Today's Times has plenty to send sane readers reaching for the nearest bucket. The prize for cringeworthiness must though go to the soon-to-go on hols Nick Clegg..
Talking about educational policy following the unceremonious and dubiously motivated departure of Michael Gove, possibly the highest achieving and certainly most energetic member of the Cameron cabinet, Nick has been speaking. "We need to reset the relationship (between government and the teaching unions), not I should stress by abandoning all government policy or reforms, but by ensuring that where there is debate and discussion between the teaching profession and the government, it is conducted in a spirit of mutual respect and that we seek out every opportunity to celebrate, and not always to denigrate, the fantastic work that teachers do."
Taking the last bit first, we note the absence between the words " that" and "teachers" the word "good". That's crucial. Everybody knows that good and excellent teachers are magnificent. Most also know that a minority are not good, not good at all. It's probably always been thus but it's an issue that has in the interests of the affected children to be tackled head on, however loud the howls of protest by the militant unions. Poor performance must never be celebrated. It simply can't be tolerated and everyone has to be aware of that. Good teachers will applaud being relieved of the burden of the inadequate ones. They, the good ones, the school heads, the pupils and most parents will know who they are but the unions will usually defend through thick and thin their "right" not to be sacked. That's absurd and not in the interests of the majority of the members who they are also meant to represent.
Then there are the weasel words about not abandoning all government policy or reforms. Note the word all. It is key. Here Clegg is opening an avenue of comforting compromise to Gove's change resistant adversaries. He is cynically implying that, given a shot, the Lib Dems would be ready to curry favour with the supply side of the educational establishment by retreating from at least some of the reforms. He's giving no guarantees though. That would require balls, -and not of the Ed variety,- and he will always keep his on the fence. No wonder both major political parties fear having to do some sort of deal with his party after the next General Election. It is quite possible that neither would now contemplate a new coalition and would instead go for a minority government which would then go for an overall majority in a new election maybe six months later. In retrospect this is probably what the Conservatives should have done in 2010 as losing a second election against the spectre of a possible return of Gordon Brown should have been unthinkable.
Finally there are the words about "mutual respect", a very fashionable concept. Everyone it is said deserves respect or in some circles respek .The notion of it having to be earned rather than taken for granted is absent. The obsession with giving equal weight to,shall we say less well formed, ideas to as much more considered ones is of course very politically correct as well as nice , warm and fuzzy. It goes a long way to explaining why getting a lot of things done is a glacial process and why even some of the most energetic eventually lapse into tears and despair.
It seems that Mr Clegg chooses to fail to understand that a 5 year parliament is a very short period of time. Tony Blair had the same problem in his first term. He had some great and widely supported ideas on public service reform but thought he had all the time in the world to deliver them. He didn't. Iraq hove into sight at the beginning of his second term .That was the end of time and energy to focus on his original programme and what could have been a great political legacy began to turn to dust. Michael Gove though understood it perfectly. To achieve anything it must be complete and robustly nailed into place within the five years, or it might never happen. That's why he came out of the trap fast, didn't waste too much time, trampled on a few feet but got his measures as far down the track as quickly as he could before Cameron's wobbly knees and Australian "How to Win" adviser derailed him.
As joint leader of the coalition, Clegg should be saying he's full of admiration for what Gove achieved and that if anyone thought that his departure indicated a government withdrawal from the hard parts they could think again as the reforms are here to stay. Instead, sadly increasingly true to form ,he opportunistically went into MCavity "I wasn't here mode". Expect to see more of that as the General Election approaches.
Talking about educational policy following the unceremonious and dubiously motivated departure of Michael Gove, possibly the highest achieving and certainly most energetic member of the Cameron cabinet, Nick has been speaking. "We need to reset the relationship (between government and the teaching unions), not I should stress by abandoning all government policy or reforms, but by ensuring that where there is debate and discussion between the teaching profession and the government, it is conducted in a spirit of mutual respect and that we seek out every opportunity to celebrate, and not always to denigrate, the fantastic work that teachers do."
Taking the last bit first, we note the absence between the words " that" and "teachers" the word "good". That's crucial. Everybody knows that good and excellent teachers are magnificent. Most also know that a minority are not good, not good at all. It's probably always been thus but it's an issue that has in the interests of the affected children to be tackled head on, however loud the howls of protest by the militant unions. Poor performance must never be celebrated. It simply can't be tolerated and everyone has to be aware of that. Good teachers will applaud being relieved of the burden of the inadequate ones. They, the good ones, the school heads, the pupils and most parents will know who they are but the unions will usually defend through thick and thin their "right" not to be sacked. That's absurd and not in the interests of the majority of the members who they are also meant to represent.
Then there are the weasel words about not abandoning all government policy or reforms. Note the word all. It is key. Here Clegg is opening an avenue of comforting compromise to Gove's change resistant adversaries. He is cynically implying that, given a shot, the Lib Dems would be ready to curry favour with the supply side of the educational establishment by retreating from at least some of the reforms. He's giving no guarantees though. That would require balls, -and not of the Ed variety,- and he will always keep his on the fence. No wonder both major political parties fear having to do some sort of deal with his party after the next General Election. It is quite possible that neither would now contemplate a new coalition and would instead go for a minority government which would then go for an overall majority in a new election maybe six months later. In retrospect this is probably what the Conservatives should have done in 2010 as losing a second election against the spectre of a possible return of Gordon Brown should have been unthinkable.
Finally there are the words about "mutual respect", a very fashionable concept. Everyone it is said deserves respect or in some circles respek .The notion of it having to be earned rather than taken for granted is absent. The obsession with giving equal weight to,shall we say less well formed, ideas to as much more considered ones is of course very politically correct as well as nice , warm and fuzzy. It goes a long way to explaining why getting a lot of things done is a glacial process and why even some of the most energetic eventually lapse into tears and despair.
It seems that Mr Clegg chooses to fail to understand that a 5 year parliament is a very short period of time. Tony Blair had the same problem in his first term. He had some great and widely supported ideas on public service reform but thought he had all the time in the world to deliver them. He didn't. Iraq hove into sight at the beginning of his second term .That was the end of time and energy to focus on his original programme and what could have been a great political legacy began to turn to dust. Michael Gove though understood it perfectly. To achieve anything it must be complete and robustly nailed into place within the five years, or it might never happen. That's why he came out of the trap fast, didn't waste too much time, trampled on a few feet but got his measures as far down the track as quickly as he could before Cameron's wobbly knees and Australian "How to Win" adviser derailed him.
As joint leader of the coalition, Clegg should be saying he's full of admiration for what Gove achieved and that if anyone thought that his departure indicated a government withdrawal from the hard parts they could think again as the reforms are here to stay. Instead, sadly increasingly true to form ,he opportunistically went into MCavity "I wasn't here mode". Expect to see more of that as the General Election approaches.
