I noticed the BBC has given great prominence to the report by the Institute for Public Policy Research claiming that training days for England’s teachers should be quadrupled to 20 a year, costing £75m. The Institute for Public Policy Research says the difference between excellent and bad teachers means pupils achieve more than a GCSE grade extra. However the IPPR is not just any old think-tank – it is a LEFT WING think tank which has acted as cheerleader for Labour’s more controversial policies, including road pricing, rubbish taxes, ID cards and justifying hospital closures. It has also been the recipient of over £1 million of lucrative grants from Labour. So when the BBC reports the latest IPPR advocacy I think it has a duty to put the character of the IPPR in context so that we realise that what we are actually hearing is government thinking – a lit like the BBC itself I guess.
LESSONS IN DISCLOSURE.
Bookmark the permalink.
Let me guess the default position of The Peoples’ Democratic Republic Institute for Public Policy Research ..
GOOD TEACHER = some multi-cultural, PC addled, commie indoctrinated, marxist teachers union member, white guilt trippin’, British hating jerk-off.
Yeah sure, I can see why they would need another 20 days a year to make sure the mind-control is working at the “Re-Edjukashon” Kamp.
It’s sad (understatement???) to see a lack of disclosure like this. Am sure we will see a lot more of it in the months to come as Labour tries to regain some iota of confidence in the public eye, and BBC will of course be first in line to help out.
Whenever a right-wing think tank has something to say they are ALWAYS identified as such.
Not sure about Jack’s analysis of what their opinion of a “good teacher” is but surely they shouldn’t HAVE an opinion of what a good teacher is.
Teaching, for this government, is merely about publishing results, and this is reflected in HOW kids are taught. When I was at school, we were taught analysis, how to think about stuff. Now they are taught nothing but how to pass exams. As an employer I have seen a drastic downturn in quality of school leavers, not so much in terms of GCSEs obtained but in their ability to examine and solve problems without intense “training”.
Sorry, off topic for a moment there. The BBC are right to highlight inadequacies in teaching, but they highlight the wrong problems. Instead of looking at leftie think tanks, they should film some lessons, follow some kids through state and private schools, analyse an experienced teacher (pre and post-Labour) and then interrogate the pants off the government.
Will it happen?
Anyone?
Is that a tumbleweed floating through TV centre?
Barry — it was only a guess. With added rant for alleged humoress effect.
I saw that item and they certainly didnt mention it was a left-wing think tank funded by the government.
I didnt realise that so thanks for pointing it out. Funny how the beeboids like to con the public isnt it?
Although I do agree that ‘underperforming’ (ie useless) teachers should be sacked, not ‘retrained’.
How about training days for BBC programme manufacturing staff? The corporation has been around for 85 years and it churns out ever more out formulaic trash like Eastenders, Casualty and Jonathan ‘w*nker’ Ross. Any government concerned about excellence shouldn’t allow a public funded corporation to inflict such rubbish on the population. It’s odd that the BBC has been overlooked in the drive for quality from the public services, and to such an extent that it is allowed to make ever more down market dross with every year that passes.
I should pitch this series idea to the Ministry of Kulture…
BBC 1922.
The slugline…
It’s like the BBC today except everyone knew their place, and nobody complained.
Colin Firth to play a sexy John Reith.
Evan Davis began his coverage of this report on the Today programme with the phrase:
“the Labour-leaning think tank….”
I thought it interesting that when on Newsnight last week, the IPPR was twice referred to as ‘left-leaning’ in as many minutes. No such context given to Sir Andrew Green and Migration Watch (which many would view as right of centre) who was also present.
The amount of times I’ve seen people ranting here that the Beeb would never highlight the positioning of a left wing think tank, leaving that only for right wing.
I thought it interesting
I agree with you, interesting because it is so very unusual. Left wing think tanks follow agreed BBC policy and thus by BBC definition are centre ground, whereas right wing think tanks are always beyond the pale at the BBC who consider them to be little more than BNP in disguise.
The Newsnight programme was interesting by exception
Ben: Nonsense. Every time I’ve seen or heard Andrew Green on the BBC, he is always referred to as “right of centre or right leaning”
Fair enough Arthur, just seemed to contradict the assertions I’ve read many times on here. Are there any other exceptions?
Nonsense Martin?
I guess this must be a figment of my imagination (24.30)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/page/item/b00b40xv.shtml
Ben: Yes nonsense. Andrew Green has been on the BBC plenty of times and continually gets referred to as a right of centre think tank.
Quoting one example is not sufficient to provide evidence of bias.
I believe I said many people had stated this would NEVER happen..
Ben
Are you not just nit-picking?
The overall tenor of the BBC output is, to quote from the liberal-left lexicon, one of ‘institutionalised’ bias towards socialism, so ably demonstrated over the past few days.
Maitlis could barely contain her hostility towards Sir Andrew Green, branding Migration Watch ‘right wing’ when she was interviewing him a couple of years back when she was on BBC London.
Why should MigrationWatch be considered “right-leaning” or right wing ?
TPO, I don’t think it’s nit picking if I’ve read again and again here that a left-leaning think tank would never be described as such, only to turn on the TV and see exactly the opposite. Does my bringing this up now instead show that it’s the exception that proves the rule?
As for the ‘right-leaning’ credentials of Migration Watch, that just highlights the problem in describing these bodies. I’m sure many people here would see some left of centre think tanks as hardline marxists. How is it to be judged? Better to just leave all this classification out and add a disclaimer that they are political organisations?
BTW TPO, do you really think Maitlis is left wing, or that referring to an organisation as right wing is automatically hostile?
Yes, it is nit-picking. 1 in 1000 is hardly proof.
Do you even know what ‘the exception that proves the rule’ means?
Ben | 05.05.08 – 6:17 pm |
I don’t know if you saw, or can recall, the interview that Maitliss had with Andrew Green. It was on the London news which followed the national news at 6:30 pm some two years ago.
She came out snarling and it went downhill from thereon.
Now as to the nitpicking, is not fair to say that Migration Watch is very much a one-trick pony.
It is what its name suggests, a pressure group which sets out to highlight the corrosive effects of uncontrolled immigration.
On the other hand the IPPR makes no secret of its broad socialist agenda.
Incidentally the BBC rarely, if ever, referred to the IPPR as ‘left leaning’ until the last year. I suspect that the clamour from various quarters forced their hand.
Is it by accident that you’re concentrating on this and ignoring the very real left wing bias that the BBC has displayed of the past week.
I didn’t get to see it where I am, but I understand that at some point they had a double billing of Michael White and Kevin Maguire reviewing the press together!!! Bias. I think so.
When the House of Lords published a report on immigration that didn’t fit into the BBC’s agenda the other week, Newsnight came out with a load of feeble excuses as to why they didn’t cover the story. When the left wing think tank IPPR published a report that fits in with the BBC agenda on immigration, Newsnight reported on it the day before it was officially released and ignored the story about English 2nd language pupils.
I don’t think the BBC refer to migration watch as a right wing think tank any longer.I had an E-mail from them stating that Sir Andrew had challenged them to prove they were right wing and they backed down.
As to IPPR they do seem to come at most of their conclusions from left of field (purely in my humble opinion).
TPO | 05.05.08 – 7:03 pm
Incidentally the BBC rarely, if ever, referred to the IPPR as ‘left leaning’ until the last year. I suspect that the clamour from various quarters forced their hand.
Here’s a link from each year 2000- 2006 inclusive where the BBC refers to the IPPR as ‘left-leaning’.
2000
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/694067.stm
2001
http://news.bbc.co.uk/vote2001/hi/english/newsid_1254000/1254995.stm
2002
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/1866218.stm
2003
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3267505.stm
2004
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4044815.stm
2005
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/politics_show/4123206.stm
2006
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6148416.stm
How many searches did you need for that, a simple search of the BBC Web site using google for IPPR turned up the following: no mention of political leanings in these
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7371180.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/7045128.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/uk_politics/2001/conferences_2001/labour/1573057.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/2744241.stm
Just to clarify David, by “LEFT WING” do you mean left-of-centre or left-of-Vance?
“which has acted as cheerleader for Labour’s more controversial policies, including road pricing, rubbish taxes, ID cards and justifying hospital closures.”
Are you sure about this one? Can you provide some examples of this alleged ‘cheerleading’ and demonstrate that they were in fact shilling for Labour and not that Labour were eagerly lapping up their advice?
On similar stories you managed to find plenty of lefty connections to the think-tank or campaign group in question, why no such rigour this time?
Anonymous | 06.05.08 – 3:21 pm |
Well done. you just proved the ‘rarely’ bit all on your own..
Alex,
You believe the IPPR is not leftist? Really? Do you wear a tinfoil hat when you go out? Get a grip man, you’re losing it, a bit like Gordon Brown 😉
Alex: “On similar stories you managed to find plenty of lefty connections to the think-tank or campaign group in question, why no such rigour this time?”
IPPR’s connections to Labour go way back. Does the name Matthew Taylor not ring a bell?
http://www.ippr.org/pressreleases/archive.asp?id=735&fID=60
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article1862687.ece
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2001/jun/26/thinktanks.politics
That last link is where the Guardian describes them as the government’s favourite think tank. Its up-to-date profile of the IPPR, meanwhile, notes that it is “the leading UK independent thinktank on the centre left.” The IPPR instead opt for the term “progressive”. Left of Vance, and left of centre.
Surely if it’s that obvious you must be able to drum up some vague kind of evidence or clarification.
And, interestingly, the Times article includes this: “it [IPPR] has acted as cheerleader for Labour’s more controversial policies…”
How topical: http://www.order-order.com/2007/09/source-ippr-think-tank-received-massive.html
http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=IPPR+%22favourite+thinktank%22&hl=en&num=20&btnG=Google+Search&meta=cr%3DcountryUK%7CcountryGB&sourceid=Mozilla-search&start=0
“IPPR’s connections to Labour go way back. Does the name Matthew Taylor not ring a bell?”
Ach, you posted that while I was posting and I missed it. Some good articles, though more to do with dodgy connections than political leanings. And the Times link actually contains the claim “In recent years we have had the Tory leader of the Local Government Association, Lord Bruce-Lockhart, chair our commission on sustainability in the South East and hosted speeches by Tory heavyweights like David Davis, George Osborne, Philip Hammond and Michael Heseltine.“, which if anything tips the debate the other way. Interesting links though, as I say, but don’t spoon-feed David by doing his work for him.
Now I understand this method is nowhere near watertight, but oddly enough if you do google (“right wing” OR “right-leaning” OR “right of centre”) think tank site:news.bbc.co.uk and (“left wing” OR “left-leaning” OR “left of centre”) think tank site:news.bbc.co.uk” you actually get 183 more hits for the BBC mentioning thinktanks’ left-wing leanings than right-wing leanings.
Alex: “more to do with dodgy connections than political leanings”
Anyone with a passing interest in politics knows the IPPR is left leaning. The thinktank itself admits it (what do you think progressive means in political terms?). It’s one of the few issues I can think of where both the Mail and Guardian are in agreement. I really would drop this argument.
True Anonymous, I just thought Mr. Vance was getting rather sloppy in his standard “they didn’t point out they were Commies” copy-paste bonanzas.
Disclose the Balen Report!