Micheal Gove and Boris Johnson.

[Publius Ovidius]

Of course the last chancellor who became prime minister when b-liar stood down was a rip roaring success wasn't he

 

[drew]

That is complete and utter rubbish. I work in a school in a deprived area of Eastbourne. I have also visited private schools, not Eton which I assume has amazing facilities. All the private schools I've visited are blessed with incredible teacher to child ratios and have science labs, technology facilities, swimming pools etc which state schools can only dream about. I'd love to see evidence for that statement, but it won't appear, because it doesn't exist. Michael Gove was a terrible secretary for education, divisive and arrogant.

I love what he says here about the UK eu referendum though:

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/02/michael-gove-why-im-backing-leave/

That's all well and good but I don't see him doing anything to change the fact that the majority of people in this country are living under a government they didn't elect. The UK electoral system in this country suits him but the EU one doesn't.

 

[drew]

I don't entirely agree with you here. For you, perhaps, 'in or out' is a very fundamental issue. For others, it isn't. I used to think I was strongly in favour of in, but I would struggle about this issue these days. I am not saying Boris is struggling (all his family are strongly in favour of 'in' so I seem to recall) though. He is just being a politician, trying to work out what is best. By best, here, I mean what is achievable. If he sees Europe in or out as a nuanced issue, as I do, then he is entitled to make up his mind in terms of balance, and what would benefit the country most, and yes, benefit himself most.

I can't believe I am on here defending Boris, but having slept on the issue I have better realised how difficult this will be for him.

Something else - 6 cabinet members have come out as 'outers'. Others (not sure how many) are 'inners'. I am beginning to think that Cameron is a very smart man indeed. He will presumably be presenting the whole vote thing as 'non party political' (except for UKIP but they are now almost certainly irrelevant), and by making a virtue of 'we will pursue the wishes of the people', it almost doesn't matter what the outcome of the vote will be. Except - of course - the outcome will be 'stay'. So in many respects Cameron has taken the sting out of the whole thing, and will emerge unscathed after the vote.

Thinking about that, it surprises me that Boris hasn't realised this and jumped on the 'stay' bandwagon, one with which I suspect he has the greatest sympathy. Perhaps if he dithers too much longer it really will harm him.

Anyway, my political instincts are notoriously poor so I have probably got all this wrong

I don't believe for one minute that Boris hasn't got his eye on the bigger prize rather than the issue. His aim will be to lead the Tory party and he will decide which camp to join which depending on how best to achieve that aim.

 

[Green Cross Code Man]

That's all well and good but I don't see him doing anything to change the fact that the majority of people in this country are living under a government they didn't elect. The UK electoral system in this country suits him but the EU one doesn't.

Well, that's a little off topic. The majority of people in the last election didn't vote Tory, but that was also the case with Labour for instance they only received 35% of the vote and that's on a turnout of only 60%. That's an incredibly small mandate. I agree that these figures are absurd.

 

[JC Footy Genius]

Can you point us in the direction of the list of schools in deprived areas that are outperforming the private schools. The report just refers to 500 state schools outperforming private schools but doesn't give any examples, especially of those in deprived areas.

No. See reply to next quote.

That is complete and utter rubbish. I work in a school in a deprived area of Eastbourne. I have also visited private schools, not Eton which I assume has amazing facilities. All the private schools I've visited are blessed with incredible teacher to child ratios and have science labs, technology facilities, swimming pools etc which state schools can only dream about. I'd love to see evidence for that statement, but it won't appear, because it doesn't exist. Michael Gove was a terrible secretary for education, divisive and arrogant.

I love what he says here about the UK eu referendum though:

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/02/michael-gove-why-im-backing-leave/

There seems to be a narrative with Gove that he was a disaster as Education Secretary I was trying to suggest (poor choice of link) there is an alternative view. It seems that any Secretary of state inevitably becomes a hate figure if they try to make significant changes within their department or challenges the relevant profession's collective view.

Perhaps this link http://www.theguardian.com/education/2014/jul/22/michael-gove-legacy-education-secretary is better suited to making my point.

Agree with you on the Spectator article he will be a formidable voice in the Vote Leave campaign.

 

[drew]

Well, that's a little off topic. The majority of people in the last election didn't vote Tory, but that was also the case with Labour for instance they only received 35% of the vote and that's on a turnout of only 60%. That's an incredibly small mandate. I agree that these figures are absurd.

Just making the point that he doesn't like others making laws for him that he didn't vote for but that applies to our elections as well.

 

[drew]

No. See reply to next quote.



There seems to be a narrative with Gove that he was a disaster as Education Secretary I was trying to suggest (poor choice of link) there is an alternative view. It seems that any Secretary of state inevitably becomes a hate figure if they try to make significant changes within their department or challenges the relevant profession's collective view.

Perhaps this link http://www.theguardian.com/education/2014/jul/22/michael-gove-legacy-education-secretary is better suited to making my point.

Agree with you on the Spectator article he will be a formidable voice in the Vote Leave campaign.

Having read the comments in the Guardian report, there doesn't seem to be anyone that admires him and what he changed.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

I don't believe for one minute that Boris hasn't got his eye on the bigger prize rather than the issue. His aim will be to lead the Tory party and he will decide which camp to join which depending on how best to achieve that aim.

I did include 'benefit himself' in my assessment

But even I, who have little time for Mr 'Hang Nelson Mandela', can't believe he has no view about what would be better for Britain, or would actually back something he knows would be bad, just to gain personal advantage. My feeling is he isn't sure what is best, either for the country, or for himelf. When he does come 'out', though, it will be extraordinarily difficult for him to have any credibility. Given this is being sold by many as a conviction issue, he can hardly expected to become a credible leader of the 'out' campaign on this basis. So if I were a betting man, I would put money on him backing Cameron. Cheers!

 

[JC Footy Genius]

Having read the comments in the Guardian report, there doesn't seem to be anyone that admires him and what he changed.

Three separate examples.

There are some positives. He made the education system far more robust by focusing on a broad and balanced curriculum, and by focusing on qualifications that were meaningful.

There is very small pantheon of great reforming education secretaries who have genuinely created change. Michael Gove is in that category. He will be considered one of the great education secretaries, if not the greatest, in terms of what was achieved.

He's a man with deep conviction and passion for getting every child the best quality education – and for that I thank him. Gove has opened the door for the teaching profession to take the lead, regulate and improve itself.

 

[gregbrighton]

Zack Goldsmith declares for the OUT campaign. Boris Johnson is expected to declare OUT this evening as well.

 

[JC Footy Genius]

Zack Goldsmith declares for the OUT campaign. Boris Johnson is expected to declare OUT this evening as well.

Good news for the Out campaign (if true). Boris reaches the parts of the electorate that others can't reach.

 

[Westdene Seagull]

Gove is one of the biggest goons in government.

Ask the teachers.

Gove is indeed a goon but forgive me, I'm not going to ask teachers given they are one of the most politised, disorganised and living in a different world set of people I know.

 

[drew]

Three separate examples.

There are some positives. He made the education system far more robust by focusing on a broad and balanced curriculum, and by focusing on qualifications that were meaningful.

There is very small pantheon of great reforming education secretaries who have genuinely created change. Michael Gove is in that category. He will be considered one of the great education secretaries, if not the greatest, in terms of what was achieved.

He's a man with deep conviction and passion for getting every child the best quality education – and for that I thank him. Gove has opened the door for the teaching profession to take the lead, regulate and improve itself.

Three lines from a very lengthy article. There were plenty of comments that pointed out some redeeming features but in the main the balance each commentator was far more damning of his tenure than praiseworthy.

 

[JC Footy Genius]

Three lines from a very lengthy article. There were plenty of comments that pointed out some redeeming features but in the main the balance each commentator was far more damning of his tenure than praiseworthy.

True although perhaps not surprising considering it was the Guardian choosing the contributors. Getting back to the topic of this thread this is why I consider Gove an impressive political figure.

Michael Gove: Why I’m backing Brexit

"For weeks now I have been wrestling with the most difficult decision of my political life. But taking difficult decisions is what politicians are paid to do. No-one is forced to stand for Parliament, no-one is compelled to become a minister. If you take on those roles, which are great privileges, you also take on big responsibilities.

I was encouraged to stand for Parliament by David Cameron and he has given me the opportunity to serve in what I believe is a great, reforming Government. I think he is an outstanding Prime Minister. There is, as far as I can see, only one significant issue on which we have differed.

And that is the future of the UK in the European Union.

It pains me to have to disagree with the Prime Minister on any issue. My instinct is to support him through good times and bad.

But I cannot duck the choice which the Prime Minister has given every one of us. In a few months time we will all have the opportunity to decide whether Britain should stay in the European Union or leave. I believe our country would be freer, fairer and better off outside the EU. And if, at this moment of decision, I didn’t say what I believe I would not be true to my convictions or my country.

I don’t want to take anything away from the Prime Minister’s dedicated efforts to get a better deal for Britain. He has negotiated with courage and tenacity. But I think Britain would be stronger outside the EU.

My starting point is simple. I believe that the decisions which govern all our lives, the laws we must all obey and the taxes we must all pay should be decided by people we choose and who we can throw out if we want change. If power is to be used wisely, if we are to avoid corruption and complacency in high office, then the public must have the right to change laws and Governments at election time.

But our membership of the European Union prevents us being able to change huge swathes of law and stops us being able to choose who makes critical decisions which affect all our lives. Laws which govern citizens in this country are decided by politicians from other nations who we never elected and can’t throw out. We can take out our anger on elected representatives in Westminster but whoever is in Government in London cannot remove or reduce VAT, cannot support a steel plant through troubled times, cannot build the houses we need where they’re needed and cannot deport all the individuals who shouldn’t be in this country. I believe that needs to change. And I believe that both the lessons of our past and the shape of the future make the case for change compelling.

The ability to choose who governs us, and the freedom to change laws we do not like, were secured for us in the past by radicals and liberals who took power from unaccountable elites and placed it in the hands of the people. As a result of their efforts we developed, and exported to nations like the US, India, Canada and Australia a system of democratic self-government which has brought prosperity and peace to millions.

Our democracy stood the test of time. We showed the world what a free people could achieve if they were allowed to govern themselves.

In Britain we established trial by jury in the modern world, we set up the first free parliament, we ensured no-one could be arbitrarily detained at the behest of the Government, we forced our rulers to recognise they ruled by consent not by right, we led the world in abolishing slavery, we established free education for all, national insurance, the National Health Service and a national broadcaster respected across the world.

By way of contrast, the European Union, despite the undoubted idealism of its founders and the good intentions of so many leaders, has proved a failure on so many fronts. The euro has created economic misery for Europe’s poorest people. European Union regulation has entrenched mass unemployment. EU immigration policies have encouraged people traffickers and brought desperate refugee camps to our borders.

Far from providing security in an uncertain world, the EU’s policies have become a source of instability and insecurity. Razor wire once more criss-crosses the continent, historic tensions between nations such as Greece and Germany have resurfaced in ugly ways and the EU is proving incapable of dealing with the current crises in Libya and Syria. The former head of Interpol says the EU’s internal borders policy is “like hanging a sign welcoming terrorists to Europe” and Scandinavian nations which once prided themselves on their openness are now turning in on themselves. All of these factors, combined with popular anger at the lack of political accountability, has encouraged extremism, to the extent that far-right parties are stronger across the continent than at any time since the 1930s.

The EU is an institution rooted in the past and is proving incapable of reforming to meet the big technological, demographic and economic challenges of our time. It was developed in the 1950s and 1960s and like other institutions which seemed modern then, from tower blocks to telexes, it is now hopelessly out of date. The EU tries to standardise and regulate rather than encourage diversity and innovation. It is an analogue union in a digital age.

The EU is built to keep power and control with the elites rather than the people. Even though we are outside the euro we are still subject to an unelected EU commission which is generating new laws every day and an unaccountable European Court in Luxembourg which is extending its reach every week, increasingly using the Charter of Fundamental Rights which in many ways gives the EU more power and reach than ever before. This growing EU bureaucracy holds us back in every area. EU rules dictate everything from the maximum size of containers in which olive oil may be sold (five litres) to the distance houses have to be from heathland to prevent cats chasing birds (five kilometres).

Individually these rules may be comical. Collectively, and there are tens of thousands of them, they are inimical to creativity, growth and progress. Rules like the EU clinical trials directive have slowed down the creation of new drugs to cure terrible diseases and ECJ judgements on data protection issues hobble the growth of internet companies. As a minister I’ve seen hundreds of new EU rules cross my desk, none of which were requested by the UK Parliament, none of which I or any other British politician could alter in any way and none of which made us freer, richer or fairer.

It is hard to overstate the degree to which the EU is a constraint on ministers’ ability to do the things they were elected to do, or to use their judgment about the right course of action for the people of this country. I have long had concerns about our membership of the EU but the experience of Government has only deepened my conviction that we need change. Every single day, every single minister is told: ‘Yes Minister, I understand, but I’m afraid that’s against EU rules’. I know it. My colleagues in government know it. And the British people ought to know it too: your government is not, ultimately, in control in hundreds of areas that matter.

But by leaving the EU we can take control. Indeed we can show the rest of Europe the way to flourish. Instead of grumbling and complaining about the things we can’t change and growing resentful and bitter, we can shape an optimistic, forward-looking and genuinely internationalist alternative to the path the EU is going down. We can show leadership. Like the Americans who declared their independence and never looked back, we can become an exemplar of what an inclusive, open and innovative democracy can achieve.

We can take back the billions we give to the EU, the money which is squandered on grand parliamentary buildings and bureaucratic follies, and invest it in science and technology, schools and apprenticeships. We can get rid of the regulations which big business uses to crush competition and instead support new start-up businesses and creative talent. We can forge trade deals and partnerships with nations across the globe, helping developing countries to grow and benefiting from faster and better access to new markets.

We are the world’s fifth largest economy, with the best armed forces of any nation, more Nobel Prizes than any European country and more world-leading universities than any European country. Our economy is more dynamic than the Eurozone, we have the most attractive capital city on the globe, the greatest “soft power” and global influence of any state and a leadership role in NATO and the UN. Are we really too small, too weak and too powerless to make a success of self-rule? On the contrary, the reason the EU’s bureaucrats oppose us leaving is they fear that our success outside will only underline the scale of their failure.

This chance may never come again in our lifetimes, which is why I will be true to my principles and take the opportunity this referendum provides to leave an EU mired in the past and embrace a better future."

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/02/michael-gove-why-im-backing-leave/

Says it all really.

 

[drew]

True although perhaps not surprising considering it was the Guardian choosing the contributors. Getting back to the topic of this thread this is why I consider Gove an impressive political figure.

Michael Gove: Why I’m backing Brexit

"For weeks now I have been wrestling with the most difficult decision of my political life. But taking difficult decisions is what politicians are paid to do. No-one is forced to stand for Parliament, no-one is compelled to become a minister. If you take on those roles, which are great privileges, you also take on big responsibilities.

I was encouraged to stand for Parliament by David Cameron and he has given me the opportunity to serve in what I believe is a great, reforming Government. I think he is an outstanding Prime Minister. There is, as far as I can see, only one significant issue on which we have differed.

And that is the future of the UK in the European Union.

It pains me to have to disagree with the Prime Minister on any issue. My instinct is to support him through good times and bad.

But I cannot duck the choice which the Prime Minister has given every one of us. In a few months time we will all have the opportunity to decide whether Britain should stay in the European Union or leave. I believe our country would be freer, fairer and better off outside the EU. And if, at this moment of decision, I didn’t say what I believe I would not be true to my convictions or my country.

I don’t want to take anything away from the Prime Minister’s dedicated efforts to get a better deal for Britain. He has negotiated with courage and tenacity. But I think Britain would be stronger outside the EU.

My starting point is simple. I believe that the decisions which govern all our lives, the laws we must all obey and the taxes we must all pay should be decided by people we choose and who we can throw out if we want change. If power is to be used wisely, if we are to avoid corruption and complacency in high office, then the public must have the right to change laws and Governments at election time.

But our membership of the European Union prevents us being able to change huge swathes of law and stops us being able to choose who makes critical decisions which affect all our lives. Laws which govern citizens in this country are decided by politicians from other nations who we never elected and can’t throw out. We can take out our anger on elected representatives in Westminster but whoever is in Government in London cannot remove or reduce VAT, cannot support a steel plant through troubled times, cannot build the houses we need where they’re needed and cannot deport all the individuals who shouldn’t be in this country. I believe that needs to change. And I believe that both the lessons of our past and the shape of the future make the case for change compelling.

The ability to choose who governs us, and the freedom to change laws we do not like, were secured for us in the past by radicals and liberals who took power from unaccountable elites and placed it in the hands of the people. As a result of their efforts we developed, and exported to nations like the US, India, Canada and Australia a system of democratic self-government which has brought prosperity and peace to millions.

Our democracy stood the test of time. We showed the world what a free people could achieve if they were allowed to govern themselves.

In Britain we established trial by jury in the modern world, we set up the first free parliament, we ensured no-one could be arbitrarily detained at the behest of the Government, we forced our rulers to recognise they ruled by consent not by right, we led the world in abolishing slavery, we established free education for all, national insurance, the National Health Service and a national broadcaster respected across the world.

By way of contrast, the European Union, despite the undoubted idealism of its founders and the good intentions of so many leaders, has proved a failure on so many fronts. The euro has created economic misery for Europe’s poorest people. European Union regulation has entrenched mass unemployment. EU immigration policies have encouraged people traffickers and brought desperate refugee camps to our borders.

Far from providing security in an uncertain world, the EU’s policies have become a source of instability and insecurity. Razor wire once more criss-crosses the continent, historic tensions between nations such as Greece and Germany have resurfaced in ugly ways and the EU is proving incapable of dealing with the current crises in Libya and Syria. The former head of Interpol says the EU’s internal borders policy is “like hanging a sign welcoming terrorists to Europe” and Scandinavian nations which once prided themselves on their openness are now turning in on themselves. All of these factors, combined with popular anger at the lack of political accountability, has encouraged extremism, to the extent that far-right parties are stronger across the continent than at any time since the 1930s.

The EU is an institution rooted in the past and is proving incapable of reforming to meet the big technological, demographic and economic challenges of our time. It was developed in the 1950s and 1960s and like other institutions which seemed modern then, from tower blocks to telexes, it is now hopelessly out of date. The EU tries to standardise and regulate rather than encourage diversity and innovation. It is an analogue union in a digital age.

The EU is built to keep power and control with the elites rather than the people. Even though we are outside the euro we are still subject to an unelected EU commission which is generating new laws every day and an unaccountable European Court in Luxembourg which is extending its reach every week, increasingly using the Charter of Fundamental Rights which in many ways gives the EU more power and reach than ever before. This growing EU bureaucracy holds us back in every area. EU rules dictate everything from the maximum size of containers in which olive oil may be sold (five litres) to the distance houses have to be from heathland to prevent cats chasing birds (five kilometres).

Individually these rules may be comical. Collectively, and there are tens of thousands of them, they are inimical to creativity, growth and progress. Rules like the EU clinical trials directive have slowed down the creation of new drugs to cure terrible diseases and ECJ judgements on data protection issues hobble the growth of internet companies. As a minister I’ve seen hundreds of new EU rules cross my desk, none of which were requested by the UK Parliament, none of which I or any other British politician could alter in any way and none of which made us freer, richer or fairer.

It is hard to overstate the degree to which the EU is a constraint on ministers’ ability to do the things they were elected to do, or to use their judgment about the right course of action for the people of this country. I have long had concerns about our membership of the EU but the experience of Government has only deepened my conviction that we need change. Every single day, every single minister is told: ‘Yes Minister, I understand, but I’m afraid that’s against EU rules’. I know it. My colleagues in government know it. And the British people ought to know it too: your government is not, ultimately, in control in hundreds of areas that matter.

But by leaving the EU we can take control. Indeed we can show the rest of Europe the way to flourish. Instead of grumbling and complaining about the things we can’t change and growing resentful and bitter, we can shape an optimistic, forward-looking and genuinely internationalist alternative to the path the EU is going down. We can show leadership. Like the Americans who declared their independence and never looked back, we can become an exemplar of what an inclusive, open and innovative democracy can achieve.

We can take back the billions we give to the EU, the money which is squandered on grand parliamentary buildings and bureaucratic follies, and invest it in science and technology, schools and apprenticeships. We can get rid of the regulations which big business uses to crush competition and instead support new start-up businesses and creative talent. We can forge trade deals and partnerships with nations across the globe, helping developing countries to grow and benefiting from faster and better access to new markets.

We are the world’s fifth largest economy, with the best armed forces of any nation, more Nobel Prizes than any European country and more world-leading universities than any European country. Our economy is more dynamic than the Eurozone, we have the most attractive capital city on the globe, the greatest “soft power” and global influence of any state and a leadership role in NATO and the UN. Are we really too small, too weak and too powerless to make a success of self-rule? On the contrary, the reason the EU’s bureaucrats oppose us leaving is they fear that our success outside will only underline the scale of their failure.

This chance may never come again in our lifetimes, which is why I will be true to my principles and take the opportunity this referendum provides to leave an EU mired in the past and embrace a better future."

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/02/michael-gove-why-im-backing-leave/

Says it all really.

It's good rhetoric but I would like to know of the laws he refers to that have been restricted by the EU rules and regulations. He also wanders into the realms of the ECHR which, as everybody knows, is entirely separate from the EU and should therefore not be raised in this debate. He complains that the EU is built to keep power and control with elites rather than people. Surely that is at odds with most of what conservative policy is aimed at, ie the wealthy keeping as much of the wealth as they can and an elite society of the haves and have nots. We don't have a leadership role in Nato, that belongs only to the US. As for the UN, do we really have a leadership role there? We are on the security council but I don't see that we can say we have lead a motion through a unanimous vote.

Going back to the laws, commissioners might draught up the laws but don't they still have to be voted on by the elected members?

 

[JC Footy Genius]

It's good rhetoric but I would like to know of the laws he refers to that have been restricted by the EU rules and regulations. He also wanders into the realms of the ECHR which, as everybody knows, is entirely separate from the EU and should therefore not be raised in this debate. He complains that the EU is built to keep power and control with elites rather than people. Surely that is at odds with most of what conservative policy is aimed at, ie the wealthy keeping as much of the wealth as they can and an elite society of the haves and have nots. We don't have a leadership role in Nato, that belongs only to the US. As for the UN, do we really have a leadership role there? We are on the security council but I don't see that we can say we have lead a motion through a unanimous vote.

Going back to the laws, commissioners might draught up the laws but don't they still have to be voted on by the elected members?

I expect journalists will ask the same question and he will provide examples. He referred to the European court in Luxembourg which is the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) not the ECHR. Although membership of the ECHR is a prerequisite for joining the EU so has some relevance to this debate.

The fact he is arguing against power for elites as a Conservative perhaps adds credibility to his views then. We are the second most powerful military member of NATO I am sure we play a leading role in some operations. His use of the term leading role in the UN context may be overstated but we have a significant voice.

Not sure about the Commissioners/elected members point but I think Gove probably knows more about this than any of us.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

Going back to the laws, commissioners might draught up the laws but don't they still have to be voted on by the elected members?

Correct. The Commission can propose and draft laws but only act on direction from others. In effect, they're just an admin department.

 

[drew]

I expect journalists will ask the same question and he will provide examples. He referred to the European court in Luxembourg which is the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) not the ECHR. Although membership of the ECHR is a prerequisite for joining the EU so has some relevance to this debate.

The fact he is arguing against power for elites as a Conservative perhaps adds credibility to his views then. We are the second most powerful military member of NATO I am sure we play a leading role in some operations. His use of the term leading role in the UN context may be overstated but we have a significant voice.

Not sure about the Commissioners/elected members point but I think Gove probably knows more about this than any of us.

OK, appreciate the differentiation between the ECHR and CJEU, my mistake. That said, the CJEU merely upholds the laws that the EU have brought into effect.

 

[Kalimantan Gull]

I like Gove he stands up to vested interests ....

Michael Gove proven right as schoolkids in deprived areas finally have education to match Eton

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/michael-gove-proven-right-schoolkids-6301722

(sorry for the biased source)

... and Andrew Neil on the Daily politics plus he is currently attempting to reform Prisons in an enlightened direction which is courageous considering the hang em flog em Tory mindset.

He is putting country before party and career which some might consider principled and worthy of praise.

Just for clarity, that article is written by 'right-wing shock-jock' Carole Malone, so yes, it is a very biased source. What she's actually doing is comparing the average results across pretty much every independent school with just the top 30% of state schools, when a more reasonable comparison is to compare the top 30% state schools with the top 30% of independent schools. What Gove should have done is raise the standards of the poorest schools, not rest on the laurels of the best schools. Maybe he did, I don't know. Whatever, carry on.

 

[mona]

Gove is indeed a goon but forgive me, I'm not going to ask teachers given they are one of the most politised, disorganised and living in a different world set of people I know.

I don't disagree but you were certainly let down by a succession of English teachers.