[url=http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2551548/Blairs-secret-meetings-Gove-urge-fight-radical-schools-reforms-face-Labour-bunkum.htmlOh dear. Does this mean Michael Gove's a raving commie too?[/url




Sorry about the link.

So it seems that this exceedingly simple point, obvious to the point of being banal, nevertheless did not occur to either our Prime Minister, or any of his team, when they were discussing it and putting it in their manifesto. Fook me.

Born 1965.
Eight serving PM's in my short life span and there's only one I've despised more than the honourable member for Sedgefield.

I think this is another piece of poor journalism from Mail and I don't think it makes a valid connection with what Blair said and what Hunt is saying now.

Hunt is referring to the need to have all teachers in state funded schools be qualified teachers. So it doesn't matter if you are an ordinary state funded school or an academy or free school, if you get state funding you will employ qualified teachers.

That seems eminently sensible to me and does not mean it precludes having a different structure for how schools are organised if you think that is going to improve matters.

By the way, the reason why it seems sensible to insist on fully qualified teachers teaching our children is illustrated by what happens here in Chester at nursery level.

My wife works at the only state funded nursery school in the county and it employs two fully qualified teachers and they [iteach[/i the kids the requisite number of hours and then it is structured play and activities. It is always Ofsted outstanding but never mind that, it is held in high regard by many local people with several generations of families having attended.

The private nursery's in the area either don't employ a qualified teacher at all or employ one giving an hour or so's education. They essentially just provide child care. It doesn't stop them advertising a "nursery [ueducation"[/u.

This is what you will get if free schools are allowed to employ people teachers who are not qualified. People around here seem very gullible in that it is clear some of them see the two free schools here as a "free" public school education. They probably don't even realise there is a chance their kids will be taught by non-qualified teachers, employed no doubt on the cheap.

So to get back to the point, it doesn't matter what structure you have, you can employ whatever kind of teacher you like but in my view insisting on all teachers being qualified is simply common sense.

It sounds like you know what you're talking about. I don't believe or agree with a word of it

Irrespective of the accuracy or otherwise of what anyone is reported to have said, the point remains that – and there appear to have been no denials on this score – that Blair has been meeting Gove to 'encourage' him to further an agenda that Blair himself agrees with and helped start via academy schools.

It's an illustration – were one needed – of how far from any traditional 'left-wing' positions was Blair's ethos. But for those who harp opn about the Labour government being 'socialist', left-wing' etc, does that now mean that Gove too is a lefty? Or will it help to aid some semblance of understanding that we have been – and remain – on a neo-liberal, right-wing course for some considerable years?

It serves the football style supporter of political party's to believe that there is an absolute opposite political opinion between Labour and Tory and its not really surprising that those who bleat the loudest tend not to have been born when there REALLY was an absolute opposite political opinion between Labour and Tory - what we have now is a pale imitation of a political spectrum and a gross simplification of that spectrum in the media in order to appease those who cannot think too hard about the subject.

There remain differences of approach IMO but there is certainly an acceptance of a market led economy and no state control (no clause 4) in the modern Labour party.

An example at local level of the difference is the Tory led council here have said they intend to introduce a charge of £1200 a year for children such as my Autistic son to be transported to his special school (which is 20 miles away from home).

The labour councilors are supposed to this. The division is strictly on party lines.

This says to me any notion that it doesn't matter who you vote for is over simplifying the issue.

OK this is a local issue but the difference of opinion between Hunt and Gove on a national issue is significant. They may both be OK (to varying degrees) with free schools but if one is saying all teachers must be qualified and one is saying no they don't, who are you going to vote for?

On the subject of education, one of Gove's precious little 'free' schools [url=http://news.tes.co.uk/b/news/2014/02/05/teachers-in-first-free-school-strike-over-plans-for-quot-zero-hours-quot-contacts.aspxis trying to put its teaching staff on, in effect, zero-hours contracts[/url.

There are differences in approach between the two parties but as Gary pointed out they are no way as distinct as they were when Foot and Thatcher were in charge of their respected parties.

Whenever labour have got in power the cost of running the state increases significantly - that definitely happened under Blair. Also government control of what is acceptable behaviour increases e.g. removal of competition at school, the concealment of government information i.e. we know better than you how to run your life. These are subtle differences but they are not part of a neo-liberal ideology, state control/interference is a sad side effect of left wing ideology.

State control is a sad side effect of politics, full stop, no party has the monopoly on legislation to control interference in their affairs, the Lobbying Bill being just the latest example.

Agreed but you get more of it in the UK the further left the leanings of the government.

Remind me: which party has brought forward 'porn wall', which also includes 'esoteric' websites and 'forums'.