Schools secretary Ed Balls has, rather bizarrely, used a string of interviews about the government's "children's plan" due out tomorrow, to sing the praises of the Spice Girls.
On GMTV this morning he said the recently reunited girl band have been an inspiration to young girls. Why? Because they took what talent they had, made the most of it and have done "really, really well". Not only that, but they inspired a generation of young girls to believe that they could succeed, which is "great", he thought.
We're not entirely sure what to think about that here at the education desk. Does Balls mean girls generally haven't got much talent, so should really squeeze out every drop they have? Or does he mean they should all desperately compete to be thin, rich and famous?
Perhaps part of the blame for girls today preferring to "look sexy" than be clever, can be laid at the band's door too?
Does it strike anyone else as ironic that the minister in charge of schools is touting the Spice Girls as role models? They are hardly gleaming examples of academic achievement. Do any of them hold the five A* to C GCSE grades the government deems so important? I don't think so.
His comments follow reports last month that one in five girls and women do too little exercise and feel under pressure to be thin rather than fit.
The return of the Spice Girls has elicited mixed reports. Fay Weldon accused them of killing feminism, while Julie Burchill said they were great for a "good time".
An online poll last week voted in Burchill's favour, so perhaps we are fussing about nothing?
But answer me this - why do the Spice Girls have to be role models in the first place? Take That's comeback has been embraced and they haven't been touted as role models for boys (who incidentally are still struggling to keep up with girls in the classroom), nor are they expected to be.
Perhaps it was Balls' own desperate attempt to appear "hip". If so, he couldn't have been wider of the mark. It's not schoolgirls going to their concerts, after all.
