When and how did the hi-vis visit become an acceptable feature of our culture? The parade of low grade politicians in hi-vis neon green vests and hard hats that we now frequently endure, needs to stop. They serve no valuable societal or cultural purpose whatsoever. The melancholy backdrop of tight-lipped, obviously press-ganged employees that inevitably accompanies them tells you all you need to know. I say that having been part of that backdrop on more than one occasion. If there is a more striking, frequently publicised image of overt oppression and covert national despair, I’ve yet to see it.
These are clumsily staged, manipulative, deceitful events designed entirely to serve the political ends of the frequently unemployable dope in lime green; the kinds of oafishly scripted events freedom-loving Brits would have expected to be broadcast only a few decades ago from Eastern Europe, because they are so indicative of a vassal state.
Politicians have slowly and steadily misappropriated an absurdly high societal profile they simply do not merit
Why competitively recruited, genuinely employable people, doing their best to fulfil their role in any business or organisation, should have to down tools for a day-tripping politician, is a complete mystery to me. (Not hard to imagine what a genuinely commercial toolmaker would think.) They are ugly emblems of a nation drowning in its own politicised folly. They only exist because over several decades politicians have slowly and steadily misappropriated an absurdly high societal profile they simply do not merit. All these tools of the state need putting back in their box.
BBC journalist John Simpson infamously recorded how as a young reporter on his first day, he had tried to interview the then Prime Minister Harold Wilson at Euston station, as he got off a train. Simpson’s level of presumption was judged to be so extraordinary, Wilson punched him. A few decades later Simpson’s lead means every politician who can get themselves into a hi-vis vest unaided, now believes it’s their God given right to put a stop to proceedings in every imaginable venue, from a Formula One HQ to a Little Piddling village primary school. The life and work of hundreds of others, has to be put literally on hold, just for them.
No wonder a surgeon at Guy’s hospital, David Nunn, forced to participate in one of these hideous pantomimes performed by those supreme exponents of pantomimic pratfall, David Cameron and Nick Clegg, lost his temper and ordered the pair offstage. That he also then took an extended holiday, purportedly looking after his garden, should have led to national outrage.
But visits to schools are possibly the most venomous example of this ubiquitous and degrading spectacle. The routine and unashamed use of other people’s children, by politicians who fiercely insist on protecting their own sons and daughters from exactly the same kind of misuse, is as grotesque as it is duplicitous. They have no qualms whatsoever about using your children as cheap props for their tawdry PR stunts.
Yet remarkably, the law on the politicisation of schools is notably simple and clear. It rests on only two, extremely brief sections of the 1997 Education Act, sections 406 and 407. Section 406 consists of precisely 164 words and section 407, a mere 87.
Section 406 forbids the promotion of partisan political views. How anyone could argue that these hi-vis events aren’t breaking this law, is beyond me. Any CEO of an academy trust, headteacher, or school governor who allows a politician into the building, for the apparent purpose of publicising a policy, their own party, or their personal political opinions, might be wise to look at the actual law.
Section 407 flicks the switch on even brighter blue flashing lights. It specifically states that “the local authority, governing body and head teacher shall take such steps as are reasonably practicable to secure that where political issues are brought to the attention of pupils while they are taking part in extra-curricular activities which are provided or organised for registered pupils at the school by or on behalf of the school…they are offered a balanced presentation of opposing views.” The italics are mine.
It is clear the law expects that any event like this must be initiated by the school for educational purposes and that pupils must always be offered “a balanced representation of opposing views” a phrase that Department for Education guidance repeats frequently, because it is the core requirement of the law.
But when you delve deeper into the advice the DfE provides for schools on this issue, things get quite interesting, very quickly.
It provides a number of scenarios for schools which it states are “illustrative” and not “prescriptive.” Fortuitously, one of these scenarios concerns teaching at election times and suggests that would be an occasion when, “visits from local candidates or political party representatives” would be acceptable. Notably, the guidance then goes on to specifically state, “Teachers should seek to manage these activities to ensure that all pupils receive a balanced account of the political issues being covered.” Courtesy no doubt of section 407.
So my question to all the CEO’s, headteachers and governors who have allowed these hi-vis, low value interruptions to school life by cabinet ministers and others in their schools is, how, exactly did they ensure that balance happened? Because if they didn’t, are they also prepared to defend themselves against a charge that they are breaking the law?
Alternatively, of course, politicians could stop using schoolchildren for cheap photo ops. Education is hard enough for young people without the obligation to make small talk with Keir Starmer.
