Posts Tagged ‘Education Secretary’

‘I’ Newspaper: Thatcher Wanted to Abolished Welfare State and NHS Even After Cabinet ‘Riot’

November 27, 2016

The I newspaper on Friday (25th November 2016) carried a report that recently released cabinet papers reveal that Thatcher and Geoffrey Howe continued to plan for the abolition of the welfare state and the privatisation of the NHS even after the rest of the cabinet violently and vehemently rejected her plans. Here’s what the paper wrote

Thatcher’s plan to abolish the welfare state outraged MPs

The Prime Minister tried to advance incendiary proposals despite uproar in Cabinet. By Cahal Milmo.

Margaret Thatcher and her Chancellor Geoffrey Howe secretly sought to breathe new life into incendiary plans to dismantle the welfare state even after they had been defeated in a cabinet “riot”, newly released files show.

Shortly after she came to power in 1979, Mrs Thatcher instructed a Whitehall think-tank to put forward proposals on how to shake up long-term public spending based on the free market principles she spent her 11 years in office seeking to apply.

But what the Central Policy Review Staff (CPRS) put forward in 1982 was the most radical and vexing blueprint of the Thatcher era, including a call for the end of the NHS by scrapping free universal healthcare, introducing compulsory charges for schooling and sweeping defence cuts.

The proposals proved far too militant for the “wets” in Mrs Thatcher’s frontbench team and were shouted down at a meeting in September that year which Nigel Lawson, the then Energy Secretary, later described in his memoirs as “the nearest thing to a Cabinet riot in the history of the Thatcher administration.”

A chastened Mrs Thatcher, who later claimed she had been “horrified” at the CPRS document, responded to the leak of a watered-down version of the paper by using her speech to the Conservative Party conference in 1982 to insist that the NHS is “safe with us”.

But Treasury documents released at the National Archives in Kew, west London, show that the Iron Lady and her first Chancellor did not let the project drop and planned behind the scenes to “soften up” the ministers in charge of the main departments targeted by the CPRS.

In November 1982, a memo was sent informing Sir Geoffrey that Mrs Thatcher had set up meetings with her Health Secretary, Norman Fowler, Education Secretary Keith Joseph and Defence Secretary John Nott. The memo said: “This series of meetings is designed to soften up the three big spenders. Without their support the operation will not work.”

The document details a political pincer movement between No 10 and the Treasury with Sir Geoffrey asked to ensure that no department’s funding was ring-fenced – although there was recognition that the Prime Minister’s public position on the NHS made that difficult. It said: “Your main aim, I suggest, should be to ensure that no sacred cows are prematurely identified. Given the Prime Minister’s concern about the NHS, this may be difficult.”

The files suggest the ploy met immediate opposition. A later Treasury memo said: “DHSS [Department of Health and Social Security] officials say there is no chance that Mr Fowler would agree to further study of this idea. I imagine that in the circumstances, and especially given the Prime Minister’s speech at Brighton, it is difficult to press them.”

The documents go on to reveal that Sir Geoffrey had a certain ambivalence towards how the Thatcherite project should proceed.

When the Adam Smith Institute came forward with a project to set out a plan for radical Whitehall restructuring to be enacted after the 1983 general election, Sir Geoffrey accepted the concerns of his political adviser that the scheme would fail.

Sir Geoffrey Wrote: “Every proposal will be seized on and hung round our neck. I see v great harm.” (p. 16).

This gives the lie to Thatcher’s claim in her autobiography that when she reviewed the NHS, she found it to be basically found, and only felt that it should have given more space to private industry. It also shows that Leon Brittan was also lying in his autobiography when he also claimed that the Labour party had lied about the Tories planning to abolish the NHS. They had considered it in 1983, and again considered it four years later in 1987.

As for the cabinet rebels who ‘rioted’ against Thatcher’s scheme, from what I’ve read they were motivated not from principle but from the realisation that if she tried to carry out her plans, they’d all be out of a job come the next election.

This did not stop the Tories carrying on the piecemeal privatisation of the NHS. Thatcher carried on chipping away at it. So did John Major, and it was kicked into a higher gear by Tony Blair and Gordon Brown. And now David Cameron and his wretched successor, Theresa May, have nearly completed the job.

I also like to know who the members of the CPRS were, who recommended the complete dismantlement of the welfare state. At the moment, ideological thugs like them hide behind their extremely low profiles. If the politicians, who’ve embraced their ideas are attacked on lose their seats, these people are nevertheless safe, in that they slink off and get another seat at the governmental table somewhere else. Mike on his blog pointed out how Wasserman, one of the architects behind Thatcher’s plan to privatise the NHS, was also one of the official invited back to advise Cameron on how to ‘reform’ it, in other words, privatise more of it.

It’s about time the shadowy figures behind these ideas were named and shamed, as well as the foul politicos who back them.

Cameron: Maths and Science Students Should Get £15,000 Bursaries

March 12, 2015

The I yesterday carried a story that Cameron had announced that his party is planning to award bursaries of £15,000 to high-performing students if they go on to study Maths and Physics at university. In return for the money, they will have to commit themselves to teaching for three years after their graduation.

He also announced that from next months maths and science teachers, who had left their jobs will be able to get specialist help and training in order to encourage them to return to teaching.

And from 2016/17 ten universities will also be trying out new physics degrees that will combine the subject with a teaching qualification. Fast-track schemes to retrain people to become maths and physics teachers are also going to be designed.

The paper quotes Cameron as saying that ‘I want to make Britain the best place in the world to learn maths and science – and because of our growing economy, we have a clear plan to deliver the best teachers to make this happen.’

Nicky Morgan, the Education Secretary, also said, ‘We want to attract more high-quality candidates to teach maths and physics and further raise the status of teaching as a rewarding career.’

The general secretary of the Association of School and College Leaders, Brian Lightman, said he welcomed the plans to get more maths and physics teachers, but stated that more fundamental reforms were needed to solve the crisis in teaching.

He said ‘There is a need for a robust strategy plan to make sure there are enough teachers coming through in every subject. Headteachers all over the country are reporting serious shortages in not only maths and science teachers, but also in English teachers.’

There are several points to be made about Cameron’s plans. Firstly, I actually wonder whether the Tories are at all serious about them. They lied about protecting the NHS from cuts, along with a whole string of other promises, which they had no intention of honouring and have since tried deleting from the records. They are a deeply mendacious party, and I see no evidence that they will have any intention of making good on this promise.

Secondly, this is a tacit admission that the introduction of tuition fees has failed. Clearly, this must be the case if young people are coming forward to study maths and physics at university, or train as teachers because of the sheer cost of university education.

Furthermore, Brian Lightman is right – simply promising to make more money available and encouraging more to train as teachers in itself isn’t enough. The profession itself has to be reformed so that the job remains attractive. It is no good encouraging more students to train as teachers, if they subsequently decide to leave. And this is a problem. Since Maggie Thatcher decided that all teachers were fundamentally to blame for shoddy education, regardless of their personal efforts, subsequent administrations have piled on the pressure, increased workloads and cut funding, leaving many teachers feeling undervalued and demoralised. Private Eye did a feature in the mid-90s reporting the accounts of teachers from the chalkface as they had to deal with poorly disciplined and disruptive students and a social and political environment that was frankly indifferent to them and unsupportive. The Week a few years similarly carried an account by someone, who had become a supply teacher for a year, reporting the same problems. Education funding has been cut along with teachers’ salaries, and the national curriculum chopped and changed as new ideas came into vogue amongst politicians, who had no personal experience of what it was actually like to stand in front of a blackboard and teach.

And this is quite apart from the frothing loonies in the Mail and Express, who scrambled over each other to denounce the profession as full of Left-wing agitators determined to indoctrinate children with Communist, radical feminist and gay dogma.

The teaching profession needs to be thoroughly reformed so that teachers are valued, schools are given proper funding and support from central government, and teachers, along with other workers, are properly paid and given the administrative support they deserve in what can be a difficult, stressful job.

I don’t see Cameron’s proposed plans tackling any of these issues. Nor do I expect them to, as his party and its policies are primarily responsible for the mess education is in in the first place. And the situation will get worse, and Cameron goes ahead with privatising schools to turn them into profit-making institutions.