Why aren't you asking the obvious question?

Every now and then, during an interview on the radio or TV, I'll find myself yelling at the interviewer, 'Why aren't you asking the obvious question?' It seems to me that there is such a killer point to make, yet they fail to do so.

I had such a frustrating moment this morning, during an interview with Michael Gove (pictured), the Conservative spokesman on children, schools and families. Now admittedly Michael Gove is one of those individuals who single handedly makes me not want to vote Conservative, even if I was in complete agreement with all their policies, but even so he was begging to be asked that killer question.

Gove was telling us that we need to get better teachers - can't disagree with that - and the way to do it is to increase the standing of the profession. I can't disagree with that either, as long as it's not the only measure. However, when asked about paying teachers more, Gove said that no, no, this wasn't the answer, you don't get better people by paying more.

On the whole he was allowed to get away with this - but I was dying for him to be asked 'What about the banks?' When all those bankers claim that the only way they can get the best people is paying oodles of cash, surely we ought to be saying 'No, not at all. You need to increase the standing of the profession (and let's face it, the only way is up).' Let's limit all bankers' pay to the same level as teachers (oh and do the same for civil servants and MPs too, I hope), and put a lot of effort into talking up the job. Because, after all, paying more isn't the way to get the best people. Michael Gove said so.

Comments

Why I hate opera

If I'm honest, the title of this post is an exaggeration to make a point. I don't really hate opera. There are a couple of operas - notably Monteverdi's Incoranazione di Poppea and Purcell's Dido & Aeneas - that I quite like. But what I do find truly sickening is the reverence with which opera is treated, as if it were some particularly great art form. Nowhere was this more obvious than in ITV's recent gut-wrenchingly awful series Pop Star to Opera Star , where the likes of Alan Tichmarsh treated the real opera singers as if they were fragile pieces on Antiques Roadshow, and the music as if it were a gift of the gods. In my opinion - and I know not everyone agrees - opera is: Mediocre music Melodramatic plots Amateurishly hammy acting A forced and unpleasant singing style Ridiculously over-supported by public funds I won't even bother to go into any detail on the plots and the acting - this is just self-evident. But the other aspects need some ex

Is 5x3 the same as 3x5?

The Internet has gone mildly bonkers over a child in America who was marked down in a test because when asked to work out 5x3 by repeated addition he/she used 5+5+5 instead of 3+3+3+3+3. Those who support the teacher say that 5x3 means 'five lots of 3' where the complainants say that 'times' is commutative (reversible) so the distinction is meaningless as 5x3 and 3x5 are indistinguishable. It's certainly true that not all mathematical operations are commutative. I think we are all comfortable that 5-3 is not the same as 3-5. However. This not true of multiplication (of numbers). And so if there is to be any distinction, it has to be in the use of English to interpret the 'x' sign. Unfortunately, even here there is no logical way of coming up with a definitive answer. I suspect most primary school teachers would expands 'times' as 'lots of' as mentioned above. So we get 5 x 3 as '5 lots of 3'. Unfortunately that only wor

Which idiot came up with percentage-based gradient signs

Rant warning: the contents of this post could sound like something produced by UKIP. I wish to make it clear that I do not in any way support or endorse that political party. In fact it gives me the creeps. Once upon a time, the signs for a steep hill on British roads displayed the gradient in a simple, easy-to-understand form. If the hill went up, say, one yard for every three yards forward it said '1 in 3'. Then some bureaucrat came along and decided that it would be a good idea to state the slope as a percentage. So now the sign for (say) a 1 in 10 slope says 10% (I think). That 'I think' is because the percentage-based slope is so unnatural. There are two ways we conventionally measure slopes. Either on X/Y coordiates (as in 1 in 4) or using degrees - say at a 15° angle. We don't measure them in percentages. It's easy to visualize a 1 in 3 slope, or a 30 degree angle. Much less obvious what a 33.333 recurring percent slope is. And what's a 100% slope

Search This Blog