We all need to be clear that state comprehensive education in Britian is under attack as never before.
Contact your MP to sign up to EDM 135 - See details below
That this House notes with serious concern and rejects the Secretary of State for Education's proposals to expand the number of academies by conferring on all school governing bodies the right for their school to become an academy without proper consultation with parents, school staff or the local authority; notes the Secretary of State for Education's recent invitation to all schools deemed outstanding to become academies; and believes these plans will result in further disadvantage to already disadvantaged children and families, and raise fundamental issues such as loss of local democratic accountability, excessive cost, lack of fairness and administrative confusion.
http://www.edms.org.uk/edms/2010-2011/135.htm
Monday, 21 June 2010
Sunday, 20 June 2010
'Collaborators?'
John Prescott has referred to three prominent Labour figures (John Hutton, Frank Field and Kate Hoey) as 'collaborators' for working with the Conservatives. I could not agree more. For a long time I have failed to see how those three are in any meaningful way 'Labour'. The best thing Labour could do is chuck them out of the Party with immediate effect.
Thursday, 17 June 2010
Compass Conference Part II
The Conference ended with keynote addresses by Pam Giddy, Jon Cruddas and Chuka Umunna. The latter's was the pick of the three and it would not surprise me if he was on the Labour frontbench within the next few years. Cruddas' speech was decent, but the couple of times I have heard him speak the content has certainly been better than the rather workmanlike delivery. It seems a little churlish to say this but the standing ovation from some quarters seemed a bit over the top, though generally I don't like standing ovations - they seem rather infantile to me.
However, before these final addresses we had the five leadership candidates taking questions. I think there were about five questions which included one from Billy Bragg and one from Fiona Millar. I thought it was a bit of a shame that two of the questions were asked by such well known figures.
I certainly did not think any candidate was head and shoulders above the rest. I would have liked one to come out in support of PR, but not surprisingly that was not to be. So what did I think of each of them? I thought all had something to commend them. I will comment on them in the order they were sat.
David Miliband came over as someone who could certainly be leader. He was, for want of a better term, statesmanlike, intelligent and his answers were considered. He certainly was not afraid of being rather 'highbrow' and unapologetic about Labour's record in government. I can certainly see why many will back him. If I was still hankering after Blair I would probably support him. But if the party is to decisively move away from the Blair / Brown years I don't think he is the man to do so.
Ed Miliband's responses were rather 'safe' I thought and he looked more ill at ease than I expected. My guess is he would neither have gained nor lost much support with his answers.
Ed Balls came over as a fairly smart political operator and he was scouring the audience like a headteacher trying to identify a miscreant in a school assembly. He seems to be modelling himself as almost a latter day Callaghan trying to appeal to the centre of the party. Even though I don't rate his record in his last ministerial post I felt he came over very well when he dealt with the question on education.
Andy Burnham spent much of the session playing up his 'ordinary' roots. This is not a stupid policy, but it can become a little repetitive. I felt he warmed up throughout the session and fared quite well. His unapologetic defense of comprehensive education was perhaps the highpoint of the whole hustings and one did feel that he was totally sincere about that. One also felt he understood the issues better than Ed Miliband for example.
Diane Abbott was clearly a favourite for much of the audience. I felt she was competent, but probably did not make the most of the advantages she had. As with Ed Miliband I felt she probably neither gained nor lost support.
All in all a bit of a score draw. Competence rather than excitement seemed to abound. I think an interesting issue will be exactly how Burnham positions himself - how 'Right Wing' would he be? I think the latter preferences of the electorate could well prove to be crucial. I think it is all still to play for.
One interesting element of the Conference was to see how many of the speakers and Leadership candidates throughout the day appeared to like the old Grecian 2000. There were so many people on platforms who were a fair bit older than me but with barely a grey hair in sight. I suppose one has to praise Balls for going rather easier on the hair dye than so many at the London Institute of Education.
However, before these final addresses we had the five leadership candidates taking questions. I think there were about five questions which included one from Billy Bragg and one from Fiona Millar. I thought it was a bit of a shame that two of the questions were asked by such well known figures.
I certainly did not think any candidate was head and shoulders above the rest. I would have liked one to come out in support of PR, but not surprisingly that was not to be. So what did I think of each of them? I thought all had something to commend them. I will comment on them in the order they were sat.
David Miliband came over as someone who could certainly be leader. He was, for want of a better term, statesmanlike, intelligent and his answers were considered. He certainly was not afraid of being rather 'highbrow' and unapologetic about Labour's record in government. I can certainly see why many will back him. If I was still hankering after Blair I would probably support him. But if the party is to decisively move away from the Blair / Brown years I don't think he is the man to do so.
Ed Miliband's responses were rather 'safe' I thought and he looked more ill at ease than I expected. My guess is he would neither have gained nor lost much support with his answers.
Ed Balls came over as a fairly smart political operator and he was scouring the audience like a headteacher trying to identify a miscreant in a school assembly. He seems to be modelling himself as almost a latter day Callaghan trying to appeal to the centre of the party. Even though I don't rate his record in his last ministerial post I felt he came over very well when he dealt with the question on education.
Andy Burnham spent much of the session playing up his 'ordinary' roots. This is not a stupid policy, but it can become a little repetitive. I felt he warmed up throughout the session and fared quite well. His unapologetic defense of comprehensive education was perhaps the highpoint of the whole hustings and one did feel that he was totally sincere about that. One also felt he understood the issues better than Ed Miliband for example.
Diane Abbott was clearly a favourite for much of the audience. I felt she was competent, but probably did not make the most of the advantages she had. As with Ed Miliband I felt she probably neither gained nor lost support.
All in all a bit of a score draw. Competence rather than excitement seemed to abound. I think an interesting issue will be exactly how Burnham positions himself - how 'Right Wing' would he be? I think the latter preferences of the electorate could well prove to be crucial. I think it is all still to play for.
One interesting element of the Conference was to see how many of the speakers and Leadership candidates throughout the day appeared to like the old Grecian 2000. There were so many people on platforms who were a fair bit older than me but with barely a grey hair in sight. I suppose one has to praise Balls for going rather easier on the hair dye than so many at the London Institute of Education.
Saturday, 12 June 2010
Compass Conference 2010 Part I
Went to the Compass Conference today and enjoyed it. Where else can you walk into the toilets to come face to face with Andy Burnham, then turn the corner to see a sheepish looking Ed Miliband?
Here goes with a review of the day as it occurs to me after enduring England's performance against USA. The one thing that I will remember about watching the match was my father's cry of 'GREEN' after their goal went in.
The Conference kicked off with four keynotes addresses. I think two would probably do. Caroline Lucas, the Green Leader and MP kicked off. Some Labour members tend to be rather critical that Compass invite such non-Labour figures to their events. My verdict is that she speaks very well and got a very good reception. I couldn't help thinking that as a candidate in a Labour leadership election she would probably not do that badly. Nick Dearden, from the Jubilee Debt Campaign then spoke and also went down well with his criticism of the treatment of the debts of LEDCs. Next up was Christine Blower of the NUT. Her style was not as fluent as the earlier two, but she does veer between making very good, apt and popular points and a partially faltering delivery. NUT Deputy General Secretary, Kevin Courtney, was warmly applauding her efforts at the end and Blower's speech again went down well. Neal Lawson's address was not the highpoint of the day. For me, he doesn't quite hit the mark. His repeated tree metaphor became very tedious.
Next I attended a seminar run by CND entitled 'After New Labour's Interventionism: towards a progressive foreign policy'. The session included contributions by Seamus Milne of The Guardian and Eric Joyce MP. The session was thought provoking and worth attending. Essentially, there was considerable agreement that Labour's foreign policy going forward needed to be rather different to that of the last thirteen years.
After lunch, I was struggling to decide which seminar to attend. Eventually I plumped for one run by the New Statesman entitled 'Will the new coalition ConDem Labour to another 18 years in opposition, or will it breakdown in 18 months?'. The two speakers were Mehdi Hassan and John Harris, both of whom were excellent and a lively debate ensued. This session was a definite highpoint of the day with numerous interesting contributions from delegates.
Part II to follow.....
Here goes with a review of the day as it occurs to me after enduring England's performance against USA. The one thing that I will remember about watching the match was my father's cry of 'GREEN' after their goal went in.
The Conference kicked off with four keynotes addresses. I think two would probably do. Caroline Lucas, the Green Leader and MP kicked off. Some Labour members tend to be rather critical that Compass invite such non-Labour figures to their events. My verdict is that she speaks very well and got a very good reception. I couldn't help thinking that as a candidate in a Labour leadership election she would probably not do that badly. Nick Dearden, from the Jubilee Debt Campaign then spoke and also went down well with his criticism of the treatment of the debts of LEDCs. Next up was Christine Blower of the NUT. Her style was not as fluent as the earlier two, but she does veer between making very good, apt and popular points and a partially faltering delivery. NUT Deputy General Secretary, Kevin Courtney, was warmly applauding her efforts at the end and Blower's speech again went down well. Neal Lawson's address was not the highpoint of the day. For me, he doesn't quite hit the mark. His repeated tree metaphor became very tedious.
Next I attended a seminar run by CND entitled 'After New Labour's Interventionism: towards a progressive foreign policy'. The session included contributions by Seamus Milne of The Guardian and Eric Joyce MP. The session was thought provoking and worth attending. Essentially, there was considerable agreement that Labour's foreign policy going forward needed to be rather different to that of the last thirteen years.
After lunch, I was struggling to decide which seminar to attend. Eventually I plumped for one run by the New Statesman entitled 'Will the new coalition ConDem Labour to another 18 years in opposition, or will it breakdown in 18 months?'. The two speakers were Mehdi Hassan and John Harris, both of whom were excellent and a lively debate ensued. This session was a definite highpoint of the day with numerous interesting contributions from delegates.
Part II to follow.....
Thursday, 10 June 2010
Supporting Ed Miliband
http://edmiliband.org/
Not overly delighted with the five candidates and I would prefer one to be firmly pro-PR. However, given the choice I will vote and campaign for Ed Miliband.
Abbott would be our IDS. As a party not a pressure group we have to try to win power, that would not happen under Diane. David Miliband is too firmly associated with the Blairites - look at his nominations. Can't see the point of going for Andy Burnham - may as well go for Miliband senior. Balls would be unelectable as well and he is unpopular among the general public. I am not greatly impressed by his stint at Education - I am far from convinced that he mastered his brief.
So partially by default I am backing Ed. Miliband. His approach is most likely to appeal to a variety of opinions in the party. He is the most media friendly and the best orator (though some may see Burnham as quite strong in this area). I also think he is the most likely to ensure Labour is what it needs to be: an electable, modern party committed to a fairer Britain.
Not overly delighted with the five candidates and I would prefer one to be firmly pro-PR. However, given the choice I will vote and campaign for Ed Miliband.
Abbott would be our IDS. As a party not a pressure group we have to try to win power, that would not happen under Diane. David Miliband is too firmly associated with the Blairites - look at his nominations. Can't see the point of going for Andy Burnham - may as well go for Miliband senior. Balls would be unelectable as well and he is unpopular among the general public. I am not greatly impressed by his stint at Education - I am far from convinced that he mastered his brief.
So partially by default I am backing Ed. Miliband. His approach is most likely to appeal to a variety of opinions in the party. He is the most media friendly and the best orator (though some may see Burnham as quite strong in this area). I also think he is the most likely to ensure Labour is what it needs to be: an electable, modern party committed to a fairer Britain.
Monday, 7 June 2010
Labour and PR
Does the recent election bring the prospects of Labour supporting PR any closer? Hard to say. I think in terms of 'fairness' people inside, and outside, of the party are (or least were) warming to it; but I am not sure the horsetrading after the election will necessarily serve to make it more popular. However, if politics is about anything it is about justice and I still remain wedded to the principle that if say 35% of the people want to vote Labour or Conservative or the Lib Dems or the Greens or whoever they should do so, their vote should be of an equal value and the proportion of votes should translate into roughly the same number of seats. At present we really don't know who people want to vote for. So often now people are voting against, rather than for parties. I also think that some of the worst excesses of governmental decision making may be curbed and I also believe that interest in politics will increase.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)