The failed project of the West Indies Federation

The end of World War 2 marked a watershed in world politics and international relations. Not only did it signal the end of the global conflict, but it also ushered in the cold war and revised perceptions on geopolitics. On the latter, Britain, significantly weakened by her war efforts and forced to divert attention to the rebuilding of the country, was compelled to reconsider its status vis-a-vis its considerable empire. The war had eroded much of the hubris that accompanied Britain’s status as a colonial power and it quickly became apparent that maintaining the British Empire was no longer tenable in the post war era.

Vast countries such as India (which then comprised modern day India, Bangladesh and Pakistan) could no longer be effectively controlled from the Colonial Office in Whitehall, even via regional and national proxies such as the Viceroy. Financially, especially in the wake of the war that had crippled the country, it wasn't viable either. Internal tensions within some colonies, and burgeoning independence movements or calls for further autonomy, could also no longer be contained by a weakened colonial power that no longer had the resources or the inclination to maintain said position. Consequently, as much as post war independence movements would lead to an inevitable demise of the British Empire, it was undoubtedly expedited by Britain's lack of resistance and encouragement due to her diminished status as a colonial power.

The notion of a country such as India being granted independence was deemed acceptable within post war attitudes. It had a huge population that would lend itself to its sustainability as an independent state. But what of smaller territories? Could they survive? How would they establish viable economies, free of support from the mother country? This was the line of thinking at the time when considering the British West Indies and the consensus was that the islands were too small with economies that were too dependent on Britain to survive as independent states.

Some of the islands in the West Indies had populations of fewer than 10,000. Independence for territories of this size was therefore unthinkable. Furthermore, the islands were in receipt of colonial grant aid which acknowledged their ailing economies. Nonetheless, the colonies had increasing desires for further independence. As a result, Britain, keen to reduce its economic responsibility in the region, sought to provide further autonomy for the British West Indies.

In 1945, the Colonial Secretary, Colonel Oliver Stanley, proposed the idea of a federation in the West Indies, asking West Indian governments what structure they felt it should take. It was the beginning of a brief journey in West Indian federalism that was arguably destined to fail from the outset.

The West Indies Federation was established in 1958 as an federal state (albeit still under British control) comprising Anguilla, Antigua and Barbuda, Barbados, the Cayman Islands, Dominica, Grenada, Jamaica, Montserrat, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Trinidad and Tobago and Turks and Caicos and had a population of just shy of 3.5 million. With the exception of Anguilla, Montserrat, the Cayman Islands and Turks and Caicos, which are currently British overseas territories, the Federation formed part of the respective islands’ subsequent journeys to sovereignty as independent states. The British had intended the Federation to eventually achieve independence as a sovereign state itself but this never came to fruition and the Federation was disestablished by Britain in 1962 with its major players achieving independence shortly after.

The insularity of the West Indies meant a West Indies Federation was always likely to impede the required cohesiveness for the political union. Camaraderie clearly exists in the region, as seen in the shared culture, regional pride and even generations of sporting prowess and support for the West Indies cricket teams (the creation of the West Indies cricket team actually predates the Federation), most recently demonstrated in the U19, women's and men's teams becoming champions at the the 2016 T20 world cup. Although when it comes to politics, such camaraderie is often trumped by self interest and hubris. Compounded by acute insularity in the region and a perception that the Federation was being built upon a basis of disparity between the islands, the Federation faced its first and most enduring obstacle from attitudes within the West Indies. This was applicable to Jamaica more than any other island. Indeed, many would opine that Jamaica was the island that sounded the death knell for the Federation in events that would unfold throughout its brief existence.

Historically, Jamaican attitudes have fostered a sense of superiority over the other so-called “small islands”. Thus for Jamaica to exist in a Federation whose capital site was in Trinidad and with a Barbadian Prime Minister, Grantley Adams, would not sit well with Jamaicans. The perception, as promoted by those against Federation within Jamaica, was that the other “small islands” in the Federation would drain Jamaica’s relative wealth (an ironic notion given Jamaica’s currently ailing economy) compared to the other islands.

Jamaica was also expected to have 17 of the 45 seats in the Federal parliament, 38% compared to its population comprising more than 50% of the new state’s population. These were contentious concerns for many Jamaican observers that merely stoked the opposition to the Federation that was growing within the island and building upon the existing antipathy towards their federal peers.

The Jamaica Labour Party’s (JLP) Alexander Bustamante, the eventual first Prime Minister of independent Jamaica and opponent of the Federation, often referred to the politicians of the other islands disparagingly as small island politicians. At the Montego Bay Conference of 1947, Bustamante addressed this alleged disparity with characteristic rhetoric in referring to their respective development -

‘Jamaica can walk. Trinidad is creeping, Barbados and Demerara are right behind Trinidad or almost the same. St Kitts and St Vincent are attempting to creep and only attempting. Antigua is creeping, and of all the other small islands, some can barely creep on the palm of their hands, and others on hands and feet, and others not at all, yet you say to us, “we want you to federate”… It cannot be done.’

Such attitudes were undoubtedly disparaging but more a product of opposition to what Bustamante et al viewed as a raw deal for Jamaica in joining the Federation. But these beliefs and perceptions had existed long prior to the conception of the Federation and for many islands, the disdain was mutual towards Jamaica. In fact, these were attitudes that were furthered by the British Empire in the West Indies where a sense of unity was never really promoted in their administration. Instead, many of the West Indian islands held largely unwarranted inter-island rivalry and antagonism. This was despite their shared culture and shared history as part of the African diaspora, not to mention their shared dark experiences of slavery and colonialism. It therefore begs the question why the aforementioned was unable to supersede the insularity and political squabbling that characterised the Federation’s short existence and demise.

The flag of the West Indies Federation

Jamaica’s mistrust of the other islands was valid on occasions and it would continue to impose itself as a hindrance to the progress of obtaining a sense of unity in the region. For example, with the exception of Barbados and Trinidad, the remaining islands of the Federation had promised to support Jamaica as the Federal capital site yet failed to do so leaving Jamaica feeling further isolated. Prior to and during its establishment, Jamaica would remain a thorn in the side of West Indian federalism and perhaps understandably so when considered from their perspective. Bustamante was well aware of this and he opportunistically exploited such sentiments as a vehicle to scupper the Federation for Jamaica’s departure from the union.

Bustamante’s political astuteness for opportunism is ultimately what led to the demise of the Federation. In 1960, Robert Lightbourne resigned from his seat in the federal parliament which resulted in the need for a by-election. However, Bustamante announced that the seat would not be contested by the JLP and that they would seek Jamaican secession from the Federation upon coming to power. This shook the British Colonial Office and the Federation as without Jamaica, the Federation would lose half its population along with the lion’s share of federal tax. With such a bold statement, Jamaica’s Premier and esteemed People’s National Party (PNP) leader Norman Manley was presented with the option of either calling a general election or a holding a referendum on Jamaica’s future within the Federation. He opted for the latter and on 1 June 1960 made an official statement in response to Bustamante’s announcement -

‘The official decision of the Jamaica Labour Party to oppose Federation has created a new situation in Jamaica. When both parties [of the JLP and PNP] were acting together, it was right to assume that they represented the voice of the people. Now that one party, the Jamaica Labour Party, has officially resolved to oppose Federation it is right that the issue of Federation should… come before the people for decision.’

In reality, the JLP and the PNP had never acted together within the Federation. Nevertheless, Bustamante’s strategy had made this acutely apparent. Bustamante and the JLP campaigned on the lines of secession being best for Jamaica while the PNP promoted the benefits of remaining within the Federation. Manley was hugely popular and respected in Jamaica but he was fighting the populist, patriotic rhetoric of Bustamante who portrayed himself as the defender of Jamaican interests. Though given the referendum was fought on party lines, the arguments were largely immaterial to the electorate who voted according to their party affiliation. Floating voters were more likely to be swung by Bustamante’s utterances that often played to ignorance rather than Manley’s deliberated rationale for a stronger voice for Jamaica within a stronger union of the Federation.

On 19 September 1961, Jamaicans voted on the question of ‘Should Jamaica remain in the Federation of the West Indies?’ with a result of 45.9% for and 54.1% against. Jamaica would leave the Federation and become an independent state a year later on 6 August 1962. Thereafter, in what was a domino effect, the Federation soon unraveled. Dr Eric Williams, Premier of Trinidad and Tobago, realised the huge burden that would be placed upon Trinidad and Tobago within the Federation following Jamaica’s departure. Williams famously announced “one from ten leaves nought” in reference to Jamaica’s secession from the Federation leaving it untenable and Trinidad left the Federation and became independent in the same year. Subsequently, the Federation was dissolved and the majority of its composite islands eventually gained independence from Britain.

The West Indies Federation may have provided an opportunity for the region to have greater influence and prosperity as a regional bloc than it currently does. Conversely, it may have held the region under the shadow of colonialism as a design and legacy of the British Empire; something that being of the Caribbean diaspora I would greet with opposition. CARICOM (the Caribbean Community) has provided a supranational body for the region and includes states of the wider region that were not members of the West Indies Federation and shares more than just a common history of being subject to British colonialism. The wider Caribbean needs to bolster its position as a regional bloc that isn’t merely subject to the whims of America or Europe. Relinquishing irrational insularity that has held the region back politically, socially and economically would be a fitting legacy for the West Indies Federation and a representation of the regional pride and unity that should exist in the region.

What's next for Anthony Joshua?

Anthony Joshua is the new IBF heavyweight champion of the world. In what was a promotional masterstroke by Joshua’s promoter, Eddie Hearn, Joshua was navigated to being a world title challenger at 15 - 0 and became world champion with an impressive record of 16 wins and 0 losses, each win by way of deft KO.

Joshua defeated American Charles Martin with a second round stoppage. Martin became IBF champion when he fought Vyacheslav Glazkov for the vacant belt (which the IBF stripped Tyson Fury of as he had agreed a rematch with Wladimir Klitschko rather than facing his mandatory) and Glazkov was unable to continue due to a knee injury in the third round. Not a KO, not a points decision where Martin dominated Glazkov for 12 rounds, but an injury. With no disrespect to Martin, he was effectively gifted the belt in underwhelming circumstances. And while we knew very little about him, what we did know suggested he would be no different in level to Joshua’s previous opponents rather than someone who was a bona fide champion on world level.

As soon as Joshua claimed the W and the title from Martin, the casuals (whose presence I welcome within the sport), and even some hardcore boxing fans, were out in force on social media. Joshua was giddily proclaimed as the second coming of Muhammad Ali or Mike Tyson in his prime. Meanwhile, little regard was given to Joshua’s opponents to date in supporting their assertions.

The hype around Joshua is nothing new and as a boxing fan I think he’s a beast of a fighter with phenomenal power. He’s also seemingly on course to establish himself as one of the best heavyweight boxers in the world. Nonetheless, I would still maintain that even as champion Joshua is yet to experience an actual test.

This isn’t Joshua’s fault. He can only fight who is put in front of him and he cannot be blamed for the division still suffering from a paucity of fighters at world class level. Furthermore, he’s despatched his opponents in impressive fashion. So with a record of 16 - 0 and as IBF champion, where does Joshua go from here?

As a PPV fighter, there’s no turning back for Joshua in term of levels. He’s world champion and his subsequent fights will need to be with fighters that the public deem worthy of being PPV. The public won’t be accepting of paying £17 to see Joshua KO fighters who never stood a chance or were even capable of putting up a decent fight. And as is the nature of the British public, especially the casuals, it could be the undoing of Joshua’s popularity if his level of opponent isn’t deemed to rise and promptly.

That poses the question of who Joshua’s future opponents could be. Who could satisfy the public’s thirst in fights that Joshua and his team would be willing to take? Indeed, they will have little choice but to consider these options if they want him to be perceived as a credible champion henceforth.

Looking back at Joshua vs Dillian Whyte, Whyte came to fight and honestly believed he could beat Joshua. Had his conditioning and accuracy been improved, he may have done just that in the second round when he rocked Joshua with a left hook but was unable to capitalise on his brief yet effective onslaught. Whyte was in no way intimidated by Joshua and while he met defeat via Joshua’s power, he at no point feared it. Joshua therefore needs opponents that not only maintain that attitude but are also worthy of being considered world level. Herein lies a problem as there aren’t many fighters in the heavyweight division who meet both those stipulations.

With the exception of Whyte (but inclusive of Martin), Joshua’s opponents have been taken in by the hype around Joshua himself. There’s an aura around Joshua and his trademark power, which leaves his opponents overawed, sapped of confidence and mentally having lost before the first bell. For a meaningful test, Joshua needs opponents that turn up to fight with a belief that not only can they win but also a measured respect rather than fear of his power.

Of the current crop of heavyweights at world level, Tyson Fury, Deontay Wilder and David Haye would possess that attitude and make for an even fight. Added to that, they all have the ability to make a match with Joshua a 50-50 fight unlike those on his record to date. Though while Joshua himself may want those fights, his team may want to develop him further and keep him away from anyone that poses a threat to taking the ‘0’ on his record. Indeed, even Joshua with his affable candour, has admitted that he is still learning and will probably appreciate the risk they pose too.

The aforementioned fighters all have at least one fight already scheduled before they’d be free to take on Joshua but they all represent live opponents and cracking fights. Fury would show no respect for Joshua’s power and be uber confident having beaten Wladimir Klitschko. He’s also already called out Joshua and established some needle between the 2 fighters. Wilder too brings his own ferocious power and confidence. And Haye, subject to how good he still is, possesses experience, explosiveness and speed that none of Joshua’s opponents to date have shown. The question is, is Joshua ready for those fights and how long will an impatient and fickle public be willing to allow him until he is?

For now, Joshua is the new IBF champion. He’s achieved the title within 16 fights, via 16 KOs, and he should be lauded for his achievement. Let’s not detract from that as he’s responded to the tests that have been placed before him en route to the title and he cannot be asked to do anything more than that. Although in return for his fasttracked journey to the title, his next steps will need to be bigger and more impressive strides than he has taken thus far. And in contrast to his previous opponents, he’s likely to find that it’s much tougher at the top.

Academisation of all English schools is a terrible idea

In what would arguably be the most radical change to English education in contemporary history, the government has announced its intention for every school in England to become an academy in the white paper Educational excellence everywhere. In doing so, they've announced their intention for an almost absolute dismantling of state involvement when it comes to English schools.

The government has said that it wants to give control of schools to headteachers rather than local authorities. Currently, the latter have oversight of the bulk of English schools and of more than 24,000 schools in England, about 5,000 are academies. With their proposed academisation of the remaining schools, a lofty task to say the least, the government claims they'd be ridding schools of those pesky local government bureaucrats. Schools would consequently have sufficient control to do what's best for students and education standards in another righteous move from the Tories, right? Wrong.

Academies are funded directly by central government rather than local authorities and have more autonomy that other state schools. They have no accountability to local authorities, thus removing a layer of checks and balances in safeguarding against inappropriate conduct and improper management of public funds. They can decide on their curriculum, length of school day and teachers’ pay, terms and conditions (the latter being an area where many academies have already shown themselves to have little commitment to or value of their staff). While academies in England were initiated by Labour, they’ve become a favoured policy of the Conservatives who have actively sought for more schools to adopt the model. Indeed, their proposal for the academisation of all schools has confirmed that beyond any doubt.

In 2011 I wrote about the rise of academies and free schools and I called the widespread academisation of schools based on what was already happening -

‘...where such demand [for academies] does not exist, it is likely that academy status will be foisted upon more challenging schools, particularly against a backdrop of the coalition government’s zeal in promoting its flagship education policy… Diminishing what should be an altruistic role of the state with regard to the provision of education and replacing it with autonomy raises several concerns. It also takes the provision of education a step closer to privatisation – a move that would pit the provision of quality education against profit.’

The government hasn't announced that academies will be able to be run for profit but its proposal does take it a step closer to that (it was rumoured that the then Secretary of State for Education, Michael Gove, had sought to allow academies and free schools to eventually make a profit during the coalition government but was blocked by Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg). Nevertheless, they’ve laid their cards on the table with their intention to foist academy status onto all schools.

Should the government's proposals become law, what would that mean for schools in England? Firstly, in making such radical plans they've neglected to consider who will fill the void left by the loss of local government’s role in education? It's also proposing something for which it has no evidence to support and it’s failed to consult parents, teachers and unions (the proposal wasn’t in its manifesto either). Most significantly, it's also failed to realise that academies do not equate to better schools which is the crux of the failure of such a proposal.

Academies are not a panacea to improving school standards and there is no evidence of this being the case. There are of course some good academies for whom the academy model works for their respective school and community and that should be acknowledged. Conversely, there certainly are some bad ones for whom their autonomy should be relinquished as a result.

Academisation of all schools is a hugely politicised move and one driven by ideology; a commitment to further dismantling of the state. Education should be driven by the motivation of what is best for students and in raising standards. That shouldn't include bureaucratic targets, political or ideological motivation, profit or any other drivers that detract from its primary goal. It's why the role of the state in education is invaluable as it provides and preserves much needed altruism.

Admittedly, the state can often be lacking in dynamism, is guilty of its frequent charge of being overly bureaucratic and can be sluggish in getting things done. What the state is good at however, is prioritising what really matters as it's broadly free of influences that benefit the privileged few and disadvantage the many. It's where the state's inherent altruism comes into play and why it plays such an important role in education.

Removing the state from education cannot be deemed positive. Education is already a sector at breaking point in England with untenable bureaucracy and a very present teaching crisis. Allowing schools to be free from the state's oversight will likely exacerbate the status quo and become the straw that breaks the camel's back in causing education in England to implode. Yet the government doesn't seem to care and it's partly due to who they intend to hand control of schools over to.

At present, academies can be standalone schools that have decided that autonomy is best for them. For others, they're part of chains or trusts, effectively overseeing umbrella groups that control a number of academies with similar branding and uniformity amongst all of their schools. Some academies within chains are the result of takeovers where they have been converted and rebranded under the identity of the chain while others have been ‘born’ under the banner of their respective chain and are wholly new schools. Though looking more closely at many of the chains, are they an appropriate alternative model upon which the English school system should be based on?

Candidly, many academy trusts are politicised vanity projects. They're often established by individuals or groups who claim to want to make a difference in education via noble use of their wealth and influence. Many, such as Harris Federation (which was established by Conservative Lord Harris of Carpet Right fame), tend to be run by those who the Tories would love to bestow with further academies as they reward their backers and help bolster their vanity projects. All very cosy with raising education standards somewhat of a secondary thought.

It's also important to remember that when schools under local authority control are handed over to academy chains, with each one millions of pounds of state assets in school buildings and land are handed over with them. Not in exchange for cash like traditional privatisation, but absolutely free. It's therefore little wonder that many academy chain bosses are friends and backers of the Conservative party who stand to benefit from a windfall should every school be up for grabs as an academy. A wholesale conversion of all schools to academies would amount to billions of pounds of assets being handed over to private entities in exchange for absolutely nothing. Meanwhile, state cash would continue to be handed over for the academies to spend as they see fit. Just let that sink in.

An additional problem with the academy chains is that they are seen by many as driving the destruction of education in England. So why would we allow them to run schools?

Many academy chains are considered by parents, teachers and unions to care only about results with little regard for anything else. That makes for a toxic environment to work in for teachers and can create a sterile environment for students that is void of empathy and support during their youth.

One consequence of this approach is huge staff turnover with academies haemorrhaging staff at an incredible rate that dwarfs the already high turnover throughout teaching as a whole. According to a Freedom of Information request, between 2012 and 2015, over 1000 staff left schools within the Harris Federation. And they aren't the only chain with shockingly high staff turnover. It begs the question what might all those teachers be keen to escape from if these are such bastions of educational excellence? With such an exodus of staff, they're definitely not retaining expertise, good practice and good teachers that are crucial to any good school.

The fervent and blinkered focus on external results isn't any different from teaching across the board. Though in academies it's typically pursued even more aggressively with a ‘by any means necessary’ attitude that's akin to a pyrrhic victory with students and staff taking the loss in the process. Hardly an appropriate attitude for a school.

Some may read this and think if academies are getting results with their approach, then perhaps the government is correct in wanting to give them further control. However, grades and levels aren't the only things that matter when it comes to the betterment of students. Nurture, empathy, wellbeing and good mental health matter just as much but they're often given insufficient regard. There is also anecdotal evidence of vulnerable children and SEN students, who may not achieve the best possible results, not being as warmly welcomed as others by some academies. Is that what we want our school system to be built upon? A factory of identikit students with a culture that is void of empathy and support? But it's OK because (allegedly) some them have good results…

Most would assume the government's proposal to be supported by robust evidence that would sway detractors and prove to the public that academisation is the way forward. Like anything, academies have shown to work in some instances and it can't be claimed that they're all bad. Although with good leadership, teaching and a supportive cohort of parents and community, most schools have a fair shot at doing the best for their students regardless of their status. And those aren't attributes that can only be engendered by an academy or an academy chain.

Currently, 82% of schools under local authority control are rated ‘good’ or ‘outstanding’ by Ofsted. Meanwhile, in 2014/15, 99 schools that converted to academies went from ‘good’ or ‘outstanding’ to less than good. Moreover, those against academisation have an unlikely ally in Chief Inspector Michael Wilshaw who has expressed his concerns over the performance of some academy chains to Nicky Morgan, Secretary of State for Education.

There are also precedents for the Department for Education (DfE) needing to take some schools out of the control of academy chains and prohibiting some from opening or taking over any new schools due to concerns with their performance. In 2014, the then biggest academy chain, Academies Enterprise Trust, was barred from taking on additional schools and E-ACT, the then second largest chain, had a third of its schools handed back to the government. Should a similar hypothetical scenario occur where local authorities’ education functions had become defunct as a result of the government's proposal, who would then step in if several chains were deemed unfit to run their respective schools? It's more uninformed and political short sightedness from the government. Just like a Conservative policy of yesteryear in right to buy (which has resulted in a legacy of huge social housing shortages), academisation could be another policy that sees history not judging the Conservative party favourably.

Even by 2020, such a far reaching proposal for all schools to become academies is a mammoth task and it requires support yet many are opposed to it. Teachers, unions and unsurprisingly the local government community are all against academisation and a petition to scrap the plans received over 100,000 signatures within a week. The academy chains that are favoured by the government are nonetheless licking their lips with anticipation at the prospect of expanding their academy empires. They've been waiting (and I’m sure lobbying) for this and have their prey of local authority controlled schools well within their sights. But aside from the academy chains and the government, there doesn't appear to be much support for academisation.

An intention to turn all schools into academies wasn't in the Conservative party’s manifesto so there hasn't been any gauging of support for this, or any subsequent consultation whatsoever. It's hardly democratic and it's not welcome. Teachers and unions have not had a say on an issue that they are significantly more attuned to than the government. Similarly, surely parents at least deserve to be consulted before their child’s school has such a change forced upon them? On this occasion, the Tories think they know best so they'll be making that decision for you.

Academies aren’t necessarily the antithesis of good schools but they don’t equate to better schools either. Complete academisation will nonetheless force academy status onto all schools with no regard for the implications, the amount of evidence to support the contrary and the lack of support from parents, teachers and teaching unions. Instead, the government seeks to proceed with a policy that will remove the role of the state in an area where its function is paramount while giving academy chains carte blanche to run schools as they see fit. That means diminished accountability and a removal of the oversight that local authorities have long provided in English schools.

Just as the then Conservative government abolished the Inner London Education Authority (ILEA) in 1990, the Tories are politically motivated to change the landscape of English education yet again. This time, the plans are more radical and the implications are bigger. And with that comes an even greater risk to the future of English schools and education.

Phonics only unlocks part of the code that is learning to read so why is it followed so rigidly?

For many people reading this, learning to read would have followed a similar pattern of being taught the alphabet, broadly knowing the corresponding sounds to each letter and being introduced to simple texts. Said texts would have introduced the reader to accessible and appropriate vocabulary with accompanying illustrations to support comprehension and those words would enter one’s orthographic store (our long term memory from which we retrieve all the words that we’ve learned to date). Burgeoning comprehension skills would also support having a stab at unfamiliar vocabulary and the more we read, the quicker our retrieval of words, the more our comprehension would develop and the more proficient we would become as readers. It’s how I learned to read and despite being biased, I’d like to say it was pretty effective.

Today’s teaching of reading is different and there’s been a departure from the aforementioned in favour of phonics. It cannot be said that any approach to reading is completely void of some form of phonics. Yet phonics is now king when it comes to early reading in schools and it’s the government mandated approach to learning to read.

Phonics effectively provides a code for the budding reader to rely upon in learning to read. Graphemes (written letters or combinations of letters such as ‘sh’, ‘ch’ or ‘igh’) are taught with their corresponding phonemes (the term given to sounds). These phonemes are the smallest unit of sound that can be found within a word and there are approximately 44 phonemes in the English language. Each phoneme provides a meaningful unit of sound upon which words can be constructed by ‘blending’ these phonemes. For example, blending the accompanying phonemes for ‘c - a - t’ would result in the word ‘cat’.

It might seem like a great strategy to adopt phonics in schools in providing children with a solid system that enables them to decode words and learn how to read. However, there’s a problem. Unlike some languages where the alphabet is purely phonetic, thus phonics instinctively lending itself to the teaching of how to read, English is only partly phonetic. English also has many contradictory rules that don’t make an approach like phonics fit for purpose in teaching reading. As a result, once you encounter a word that isn’t phonetic, phonics becomes pretty useless and as far as being able to decode unfamiliar text, you’re ultimately screwed. Herein lies the problem - phonics only unlocks part of the code that is learning to read. So why is it followed so rigidly in schools? And what has been the impact of what appears to be a flawed education policy when it comes to teaching strategies for early reading in schools?

For years, proponents of phonics have been pitted in a political and somewhat ideological battle against proponents of a whole language approach to teaching reading (where words are not deconstructed for the benefit of decoding and sight recognition and comprehension are instead relied upon). It’s referred to as the reading wars and it could be argued that supporters of phonics are winning with the credence given to its teaching in schools as outlined in the 2006 Rose Report. Following a review of the teaching of early reading in primary schools, the Rose Report recommended that phonics ‘should be taught as the prime approach in learning to decode (to read) and encode (to write/spell) print’. In adopting the recommendations as education policy, the government too declared their allegiance to phonics.

The advantages of phonics are that it does provide children with a code for reading and writing phonetically plausible text and to do so relatively quickly. Although in doing so, it also teaches children a strategy for writing that put candidly, is incorrect.

Parents and teachers of primary school children will be familiar with children's writing where few words are spelt correctly because phonics is so heavily relied upon. Even if a child has encountered a word and knows how to spell it correctly, the retrieval from their orthographic store is arguably hindered as their instinct for spelling is to rely upon their phonics. Consequently, words which aren’t phonically plausible are often misspelt and phonics has a direct role to play in this. Indeed, young children are often filled with glee when they’re able to independently write their first sentences such as ‘migh cat iz bloo’ or ‘wee went too a partee wiv migh bruthr and wee had cayk’ that are phonetically plausible but full of incorrect spellings that children are ignorant to. It’s great to see them writing but a few years later, we remove the security blanket that is phonics and tell them they’ve been spelling incorrectly all these years.

The focus on decoding within phonics is eroding overall literacy and detracts from the enjoyment and comprehension skills to be gained from reading. But many children perceive their successful decoding of text alone as an indicator of being ‘a good reader’. As a result, phonics can somewhat limit the promotion of reading for pleasure and the comprehension skills that are needed for reading in our everyday lives. Though surely with a greater reliance on sight recognition, children’s comprehension would be improved as they would feel more inclined to immerse themselves in a text instead of focusing on decoding it. Alas, the government seem unable to see this but perhaps it has something to do with the extent to which proponents of phonics seemingly have their ear.

Phonics programmes such as Ruth Miskin’s Read Write Inc are big business. Ruth Miskin rose to prominence as a headteacher in the 1990s in Tower Hamlets, a London local authority with a large Bangladeshi diaspora. Many of the children at Miskin’s school were EAL students (English as an additional language), many of whom would have started school with basic, if any, English. Nonetheless, she was able to boast huge success in reading which she attributed to her school's commitment to the teaching of phonics. Yet with such a reliance on phonics, many phonics detractors have questioned whether the emphasis on comprehension in early reading at Miskin's school would have been sufficiently supported. Furthermore, it's commonly accepted that while EAL students can make rapid progress and have high word recognition when learning to read, their comprehension is often less secure and Miskin's approach would arguably have compounded that.

Nevertheless, Miskin went on to become considered a phonics guru who now sells her resources and training to schools across the country. She is an advisor to the DfE (Department for Education) and is one of their favoured faces when it comes to the teaching of reading. Therefore it's hard to argue the government isn't biased when it comes to phonics.

Many have argued this relationship represents a conflict of interest (particularly as Ruth Miskin’s materials and training are used in so many schools), something the government and Miskin have attempted to refute. Though between 2011 and 2013, the DfE made over £23 million of match-funding available for schools that purchased phonics materials or training from an approved list (which Ruth Miskin material and training naturally appeared on). As revealed in a Freedom of Information Act request by Professor Margaret Clark, of those funds over £4 million was spent on Read Write Inc materials while £546,614 went to Ruth Miskin Literacy Ltd for training. As it was match-funded, the amount received would also actually have been doubled.

More recently, Ruth Miskin Training was also selected by the DfE to deliver phonics roadshow events. More money in the bank for Ruth Miskin and further reflection of just how much influence she has over the government as she pushes her phonics agenda. Even Michael Rosen, who’s generally considered a literary living legend, has questioned the apparent conflict of interest. It really can’t be argued that the government is free of bias when it comes to their favour of phonics and that bias is blindly driving education policy on early reading.

I’m not arguing we do away with phonics in teaching children to read. After all, even if subconsciously, a connection between letters and sounds must be present as readers develop. Nonetheless, we need to move away from the rigid commitment to phonics as a preferred and often exclusive approach for early reading and certainly once readers no longer require the crutch that phonics can initially provide.

Phonics isn’t a panacea to raising literacy standards. It gives children an ability to access text and to write but it’s an introductory one and should be left at just that as there is only so far it can take a reader in accessing written English. There also needs to be a dialogue and realisation of what reading is and that it isn’t merely decoding phonetically plausible text which is only applicable to a limited amount of the English language. Reading is being able to appreciate and immerse one’s self in literature, to access and understand information and to unlock and explore knowledge and enjoyment from a wide range of texts. Phonics can’t achieve that and it’s time that realisation is reflected in education policy for early reading.

Marriage and relationships aren’t for everyone so why do we shame people into thinking otherwise?

For many singletons attending events and family functions such as weddings, there’s often a line of questioning that can be expected from enquiring relatives and friends:

“So… are you seeing anyone?”

“When are you getting married then?!”

“No girlfriend/boyfriend?”

If the answer is negative, it can frequently be met with pity as if to suggest that one’s life is clearly lacking without a partner. It’s followed up with somewhat patronising assurances of “you’ll find someone soon” or offers of “you know, I should introduce you to…” with that telling look of concern at your pathetic single life combined with enthusiasm at the prospect of being able to play matchmaker.

Such questioning can be innocent small talk, genuine (but misguided) concern or merely crass prying. But it remains unnecessary, intrusive and even presumptuous of one’s sexual orientation depending on how the question is framed. And for some, it can be a question that is anticipated with some trepidation; something no one should feel due to their relationship status. Yet it stems from the assumption and expectation within society that we should all want to be in a relationship and for many, aspire to get married.

Firstly, being in a relationship or being married is not an achievement under any circumstances whatsoever. It’s primarily a choice and a circumstance. There isn’t anything about being in a relationship that makes someone better than the next person or makes any aspect of a single person’s life inferior in contrast. And it’s ridiculous that such views still prevail. Not to mention, it’s a huge affront toward those that are single and an archaic attitude within contemporary society. If anything, those who choose to remain single, or not actively pursue a relationship, should be lauded for not conforming to society’s expectations.

Being single or not pursuing a long term relationship is an increasing and more than acceptable choice for some. It needn’t mean said individuals have anything wrong with them, cannot coexist in a relationship or cannot attract anyone. And in the case of heterosexual relationships, it doesn’t mean they’re homosexual either and vice versa. It can be a personal choice for a discrete or indefinite period of time, a reflection of someone’s preference for their own company, a decision to simply not actively pursue a relationship or anything else. As Mexican artist Idalia Candelas captured in a series of black and white illustrations of single women, single life needn’t mean sadness and forced loneliness either. There isn’t anything wrong with being single but society has suggested otherwise.

Consequently, society is ‘single shaming’; effectively applying stigma to those who choose to be single, or indeed those who just happen to be, because they don’t conform to tradition and more conservative behaviour. It’s an outdated, offensive and moronic perspective and no different to ‘slut shaming’. Instead, perceived promiscuity is merely replaced with a perception of what society deems a dystopian relationship status, rather than the Victorian values approach many still subscribe to.

Within many cultures and communities, marriage remains a measure of success for the couple and their families, hence the pantomime that so many weddings become. Being of sound character, accomplished (defined by one’s own gauge) and happy in one’s self can sometimes be deemed insignificant to being married or en route to it. Although with that line of thinking being so socially inherent, it can have a negative impact on one’s mental health for those that don’t conform to or desire such ideals. Nevertheless, a growing number of people are eschewing such notions or pursuits of a relationship and instead seeking happiness by their own definition.

Ironically, the impact of shaming people for being single merely creates forced and sham relationships where people feel obliged to pursue what society has deemed necessary for their completeness. Similarly, for those in a irreparable relationship, it’s fostered a fear of leaving a situation that just isn’t working. While separation or divorce is never an ideal scenario for a couple, it’s certainly more appropriate than remaining in a toxic or destructive relationship. Though many couples cling onto this rather than face the unwarranted stigma of being single or having been in a relationship that didn’t work.

It needs to be remembered that marriage is a social construct. It’s somewhat of an artifice that has traditionally benefited men in representing control and ‘ownership’ of women while providing mutual companionship, stability and avoiding the stigma of both parties being single themselves. However, despite it being important to realise that both men and women are subject to single shaming, women arguably have the raw deal when it comes to being subject to the stigma of being single.

Kate Bolick’s Spinster, an examination of the growing number of women choosing to remain unmarried, begins with ‘Whom to marry and when will it happen - these two questions define every woman's existence, regardless of where she was raised or what religion she does or doesn’t practice’. And for many women, even in the twenty-first century and amidst successive generations of progression for women's rights, this is sadly true. It may be subconscious for some women but it’s nonetheless a byproduct of the social construct that is marriage that begins even before marriageable age.

Many teenage girls clamour for boyfriends so as not to be left out from their friends. And those that don’t have boyfriends are often left feeling inadequate unless they have a strong enough indifference to the pursuit of relationships amongst their peers. Fast forward to their 20s and this inclination is intensified with many women worryingly feeling their lives are incomplete without a partner. Furthermore, by then, men too have joined in the obsession in seeking ‘completeness’ as if being single cannot fulfil that by society’s expectations.

Marriage and relationships are not indicators of being whole and society needs to refute the ludicrous and deep-rooted myth that one isn’t complete without it. While they can provide companionship, and for some, desirable units within which to start a family, marriage and relationships (and indeed said families) just aren’t for everyone and there isn’t anything wrong with that. Therefore we need to stop shaming single people for thinking just that.

Teaching is a profession in crisis; one that only teachers seem to be able to acknowledge

It's often said that the quickest way to wind up a teacher is to suggest they’re always on holiday, have an overall cushty gig at work and that they’re always complaining about conditions that other professions just accept. Though the reality of teaching today is in such stark contrast to the aforementioned that it's unreal. The Stakhanovite work ethic toward a gargantuan workload and pressures upon teachers is undoubtedly incomparable to most professions; to an extent that it would break most. In fact, it was recently reported that a banker-turned-teacher returned to the banking industry having deemed teaching too exhausting in comparison.

Teaching requires a depth of mental, emotional and even physical mettle that simply isn't required in many other professions. The policies of successive governments and the agencies that officially and unofficially do their bidding for them, worsen conditions and heighten pressure to excessive levels. Nonetheless, the government and the media seek to demonise the profession along with other public servants.

Teaching today has become characterised by heightened bureaucracy, ideologically driven policy, an intensified testing and assessment culture and an underlying misery of teachers. Consequently, the profession is at breaking point. In objectively highlighting the problems facing teaching, it is haemorrhaging staff and the number of staff leaving the profession has risen by 11% over three years. And while there are still those who seek to become teachers, those numbers are struggling to meet demand; a challenge that is compounded by the exodus of teachers from the profession.

Morale amongst teachers has hit incredibly low depths and a rapidly rising number of teachers are subject to depression and stress which has almost become an accepted albatross in the profession. And as is the case with some mental health conditions, it's commonly seen to manifest itself in physical illness with some teachers effectively being retired by the job while still in their prime.

Needless to say, teaching is currently a profession in crisis. Though unfortunately, teachers seem to the only ones in acknowledgement of this.

Many teachers work at least a 10 - 12 hour day - and that’s just while at school and excluding time working at home. Those hours at work aren’t punctuated by cups of tea or coffee, checking social media, the news or pretty much anything else like the working day is in most other professions either. Even toilet breaks can be a rarity and many teachers will ‘realise’ at the end of the school day that they’ve not been since the morning as a result of simply being too busy.

In addition to actually teaching students, managing class sizes with an average of 30 students and being accountable for their attainment, safety and wellbeing at school, there's a whole host of further responsibilities for teachers. Planning for additional adults in the classroom, marking, planning, assessing, analysing data, preparing resources, additional management responsibilities where applicable, constant meetings and administration and any other responsibilities that are filtered down from the government via senior management all feature in a day in the life of a teacher.

It’s a similar story at the weekend with work continuing then too. And while the holidays seem frequent, within the above workload for consecutive days during half termly blocks of 6 - 8 weeks, they’re needed to punctuate the pressures teachers face. Not to mention most teachers spend at least some time working during the holidays too and a work-life balance is largely non-existent.

The government and education policies are at the crux of the current state of crisis in teaching. Education has become a political hot potato for point scoring. Meanwhile, teachers are left subject to deteriorating conditions as the profession is torn down by politicians and used as vehicles in achieving their agendas such as the ideologically driven pursuit of academies and free schools.

Politicians have transformed education into a hugely bureaucratic sector that is void of support and appreciation for teachers. The latter has also signalled a diminishing of autonomy and faith in teachers' judgement which translates into a lack of trust in the profession from the government. Moreover, with practitioners being periodically observed, and regularly undertaking continuing professional development (CPD) to further their practice, the government's stance is an affront against teachers.

It's a disparaging approach that has also led to an intensified testing culture, even amongst young children, where tests are used as a gauge of a teacher's ability with no regard for external factors beyond their control. Consequently, many teachers have felt compelled to ‘teach to the test’ which was recently criticised by schools minister, Nick Gibb. Well, I wonder what led to that approach, Nick?

The low morale and feeling of unappreciation amongst teachers undoubtedly stems from the government. Yet rather than address the problems in the profession, the government remains haughtily nonchalant and refuses to acknowledge let alone address the very crisis they are arguably the architects of. Put simply, the government just don’t care. Alas, the government’s lack of empathy for teachers has also percolated through schools via school management teams.

Management in schools, faced with their own pressures and targets, feel their hands are tied to alleviate teachers of many of the pressures they’re subject to. Indeed, many teachers feel a disconnect with management, many of whom represent a new generation of teachers who have spent little time in the classroom and since completing their teacher training, have had a blinkered desire to reach senior management. It’s led to schools increasingly being run by staff who have little classroom experience and therefore an accompanying lack of empathy for the stresses that come with it. Furthermore, schools have become corporate environments with their eyes on ever-moving and increasing targets at the expense of regard for students and teachers.

With teachers’ backs up against the wall, where can the profession turn for support in reversing such a relentless tide? One would assume that trade unions would be in the vanguard seeking to redress the current state of teaching. The teachers’ trade unions remain committed to teachers and traditionally, have been staunch and effective allies of the profession. Although in light of the crisis facing the profession, their response disappointingly doesn’t appear to be commensurate in recent years.

As a committed supporter and longtime member of the trade union movement, I acknowledge and appreciate what the teaching unions have done for the profession in protecting pay and conditions. More so, I salute the tireless work that is done at local level by union representatives in representing members in individual cases but also providing a collective voice for members in respective branches and regions. The teaching unions in the UK continue to articulate the concerns of teachers. However, many teachers would sadly argue that at a national level, the unions have gone off the boil in the vociferousness of their response toward the government.

Juxtaposed with the British Medical Association’s (BMA) campaign and industrial action in support of junior doctors, the teaching unions currently appear meek and relatively mute in their support of their members. I fully support the junior doctors and they’re one of the few groups of professionals that can empathise with the long hours, demonisation and unappreciation from the government and pressures experienced by teachers. The BMA is clearly being proactive in supporting their members, significantly at a time when the government is seeking to shaft them even further. Nevertheless, while teachers have similarly long been at breaking point, the teaching unions seem relatively inactive in contrast.

I understand the considerations of industrial action as a union’s last resort and an option that no union takes lightly. And industrial action isn’t the only recourse for the teaching unions. But things have come to a head in the profession and on a national level, teachers do not feel that the unions are playing the role they have traditionally done in supporting their members. And this comes at a time when it has arguably never been more needed in contemporary history.

With the profession currently in such a state of distress, some reading this may question why so many teachers remain. Similarly to junior doctors’ commitment to their patients, teachers are altruistically committed to their primary stakeholders of their students. Despite any lamentation teachers may have, many see walking away from the profession equating to walking away from their current and future students which is no easy option for a teacher to consider.

Teachers work in a capacity where they can directly impact the betterment of their students’ lives. After all, most of us will attest to a great teacher who made a difference to our lives which is undoubtedly a privileged and hugely fulfilling position. The reward of seeing students’ progress and aspirational growth, both academically and socially, also provides a high within teaching that had long outweighed the lows. Yet those lows have increased to the extent that the once welcome imbalance has reversed; a sad and poignant reality that prefigures further departures of committed and good teachers from the profession. Teaching has traditionally provided a sufficient allure to those that want to make a difference in society. However, akin to the experience of junior doctors, when such inherent and altruistic motivation and attraction has been eroded, you know things have gone awry.

Teachers will tell you that the moments of appreciation they do receive from students and parents are one of the great features of the job that are still present in teaching. It’s too bad that such sentiments aren’t acknowledged more broadly; especially by those who can and should reverse the fortunes and perception of such a noble profession.

To tip or not to tip

For most Britons, tipping, or paying gratuity, is seen as relatively limited to the hospitality industry where it’s traditionally been considered a gesture of appreciation for good service. And as a custom, it generally isn’t one that people bemoan unless of course they feel it’s foisted upon them. If I go to a restaurant, I have no qualms in leaving a decent tip for the waiter or waitress if they’ve provided good service and positively contributed to my overall dining experience. Therefore to remunerate them with something extra seems an appropriate way to acknowledge that. However, would I instinctively tip someone for pulling a solitary pint of Stella at a bar, a transaction that is complete within minutes where unlike someone waiting tables, we may not even exchange much if any conversation? No. After all, would that not be considered a very basic element of their job that as a consumer, I should be able to presume them to be being paid a decent wage for? The problem is, often they aren’t.

There are many jobs that don’t pay well where staff may go the extra mile for you as the consumer. So where do we draw the line at who and for what we should tip for and when we shouldn’t? Furthermore, considering the argument of helping to support low paid workers with a tip to supplement their income (a definite driver for me when tipping), how much of that onus should we be expected to shoulder as consumers? After all, we aren’t their employers with whom (along with governments) the responsibility to ensure a living wage should be assumed. Indeed, it can create a moral quandary when considering one’s view on paying gratuity.

With an Anglocentric perspective, the status quo for paying gratuity in North America presents such a contrast to what we’re used to in the UK that it’s often inexplicable to us. It’s more than we’d usually tip and it isn’t just extended to restaurants, bars and hotels either. In fact, in most service industries, and for most customer facing roles, a tip is expected. In developing countries, I’ve often felt this is an appropriate conduit for helping local people who arguably have a harder life than me. But otherwise in more developed countries, this can be an expectation that is met with underlying resentment.

In many service industries within the United States especially, consumers are expected to tip regardless of quality of service or how minor the service being provided might be. And as it’s become socially inherent, few people bat an eyelid at the custom. It’s to the extent that Brits, unfamiliar with such universal tipping, are often perceived as penny-pinching misers when abroad in contrast with our American peers as we typically tip less or not at all based on the respective situation. Conversely, it’s also a frustrating experience that such an expectation is foisted upon us rather than it being a decision we willingly make for ourselves.

In my experience, genuinely or otherwise, service industries in America typically offer great service that is admittedly better than one can often expect in the UK. Staff waiting on you in a restaurant are hugely personable, knowledgeable of the menu and highly accommodating. Their intention is clearly to provide the consumer with the best dining experience possible. Obviously, this isn’t without exception but I’ve nevertheless experienced some great service in American eateries. And while on some level it’s probably in pursuit of a good tip, I have no qualms in tipping generously in such instances as I feel it’s well deserved and appropriate. I also know that such jobs often pay a poor basic wage which again incentivises me to want to acknowledge good service with additional remuneration.

In considering the aforementioned, there is something that isn’t right about the consumer having to effectively subsidise an employee’s wage because the employer isn’t willing or able to factor a living wage into their costs. The employer thereby maximises their profit by paying the employee as little as legally (if not immorally) possible while relying on the consumer to provide any meaningful income for the employee in addition to what they’ve already paid. Someone’s losing out and it certainly isn’t the employer. Nonetheless, as the bastion of capitalism, it’s unsurprising that such an approach is commonplace in America.

Admittedly, for many employees, this approach works just fine. Work hard and provide great service and you’ll make tips aplenty that will dwarf what you might make in other sectors with a higher basic wage. With tipping being so socially ingrained and therefore not contested by consumers, one might argue that ignorantly or otherwise, the status quo actually leaves everyone happy. But the crux of the argument is that staff in service industries deserve a decent basic wage, regardless of any gratuity they might receive on top of that to reflect their efforts. Alas, capitalism has a way of making people decline to examine the flaws of a system as long as they’re able to make money from it.

Returning to the UK, some British restaurants have greedily seen gratuity as a pot of cash that they’d also like to get their hands on; 'tis the nature of capitalism when the bourgeoisie spy an opportunity to make extra cash at the expense of the workers. This is despite tips being a reflection of a customer’s gratitude for the staff that attended to them. In 2015, it was revealed that French restaurant Cote takes the service charge it adds to bills rather than distributing it to staff. Cote’s argument is that it pays slightly higher than the minimum wage (but still lower than the living wage) and that taking the service charge facilitates this. Up until October 2015, Pizza Express took an 8% ‘administrative charge’ for processing tips that were paid via card, a policy that led me to boycott their restaurants since it was revealed in 2008. Similarly, Italian restaurant chain Carluccio’s (another that I’ve not been to since it was revealed) felt it was appropriate to pay below the minimum wage as they would meet it using customers’ tips. And they aren’t the only restaurants that have had such practices.

Wherever possible, I’ve always endeavoured to tip in cash and asked staff if the tip will be going directly to them (as their employers may be too unscrupulous for that to be assumed). Too often tipping presents a grey area where employers blur the lines between it being part of an employee’s pay rather than recognition for their service. It’s akin to a pimp taking a cut from his or her prostitutes’ payment under the guise that they facilitated the transaction in the first instance. Yet these restaurants would undoubtedly have received less ire than that of a pimp.

The crux of the problem with tipping is two-fold. Firstly, employees need to be paid a fair, living wage that is commensurate with their role and that can be reasonably met as part of an employer’s costs. This needs to be separate from the consideration of tips which are a reflection of the relationship between the consumer and the employee. This indeed is the second consideration as a tip cannot be considered something that the employer has a claim to, nor should it be factored in as a likely subsidy to an employee’s income. Governments too need to ensure that a fair wage is being paid to workers in service industries.

Tipping will probably continue to be a moral and corporate grey area and one that many struggle with in either context. Though regardless of the solution, someone is probably always losing out.

Haye day or pay day, it’s certainly not time for David Haye to call it a day

After a three-and-a-half year hiatus, David Haye has returned to boxing with a first round KO of Mark de Mori. However, many boxing fans have questioned Haye’s motives for returning to the ring. As a former unified cruiserweight world champion and latterly a WBA heavyweight world champion, Haye had, and has, little to prove or achieve in the sport. His loss to Wladimir Klitschko, in what was a lacklustre effort, was followed by a demolition job of Dereck Chisora that had needle aplenty in the build-up. Subsequently, Haye was scheduled to meet current heavyweight champion Tyson Fury but unfortunately pulled out twice due to injuries. Following the second injury, which required reconstructive shoulder surgery, it was suggested that Haye might not fight again. But as was suspected by many during his lay-off, Haye has made a return to the sport and a timely one at that.

It’s been suggested that Haye’s return is for financial reasons, a claim that hasn’t been supported by anything other than the rumour mill. As a boxer who’s always seemed to have great business acumen and astuteness, not to mention having made huge amounts of money in fights where he fought under his own Hayemaker promotional banner, I’d like to think there isn’t any truth to this. Nonetheless, whatever the reason for his return, Haye is back and ready to make his mark on the heavyweight division yet again.

Haye’s return has come at a time when the heavyweight landscape has freed itself from the shackles of the Klitschko brothers’ domination of the division that it was subject to when Haye stepped away from the sport. Tyson Fury and Deontay Wilder are now champions and Anthony Joshua is being touted by many as the next big name of the division. Fortuitously and favourably for Haye, all three are potential opponents for him either en route or fighting for a world title. And all three are fights that Haye would win – subject to his current form.

While Haye had a decisive KO win over de Mori, it was after 2 minutes and 11 seconds of the first round. That’s 131 seconds from which we were able to gauge how much ring rust Haye may have accumulated in the last three-and-and-a-half years. What we do know is that Haye hasn’t lost any of his punch power and explosiveness, or his ability to finish an opponent once he smells blood. Conversely, there were glimpses of Haye’s timing and accuracy being slightly off but nothing that wouldn’t be expected from such a lengthy lay-off. There also wasn’t any opportunity to assess Haye’s punch resistance, or, due to the brevity of the bout, his stamina.

Haye has also returned with a new physique; he’s bulked up while retaining a chiselled frame but without any discernible loss of his trademark speed. Gone are the days of Haye fighting close to cruiserweight limit and he weighed in at a career-high of 227lbs 5oz. This didn’t seem to affect him negatively at all but it’s unknown how he would have carried that extra weight going into the second half of the fight.

While de Mori was a WBA top ten ranked opponent with a solid record, he represented a litmus test for Haye’s ability to compete rather than an actual test of being able to return to the highest level of the division. Prior to his fight against Haye, I’d never heard of de Mori which is telling of the level at which he’d previously fought at. Overall, there are still unanswered questions about Haye. Nevertheless, based on the little we have seen, there seems to be little to be concerned about regarding the legitimacy of his return.

Returning to Joshua, this seems to be the fight that Haye will want to pursue the quickest and arguably the most winnable fight too. With the hype around Joshua (which is gradually becoming warranted, just not as rapidly as some might suggest), and Haye’s ability to draw a crowd, Haye knows this will probably be the biggest money-spinner too. Haye’s performance against de Mori would have been intended to be quick and conclusive to make a statement akin to Joshua’s victories and put himself in the frame for a domestic PPV clash. Though, despite the rhetoric from Joshua’s team and the casual boxing fans of Joshua’s current ability exceeding that of his actual experience, Haye’s display of punching power will possibly provide a reality check that leads them to hold off from making that fight. Rather, a more sensible approach would be to build Joshua’s experience before putting him in such a dangerous fight that at the time of writing, I don’t think he could win.

As for Wilder and Fury, they’d provide sterner tests having operated at a higher level than Joshua. Fury has said he’d refuse to fight Haye given his two consecutive pull outs from when they were scheduled to fight which is understandable really. I expect that’s nonetheless just bombast from the big man who knows it’d be a huge fight. Haye vs Wilder too would be a great attraction in a UK vs US heavyweight fight that would capture the attention of a global audience. While Haye might have had an advantage over Wilder from when they sparred, three-and-a-half years is a long time in which Haye hasn’t fought anyone and Wilder became a world champion.

It’s certainly a new day in heavyweight boxing and Haye’s return makes it one of rich pickings for him if he’s able to return to his previous form. Although it still remains to be seen if that’s case. Yet from the little we saw again de Mori, there’s increasingly less reason to think otherwise and more reason to believe that Haye will begin his ascent through the rankings en route to a heavyweight title.

Oliver Letwin’s remarks aren’t just a product of their time, they’re a product of the Conservative Party

The recently released memo revealing Conservative MP Oliver Letwin’s remarks and attitudes on the black community are not a good reflection of the Conservative Party. And certainly of Letwin himself. Although while they may have been made thirty years ago, how much can we assume has actually changed about the views of Letwin and many within the Conservative Party? Well, relatively speaking, thirty years isn’t that long and given the old boys club that is the Conservative Party, probably not very much.

Letwin’s views aren’t just racist, they show the class prejudice that is at the centre of the Conservative Party. Thus, they characterise the party and its attitudes. In response to the memo, Trevor Philips said “I don’t think these remarks would have raised a single eyebrow at the time” and amongst all the mainstream parties, perhaps they wouldn’t have. What stands out though is how they could easily be the content of Conservative Party policy discussions today.

Just consider what was put forward by Letwin (along with Hartley Booth, another Tory MP at the time) regarding the Broadwater Farm riots and others that occurred at the time. It wouldn’t be amiss today from the same party it emanated from thirty years ago ­­–

"The root of social malaise is not poor housing, or youth 'alienation' or the lack of a middle class....Lower-class, unemployed white people lived for years in appalling slums without a breakdown of public order on anything like the present scale; in the midst of the depression, people in Brixton went out, leaving their grocery money in a bag at the front door, and expecting to see groceries there when they got back...Riots, criminality and social disintegration are caused solely by individual characters and attitudes. So long as bad moral attitudes remain, all efforts to improve the inner cities will founder...Riots, criminality and social disintegration are caused solely by individual characters and attitudes. So long as bad moral attitudes remain, all efforts to improve the inner cities will founder...[Lord] Young’s new entrepreneurs will set up in the disco and drug trade; Kenneth Baker’s refurbished council blocks will decay through vandalism combined with neglect; and people will graduate from temporary training or employment programmes into unemployment or crime."

If in years to come released papers showing policy discussions around the England riots in 2011 (which started in Tottenham, the location of Broadwater Farm) have the same sentiments, I wouldn’t be surprised. Furthermore, it would show just how little attitudes in the Conservative Party haven’t changed within contemporary history.

The undertones of racism have long been present in mainstream British politics but especially within the Conservative Party. During post-war immigration to the UK, all British political parties exhibited xenophobia but none more so than the Tories. Indeed, I’m often flummoxed by the short memories of many ethnic minority supporters of the Tory Party, who feel that the Tories will protect and further their social mobility, when they fail to reflect on the party’s history of policies and attitudes that smack of racism. After all, Margaret Thatcher, subsequent leader of the Conservative Party, referred to Enoch Powell’s 1968 Rivers of Blood speech as “strong meat”; not merely highly inflammatory racism. I doubt the many East African Asians and other immigrants arriving in the UK in the same year would have considered it in the same terms. Yet some subsequent generations of said communities are today Tories who ignorantly feel the party reflects their middle class status.

To be clear, I don’t think all Tories are racist. While I’m clearly not a Tory myself, I know many people who are and they’re undoubtedly committed to equality and positive race relations. Ideologically we just don’t agree on everything while somethings we do. I do, however, think that the party machinery of the Conservative Party hasn’t rid itself of racism, nor do I think it’s made much effort to either.

The image of the ‘nasty party’ is one that publically, the Tories have seemed to want to dispel. But returning to Letwin’s remarks, they pretty much support that perception. Letwin may have apologised, albeit with no real contrition. At the time of writing, David Cameron, as Prime Minister and leader of the Conservative Party, has made no comment let alone shown reproach in reference to the utterances of a senior and influential member of the party. And he certainly hasn’t condemned Letwin, retrospectively or otherwise. Unsurprisingly really from a man who shows little understanding of the racist and prejudiced rhetoric that has long existed within his party and indeed British history.

The right-wing media too has had little vitriol for Letwin and his remarks and there is a disheartening lack of public outcry with the same effect. Though as a figure of public life, I feel Letwin should resign. If Cameron sincerely wanted to rid his party of the tag of the nasty party, and show his commitment to leading a government where racist views had no place whatsoever, he would have requested Letwin’s resignation himself. Alas, the ‘nasty party’ image probably appeals to the section of the electorate, British society and business whose favour Cameron is keen to court.

The Letwin story should be huge news. A senior, high profile and influential member of the Conservative Party who’s made these remarks, and who is currently serving in the Cabinet, should be met with widespread censure. But as he’s a Tory, perhaps it doesn’t seem so out of place. That and his comments are directed at black and ‘lower class’ communities, groups who are seen by many as inferior to others within British society. Indeed, had comments been revealed with such prejudice toward other communities and minority groups such as the Jewish Diaspora, women or the disabled, would the response have been so lukewarm, even after thirty years? I doubt it and rightly so. Similarly, I doubt Letwin and other high profile Tories have completely rid themselves of such views either.

The Conservative Party may have tried to modernise and appeal to a broader section of British society. Nonetheless for many, they’ll continue to be the nasty party that Cameron et al have at times sought to refute. The lack of distance between Letwin’s thirty-year old remarks and many of the attitudes that are still present in the Conservative Party and some of its supporters today, proves just that.

The vulnerability of relationships

Without exception, my friends and family consider my partner to be a great person. And albeit biased, I’d wholeheartedly agree. I’m frequently told what a marvellous person she is and given constant compliments on her excellent character. All of the above is irrefutable. However, what about the side of her that others rarely, if ever, see as it’s contained within our relationship? The increasingly loud and relentless person in an argument who fails to see logic when it doesn’t support her perspective? Or her infuriatingly stubborn streak (even to her own detriment)? Not to mention the unrelenting ‘reminders’ to do something I’ve already been asked, even while I’m in the middle of doing something else? I can imagine many men and women are nodding their heads while reading this as they recognise the aforementioned in their own relationships.

I still maintain my partner’s an amazing person but it’s fair to say that her ‘less desirable’ traits are less likely to rear their head outside of our relationship. And the same is undoubtedly applicable to me. This doesn’t make either of us duplicitous or disingenuous and this experience is almost certainly reflected in every relationship and close friendship. Not to mention, just as the more frustrating aspects of one’s personality are reserved for their relationship, the same could be said for the best qualities of one’s character such as the uncompromising altruism that is kept for those closest to us.

Relationships are where polarised behaviours can not only be expected but also accepted; arguably due to the inherent vulnerability of relationships. They represent a safe place for our emotions and character, good, bad and indifferent, to be free; a place where any judgement we're subject to should be neutered by underlying affection and respect.

Vulnerability is what enables a couple to go from yelling at each other, both fuelled by indignant anger, to reconciliation with reciprocated and sincere contrition. It's what gives us the space to get frustrated and show it, rather than keep it contained as we might have to with others, but also to make amends while not constrained by bravado or one-upmanship. It allows us to our lose inhibitions to be frivolous, show and articulate our fears and innermost thoughts and have unfiltered honesty within the sanctuary or our relationship. It's the essence of what makes good and genuine relationships such incredibly honest spheres.

To be vulnerable is a feature of the human condition. Hence it being present in any relationship. Without vulnerability, we lack the capacity for fear and apprehension. We lack the capacity to motivate ourselves toward a greater good for ourselves and those around us through connection and compassion. While vulnerability has become synonymous with exposure or weakness, on reflection, it is at the very core of human existence and by no means an attribute that we should seek to erode or ignore.

Brené Brown’s brilliant TED Talk articulated the struggle of vulnerability. Yet within a relationship, that struggle is countered by the security that is provided via our connections with each other. Anxieties are alleviated with reassurances, loneliness with companionship and judgement and criticism with acceptance. Within the sphere of relationships, opposing emotions are juxtaposed and balanced, thus diminishing our vulnerability. The intrinsic nature of vulnerability within relationships means it isn’t going anywhere and on the whole, this is a good thing. Indeed, for a partner or friend to facilitate the emotional refuge of a relationship that doesn’t allow vulnerability to be a crushing albatross but rather a feature that can be accepted and managed, is testament to a great partner or friend.

As spheres of intimacy, relationships will always have the scope for one’s fragility that vulnerability threatens to expose. Although a good relationship will ensure that doesn’t become the case in providing the requisite sanctuary. But what happens when that fragility is abused and taken advantage of with vulnerability becoming a means to facilitate that very abuse?

Vulnerability presents the landscape for relationships to encompass companionship and empathy. Though the vulnerability of others can be exploited by those who feel unable to embrace their own vulnerability and rather use it as a tool to protect their own insecurities and selfishly advance only their own desires. Mental, emotional and sometimes physical abuse, bullying, control and diminishing of individuality and any modicum of independence outside of a relationship, can just as easily be facilitated via vulnerability. Just as the safety and support afforded by a healthy relationship can be too.

For some, their own weakness compels them to pounce upon the vulnerability of a partner for their own gains. Just as they wouldn’t take such an approach with others (in the knowledge that their efforts would be feeble and consequently crushed), they reserve their form of abuse for the only sphere that they feel confident in experiencing success as they prey on the vulnerability of others.

He or she who is subject to such treatment is sadly pinned down by their own vulnerability and numbed, leaving them emotionally paralysed as their own fragility is taken advantage of. With the presence of vulnerability, it’s therefore little wonder that relationships are forums for the best and worst of the human condition with either being heightened through closeness and connection.

Our struggle with vulnerability is part of our emotional experience. And within relationships, that struggle is intensified. It’s a place for the best and the worst that we have to offer in the knowledge that we escape judgement and reproach to an extent that we could not hope for outside of its parameters. At face value, this presents anxieties that rationally, we might not want to encounter. But the possibility of that vulnerability being the basis of something greater continues to lead us to relationships in the hope that just that will be achieved.