My question for Nick was to ask him to answer once and for all the charge that he was in favour of School Vouchers, a claim made as recently as last night by Lynne Featherstone on the Westminster Hour. Nick's response was that he was not now, nor had ever been an advocate of school vouchers. He explained that this misunderstanding arose when the journalists who interviewed him from the Observer and Telegraph took his advocacy of the Pupil Premium (which all good Lib Dems will know is already party policy) as being a voucher scheme. When Chris Huhne first made this false allegation, Nick apparently took him to one side privately to explain this was not true. He said his office had transcripts of the interviews which proved that he never used the words. He saw the Pupil Premium (something that worked successfully in the Netherlands) as funding that would go directly to the school, not the family and had written about this idea with Richard Grayson in Learning From Europe - Lessons in Education.
My view ...........What is not to believe about what Nick has said? Now, here is a challenge for me, I will be gracious, possibly Chris hasn't quite understood, I am sure it is just a little misunderstanding. Perhaps he was unduly influenced by the power of the media. Perhaps he should go and listen again to what Nick is saying, apologise for questioning his integrity and help to get this campaign back on an even keel. What is without doubt is Nick's passion about the future of all our children, the iniquity of the continuing and widening gap between rich and poor and the commitment to do something practical and innovative about it. What is there to disagree with there?
8 comments:
Well, you are supporting Nick Clegg, who is also supported by David Laws, so naturally you support school vouchers, whatever you say.
I find it rather odd that both articles, from independent interviews manage to decide he wants to introduce vouchers:
http://tinyurl.com/2jz22q
'Parents should, he argues, be given a voucher for their children's education - which would be worth more for poor pupils - although unlike some of his colleagues he says he is "not yet persuaded" that the voucher should be useable in private, as well as state, schools.'
http://tinyurl.com/2jtx5e
So according to his 'pupil premium', parents would be given a voucher to spend in their preferred school; but while a flaw in such schemes is often that the savvy middle class pack the best schools, Clegg would increase the value of the voucher for the needy - making the poorer child a more attractive proposition to good schools.
This argument is very much like banging your head against a brick wall.
anonymous - good heavens what warped logic! He is also supported by Hughes and Webb, that doesn't mean he agrees with every policy position they take. By the way it wasn't me i was talking about this it was Nick _ I think school vouchers are a splendid idea (joke!)
Well, doesn't matter who you were talking about, I know that you all, You, Clegg, Hughes and Webb, think that school vouchers are a splendid idea, because you are in the same party than David Laws. And so thinks by the way also Huhne, because he contributed to the same book as Laws, and is also a member of the same party.
No matter what the rest of you say, the Lib Dem policies are defined by David Laws.
Anonymous- warped logic indeed!
We know that the Tories have their Enoch worshipers, so it follows that all Tories agree with all his policies; and the Labour Party have Tony Blair, so they all agree with bombing countries illegally. Don't even get me started on Liam Byrne's views on immigration... Stands to reason.
I despair because people seem to have no sense of irony whatever. Is it really required to use smileys before people get a joke, no matter how easy and exaggerated you make it? How very sad.
And besides, I'm not a Tory or a Labourite, so you can haul them over the coals if you want, I don't mind.
Post a Comment