The Slow Death Of English Education

This week, Michael Gove quietly hammered a nail into the coffin of the English education system. Admittedly, the English education system isn’t in the coffin yet, despite the confused system of exam boards, varying examination standards, the failure of the City Academy project, the involvement of increasingly unsavoury figures in the education system and the introduction of private curriculums by the back door. It isn’t far from being fitted for it’s last suit though.

The particular nail which I wish to hold forth on is the abolition of the General Teaching Council of England (GTCE). This body was set up by the Tony Blair’s Labour Government to perform the same job as the General Teaching Council for Scotland (GTCfS).

The GTCfS was created in 1966 to address concerns over unqualified teachers teaching in Scotland following the Second World War. More specifically, it was charged with ensuring that all teachers were trained to a high standard, maintaining a register of qualified teachers and removing teachers who did not meet professional standards. This role continues today.

As a registered charity, it is independent of the government or local authorities, although it works with both in an advisory capacity. Nearly all teachers in Scotland are required to register with the GTCfS, hold an approved teaching qualification and complete a probationary period after which their registration may be refused. There is little debate on the fact that the GTCfS is the best placed organisation to do it’s job. Indeed, the GTSfS is held in high regard by the education establishment within Scotland and has the support of various teaching unions.

The GTCE had yet to reach quite the same level of impact as it’s Scottish counterpart. In England, only teachers in state schools are required to register with the GTCE, but teachers from independent schools of which there are considerably more then in Scotland, may choose to so. Prior to full registration, potential teachers must obtain Qualified Teacher Status from the GTCE. This is to ensure that all state teachers have sufficient qualifications, both in their subject and in education to perform their jobs.

The use of qualified teacher status helps to ensure that teachers in England meet an educational standard which can be passed on to their pupils. It is also intended to weed out people who are not necessarily suited to the teaching profession. It is a weaker standard then in Scotland, lacking the probation element and with less stringent qualification requirements, but it is adequate. The lose of the GTCE will be reflected in the English education system as more poorly and even unqualified qualified teachers take up jobs.

The abolition of the GTCE is analogous to the abolition of the General Medical Council, over which there would be mass outcry. That such outcry has not been forthcoming over the loss of the GTCE is saddening and we can only hope that the GTCE manages to mount a legal challenge against the Government to ensure it’s continued existence.

Note: Wales has an independent GTC from that of England. It’s existence is not thought to be under threat.

The Red Pill or The Blue Pill

The Liberal Democrats are in a historic position. The choices they make over the next few days will set the political agenda for years to come.

Should they go into coalition with Labour, Plaid, the SDLP, Alliance and the Greens, they will be lambasted by the right for propping up an unpopular government who helped to place the UK at the heart of the economic crisis. This rainbow coalition would be forced to make some of the most sweeping cuts in British history, tarring both Labour and the Lib Dems.

The idea that such a coalition would last four to five years is fantasy. Sooner of later, there would be a sufficiently large rebellion which would manage to either pass or nearly pass a vote of no confidence. If indications from John Reid, Tom Harris and David Cairns are anything to go by, the rebellion would likely be over a referendum on implementing a  single-member constituency single transferable vote election system. It is even possible that some of those who are more resolute in their opposition to coalition and on the right of the Labour party, such as Tom Harris, could defect.

Either way, I would suggest that the long-term outcome of such a parliament would be a Tory majority in the next election, a slashed Lib Dem vote share and Labour heading to the political wilderness.

The alternative is coalition with Tories. This has the potential for the creation of a stable government which would require the whole of the Lib Dem parliamentary party to cross the benches in order to pass a vote of no confidence. However, the Lib Dems face both a voter rebellion and a grassroots rebellion if they support the Tories. Over the past few days, I’ve seen Lib Dem voters, mainly young people, go through various stages of anger and disappointment at the positive progress made between the Tories and the Lib Dems in coalition talks. This is just a taste of what could happen.

The Tories would also face a backlash against the ‘age of austerity’ promised by David Cameron, as cuts begin to fall across all areas of government. That could usher in either another hung parliament in the future or a Labour government. They’d also face alienating the right of their party by making concessions to the Lib Dems. Lord Tebbit has already positioned himself as a cheerleader on that matter, and no doubt figures such as the US-style neo-con MEP Dan Hannan will be able to rally voters against coalition.

And which option is best for the United Kingdom?

Truthfully, neither of them. Like the Lib Dems, the UK is stuck either way. There isn’t a right answer, just two wrong ones.

And what of the the SNP and Scotland? Well, the party has made it clear that coalition with the Tories is not an option. Douglas Alexander, Tom Harris, Jim Murphy and others within Labour have rather foolishly made it clear that they are unwilling to work with the SNP at all. No doubt this will have repercussions, when, in just under a year, we elect a new Scottish Parliament.

Cameron’s Hypocrisy in Scotland

David Cameron has spent the past few days trying to get Scotland to play the same ball game he’s playing. The opening salvo in this play for less then a tenth of the Westminster seats in Scotland was an interview with the Herald prior to the Tory conference at Perth Ice Rink, followed by his keynote speech and new remarks in today’s papers.

Yet Cameron doesn’t seem to really know what to do with Scotland. It was only a few months ago that he denounced Alex Salmond for trying to get in on the leaders debates, and only a few days ago that he lambasted Salmond as “fooling no-one”. It’s somewhat ironic that a man who’s manifesto is largely based on abstract and ill-thought-out aims should be claiming that a man who has always been open about his key policy is attempting to fool anyone.

It’s even stranger that Cameron should want to deal with this fool, claiming:

If elected, one of the first things I will do is come to Scotland and meet with the First Minister. That will signal the beginning of a new relationship, a fresh start based on mutual respect. It will be good for Scotland, good for Britain and good for the Union. [Source]

Strangely, Donald Dewar, Henry McLeish, Jack MacConnell and Alex Salmond have all led functional governments without the Prime Minister sitting over their shoulder. Indeed, Dewar, MacConnell and Salmond have all gained reputations for for not pandering to Prime Ministers. But lets read on…

It’s a disgrace that during one of the worst economic crises in our modern history…when the foundations of the Scottish economy were rocked…Gordon Brown didn’t meet Alex Salmond for almost a year.

And it’s shameful that during one of the most emotionally-charged moments in our recent history…when the Lockerbie bomber was released from jail to return home to Libya where he still is today…the Scottish Government and British Government refused to cooperate. [Source]

Given the importance of the Banking Sector to Scotland, it probably would have been good to see more agreement between the two Governments during the fall of HBOS and RBS. However, by acting independently of each other Brown and Salmond were able to accomplish different tasks – Brown made provisions to ensure the banks didn’t simply get wiped from the face of the Earth, while Salmond worked with bankers in Scotland in an effort to ensure that jobs wouldn’t be lost and Edinburgh would remain a banking centre. Neither accomplished their goals fully, but with Brown approaching from the reserved, Treasury angle and Salmond approaching from the devolved business angle, it worked quite well. Probably far better and quicker then if protracted negotiations between Brown and Salmond had taken place.

As regards the Lockerbie Bomber, there was no need for the Scottish and British Governments to cooperate. There was no issue between Westminster and Holyrood. The Scottish Justice Minister made a decision about a prisoner in his custody, and Westminster has no more right to have a say in that then the Scottish Government has to have a say about the release of Ronnie Biggs (held in an English Prison and released by Home Secretary Alan Johnston).

This is starting to get a big worrying. It does look rather like David Cameron wants to interfere with the process of Government in Scotland. We’d better read on…

It should be natural for us to want devolution to work. Not just because it is a weapon against the Nationalists’ obsession with independence. But because devolution should be central to our whole political approach. [Source]

Oops. Clearly no-one told Cameron that he’s not actually meant to remind us that we only got devolution because of the SNP “threat”. A bit of an arrogant slip up, given that the first and last sentences in that quote are common sense. Does it possibly hint at the long awaited devolution for England?

Today we are the party that passionately believes that local is best, the party that knows that the more power people have, the more responsible they become, the more fulfilled they are…we are the party of decentralisation. [Source]

It’s nice of Cameron to acknowledge that Scotland has become more responsible. The decentralisation rhetoric will very likely come back to haunt him however, with it forming the perfect basis for an Alex Salmond speech. “David Cameron says the Tories are the party of decentralisation, well you don’t get much more decentralised then devolution max.”

Whoever is Scotland’s First Minister, I would be a Prime Minister who acts on the voice of the Scottish people and works for consent and consensus. And whenever the precious Union between our two countries is under threat, this party – the party of the Union – will rise to the challenge and defend it with all our heart and all our strength. [Source]

Party of Union the Tories may be, but this is one of the most contradictory portions of Cameron’s speech. Surely, if the people of Scotland want Independence, he has no mandate to stop them. Especially when you consider that he wants to…

[give] people the chance to make change happen through local referendums, giving neighbourhoods the right to run parks and public places. [Source]

But Scottish people won’t get the right to vote on their constitutional future?

Overall, Cameron doesn’t say much other then this hypocritical grandstanding. The one policy which is mentioned in the coverage is:

Councils will get “unprecedented freedom to do what they think is right for their area” [Source]

Given that Local Authorities are a devolved matter, this policy will have no effect in Scotland what so ever. It is mentioned in one of the other articles linked to that Cameron discussed the NHS in a speech at a Scottish press event, but this, likewise, is nearly entirely devolved. Cameron isn’t even able to come up with campaign issued which will affect the Scottish people.

Cameron doesn’t even try to hide his blatant hypocrisy. Despite the previous apologies for opposing devolution and the claims that devolution is part of British Politics, it seems clear that Cameron wants to interfere in a country where he has little support and no mandate to rule. With luck, he will find himself opposed by the three-headed hydra of the SNP, Labour and the Lib Dems, because if there is one thing which will bring these three parties together for the good of Scotland, it’s the threat posed by David Cameron.

-

It is worth noting that Cameron has also waded into the debate over Nicola Sturgeon, although he at least does so from a far more even manner then then Iain Gray and his cohorts. He even goes so far as to admit that he’s done similar things for constituents. It’s rather bizarre, given he’s spent two days lambasting Sturgeon’s superior.

Edit: Jeff at SNP tactical voting has commented further on Sturgeon and Cameron.

Yet More Minimum Unit Pricing

It should have been made clear by now that Minimum Unit Pricing is a political issue which I’m rather interested in, both in Scotland and in England and Wales.

Consequently, I’ve been interested to note the amount of coverage the Guardian and Observer have dedicated to the issue in the past few days.

Starting on New Year’s Day, we get a short story on Guardian.co.uk about Russia placing minimum unit pricing on vodka in an effort to curb their alcohol problems (which, incidentally far out strip those of Scotland – as least we just resort to Buckfast not home distilled vodka). This was followed on the 2nd with a political cartoon featuring a figure in medical scrubs labelled “NHS” carrying a massive figure in a Union Flag t-shirt drinking a 6 pack of beer. In the Observer on the third, the main story on page 2 and an editorial were both dedicated to minimum unit pricing and the other recommendations of the Health Select Committee in Westminster.

I doubt that minimum unit pricing will become an election issue. After all, it’s not particularly popular and wouldn’t really endear a lot of people to a party that made it a manifesto pledge. However, I am wondering if it’s going to become more of a talking-point, even if it’s just for the Guardian readers.

Up until now, it seems like there has been little discussion of the issue outside of the Scottish Parliament, the Health Select Committee and the various medical bodies which are advocating it, despite the widespread problems with alcoholism, drink related illness and drink related crime. Wider discussion might help to bring forward a better or a more egalitarian solution to the drinking problems in the UK or even win a majority of the public over to the idea of minimum unit pricing.

What Is David Cameron’s Real Approval Rating In Scotland?

Today, both Scotland on Sunday and the Sunday Herald reported the results of a private Tory Party poll. Conducted by Opinion Research Business, one of the less common polling organisations in Britain, it shows that in the 11 Scottish seats which the Tories are targeting, 54% of respondents believe that David Cameron should be the next Prime Minister with 46% for Gordon Brown. In a further question, 73% of respondents agreed that Labour was “tired and failing”.

This poll, despite being heralded as a boost for the Scottish Tories must be taken with a pinch of salt.

Unlike the polls regularly conducted by a selection of newspapers and TV stations, the full results of this poll have not been published. Neither has the text of the questions. Without the actual text of the questions, it is difficult to ascertain the potential bias brought about through the formation of the question or the weighting of results. All we have to go on as to ascertaining the full statistical relevance of this poll is the press release which was issued by Conservative HQ to various media outlets, but which was not made public.

From the Herald we can glean that the sample size was 1,010 and from Scotland on Sunday, that it was conducted only in the eleven Tory target constituencies, giving 91 respondents per constituency. Given that 1,000 respondents is a typical sample size for many polls conducted over the whole of the UK, this is a good sample size per constituency with a standard margin of error (±3%). However, given there are 59 Scottish constituencies, this cannot be said to be representative of all Scottish constituencies , with a large proportion of Scotland consisting of a very different economic and social make-up from these 11. Many of the other constituencies are also out-with the reach of the Tories, who are pressed into fourth or even fifth place in some seats.

So, can it be said that the Conservatives have received a boost in Scotland? Yes and no. They seem to be gaining more support in their target constituencies. This is unsurprising given their gains in England and Wales. Yet this does not accurately reflect the opinions of non-Labour and Tory supporters, with a 100% result for the main question not giving any option for “Neither” or “Nick Clegg”. There are also two interesting polls which can be used to illustrate the issues with this poll.

The first of these dates from September last year, assessing how the Scottish public believed Gordon Brown, David Cameron and Alex Salmond were doing in their jobs. It was conducted by YouGov with a sample of 1,000 people with results in percent of respondents. It does show that Cameron is ahead of Brown slightly as far as satisfaction goes, but Alex Salmond far out-strips them both.

The second is from a Ipsos Mori poll conducted in November which assessed voting intentions in Scotland. You can find the full report here, but in summery, it affirms that Labour and the SNP are the dominant parties in Scotland with more then twice the number of people intending to vote for the SNP or Labour then for the Tories in the next election. Those intending to vote for the Tories actually declines between 2006 and the end of 2009. 61% of respondents also favour a Labour Government on the basis that it would be better for Scotland then a Tory one.

The turning point for the Tories in Scotland isn’t here yet.

-

For reference, the 11 Tory target constituencies are (in order from South to North): Berwickshire, Roxburgh & Selkirk (Lib), Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale & Tweeddale (Con), Dumfries & Galloway (Lab), Renfrewshire East (Lab) Edinburgh South (Lab), Argyll & Bute (Lib), Stirling (Lab), Ochil and South Perthshire (Lab), Perth & North Perthshire (SNP), Angus (SNP). They are all reasonably wealthy areas, many of them reliant on farming and tourism to drive the local economy. Many of them were also held by Tories prior to the 1997 Labour landslide. Jeff at SNP Tactical Voting has discussed the margins and the potential tactical voting opportunities in depth.