It was 'Yes Minister' which first suggested the rule that the more politicans talk about something, the less actual importance they attach to it. Tony Blair seems dead set on proving this theory. After all, here's the man who proclaimed 'Education, Education, Education' yet has surrendered the curriculum to all manner of single-issue fanatics, social engineers and general loony toons. This is just the latest example:
Secondary schools in England should fall foul of Ofsted inspectors if they do not take race relations seriously enough, a government adviser says.
Seriously, can you imagine this sort of thing being suggested so overtly in relation to health care ? Stripped of touchy-feely rhetoric, this boils down to a belief that the normal business of education is sufficiently unimportant that it's no hardship to carve a chunk out a chunk of time and resources for the el cubo cause d'jour.
They are all being sent "community cohesion standards" to aim for.
Three words which sum up perfectly all that is most disturbing about Nu Labour.
The aim of the Home office guidelines is to tackle discrimination and promote good race relations.
Because, of course, if you aren't already queuing up for a slug of this latest Kool Aid, why, you must be in favour of bad relations and for discrimination.
Keith Ajegbo, head of Deptford Green School, London, who chaired the group behind them, said "going through the hoops" should not be enough.
A rallying cry for witch hunters throughout the ages. Back in the day, these people targeted those who really did think Asians could never understand complex stuff like medicine. Somehow, that evolved into persecution of those who failed to carry out the idiot rituals of multiculturalism. Now, they claim the right to persecute even those who do hold the prescribed two-minute hate every day. This is where modern Liberalism's at.
Let's spin that wheel around. If Conservatives treated paedophilia the way Liberals treat racism, we'd be claiming the right to fire Liberal teachers who we believed weren't being fanatical enough in denouncing Ian Huntley. Would that be OK with the L3 ? And, if not, why not ?
The idea arose from the Cantle report on the disturbances in Bradford, Oldham and Burnley in 2001.
And what sounder foundation for policy could there be than two of the most dishonest reports ever produced in modern Britain ?
That said that schools were central to breaking down the barriers between young people.
And what would that barrier be [free clue: the natives weren't fighting the Amish, Animists, Buddhists, Hindus, Jews, Mormons, Pagans, Sikhs or Zorostans] ?
They define a cohesive community as one where everyone has a common vision and sense of belonging.
Which is what Conservatives have been saying for years, only to be burnt at the stake for crimes against multiculturalism. So, which is it ? Common vision or multiculturalism ?
People's different backgrounds would be appreciated and valued and would not affect their "life opportunities".
All of which is the Liberal equivalent of mom, God and apple pie. Of course, all the evidence points to the fact that Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, Sikhs and the like do just ducky in the UK, so if - hypothetically speaking - there're groups which do not-so-hotso, it just may reflect on them rather than revealing any actions of those nasty natives.
Those from different backgrounds would develop "strong and positive relationships".
Although, if you think someone is the son of pigs and monkeys and his sister is a whore, that would tend to put a dampner on the relationship.
Among the objectives are that testing does not put any group at a disadvantage.
Curses! They've found our cunning plan. We carefully calibrate the tests so that Jews, Hindus and Buddhists can excel while ROPers and home boys are cruelly deprived of the chance to shine. Let me tell you, it's not as easy as you think, trying to find a test that'll give easy marks to folks from one side of Khasmir while slamming the folks from the ROP side.
The curriculum has to be accessible to all and allow everyone to learn about their wider communities.
Hang on a minute! They just got through babbling about a common vision and a cohesive community, now they're talking about 'communities'. Which is it ? And, given that 'accessible for all' is just a politick way of talking about 'No Speaka Da Inglish' education, how can they learn about the wider community when they can't even speak the language ?
Behaviour and discipline policies are supposed to reflect this mutual respect and acceptance of diversity.
Yep, multiculturalism is back and worse than ever. In case you're wondering what this means in practice, Laban Tall pointed it out earlier: here's the money quote -'The conference recommended that… black children should not be excluded for a first offence unless the offence involved a knife or a gun.'
"Yes, yes, he and six mates beat someone unconscious then molested three girls, but you have to recognise that behaving like an animal is all part of Jamaican/Guyanian/Swedish/Martian culture."
As ever, this raises the question: what if a white guy had claimed that being pond scum was a natural part of black identity ? Somehow, I suspect Mr Ajegbo would see things a little differently.
And, unlike now, there should be no significant differences in exclusion rates between social or ethnic groups.
Yes, because racism is the only possible explanation for different exclusion rates between folks who listen to their Rabbi and those who listen to FU2's new CD 'Kop Killa'.
Mr Ajegbo said the aim was to support the excellent work already developed by many schools across the country.
"If you are an inner city, multi-ethnic school you have probably thought this through anyway because the issues are pressing," he told BBC News Online.
In other words, he admits that the schools that need to deal with these issues, deal with them. So what's his problem ?
But teachers from minority backgrounds should feel able to go to schools in other areas.
Hang on again! We were talking about the kids, right ? But don't go saying that Big Education is producer led. Anyway, what evidence is there that ethnic teachers don't feel able to skeddaddle when the mood takes them ? Nope - the statement (together with the implicit charge of racism against any school which isn't situated in an inner city hell hole) is made sans any supporting evidence whatsoever. Typical of most race hustlers, he has no qualms about stereotyping when it suits his needs.
He did not think that legislation or quotas were the best ways forward.
Being realistic, a lot of schools would want to work through the standards - but others would regard it as an exercise in "going through the hoops".
That would be the sane ones.
The test should be: if you were a school with poor "community cohesion" but in some regards achieving well, could you be put into the Ofsted classification of having "serious weaknesses"?
In his view the answer was "yes".
This is where I came in. How exactly does a commitment to education square with trying to strong-arm schools into carrying out PC indoctrination ?
"Everyone sees league tables and Sats as important, because if you don't you are hammered," he said.
Community cohesion should be regarded in the same way.
Of course, he has to resort to these kind of vague mutterings about 'hammering' schools - after all, he probably knows full well that when OFSTED reports that a school is Grade A for academics, but F for thought-control, the most likely result is a tidal wave of parents trying to get their kids in.
But change, in areas such as Bradford - where some good work was being done - had to come from the community itself.
Which is why he's demanding that central government coerce schools into trying to indoctrinate the kids into multiculturalism.
That was why schools were so important in the process, Mr Ajegbo said.
Yes, they give race hustling no-marks the chance to spend public money trying to brainwash the public while young and vulnerable so that they won't notice that the multicultural parrot is dead.
Of course, we shouldn't be too hard on ol' Keith. After all, he's just being more honest about the true nature of Nu Lab's policy. Take his statement that inner city, multi-ethnic schools are already drinking the Kool Aid. True enough, but - how can I put this ? - if we compare the progress of black children in North Yorkshire and North London, it doesn't exactly argue in favour of these policies. Au contrair - these people claim they're worried about under-achievement amongst ethnic minorities, yet they have no shame about claiming that 'Behaviour and discipline policies are supposed to reflect this mutual respect and acceptance of diversity.' And if the beneficiaries of such policies have a rude awakening once they find that the real world isn't so accommodating ? What are they going to do ? Vote Conservative ?
Nope - an education policy aimed at maximising achievement would throw all this nonsense overboard. Then again, that isn't the point here. When Mr Ajegbo claims he wants teachers from minority backgrounds to be able to go to schools in other areas, he's hinting at the real agenda. Of course, he doesn't really believe that a black physics teacher wanting to teach in Shropshire will be greeted with rampaging mobs of skinheads. What he really means is that his fellow race hustlers should be able to mau-mau their way into jobs across the whole country. Every school should be forced to splash out on its very own contingent of grievance mongers. Success, as he explicitly says, should be judged by just how fanatically schools embrace the cultural Marxist agenda. This is the central humbuggery of modern Liberalism - they sing paeans to diversity, yet when it comes down to the only diversity that really matters, the diversity of ideas, they have the KKK beat hands down.
Unsurprisingly, the one solid achievement of this lurch into social engineering is a boom in out-of-hours damage control. Of course, if your parents can't afford it, you're kind of screwed, but hey ? That's the price you pay for equality.