Politics
The politics column - Jon Trickett on Labour's Tory white paper
Published 28 November 2005
For those who read the Tory manifesto earlier this year, there is more than a hint of deja vu about the education white paper. Themes overlap. So do the words
The Prime Minister describes the education white paper as a "pivotal moment" for his government. In the tearooms backbenchers compare and contrast the phone calls they receive from whips and ministers. One colleague had an hour with the secretary of state because apparently "she is an important opinion-former". Another was given a 20-minute slide show by a bored junior minister. To date, your correspondent's big moment was a kick up the rear in the whips' office.
Large numbers of Labour MPs believe that the proposed reforms will increase inequality. They are adamant that while the main provisions are in place they cannot support the Prime Minister. Tony Blair, meanwhile, has launched his campaign to persuade, cajole, bribe or threaten his fractious MPs to fall into line. But he has a problem. A glance at two recent documents provides a telling clue as to where his priorities lie. The demand for back-bench loyalty is predicated on the statement that "it is all in the 2005 manifesto". The question is, though: "Whose manifesto?"
Any reading of the Conservative manifesto (written, incidentally, by the party's putative leader, David Cameron) leads to the disconcerting conclusion that it bears a striking similarity to the major themes of the Labour government's white paper. There they all are in both documents: parental choice, school discipline, autonomy and freedom from bureaucracy.
Feeling a little nervous? Well, dig a bit deeper and your sense of unease will grow. Not only are the themes the same, but there is a striking overlap in the wording, too. Compare, for example, the sections on choice. The Tory manifesto says: "Choice drives up standards in every field of endeavour"; while in the white paper we find the statement slightly rephrased: "Parent choice can be a powerful driver of improved standards."
When it comes to the question of who should operate schools, there is more confluence of thought and aspiration. "A wide range of providers - faith groups, charities, parents and private companies - will be allowed to set up new schools." So says the Tory book. "We need a diversity of school providers . . . bringing in educational charities, faith groups, parents and community groups and other not-for-profit providers to run schools," says our text. As for not-for-profit providers, the government has already integrated private companies into school provision in the city academy programme.
Providing schools with autonomy and allowing heads to control their own budgets was a key component of the Tory offer to voters in May: "A Conservative government will allow heads to set their own budgets and give them greater control over staff terms and conditions," it said. This is not very far removed from: "It will be up to the school to decide whether they wish to acquire a trust - similar to those to support academies - or become self-governing foundation schools."
Individualised learning and skills development link both documents. Cameron writes: "We believe that our education system should encourage ambition and excellence - stretching every pupil so they make the most of their individual skills and talents." The government's more recent document promises that, to realise this same goal, "We need an education system that is designed around the needs of the individual - with education tailored to the needs of each child."
Another case, perhaps, of vote Labour, get Conservative?
Party members who have furtively fingered their way through the Tory document to look for the antecedents of the white paper would find few clues in Labour's own manifesto. The contract with voters on which my colleagues stood for election criticised the Tories' proposals because "they would allow a free-for-all in school admissions . . . an education system designed to look after the few but fail the many". Yet this is precisely what we are likely to get if the white paper is left unamended. As for local education authorities, there was no mention of their abolition as a secondary school provider, as the white paper proposes. Indeed, Labour's manifesto promised what looked like additional powers: "Local authorities have a vital role in championing the parent interest and providing support services."
For those who read the Tory manifesto in the spirit of "know thine enemy", there is more than a hint of deja vu about the white paper. In the interests of "triangulation" - that political credo so beloved by the philosophers and practitioners of the Third Way - someone thought it clever to steal the education policies of the opposition. They might have concealed it better. The white paper lifts Tory policies wholesale and even plagiarises their words. Surely the nation's headteacher, Mr Blair, knows the penalty for plagiarism. No marks and prolonged detention may be called for.
Jon Trickett is Labour MP for Hemsworth
Martin Bright is away
Post this article to
We want to encourage people to comment on our content and to exchange views with other readers and hope this will be done on a courteous basis. However, if you encounter posts which are offensive please let us know by emailing comments@newstatesman.co.uk and we will take swift action where necessary.
