PT makes a good point that equality of opportunity is an idealistic position, and I agree it is also true that different individuals have different needs and interests, so should we be promoting equal access to opportunities?

Yes – so long as LEA A and LEA B are equally financed so it is a matter of choice rather than necessity.

LEA A might have chosen to throw all its resources into lowering class sizes, which would be at the expense of other things, while LEA B has decided that bigger class sizes aren’t too bad and that saves money for other things LEAs do, maybe even better youth clubs and sports facilities and the likes.

If the citizens of LEA B don’t like what has been done, they can vote out their councillors and put in new ones with different ideas at the next council election.

It would be most surprising if there were no policy overlaps between the parties, although in terms of the “pupil premium” this may be a case of convergent evolution as much as inheritance; the Conservatives have a long record of looking towards market-style solutions like this …

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23422212-details/Will+Dave+be+the+one+to+save+our+schools/article.do

Do note the bit where the writer points out one key component of Tory education policy has been nicked from the Lib Dems, won’t you!

No, universal phonetics isn’t Gove’s proposal so far as I know. My point was rather that it’s one of the many things on which more dogmatic and less informed Tories than yourself expect the party to impose on the entire system at the earliest opportunity.

I am partly ghoulishly interested in how this will play out in terms of your core support and positioning, and partly crossing my fingers that you get all the good stuff done within your first putative parlt before the barking hordes at your back gain momentum…

I realise that when you mention uniforms many a liberal sees repressed personality and young minds being bent to some inflexible authority but then, as discussed with respect to the tube party, I think that a few artificial boundries during childhood are a good thing and the pros definitely outweigh the cons.

As for phonetics; don’t dig it. I am not particularly dogmatic about this as I am sure there are cases where other approaches work well, but I also know that in the small number of remedial cases I have worked on I have been able to achieve in a few weeks with phonetics what the school had failed in two terms with other approaches. Do I think they should be mandatory? No, and indeed I don’t think that that is Gove’s proposal.

As for corporal punishment, I am with you on that one although I would also be wary of taking that philosophy too far though. I have experimented with being nice and cuddly, and with (what in military context is termed) beasting, and (with boys in particular) sometimes you can get results pushing agressively that are simply not possible with the softly-softly approach.

And, in response to your last post, it’s tempting to suggest – following Popper – that we should be aiming to challenge obvious inequalities (i.e. a pragmatic approach) rather than “chasing equality for the sake of it” (i.e. an ideological approach)

But when do differences count as inequalities? Would it be fair if LEA A has an average class size of 12 when LEA B has an average class size of 32?

Citizens in LEA B might complain that this is unfair, and that central government should make rules (and find funds) for class size that apply across the country. It might not be great a great outcome for LEA A that this results in every class size in the country being 27 (say), but citizens in LEA B would then say that at least it’s the same for everybody.

So the original question about localism still stands: how to find a powerful way of expressing the view that it is for the voters in each area to decide how they want to prioritise?

Individual potential being, as ever, the liberal point, rather than preparing all individuals for the same type of academic “success”.

I think the problem that Tories will continue to have is that the bright ones will be advocating non-interference and other fine things, and the barking mad ones will continue banging on about school blazers, corporal punishment and phonetic teaching. I’ve been on ConHome and I know [dark expression].

So, any genuinely liberal amendments you make to the education system assuming you have a majority in the next parliament will be tempered by the need to please your traditionalist core voter by simply reversing every decision made since the 1970s.

In the educational case, rather than chasing equality for the sake of it, I am more interested in focusing on trying to keep social mobility and the mean level of attainment high. In practice this seems to work well by keeping central control to a minimum and guiding each child towards a future consistent with his or her abilities. This means pushing kids at the top end (something that has been sadly lacking) as much as supporting kids at the bottom end.
Under such a scheme, each child will explicitly NOT have the same opportunities, but should have the best start in life for them. That is the best you can do, as far as I am concerned.

We are currently in a regime in which those who were educated at independent schools are taking an ever-increasing percentage of the top places in society. Chasing equality – which has been the dominant educational philosophy of the last 40 years – will not solve this. A more pragmatic ( Tory ) approach could.

“…in which we seek to balance the fundamental values of liberty, equality and community…”

The trouble with a complex idea like balancing liberty with equality is that it can’t be expressed in a speech, which inevitably has one driving force to it. Depending on the subject matter, and the current state of politics, the driving force might be towards liberty or towards equality – it really does depend on how the system is operating at the time.

To put this into education context, I would say that the only centralising tendency Lib Dems would tolerate is the one that gives all children an equal start. What we don’t want, almost literally, is its older brothers and sisters. In the full speech, Nick puts a lot more emphasis on primary education for exactly this reason, and also suggests the only thing close to a dogmatic rule in the whole of the speech – that primary class sizes should be cut.

I do see the distinction you’re making, but there really isn’t a contradiction for me. I wouldn’t be a Lib Dem if the basic liberalism wasn’t informed by a concern with equality – although it’s definitely in that order for me.

Your comment exudes conservative analysis and highlights the inherent inconsistency of your selfishness.

Equal chances are ensured by decentralising and devolving decision-making powers – these are abilities which enable people to ‘get on’, yet you want to create restrictions on this and thereby the ability to gain membership of the rich club.

I have heard Clegg bang on about equality quite a few times so I fear you have been hoisted by your own petard on this one.

Parties need to have good policies, but also be able to communicate them effectively to the intended audience.

We need for our leaders to be able to say ‘this is’ with rhetorical flourish, but we also need them to show ‘how to’ in a visually demonstrative way.

It is a rare skill to be able to compliment a substantial speech with a relevant ’stunt’ and provide a good one-two punch to really hit the message home through all the various media forms.

While we’ve mastered the jab, we’ve still to learn how to deliver a stunning knock-out blow.

It is refreshing to hear a politician being truthful and saying that he doesn’t have a panacea.

Now, as my son used to say when he was small “not dis Ravi – dat Ravi did it” pointing to the picture on the wall…..so my response is, “not dis Linda Jack….must have bin anuva one!”