Every time I read about Tory plans for anything education related I feel increasingly depressed, and every time I read about anything related to the labour party recently I feel even more depressed that they’re effectively giving people no option other than to not vote for them – the only thing that cheers me up is the thought that things surely can’t be as bleak as I imagine they will be!

Back to the commissioner though and I suspect the average person would still regard the commissioner as a ‘Government thing’ whereas strong charities would maybe more readily be accepted as independent (ie. there’s an argument to be had as to where the funding would be better placed – all the more so for a Government that now has an image for sacking those that don’t agree with it’s views regardless of accepted fact)

The tiny bit of info on the ‘About Us’ page on the commissioners website isn’t helpful either.

I wondered what the Commissioner does beyond what a charity can (and in many cases does) already do. But I think there is a distinction; they have the power to call public bodies to account in a manner that an independent campaigning body doesn’t. It also ensures that children’s rights are seen as a requirement rather than a “it would be good to have”.

I’m not going to pretend the implementation is anywhere near perfect, but ultimately I think it is a step in the right direction and that’s why I worry when I see stories that Tim Loughton/Conservatives wanting to cut the position: http://cypnow.co.uk/news/ByDiscipline/Health/948554/Tories-cut-commissioner/

Obviously I’m in favour of supporting young peoples rights and views to be heard – but I have to be honest and say I just don’t get the commissioner. What does it offer that several large charities either already do or are capable of doing? This could well be my ignorance but the only thing I’ve noticed about it is that it seems like an extremely expensive method for issuing press releases.