Thoughts on politics and life from a liberal perspective

Saturday, 16 February 2013

Maria Hutchings and state education - we should butt out

It's becoming increasingly clear that Maria Hutchings is a liability. This probably went unnoticed during the 2010 general election as there were 649 other contests going on simultaneously and most in the know didn't seriously expect Huhne to lose Eastleigh. So the focus was elsewhere.

On the 28th February, Eastleigh will be the only election being fought with real national significance and therefore there is much more focus on the Tory candidate. She has been found wanting. She has made a number of statements that have embarrassed her own party leadership (on equal marriage and Europe) and it reached the point last Sunday where Norman Smith the BBC political correspondent was given the runaround by her party minders as they desperately tried to keep her away from the media. Most unedifying.

And Maria has now made some inadvisable comments about state education. The exact quote regarding her own son is:

William is very gifted which gives us another interesting challenge in finding the right sort of education for him – impossible in the state system. He wants to be a cardio-respiratory surgeon.

Now as far as I am concerned this is a silly view. She is saying that her son is "very gifted" and therefore the "right education" cannot be found for him in the state sector. It's worth pointing out here that she is being attacked for saying that surgeons cannot get the right education from the state. She is not technically saying that. She's saying that her very gifted son cannot get the right education from the state. None of us are in a position to know just how gifted he is, whether he has had problems in state schools and whether that was resolved using the private sector.

I would profoundly disagree with the thrust of Ms Hutchings on this topic though. I was educated by the state as were the vast majority of the people who form my family and close friends. Some of them I would class as very gifted and they did not need a private education for this.

But there are two very big reasons why we should not go hard in attacking Maria Hutchings on this. One is on principle and the other is pragmatic.

The principle based one is that I do not think the children of politicians should be used as pawns like this. She shouldn't have said what she did but making her son the focus of our campaign would be wrong. I've seen some suggestion that we should highlight the record of our candidate Mike Thornton's daughter who was educated by the state and happens to be studying medicine at university. No, no, no, no, no! If we do this then the next time a child of Mike (or any other Lib Dem candidate) is linked to a story that is detrimental to our campaigning our argument that children should be kept out of campaigns is weaker.

The pragmatic one is simple. Just over three weeks ago Nick Clegg was asked on LBC if he was going to send his children to state or private schools. He did his best to try and answer that he wasn't sure, that he would try to educate them in the state sector if they could find the right school but would not rule out the private route. He insisted it was a matter for him, his wife and family to decide for themselves. I totally agreed with him and said so on the media (you can listen to me arguing this here on Voice of Russia if you're interested). If we campaign in Eastleigh using Maria Hutchings' children's education in this way then we are announcing open season on Nick Clegg's choice for his children. We cannot defend him by claiming we want to keep his kids out of politics when we have actively used the educational choice regarding one of our opponents children against her in the most high profile by-election we have fought in years.

God knows Hutchings has enough to attack her on without needing to use her children. We should fight the campaign directly, not using children as proxies.

UPDATE: Both Iain Dale and Stephen Tall have also written on this subject with differing views.


Anonymous said...

Maria Hutchings brought her children into the campaign by this comment, so totally disagree with you.

Mark Thompson said...

@Anon: Isn't that just the worst kind of "he said, she said" politicking though? So what if she brought them into the campaign? We shouldn't attack her using them. We don't (and shouldn't) know the full circumstances. There are plenty of other topics I'd have no problem with us going at her on.

Graeme Cowie said...

I don't believe this is "politicising her children". If anything, she's the one who has politicised them by saying not simply that the state sector isn't the best for them, but actually that it isn't adequate for them.

That is the crux of the criticism being directed at her, as far as I can see. What the Lib Dems have done is to respond by saying "of course the local schools are good enough: look at their fantastic reports". They were evidently good enough for our candidate's children and countless others and in government the Lib Dems are making sure even if they weren't that they'll get considerably better, thanks to the pupil premium." Everything else is just quoting her verbatim.

So it's not the "education choice" that Maria Hutchings has made that we're criticising. She's completely within her rights to send her kids where she likes, just like Nick Clegg is. But having done so, then to denigrate the state sector when the evidence points to the contrary of your criticisms, then that is fair comment.

I don't believe I've seen the Lib Dem campaign stray beyond that.

The Stigler said...

"The principle based one is that I do not think the children of politicians should be used as pawns like this. She shouldn't have said what she did but making her son the focus of our campaign would be wrong."

It's not about the child. The parent decides which school he goes to, so it's entirely about her. And whether a kid goes to a state school or has an MMR vaccine is hardly much of a personal matter.

The question is, how much should we trust politicians to run the monopoly state education system when they won't send their own kids there?

Diesel said...

The state education system is a poor joke that is destroying kids aspirations. I was educated by the state, and it was appalling. My friends kids are educated by the state, and all I hear is stories of bulling (both by other kids, and the teachers), poor teaching, no help, insults by staff, crying kids ignored, kids trying to understand belittled and/or ignored, etc etc etc.

This is not down to one single school, this is from ALL my friends and aquantainces, with kids in both primary and secondary education. There's no point complaining to the head or the LEA, as they have the same attitude.

And this is not a dig at teachers. I also have friends who are qualified teachers, and love working with kids. Strangely enough, most of them are no longer teaching, having been forced out one way or another for trying to teach properly.

The state sector is not fit for the purpose of educating the next generation, only indoctrinating them. This is fine for the firmly entrenched political class, but not for the rest of us. We need a nation of free-thinkers, able to decide for themselves, not reliant on the State to do the thinking for us, seeing as it only really serves itself.

And we need to forget this egalitarian crap. If we were all created equal, I would be able to run as fast as Usain Bolt, and look as good as Jessica Ennis. Kids need to be properly encouraged to be the best that THEY can be, not all dragged down to the same low standard.

swiftclc said...

Bachelor in business administration
B Pharma Courses

NICE BLOG!!! Education is the process of bringing desirable change into the behavior of human beings. It can also be defined as the “Process of imparting or acquiring knowledge or habits through instruction or study”. Thanks for sharing a nice information.