Of course it's aways nice to see a range of longstanding Lib Dem policies adopted by other two - pupil premium; high speed rail; tax on non- doms & even localism ( a policy that goes back to the days of Joe Grimmond); green new deal & now reform !!!
As Nick Clegg said yesterday , Labour "have systematically blocked at every turn every single reform: party funding reform, they have blocked reform on lobbying...."
The Tories are also promising during this campaign things they actively blocked when there was a chance to make them happen - the power of recall for errant MPs for example, taking big money out of politics, clamping down on lobbyists.
According to www.publicwhip.co.uk which records how MPs vote in Parliament South Dorset's Labour MP also has an unenviable voting record - voting with the Government against 16 year olds being given the vote , an item which Gordon Brown now claims will be put to a free vote !- as well as being absent for every vote on MPs' expenses, and of course voting for the war in Iraq & against a whole range of inquiries into the war.
Brown is finally committing to a fixed term parliament - strange he has only said this now when we have spent the last 2 and 1/2 years waiting with baited breath for him to call an election.
No-one will be fooled. The electorate know that only the Liberal Democrats will provide these reforms - only by electing enough Lib Dem MPs with the power to insist on reform in a hung parliament will any of this come about.
In 13 years Labour have had plenty of chances - but its record on the lack of reform in the House of Lords speaks for itself - as, I would say, does the rest of its record since 2003 !
Thursday, 8 April 2010
Monday, 8 March 2010
IS ASHCROFT TRYING TO BUY SOUTH DORSET ? THESE QUESTIONS NEED ANSWERING
Should elections be bought ? If the Conservatives in South Dorset only received £29,000 from their non-dom party vice-chairman billionaire donor Lord Ashcroft in 2005, and as they claim, that was only 2% of their funding, then did they really spend £1.45 million on the last general election campaign here ?
I wonder how much they are planning to spend this time ?
A number of issues arise from this scandal – and it is a scandal in the real sense of the word – because it raises very ugly questions about how politics works in this country, that a political party can promise that its major donor will become resident in the UK in order for him to be given a peerage, and then, once he has become a law-maker he evades complying with the conditions on which the peerage was given, avoiding paying tax as a consequence. An ugly question therefore is – does this mean that the British taxpayer is now bankrolling the Conservative campaign ?
But more alarming even than this is the lack of transparency shown by party leaders. It would appear that William Hague, Shadow Foreign Secretary , the man who might be responsible in a few months for taking us into future wars, firstly avoided asking the relevant questions, then was prepared to give an assurance based merely on supposition, and when he did find out the truth three months ago, persisted in evasive denials in a series of public interviews in which he assured the questioner that there was nothing untoward about Lord Ashcroft’s behaviour. If we thought there were problems about WMD, we have, I fear, far more of a treat in store for us.
His party leader appears to have taken the view that ‘what I don’t know won’t hurt me’ & that it is perfectly acceptable for his party to be in receipt of millions from a non dom resident of Belize, who has also failed to pay tax there & whose income the president of the country estimates is more than its gross domestic product . Someone who is prepared to bankroll a party that claims it cares about the poor in this country, yet who pays nothing towards the upkeep by the state in an impoverished Caribbean tax haven, despite it being in the lowest quartile on the poverty scale of international
I wonder how much they are planning to spend this time ?
A number of issues arise from this scandal – and it is a scandal in the real sense of the word – because it raises very ugly questions about how politics works in this country, that a political party can promise that its major donor will become resident in the UK in order for him to be given a peerage, and then, once he has become a law-maker he evades complying with the conditions on which the peerage was given, avoiding paying tax as a consequence. An ugly question therefore is – does this mean that the British taxpayer is now bankrolling the Conservative campaign ?
But more alarming even than this is the lack of transparency shown by party leaders. It would appear that William Hague, Shadow Foreign Secretary , the man who might be responsible in a few months for taking us into future wars, firstly avoided asking the relevant questions, then was prepared to give an assurance based merely on supposition, and when he did find out the truth three months ago, persisted in evasive denials in a series of public interviews in which he assured the questioner that there was nothing untoward about Lord Ashcroft’s behaviour. If we thought there were problems about WMD, we have, I fear, far more of a treat in store for us.
His party leader appears to have taken the view that ‘what I don’t know won’t hurt me’ & that it is perfectly acceptable for his party to be in receipt of millions from a non dom resident of Belize, who has also failed to pay tax there & whose income the president of the country estimates is more than its gross domestic product . Someone who is prepared to bankroll a party that claims it cares about the poor in this country, yet who pays nothing towards the upkeep by the state in an impoverished Caribbean tax haven, despite it being in the lowest quartile on the poverty scale of international
I WORRY ABOUT MICHAEL GOVE
The thing that worries me about the Tory shadow education secretary, is how little he appears to understand state education.
Whether it’s suggesting that all secondary teachers have first class degrees or that the most successful schools should ‘opt out’ to become academies, he shows clear misunderstanding of how the system works and how it is experienced by those using it.
He has been rightly pilloried regarding the degrees. Good teachers combine academic knowledge, the ability to enthuse, rapport with and respect for their pupils, with emotional awareness of what is going on in the classroom, for themselves, the class and individual students.
About 4 years into my own teaching career I realised that what inspired my pupils at secondary level was not the subject, but my relationship with them & the fact that my empathy, & understanding of them as individuals was at least as important as my ability to stretch their minds and transmit knowledge. It was this awareness that led me to train as a psychotherapist.
Now many people at the pinnacle of academic achievement do not share the above qualities, and would not therefore prosper in the environment of a state school – where they would also need to establish firm boundaries & a strong sense of order & discipline. Helped always if your charges know that you respect and like them ! You have to be prepared to be tough, to know who the likely miscreants are & you have to be able to second guess the kinds of behaviour that are likely to happen – all the time, every minute of the day, wherever you are in school.
Needless to say, those who go into the profession need to be able to handle stress – and I want to be quite clear that being a parliamentary candidate is much less stressful & onerous than teaching in a modern comprehensive !
The above qualifications cannot be squashed neatly into the box labelled first class degree. They are character based. And it’s usually more accurately the case that the less academic are the more well liked by their charges.
State education will not improve by being modelled in the form of private education in terms of degree level or in terms of school type – because the service users are different. What we do need is the same kind of resourcing, both to employ the best teachers in the hardest to reach schools (funding that will follow the pupil, as in the Lib Dems’ Pupil Premium) and to provide the relevant environments for good quality learning experience.
But with the cuts in real terms currently being proposed by the Conservatives, I can’t see that happening. Neither can I see the currently proposed powers to give parents and charities the opportunity to create their own schools – in many ways an excellent idea – being any more than a way of siphoning off money from the majority, a form of grant maintained foundation trust. We must be very careful of half-baked ideas which are based upon ideology rather than a real knowledge of the facts. As Polly Toynbee has correctly noted (Guardian 6.3.10) “Through social ignorance they assume the newsworthy 2% living profoundly dysfunctional lives, represent all the poor.”
A report which claimed – 3 times - that more than half of teenage girls get pregnant in poor areas (real figure 5.4 %) exposes what Toynbee rightly calls the “social cluelessness among those who would govern a country unknown to them”.
She’s so right I will almost give her the last word – “The chasm yawns between [Cameron’s] critique and his remedies – marriage, a few small schools and volunteers.” The possibility of Michael Gove gaining control of our state education system should set the alarm bells ringing. I welcome the freedom offered to parents and the educational advantages to be offered by small schools – but it is not enough.
Whether it’s suggesting that all secondary teachers have first class degrees or that the most successful schools should ‘opt out’ to become academies, he shows clear misunderstanding of how the system works and how it is experienced by those using it.
He has been rightly pilloried regarding the degrees. Good teachers combine academic knowledge, the ability to enthuse, rapport with and respect for their pupils, with emotional awareness of what is going on in the classroom, for themselves, the class and individual students.
About 4 years into my own teaching career I realised that what inspired my pupils at secondary level was not the subject, but my relationship with them & the fact that my empathy, & understanding of them as individuals was at least as important as my ability to stretch their minds and transmit knowledge. It was this awareness that led me to train as a psychotherapist.
Now many people at the pinnacle of academic achievement do not share the above qualities, and would not therefore prosper in the environment of a state school – where they would also need to establish firm boundaries & a strong sense of order & discipline. Helped always if your charges know that you respect and like them ! You have to be prepared to be tough, to know who the likely miscreants are & you have to be able to second guess the kinds of behaviour that are likely to happen – all the time, every minute of the day, wherever you are in school.
Needless to say, those who go into the profession need to be able to handle stress – and I want to be quite clear that being a parliamentary candidate is much less stressful & onerous than teaching in a modern comprehensive !
The above qualifications cannot be squashed neatly into the box labelled first class degree. They are character based. And it’s usually more accurately the case that the less academic are the more well liked by their charges.
State education will not improve by being modelled in the form of private education in terms of degree level or in terms of school type – because the service users are different. What we do need is the same kind of resourcing, both to employ the best teachers in the hardest to reach schools (funding that will follow the pupil, as in the Lib Dems’ Pupil Premium) and to provide the relevant environments for good quality learning experience.
But with the cuts in real terms currently being proposed by the Conservatives, I can’t see that happening. Neither can I see the currently proposed powers to give parents and charities the opportunity to create their own schools – in many ways an excellent idea – being any more than a way of siphoning off money from the majority, a form of grant maintained foundation trust. We must be very careful of half-baked ideas which are based upon ideology rather than a real knowledge of the facts. As Polly Toynbee has correctly noted (Guardian 6.3.10) “Through social ignorance they assume the newsworthy 2% living profoundly dysfunctional lives, represent all the poor.”
A report which claimed – 3 times - that more than half of teenage girls get pregnant in poor areas (real figure 5.4 %) exposes what Toynbee rightly calls the “social cluelessness among those who would govern a country unknown to them”.
She’s so right I will almost give her the last word – “The chasm yawns between [Cameron’s] critique and his remedies – marriage, a few small schools and volunteers.” The possibility of Michael Gove gaining control of our state education system should set the alarm bells ringing. I welcome the freedom offered to parents and the educational advantages to be offered by small schools – but it is not enough.
Wednesday, 13 January 2010
DON'T TRUST THE TORIES ON THE NHS: OUR LIVES IN THEIR HANDS
In our latest tabloid, South Dorset Lib Dems have highlighted how those Tory MPs not constantly under the cosh of cuddly Cameron, have revealed the real thinking behind what might happen to the NHS in Conservative hands.
Leading Conservative Daniel Hannan, described the NHS as a “sixty year mistake” when touring the US last summer. Then it was revealed that leading Conservatives described the NHS as “no longer relevant in the 21st century” in a book co-authored by one of David Cameron’s close colleagues. Clearly the preference would be for the kind of private health insurance enjoyed by those who can afford to pay for it in the US with only the very basics available to the poor. A return to the two tier nightmare of the 1992 election campaign ?
Now, Tory adviser Julia Manning wants to end the availability of minor treatments on the NHS.
In her report, Manning, who last week hosted a “Cameron Direct” town hall meeting for the party leader, wrote: “‘Diagnostic drift’ or ‘disease-mongering’ are draining the NHS of precious resources.
“Examples of this include varicose veins, acne, short stature, IVF, cosmetic surgery and moderate increases in blood pressure or cholesterol.”
The most controversial proposal is to end IVF on the NHS, which is already heavily rationed by health authorities as well as the introduction of further prescription charges.
Manning, currently on the shortlist of Conservative parliamentary candidates, has proposed that free prescriptions should end for painkillers and cold remedies, and that alcoholics and drug addicts who repeatedly turn up to A&E should be fined.
As director of the 2020Health.org think tank she is a close adviser to the Tory leadership, and has claimed that ending free treatment for minor or “lifestyle” illnesses could save £20 billion a year — about a fifth of the annual budget. “Examples of this include varicose veins, acne, short stature, IVF, cosmetic surgery and moderate increases in blood pressure or cholesterol.” she said.
This beggars belief. When we have seen how hard Obama and the Democrats have had to fight over the course of several administrations to get even universal private health care through the statute books , how can we even think of rationing health care in this way.
But the real learning point is not to believe the spin. There is a wide gap between what the Tories actually believe on health, and what they say they are going to do. It’s a case of ‘I’m alright Jack’ for those who can afford it – and a free- for- all for the rest of us. Whatever appears to be on offer – see your way through the gauze of manicured publicity: leopards don’t change their spots
Leading Conservative Daniel Hannan, described the NHS as a “sixty year mistake” when touring the US last summer. Then it was revealed that leading Conservatives described the NHS as “no longer relevant in the 21st century” in a book co-authored by one of David Cameron’s close colleagues. Clearly the preference would be for the kind of private health insurance enjoyed by those who can afford to pay for it in the US with only the very basics available to the poor. A return to the two tier nightmare of the 1992 election campaign ?
Now, Tory adviser Julia Manning wants to end the availability of minor treatments on the NHS.
In her report, Manning, who last week hosted a “Cameron Direct” town hall meeting for the party leader, wrote: “‘Diagnostic drift’ or ‘disease-mongering’ are draining the NHS of precious resources.
“Examples of this include varicose veins, acne, short stature, IVF, cosmetic surgery and moderate increases in blood pressure or cholesterol.”
The most controversial proposal is to end IVF on the NHS, which is already heavily rationed by health authorities as well as the introduction of further prescription charges.
Manning, currently on the shortlist of Conservative parliamentary candidates, has proposed that free prescriptions should end for painkillers and cold remedies, and that alcoholics and drug addicts who repeatedly turn up to A&E should be fined.
As director of the 2020Health.org think tank she is a close adviser to the Tory leadership, and has claimed that ending free treatment for minor or “lifestyle” illnesses could save £20 billion a year — about a fifth of the annual budget. “Examples of this include varicose veins, acne, short stature, IVF, cosmetic surgery and moderate increases in blood pressure or cholesterol.” she said.
This beggars belief. When we have seen how hard Obama and the Democrats have had to fight over the course of several administrations to get even universal private health care through the statute books , how can we even think of rationing health care in this way.
But the real learning point is not to believe the spin. There is a wide gap between what the Tories actually believe on health, and what they say they are going to do. It’s a case of ‘I’m alright Jack’ for those who can afford it – and a free- for- all for the rest of us. Whatever appears to be on offer – see your way through the gauze of manicured publicity: leopards don’t change their spots
DON’T BE FOOLED AGAIN BY DORSET'S TORIES
DON’T LET DORSET’S CONSERVATIVES OBSCURE THE TRUTH
Toni Coombs’ explanation of the reasons behind schools’ closures in the Purbecks (Letters Telegraph 28.12.09) is reductive to say the least . It is a defeatist rationale, which in assuming that the worst will happen, risks condemning an area which is both vibrant and potentially economically resilient, to stagnation.
Illustrative of this is the current battle being fought in Swanage. One of the largest towns in Purbeck (population 10,000) , Swanage lost its both its secondary schools in a 1970s switch to the three tier system. The town gained a middle school, and 14-18 education transferred to Wareham (population 5,600) – 12 miles away.
Now, following the Government instigated review of surplus places, middle school provision is being taken away throughout the Purbecks – with no offer to reinstate secondary provision in Swanage. Other towns in Dorset which use the two tier system, including the much smaller towns of Beaminster and Lyme Regis, have retained their secondary provision.. There is some lack of equity here .
The argument which attributes closure of the schools entirely to the prevalence of second homes in the Swanage area is disingenuous because, according to research based on different statistics to those used by Dorset County Council, almost uniquely among towns in Purbeck Swanage is actually growing: there is an increased birth rate & a recent expansion in the number of families with young children coming into the town.
Newly Liberal Democrat led Purbeck District Council is proposing the development of over six hundred new homes in the town, (40-50% of which are to be affordable) in future years. All the evidence suggests therefore that the school aged population in Swanage will substantially increase in future years.
The strength of this interpretation is boosted rather than diminished by the response of the community. Education Swanage, a highly competent and eloquent group of parents who have banded together to put the case for secondary provision in the town, are proposing that the smaller part of a split site Purbeck Secondary be sited in the town where it could take advantage of the unique opportunity offered for the study of Earth Sciences by the proximity of the World Heritage Coast and Purbeck Stone Centre. Research conducted by these parents has been of a professional quality item by item to rival that of Dorset County’s officers – but they have repeatedly been given short shrift by Dorset County Council.
David Cameron claims that the new Conservatism supports localism, but here is an example of a visionary and eloquent local community being rebuffed again and again by a Conservative County Council as it presents alternative plans which are financially viable and which deserve to be taken seriously.
In fact, this short-sighted schools’ review will amplify the very effect that it proffers as a cause – desertion of Swanage and its vicinity by families with young children , thereby encouraging its infiltration by second home owners - whereas forward thinking and upfront investment by the council in building a new secondary, working alongside the District council’s excellent programme for employment and housing regeneration, will attract more parents with children to the town, ensuring that it has a working, full time population.
In a rural county where there is plenty of poverty, economic regeneration needs foresight, joined up planning between local authorities, vision to see the opportunities and fortitude in finding and exploiting relevant sources of revenue. All of these have been singularly lacking in Dorset County Council, but are amply visible in the creative vision and determination of Education Swanage, a group which I continue to support wholeheartedly in their endeavours to retain secondary education in their town.
At the other end of the county, it’s a different story. Woodroffe School in Lyme Regis, (population 4,406, school population 1,106) has been rated outstanding in two consecutive Ofsted inspections. Lyme is fortunate in having a visionary Development Trust, which, working with local authorities and the international scientific community is seeking to transform the economy of the town by capitalising on its Jurassic Coast location: the role of the school is central to this development………….if only we could see the same in Swanage.
Toni Coombs’ explanation of the reasons behind schools’ closures in the Purbecks (Letters Telegraph 28.12.09) is reductive to say the least . It is a defeatist rationale, which in assuming that the worst will happen, risks condemning an area which is both vibrant and potentially economically resilient, to stagnation.
Illustrative of this is the current battle being fought in Swanage. One of the largest towns in Purbeck (population 10,000) , Swanage lost its both its secondary schools in a 1970s switch to the three tier system. The town gained a middle school, and 14-18 education transferred to Wareham (population 5,600) – 12 miles away.
Now, following the Government instigated review of surplus places, middle school provision is being taken away throughout the Purbecks – with no offer to reinstate secondary provision in Swanage. Other towns in Dorset which use the two tier system, including the much smaller towns of Beaminster and Lyme Regis, have retained their secondary provision.. There is some lack of equity here .
The argument which attributes closure of the schools entirely to the prevalence of second homes in the Swanage area is disingenuous because, according to research based on different statistics to those used by Dorset County Council, almost uniquely among towns in Purbeck Swanage is actually growing: there is an increased birth rate & a recent expansion in the number of families with young children coming into the town.
Newly Liberal Democrat led Purbeck District Council is proposing the development of over six hundred new homes in the town, (40-50% of which are to be affordable) in future years. All the evidence suggests therefore that the school aged population in Swanage will substantially increase in future years.
The strength of this interpretation is boosted rather than diminished by the response of the community. Education Swanage, a highly competent and eloquent group of parents who have banded together to put the case for secondary provision in the town, are proposing that the smaller part of a split site Purbeck Secondary be sited in the town where it could take advantage of the unique opportunity offered for the study of Earth Sciences by the proximity of the World Heritage Coast and Purbeck Stone Centre. Research conducted by these parents has been of a professional quality item by item to rival that of Dorset County’s officers – but they have repeatedly been given short shrift by Dorset County Council.
David Cameron claims that the new Conservatism supports localism, but here is an example of a visionary and eloquent local community being rebuffed again and again by a Conservative County Council as it presents alternative plans which are financially viable and which deserve to be taken seriously.
In fact, this short-sighted schools’ review will amplify the very effect that it proffers as a cause – desertion of Swanage and its vicinity by families with young children , thereby encouraging its infiltration by second home owners - whereas forward thinking and upfront investment by the council in building a new secondary, working alongside the District council’s excellent programme for employment and housing regeneration, will attract more parents with children to the town, ensuring that it has a working, full time population.
In a rural county where there is plenty of poverty, economic regeneration needs foresight, joined up planning between local authorities, vision to see the opportunities and fortitude in finding and exploiting relevant sources of revenue. All of these have been singularly lacking in Dorset County Council, but are amply visible in the creative vision and determination of Education Swanage, a group which I continue to support wholeheartedly in their endeavours to retain secondary education in their town.
At the other end of the county, it’s a different story. Woodroffe School in Lyme Regis, (population 4,406, school population 1,106) has been rated outstanding in two consecutive Ofsted inspections. Lyme is fortunate in having a visionary Development Trust, which, working with local authorities and the international scientific community is seeking to transform the economy of the town by capitalising on its Jurassic Coast location: the role of the school is central to this development………….if only we could see the same in Swanage.
Saturday, 7 November 2009
Proof of the Educational Pudding in Portland
I have always been against academy schools, & indeed must delcare myself an opponent of oversized secondaries as a whole - young people are alienated enough from meaningful participation in our culture without being alienated from each other & their teachers in huge & intimidating factory-learning environments.
This is why I have supported the calls in Swanage for a Swanage Secondary: whatever the subject, young people perform best among teachers & peers with whom they have a 'team' relationship. A school is essential to its community in all sorts of ways, whether from professionals identifying problems & being able to liaise closely with parents or teachers being able to watch their charges grow & mature over the years ( one of the keenest pleasures of working in education) to links with the community that enable a whole range of local , retired, or just enthusiastic experts to engage with them in a 'living' education.
The academy model is the anthesis of the kind of vision parents in Swanage want to make a reality & the argument for a giant secondary in Purbeck, with access to the full range of diplomas has, I feel, disadvantages as well as strengths. It is with relief therefore that I see that the Government's academies programme has decided to prevent ULT, the largest sponsor of academies, from taking on new schools until it dramatically improves the ones it already runs. This will affect the proposed 4 - 19 all through academy in Portland.
In my opinion the idea of an all -through mechanism like this seems completely counter-intuitive to the needs & developmental stages experienced by children of various ages - although on a large enough campus with clear separation between the schools & excellent leadership, it could be made to work.
My big concern however has always been linked to the 'creationist' controversy - & the motivations of bodies wishing to run schools for purposes that are clearly wider than that of education alone. This is something that a future Tory administration would have to address closely, were , under their tutelage ,the Swedish schools model to come into effect.
The United Learning Trust's Sheffield academies, plagued with behavioural problems & low results, have failed spectacularly. It appears that it is not enough simply to throw money & new buildings at a deprived area & that spritual guidance is not an adequate replacement to skilled & professional teaching ! The poor management of the schools has worsened their performance, leading to both being put into special measures.
Of ULT's 13 academies, one was judged outstanding, three good, but seven were only satisfactory & two inadequate. That is why the Government has required them to turn their attention to their existing establishments, stalling plans for new developemnts.
I must admit that separating off state schools & attempting to turn them essentially into private schools with public funding, had always seemed a suspect performance to me - not that different from the Conservative's schools of the Grant Maintained variety. It's a piecemeal rehash when in fact, what we may be said to need is an entirely new debate about how education is organised in the UK.
Government after government has tampered with a succession of schools turning our children ( & teachers !) into experiments in ideology & social engineering.
Schools are most successful when they are adequately resourced to attract skilled & motivated staff who are left to do what those skilled & motivated staff do best. I believe it is fundamentally wrong to offer resources to schools only when they jump through the hoop of the latest social experiment. There are huge problems with how we educate in this country - but they have not been solved by the academies: I am relieved that Portland will not be part of the same experiment in the near future.
This is why I have supported the calls in Swanage for a Swanage Secondary: whatever the subject, young people perform best among teachers & peers with whom they have a 'team' relationship. A school is essential to its community in all sorts of ways, whether from professionals identifying problems & being able to liaise closely with parents or teachers being able to watch their charges grow & mature over the years ( one of the keenest pleasures of working in education) to links with the community that enable a whole range of local , retired, or just enthusiastic experts to engage with them in a 'living' education.
The academy model is the anthesis of the kind of vision parents in Swanage want to make a reality & the argument for a giant secondary in Purbeck, with access to the full range of diplomas has, I feel, disadvantages as well as strengths. It is with relief therefore that I see that the Government's academies programme has decided to prevent ULT, the largest sponsor of academies, from taking on new schools until it dramatically improves the ones it already runs. This will affect the proposed 4 - 19 all through academy in Portland.
In my opinion the idea of an all -through mechanism like this seems completely counter-intuitive to the needs & developmental stages experienced by children of various ages - although on a large enough campus with clear separation between the schools & excellent leadership, it could be made to work.
My big concern however has always been linked to the 'creationist' controversy - & the motivations of bodies wishing to run schools for purposes that are clearly wider than that of education alone. This is something that a future Tory administration would have to address closely, were , under their tutelage ,the Swedish schools model to come into effect.
The United Learning Trust's Sheffield academies, plagued with behavioural problems & low results, have failed spectacularly. It appears that it is not enough simply to throw money & new buildings at a deprived area & that spritual guidance is not an adequate replacement to skilled & professional teaching ! The poor management of the schools has worsened their performance, leading to both being put into special measures.
Of ULT's 13 academies, one was judged outstanding, three good, but seven were only satisfactory & two inadequate. That is why the Government has required them to turn their attention to their existing establishments, stalling plans for new developemnts.
I must admit that separating off state schools & attempting to turn them essentially into private schools with public funding, had always seemed a suspect performance to me - not that different from the Conservative's schools of the Grant Maintained variety. It's a piecemeal rehash when in fact, what we may be said to need is an entirely new debate about how education is organised in the UK.
Government after government has tampered with a succession of schools turning our children ( & teachers !) into experiments in ideology & social engineering.
Schools are most successful when they are adequately resourced to attract skilled & motivated staff who are left to do what those skilled & motivated staff do best. I believe it is fundamentally wrong to offer resources to schools only when they jump through the hoop of the latest social experiment. There are huge problems with how we educate in this country - but they have not been solved by the academies: I am relieved that Portland will not be part of the same experiment in the near future.
Is Tory Foriegn Policy Insane ?
Cameron's experience abroad is described by Geoffrey Wheatcroft in yesterday's Guardian as "a series of missteps & own goals, culminating in the gruesome embarrassment of his volte face on a referendum".
He continues "...this raises the question of whether the Tories actually have a sane foreign policy - for Europe & beyond- that they can conduct in office."
This is more pertinent question than it may at first seem.
Cameron's careful avoidance of detailed policy planning on the domestic scene, which on the doorstep I find is leading so many ordinary voters to question his reliability, & which seems to be designed to avoid critical examination at the same time as inviting approval for twisting every which way the wind blows (where is the emphasis on green issues now we are in a recession ??), is put into sharp profile by his simplistic & partisan approach to diplomacy, international conflict & European affairs. It is here that perhaps we see the real Cameron - a man who whilst adroit at domestic manouverings is clearly quite scarily out of his depth in the international arena.
Most European countries, notably Germany & France, are governed by centre right administrations -in recent months Cameron has alienated both: - a Conservative administration would see us once again in the second tier in Europe.
The alternative to the European idea promulgated by neo-cons & eurosceptics, the opinions of which are so unfortunately shared by the Conservative candidate in South Dorset, is a relationship with the United States so "special" that only the English appear to know it exists & which over recent years has clarified the extent to which the UK is clearly a very junior partner - after the way Blair prostated himself before Bush & got nothing in return.
For the clearest & most worrying sign of Cameron's inadequacy in foriegn affairs however, we need to turn back to last year's conflict in Georgia, where he gave his fervent backing to the Tbilisi government , unilaterally declaring, in a literally 'flying' visit, that Georgia should be admitted to Nato forthwith.
A suggestion which, if taken seriously, might have precipitated full scale international war !
As put succinctly by Sir Malcolm Rifkind "Britain, France & Germany are not going to go to war with Russia over South Ossetia"..... but under a Cameron administration, what might have happened ?
Not only does the Shadow Cabinet lack experience of the real world, & the Shadow Chancellor reveal his clear misunderstandings of economic instability by advocating Thatcherite economic retrenchment, against the advicce & practice of the countries that are now officially out of recession, but the forays into foreign affairs of the party leader & Shadow Foreign Secretary are based on prejudice & show they are not fit for purpose as national leaders in the modern world.
In the 1980s the Specials sang about the lunatics taking over the asylum - let's only hope the British people have more sense than to elect this bunch of amatuers.
He continues "...this raises the question of whether the Tories actually have a sane foreign policy - for Europe & beyond- that they can conduct in office."
This is more pertinent question than it may at first seem.
Cameron's careful avoidance of detailed policy planning on the domestic scene, which on the doorstep I find is leading so many ordinary voters to question his reliability, & which seems to be designed to avoid critical examination at the same time as inviting approval for twisting every which way the wind blows (where is the emphasis on green issues now we are in a recession ??), is put into sharp profile by his simplistic & partisan approach to diplomacy, international conflict & European affairs. It is here that perhaps we see the real Cameron - a man who whilst adroit at domestic manouverings is clearly quite scarily out of his depth in the international arena.
Most European countries, notably Germany & France, are governed by centre right administrations -in recent months Cameron has alienated both: - a Conservative administration would see us once again in the second tier in Europe.
The alternative to the European idea promulgated by neo-cons & eurosceptics, the opinions of which are so unfortunately shared by the Conservative candidate in South Dorset, is a relationship with the United States so "special" that only the English appear to know it exists & which over recent years has clarified the extent to which the UK is clearly a very junior partner - after the way Blair prostated himself before Bush & got nothing in return.
For the clearest & most worrying sign of Cameron's inadequacy in foriegn affairs however, we need to turn back to last year's conflict in Georgia, where he gave his fervent backing to the Tbilisi government , unilaterally declaring, in a literally 'flying' visit, that Georgia should be admitted to Nato forthwith.
A suggestion which, if taken seriously, might have precipitated full scale international war !
As put succinctly by Sir Malcolm Rifkind "Britain, France & Germany are not going to go to war with Russia over South Ossetia"..... but under a Cameron administration, what might have happened ?
Not only does the Shadow Cabinet lack experience of the real world, & the Shadow Chancellor reveal his clear misunderstandings of economic instability by advocating Thatcherite economic retrenchment, against the advicce & practice of the countries that are now officially out of recession, but the forays into foreign affairs of the party leader & Shadow Foreign Secretary are based on prejudice & show they are not fit for purpose as national leaders in the modern world.
In the 1980s the Specials sang about the lunatics taking over the asylum - let's only hope the British people have more sense than to elect this bunch of amatuers.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
