Reasons not to vote Labour #41 - the SATs fiasco

Posted by Christie Malry on April 30, 2010 at 11:56 am

In 2008, the companies who had been awarded the contracts to administer SATs, the standardised aptitude tests required for all schools, messed it up. They failed to mark them properly, they were late and there were lots of administrative howlers.

The man who awarded this contract was Ed Balls. He refused to apologise for the mess, and then went on to smear Ken Boston, a civil servant in his department.

Reasons not to vote Labour #61 - Ed Balls

Posted by Christie Malry on April 27, 2010 at 4:30 pm

And he's another one of those sods who like to drive while talking on a mobile phone.

Nuff said.

The Observer admits the fiscal mess

Posted by Christie Malry on March 28, 2010 at 5:51 am

The unanimous conclusion is that spending over the next two parliaments must be drastically cut.

Good. It's about time we had some more honesty about the scale of our country's finances, which are diabolically bad. The "we must keep spending at all costs" contingent are now outliers, and rightly so.  Their type, which includes Gordon Brown, are completely incapable of controlling the spending tap when times are good and would still call for increased spending even as the bailiffs were starting to carry out the furniture.

Unfortunately for voters, although Alistair Darling appears to have grasped the severity of the issue, he's the one person who cannot be picked as Chancellor by the people. A win for Labour means Ed Balls as Chancellor and, given the hash he has made of the Department for Children, Schools and Families, he won't share Darling's sense of urgency. And it's a pity that the Conservatives, who first made the case for cuts, aren't getting their fair share of the credit.

Even Darling's case is over-egged by The Observer's article - he could and should be doing much more to cut now. Every cut he makes this coming financial year is one that won't be adding go the deficit and will be helping to deliver a lower base from which to make future cuts. Our children demand that we don't make them pay for our fiscal cowardice.

In praise of Latin

Posted by Christie Malry on March 17, 2010 at 8:41 pm

Rome at nightBellagerens is unhappy with Ed Balls. Balls has deemed that Latin is useless in schools. In response, the delightful Boris Johnson responded:

[T]here are times when a minister says something so maddening, so death-defyingly stupid, that I am glad not to be in the same room in case I should reach out, grab his tie, and end what is left of my political career with one almighty head-butt.

Something I think we'd all pay good money to see. But Balls's comments are deeply ignorant. Not so long ago, before universities had developed fully-fledged undergraduate computer science courses, classics was the preferred subject for computer software companies when selecting graduates. They found that classics graduates were better than graduates of other disciplines at thinking clearly through a problem. Must have been all those Latin sentences, I guess.

Statue of NeptuneThe same skills are valuable in accountancy too. Accountancy also requires precision of thought. Unpicking the debits and credits (lest we forget, words both derived from Latin) that are needed to account for a particular transaction use many of the same sorts of skills that you would use in deconstructing a Latin sentence. And just like UK accountancy’s concept of ‘true and fair’, you might be able to find several answers in Latin translation, but some of them may be better than others. Elegance has a part to play in both disciplines.

Besides, Latin is a brilliant sourcebook for determining how English grammar works and for remembering how to spell fiddly English words. It’s much more difficult for someone who has studied Latin to misspell, say, “independent”, because the Latin pendere screams out at them. Subjunctives in English? Not a problem, you probably learnt them in Latin. Nobody ever taught me them in English. They didn’t need to.

Even for a quiet, reserved boy like me, Latin’s educational payload was irresistible. By translating these texts into English, you revealed mighty battles, terrible monsters such as Scylla and Charybdis (go on then, which would you choose?) and the deception of the Trojan horse. We learned about monumentally sensible Roman ideas, such as building roads in a straight line or building heating under the floor, and some ghoulish practices such as the punishment of decimation for cowardly soldiers. Take away the Latin and the rationale for teaching these to children goes away. Why teach children rancid subjects like citizenship when you can teach them about how the Roman Senate worked? Or about what democracy meant in Roman times?

has a bee in his bonnet over the issue. Even now, it would appear that those who studied Oxford’s terrifying four-year Literae Humaniores, known affectionately as Greats, look down snippily on the lesser mortals who could only manage PPE. In the lesser camp is Balls, who one might imagine was heavy on the politics and economics and light on the philosophy, wouldn’t even have studied the most valuable element of the course.