive them down. With such low prices, Uber has been able to sway consumers to opt for their service. But that’s brought their service under the spotlight even more and largely for negative reasons.

In 2014, having transferred profits to its sister company in the Netherlands where it's subject to a lower rate of tax, Uber paid £22,134 in corporation tax in the UK. That was despite making an £866,000 profit. Uber isn’t the only company adopting similarly unethical, but legal, practices. Though its intention to aggressively limit the tax it pays in the UK, and the social responsibility that comes with that, definitely doesn’t help the company ingratiate itself with me and many others in tempting us to give them our custom.

In the UK, Uber has also been accused of using its app as a meter akin to traditional metered taxis, something exclusive to black cab drivers. Black cab drivers saw this as an attempt to emulate the latter’s service without being subject to the same regulation and constraints that they are. Uber was successful in the legal action taken against them by Transport for London on behalf of black cab drivers to address this. Relations between the new school and the old school within the taxi sector continue to be acrimonious as the newcomers aren’t deemed to be playing fairly.

While traditional taxi services remain at odds with Uber and similar apps, it does need to be questioned how viable of a business model the former actually presents, especially against a backdrop of many taxi hailing apps now being available. Also, regardless of views on the ethics of Uber, it can’t be denied that their service reflects modern society and technology having pervaded all aspects of transportation, primarily in the use of GPS.

With black cab drivers in London continuing to do ‘the knowledge’, it does beg the question “why?” Years spent familiarising yourself with routes that a sat nav could tell you in an instant seems archaic and to some, probably pointless. Drivers should definitely have some knowledge of an area and shouldn’t need to rely wholly on a sat nav. But the cost of time and money against the use of technology bolsters the argument that ‘the knowledge’ is becoming increasingly redundant.

There is a sense of nostalgia and romanticism to the iconic black cabs in London and ‘the knowledge’ probably contributes to that. But like most people, I would rather take a lower fare and a quicker service in place of a nod to London’s history when my priority is completing my journey safety, quickly and at a competitive price. The reluctance of black cabs to modernise has, and will continue to, hinder rather than help in the fight against Uber and similar services. Unless black cabs can reduce their fares and improve their ability to be hailed without relying on chance, I can only see them reducing in their popularity and largely being the choice of tourists and others that cling onto the history of the service.

Other taxi services are heading towards a similar fate in being unable to compete with taxi hailing apps. If I can hail an Uber online for it to potentially arrive in minutes versus calling a taxi that may not be available for even within remotely close to the waiting time a taxi hailing app can provide a car, one can’t be blamed for supporting services like Uber on that basis alone. Uber is unashamedly in-keeping with our expectations and our need for efficiency and lower costs for services that a digital age has afforded. Alas, taxi drivers driving for traditional taxi services know that to make the move to Uber from what might appear a sinking ship, will mean a sharp pay cut and a steep increase in hours just to earn remotely close to what they would have once earned.

The business model of apps like Uber needn’t be unethical and they have modernised a sector that has rejected the use of technology at their peril. These apps surely represent the future of taxi services and it’s not too late for the old guard to adapt and join the party while it can still be partly on their terms. Conversely, Uber et al need to realise that while they might be reaping the benefits of unadulterated capitalism now, history is littered with examples of where workers’ dissatisfaction and negative public opinion has been forced to be addressed for a business to remain viable. Uber needs to be mindful that if they don’t fine-tune the business model to ensure this, someone else surely will.

Why I don’t believe in the importance and sanctity of marriage (and why my wife does)

While it might not be a popular opinion amongst married people especially, I don't believe in the importance and sanctity of marriage. In fact, beyond being a largely administrative and social construct, I struggle to see the value of it beyond a formality of what a couple presumably already have before they decide to tie the knot. At face value, my opinions on marriage probably appear to present a dichotomy with my own relationship. But I can assure you they don't. My marriage is just fine, contributed to by that very stance.

Despite my views on marriage, my wife thinks the opposite. Again, this difference of opinion has no adverse effect on our relationship whatsoever. The crux of what constitutes a balanced and healthy relationship is what we do agree on and the entity of marriage is very much secondary to that. Nonetheless, to give a balanced viewpoint, and in a first on iamalaw, this is a co-written article with my wife arguing why she believes in the importance and sanctity of marriage and why I beg to differ. And just like most things we disagree on, it's appropriate that she has the last word.

Why I don't believe in the importance and sanctity of marriage

What is marriage? It’s a representation of a union between two people to signify their commitment to each other. That might sound like a fairly sterile definition akin to a merger between two companies but essentially, that's what marriage is. When you consider the reciprocated love between a couple, marriage didn't bring that about, it existed long before. Hence marriage simply declaring an existing arrangement rather than creating a new one per se. Indeed, the belief that said emotions will appear or develop consequent to getting married is what many short-lived or flawed marriages can be attributed to.

Marriage doesn't unlock a door to relationship utopia. Anyone claiming it does is a liar or in a situation where they need to convince themselves and everyone else that they’re happy. Sadly, there are a lot of people like that. I’ve even been to a wedding where unbeknownst to the poor groom, I knew the bride loved someone else (not me I should add) and it was written all over her face. Alas, she thought marriage might be able to eradicate those thoughts, not to mention she felt she needed to be married so as to not ‘fall behind’ with her already married peers. It therefore serves to support the notion that in some instances, marriage can merely further the antithesis of what society erroneously claims it establishes as the basis of a bona fide, committed relationship.

When I decided to propose to my now wife, I didn't wake up that day with an epiphany that I was suddenly on the brink of total commitment to her. Nor did I feel I was just shy of such sentiments but needed to be married to facilitate those feelings being at 100%. By definition, I was ‘married’ years before I was married in the legal sense. So what's so sacred about something I already had? 

Our wedding was great and an opportunity to celebrate our relationship with the people that matter to us while publicly formalising our relationship. Along with knowing the significance marriage has for my wife (which while not wholly in agreement with my own views, has no adverse or compromising impact on me), deciding to get married was exactly for those reasons. Nevertheless, a wedding isn't a marriage. And a marriage is something we already had before exchanging vows in front of our friends and family. 

Once I was married (in the legal sense), nothing changed in our interaction or anything whatsoever. We already lived together (which was non-negotiable before marriage for both of us) so what was going to change when we went back home the following day after our wedding? And if anything had changed, or if we had expected or hoped it to, our marriage would’ve delusionally been based on the wrong reasons and our relationship upon a very shaky and flawed foundation.

When the pomp of even modest weddings is considered and juxtaposed with the supposed meaning of marriage, it's hard to argue that there isn't another driver behind the desire of many to get married. Do they really want to celebrate what is already a union with each other or is it an opportunity for the pantomime that many weddings are? Particularly in cultures where the status of being married is bizarrely celebrated as the pinnacle of one's existence and a meaningless measure of success within a society that often laments being single, the value of marriage as an entity surely needs to be questioned. I’ve also noticed that it’s often a case of the bigger the celebration, the more the couple are trying to convince and distract themselves and others that their marriage is a good idea.

We all have free will to determine if we want to establish and remain in a relationship with someone. Being married doesn't keep me with my wife, it's my free will and desire to coexist with her that does. Marriage has nothing to do with it. If a married couple decide to go their separate ways, the acceptance of their marriage having broken down often occurs later than it should have because of the status of being married being clung to, and the unwarranted stigma of being divorced or separated, that can delay the relationship ending. In those situations, marriage can actually constrain one’s free will with consequences that can’t be good for the well-being and mental health of the couple or even any children. 

From my perspective, marriage doesn't even rank at the top of manifestations of commitment between a couple and certainly not above having a child/children together or jointly owning a home. Rather than embody, marriage illustrates that commitment and articulates it in a religious, legal or cultural context. It certainly doesn't facilitate it as it should have already existed in the relationship.

Contrary to what the above might suggest, I’m not anti-marriage. I just don't think it embodies the sanctity of the commitment it’s claimed to epitomise. Some of the most committed relationships and solid couples I’ve seen are unmarried and many of the flawed relationships I’ve seen are within marriages. Marriage doesn't maketh a relationship. It's merely a label society has foisted upon us in trying to demonstrate commitment between two people via a romanticised social construct.

Why I believe in the importance and sanctity of marriage (even though my husband doesn't)

Marriage has always been important to me. I didn't chase getting married like some of my peers but deep down, I probably always wanted to get married and I’ve always believed in the sanctity of it. I’ve never really questioned why but I’ve always seen it like that. When I got married, nothing changed. However, it still remains important to me.

Getting married shows commitment between a couple. There are other ways that commitment can be displayed and I understand that actions like buying a property together or having children show that. But the commitment in those instances are usually secondary factors to actually wanting those things. People don't say “we’re committed to each other so let's buy a house together and have children”. People usually want a house and/or children and their commitment to each other can increase on the basis of that.

With marriage, it's a public celebration of your relationship but one that the couple make for themselves and with each other. It’s not because of any reasons or circumstances that are really about something else like having both names on a mortgage.

Especially as someone who hasn't changed their surname in marriage, I think marriage creates a unit for the couple, and children, that doesn't need to be defined by a shared name. That isn't to say that I think you need to be married to have children. Although personally, being married represents a unit that you can say is yours and that you feel a belonging to.

I can admit that marriage has messed up a lot of people. Within my community especially, people chase it as if they’d be incomplete without it and I’ve seen many people get married for the wrong reasons and to the wrong people in relationships without real love. Even in the current generation, marriage is the done thing; it's not something people would necessarily do or see as important without that cultural influence or push. But the importance I feel marriage has outweighs any of that negativity. 

Marriage brings security as the couple make a conscious decision to declare their commitment to each other. When they have problems within their marriage, they therefore feel like they want to work harder to fix it because they took a step toward that position of being married in the first place. Marriage isn't just a throwaway commitment that a couple are less likely to want to hold onto.

Culturally, a wedding, and especially a daughter's wedding, is a big deal in my community and I feel the same way. Families want to celebrate marriages and that's a valid and happy reason to celebrate. I know that can make for a bit of a show but it's culturally important to us and that's something I can't really explain beyond it being of importance to my identity.

Marriage means something that can't always be put into words and I know it isn't for everyone. It doesn't make a relationship but it represents the union of two people in a way that shows just how important their relationship is to each other. It puts that on display for everyone else to witness and gives something ‘official’ to what a couple admittedly already had together.

The teachers’ strike isn’t about teachers, it’s about the students and their education

Members of the NUT (National Union of Teachers) are holding the first national strike since 2014 on 5 July. The length of time since the most recent national action refutes any suggestion that the NUT, or indeed its members, are in any way militant; particularly against a backdrop of worsening conditions for teachers and students. But it also shows how members feel there is no recourse with the government bullishly refusing to address the mess they have created in education.

I’ve previously written about the current crisis in teaching and the challenges facing education as a whole are well documented on this site. As are the reasons for strike action as a last resort when union members feel the only tool they have to initiate or resume meaningful negotiations with their employer is the withdrawal of their labour. Therefore I shan’t discuss the aforementioned at any length. Although, I will reiterate that not only is teaching and education at a critical point, but that strike action is necessary as a last resort with a government that is void of empathy for teachers and students and nonchalant towards their destruction of the education system.

Ignorance and disdain for teachers from the government and sections of the media will no doubt encourage the public to think that the strike is about teachers selfishly complaining. However, what the teachers’ strike is really about is the students and their education. Just as students are at the crux of all teachers do, the improvements that teachers seek are for their current and future students and the protection of an education system that no one else seems to be protecting. Understanding that students and their education is what the strike is about, is incredibly important but a fact that is lost on so many as they instead look to lambaste and demonise teachers.

Amidst the cornucopia of problems within the profession, the teachers’ strike is centred on three main arguments of school funding, the protection of teachers’ terms and conditions in all institutions and a commitment to meaningful talks in pursuit of resolving concerns with teachers’ contracts.

While the Chancellor claims to be protecting funding for schools, in real terms, he’s frozen the funding for education while taking an increased amount of money from schools through the national insurance and pension contributions he exacts. Consequently, for every 20 teachers employed, a school has to find an extra teacher’s salary to give to the Treasury. The impact of finding those savings directly hits students and is already visible in the cuts that schools are making.

Schools around the country are being forced to adopt further austerity to ridiculous levels where many teachers will lament basic resources not being available, increased class sizes and the abolishment of specialist and pastoral posts of staff who provide immense and invaluable support to students. Meanwhile, some schools, and notably multi-academy trusts, are finding cash for bloated senior leadership teams or frivolous expenses that make a mockery of the education system and fail to benefit students. It’s all the more reason that school funding needs to be addressed along with a wider dialogue on ensuring that students are at the centre of spending.

Protection of teachers’ terms and conditions in all institutions, including academies, and talks on teachers’ contracts may seem selfish. But teachers cannot be effective without either. Running teachers into the ground with excessive workload isn’t going to help them to help students yet critics of teachers claim it’s merely a case of the progression throwing its toys out the pram. Oddly, it’s often a criticism from those who don’t work anywhere near a 12 hour day, with the stresses that accompany teaching, only to go home and work further hours. Teachers need terms and conditions and contracts that permit them being effective to their students even if no one else. Nevertheless, the status quo has put an unbearable and bureaucratic strain on this happening.

The NUT’s goal of protecting conditions being directed primarily at academies may seem unnecessary given the government decided to drop its plans for forced academisation of all English schools by 2020. But the Tories' ideological obsession with academies nonetheless continues and forthcoming education legislation will include powers for the DfE (Department of Education to force schools in 'underperforming' local authorities to be converted to academies. And with it, the spectre of academisation remains over many schools.

Many schools, afraid of forced academisation, become data-driven institutions that show diminishing regard for students’ emotional, social and even meaningful academic growth and instead focuses on grades and levels that show they aren’t underperforming by the government’s standards. Again, the students take the biggest hit as they become statistics rather than people who should be nurtured within a system that should have them at the forefront of its agenda.

If you support an education system that provides for students while putting them at the heart of all it does, you’re on the same page as the teachers striking. This strike isn’t about teachers, it’s about the students who are suffering from the government’s policies and a damaged education system. The DfE has ironically claimed that the NUT and its members are causing unnecessary disruption by “playing politics with children's futures” and sections of the media will no doubt follow with similar rhetoric. Though what many onlookers may not realise is that they’re actually in agreement with the aims and principles of the strike after all.

The EU referendum result was deeper than how the UK perceives the EU

During the EU referendum campaign, and in the aftermath of the result, it’s clear that the referendum was deeper than just views on our relationship with the EU. It was about the attitudes of the UK electorate and just how divided we are as a country. The leave vote wasn’t driven by a well articulated campaign that promoted awareness of the EU as a supranational body and how it might not benefit us. Nor was it driven by a plan for how life outside of the EU would look, particularly when juxtaposed with the status quo. Instead, it was driven by ignorance, insularity, xenophobia and undertones of prejudice. That is the crux of how we ended with the electorate voting to leave the EU.

The EU isn’t a perfect institution and it’s a fairly convoluted and bureaucratic one at that. Moreover, many people can’t claim to fully understand it and I would include myself in that statement. Though headline arguments in favour of EU membership such as economic benefits, cultural and historic ties to Europe (the EU was formed in an effort to foster stronger ties post world war 2 in a bid to prevent Europe going to war again), freedom of movement, free movement of labour and EU laws that protect human rights, employment rights and quality of life (which I would struggle to trust a Tory government to preserve) were solid arguments in favour of remaining in the EU. In opposition, the leave campaign’s objective arguments to refute the above were predicated on.... well, nothing. Casual racism doesn’t count.

What exactly did you win? A gloomy economic outlook for the UK and the promotion of xenophobia? Huzzah!

It is important to remember that not everyone who voted to leave is racist. But anyone who’s racist certainly voted to leave. Furthermore, many people who voted leave had reasons that despite not shared by me, had rationale that was void of any prejudice and what they felt, rightly or wrongly, was best for the country. Nevertheless, such views were in a minority, even within the leave campaign and the utterances of politicians who supported a Brexit.

I'm not holding a grudge against anyone who voted differently from me and decided to vote to leave the EU because they felt it was genuinely the best option for the country and based on a well reasoned argument. I am, however, holding a grudge against anyone who voted leave based on xenophobia, selfishness and any opinion they based on something they read in The Sun.

Immigration has been a major driver toward Euroscepticism as an enlarged EU inevitably means further non-British EU citizens in the UK. The UK has traditionally been seen as an attractive location to live and work and many EU citizens come here to do just that. In doing so, they contribute to the economy and work in sectors where there’s a clear demand. Otherwise, there wouldn’t be a job for them. They assimilate British culture and contribute economically, culturally and socially to the UK.

Conversely, while we can’t pretend that there aren’t some EU citizens who are attracted to the UK due to it having a more generous and accessible welfare system than their own, they are not in the majority. Yet the right wing media and politicians have fed us with this via racist and politically motivated drivel that many people lap up as the manna for their prejudice. These are British people. Though prior to the referendum, and in contemporary history, they had not made their sentiments so clear and on such a prominent platform that would show how divided the UK is.

Oh wait, is Boris Johnson not part of the establishment you wanted to give a kicking?

Many voting leave saw the EU referendum as a vote on immigration. Think immigrants (regardless of if they’re from within the EU) are taking our jobs, welfare and social housing whilst showing our country no respect? Then vote leave! This is what many perceived the referendum to be asking them and what the leave campaign peddled. In an age of the internet, where one can research essentially anything, I doubt many people sought to find out what the pros and cons of EU membership actually were. Rather they relied on propaganda that even a day after the result has been shown to be a lie. Furthermore, they wanted to give the establishment a kicking (forgetting that Boris Johnson et al are part of the establishment), say no to immigrants and ‘regain control of our country’. All utterly stupid and unfounded reasons, particularly when made with such consequences.

On the issue of immigration, it will remain a contentious subject whether in or out of the EU. Nonetheless, the fact is economic migrants make a huge and necessary contribution to our economy and workforce. Nor will our borders now close as the UK gradually becomes a homogenous white nation again. That’s something ethnic minorities campaigning to leave the EU like Tory MP Preeti Patel (whose parents are Gujarati Ugandans) were blind to as the desire of many leave voters. When they say they want immigrants out Preeti, even though we were born here they mean you and I too.

"What have I done?..."

Politicians have failed to generate a sensible and pragmatic debate on immigration, preferring to use it as a political hot potato. No wonder a section of the electorate felt this was their way to add their voice and frustrations to a dialogue that hasn’t really started. The problem is, they chose to do it at the least practical time. Immigration was the leave campaign’s trump card and they knew it. Dress it with some propaganda and spurious arguments, while targeting ignorant and largely uneducated people, and they probably won’t even question why they should do anything but vote leave. And 51.9% of them didn’t. Not to mention, not once did the leave campaign include a plan before or after the referendum to set out life after a potential Brexit. Indeed, Boris Johnson’s rhetoric encouraging an unhurried exit, and his demeanor during the post result press conference, was that of a man not only without a plan but also with the realisation of ‘what the ---- have I done?’ As Del Boy would say, what a plonker.

"What a plonker!"

For the first time in my adult life, I am ashamed to be British; a significant statement as a British born, second generation West Indian, who nonetheless encapsulates Britishness as part of my identity. I am ashamed to share an identity with cretins who hold the views that prompted them to vote leave. Idiots who see right wing tabloids like The Sun and the likes of Nigel Farage, Michael Gove and Boris Johnson, who have all resorted to undertones of racism throughout this campaign, as credible sources of information upon which to base their decisions. I’m ashamed to live in and be born in a country where such feelings exist to such an extent.

Like many non-Americans around the world, I’ve long perceived America as a nation comprising some superb ignorance and insularity. Their abysmal and disheartening lack of gun control against a backdrop of a countless horrific gun related tragedies and Donald Trump becoming a presidential candidate supports that view of American society and the American people. Britain hasn’t quite experienced such levels of poor judgement (although we have allowed Boris Johnson to position himself as the potential next Prime Minister so perhaps we have after all) but with the referendum vote to leave the EU, we now have our own watershed moment in contemporary British history that illustrates the obtuseness and stupidity in our society. Indeed, Britain isn’t far behind in sharing some of the attitudes that the rest of world mocks America for. As an American friend rightly commented, this is truly a case of ‘like father like son’.

The divisions that long existed in the UK are now more conspicuous than they have been in recent time. Those who voted to leave voted on the sentiments that UKIP, a racist party, have campaigned on since their creation. Let it sink in that half the electorate share UKIP’s views. Just as progressive Americans and progressive states such as New York and New Jersey, live alongside those who get their information from Fox News, we have become a nation so polarised that we are a country of two narratives.

I am angry, sickened and disillusioned with the result and those who voted to leave with little regard for the consequence but more so what their decision represented. In a hilarious but on point video (NSFW) that captures the sentiments of most people who voted to remain in the EU, Rants N Bants articulates what most of us are thinking; we don’t want to be associated with a nation that possesses such attitudes. Albeit in some jest, many are even calling for London to breakaway from the rest of the UK. Scotland and Northern Ireland (who both largely voted to remain), have also already highlighted the tensions the referendum result has raised for their respective inclusion in the UK. The leave vote was also heavily supported by older electors with little regard for subsequent generations’ futures. Selfishness and insularity has played a big part in this referendum.

"I went one referendum too far..."

For now, we are still in the EU. No amount of celebrations from Nigel Farage can change that. It’s also not likely to be a hurried exit for the UK as there isn’t a plan and the government will need and want to stall as long as possible. David Cameron announcing his decision to step down in the wake of the referendum result adds a leadership battle in the Conservative party that will further divert attention from a hasty Brexit. Good, bad or indifferent, no one knows what happens next. What we do know is sterling has taken a kicking after the result, Moody’s has cut the UK’s credit outlook to negative and the EU is not looking for an amicable separation. The leave campaign wanted isolation and to move away from the status quo and now it seems like they’ve got it.

However, while somewhat fanciful, I’m not entirely convinced that an exit from the EU will happen, at least not with the separation envisaged by the leave campaign.

Firstly, the referendum result is not legally binding. It’s essentially a gauge of public support for an issue. And despite the support being in favour of leaving the EU, it was with 51.9% of the vote. Support, yes, overwhelming, no. Secondly, to put the wheels of a Brexit in motion, article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty will need to be invoked which Cameron intends to leave for his successor. Some would argue that setting that in motion would also warrant agreement from the UK Parliament rather than merely going on the referendum result for such a significant issue. Yet most MPs support remaining in the EU. Therefore particularly given the narrow margin for the vote to leave, they may decide to go against the referendum result in any vote in Parliament and not vote in favour of doing so.

For the UK Parliament to go against the referendum result, it’d set a huge and dangerous precedent and undermine the referendum as a democratic process. Although amidst the referendum result having an immediate and adverse impact on the British economy, and a tangible sense of regret amongst many leave voters who either voted to leave as a protest or were taken in by propaganda that’s since been found to be a lie, it would give MPs voting against leaving some credence as being in the public interest.

A petition calling for a further referendum already has in excess of 2 million signatures at the time of writing and David Lammy MP has called for Parliament to ignore the referendum. People are rightly not ready or willing to accept the result and Parliament may not either given how quickly it’s become apparent what a bad decision it actually is. That could result in legal action via judicial review from the leave campaign and it would all get quite messy which is one thing that seems fairly likely regardless of what happens.

The referendum result has exposed how divided the UK is and how much ignorance, xenophobia and selfishness there is within the country alongside the inclusivity that it must be stressed does exist throughout the UK. With my London-centric perspective, perhaps it’s just less than I previously gave the country credit for. Attitudes that have perhaps been suppressed since the first wave of post war immigration apparently never really disappeared and generations later, it has to be questioned if these attitudes are simply inherent to some sections of British society.

Whether or not we proceed with a Brexit, our relationship with the EU is altered forever. We have rejected strong relations with the EU, and all that it brought us, as the UK has cut off its nose to spite its face. Posturing via the ballot box might have seemed a good idea for the leave voters at the time. But they’ve created a mess that no matter to what extent it can be resolved, has damaged our relationship with the EU and each other and created a perception of the UK as a country that comprises many of the attitudes we’ve long criticised other nations for holding.

Muhammad Ali wasn't just the greatest boxer, he was one of the greatest period

There’s been an outpouring of tributes following Muhammad Ali’s passing. As a sporting icon and a figure from popular culture, this isn’t uncommon. Yet Ali was a boxer, an athlete from a sport that has been equally celebrated and lambasted for its gladiatorial nature. A sport that is unashamedly the hurt business and ignorantly deemed an arena where the fighters are too stupid to realise that they endure pain for our enjoyment. A sport that has seen its biggest stars elevated to the dizzy heights of success only to unceremoniously be brought crashing down when they’re superfluous to requirements and no longer a cash cow for the money men of the sport (who’ve never laced up a pair of gloves let alone thrown a punch themselves). Yes, he was a boxer, but the above didn’t apply to him; he was special. He transcended boxing, sport and even popular culture. He was the greatest but without the hyperbole that such labels often attract. Therefore it’s little wonder his death has been met with a response that is befitting of a legend.

As a boxing fan there’s a lot that could be said of Ali’s ability in the ring but little that hasn’t already been said by others. Indeed, when encouraged by fellow fight fan and Muhammad Ali admirer @davidcdennis to pen this post, this was my concern. Ali’s footwork, hand speed, movement and athleticism remain second to none. His heart, mettle and conditioning in soaking up punches from an incredibly ferocious puncher in George Foreman (who most modern fighters would have ducked in fear of his punching power for the duration of their careers) to claim the W against all odds, spoke volumes of his character in the ring. Moreover, it served as a reflection of his tenacity as a man outside of it. Despite me regularly and repeatedly revisiting Ali’s fights online or reading fight reports as if he fought at the previous weekend rather than decades ago, his boxing prowess isn’t what he stands out for either. Instead, it’s what he represented which is what his legacy is undoubtedly driven by. It’s also why he’s honoured by so many who may never have even seen any of his fights.

Ali represented the struggle of the black diaspora but also Muslims at a time when both minority groups struggled to achieve respect and acceptance in America (arguably they still do). Although this wasn’t from a position of pity for Ali didn’t need anyone’s sympathy. Even as Parkinson's amplified the juxtaposition between Ali in his later years with the demeanour we once saw of a young, outspoken, athletic man, he always rejected any pathos others may have tried to inject into his story.

Ali was the architect of swagger, slick oration, charisma and sublime intelligence that wasn’t seen in a black boxer let alone a sportsman period. And certainly not on the platform that he occupied. No interviewer could bamboozle him if they tried and he could articulate his argument with a flair and authority that would leave his audience in awe even if not in agreement. In an era where the boxing writing and broadcasting community was dominated by white, middle class men, many of whom would have looked down on a black, southern fighter, Ali turned the equilibrium of their interaction on its head. He was the smartest and most eloquent in any room and during interviews not only did he know it but he exuded it. Though there was something that tempered his confidence in not crossing the fine line into the realm of unpleasant arrogance.

As an instant black icon, Ali gave the diaspora pride and credibility. He was one of the prominent voices of black, Muslim and social consciousness in an era where it meant so much and was so needed. He knew he was a handsome black man and made sure to share it. In doing so, he unashamedly celebrated the black image. This was at a time when subconscious self-loathing was widespread amongst black people as a result of enduring racism and the shadow of slavery and latterly segregation. Ali ignored the memo of the day that being black was to be dirty and inferior and replaced it with his own narrative that black was beautiful; a narrative that has been central to the ongoing healing of the black diaspora. Ali undoubtedly inspired a generation of youth and countered the racism that was rife during his peak via his very being.

The integrity of Ali was unparalleled. He refused to evade conscription during the Vietnam war but even more vociferously refused to go to war. As a Muslim, he cited he was a conscientious objector which was rejected. Nonetheless, he represented a reminder of Islam as a compassionate religion and he continued to do so throughout his life. Again, Ali’s identity was in contention with his time but he was unapologetic for it. Similarly, against a backdrop of inequality and prejudice in America, Ali’s logic in support of his opposition was “I ain’t got no quarrel with those Vietcong.” And he was right as they didn't have a quarrel with a black, Muslim man either; he could find that without leaving America. While some saw it as unpatriotic at the time, history has judged his opposition more favourably. His actions, which cost him three years of his career with inactivity when his boxing licence was revoked, showed the principled stance that was lost on so many Americans at the time. As a social commentator, Ali was also equally earnest and forthright which compounded his influence in his generation and beyond.

Subsequent to his boxing career, Ali’s humanitarian work and compassion came to the fore. Despite being a quality that might appear to create a dichotomy with boxing, the latter was even apparent during his career and Ali rarely had real venom for his opponents. But more fool those those who thought that would detract from his performance in a fight. There was a contrast between the persona of the brash boxer and the compassionate humanitarian, qualities that weren't mutually exclusive for Ali.

Muhammad Ali might be remembered as the greatest ever boxer. But his true legacy is of being one of the greatest period.

Alicia Keys’ and the no makeup movement

Alicia Keys’ recent essay on Lenny provides a narrative that is surely familiar to most women. It articulates the struggle and pressures of being a woman in feeling the need to meet accepted and expected images of beauty that conform to traditional notions of being a woman. In a brave move that should be praised, Keys’ decision to shun this in rejecting the need to constantly wear makeup equally opposes and challenges the social anxieties it presents for many women. Indeed, her attempt to spread a #NoMakeup movement is arguably inspiring many women but it’s the tip of the iceberg when considering the notions of beauty and femininity that women have long been subject to.

As a man, much of the the experience outlined by Alicia Keys, and shared with many women, is admittedly alien to me. Although as an aside, men are increasingly subject to further social pressures in body image and perceptions of masculinity. This is prompting many men to take dangerous steps to meet these perceptions which are rapidly damaging men’s mental and physical health at perilous levels. Sadly, as a relatively new phenomenon, these aren’t widely recognised. Nevertheless, for women this is something that has existed as far back as patriarchal stereotypes can be traced throughout history.

Personally, I like to look good as much as the next person does. But the driver for that stems from my personal contentment and less so from the perception of others. During the winter months, I often grow my hair into a sometimes untamed but periodically shaped afro and shave less frequently than usual. There are occasions that I probably look at least a tad unkempt but on the whole, I don’t care and broadly speaking I’m not judged for it. It’s something I embrace with a nonchalance that is born out of incremental improvements to my own self-esteem and mental health whereby I feel more comfortable with myself, my actions and my appearance than I might once have been. Though for women, this represents a challenge that involves undoing centuries of expected conformity in one's appearance and indeed traditional notions of femininity which are increasingly foisted in the face of women.

Social media has provided a further and damaging projection of what many women feel they need to meet with Instagram posts displaying what is brushed off as casual and effortless perfection of women. Subjects such as the Kardashians are photographed leaving the gym, looking as if they’re yet to break a sweat with not a hair out of place. Because that’s exactly how we all look after a workout, right? Then there are the voyeuristic photos (often posted under the guise of something that seems more principled than the superficial notion of merely getting your attention) that get posted to an audience of young women who naively seek to attain an image that’s manufactured by those who devote their lives to maintaining a plastic, paparazzi-ready facade.

Makeup, hair, clothes, shoes and conforming to expectations of ideal body image present a rigmarole that women have to contend with on a daily basis. And rarely does society suggest it’s acceptable to dispense with any of the aforementioned. For younger women and girls especially, the message is damaging - if you don’t look like this, you’re slacking as a woman. It comes from the media but also wider society and even some men who fail to accept women with a natural demeanour that ignores the above. Similarly and lamentably, and in a further example of gender roles being dangerously reinforced, some women will admit to feeling naked or exposed without wearing makeup as it provides a shield that they literally feel unable to leave home without.

In a brilliantly honest but hilarious social critique of the expectations of beauty placed upon women, one of YouTuber Jenna Marbles’ early videos highlights the extent to which women go in their daily routines. It’s frighteningly accurate for many women and her satirical commentary provides the subconscious narrative for what many women feel compelled to do on a daily basis. Nonetheless, there isn’t anything wrong with wearing makeup. But there is a troubling issue with the extent to which it becomes a decision based on social conditioning and pressures and less about a personal choice, not to mention the effect it has on female mental health.

I’m in no way criticising women who wear makeup or makeup per se. It can enhance, accentuate or refine features and conceal what might personally be deemed a minor imperfection. And most importantly, it can provide a source of confidence that should never be rejected. No different to how I might get a haircut or have a shave when attending an event, makeup can be part of the effort women make to feel good about themselves. After all, we should all do what makes us comfortable and supports our self-esteem and no one should feel the need to apologise for doing so. However, that shouldn't be confused with attempting to meet a gauge of beauty that isn’t our own.

As a celebrity, Alicia Keys is able to use her status as a vehicle for the #NoMakeup movement but her essay also shows the emotional growth she’s undergone to arrive at a point where she is able to embrace her new stance. Furthermore, let’s not pretend that even without makeup, Alicia Keys hardly falls short of the accepted notion of beauty. It’s just a more natural, and some might say less refined, version of what we’re accustomed to seeing. It’s also worth noting that Alicia Keys is an artist who has a huge talent that doesn’t require compensation based on her looks and therefore has further attributes upon which to pin her own self-confidence. Although this shouldn’t detract from the stance that she and many other women have taken in rejecting these social pressures.

It’s questionable if women have been so long subject to these expectations that the status quo can never be overturned. A natural look can be met with raised (and sometimes unnaturally shaped) eyebrows as if to suggest “didn’t you get the memo? We don’t do that as women” which is a sad reality. Many women even experience discomfort in showing themselves without makeup to their partner, family or friends let alone to strangers.

I’m sure #NoMakeup will get some welcome traction on social media. It’ll also likely result in many #NoMakeup selfies celebrating the rejection of having to constantly wear makeup out of obligation rather than choice which is the crux of the argument. More significantly, hopefully it can provide the seed for the wider debate on the social conditioning woman are subject to and the damaging impact it has on successive generations of females.

The primary English curriculum is destroying the notion of good writing

One of the reasons I write this blog is that I enjoy writing; the expression of ideas, opinions and analysis via the written word. It’s something I’ve enjoyed since being a child and it’s extended to my appreciation of good literature; realising and embracing compelling texts that engage the reader in the way that all good writing should achieve. Undoubtedly, grammar, punctuation, spelling and syntax all play a role in good writing and they provide the foundations for well written text. Although they aren’t the essence of it in providing that intangible quality that draws a reader in and captures their attention.

In teaching primary school children the basics of good writing, the principles of the aforementioned do need to be understood. Students need to be taught how to correctly punctuate sentences to give their writing structure and desired effect. Similarly, the teaching of good grammar is necessary to equip students with the ability to correctly structure their writing for lucidity and coherence. And as primary school provides the bedrock for subsequent education, knowledge and skills we use in our adult lives, it’s only right that there is coverage of this in the primary English curriculum. However, with the still relatively new curriculum, there’s an imbalanced focus in favour of the above and at the expense of what really constitutes good writing. As a result, it’s destroying the notion of good writing in schools and wrongly teaching children that good writing is more about spelling, punctuation and grammar than the substance that captivates a reader.

In what has become characteristic rhetoric from the DfE (Department for Education), it’s claimed that the primary English curriculum is providing a ‘back to basics’ approach with emphasis on the fundamentals of the English language. That means ‘SPaG’ (spelling, punctuation and grammar) has been brought to the forefront of writing and is considered an entity itself for assessment purposes. In fact, had it not been for the government having leaked the key stage 1 SPaG SATs paper online before the actual SATs, it would have been a further source of anxiety for seven year olds across the country along with the Maths and Reading papers they sat this term.

Writing assessments (which are teacher assessed) are also SPaG-heavy and outline much of the gauge upon which students’ progress in writing is measured. Therefore a soulless piece of writing that lacks the ability to attract its reader could conceivably be considered a ‘good’ piece of writing because it includes the SPaG features upon which writing is now assessed. This isn’t what primary school children should be taught yet they’re erroneously some of the measures of what constitutes good writing. Not only does this mislead students as to what good writing is but it also erodes the creativity and soul that should be central to any form of text.

When reading a good book, article or any text for that matter, I’m yet to be compelled by the number of contractions (merged words such as ‘don’t’ or ‘should’ve’) or conjunctions (words such as ‘because’ or ‘when’ that are used to join or coordinate clauses) used by the author. Nor have I ever remarked “what great use of a preposition”.

In my personal and professional life, I’ve never written a letter, email or report where I considered my use of expanded noun phrases or fronted adverbials in communicating my argument either. These simply aren’t the hallmarks of good writing and as adults, they aren’t attributes that we consciously call upon when writing. Furthermore, if reading the above terms was met with bafflement, you needn’t worry as they’re commonly used in everyday writing. We just aren’t forced to recognise them with their respective terms as the DfE force children as young as 6 and 7 years old to as an indication of their writing ability.

After speech, writing is one of our most dominant forms of expression and the reason why talk for writing at an early age is invaluable. The journey made by a thought that is then articulated before manifesting itself as the written word, is a journey and process that many of us take for granted. Yet for young children, it's a process that requires development via confidence, practise and encouragement that their ideas are worthy of putting pen to paper without fear of error. It's fostering the bravery that artists of all forms of expression possess and what allows our creativity to be unbridled. Though having to consider a quagmire of terms and conventions at such a young age surely hinders that and saps the soul of a piece of writing with every feature that is recalled.

As children get older, the rules of writing will fall into place and become present in one's writing. We needn't aggressively foist it upon young children when they're at an age where formulating their ideas is the most important aspect of developing their writing and language skills.

As we (or I should say the DfE) obsess over results, we also often deny children the opportunity to truly immerse themselves in a text for fear of insufficient coverage of other areas of the curriculum. In doing so, we diminish students’ ability to appreciate text as a crucial principle of reading. Not to mention, this lends itself to damaging their writing with fewer examples where good writing has been modelled and without the obsession of everything they're taught in their SPaG lessons.

Lower down in primary schools, the focus on phonics and decoding words as the primary strategy for early reading and writing illustrates the extent to which the government desires a rigid approach to literacy. Higher up the school system in secondary schools, teaching to the test, which Nick Gibb, ironically lamented, is even more rife in English lessons where texts are rattled through with an increased focus on exam question preparation and less focus on the appreciation of the text. At the behest of the government, students are therefore again robbed of the practical and academic skills of good writing via reading.

The government seemingly doesn’t know what makes for good writing and how to achieve it. Furthermore, they don’t seem to be able to meet their own definition of what constitutes good writing via the rules they’ve determined either. Nick Gibb was unable to answer a question from a key stage 2 SATs SPaG paper and Nicky Morgan doesn’t appear to be able to spell. I wouldn’t judge either of them as being poor writers on account of that. But based on their criteria, and the 'no excuses' culture that they are injecting into the English school system, perhaps I shouldn't be so kind.

Good writing has soul. It represents the writer’s ideas how they intended and engages the reader as the words jump off the page to convey opinion and arguments or evoke images and emotions. There shouldn’t be anything sterile or overly systematic about good writing but the government’s approach is creating just that.

Are ethnic minority Tories a paradox or a representation of progress within the Conservative party?

When most people think of British politicians and the British political class, they think of white, middle-aged, middle-class men with a stronghold of support from Middle England. And broadly speaking, they’d be right. Although within contemporary history, there has been a shift and albeit limitedly, progress has been made in bringing further diversity to politics. Women have become a feature of British politics with a female former British Prime Minister in Margaret Thatcher and a female First Minister of Scotland in Nicola Sturgeon. In 1997 when Labour were elected to power, 101 of their MPs were female which prompted the Daily Mail to coin the somewhat misogynistic label of ‘Blair’s Babes’.

For ethnic minority politicians in the UK, their increase has been less prolific but still visible. Where ethnic minority politicians have been most noticeable has been within the Labour Party, which is hardly surprising given their track record on promoting and legislating equality for all minority groups. That’s in contrast with the Conservative Party’s historically hostile reception towards immigrants and its resistance to equality for any minority group other than the ‘1%’ who comprise many within the party and bankroll them. As a result, and unsurprisingly, minorities have typically aligned themselves with the Labour Party or the left.

Firstly, let’s not pretend that the Labour Party and the broader left is, or always has been, void of prejudice or always promoted equality. The female sewing machinists at Ford’s Dagenham plant were initially not supported by their trade union in their 1968 strike for equal pay. Furthermore, while Labour and the trade unions have a long and proud history of supporting ethnic minorities, many post-war immigrants were met with hostility by many within the trade union movement. Factions echoing the irrational and unfounded fears of some of their members claimed that immigrants were taking the jobs of the indigenous white British. This was despite an acute labour shortage following the war. Such undertones could also be be felt within the Labour Party at a time when broader British society and politics was arguably subject to much institutional racism.

Nevertheless, it was Barbara Castle, a Labour MP and the then Secretary of State for Employment, who intervened in the the Ford machinists’ strike and a Labour government that was responsible for the Equal Pay Act 1970 that the strike action helped to bring about. It was also a Labour government that was responsible for the Race Relations Act 1965 which many Labour backbenchers actually argued didn’t go far enough. Indeed, while it hasn’t been without blemish, the Labour Party and the left has a long and celebrated history of promoting equality for all minorities, which can’t be said for the Conservative Party. Even as recently as 2013, the Conservative Party was split over same-sex marriage with 136 voting against it while only 127 were in favour. Historically, equality hasn’t really been their forte.

During the 1964 general election campaign, Conservative parliamentary candidate Peter Griffiths used the slogan “If you want a nigger for a neighbour, vote Labour.” He was subsequently elected. In 1968, Conservative MP Enoch Powell gave his infamous and inflammatory Rivers of Blood speech, harshly criticising immigration from the Commonwealth and race relations legislation. Despite not openly to the extent of Powell’s utterances, the Conservative Party retained undertones of prejudice that merely fanned rather than quelled the flames of institutional racism within British society at the time.

Conservative MP Oliver Letwin’s remarks and attitudes on the black community, recently released in a 1985 memo discussing the Broadwater Farm riots in Tottenham, show that racism within the Conservative Party was enduring. The lack of proportionate censure from today’s Conservative Party suggest that such comments might not go amiss now either, an assertion that Zac Goldsmith’s casual Islamophobia and dog whistling in his smear campaign against Sadiq Khan actually supports. And juxtaposed with the recent suspensions of Ken Livingstone and Naz Shah from the Labour Party, which David Cameron also called for, where was David Cameron’s reproach for Boris Johnson's racist and colonialist rhetoric on Barack Obama or much of Zac Goldsmith’s Islamophobic and divisive mayoral campaign?

The modern Conservative Party has sought to lose the tag of ‘the nasty party’ and reject the racist elements of its history. It can also boast a number of ethnic minority MPs such as frontbenchers Sajid Javid, Priti Patel and and Sam Gyimah. The Tories have undoubtedly progressed from the days when even an ethnic minority backbencher would be unthinkable and that should be lauded regardless of one’s political persuasion.

It’s also important to emphasise that not all Tories, regardless of ethnicity, are racist. Many are committed to equality and positive race relations even if their party’s history may suggest otherwise. Nonetheless, for many ethnic minorities, including me, the party’s still-raw history of racism towards our immigrant grandparents and parents and those of us that were born in the UK, along with its poor track record on race relations and equality in general, make it difficult to support them as a party. After all, some of those sentiments are apparent in today’s Conservative Party. Yet oddly, this isn’t the perception amongst all ethnic minorities.

For many immigrants, there is an experience and a narrative of arriving in a new country with very little but a can-do attitude and working hard to make a better life for yourself and your family. That narrative is fulfilled to varying extents but there are many diaspora communities who have shown admirable and impressive graft and business acumen that has resulted in successive generations steadily climbing the often greasy pole of social mobility.

Ugandan Indians refugees arriving in the UK

Take the Gujarati community, many of whom were forced to leave East Africa to rebuild their lives in Britain. Many become proprietors of newsagents and convenience stores in the UK, working long hours with a stakhanovite work ethic while family would often comprise their staff. Though subsequent generations have moved away from small business retailers and into roles such as finance, medicine and dentistry. They aren’t the only ethnic minority group with a similarly story either. Regardless of race, it’s the very narrative that is celebrated and encouraged by the Conservative Party - work hard, create jobs, don’t rely on the state and you’ll be successful.

Many second and third generation ethnic minorities from immigrant families share less of the experiences of the generations before them. Racism is less overt than it once was and class has superseded race as a social determinant of how we identify ourselves and with whom we identify with. Take a British doctor of Gujarati descent. His parents may have faced racism upon coming to Britain in the 1960s where they may have worked in an unskilled sector. As working class ethnic minorities, they would have been typical Labour supporters. Whereas his experiences are acutely different to that of his parents with less required graft and subtle and less barriers to social mobility, he will likely see himself as middle class with a life that is more aligned to the Tories.

Capitalism and social mobility often has a way of making an ethnic minority metaphorically lighten the hue of their skin tone in how they perceive themselves. That’s reflected in how they might vote too. I’ve seen ethnic minorities deem a decent job and a good socio-economic status to equate to needing to vote Conservative because it’s who they feel the type of person they now identify with should vote. They no longer feel aligned to the tales of the parents but instead that of Middle England and the political class. Perhaps such perception is valid. After all, I can’t dictate how someone identifies themselves. What I can be sure of, is that Middle England certainly don’t identify with them and they’re barking up the wrong tree if they think differently. No amount of money and well-spoken delivery will change that either.

Ignorance too has played a role in the growth of ethnic minority support for the Tories. During the previous general election campaign, a middle class Asian female Tory voter that I know foolishly claimed that they were voting Conservative because “Labour had ruined the economy” and proceeded to attribute the global financial crisis to Labour. Was that the same Labour Party that hadn’t been in power for five whole years? The Conservative Party’s ploy of blaming everything under the sun on the previous Labour government must have had some effect as some voters were clearly stupid enough to recycle the same trite argument for the coalition government’s failures. Said individual also works in finance which compounds her ignorance. Even sadder is that as a woman and an ethnic minority, she would have personally benefited throughout her life from legislation introduced under previous Labour governments.

It’s lamentable that some ethnic minorities have such short memories when it comes to the Conservative Party, their values and how they treated our grandparents and parents when they arrived in the UK. A generation later and with a bit of money and a decent job, some ethnic minorities are voting Conservative but can’t even articulate why other than an underlying belief that Conservative policies might make them a bit more cash while trodding on the less fortunate in society - the same people their parents may once have been only a few generations ago.

The Conservative Party might be deemed the party of business and enterprise which ties into the immigrant narrative for many. But we need to ask ourselves, are they the party of ethnic minorities? Alas, while those features needn’t and shouldn't be mutually exclusive, for some factions within the Conservative Party they probably are and would-be ethnic minority Conservative voters need to remember that.

I need to emphasis that I’m not suggesting ethnic minorities can’t or shouldn’t vote for the Conservatives if that’s where their values lie. Democracy affords us the opportunity to support and vote for whoever we desire and that can’t ever be criticised or restricted. Moreover, it isn’t right to hold today’s Tories to the ills of their history and it would be unfair to imply that as a party they haven’t made any progress in representing the ethnic minority electorate. Though we need to ask ourselves how far and how meaningful that progress has been. We also need to consider how representative ethnic minority Tory MPs are of the broader ethnic minority experience and the party’s failure to robustly tackle the institutionally racism that is still present in today’s Conservative Party. Consequently, while ethnic minority Tory voters represent some progress for the party, there is still something quite paradoxical about them. Fortunately for the Conservative Party, they don’t seem to see it for themselves.