Graham Brady - A matter of principle?
I agree with most of what Iain Dale has said on his blog about Graham Brady's resignation. I agree with him that Graham Brady will benefit from resigning (more so than if he had waited to be pushed). I also agree that the so-called anonymous briefings do not help. If politicians cannot be up front and have their comments attributed to them they shouldn't bother. What is wrong with someone in the whips office saying "it is expected that Shadow Cabinet members air their grievances in private, Graham Brady has been reminded of this"? I suspect it would have achieved the same outcome, but would have been far more honest and in-tune with how politics should be conducted.
Where I disagree with Iain is where he says:
"By provoking a resignation in this way, the Party hierarchy has shown it will brook no dissent from its MPs (and candidates, I guess)"
To me, forcing Graham Brady's resignation shows that a Shadow Minister is expected to be loyal; it sends no message whatsoever about backbenchers or candidates.
One other aspect of this is the implication that Grammar Schools are the only solution to social mobility. They are one solution and one that works - but good comprehensive education is also a legitimate vehicle for academically capable children - I see it every single day though the example of my own children and others. That is where I disagree with Graham Brady and why it is right that he should not air his views publicly whilst he is on the Conservative Front Bench. His views undermine the great work that is being done through gifted and talented programs to nurture bright children and ensure the social mobility that he implies comprehensive education cannot provide.
Where I disagree with Iain is where he says:
"By provoking a resignation in this way, the Party hierarchy has shown it will brook no dissent from its MPs (and candidates, I guess)"
To me, forcing Graham Brady's resignation shows that a Shadow Minister is expected to be loyal; it sends no message whatsoever about backbenchers or candidates.
One other aspect of this is the implication that Grammar Schools are the only solution to social mobility. They are one solution and one that works - but good comprehensive education is also a legitimate vehicle for academically capable children - I see it every single day though the example of my own children and others. That is where I disagree with Graham Brady and why it is right that he should not air his views publicly whilst he is on the Conservative Front Bench. His views undermine the great work that is being done through gifted and talented programs to nurture bright children and ensure the social mobility that he implies comprehensive education cannot provide.
Labels: education, Graham Brady
posted by Martin Curtis at 9:23 PM
1 Comments:
Loyalty in a cabinet requires that policy positions are agreed collectively.
Brady understood there would be no more grammar schools.
What he did not agree with were statements that undermined existing grammar schools.
Loyalty with policy committees also requires people like Willetts to consult them before making a policy statement. Nadine says that he did not do this.
Willetts created this mess because of his hamfisted approach.
Post a Comment
<< Home