It has been the policy government throughout the neoliberal era to undermine all professions.
Professions necessarily reflect society. Admittedly, powerful parts of society, but society none the less. Neoliberalism loathes society. It loathes those who represent it. Ands it loathes collective expertise, because in the perverted logic of right wing libertarianism the necessary cooperation to build such expertise, and to defend it through the requirement that those who profess it must prove their competence is an attack on the right of the individual to do what they like, whether competent to do so or not and whether or not others would suffer from the absence of regulation.
I won't defend Labour's record in attacking professions: it was not good, but it was nothing like that of the Tories. Their hard core loathing for those professions that are at the forefront of public provision now knows no bounds. Doctors and nurses are being sacrificed to NHS privatisation. Those associated in any way with local authorities are having their ranks decimated, as are tax officials.
And now headteachers are fighting back. 99.6% of those at their conference today voted for strike action to defend their pension rights.
You can't say these people are militant.
You can't say they're natural trouble makers.
These people do one of the toughest jobs in the UK. And they don't get overpaid for it.
But the government still wants to destroy the relationship of trust with them. Deliberately. And provocatively. Even though they know that motivated headteachers are vital to the well being of children and therefore the education and economic prospects of this country.
So why do that? Because if trust is destroyed then the right believes that they get a perpetual hold in power when people retreat to greed and self interest motivated by fear as the protection mechanisms within society are destroyed. This, I suspect, is Osborne's plan.
But he should be warned: do that and extremism follows on.
But defeating professions has always been the pre-requisite of extremism of left or right.
Is that what the Tories want, because they're going the right way about it.
And it's time all democrats realise it, as Chris Huhne has, rather belatedly.
When headteachers vote to strike it's a metaphor for reasonable society saying they've had enough of the destructiveness of this government. Conflict will follow - and it's amazing that headteachers might lead it.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Most eloquent and exact. I am a Liberal Democrat – by that mean a TRUE one socially to the left economically Keynes through and through.
I cannot add anything more to this….you have expressed my views perfectly thank you….
Thanks
one of the toughest jobs in the uk? I wish I had mandatory 2 months vacation per year.
You clearly know nothing about being a head
I was chair of a governing body for a long time and have immense admiration for the enormous hard work of all heads
And none for those who write ill-informed, petty comments that indicate it’s the right that has a monopoly on the politics of envy
And not just heads. If it was such a sinecure how come every teacher I have ever know/spoken to in recent years is unbelievably stressed, even though some of them do love teaching (which is after all just about the most important job there is).
This post was deleted as it failed moderation
So sad to see the same old ignorant comments about “2 months off work”
It’s 13 weeks a year actually and its 13 weeks of children at home NOT
Headteachers holidays. If I had 13 weeks off my school would nosedive!
I love my school and happily worked over the bank holiday weekend and Easter because I love my job and it is very stressful so the holidays
give some light relief to that stress. , eg I can write a policy without being sent for several times to deal with a violent child , cover a sick colleague, mop up the leak from the school roof ( oh yes that was 9pm on a day off Saturday!)
You are bitter and I feel sorry for you.
This post was deleted as it failed moerdation
Just as you would like to see outrageous bonuses of bankers cut, there are many of us who are fed up with public sector workers lining there pockets (and yes this also includes some head teachers who are earning in excess of 150K.)
This scam that takes place in local councils and the NHS where administrators leave jobs paying in excess of 200K, take their full pension (usually under highly dubious circumstance) and then get themselves similar jobs with other councils on similar pay scales while taking the full pension.
In other words the taxpayer suddenly pays for these people to draw two sources of income, a scam!
Is it any wonder that there isn’t enough money to pay public sector pensions when these elitist public sector workers are ripping off the taxpayer and filling their pockets with ridiculous salaries supplemented by dubious pensions.
£150k to head an organisation with 1,500 plus people in it
You call that a lot?
When a detached house in London costs £800,000 on average?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/in_depth/uk_house_prices/regions/html/region10.stm
I think as the head commenting above said, you’re bitter and I feel sorry for you
Ai also suspect the average KS2 student could appraise the evidence much better than you clearly can
No it is not a lot, in the context of bankers bonuses.
But even the teachers union appears to have reservations about some head teachers pay: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-13186184
Oh dear, you really don’t get it, do you?
That’s about establishing accountability in Foundation schools when the exercise of oversight by local authorities has been removed.
Of course that is appropriate.
It doesn;t mean the pay per se is wrong.
“£150k to head an organisation with 1,500 plus people in it”
I don’t disagree with you, and I don’t really have a problem with chief execs of councils getting £200k either. You have got to attract the best talent after all.
But why you do not seem to apply it to chief execs in the private sector on salaries of £1m+, with far bigger workforces, far bigger scale of operations and often far more technical?
Saying that someone doesn’t need £1m to live on is irrelevant – arguably no one needs £150k to live on, either. The truth is salaries are always determined by the skills required and their wider availability – if it is a job that very few could do, salaries will be high; if any old Joe could do it salaries will be relatively low. That’s the way it always has been, and always will be.
Another utterly absurd comment
Not least because candidly most investment bankers are paid for gambling which requires a) remarkably little skill b) no risk c) the gall to rake a very small fraction off a considerable sum and claim its yours
To compare with headteachers and what they do is, I presume intended to be deliberately insulting and is