Day six of the grammar schools row

A shadow cabinet minister told me last night that the party leadership was winning the battle over grammar schools. If today's newspapers are victory I'd hate to see defeat. Page two of the Daily Mail warns that "Top Tories" are about to quit (they're always "Top" when they are caught in bed with an unexpected somebody or are criticising the leadership) and page one of The Telegraph describes grammargate as Cameron's "greatest test".  Even Cameron loyalist Bruce Anderson (who otherwise recycles a CCHQ press release for his column in today's Independent) regrets the "poor tactics" of recent days.

Here are a few random observations about the last few days - in no particular order:

It's not just the right who are unhappy...  When ultra-loyalist Michael Howard is unhappy (you read it here first) with his protege this whole business cannot be lightly ignored.  It wasn't just the usual suspects (Cornerstone) who criticised the Tory leadership at last week's 1922 meeting.  Every wing of the party was concerned.  I've certainly had every wing of the parliamentary party on the phone to me over the weekend.  Some are more concerned about a lack of crisis management than the underlying policy but concern is widespread.

...but the Tory right is very unhappy.  I'm still struggling to understand why the reannouncement of an existing policy (no more grammar schools) caused quite the reaction it did but it's beyond dispute that it did.  The fact that it led the news bulletin on last Wednesday's Today programme might have been enough to induce cornflakes-choking but my guess is that Melanie Phillips gets closest to an explanation in her Mail column.  "The Tories," she steams, "have put up silently with his husky trips to the Norwegian glaciers, havering over the health service and hugging of hoodies but this is a repositioning too far."  Failure to quit the EPP on schedule, the Toynbee affair and the promise of green taxes on air travel probably did more to prepare the way for this moment but there is a last straw character to the anger on the Tory right.   Dissension will be much more public from now on if core Tory beliefs continue to be sacrified in pursuit of approval from the BBC.  The whips office aren't helping things either by trying to pull 'realo' members of the Cornerstone Group away from the 'fundi' members.  Team McLoughlin's hamfisted tactics are only increasing resentments.

Cameron needs to be more patient in responding to critics' concerns.  It was unhelpful for the Conservative leader to dismiss this row as "pointless", attack The Telegraph and then set up straw men arguments to demolish in yesterday's Mail on Sunday article.  If he wants good and long-term relations with the right-of-centre press and his colleagues he needs to be more conciliatory.  David Willetts' whole approach to this affair has been much more mature.  He's patiently answered numerous interviewers' questions and on ConservativeHome's interviews channel is today promising to answer your toughest questions.

Where are David Davis and Liam Fox?  There are suggestions that the shadow cabinet didn't approve of last week's announcement.  The shadow cabinet may have the right to be concerned at "poor tactics" but they cannot complain about the fundamental policy.  Collective responsibility means that they should be on the airwaves helping to defend the leader when he's facing controversy.  David Cameron desperately needs Davis or Fox to become his Whitelaw - keeping the right onside as he reaches out to the centre.  He also needs to appoint someone to repair relations with The Telegraph that have deteriorated sharply again after some improvement.  Janet Daley's talk today of the "juvenile idiots who advise" David Cameron and of a new Conservatism defined by "patrician condescension" should be ringing alarm bells.  For years Janet has been the most loyal of Conservatives but today her attack on the party is well OTT.  CCHQ needs to be understanding why and putting it right.  ConservativeHome will be making its own ten point case for David Cameron tomorrow.

Strengthen the press operation.  Too many rows have got out of control.  Hug-a-hoodie.  Green taxes.  Polly Toynbee.  Now grammarsgate.  As recommended last December - David Cameron needs a stronger press operation.  George Eustice is great but he has less resources than his predecessors and we're closer to returning to Government than for a long time.

We do have good education policies.  They were drowned by the criticism of grammar schools but as this post noted - the party does have some very good policies on education.

Thank God for Gordon Brown.  It's important that we don't get things out of perspective.  The party has just enjoyed very good local election results and the Labour Party is about to replace their most successful ever leader with Gordon Brown.  The Chancellor's cliche-laden and wooden performances since launching his leadership operation should be deeply worrying to all Labour MPs with marginal seats.  Project Cameron will emerge stronger from all of this if Team Cameron is humble enough to learn the lessons of the last few days.

I'll be attending this morning's Cameron press conference and will report again straight afterwards.  The Conservative leader will want to develop his critique of Tony Blair's loooong goodbye but the press will have other topics on their minds...

Comments

[Brian Wilson]

Many former Grammar schools are now excellent independent schools.
The Conservative Party could propose Grants and Bursaries (as recommended in the recent Charity Commission Discussion document) to support bright children from lower income families at such existing schools; this is selection by academic ability like selection by sporting ability which is proposed by the Labour Government.

[Geoffrey Warner]

In his interview with David Cameron on the Today programme this morning, John Humphrys missed a golden opportunity to expose the former's phoney arguments about grammar schools for the cant that they are. It was when Humphrys was suggesting that the composition of Cameron's shadow cabinet belied his commitment to social mobility, as so many of its members were privately educated, including five at Eton. But, the increasingly irate Cameron spluttered (and he was spluttering at this point, as you can hear for yourself on the playback), the shadow cabinet is selected on merit. So, it is perfectly OK for Cameron to select his shadow cabinet on merit, but not for schools to do the same with their pupils. Cameron isn't interested in social mobility; he is only interested in gaining power and he thinks - mistakenly in my view - that supporting selection on academic grounds is electoral suicide. Of course, another consequence of sticking to the failed non-selective model in state schools will be an even higher proportion of privately educated men and women going to the best universities and obtaining the best jobs, probably including the shadow cabinet/cabinet. What would a conspiracy theorist make of it all?

[Annabel Herriott]

I posted another way of looking at the "traditionalists" on the press conference thread, to argue that the die hard supporters of Grammars have a totally tribal view. As one of them is my partner, my post might even be worth a look, as it IS going to happen, whether it be by a nulab, GordoLab or Tory Government!

[Annabel Herriott]

And, Geoffery Warner, the "non-selected" schools WILL in fact BE selected, by MERIT, ie those with the academic bent will be SELECTED for the top academic stream. They dont need a separate school, a separate bus to get there, or the separarate and distinctive uniform that put them in the line of the yobs fire. Academic stream for the many, not the few.David Cameron is right!! Humphreys is a very clever protagonist who gets paid to destroy anyone who does not agree with his world view. If Cameron had said that he was going to support Grammars, we would have heard him shooting down that stance with - how divisive, that only benefits the kids who have developed that far by 11 years, What about the rest?? Then it appears as if he is turning the sound down on his opponents mike!!

[Richard Calhoun]

Just listened to the John Humphries/Cameron interview this am.
I thought Cameron handled it well, I think Humphries, in his desire to cause dissension, lost an opportunity for his listeners to listen to a rational and informative debate about education
It really doesn't add to the debate to try to reintroduce a class war, it really is so out of date now

[Geoffrey Warner]

May I be permitted to reply to Annabel Herriot's comment on my contribution? Streaming within schools is not sufficient. The majority of comprehensive schools are already streamed, especially in the two years preceding the GCSE examination and the results are not impressive. The most intelligent pupils need to be concentrated in special schools - as, indeed, do the least intelligent in theirs - so that their needs can be met by specialist teachers who are not expected and may not necessarily be qualified to teach over the whole ability range. I also find your concern about separate schools encouraging the vindictiveness of yobs quite baffling. Surely you cannot be suggesting that we should design our educational system with reference to the supposed reaction of yobs? Even if it were proven that the latter treat their brighter peers with more consideration if they are all together in the same school, I wouldn't accept that as an argument in favour of non-selective schools. In reality, of course, bright children are routinely bullied at such schools just because they are bright. There are, after all, far more opportunities to beat up someone who is at the same school than someone who isn't.

[Annabel Herriott]

Exactly Geoffrey, which is why I asked the question of David Willetts as to how he was going to manage this - the only downside.
Streaming/setting for the last 2 years is not enough. You need to be tranfering as soon as you see that spark. Actually, we need to be encouraging competition within schools, to aspire to the top stream,as one need application as well as inspiration.

[mindyourgrammar]

whatever happened to vouchers?

[Geoffrey Warner]

Thank you, Annabel, for your response. We will have to disagree on the need for separate schools, but I am with you 100% on the question of discipline. The present government has been banging on for years about "zero tolerance" of bad behaviour in schools, yet I still hear from teachers how difficult it is to get rid of persistent disruptives, let alone provide a satisfactory alternative for them. The usual ploy is simply to send them to another school where they can plague the staff and pupils there. Whatever the type of school, a handful of troublemakers can wreck the education of children of all abilities.

[Matt Wright]

To "jp floru" posting at 8.21. Yes vouchers could be a good idea but to avoid gappy provision resulting from people trying to use vouchers, the supply side needs addressing. This is why we first have to improve most schools not a few. This is what Willetts is getting at. It is the right move as some of us have been tirelessly pointing out for days and will continue to do so.

Matt

[Matt Wright]

Annabels post at 10.17 is well made. If DC had said he was building more grammar schools much of the media would be howling now about him being elitist, a toff etc etc etc

Oh well.....funny old world,

Matt

[Cllr David Pickles]

What a shame "Anon" chooses to speak utter nonsense that I faced "expulsion" from the Conservative party over a "race-row". I wrote a letter to the Sutton Guardian because I am worried about unfettered immigration - nothing whatsoever to do with race at all. I RESIGNED over GRAMMAR SCHOOLS - something which "Anon" probably knows nothing about.

Keep your ill-informed comments to yourself in future please.