ISTBO- Why Do You Ask, Two-Dogs-Fucking?

Today we award the Rt. Hon Weasel Blair PM a Glorious Obviousness Award for stating that better parenting would lead to less anti-social behavior amongst children.
The government is "offering" to teach people how to bring their children up if they can't work it out for themselves.
ISTBO are delighted by this, obviously, as we not long ago bought you 'Supernanny State', and so feel very smug. We have also felt for a long time that if we're going to have a Nanny state we ought to reap the benefits as well as suffer the annoyances. As Jo Jo says, you've got to be consistent.
And you have to hand it to the government, it was a bold move, telling the electorate they're useless parents. And may I say on behalf of everyone who has had to suffer some loud, fat, foul little ratbag attempting to destroy the seat either next to or behind them all the bloody way home on the bus that he is in fact right. But given so many people seem happy to let their children behave in this way I don't think they're going to like you saying that. Possibly. You know the ones, with the 9ct gold Ratners 'Number 1 Mum' necklaces and three older sons that love her so much they tattooed 'Mum' on their arms themselves. And the upper middle class ones who call their kids Margot and Phineas ("Maggie and Phinn"), and will let their kids do anything they can successfully win an argument over.
If I'd have been your PR people, and I wanted you to get away with this, I'd have softened people up first with a bit of good news Bleeding Obviousness.

I know, you're struggling to think of something, aren't you?

Seriously though, this is a good one. Exam results go up again for the nth year running. People blame the exams getting easier, teachers teaching passing exams rather than the actual subjects, positive marking etc. etc. Strangely, though, at no point did the government say "We told you when we went on a drive of improving standards at primary and senior level that the effects of improvements at the primary level would feed into better results at secondary level. And oh look, that's what has happened." It's only true for a given value of 'True', but the same is true of everything said by a politician, and it's certainly more true than "We have strong evidence that Saddam Hussain has WMD." Strong being one of those peculiar words that is spelt differently in different places. In the office of the intelligence personnel who wrote the report on the evidence for Saddam's WMD, for example, it's spelt s-h-a-k-e-y.
The fact is that each year has had one more year of education under the reformed systems than the previous year's. Therefore if the government's education reforms are working, you would expect the quality of exam candidate to be better year on year. A savvy operator would argue that the results rising was an indication that the reforms had worked. But strangely, not a dickie bird. It's almost like someone wants to see him look bad. I mean, a really savvy operator would let Blair get as unpopular as possible, then come the next election they might whip that nice education success nugget out of the bag and say "Look, it's only Blair you don't like really, and he's leaving anyway."
But how likely is that, eh?