Adam Boulton: The revolving door of education secretaries has created an environment as stable as crumbling concrete

Published

2 years ago

September 10, 2023

admin

The career of Education Secretary Gillian Keegan looks precarious following the sudden disruption of the start of the school year.

After days of hesitation, the government confirmed last week that RAAC concrete – which can cause buildings to collapse – has been identified in 146 schools, of which at least 43 were unable to begin face-to-face education as normal.

Potentially thousands more schools, as well as other public buildings, may be affected.

Ms Keegan’s handling of the situation has not endeared her to her colleagues or the general public.

In spite of receiving warnings over months, if not years, she gave schools no notice before announcing – just days before children returned after the holidays – that they would have to shut facilities immediately.

As the controversy raged she was on holiday, unavailable for interview and, allegedly, unable to return from one of her homes in Spain because of the air traffic control breakdown.

She made things worse for the government when she got back to Westminster.

On camera for a TV interview, she let off a four-letter strewn tirade, complaining: “Does anyone ever say you’ve done a f***ing good job, because everyone else has sat on their a*** and done nothing?”. Later she laughed when the footage was played back to her on Sky News.

Meanwhile, there were reports that she “blindsided” fellow ministers with her drastic announcement. Labour raised questions about a recent £34m revamp of the Department for Education headquarters and about £1m from the schools rebuilding fund paid to a company linked to her husband.

Yet in comparison to previous hue and cry against other beleaguered ministers, Ms Keegan seems to be getting off lightly.

The Labour leadership has not yet demanded her sacking or resignation. This appears to be less of a comment on her performance than an expression of exasperation that her departure would not make much difference.

10 education secretaries in 13 years

There have been no less than, a shocking, 10 secretaries of state for education in the 13 years since the Conservatives took power in 2010. Would another one now make much difference to the state of schools?

Naming the 10 education secretaries is too difficult for a pub quiz or an A-level politics exam. In order they have been: Michael Gove, Nicky Morgan, Justine Greening, Damian Hinds, Gavin Williamson, Nadhim Zahawi, Michelle Donelan, James Cleverly, Kit Malthouse and Ms Keegan.

On average each minister has not stuck around long enough for a child to complete two years of primary or secondary school.

Given that politicians of all hues never tire of telling us that children are our the nation’s future, this turmoil betrays an extraordinarily neglectful attitude to ensuring a stable environment for children to acquire the life skills they need.

Click to subscribe to the Sky News Daily wherever you get your podcasts

In further evidence of carelessness in this policy area, there have also been 10 ministers responsible for higher education and universities since 2010. Jo, now Lord, Johnson fulfilled the role for two separate terms.

Much of the rapid turnover is down to the rolling chaos of four prime ministers in the past five years.

All were determined to appoint a team loyal to them, as each positioned themselves in the raging Tory ideological civil wars. Since Boris Johnson took over in 2019 there have been six education secretaries.

The Department for Education is one subject to systemic instability during these Tory governments.

Since David Cameron became prime minister there have been 12 culture secretaries – including Michelle Donelan and Ms Morgan who also had goes at education, and 11 lord chancellors in charge of the justice system – including Mr Gove.

Job seen as stepping stone

The roster in those posts regarded as more senior has stayed in single figures: is now the eight foreign secretaries (including former education secretary Mr Cleverly), seven defence secretaries (including Mr Williamson) and five home secretaries (Suella Braverman has been appointed twice).

This gives away which jobs ambitious politicians really want. A stint as education secretary is increasingly being regarded as merely a stepping stone to something better.

The revolving door at the Department for Education has been spinning faster and faster, leaving some secretaries of state barely time to locate the toilets.

Education has seldom been treated as a key department but there is no modern precedent for the recent turmoil. A minority of education secretaries on both sides have even displayed genuine interest and left a mark on the education system they are supposed to oversee.

As a member of the wartime coalition cabinet, the Conservative R A Butler enacted the blueprint for education reform in the UK from 1945 onward. From 1950, the last time before this when the Conservatives were in power for 13 years, only six people held the job.

Labour’s Harold Wilson needed just four in his first seven-year government and only three in the five years he shared with Jim Callaghan second time round. Anthony Crosland and Shirley Williams are remembered for their implementation of comprehensive schools to replace grammars and secondary moderns.

In between those two Labour governments, the Conservative prime minister Ted Heath’s sole education secretary was Margaret Thatcher, ultimately to his regret.

She too shut a lot of grammars and abolished free school milk for children. In government for 18 years, she and John Major only appointed seven.

Kenneth Baker was the most notable reforming secretary of state, introducing standard attainment tests in primary schools.

There were six in new Labour’s 13 years from 1997 to 2010. David Blunkett was the first blind cabinet minister. He brought in university tuition fees and took on the teaching unions in support of Mr Baker’s basic standards.

Estelle Morris deserves special mention for resigning voluntarily after just one year saying she didn’t feel up to it after failing to hit literacy and numeracy targets.

Education secretary for a mere 36 hours

What of the current Tory 10?

Ms Donelan is back in the cabinet as science secretary in spite of holding the all-time record for the shortest ever cabinet post. She was education secretary for a mere 36 hours – collateral damage in the Tory implosion last summer when Mr Johnson appointed a new cabinet after he had been forced to quit.

Also leaving no impression on schools beyond uncertainty in the Johnson-Truss-Sunak interregnum: Mr Cleverly who did two months as Mr Johnson’s education caretaker, Mr Malthouse who served Ms Truss, and Mr Zahawi, who was dropped in for 10 months after Mr Johnson sacked Mr Williamson, who had previously been sacked as defence secretary. Mr Johnson brought him back to education.

Mr Williamson’s handling of schools and exams during the pandemic resulted in several U-turns and was heavily criticised. Mr Hinds paid attention to Catholic education. His 18 months as education secretary were ended abruptly by Mr Johnson.

Ms Morgan and Ms Greening were each in the job for about two years. They were both made women and equalities minister at the same time.

This left the impression that their bosses regarded both portfolios dismissively as not really proper jobs, best given to women. Both fell foul of the pro-Brexit leadership. Ms Greening was purged from the party and now campaigns on social mobility. Ms Morgan survived and is in the House of Lords, where she chairs the committee on public commemoration of COVID.

Confronting ‘the left-wing blob’

Mr Gove was the first, the longest serving, and the most significant of these Tory education secretaries. UK school pupils are now higher up international tables for literacy and numeracy. Conservatives give Mr Gove credit for his insistence on conventional teaching methods.

He was the first elected politician to bring the radical campaigner Dominic Cummings, later called a “career psychopath” by David Cameron, into government as an aide.

Mr Gove and Mr Cummings promoted free schools and academies and confronted what they called “the left-wing blob”. The teaching unions voted no confidence in Mr Gove. In 2014, ahead of the approaching general election, Mr Cummings resigned amid controversy about his behaviour towards colleagues. Mr Gove was demoted – for the time being.

In one of his first acts as education secretary, Mr Gove cancelled the previous Labour government’s “Building for the Future” schools regeneration scheme.

The opposition are pointing to that as the source of failure to deal with RAAC concrete in school buildings. Ms Keegan is carrying burdens passed on to her by her nine Conservative predecessors. In her terms probably more of them “sat on their a***s” than did a “f***ing brilliant job”. That may be the best reason for Mr Sunak to keep her on as education secretary.

Politics

Trump blasts ‘too late’ Powell for not cutting interest rates

Published

7 hours ago

April 17, 2025

admin

Trump blasts ‘too late’ Powell for not cutting interest rates

US President Donald Trump renewed his criticism of Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell, accusing him of being too slow to cut interest rates and escalating a long-running conflict that risks undermining the central bank’s political independence.

With the European Central Bank (ECB) cutting interest rates again on April 17, “Too Late” Powell has failed to act appropriately in the United States, even with inflation falling, Trump said on Truth Social on April 17.

“Powell’s termination cannot come fast enough!” Trump said.

Florida Senator Rick Scott agreed with the president, saying, “it’s time for new leadership at the Federal Reserve.”

Trump’s public criticism of the Fed breaks a decades-long convention in American politics that sought to safeguard the central bank from political scrutiny, which includes any executive decision to replace the chair.

In an April 16 address at the Economic Club of Chicago, Powell said Fed independence is “a matter of law.” Powell previously signaled his intent to serve out the remainder of his tenure, which expires in May 2026.

Crypto, risk assets look to the Fed for guidance

The Federal Reserve wields significant influence over financial markets, with its monetary policy decisions affecting US dollar liquidity and shaping investor sentiment.

Since the COVID-19 pandemic, crypto markets have increasingly come under the Fed’s sphere of influence due to the rising correlation between dollar liquidity and asset prices.

This was further corroborated by a 2024 academic paper written by Kingston University of London professors Jinsha Zhao and J Miao, which concluded that liquidity conditions now account for more than 65% of Bitcoin’s (BTC) price movements.

As inflation moderates and market turmoil intensifies amid the trade war, Fed officials are facing mounting pressure to cut interest rates. However, Powell has reiterated the central bank’s wait-and-see approach as officials evaluate the potential impact of tariffs.

The Fed is expected to maintain its wait-and-see policy approach at its next meeting in May, with Fed Fund futures prices implying a less than 10% chance of a rate cut. However, rate cut bets have increased to more than 65% for the Fed’s June policy meeting.

Politics

Wyoming commission floats whether stablecoin is ‘covered’ by SEC rules

Published

8 hours ago

April 17, 2025

admin

<div>Wyoming commission floats whether stablecoin is 'covered' by SEC rules</div>

The Wyoming Stable Token Commission, a body authorized by the US state to issue a stablecoin, has suggested that it may clarify its language to better comply with potential guidelines from the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).

In an April 17 meeting in the extension of the Wyoming Capitol building, Commissioner Joel Revill suggested the body could reduce the risk of the state’s proposed WYST stablecoin qualifying as a security under SEC rules. The discussion among the commissioners and Executive Director Anthony Apollo followed the SEC issuing guidelines that certain “covered stablecoins” were considered” non-securities” and largely not subject to reporting requirements.

Government, SEC, Wyoming, Stablecoin — *Wyoming Stable Token Commission Executive Director Anthony Apollo with Senator Cynthia Lummis. Source:* *LinkedIn*

“We’re looking to kind of create our own vernacular around some of this, to clarify, and then use that as a jumping off point of discussion for the commission,” said Apollo, adding there were internal discussions regarding the SEC guidance but the commission was scheduled to address the matter in a May memo.

The commission, established after Wyoming passed a law to issue a state-issued stablecoin pegged to the US dollar and redeemable for fiat currency, has been exploring issues surrounding WYST. Wyoming Governor Mark Gordon said in August that the government initially planned a launch in the first quarter of 2025 for the stablecoin, later amending the timeline to potentially launch in July.

Looking to the US Congress for guidance

The commission said it would be monitoring efforts by the federal government to establish a regulatory framework for stablecoins. Among the proposed legislation was the Guiding and Establishing National Innovation for US Stablecoins, or GENIUS Act, in the Senate, and the Stablecoin Transparency and Accountability for a Better Ledger Economy, or STABLE Act, in the House of Representatives.

Though Wyoming is the least populated US state, with roughly 600,000 people, it has become home to some crypto firms likely seeking a regulatory-friendly jurisdiction. Custodia Bank, the digital asset bank established by Caitlin Long, is based in Cheyenne. US Senator Cynthia Lummis, who often advocates for crypto-friendly policies, represents Wyoming in the Senate.

Magazine: Riskiest, most ‘addictive’ crypto game of 2025, PIXEL goes multi-game: Web3 Gamer

Politics

How Meta’s antitrust case could dampen AI development

Published

12 hours ago

April 17, 2025

admin

How Meta’s antitrust case could dampen AI development

Meta, the parent company of Facebook, Instagram, WhatsApp and Messenger, is facing antitrust proceedings that could limit its ability to develop AI amid a field of competitors.

First filed in 2021, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) alleges that Meta’s strategy of absorbing firms — rather than competing with them — violates antitrust laws. If the court rules against Meta, it could be forced to spin out its various messenger services and social media sites into independent companies.

The loss of its stable of social media companies could harm Facebook’s competitiveness not only in the social media industry but also in its ability to train and develop its proprietary Llama AI models with data from those sites.

The trial could take anywhere from a couple of months to a year, but the outcome will have lasting consequences on Meta’s standing in the AI race.

Meta’s antitrust case and its effect on AI

The FTC first opened its complaint against Meta in 2020 when the firm was still operating as Facebook. The agency’s amended complaint a year later alleges that Meta (then Facebook) used an illegal “buy-or-bury” scheme on more creative competitors after its “failed attempts to develop innovative mobile features for its network.” This resulted in a monopoly of the “friends and family” social media market.

Meta founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg had the chance to address these allegations on April 14, the first day of the official FTC v. Meta trial. He testified that only 20% of user content on Facebook and some 10% on Instagram was generated by users’ friends. The nature of social media has changed, Zuckerberg claimed.

“People just kept on engaging with more and more stuff that wasn’t what their friends were doing,” he said — meaning that the nature of Meta’s social media holdings was sufficiently diverse.

At the time of the FTC’s initial complaint, Meta called the allegations “revisionist history,” a claim it repeated on April 13 when it stated the agency was “ignoring reality.” The company has argued that the purchases of Instagram and WhatsApp have benefited users and that competition has appeared in the form of YouTube and TikTok.

If the District of Columbia Circuit Court rules against Meta, the global social media giant will be forced to unwind these services into independent firms. Jasmine Enberg, vice president and principal analyst at eMarketer, told the Los Angeles Times that such a ruling could cost Meta its competitive edge in the social media market.

“Instagram really is its biggest growth driver, in the sense that it has been picking up the slack for Facebook for a long time, especially on the user front when it comes to young people,” said Enberg. “Facebook hasn’t been where the cool college kids hang out for a long time.”

Such a ruling would also affect the pool of data from which Meta can draw to train its AI models. In July 2024, Meta halted the rollout of AI models in the European Union, citing “regulatory uncertainty.”

The pause came after privacy advocacy group None of Your Business filed complaints in 11 European countries against Meta’s use of public data from its platforms to train its AI models. The Irish Data Protection Commission subsequently ordered a pause on the practice until it could conduct a review.

On April 14, Meta got the go-ahead to use public data — i.e., posts and comments from adult users across all of its platforms — to train the model. If these firms dissolved into separate companies, with their own organizational structures and data protection policies and practices, Meta would be cut off from an ocean of data and human communication with which its AI could be improved.

Andrew Rossow, a cyberspace attorney with Minc Law and CEO of AR Media Consulting, told Cointelegraph that in such an event, “companies would most likely control their own user data, and Meta would be restricted from using it unless new data-sharing agreements were negotiated, which would be subject to regulatory scrutiny and user/consumer privacy laws.”

However, Rossow noted that it wouldn’t be a total loss for Meta. Zuckerberg’s firm would retain the wealth of data from Facebook and Messenger. It could continue to use “opt-in” data from consumers who allow their posts to be used for AI training, and it could also employ synthetic data sets as well as third-party and open data.

Meta, the AI race and data protections

The race to unseat OpenAI and its ChatGPT model from AI dominance has grown more competitive in the last year as DeepSeek joined the fray and Meta launched the fourth iteration of its open-source Llama model.

In addition to training new models, major AI development firms are investing billions in new data centers to accommodate new iterations. In January 2025, Meta announced the construction of a 2-gigawatt data center with more than 1.3 million Nvidia AI graphics processing units.

Zuckerberg wrote in a post on Threads, “This will be a defining year for AI. In 2025, I expect Meta AI will be the leading assistant serving more than 1 billion people […] To power this, Meta is building a 2GW+ datacenter that is so large it would cover a significant part of Manhattan.”

His announcement followed the $500-billion Stargate project, which would see massive investment in AI development led by OpenAI and SoftBank, with Microsoft and Oracle as equity partners.

Amid this competition, AI firms are looking for broader and more varied sources of data to train their AI models — and have turned to dubious practices in order to get the data they need. In order to stay competitive with OpenAI when developing its Llama 3 model, Meta harvested thousands of pirated books from the site LibGen. According to court documents in a case pending against Meta, Llama developers harvested data from pirated books because licensing them from sources like Scribd seemed “unreasonably expensive.”

Time was another perceived motivator for using pirated works. “They take like 4+ weeks to deliver data,” one engineer wrote about services through which they could purchase book licenses.

The practice is not limited to Meta. OpenAI has also been accused of mining data from pirated work hosted on LibGen.

Rossow suggested that, “to ensure lasting impact — beyond short-term profit,” Meta would do well to “prioritize investment in advanced data collection, rigorous auditing and the implementation of privacy-preserving and encryption-based technologies.”

By focusing on transparency and responsible practices, “Meta can continue to genuinely advance AI capabilities, rebuild and nurture long-term user trust, and adapt to evolving legal and ethical standards, regardless of changes to its platform portfolio.”

What a ruling for the FTC would mean

Litigation is now hitting tech firms from all sides as they face allegations of privacy violations, copyright law infringement and stifling competition. Major cases like those facing Google, Amazon and Meta that have yet to play out will decide how and whether these firms can proceed as they have, defining the guardrails for AI development as well.

Rossow said that the current antitrust case against Meta could decide how courts interpret antitrust law for tech firms, spanning tech mergers, data usage and market competition. It would also signal that courts are “willing to break up tech conglomerates” when issues of smothering competition are involved, while at the same time, “taking current precedent a step further in harmonizing it with the laws of cyberspace.”

Magazine: Memecoin degeneracy is funding groundbreaking anti-aging research