It was by no means his best speech, but was definitely a good one.
His attack on big government was welcome; he has shown that he believes in conservative (small-c) values of trusting people to help themselves, rather than government doing it for them. He seems to have some sort of vision, some sort of way forward. He recognises the tough choices he's going to make.
Obviously we don't have plans at this stage, because we don't know what state we'll be in next May, but they would be a welcome addition when the election comes around. Cameron will need to show that he recognises that the fundamental issue is the relationship between the individual and the state, and indeed the size of the state; it must be tackled straight away. The state plays too big a part in everyday life, and Labour have made it the solution to everything, even when it really shouldn't be.
The economy will grow on enterpreneurs' and the private sector's backs, not off the government. Government just recycles money taken from productive sectors, wasting bits of it in the process.
Thursday, 8 October 2009
Wednesday, 7 October 2009
Ready to govern
Michael Gove's speech today showed the real talent of the Conservative Party. It was a forward-looking speech, that showed the Conservatives as ready to govern. It was a real blessing to read.
Education failure is very true in Britain, however much the government tries to inflate grades. The curriculum is dumbed down, I experience it now, I notice how past paper questions get easier the more recent they are. I noticed how much of a joke the new Science GCSE was. Will it help me at all in later life? Probably not. Across the curriculum, there's too much emphasis on the environment, and "global citizenship", whatever that's meant to mean. I notice how none of these subjects, even Economics at A Level, try to get you to develop your own opinions.
I've heard teachers say that even if we fail, they still get paid. Is that right? Clearly not. Either way, to pass, all you have to do is memorise how to answer questions, and whatever rubbish is on the syllabus (sorry, specification) this week.
I think Michael Gove hit the right notes in his speech. He has a real agenda, a real way forward; he sees the problem and is setting out how to change it. He wants to set schools free from bureaucrats - which is the right way to go about radical education reform. Teachers, and the teaching profession, know what's right, they know what works - they've been there before. Bureaucrats haven't, and neither have most government ministers.
I think there's one more thing that Gove needs to do to complete this - and that's allow new "Swedish-style" schools to make profits. That way they have a capital base to expand, to build more schools, to make them demand-responsive - that's the way it works in Sweden. If he doesn't, I don't see the take-up being as great, which will turn public opinion against it wrongly. Thatcher started the revolution in the attitude to wealth, reversing the post-war collectivist consensus; now we need to continue this - there's nothing wrong with allowing the education and health sectors to make profits, since it will allow innovation and indeed demand response - if they try to make profit rather than educate properly, parents will take their children elsewhere, simple.
But generally it's a real shining light. Gove or Balls as Education Secretary? It's not hard to decide.
Education failure is very true in Britain, however much the government tries to inflate grades. The curriculum is dumbed down, I experience it now, I notice how past paper questions get easier the more recent they are. I noticed how much of a joke the new Science GCSE was. Will it help me at all in later life? Probably not. Across the curriculum, there's too much emphasis on the environment, and "global citizenship", whatever that's meant to mean. I notice how none of these subjects, even Economics at A Level, try to get you to develop your own opinions.
I've heard teachers say that even if we fail, they still get paid. Is that right? Clearly not. Either way, to pass, all you have to do is memorise how to answer questions, and whatever rubbish is on the syllabus (sorry, specification) this week.
I think Michael Gove hit the right notes in his speech. He has a real agenda, a real way forward; he sees the problem and is setting out how to change it. He wants to set schools free from bureaucrats - which is the right way to go about radical education reform. Teachers, and the teaching profession, know what's right, they know what works - they've been there before. Bureaucrats haven't, and neither have most government ministers.
I think there's one more thing that Gove needs to do to complete this - and that's allow new "Swedish-style" schools to make profits. That way they have a capital base to expand, to build more schools, to make them demand-responsive - that's the way it works in Sweden. If he doesn't, I don't see the take-up being as great, which will turn public opinion against it wrongly. Thatcher started the revolution in the attitude to wealth, reversing the post-war collectivist consensus; now we need to continue this - there's nothing wrong with allowing the education and health sectors to make profits, since it will allow innovation and indeed demand response - if they try to make profit rather than educate properly, parents will take their children elsewhere, simple.
But generally it's a real shining light. Gove or Balls as Education Secretary? It's not hard to decide.
Monday, 5 October 2009
Sunday, 4 October 2009
Cameron and the EU, part 2
At some point, he'll have to say what he's going to do.
Avoiding the question on the basis of "the Poles and the Czechs haven't ratified yet" is missing the point, since they are going to ratify it soon, let's be totally honest. Eventually the public will get tired of hearing it, and want some principle.
However, if he doesn't want Lisbon, something to do now, as I suggested several days back, is to say he will hold an in/out referendum on EU membership if Lisbon is ratified.
Not only will that get the Eurocrats worrying (and possibly trying to stop ratification, who knows?), but it would probably be the only referendum he could hold post-Lisbon - Lisbon is self-amending so no more referendums on transfer of powers, it's not like the EU will allow a referendum on new opt-outs/transfers of power back to Westminister (or would self-amend them away anyway), and would probably give him an awful lot more support.
Free trade with Europe is the British way, political union is not. We've been independent since 1066 for a good reason - we like to be ruled by ourselves.
Avoiding the question on the basis of "the Poles and the Czechs haven't ratified yet" is missing the point, since they are going to ratify it soon, let's be totally honest. Eventually the public will get tired of hearing it, and want some principle.
However, if he doesn't want Lisbon, something to do now, as I suggested several days back, is to say he will hold an in/out referendum on EU membership if Lisbon is ratified.
Not only will that get the Eurocrats worrying (and possibly trying to stop ratification, who knows?), but it would probably be the only referendum he could hold post-Lisbon - Lisbon is self-amending so no more referendums on transfer of powers, it's not like the EU will allow a referendum on new opt-outs/transfers of power back to Westminister (or would self-amend them away anyway), and would probably give him an awful lot more support.
Free trade with Europe is the British way, political union is not. We've been independent since 1066 for a good reason - we like to be ruled by ourselves.
The SNP are deluded
The SNP might take legal action if Alex Salmond isn't allowed in the leaders' debate.
Quite clearly they do not recognise that this is a debate before a general election, between potential prime ministers (ok, perhaps Clegg won't be, but there's a technical possibility). The SNP will not be returned to power; they aren't standing in enough seats. Therefore, why would they take part in a debate? Alex Salmond won't be our next Prime Minister, he actually can't be.
Threatening to block the screening of it in Scotland if they can't take part is big government blackmail, plain and simple. We know exactly where they stand.
Quite clearly they do not recognise that this is a debate before a general election, between potential prime ministers (ok, perhaps Clegg won't be, but there's a technical possibility). The SNP will not be returned to power; they aren't standing in enough seats. Therefore, why would they take part in a debate? Alex Salmond won't be our next Prime Minister, he actually can't be.
Threatening to block the screening of it in Scotland if they can't take part is big government blackmail, plain and simple. We know exactly where they stand.
Saturday, 3 October 2009
Lisbon Treaty and slavery?
Pathetic piece by Lib Dem Voice today, asking if those calling for a third "decider" referendum (generally as a joke) would have ever allowed slavery to be abolished, and asks if it should take 4 election wins for Cameron to gain power.
It's generally illogical - Farage (who the article attacks) was against a second referendum. Surely those of us who opposed a second referendum are the ones who would have abolished slavery, as this article goes? What was the Lib Dem's position on the second referendum?
This sort of rubbish brings the blogosphere down.
It's generally illogical - Farage (who the article attacks) was against a second referendum. Surely those of us who opposed a second referendum are the ones who would have abolished slavery, as this article goes? What was the Lib Dem's position on the second referendum?
This sort of rubbish brings the blogosphere down.
Blue Newport West?
According to PoliticsHome, it's certainly a possibility.
Having gained the city council in 2008, an MP in 2010 would be a vindication.
That said, although I disagree with Flynn on many issues, he's a good constituency MP.
Having gained the city council in 2008, an MP in 2010 would be a vindication.
That said, although I disagree with Flynn on many issues, he's a good constituency MP.
Friday, 2 October 2009
Thursday, 1 October 2009
To the people of Ireland
For the sake of democracy, and for the sake of all people of Europe, please vote no tomorrow, and tell the Eurocrats no means no.
Summing up 12 years of Labour
Illiberal.
The plan is to bar suspected wife-beaters from their homes for 2 weeks while the wife decides the next step. Note suspected. There is no proof of this, no evidence to be presented, there just has to be an accusation, and property rights are overridden.
The plan is to bar suspected wife-beaters from their homes for 2 weeks while the wife decides the next step. Note suspected. There is no proof of this, no evidence to be presented, there just has to be an accusation, and property rights are overridden.
The move is intended to close a loophole in the current law under which police can only offer immediate protection to a victim if a suspect is charged.Also know as the presumption of innocence. That's no loophole, that's the entire basis of our judicial system.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
