The Flaws in the Free Schools Plan

‘I have been excited and flattered by the extent of interest and enthusiasm’ said Michael Gove talking about his new free schools plan, where members of the public have the power to start their own schools. He went onto say that the number of free schools being set up at the start of the next academic year was ‘well in excess of my hopes’. 16 free schools are being set up over the next year. 16. Mr Gove, with respect, there’s been about as much ‘interest and enthusiasm’ as you’d get from a middle aged man from Newcastle seeing an advert for the release of High School Musical 4. Instead of spending the last 4 months twiddling his thumbs waiting for a morsel of interest in his ‘flagship’ free schools programme why didn’t Mr Gove actually do his job and improve the education of our children rather than push through this ridiculous idea of some bloke down the road opening up his own school. Moreover these schools will pop up in affluent areas, run by a couple of pushy parents with too much time on their hands and will result in money being drained from normal schools by this ideologically driven nonsense. But the worst bit is that no one really cares. Well 16 people do.


This whole free schools business is a lot like David Cameron’s ‘big society’ it’s a lovely little idea, people skipping around, opening up youth centres for gangs, hostels for the homeless and perhaps a library or two; all of course, out of the goodness of their hearts with not a dime for their troubles. Now of course, it would be wonderful if all this were to happen, but is this in anyway realistic? Popping down to do some free work at the local post office. I may sound cynical or lazy, but the fact is this, people don’t work for free, and only a small minority have the time or the willpower to spend hours sorting post for nothing other than self-satisfaction. I have huge respect for those who do, and the rest of us should learn from them, but I highly doubt the ‘big society’ will the phenomenon of the decade that Dave is hoping it will be. I think this is best summed up in the words of Tim Canterbury from ‘The Office’:

‘It's a title someone's given you to get you to do something they don't want to do for free - it's like making the div kid at school milk monitor’

Miliband gets a boost with latest poll - but which one?

As the Labour Leadership election hots up it’s all getting rather confusing.


The Guardian led with ‘Return to politics of New Labour would put off voters – poll’. It also informed us that ‘Blairite stance would deter 72% of undecided voters’. It read ‘A survey for YouGov found that 72% of undecided voters said they would be less likely to vote Labour at the next election if the new leader adopts the New Labour philosophy advocated by the former prime minister this week as he was promoting his memoirs’. Well that’s done and dusted then, Ed’s the man and Dave’s done for surely? I mean after all, political polls proved to be remarkably successful in the last general election, with Cleggmania after the televised debates and a huge surge for the Lib-Dems in the polls resulting in them romping ahead resulting in them…. Losing 5 seats. But wait! Whilst browsing the web I’ve realised that the people who partook in that poll were wrong. Another guardian headline announced that ‘David Miliband is voters’ choice for Labour leader – says poll’. But Dave didn’t just edge this one, he powered home, as the article proclaimed that ‘It [the YouGov poll] found 47% of respondents who had a view believe the shadow foreign secretary is the most effective alternative to Cameron — a 28 point lead over his nearest rival, his brother Ed, who scored 19%. Ed Balls trailed on 13%, with Diane Abbott and Andy Burnham on 11% and 10% respectively.’ It struck me as odd that two sets of results, so polar opposites, could come out within days of each other.


Then it dawned on me. The first poll was commissioned by Ed, the second was commissioned by David. Now it begins to fit into place. Once you remove the spin and the headlines a very different story is told. In Ed’s poll, respondents were asked whether they would be more or less likely to vote Labour if the new leader were to pledge ‘not to move a millimetre from the New Labour approach followed by Tony Blair’. Unless you work in inches, you’ll know that a millimetre is a very small measurement, so even strong New Labour advocates may be open to the idea of the party shifting one millimetre along the political spectrum. Though it has some use, it’s not the most… informative of polls. A poll asked by an independent source whether respondents were in favour of the party moving to the left might be of more use, but then Ed may have not done as well so that simply will not do. It’s difficult to pick holes in David’s poll as respondents were simply asked who would make the best PM. However in his poll Diane Abbott came out as a better leader than Ed Miliband and the others among respondents…which is, ehem, odd.

Why Stewart Jackson is wrong by a 'leftie wierdo'

Tory MP Stewart Jackson went on a vendetta against Sex Education with a remarkable rant on social networking site Twitter. It occurred following figures announcing that there had been a 3% rise in new STI cases in the UK last year. He tweeted ‘Very disappointing new on STD rates in Peterborough. No doubt our Liberal friends will tell us we need more sex education – as it’s worked so well!’ Lowest form of wit Stewey boy but highest form of ignorance. He makes a strong argument, I mean, who can propose a better solution than telling our kids nothing, crossing our fingers and hoping that they don’t stumble upon anyone of the opposite sex. Oh please Stewart, sex education is there to ensure kids are as safe as possible and it shows the importance of protection. I doubt all those pictures they’re shown of mangled and infected genitalia are a great advocate for unprotected sex? But wait, Stewarts got an ace up his sleeve, through incredibly sophisticated language and a strong argument Stewart hits back at those who question his views with a tweet slamming them as ‘sad, tedious sex-obsessed leftie wierdos’. Progressive politics ladies and gentlemen. In another tweet the MP for Peterborough claimed his opponents were ‘unable to debate issues without personal abuse and vicious shrill denunciation’ perhaps because your argument centres around your opinion that those who oppose your views are ‘wierdos’.


No one can get hold of Stewart at the moment as he is away on holiday however his office is aware of his comments. In light of the STI statistics health ministers have said they want to increase young people’s awareness of STIs which contradicts Stewart’s brush-it-under-the-carpet approach, he won’t be too happy.

Sorry Stewart but your wrong on this one; I guess I’m just one of those ‘sad, tedious sex-obsessed leftie wierdos’.

The Mystery of the Front Line Service

Now this is a tricky one. Obviously throughout the centuries the English language has changed greatly, meanings and spellings of words have changed a good deal. However I, as I’m sure you have, have noted a more rapid change to the term 'front line service’. This term first came to our attention in the build up to the general election if you remember back that far. All three leaders promised that there would be no cuts to front line services and only efficiency savings. I do not question the trustworthiness of the politicians of course, but am provoking the debate into the reason behind the rapid definition change of this term. At the general election the accepted definition for a front line service seemed to be a policeman or a teacher or the nice people who make soup in hospitals but after plans emerged to cut back on staff in these fields we were politely informed that these were, in fact, not frontline services. Hmm. I guess I then assumed that school buildings would be on the front line? I then felt very embarrassed when the 'Building schools for the future' project was axed which basically makes sure school walls and other school related debris doesn't fall on pupils. I felt this was pretty front line; however I had been corrected again and told by Education Michael Gove that it was most definitely not front line because it was 'wasteful'....whatever that means. I had a deep think and then thought that imprisoning criminals must have been kinda near the front? I was left red faced when Ken Clarke outlined his master plan to 'take action and shut off this revolving door of crime and reoffending' which involved, er......putting less criminals in prison...wow. Number 10 insisted, that this was, of course, not a front line service. So now I am very confused indeed...