No To Co’s - An Unexpected Promise

If the public had not already, it appears the major political parties have decided they do not like coalition government and are coming under increasing force to rule out a joint-rule arrangement after the 2015 election.

First it was the Conservatives with a variety of sources claiming David Cameron was under pressure to rule out another power share, which saw him move into 10 Downing Street in 2010.

Barely a day later Len McCluskey, general secretary of the Unite union, claimed Labour leader Ed Miliband should similarly rule out coalition in their election manifesto.

While it would be fair to say few are enamoured with the manner in which the Con-Dem coalition has operated over the past four years, this idea of ruling out a similar set-up after 2015 is slightly ridiculous.

For starters, the obvious weakness in both the major parties means a minority government, formed by either the Conservatives or Labour, would struggle to get anything done and would probably have to call an early election.

There is far too much posturing and difference of opinion for either to carry all its own MPs in a vote, let alone pick up cross-party support.

Secondly, in a business where unbridled personal ambition is all-to-often put front and centre are we seriously expecting our leaders to turn-down the opportunity to come to power?

Thirdly, why would any leaders think this would be a good idea when a hung-parliament is the most likely outcome of the next election?

There is of course some legitimacy in the view of ruling out coalition.

Although it came to power with a substantial public backing, the overriding opinion of the coalition’s performance has only headed south over the years.

This backlash has mainly focused on the Liberal Democrats, who have been seen as weak and ineffective by their supporters and an ever-present road block by the Tories.

Current electoral math suggests the next election will not produce a majority government, meaning the Liberal Democrats would yet again become the king makers, with a potential second term for Nick Clegg as Deputy Prime Minister regardless of who occupies the top-spot.

When you consider the substantial and growing anti-Lib Dem feeling, an instant return to power would be slightly unpalatable to many voters.

However, it is equally true no other third-tier party would be able to gain enough seats to push either Conservatives or Labour over the finish line.

In the current parliament, the party with the largest number of seats after the Lib Dems are the Democratic Unionists (with 8 seats and no framework outside Northern Ireland), the Scottish National Party (6 seats, no framework outside Scotland and the possibility of national independence), Sinn Fein (5 seats and links to the IRA), Plaid Cymru (3 seats and no framework outside of Wales) and the Social Democratic & Labour Party (3 seats).

Even if Nick Clegg’s party lost half its MPS in 2015 they would still have 28 seats (down from 56), meaning any minority government would require their support to pass any legislation.

As a political tactic from the Conservatives, whereby ruling it out themselves means the Labour party would have to follow suit, it certainly could succeed so all they would need to do at in 2015 is get more seats than Labour, however there is an element of all eggs in one basket.

While the coalition might not be a popular choice of government, the voters have to accept it is what they voted for and is still the most likely outcome of the next election.

Any party which rules it out in 2015 not only forsakes any chance they had of getting into government, but also corners itself completely on post-election bartering and could lead to serious accusations of lying to the electorate if they were eventually forced to join forces with another party.

Regardless of how loud the anti-coalition voices get it is hard to imagine either party leader is so devoid of ambition as to rule it out completely.

However, most importantly politicians should remember they do not get to decide this, it is up to the voters to determine if any party is worthy of a majority.

If we the people decide no one party should then it is up to them to form either a minority government and risk stagnation and an the calling of an early election or a cross party consensus and govern in a coalition.

And Repeat – Ed Miliband’s Public Service Reforms

After tackling energy companies and big banks Ed Miliband has now shifted his attention to what is always a tricky subject for Labour, public service reforms, but like Michael Gove on education is this little more than hot air?

Labour is to the public sector what the Conservative party is to private companies, a vital part of its political identity, a non-negotiable aspect of its philosophy, a singular defining element.

This in particularly true of Ed Miliband who was elected to the party leadership largely based on the backing of the trades unions, not to mention the party rely heavily on the political and financial backing of public sector workers and those who use government services.

However, in the same way as Gove’s education reforms, Miliband is in danger of simply saying the right things without any reasoning.

Essentially his argument was for a more consumer-focused approach to everything from education to health care to pensions.

This sounds fantastic, in the same way it has done every time an opposition leader has stood-up and said it, which is every parliament for as long as anyone can remember.

Putting parents are the forefront of how schools are run sounds wonderful because it is parents who truly care about how their kids are educated, not politicians.

Giving patients control over their medical records and adding choice of hospitals and doctors similarly gives 

those who care most control over the system.

Like Gove, Miliband is saying all the right things.

However, unlike the Education Secretary’s reforms this will attract floating voters to the party, although it is very much in the same dangerous ball-park of talking the talk, but not walking the walk, because fundamentally both have similar flaws.

The reason for this is because in most cases the only people who know how to reform these services are the people working in them, be they teachers, nurses, doctors, social workers or refuse collectors.

Most parents are not teachers and even fewer patients have any medical training above a first-aid course.

When you feel unwell you go to a doctor to find out what is wrong with you because they actually have the training assess your complaints, perform diagnostics and provide a cure.

Why would you want to be in control of your own medical records? Is this ever going to lead to anything other than people assuming they know better than professionals?

This trend continues with this idea of parents being able to oust head teachers and have greater involvement in how education is provided in their children’s schools.

Parent power in this situation could be counter-productive to what is trying to be achieved because the percentage of parents who know anything about teaching is negligible.

If you want proof of this fact just go and stand by a school sports pitch and listen to the ill-informed comments coming from certain sections of parents.

Gary Linker has even had to put up with this kind of nonsense with other parents at his children’s school thinking they know better than England’s second highest goal scorer according to an article he wrote for the New Statesman.

Many people agree with the need for reform of these vital public services which are all too often inefficient, bureaucratic and staggeringly expensive, but while people-power seems like a great idea and is certainly popular with the voters it is not necessarily the way to make things work better.

Even more worrying is this idea was touted at the last election by David Cameron and his Big Society idea, which is yet to manifest itself in any serious manner.

So while this might give Miliband a political bat and ball on this difficult issue and might even gain the Labour party a boost in the polls, his ideas will certainly need to be developed a lot further to convince anyone this is anything other than the same idea trotted out by any other opposition leader.

Talking the Talk – Michael Gove and Education Reform

Regardless of your political leanings, everyone agrees standards in school need to improve and in particular with regard to literacy and numeracy, but while Education Secretary Michael Gove talks the talk, there are serious doubts about his ability to walk the walk.

Saying the right words is the easiest thing to do in politics, but unfortunately statements need to be backed up by actions and it is in the latter category Mr Gove is found seriously wanting.

His big education policy speech this week focused on three main areas:

1.       Longer school days

2.       More testing

3.       Stricter discipline

All of these will be popular with the wider population and, in particular, parents. However two of these make little sense and the third is, almost unbearably, vague.

Longer school days sound like a great idea. The longer the kids stay in school the more they will learn. Unfortunately, it is not that simple.

Children are not able to concentrate for extended periods of time, so more hours do not equal more learning and extending the school day also restricts the amount of time available for emotional growth, where kids develop friendships away from the classroom, a vital part of development.

Secondly, without improving teacher quality extending school hours counts for nothing. If a child has a bad teacher they could be in class 24 hours a day without any tangible benefit.

Ideally extended school hours would be used for participation in extra-curricular activities, a central part of any child’s education, but this then begs the question why did the Conservatives completely defund youth centres offering this service when they first came to power.

Longer hours could in fact end up being detrimental to teaching standards.

Anyone who knows people in the teaching profession will be aware of how many hours outside of school time go into marking and lesson planning. Extending the school day simply reduces the amount of time available for this essential work and puts people off joining the profession.

The child care cost reductions involved in longer school days are certainly a valid point, but would any parent choose to reduce the cost of care at the expense of their child’s education?

Increased testing, and specifically the introduction of a Common Entrance exam before entering secondary school, is an even more bizarre suggestion.

Every study conducted recently has promoted a reduction in the number of written tests taken by younger children, not an increase, and while it is important to ensure basic standards are being met there are far more effective in-classroom methods.

On that point, what are these tests going to be used for anyway? Are state secondary’s suddenly going to start selecting students on exam grades like independent public schools?

Stricter discipline is certainly an area requiring improvement and is something you hear time and time again from those in the classroom.

What is to be done in this area is certainly a complex question and Mr Gove should be applauded for facing up to it, but detentions and writing lines are not exactly what you would call progressive measures.

Overall, the education secretary’s main point was state and fee-paying schools should be indistinguishable, apparently meaning public schools are the model on which state funded schools should be based.

Yes, public schools are fantastic, get higher grades, have greater percentage go to university and into high-quality jobs and so on, but suggesting public schools should use the independent system as a model is at best misguided.

For starters independent schools invest a lot more money per student than the state system and this matters a lot resulting in better equipment, investment in facilities and, most importantly, smaller class sizes.

Just because it bases itself on Eton does not mean inner city high schools are going to start educating future Prime Ministers.

The focus in this area surely has to be on levelling the playing field so GCSE and A-level results are not gradated on where you happened to study, a goal which is only harmed by the introduction of free schools.

The fact is if you are looking for a model to imitate then Harrow and Marlborough are probably not realistic options.

However, there is a system very close by which is worth closer examination (no pun intended).

The Scandinavian state school system gets fantastic results in literacy and numeracy, however, they go about teaching in a very different way.

Firstly, younger children do not start full-time formal education until 7 or 8-years old.

Before this they learn in a much more relaxed environment with a combination of learn-by-play, group activities, creative time and some formal studying which is increased the closer they get to school age.

So why is the current Education Secretary looking at an old-fashioned, unrealistic model, which many people do not care for, instead of the proven, effective and modern approach adopted by those across the North Sea?

The crux of the problem is in fact very simple. Money.

While it is certainly not the be-all and end-all of education investment is vital.

For decades studies have shown kids do better in well-maintained schools. No child wants to learn in a damp, draughty and drab school room.

In fact, the success of one of the stand-out education policies of the last decade, academies, is largely down to the investment private companies put into the facilities, turning run-down inner city schools into pleasant learning environments.

Better equipment, more computers, up-to-date text books, smaller class sizes, all of these vital components come down to financial investment, and the same is true of teachers.

Training and hiring better teachers has to be a central part of improving education standards and yet this issue does not seem to feature in Mr Gove’s plans and, judging by his rhetoric, he seems to have nothing but contempt for those on the front line of education.

The best and the brightest need to be encouraged to become teachers and this comes down to better salaries and pensions, not cutting them.

However, what is most worrying is Mr Gove’s inability to listen to anyone in the teaching profession.

Yes, there are problems in what the media describe as ‘The Blob’, but in most peoples experience teachers are not ridged, inflexible and unreceptive to change.

In fact the opposite is true. They are smart, sensible and grounded individuals who care deeply about the next generation and would welcome with open arms any chance to improve standards.

What they do not appreciate is someone with no experience in the industry telling them how to do their job, something we call all sympathise with.

Nobody knows how the education system needs to be reformed better than teachers as they are ones on the front line dealing with these problems on a day-to-day basis.

You would not come up with a new law and order strategy without speaking to police officers about implementation, so why should education be any different.

Some have referred to Gove as a revolutionary, but many struggle to see how this conclusion was arrived at, when his model seems to involve a reversion to 1950s style education methods.

If Gove wants to improve education, as all of us do, he needs to do more than just say the things everyone wants to hear and actually put forward proposals which moves education forward and, most importantly, pay attention to the reasonable points raised by those who understand the business best, teachers.