When the great British public look at their leaders, what do they think? In the unlikely event it’s anything other than ‘what have we done?’, it’s probably indifference or, occasionally, murder. The current crop of Lib Dem Cabinet Ministers do nothing to dispel these opinions. Chris Huhne’s sadly justified resignation provided an opportunity to change our public image for the better. This opportunity was not taken.
As has been pointed out, Ed Davey’s appointment as Huhne’s replacement has removed a ‘big beast’ from Cabinet: someone who can stand up for a broader range of party opinion. However, his appointment reveals just how narrow our leadership base actually is. Ed Davey is – and I’m genuinely sorry to have to say it – not a very inspiring politician. His background is identical to Huhne’s. He has been involved in politics since the year dot. He has spent most of his life working for the party. He is white. He is middle class. He went to an elite school – the same one as Ed Balls. And like Balls, Huhne, Cameron and pretty much everyone on earth, he got a First in PPE from Oxford.
This places him in very cheery company. Of our five Cabinet ministers, two went to Oxford, two to Cambridge, and one to the northern wastes of Edinburgh. Of course, this limitation is no different from the other parties. But hey, we’re better than them, right? It simply isn’t good enough that we turn out the same machine politicians to put our case to the public. The public, not unreasonably, dislikes them. By extension, the public dislikes us.
Why don’t we focus on politicians with background in something other than politics? And what about electing an ethnic minority MP? Or more women? (A bonus of Huhne’s resignation is that there are now more Cabinet Ministers who are women than who are alumni of Magdalen College, Oxford. It is, I suppose, a fantastically desultory start.) The Liberal Democrats are not a party based on class or geography. We’ve got a very large variety of people. Why do none of them seem to reach the top?
To show we’re different, we need someone different. And Ed Davey, for all his talents, isn’t.
* Robin McGhee is the prospective parliamentary candidate for Kensington.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
GUEST POST The state of our canals - and riverside pubs - today
Slow consulting
ALS, MND - is this another disease where biohacking has potential?
Weekly Road Report - West End Ward #dundeewestend
Care homes under threat after Labour policy change
Three less conventional ways of looking at who supports Reform - The Week in Polls
Suzanne Fletcher
Greg Hyde
David Raw
Peter Martin
Mick Taylor
58 Comments
Why does nobody different reach the top? Because the people at the top won’t let them. “Turkeys don’t vote for Christmas”
It would be nice to see Lib Dems praising our ministers instead of finding flimsy excuses to bash them. The public are not going to suddenly fall in love with us simply because we put a woman in the cabinet, and the suggestion that they would is pretty insulting to their intelligence, actually – so let’s carry on selecting our ministers for talent and ability, please, and not give in to the same sort of box-ticking mentality that led to such “successes” as Jacqui Smith’s time in the Home Office…
@Z:
“let’s carry on selecting our ministers for talent and ability, please, and not give in to the same sort of box-ticking mentality that led to such “successes” as Jacqui Smith’s time in the Home Office…”
I’m not so sure that Chris Huhne would welcome comparisons, good or bad, with that woman whose respect for rules regarding public behaviour are documented here:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2084510/Jacqui-Smith-expenses-Just-did-away-Jackboots.html
Perhaps Nick Clegg went on the old fashioned principle of appointing the best person for job?
To me it is obvious, if we could do better we would. Instead of criticising our fellow members we should be encouraging them in their good points and finding ways to support them in areas where they are weak in. Show me anybody who is good at everything and I will explain to you how deluded you are.
Firstly, Robin, before you write a post on here please consider your language. I know that you probably mean it in jest, but describing Edinburgh as a “northern waste” is actually pretty offensive (I’m actually surprised it got past the Ed.s) and actually destroys your own argument by putting a very southern patrician spin on what you’re trying to say.
Personally, I don’t really care whether our Cabinet Ministers have a degree in PPE from Oxford or a smiley face in ABC from nursery school. What I’m concerned about is whether or not they further Liberal Democrat aims, policies and objectives in Government and can do so forcefully. There’s a good argument that Lynne Featherstone should have been promoted to this post – but that would be because she’s good enough, not because she’s a woman.
@ Robin McGhee “The Liberal Democrats are not a party based on class”
Of course you are based on class— it is because of you that the Tories, the most anti working class party in power for decades has been able to grab power and inflict its anti working class policies on the people of this country. Just like the Tories, the Liberal Democrats are defenders of capital: cf the RBS bonus. It is still a coalition cabinet of millionaires despite Ed Davey.
I’ve nothing really against Ed Davey, though I will say I don’t think he was the best man for the job. I just thought his appointment represented a wider problem. I was trying to point out how narrow the base is from which we, as a party and country, draw our leaders.
I entirely agree that it’s more important what policies, positions and arguments politicians have. But quite often having very similar backgrounds is not a good way of ensuring those policies, positions and arguments are radical or interesting ones.
And as for Edinburgh being ‘northern wastes’…. um…. context??? Irony??? It’s one of the most brilliant cities on earth.
@Mack doesn’t seem to have noticed that the ‘Tories’ one more votes and more seats in Parliament than anyother party just 18 months ago.
This whole piece is pretty week. Holding it against someone that they got a 1st class degree is a curious thing to do if you believe in meritocracy.
Finally if people dislike these type of politicians so much why do they elect them? Go to Kingston and you will find the people who dislkie Ed Davey are certainly in the minority.
I’m pretty sure “northern waste” was meant to caricature the southern-looking attitudes of the Oxbridge elite. Considering the actual content of the article, I find it unlikely Robin holds the view suggested by the phrase.
Re: the article. Sorry but I’ve got to disagree. While our pitiful quotient of non-white non-middle-class non-males is certainly something we should be embarrassed about, putting a woman in cabinet because she’s a woman or selecting an ethnic minority candidate for a seat because (s)he’s an ethnic minority is a flagrantly bad idea , not least because it’s a little bit demeaning. Deliberately selecting anyone less than ‘The Best Person For The Job’ is 1) not smart on its own merits and 2) PR lunacy.
Disclaimer: I am an Oxbridge-educated white middle-class male.
So our cabinet ministers are to be criticised because they are clever. Clever enough to get Oxbridge degrees. There is a much more valid criticism that they are disproportionately male, privately educated and white, all fetures beyond their personal control, and the result of much wider factors than the selection preferences of Nick Clegg. It’s hardly surprising though that a disproportionate number of the people who rise to the top of politics, as in many other spheres, have been academically successful, and personally I am pleased that we do have a good number of evidently clever people at the head of the party.
Ahh, the familiar argument that party leaders choose the best people for the job free from discrimination, who entirely coincidentally happen to be white, upper/upper middle class and oxbridge educated, just like the people who chose them.
If you accept that Oxbridge admissions policies favour the wealthy and the privately educated, as I believe most politicians do, then you are de facto acknowledging that an Oxbridge degree is the product as much as, if not more so, being of a certain background than it is of general ability.
Leaving aside the big issue of backgrounds, there is also the issue that Oxbridge encourages an old boys/girls network of people who went there, the often cliquey nature of such groups in politics and certain professions again acts as a barrier against entry for those who don’t have access to such groups.
And finally, can we nail this pernicious myth that a private education is somehow representative of the middle classes, it’s not. The vast majority of the self described middle class were not privately educated. The privately educated are a tiny minority, less than 10% of the country, yet dominate politics, across parties, to an extremely unhealthy degree.
Class is a huge issue and the choice of ministers by the coalition only worsens things.
I am an Oxford-educated white middle class male. I am not in any way saying we should have anything other than the best person for the job for anything. I am only saying that it is depressing how narrow our field is for selecting who that person is. We need more social mobility, basically…
I think balance is what seems to be lacking from all three major Westminster Parties.
Having a First Class Degree demonstrates academic excellence, having one from Oxbridge “should” mean that you are among the most academically gifted of your generation. I say should because, whilst better now, most accept that the best connected had a better chance of entry to these institutions at the time our current crop of politicians would have studied.
I would like to see people who have actually achieved in the real world, in addition to those who have achieved in Government Service and Academia. I don’t mean an internship, I mean a substantial job, over a decent period of time. I feel that a few more teachers, business leaders, ex-service personnel (and yes even bankers) would be beneficial to whole process, but need to be on front benches to make that difference.
The commons should be representative. Instead of just ex Colonels lets have a few ex Warrant Officers, anyone who knows the services will tell you they would fall apart without the latter. Instead of the just the successful Head Teacher what about the English teacher working in a deprived area whose finest achievement could be getting disadvantaged children to primary level reading skills before they leave school.
And let’s use their knowledge in a political time span that would, by virtue of having a full prior career, be shorter than the career politician. At present the system expects that people who take senior posts have been MP’s (or at least full time party / institutional workers) for a long period. At present even where we get external experience into the commons it rarely climbs high enough to make substantial difference.
Finally, what about ensuring Ministers are competent for the department they run. Should anyone be allowed to be chancellor without having demonstrated they can run the budget of another organisation before being given the bank details for UK PLC ?
These are not just Lib Dem issues and it should be accepted that having the smallest number of MP’s with probably the highest number of marginals makes change harder to manage.
Most of the public will probably mistake him for Wayne Rooney, as did my niece when she saw him on TV on Friday, and I don’t think Nottingham High can be described as “elite” – anyway, not when you’re writing from Oxford and from the perspective of former Oxford alumni.
Maybe there’s some truth in the machine politician argument: the lack of a genuinely popular personality outside the House like the late David Penhaligon, a mantle which until recently could have been fairly claimed by Vince Cable, doesn’t help the LibDems at the moment, I agree.
If Ed Davey, the politician, really does have a (shortly to be announced) serious plan to harness Britain’s energy security whilst creating a free market in gas and electricity that really benefits the consumer he will have many people’s undying thanks – and I mean that literally!
@Mack
“Just like the Tories, the Liberal Democrats are defenders of capital: cf the RBS bonus.”
A bit of shoddy thinking there, Mack.
As an opponent of capitalism, surely you must be in favour of the maximum possible bonuses. Those bonuses are paid to (senior) workers, and the cost comes out of the pockets of the capitalists.
Or does “working class” only apply to those affiliated to the Labour Party?
@Simon Shaw
‘Those bonuses are paid to (senior) workers, and the cost comes out of the pockets of the capitalists.’
Ah, but aren’t those bonuses paid in capital (i.e. shares) which immediately makes those workers capalists 😉
A Marxist would be very pleased with excessively large bankers’ bonuses.
(1) Edinburgh is a wonderful city. Far better than the enormous midden that is London anyway!
(2) Do not underestimate Ed Davey. You (or I) may not always agree with him but he is not a person to mess about.
Seems we all have to post a disclaimer: I am an Oxbridge-educated white middle-class male. Seems most people here are.
Tony Greaves
I think it is worth noting that Ed Davey had to fight for his seat in a way that few politicians have ever needed to. In 1997, Ed was elected in Kingston & Surbiton by 26 votes with one of the biggest swings in the country. He was one of only two Liberal Democrat candidates that year (the other being Steve Webb) to win a seat not on the top target list. Then in 2001 Ed was reelected with 60% of the vote, the highest percentage figure that any Liberal Democrat MP has ever obtained in London.
Far from being an establishment hack shoe-horned into a safe seat, Mr Davey has proved himself to be something of a street-fighter. The oil companies had better watch themselves.
Oxbridge-educated and middle-class are a tautology. White and male are not a matter of choice.
None should be the basis of promotion alone, but to ignore them as measures of relative opportunity within society would be short-sighted – Ed Davey would do well to express his public support for an open society now that he has a senior role.
As an oft-times resident of Edinburgh, I don’t think it is all that fantastic (especially not with the outrageous problems with the tram scheme, the lack of recycling, the homelessness, the drug problems, high unemployment, the undercurrent of nationalist xenophobia etc). How you view a place depends largely on your relationship with it, which closely reflects class-based situations.
“A Marxist would be very pleased with excessively large bankers’ bonuses.”
They would be IF the bonuses were shared out equally amongst all of RBS’s 148500 workers, rather than the handful at the top. To suggest that a Marxist would be happy paying huge sums to a handful of people at the top is just bizarre.
You’re right. Cambridge and Oxford are terrible, and getting a first at PPE must mean Ed is an idiot. And the fact that Ed is white and male definitely precludes him from the job.
More MPs yes, more diversity yes, positive action, yes; but an attack on someone for failing to be diverse is just unfair [and not exactly something Ed can challenge].
I have been impressed by Ed Davey whenever I have seen him on TV.
Why does anyone think the cleverest people in the country do PPE at Oxford. Crazy idea !!!
That is a career choice and nothing more. Next you will be saying bankers are clever !
The cleverest people go and discover things, invent things, build wonderful structures.
Please no-one ever claim PPE is for clever people. It turns my stomach.
Simon Shaw writes: “As an opponent of capitalism, surely you must be in favour of the maximum possible bonuses. Those bonuses are paid to (senior) workers, and the cost comes out of the pockets of the capitalists.”
As RBS is effectively owned by the state, surely the bonuses come out of the pockets of taxpayers?
Years ago I taught PPE students. Those who got firsts were exceptionally able, whatever their backgrounds.
I’m not suggesting that some politicians aren’t bright but the suggestion is being made that PPE attracts the brightest of the bright, the cream of society. When did this idea first rear its head?
Politicians have good networking skills and the gift of the gab but I wouldn’t want most to help me cross the road, fry an egg or book an airline ticket. Only those in the Westminster bubble could possibly suggest otherwise.
Having personally engaged one of the new Tory Boys with PPE in debate at the General Election I was rather surprised at his narrow view on most things. They need to get out more.
Ed Davey looks more human than most. Good luck to him.
@keith Browning ” Next you will be saying bankers are clever !”
Most senior bankers are clever. Remember one of Vince’s criticism of the ity is that he sucks all the best talent out of other areas. (doesnt stop them doing dumb things from time to time though)
“Most senior bankers are clever. ”
Do you actually have some evidence for this? The Quants are the ones with the high level of qualifications and intelligence – everyone else (the majority) are there because of their old school tie. The Quants aren’t the ones running the banks – they’re the ones paid to come up with financial instruments that are nothing more than sohpistry – means by which money can be hived off from the real economy and given to the ones with the ties.
If pulling the wool over the public about the importance of the City is your idea of intelligence, then you may describe senior bankers as such. However; complex, failing, financial instruments are essentially the opposite of wealth creation – a socio-economic system that rewards some of the brightest minds for inventing such things will go into recession – a system that rewards such people for creating real wealth in the form of genuine and useful innovation will grow.
Oh and by the way….
Has Hester been head-hunted yet? I’d have thought someone would have snapped him up with a better offer by now….
Steve
““A Marxist would be very pleased with excessively large bankers’ bonuses.”
They would be IF the bonuses were shared out equally amongst all of RBS’s 148500 workers, rather than the handful at the top. To suggest that a Marxist would be happy paying huge sums to a handful of people at the top is just bizarre.”
So you are agreeing with Nigel and me that, to be consistent, a Marxist should support higher bankers bonuses, but only so long as as many bankers as possible get them?
Attacking people for being white, male and going to Oxbridge (failed the 11 plus myself, can’t say it bothers me at all), have I joined the wrong party. I thought I was in a “liberal” party which excepted people whatever their background and lifestyle.
@Simon Shaw
Firstly, if Hester’s bonus was split evenly between the ~150,000 people that work at RBS, nobody would have had a problem with it. Secondly, to try and argue that a Marxist would be in favour of bankers’ bonuses because they are going to the ‘workers’ is absurd. No Marxist (or Marx himself) would be happy with such huge wage differentials between management and everyone else in the organisation – it would be the antithesis of Marxism. and very obviously so. Marxism is all about class struggle and a reaction against the appropriation of wealth by one section of society at the expense of others.
Besides, if you’re going to insist on making a straw man, can you please make him a bit more refined? This is a primary school level debate. Who mentioned Marxism first (nobody’s actually called for Marxism during this discussion)? Besides, even if there were any Marxists on here, I doubt they would use arguments as unsophisticated as yours.
Keith, I don’t think anyone did claim that ‘PPE is for clever people’ or that it attracts the ‘brightest and the best’ but a first in any degree is nothing Ed Davey should be made to feel ashamed about.
@Simon Shaw
“A bit of shoddy thinking there, Mack.
As an opponent of capitalism, surely you must be in favour of the maximum possible bonuses. Those bonuses are paid to (senior) workers, and the cost comes out of the pockets of the capitalists.”
No. Yours is the shoddy thinking. Under public ownership (A very different thing thing to nationalisation) the profits of the whole economy would be redistributed and all workers would receive a “bonus”, not just the workers in one enterprise. That way all worker’s costs would be reduced: the many not the few would receive the fruits of enterprise. But you are simply being captious here. Are you suggesting that the Liberal Democrats aren’t supporters of capital? By stretchering the Tories into power you have demonstrated quite clearly that you are.
Well, for a start, as an Oxbridge (Cambridge) graduate from a quite poor background, I query whether Oxbridge admissions policy favours the privileged beyond what you’d expect given Cambridge and Oxford are widely considered to be our foremost universities, so competition is hot, so the people who started with an advantage have a better chance. Both universities are looking for people who can think for themselves and are a bit sceptical that exam results demonstrate that.
I totally agree that it would be better if the front ranks of the Liberal Democrats, and indeed politics in general, were more diverse – more women, more ethnic minorities, a wider range of educational and work backgrounds. In terms of the last two, the range has narrowed rapidly since, say, the 1970s, though some of this is because the politics of meritocracy have gained ground against the politics of class: for example, local Labour parties in strongly Labour areas no longer strongly favour trade unionists with a working-class background and the Tories started as far back as the 1970s selecting self-made businessmen over landowning public-school types in some marginal seats.
However, it seems to me hugely discriminatory to assume that because someone has been involved in politics “since the year dot”, they are therefore a boring politician; and within the ranks of Oxbridge graduates, lawyers, middle-class men or whatever classification you wish to use, there will be profoundly different people., some of them “exciting”. I support the long-term thrust of Robin’s argument, but can’t see any conclusions to draw from that about whether Ed Davey was the best choice for this particular job.
g – “If you accept that Oxbridge admissions policies favour the wealthy and the privately educated, as I believe most politicians do, then you are de facto acknowledging that an Oxbridge degree is the product as much as, if not more so, being of a certain background than it is of general ability.”
Then it shows that you know nothing about the admissions policies of both Universities. Unlike me, who is married to someone who does admissions at Oxford University (and who is herself female, working class and state educated).
Oxford and Cambridge pick on merit – and that is in the form of raw ability over polish. The simple fact is, however, that there are many talented people who attend fee-paying schools and (unfortunately) many state-educated pupils who are dissuaded from applying by the sort of inverted snobbery that your attitude represents.
Furthermore, if we still had an education that valued talent and merit then those of our children who are educated in teh state system might be better placed to compete with their fee-paying peers, as indeed they were before the wrecker Crosland and his ilk abolished the grammar schools that were killing off private education.
Of course, if we were really interested in promoting talent David Laws would be back in the cabinet.
It’s already been mentioned that Ed won his seat against the odds in 1997. What hasn’t been said is that his father died when he was 4 and his mother when he was 15, so as a teenage schoolboy and student he was an orphan supported by his grandparents. That and a grammar, not public school, education, undermines the attempt to portray his upbringing as typical of being priviliged.
Oh, and I didn’t go to Oxbridge and I didn’t study PPE. When I was a young married graduate engineer, I worked out that my salary was about the same as a backbencher, but with better job security.
A very disappointing and as commented above, at times downwright offensive article. Why not actually wait until a newly appointed minister has had a chance to do the job before bringing them down in such a negative manner?
Ed’s alma mater is the ex direct grant nottingham high school, also the school of Ed Balls and Ken Clarke. When Ken went there places were available on merit which is how he, son of a miner, went there. By the time the two Eds were there labours scrapping of grammar schools and the direct grant scheme meant that it had reverted to being fee-paying, thereby denying those less well off the opportunity to win a place on merit.
Most of the 164 direct grant grammar schools were forced back to being wholly fee paying; they were between the devil of this and the deep blue sea of becoming a comprehensive and thus being totally destroyed. Many continue to offer bursaries to the less well off on merit and are thankfully being preserved until more enlightened times.
“they were between the devil of this and the deep blue sea of becoming a comprehensive and thus being totally destroyed.”
Thanks for sharing your ill-founded prejudice. Can you please explain why turning a grammar school into a comprehensive dstroys it?
“Most of the 164 direct grant grammar schools were forced back to being wholly fee paying”
They weren’t forced. What would have been profoundly disturbing and illiberal is if the state continued to fund a system of educational apartheid.
One Ed is better than two.
Balls 🙂
“Steve” – “Thanks for sharing your ill-founded prejudice. Can you please explain why turning a grammar school into a comprehensive dstroys it?”
Thanks for sharing your profound ignorance. Grammar schools are/were institutions dedicated to stretching and developing the most able. By taking away selection you at once do away with their rasion d’etre and make it impossible to do what they are supposed to. Learning systems, teaching methods, teachers, all end up being diluted, underutilised and finally dispersed. These were meritocratic instutions open to anyone who would benefit from them; and could be so again.
Look at the way the indpendent sector has reasserted itself at the top of the tree – you only have to look at our Prime Ministers: all grammar school products from Wilson to Major; subsequently privately-educated.
“They weren’t forced. What would have been profoundly disturbing and illiberal is if the state continued to fund a system of educational apartheid.”
Yes they were – the options were break up and destroy the institution by turning it into a comprehensive school, or preserve it and charge fees paying (thereby preserving the institutions, and do your best to admit those unable to afford fees through bursaries).
We already have a state-sponsored system of “educational apartheid” as you so ingorantly put it – the University system. I don’t see too many people arguing that Universities should do away with all their admissions criteria and admit anyone who walks through the door. Why should we recognise that institutions should be tailored to suit certain individuals, and then be available on merit in the University system, but be totally against that in the school system? To argue for tis false distinction is facile and jejune, and betrays ignorance and prejudice of a quite astounding nature.
“Steve” – me party membership card calls for a world where “none are enslaved by poverty, ignorance and conformity.” Yet for the vast majority of the most able children from the least well off backgrounds, their lives are exactly that. Their parent(s) are unable to buy themselves into affluent middle class suburban apartheid “comprehensives” like the one in leafy hampstead that the Milibands went to. Your attitude denies the reality that the apartheid you purport to decry is already here.
The other grave outcome of the abolition of selection is that it forces people otherwise disposed to supporting state education into choosing between meritocratic academic excellence and open access. The best grammars, open to all, outstripped the public schools. If you want to kill private education replicate its institutions in the state sector until only the most reactionary snobs remain outside. We were well on the way to that until the public school boy Crosland did away with it.
Grammar schools like the Assisted Places scheme were the means by which the ruling class took the finest minds amongst the working class and attempted to turn them into reactionary members of the bourgeoisie.
MacK – I salute your indefatigability, sir!
@Tabman
“The other grave outcome of the abolition of selection is that it forces people otherwise disposed to supporting state education into choosing between meritocratic academic excellence and open access. ”
Absolute rubbish. I went to a comprehensive school that was fully streamed for the first three years. Such a system provides (a) greater levels of banding rather than the binary system of the grammar school, enabling more pupils to be taught at their own level (b) pupils to move up to higher sets if their work improves – this option doesn’t exist with the grammar school system (c) pupils to move down sets if they don’t keep up the same standards – a valuable lesson to the pupil (d) doesn’t provide the social segregation based on an absurdly unsophisticated 11 plus system (e) has provided better results than the grammar school system.
Indeed, the selective streaming in a comprehenssive provides a much better comparison to the meritocratic university system than does the grammer/secondary modern system. There are numerous universities offering numerous courses, whereas in the grammar/secondary modern system there are only two bands – fail/pass on the basis of an exam at the age of 11. Streaming within the comprehensive system is far more competitive and flexible and doesn’t result in the social segregation of the grammars/secondary mods.
I was lucky to be able to go to that comprehensive (a faith school) as the alternative would have been the local grammar at the end of my street. I lived in a town that retained the grammar/secondary mod system and am all too aware as to how devisive the system is.
“Learning systems, teaching methods, teachers, all end up being diluted, underutilised and finally dispersed.”
Nonsense. My Dad, like his father, was a product of the grammar school system. He was head boy and returned to teach in the school after his graduation. After the grammar schools system ceased to receive state support, he became a comprehensive deputy-head. He has never once advocated a return to the grammar system.
The argument about which leaders went to private/state schools is silly. The fact that people from private schools are beginning to dominate political parties has more to do with the dwindling interest of the public in political parties and the concentration of wealth/power by a ruling elite caused by 33 years of neo-liberal consensus. Besides, you choose to ignore the fact that Miliband went to a comp, or, more accurately, you choose to actually attack him for coming from the wrong comp! This just shows how weak your reasoning is – you’ve started with a prejudice and are coming up with arguments to justify it.
Our education system isn’t perfect, but itt is more perfect than the grammar/secondary modern system Your argument is akin to saying that modern medicine hasn’t provided a cure for cancer so we should therefore return to using leaches. Your argument amount grammar school is nothing more than a knee-jerk, right-wing sound-bite and belongs in the same category as bringing back the birch.
And another thing…
Something we could do with a return to is some of the discipline of schools that existed 40/50 years ago. That discipline was not restricted to grammar schools and didn’t dissappear because of comprehensivisation. It dissappeared as a result of 33 years of governments attacking teachers. There’s nothing wrong with ensuring that the teaching profession meets rigorous standards, but the profession has been consistently bullied by ignorant, knee-jerk, reactionary politicians since Thatcher came to power. Never has a profession been more (badly) micro-managed by politicians. Michael Gove is taking the approach to new extremes. We need a better balance between the expectations of the behaviour of pupils and teachers. Gove is making the lack of balance even worse.
And…
The grammar schools ceased to receive state support. That means that nobody forced them to change – they were welcome to continue selection if they were privately funded.
“The grammar schools ceased to receive state support. That means that nobody forced them to change – they were welcome to continue selection if they were privately funded.”
And at a stroke the access to these elite institutions was removed from all but those who could afford it (apart from a few bursary holders).
The last grammar schools closed in the mid 1970s. That means that presently those at the very top of our country are at the very end of their careers. They are being replaced by products of the selective private education.
And as to Ed Miliband – he went to a featherbed Comprehensive in a leafy suburb and has been able to use all the contacts of his intimate links within the Labour oligarchy to elbow his way to the top. Once there, however, he has been cruelly exposed.
“I was lucky to be able to go to that comprehensive (a faith school) as the alternative would have been the local grammar at the end of my street. I lived in a town that retained the grammar/secondary mod system and am all too aware as to how devisive the system is.”
You went to a faith school – that’s about as divisive as they come; unlike Grammar Schools which are open to all based on their talent.
Are you trying to argue that going to a school that selects children on the basis of who their parents like to spend their Sunday/Saturday/Friday mornings with is somehow fairer and more meritocratic than one where children are tested colour- and creed-blind on their academic potential????
“My Dad, like his father, was a product of the grammar school system. He was head boy and returned to teach in the school after his graduation. After the grammar schools system ceased to receive state support, he became a comprehensive deputy-head. He has never once advocated a return to the grammar system.”
My Dad was a product of the Grammar School system and taught in a Grammar School. He taught in a Comprehensive after his school was abolished and was under no illusions as to what had been lost.
Which goes to prove that my Dad is bigger than your Dad – so there!
Regarding discipline:
“Something we could do with a return to is some of the discipline of schools that existed 40/50 years ago.”
I agree with you here, but the genie is out of the bottle. More below.
“That discipline was not restricted to grammar schools and didn’t dissappear because of comprehensivisation. It dissappeared as a result of 33 years of governments attacking teachers.”
No – what is your evidence for this? It disappeared because teachers are no longer able to deploy effective sanctions against bad behaviour.
This is due to:
– a pervasive “I know my rights” culture that the pupils are well versed in and which is reinforced by the behaviour of their parents. This is the corrolary and downside of a society that has become less deferential and less tolerant of poor conditions and bad service or behaviour by various elites (a good thing of itself but with some fallout).
– teachers can no longer use physical restraint in the most serious cases or exclude pupils who exhibit the worst behaviour
– there is no longer a good example provided by a core of pupils who are keen to learn; they are dispersed throughout schools and classes where there are a hard core minority who disrupt lessons and no way of limiting their influence
“There’s nothing wrong with ensuring that the teaching profession meets rigorous standards, but the profession has been consistently bullied by ignorant, knee-jerk, reactionary politicians since Thatcher came to power. Never has a profession been more (badly) micro-managed by politicians. Michael Gove is taking the approach to new extremes. ”
I am not Gove’s biggest fan, but my inderstanding is that he is seeking to address some of the issues I have highlighted above.
“We need a better balance between the expectations of the behaviour of pupils and teachers. Gove is making the lack of balance even worse.”
Evidence?
Discipline can only be tackled as follows:
– effective, consistent sanctions against digression leading to temporary or permanent exclusion
– zero tolerance against transgressions where the parents do not have automatic rights to overturn the decisions of the school (eg uniform/haircut policy, use of bad language etc etc)
I am under no illusions as to how difficult this is in a culture which (i) does not really value education and (ii) tends to believe that the rights of their “little darlings” trump school/societal rules.
A quick reminder about our moderation policy folks – be polite, be relevant and be who you say you are. More details at https://www.libdemvoice.org/comment-policy – and of course bear in mind that if you give a fake or wrong email address it means we can’t get in touch if there are any queries.
Seems a bit unfair to pick on Ed just because he’s just started in the Cabinet and has a similar background to the ohers already there – why not pick on them too, if background is that much of a concern? I think he’ll do well, and I don’t know that he’s necessarily to be seen as the least able of the LD7 that have been in cabinet now.
As to having women, miorities, etc it was oticeale that 2 of the 3 non- cabinet promotions following Chris Huhne’s departure were women, and that they are both relatively young. The party is building its future and, if diversity is all, it will grow into being more diverse.