X

Create an account to continue reading.

Registered readers have access to our blogs and a limited number of magazine articles
For unlimited access to The Spectator, subscribe below

Registered readers have access to our blogs and a limited number of magazine articles

Sign in to continue

Already have an account?

What's my subscriber number?

Subscribe now from £1 a week

Online

Unlimited access to The Spectator including the full archive from 1828

Print

Weekly delivery of the magazine

App

Phone & tablet edition of the magazine

Spectator Club

Subscriber-only offers, events and discounts
 
View subscription offers

Already a subscriber?

or

Subscribe now for unlimited access

ALL FROM JUST £1 A WEEK

View subscription offers

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

Thank you for creating an account – Your subscriber number was not recognised though. To link your subscription visit the My Account page

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

X

Login

Don't have an account? Sign up
X

Subscription expired

Your subscription has expired. Please go to My Account to renew it or view subscription offers.

X

Forgot Password

Please check your email

If the email address you entered is associated with a web account on our system, you will receive an email from us with instructions for resetting your password.

If you don't receive this email, please check your junk mail folder.

X

It's time to subscribe.

You've read all your free Spectator magazine articles for this month.

Subscribe now for unlimited access – from just £1 a week

You've read all your free Spectator magazine articles for this month.

Subscribe now for unlimited access

Online

Unlimited access to The Spectator including the full archive from 1828

Print

Weekly delivery of the magazine

App

Phone & tablet edition of the magazine

Spectator Club

Subscriber-only offers, events and discounts
X

Sign up

What's my subscriber number? Already have an account?

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

Thank you for creating an account – Your subscriber number was not recognised though. To link your subscription visit the My Account page

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

X

Your subscriber number is the 8 digit number printed above your name on the address sheet sent with your magazine each week.

Entering your subscriber number will enable full access to all magazine articles on the site.

If you cannot find your subscriber number then please contact us on customerhelp@subscriptions.co.uk or call 0330 333 0050.

You can create an account in the meantime and link your subscription at a later time. Simply visit the My Account page, enter your subscriber number in the relevant field and click 'submit changes'.

Please note: Previously subscribers used a 'WebID' to log into the website. Your subscriber number is not the same as the WebID. Please ensure you use the subscriber number when you link your subscription.

Coffee House

Nick Clegg: Vince Cable never intended to offend teachers

6 March 2014

6:18 PM

6 March 2014

6:18 PM

Nick Clegg spent this morning singing the Lib Dem equivalent of Take That’s Back for Good, telling his target voters from the teaching profession that whatever one of his colleagues had said or did, they didn’t mean it. The Deputy Prime Minister was trying to apologise for comments by Vince Cable, who had rather clumsily underlined a valid point he was trying to make about the need for better careers advice in schools by suggesting that teachers ‘know absolutely nothing about the world of work’.

‘I know that Vince did not intend to offend teachers,’ pleaded the Deputy Prime Minister on his LBC radio show. He then described the profession as the ‘lifeblood of society’, which could risk offending those carrying out other worthy public services such as nursing, but never mind. Mr Clegg was anxious not to offend teachers because they and other public sector workers form a key part of the 25 per cent of voters who would either vote Lib Dem tomorrow or would consider doing so that the party is targeting with very specific messages in speeches and policy announcements.

[Alt-Text]



Perhaps he was even more anxious to do so given he and other Lib Dems have never shied from expressing their displeasure when Michael Gove clashes with a teaching union. Dr Cable’s comments managed to paint the Lib Dems as having an even lower esteem than the Education Secretary, who is their favourite pantomime villain (although the Lib Dems insist that they have never run polling on Michael Gove or based their strategy on how disliked or otherwise he is by voters).

But there is something quite funny about the Lib Dems and education that this little incident highlights. They like to take the moral high ground on being nice to teachers (except when they’re being clumsy), and they do enjoy having a bit of a go at Gove. The Education department is one where personal animosity exists between the ministers and the Lib Dems. Initially that involved Nick Clegg having a poor personal relationship with Gove and Liz Truss, whose childcare ratio reforms he stitched up. But after David Laws intervened in the Ofsted row, the tensions are internal as well.

But the tensions do obscure the fact that the Lib Dems do agree with probably about 80-90 per cent of the Conservatives’ education reforms. They found the fuss over the history curriculum a bit amusing, and had struggled to get a hold of the document itself because Gove carried it around with him so often. And they disagree with the Conservatives on unqualified teachers (and point out that so do the public – although this policy is perhaps one of those ones that bears a bit of explaining as ‘unqualified teacher’ can often mean ‘very qualified teacher who doesn’t have a teaching qualification’, which is quite different).

But on academies and free schools and standards, the two parties are united. And it seems they’re now united in accidentally annoying teachers who they really, really want to praise.

Subscribe to The Spectator today for a quality of argument not found in any other publication. Get more Spectator for less – just £12 for 12 issues.


Show comments
Close