Michael gove

There has been a criticism of how the Coalition is trying to push through its Academies bill before Parliament rises for the summer. Ed Balls, in his typical understated fashion, has compared it to how anti-terrorism legislation is rammed through and the Tory Chairman of the Education Select Committee, Graham Stuart has said that the Bill should have more time. But there’s a simple reason why the Bill has to get through before parliament goes down for the summer, the school year starts in September. If the legislation was not to pass before the summer recess, many of its effects would be effectively delayed by a year. The Tories have

This afternoon’s education question felt like a pressure valve being released. For a week now, the story has been all about the heat building-up under Michael Gove. But, today, the Education Secretary looked far more comfortable, and managed to swing the blowtorch back in Ed Balls’ direction. The message that the coalition had been struggling to make previously came out clear and loud: the Building Schools for the Future cuts are a result of waste and bureaucratic mismanagement by the previous government. And Gove even came armed with examples, such as the £1.3 million paid to an individual consultant from the BSF fund. His point: this would be better directed

David Cameron has today told the News of the World that he is “terrified” about the prospect of sending his children to an inner-London state school. This is quite some statement, given how many tens of thousands of parents are in the same predicament. Isn’t it the classic politician’s error? To betray how his aloofness from voters by showing how he fears what ordinary parents have to put up with? That’s what Tony Blair thought – so he’d pretend to be happy with state schools while sending his kids to the ultra-selective Oratory School. That is hypocrisy. What David Cameron has said represents honesty. After all, why shouldn’t he be

His apology earlier this week was a reminder of how Cabinet Ministers used to behave. Today’s cock-ups and crises have increased the pressure on the Education Secretary – two schools face cuts despite meeting the government’s criteria. Now Gove has penned a defensive article for the Sunday Express. He writes: ‘Reform is never easy, and certainly not when cash is tight… but school building will not stop under this government.’ Gove is, of course, right. Money is tight. But he must explain why reform is necessary in and of itself, and why his ideas should be adopted. There was an aloofness and arrogance about his performance on Newsnight on Monday, suggesting that Gove believes

John Redwood has written a typically thoughtful piece, questioning the government’s arch cuts rhetoric. He writes: ‘Ministers would be wise to tone down the rhetoric of massive cuts. They need to mobilise, energise and reform the public services. Labour made clear in their marathon moan in the Commons yesterday into the early hours of this morning that they are out to talk the economy down, highlight alleged huge cuts in jobs and services and campaign with the Unions against sensible change. The government needs to be smart and careful in its choice of words to bring about the improvements in quality and performance needed.’ Ministers sound terse and defensive at

Michael Gove’s welcome freeze on Building Schools for the Future will invite tomorrow’s press to claim only that this means 715 various building projects are not being carried out. In fact, what it means is that the fund will be open for the Swedish-style new schools. The budget will be transferred from bureaucratic priorities to those of communities, as expressed by those who wish there to be a new school. One of the great tragedies of the politicians’ stranglehold over education is that they just love huge, shiny buildings to point at, complete with new whiteboards and all the latest gadgets. The Swedish experiment has shown the parents care not

I doubt David Cameron will have many better days in government than this. Considering the government cancelled a hospital project yesterday, today has passed as one long photo-op, free of incident. It began with Theresa May banning a radical Islamist cleric, Zakir Naik, displaying a resolve that eluded her immediate predecessors. The papers were full of Cameron’s ‘coup’ in Brussels yesterday; the only major news story that might have unnerved Cameron was the FT’s research into Tory immigration policy, which the FT calculates will hit growth and raise taxes. It was too esoteric to hit the TV screens, so too the cuts in arts funding. It must have been a

Polly Toynbee was on ‘mute’ on Sky News in my office, the remote wasn’t working, which is frustrating because I’d love to hear how someone mounts a passionate defence of why local government should have monopoly control of state schools. Very few things in politics are indefensible, but a system which doles out sink schools to sink estates is one of them. When Michael Gove was a journalist, he described comprehensive education as the greatest betrayal of the working class. And now, as Education Secretary, he is outlining a system that will give the poor the same choice of schools that the rich have. Who on earth could be against

It is quite telling that David Cameron’s first newspaper article since becoming Prime Minister is for the Daily Mail, and even more telling that its central message is, “you still have a Conservative Prime Minister”.  There then follows a series of reassurances about Dave’s political motivations (“I believe the state is your servant, never your master. I believe in the common sense and decency of the British people”) and about the policies contained in the coalition agreement. One line that jumped out at me, though, is this rather inspid description of the Tories’ radical school reform agenda: “We’re also giving parents, charities and other organisations the opportunity to set up

The full coalition agreement, released this morning, is fascinating enough in itself.  Here we have a step-by-step guide for how two different parties will operate together, what they will do, and, broadly speaking, when they will do it.  And, perhaps to ease the general uncertainty surrounding this type of government, it is considerably clearer than party manifestos tend to be.  One thing you can say, at least, is that this coalition appears keen to make itself more accountable. Skimming through the actual document, there seem to be few surprises, and a good handful of reviews designed to punt difficult policy areas into the long grass.  As the Times’s Francis Elliot

Today’s civil partnership between two men who look uncannily like each other will, I suspect, be remembered as a festival of misplaced optimism. Cameron overdid it a little, making out that this was his ideal outcome. It seems rude to point it out, but there were two podiums in that rose garden because he flunked the election (see Tim Montgomerie’s superlative report for details). The cost of his failure to win is having to do a deal with Nick Clegg. The country didn’t vote for a new politics: the Lib Dems did worse than last time, so polls show most voters would have preferred Cameron to have formed a minority