Constitutional Query
JonG
Anyone know what the formal requirements are for a Chair of a Select
Committee?
I ask because our local MP, Barry Sheerman, is boss of the Education
one, so I presume it was under that hat that he was on the Today prog
this morning, continuing a spat with some proponent of independent
schools from the committee yesterday. Amongst the things he objected to
was the suggestion that a lot of people who move their kids to private
schools do o because they don't think the state system can provide
suitable education for them.
That interests me because it is precisely the reason why we moved our
two, and I am writing to both him and the local rag to point this out.
What I'm not sure about, though is this: I felt that he was very much
giving the government line on education, whereas I was under the
impression that as chair of the committee, he was meant to be
non-partisan - certainly when commenting in that role.
For those more interested:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/7387997.stm
and listen again:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/today/ram/today4_schools_20080508.ram
If he has been naughty in this, is there actually anyone who would ever
officially take him to task about it?
--
JonG
Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent
Salvor Hardin, Mayor of Terminus.
Guy King
from JonG <ne...@dentrassi-nospamformetodayplease.lodge.org.uk> contains
these words:
> That interests me because it is precisely the reason why we moved our
> two, and I am writing to both him and the local rag to point this out.
Ah, but you're now expecting him to base his opinions on fact (or at
least a few data) instead of on convictions. As we all know, politicians
should have strong convictions.
--
Skipweasel
Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines.
JonG
>> That interests me because it is precisely the reason why we moved our
>> two, and I am writing to both him and the local rag to point this out.
>
> Ah, but you're now expecting him to base his opinions on fact (or at
> least a few data) instead of on convictions. As we all know, politicians
> should have strong convictions.
>
The Fourecks approach, you mean?
bobharvey
nospamformetodayplease.lodge.org.uk> wrote:
> If he has been naughty in this, is there actually anyone who would ever
> officially take him to task about it?
AIUI in the committee he must be even handed, but outside it he has as
much right to an opinion as any other elected member. And no doubt,
when he needs and opinion Gordon will provide him with one.
bobharvey
Nick Odell
<"\"#\""@cymoeddorguk.privacy.net> wrote:
>JonG said...
>>
>> Anyone know what the formal requirements are for a Chair of a Select
>> Committee?
>>
>> I ask because our local MP, Barry Sheerman, is boss of the Education
>> one, so I presume it was under that hat that he was on the Today prog
>> this morning, continuing a spat with some proponent of independent
>> schools from the committee yesterday. Amongst the things he objected to
>> was the suggestion that a lot of people who move their kids to private
>> schools do o because they don't think the state system can provide
>> suitable education for them.
>>
>> That interests me because it is precisely the reason why we moved our
>> two, and I am writing to both him and the local rag to point this out.
>>
>> What I'm not sure about, though is this: I felt that he was very much
>> giving the government line on education, whereas I was under the
>> impression that as chair of the committee, he was meant to be
>> non-partisan - certainly when commenting in that role.
>>
>Yes, when chairing the committee he is supposed to be non-partisan.
When chairing the committee, yes. But when representing the committee,
he's representing the leanings of that committee and the leanings
might not represent the way the members actually vote. And when he's
representing himself that's a another pava of pescados altogether.
>When he was on Today though, he could have been wearing his MP hat
>rather than his Chair Of The Committee hat. Not that it really matters
>which hat he was wearing at the time: for any Labour MP to say what he
>said is stupidity at its worst. If the party really believe that the
>state schools can provide adequate education across the board one might
>reasonably ask why, in that case, the Independent schools can register
>as charities and so take advantage of tax relief. If state schools are
>delivering the goods, there's a strong case for abolishing independent
>schools altogether because they're not needed and are a drain on the
>economy because of their charitable status. Then again, one might
>enquire why, if state schools are delivering the goods, our esteemed
>former PM saw fit to send his own children to an independent school
>rather than a state one...
Erme... The Oratory is a state school though not by any stretch of the
imagination is it equivalent to what would have been their local
comprehensive. Asking the prunts to shell out forty-five dhvq a month
doesn't make it independent: I've known schools to ask for a donation
of one monetary unit per week towards materials, trips etc and it's
all just a matter of scale, innit?
Nick
--
real e-mail is nickodell (at) bigfoot (dot) com
Richard Bos
Oh, I esteem him. I don't esteem him higher than a tapeworm, but esteem
him I do.
Richard
Rusty Hinge 2
<c8e2ccc8-08c4-4c9d...@l64g2000hse.googlegroups.com>
from bobharvey <robert...@my-deja.com> contains these words:
> By whom?
Well, by a growing number of NooLaber, allegedly.
--
Rusty
Direct reply to: horrid dot squeak snailything zetnet point co period uk
Separator in search of a sig