I cannot tell if this be good or bad
policy. A friend of mine who has been teaching a while reckons it might
work but until I get some years' experience I shan't be in a position to judge.
Any pronouncements I make would be made in audacity, not knowledge.
It worries me that the debate(s) which
determine policy – in Parliament and in the media – are conducted in worser
ignorance and blacker darkness, yet the advocates have no doubts. Nurses,
teachers, doctors (who
also now have MOTs), servicemen and women – mark how people may become a
battleground. And in this particular field, Hunt is a combatant as much as
Gove, and though he be new to the fight, yet he will cause as much collateral
ere long.
Perhaps this is part of the price we pay
for democracy?
*
We make them play a charade, then we moan
they play charades with us. Rather like the bizarre mating rituals in nature,
where birds flick their tails in their mates' faces, one wonders why they can't
just get down to it. Politicians have to make claims about themselves which we
in turn are supposed not to believe. Primarily, they have to disclaim
self-interest. They must constantly assure us that it is for our benefit they
seek power for themselves. Naturally we scoff, but would you honestly cast your
ballot for the candidate who says 'vote for me, for I seek power, status and
influence'?
In other fields, few of us would pretend
we had not thought of ourselves in what we do, although some individuals may
find it helpful for their self-image if they affect piety and martyrdom. I
freely admit one of my motives for going into teaching is to secure my future, pace Tristram Hunt (and others
generally) who insist we must all be propelled by passion.
(I wonder if The X-Factor have got
to Hunt, too?) In making such an admission, those of my motives which are
selfless are made more plausible. I may not be accused for admitting I am
ambitious for those whom I serve as well as for myself, but woe to him who
makes such a confession to a voter (and it is still normally a 'him' in
politics).
We are of course very lucky that out of a
vast field of competitors and wannabes, the decision on who gets the power is
ours. And it is one of the perks of being governed by a professionalised
political class that we may grumble about them even as we put them there. But a
friend of mine once used an IT term to explain to me how, from such a vast
pool as the American electorate, they may dredge up men of such low calibre to
choose for the White House: garbage in, garbage out. For is it not true that
this charade we make make them play, this dance we make them do, is no more
than to demand of them that they lie to us? Is not the man who says 'vote for
me that I may become powerful' more honest than he who says 'I am only thinking
of you when I ask for your vote'? Yet we will always choose the he that is
dishonest, only to wonder why we have such a Parliament of fouls.
*
I have touched on passion.
I doubt I shall ever write a cover letter again that makes no mention of how passionate I am about the matter in hand.
It's another charade, of course, another mating ritual. The question which
always comes up in a job interview is 'why do you want this job?' and the real
answer is normally 'because I have bills to pay.' I suppose an election is
basically just a big job interview, for briefly we all of us have to perpetrate
the same kind of lie: no one admits they want to work for pay. The correct
answer is that you are passionate about
pouring pints.
If Hunt include passion in his MOT, then I am in trouble.
I am too old fashioned to speak hysteria. I might have to take lessons from the
drama teacher in how to choke on my tears of passion during
my assessment. Perhaps such a performance would satisfy the next Labour
government that I am fit to teach?
Subscribe to this blog by email for automatic updates,
or follow me on Google+
No comments:
Post a Comment