Morning:
8°c
The timing of the resignation of Eric Joyce, parliamentary private secretary to defence secretary Bob Ainsworth, could scarcely be worse for the Prime Minister.
Mr Joyce's condemnation of Mr Brown's strategy in Afghanistan comes as the PM attempts to re-state his commitment to the war in a major speech. Despite Mr Joyce's lowly status, his criticisms will strike a chord with many amid mounting British casualties.
Opinion polls show growing public opposition to the war — hence Mr Brown's speech and his visit to Afghanistan this week. Yet at the same time, Government figures have briefed against senior Army officers such as former Army chief Sir Richard Dannatt. This backfired: as Mr Joyce points out, few people will make any distinction between attacks on the generals and troops in the front line.
It is clear that military setbacks are ministers' fault: their efforts over the past four years to fight the war on the cheap have failed. At the same time, Mr Brown's claims to be sending more troops fail to convince, as with his most recent such announcement, where new troops being sent will be balanced by those returning.
More serious, however, is the Government's lack of strategic direction in Afghanistan. Mr Joyce calls for a promise to reduce our commitment there “during the liftetime of the next government”. Such an exit strategy is perfectly feasible: Canada has announced that it will withdraw in 2012. Instead, Mr Brown will today merely hint at a reduction in British forces from next year as more Afghan soldiers are trained. Mr Joyce warns, too, that official claims to be fighting terrorism lack credibility. With almost all of the terror plots against Britain in the past decade having strong Pakistani rather than Afghan roots, the terror argument for the war looks threadbare.
Iraq acted as an albatross around the neck of Tony Blair. Mr Brown risks Afghanistan playing the same role for him unless he can set out a convincing rationale for Britain's role there — and a plan for how we get out.
After the exams
As the dust settles from the latest round of GCSE and A‑level results, there is yet another sign of the breakdown of faith in our exam system. Westminster School has announced that it will no longer sit the exams in several key subjects, switching instead to the International GCSE, closer in content to an old-fashioned O-level, and the new Cambridge University “Pre-U” exam for those aged 18. The school argues, as have other leading independent schools, that today's GCSEs and A-levels are no longer demanding enough to stretch bright pupils.
Yet rather than address the widespread criticism that exams have become easier, the Government is instead pressing ahead with plans to replace the present qualifications with a new system of diplomas, due to be introduced over the next two years. Since schools secretary Ed Balls first announced the new diplomas two years ago, there have been persistent warnings from schools that they risk causing widespread confusion as well as further devaluing the exam system. Their launch has been plagued with delays.
Increasing numbers are voting with their feet and abandoning the official exam system, as Westminster now has. Mr Balls should think again on diplomas and instead concentrate on rebuilding trust in the academic excellence of our schools' exams.
Dizzy Rascal's vision
Rapper Dizzee Rascal's attachment to his native east London is admirable. But his tirade against the 2012 Olympics is misplaced. He complains that building work is making his native Bow a “hole”.
Inevitably, such a huge construction site is not going to be pretty. But when the Olympic site is complete, it will bring huge benefits to east London. The East End has always changed. And the gritty streets now echoing to construction equipment will look a lot better in three years' time.
