On a recent discussion on pensions and retirement, Newsnight chose, rather ingeniously, to flag up the age of every speaker in brackets after their name. A joke? A way of putting content in context? Both, perhaps.

It certainly made me think, if I am ever involved in an education discussion on that same programme, I will suggest that they put the name of the school each participant send/sent their child/children to after their name. No, not the name of the school they went to, interesting as that is. But their choice of school as a parent, a better indicator of their preferences/values etc. Yes, of course, I see the complications; children switch schools; siblings go to different schools etc

Let’s say we could reduce that technical difficulty, reduce the description of choice to essences, I doubt that the programme makers or some others taking part on the programme would agree to it, for a whole host of reasons.

However, I still think it would be worth doing and including the presenters. School choice is interesting. It’s also rather revealing. If the Main Presenter starts laying into a head teacher, say, about the poor performance of urban state schools and yet we see after his/her name ( Cheltenham Ladies College) just to use a random and most unlikely example….is that not a useful, qualifying fact for us to throw into the equation; one that might provoke a momentary ‘ hang on a minute, what’s going on here..’ kind of response? Similarly, if a leading liberal commentator advocates comprehensive education for the nation’s children but we see they sent their own children to a fee paying school…. and so on.

I’ll let my loyal blog readers know if anything comes of this idea….…

I suspect Queen Polly is right on this one. History may well judge David Miliband to have lost the leadership election at exactly this point, with Mandelson foolishly attacking Ed Miliband and Blair almost certain to come out in support of David, although I suspect Blair will be rather more subtle in his approach in this, his book launch week.

In fact, it seems to me so obvious that the endorsement of Mandelson and Blair is unhelpful to David Miliband, one might well ask oneself, why do it? Are they trying to ruin it for everyone? That’s one rather novelistic take on it. Far more worldly Labour friends of mine take a different view; they think the intervention of the Old Guard might well swing it for David. Either way, silence about one’s successors is usually a wise course. Very rarely does a figure like Neil Kinnock come along, with the largeness of spirit to support a more successful later leader but the political courage to criticise his policies.

Interesting how our final judgement of political personalities so often comes down to values, and not how much money or glamour or fame or even how many votes they won.

But therein lies the paradox, for a successful political leader must, of course, win power.

That’s one reason why I am supporting Ed Miliband. He has decent personal and political values, is a warm man, genuinely interested in listening to others, a hugely underrated quality in politics, and has, I believe, the courage and self awareness to withstand the terrible pressures of power and leadership, political triumph and possible disaster: ‘to treat those two impostors just the same.’ Just as importantly, over the past few months he has set out a credible if modest stall for social and economic change.

In other words, I think he, too, can win power. And do something significant with it.…

Read Melissa Benn’s latest piece on the Labour leadership contest, here, in this week’s Public Finance.…

Very good piece by Seumas Milne in The Guardian today on what Tory plans, particularly on education, might really mean.…

For the duration of the election campaign I am posting items in the news I find of interest/relevance to our understanding of what this election really means. Below, a press release from the Fawcett Society on what the main party manifestos promise – or fail to promise – in relation to women.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: 15TH APRIL 2010

FOR FURTHER INFO / INTERVIEWS: 0207 253 2598

Regressive, Stagnant and Contradictory: Fawcett’s damning verdict on parties’ Manifesto

After concerted efforts to woo women voters, the parties’ manifestos hardly mention those same women, and the policies they do propose range from disappointing to downright disturbing.

Women are dealt with in piecemeal fashion with no party providing coherent explanations of how their policies will impact on women lives or how they will address persistent gender inequality.

Ceri Goddard, Fawcett’s Chief Executive, said:

“After some progress in power Labour seems to have stagnated, some Conservatives policies could actually be a backward step for women’s equality, and the Liberal Democrats are contradictory. The manifestos are a depressing read for anyone concerned about women’s equality, particularly given the energy the Party campaigning machines have invested in targeting women voters on sofas, on the internet and from the pages of the glossies.”

“Perhaps the most backward of the Conservative policies is their proposal to recognise some marriages in the tax system. Their marriage tax allowance could well push lower paid women from low paid families back into the home – but are the Conservatives being honest about this? It’s well rehearsed that this policy discriminates against widows/widowers, single parents and people who leave abusive relationships. But this policy also discriminates against married couples where both partners choose to or need to work – the reality for most people. From the party that advocates the small state this is state-sponsored social engineering writ large.”

“This worrying theme is continued elsewhere. Despite the premise of the ‘Couple Penalty’ being debunked by our campaign partner Gingerbread , the Conservatives have said they will press ahead with benefit reform that will disproportionately reward couples. This will have the disastrous effect of leaving single parents, 90 per cent of whom are women, in far greater relative poverty.

Criticising Labour’s and the Liberal Democrats’ Manifestos Ceri Goddard continued:

“It’s a shame that Labour has failed to follow up on some of the progress of the last 13 years. There seems to be no vision to build on steps like the minimum wage, all women short-lists and flexible working to take the next step towards equality.…