Michael Gove's Qualifications Watch

This discussion is closed.
username3466266
Badges: 5
Rep:
?
#21
Report 2 years ago
#21
(Original post by Rakas21)
Gove not only gained access to Oxford but he also won a scholorship to attend a private school from a fairly average middle class background (like Thatcher his parents owned a small business). There's little doubt objectively that he's one of the more intelligent members of parliament from a purely academic point of view.

Additionally, while one may disagree with his proposals (though he has his fans like me) he is widely considered a reformist and pretty talented when it comes to politics and pushing his agenda successfully.
Right like the switching to electric car proposal? I doubt it was thoroughly thought through. You will have pile ups everywhere due to cars running out of battery power. And plus our power stations are already crumbling, it cannot support all of this not to mention the cost it needs to change our infrastructure, with the exception of nuclear power stations you haven't solved anything you will still need to burn more energy for the extra power, and before you say wind or solar, they are not powerful enough to accommodate the extra need . Plus I doubt he actually knows about the nitty gritty inner workings of the environment from a chemical, physical or biological point of view. You gotta admit that if gove had this knowledge, he would be unmatched and unparalleled at being environment secretary. It is nearly the same with all of them.
0
chazwomaq
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#22
Report 2 years ago
#22
(Original post by the bear)
you don't need loads of qualifications to make a success of politics. Hitler never went to yoony, but he did ever so well in the German government.
...and Godwin's Law by post 19!
0
Rakas21
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#23
Report 2 years ago
#23
(Original post by Logical_person)
Right like the switching to electric car proposal? I doubt it was thoroughly thought through. You will have pile ups everywhere due to cars running out of battery power. And plus our power stations are already crumbling, it cannot support all of this not to mention the cost it needs to change our infrastructure, with the exception of nuclear power stations you haven't solved anything you will still need to burn more energy for the extra power, and before you say wind or solar, they are not powerful enough to accommodate the extra need . Plus I doubt he actually knows about the nitty gritty inner workings of the environment from a chemical, physical or biological point of view. You gotta admit that if gove had this knowledge, he would be unmatched and unparalleled at being environment secretary. It is nearly the same with all of them.
I think your being overly negative regarding the proposal. Firstly, you'll be as likely to run out of electric as you are fuel (and by 2040 you will have had 23 years of technological change on that front making them more efficient and reliable).

Secondly your point is largely null because as a developed nation we can produce as much energy as we like. The reason we are close to temporary power cuts is because we have held off on signing off new power stations (largely due to their expense), that is a failure of government rather than technological inability. Even on your renewable point wind and solar already generate ~15% of the UK's electricity now. While i don't expect they will be able to do so by 2040, there's no reason to think the development of technology like monochromatic solar cells (don't require sunshine) or other technologies will do the trick eventually, indeed it is believed that geothermal could generate 20% of our needs. Plus of course nuclear. Hell, there's also the European energy grid of which we are part (solar is already at parity in Spain).

Don't get me wrong, i am not actually sold on the idea myself (i'd rather let consumers decide) but many of the points against the idea are a bit poorly developed.
0
username878267
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#24
Report 2 years ago
#24
(Original post by Rakas21)
Gove not only gained access to Oxford but he also won a scholorship to attend a private school from a fairly average middle class background (like Thatcher his parents owned a small business). There's little doubt objectively that he's one of the more intelligent members of parliament from a purely academic point of view.

Additionally, while one may disagree with his proposals (though he has his fans like me) he is widely considered a reformist and pretty talented when it comes to politics and pushing his agenda successfully.
Yeah, banning classics like To Kill a Mockingbird from the school curriculum was a tremendous reform. It's made all the difference. Thank you Gove.

Not to mention how much he raised the moral of those in the teaching profession.

I'll never get the Tory fanboy obsession for a really rather average politician.
0
Rakas21
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#25
Report 2 years ago
#25
(Original post by Bornblue)
Yeah, banning classics like To Kill a Mockingbird from the school curriculum was a tremendous reform. It's made all the difference. Thank you Gove.

Not to mention how much he raised the moral of those in the teaching profession.

I'll never get the Tory fanboy obsession for a really rather average politician.
I let the evidence speak for itself. The UK is performing in international rankings and anecdotally people often have a gripe with him for making their education harder (it's supposed to be).

I'll give you the teaching profession, he was a tad too aggressive.
0
username878267
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#26
Report 2 years ago
#26
(Original post by Rakas21)
I let the evidence speak for itself. The UK is performing in international rankings and anecdotally people often have a gripe with him for making their education harder (it's supposed to be).

I'll give you the teaching profession, he was a tad too aggressive.
Is it any wonder why teachers tend to be left wing given that those who go into the profession are treated like absolute dirt by the Tories?

A number of my friends who were apolitical before uni have become labourites since becoming teachers given the Tories tendency to start a fight with them for no reason.
0
Rakas21
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#27
Report 2 years ago
#27
(Original post by Bornblue)
Is it any wonder why teachers tend to be left wing given that those who go into the profession are treated like absolute dirt by the Tories?

A number of my friends who were apolitical before uni have become labourites since becoming teachers given the Tories tendency to start a fight with them for no reason.
In fairness to the government, Labour's approach to education could be summed up as 'here's your 5 A-C grades'. I don't think one can deny that things like arresting grade inflation and making subjects harder were needed. A-C grades should be earnt, people are not entitled to them.

Yes, as i said he was too agressive in dealing with them.
0
username878267
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#28
Report 2 years ago
#28
(Original post by Rakas21)
In fairness to the government, Labour's approach to education could be summed up as 'here's your 5 A-C grades'. I don't think one can deny that things like arresting grade inflation and making subjects harder were needed. A-C grades should be earnt, people are not entitled to them.

Yes, as i said he was too agressive in dealing with them.
Grade inflation has happened under both parties.

Tories (and New Labour) seem to want to turn schools into slickly run corporations.
0
nulli tertius
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#29
Report 2 years ago
#29
(Original post by Rakas21)
In fairness to the government, Labour's approach to education could be summed up as 'here's your 5 A-C grades'. I don't think one can deny that things like arresting grade inflation and making subjects harder were needed. A-C grades should be earnt, people are not entitled to them.
But has he arrested grade inflation or has he done what the crooked African dictator does which is print a new currency and knock two naughts of the end of the numberwithout addressing the underlying problems with the economy?

The government's, all governments', approach to exam results since the mid 1980s is the same as Stalin's approach to tractor production.
0
Llamageddon
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#30
Report 2 years ago
#30
(Original post by Logical_person)
Right like the switching to electric car proposal? I doubt it was thoroughly thought through. You will have pile ups everywhere due to cars running out of battery power. And plus our power stations are already crumbling, it cannot support all of this not to mention the cost it needs to change our infrastructure, with the exception of nuclear power stations you haven't solved anything you will still need to burn more energy for the extra power, and before you say wind or solar, they are not powerful enough to accommodate the extra need . Plus I doubt he actually knows about the nitty gritty inner workings of the environment from a chemical, physical or biological point of view. You gotta admit that if gove had this knowledge, he would be unmatched and unparalleled at being environment secretary. It is nearly the same with all of them.
why does he need to be? Ignoring for a second that electric cars and how to power them is outside his brief, why would a minister need to understand the nitty gritty of science? DEFRA does, sure, and that's why the employ a lot of scientists. Scientists who condense and explain things to goves ministerial team... of, What, 12 for an SoS? After lawyers, economists, engineers and policy advisors have poured over it? Government would be a whole lot cheaper if we just needed some boffin at the top getting into the nitty gritty. I do wonder what people actually think government is...
1
username3466266
Badges: 5
Rep:
?
#31
Report 2 years ago
#31
(Original post by Llamageddon)
why does he need to be? Ignoring for a second that electric cars and how to power them is outside his brief, why would a minister need to understand the nitty gritty of science? DEFRA does, sure, and that's why the employ a lot of scientists. Scientists who condense and explain things to goves ministerial team... of, What, 12 for an SoS? After lawyers, economists, engineers and policy advisors have poured over it? Government would be a whole lot cheaper if we just needed some boffin at the top getting into the nitty gritty. I do wonder what people actually think government is...
In order to govern or do any job for that matter you must know or else any old fool from the gutter could do any job, which would be a complete joke. you wouldn't go to a carpenter or a lawyer to get treated for a disease as you wouldn't go to a surgeon to defend you in court. And before you tell me they have advisors, some or most advisors don't really give a damn and are in it for themselves, and in the end the decisions are mostly done from only the economic point and nothing else, you may talk to me about in order for it to work you must have faith in the advisors and I'll say this, it is a very big burden to put the responsibility of decision making for a country on the shoulders of faith. Only in dreamland would you have blind faith specially when big money is involved. What I'm saying makes sense because then if the minister messes up they will be the one held accountable. No shifting blame like a coward on the advisors. Oh yes to answer your question, government is supposed to be there to do what is in the best interests of all and the country, if you don't know what is best how can you take the right decision. And why should you ignore the electric car question. Isn't that part of it? Or do we choose what part of the job to do? Oh yes and explaining complex scientific principles to someone who just doesn't get it won't make any difference they still won't understand, you might as well explain the thing in ancient sumerian.
0
Pidge Gunderson
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#32
Report 2 years ago
#32
(Original post by the bear)
you don't need loads of qualifications to make a success of politics. Hitler never went to yoony, but he did ever so well in the German government.
Hitler was blessed with one of a kind charisma - something you hardly see nowadays.
0
username3466266
Badges: 5
Rep:
?
#33
Report 2 years ago
#33
(Original post by Rakas21)
I think your being overly negative regarding the proposal. Firstly, you'll be as likely to run out of electric as you are fuel (and by 2040 you will have had 23 years of technological change on that front making them more efficient and reliable).

Secondly your point is largely null because as a developed nation we can produce as much energy as we like. The reason we are close to temporary power cuts is because we have held off on signing off new power stations (largely due to their expense), that is a failure of government rather than technological inability. Even on your renewable point wind and solar already generate ~15% of the UK's electricity now. While i don't expect they will be able to do so by 2040, there's no reason to think the development of technology like monochromatic solar cells (don't require sunshine) or other technologies will do the trick eventually, indeed it is believed that geothermal could generate 20% of our needs. Plus of course nuclear. Hell, there's also the European energy grid of which we are part (solar is already at parity in Spain).

Don't get me wrong, i am not actually sold on the idea myself (i'd rather let consumers decide) but many of the points against the idea are a bit poorly developed.
Your first point at least with petrol you can get one of those portable canisters and and fill it with some fuel until you get to a station, you can't do that with electricity and until the technology you refer to is invented the point is mute.

And my point isn't null because you answered your own point "The reason we are close to temporary power cuts is because we have held off on signing off new power stations (largely due to their expense)," so the country doesn't have the means to do it which is my point in the first place we are ill prepared for such a project . You cannot put the cart before the horse. Fail to prepare then prepare to fail simple as that. Have the provisions in place first before you make such policies.
0
Llamageddon
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#34
Report 2 years ago
#34
(Original post by Logical_person)
In order to govern or do any job for that matter you must know or else any old fool from the gutter could do any job, which would be a complete joke. you wouldn't go to a carpenter or a lawyer to get treated for a disease as you wouldn't go to a surgeon to defend you in court. And before you tell me they have advisors, some or most advisors don't really give a damn and are in it for themselves, and in the end the decisions are mostly done from only the economic point and nothing else, you may talk to me about in order for it to work you must have faith in the advisors and I'll say this, it is a very big burden to put the responsibility of decision making for a country on the shoulders of faith. Only in dreamland would you have blind faith specially when big money is involved. What I'm saying makes sense because then if the minister messes up they will be the one held accountable. No shifting blame like a coward on the advisors. Oh yes to answer your question, government is supposed to be there to do what is in the best interests of all and the country, if you don't know what is best how can you take the right decision. And why should you ignore the electric car question. Isn't that part of it? Or do we choose what part of the job to do? Oh yes and explaining complex scientific principles to someone who just doesn't get it won't make any difference they still won't understand, you might as well explain the thing in ancient sumerian.
do you need a degree in mechanical engineering to drive a car?
0
username3466266
Badges: 5
Rep:
?
#35
Report 2 years ago
#35
(Original post by Llamageddon)
do you need a degree in mechanical engineering to drive a car?
This isn't driving a car or operating a washing machine this is much more serious each decision no matter how small can have a tremendous impact and potentially catastrophic effects maybe even for years to come for all the people and the country as a whole. A car if crashed for instance could cause harm to a few people at most not the whole country. And even with a car you need a driving test but being a minister it seems you don't need anything even related to your field of work. You go figure..
And anyway a driver drives cars engineers design and fixes machines. if you let your driver fix your car he'll probably put it's face in its butt and it's butt in its face with Catastrophic effects. I say this again put the right person in the right place.A good example of putting the right person in the right place is the Russian minister of defence he is an actual army general Sergey Kuzhugetovich Shoygu. I could get you more examples from around the world. Let's face it, an army general is what he is and it's what he is best at but I wouldn't trust him with my health care though. You see what I'm getting at?
0
markova21
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#36
Report 2 years ago
#36
I don't like the idea of Governments that are full of army people. Does the general population get to vote for them? Lots of dodgy countries around the world seem to have Governments mostly made up of the military, when you see them in their uniforms. Government should have brilliant people, but they should be ordinary people, just like the people they will be serving.
0
username3466266
Badges: 5
Rep:
?
#37
Report 2 years ago
#37
(Original post by markova21)
I don't like the idea of Governments that are full of army people. Does the general population get to vote for them? Lots of dodgy countries around the world seem to have Governments mostly made up of the military, when you see them in their uniforms. Government should have brilliant people, but they should be ordinary people, just like the people they will be serving.
You are missing the point. I never said all of them should be military personnel. I am saying put the right person in the right place. Eg. minister of defence should be a high ranking person who has an engineering degree wit a hint of diplomacy. At least they will know what weapons to get and what capabilities they have and since he is military personnel he will be better suited to defend the country and plan an offensive if necessary.i think a person like I'm describing here is more suitable for this than a historian or economist. And minister of health should be an exceptional doctor who understands things and not just memosizes them, they would be better suited to this than a person that studied philosophy etc etc.....
0
Notoriety
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#38
Report 2 years ago
#38
(Original post by Kyou)
Hitler was blessed with one of a kind charisma - something you hardly see nowadays.
Speak for yourself.
0
markova21
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#39
Report 2 years ago
#39
(Original post by Logical_person)
You are missing the point. I never said all of them should be military personnel. I am saying put the right person in the right place. Eg. minister of defence should be a high ranking person who has an engineering degree wit a hint of diplomacy. At least they will know what weapons to get and what capabilities they have and since he is military personnel he will be better suited to defend the country and plan an offensive if necessary.i think a person like I'm describing here is more suitable for this than a historian or economist. And minister of health should be an exceptional doctor who understands things and not just memosizes them, they would be better suited to this than a person that studied philosophy etc etc.....
I see what you mean. Although Dr. Liam Fox was Health Secretary for a while I believe and he went down like a lead balloon.
0
username3466266
Badges: 5
Rep:
?
#40
Report 2 years ago
#40
(Original post by markova21)
I see what you mean. Although Dr. Liam Fox was Health Secretary for a while I believe and he went down like a lead balloon.
Thank you sir, at least you see my logic!
About the Liam fox thing I said " an exceptional doctor " not any old doctor. Being a doctor isn't enough. Not only do you have to pick people at the top of their respective field, they also have to be exceptional and wise. Please don't tell me no one like this exists because if that is true we are doomed
0
X
new posts

All the exam results help you need

1,864

people online now

225,530

students helped last year
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

How are you feeling about GCSE Results Day?

Hopeful (214)
12.59%
Excited (156)
9.18%
Worried (305)
17.94%
Terrified (378)
22.24%
Meh (164)
9.65%
Confused (37)
2.18%
Putting on a brave face (233)
13.71%
Impatient (213)
12.53%

Watched Threads

View All