The Tory grassroots have acquired a new confidence during the grammar schools row

David Cameron has just been on the Today programme to defend the party's education policies.  He said that the policy change on grammar schools was not politically motivated but was part of his determination to ensure that the party focused on raising educational standards for every child.  He repeated his insistence that it was "delusional" to believe that a large number of extra grammar schools could be created and sustained.  Citing the experience of Sweden and Holland the Conservative leader said that he wanted parents to choose schools for their children and not schools choose children.  He also set out his thinking on education in an op-ed piece for this morning's Times.

During the interview there was a slightly testy exchange about the large number of privately-educated people who sit around the Conservative Party's top table.  David Cameron insisted that he was working hard to build a much more representative party by encouraging women and people from black and ethnic minority communities to become Tory candidates.

Radio 4's John Humphrys asked David Cameron about ConservativeHome.com's finding that 73% of Tory members opposed the Tory policy on grammar schools.  Mr Cameron said that he would not follow the party but lead it.  You can hear my own 7.16am interview on the Today programme by visiting the Listen Again page.  As I said during that interview I believe the last few days have been very important for the Conservative blogosphere.  The opinion of the grassroots Tories who work so hard for our party's success can no longer be ignored because of discussion fora like this.  I'm grateful to shadow cabinet ministers like David Willetts (yesterday), Alan Duncan (today) and Theresa May (last week) who understand that and are enthusiastic about engaging with you through this site.  We're currently planning how to respond to the findings of the policy review process as they are unveiled throughout the summer.  A mixture of comment threads and online votes will be held to ensure that Oliver Letwin and the party leadership get a sense of your reaction to recommendations by the policy groups.  How ConservativeHome does this will be supervised by the new accountability board that we announced yesterday.  It's absolutely true that David Cameron is the leader of our party and deserves loyalty.  But the current leadership doesn't own the party - the members have a massive stake in it, too.  As we get closer to the election there must be less and less debate and more focus on the need to get rid of Gordon Brown but with the policy review process still underway the internet provides the grassroots with more power than we have ever enjoyed.  We must use that power.

David Cameron and William Hague are holding a press conference this morning on Iran.  Sam Coates will be there for ConservativeHome and will be filing a report later.

Comments

[Oberon Houston]

malcolm, yes I agree that they can be improved a lot, and much of Labours shackling should be scrapped: but poor performance to date needs to be set in the context of them currenly only being in the most deprived areas of the coutry. I still think that they can work well under a Tory Governemt, and that Labour is to blame for the problems they have had.

[TomTom]

isn't 900 extra seats in the recent local electiosn enough proof.

Oh he's now Prime Minister is he ? Good job London didn't get to vote in the elections...let's keep it that way so Livingstne doesn't cause embarrassment

[TomTom]

The Conservatives haven't introduced new Grammar Schools in 18 years in Government

No they used Assisted Places instead....will Puffy restore Assisted Places ?

[Harlequin.dane]

Scotty—I am reading your posting at 9.47 and wonder, where is the consistency?

“No, factions within the party are as usual prepared to take the risk of splitting the party on a single issue which they feel strongly about, the fact that it is not an issue among the rest of the electorate or will benefit the majority never seems to matter to them.
You wonder why we still have less than 200 MP's, it might be to do with the fact that their obsession with these issues either turn people off or highlight how irrelevant the party is in some area's.”

You then tell us at 12.07 ;
If you had bothered to read various threads on this site recently you will know that I have children going through secondary education just now in Scotland, I also have an autistic child and I have been fighting the appalling provision for special needs in Scotland for years!!!!!!

My point and that of a number of other posters is that what is needed is a wide ranging debate on education and that a Conservative solution might be to apply free market principles to the problem by promoting a voucher system which allows choice.
One of the reasons that the provisions of special places for autistic children in Scotland is so poor is the fact that in the typical LA area the Block grant per pupil is about £5800, pa but less than £4000 of that goes to frontline services- i.e. schools-£1800 goes to funding the staff of the LEA
In Scotland’s only ( other than Jordanhill) directly funded primary school –abolished by Jack McConnell, extra ordinary results were achieved with special needs children because the school board could direct the funding to where it was actually needed.
I don’t know where you do your canvassing, but in the area where I pound the streets, education is, after the level of the council tax, the number one issue on the door step. What this party needs is some vision and the application of what I have always thought as our fundamental principles--- not a spin doctor induced clause four moment for the benefit of the Guardian readership.

[Daniel VA]

It's a long time (if ever) since I agreed with Chad Noble about anything, but yesterday he left a comment on another thread suggesting that ConservativeHome has assumed an air of self-importance.

At the time I ignored it, partly because I've learned to ignore his childish attention-seeking antics, and partly because I was distracted by a disturbance in the kitchen as the pot was hurling abuse at the kettle.

I am loath to agree with the Robert Kilroy-Silk of the blogosphere by criticising ConservativeHome in this manner, but this thread suggests that Noble might have had a point.

I don't see any significant indication that the Conservative grassroots have acquired new confidence or power as a result of this fatuous 'debate' following the clarification of the party's position on grammar schools.

David Cameron and David Willetts have stuck firmly to their guns and shown no sign of appeasing the usual malcontents (plus a few others, who at least have had the good sense to express their concern in moderate terms without turning it into an attack on the leadership) spitting their dummies out in the comments threads of the many, many articles ConservativeHome has published in order to stoke the fire of this phoney row - and good on David Cameron and David Willetts for not backing down, because a strong party needs strong leadership, fulfilling the modernising agenda it was elected on an overwhelming mandate to deliver.

Pandering to the core vote will not be sufficient to win the next election, so the Blimps really ought to face up to the fact that there will be occasions when the party leadership might let them down.

[Bill]

Well said Michael McGowan.

The sad fact is some people are so enamoured of Cameron and the modernising process that outcomes seem almost irrelevant.

On a separate point given their approach to grammar schools, how can the Tories justify the existence of private schools given their arguably socially and academically elitist selection of pupils.

[Mark Fulford]

The fault in the grammar system is the selection process. At best this is imprecise, and at worst it can be manipulated by families with £2K to spend on coaching. We are in a situation where the children who end up going to grammar school are definitely able, but not reliably the most able.

The key strength of the grammar system is that children benefit from being taught in groups of similar ability, but this is a concept that can transported into any school.

The fairest way to operate selection is to allow children to move between ability groups at any time in their secondary education. This allows for the fact that different children develop differently and is a better solution for people who are strong in one area and weak in another. A system that selects at 11, or one that requires children to change school as their interests develop is clumsy. Ongoing selection within each school is clearly more flexible and responsive and is the direction where we should be heading.

[T K Hipperdoodly]

I visit this site occasionally and, scrolling through the comments, I have reached the conclusion that many contributors are in a state of denial about the real state of the Tory party. The refusal to commit the party to restoring Grammar schools should be considered alongside Cameron's Bournemouth speech re-defining marriage and his advocacy of Polly Toynbee. Face it - Cameron is wanting to turn the party into another Social Democratic party and one that is Conservative in name only.

Personally, besides supporting the restoration of Grammar schools, I also believe in small government, tax cuts, pro-marriage policies, the return of the death penalty, and withdrawal from the EU to name but a few. My views ought to make me seem a natural Conservative, but I will NEVER join the party, for the simple reason that I do not believe that the present or future Conservative Party leadership will ever as a body come round to this way of thinking. Cameron's behaviour since becoming leader is proof that it is too late - the party has gone back to its pre-Thatcher mode of trying to manage Socialism better than Labour, instead of giving Britain a radical alternative that it is crying out for.

There is much acknowledgement that UKIP represents the thinking of many Tory activists better than Cameron's team. but few want to make the switch. Well my advice is, (to invert a popular saying), if you can't join 'em, beat 'em - in other words, out-UKIP UKIP. Split off and form a new party committed to the principles I and many others hold dear. If such a new party could include 20 or 30 Tory MP's, it would soon capture most Tory activists and many of the donors. It would also be able to come to a very favourable deal with UKIP - most of whose members are loyal, patriotic but utterly disllusioned with the three main parties - and with good reason. Some sort of merger ought to d be possible, and while a party with 30 MP's would naturally be the senior partner, I would hope UKIP activists would not feel resentful, but would welcome the expertise and professionalism such people would bring.

Cameron has cynically betrayed the trust and loyalty of the members. He rides roughshod over the principles that they stand for. As he cannot be removed, it is time to abandon him and the party he has irrevocably wrecked. Our country derseves something better.

[Denis Cooper]

"... the return of an old system rejected by all parties and the vast majority of parents and teachers 40 years ago"

As opposed to the retention of another system, which was imposed because a hate-filled Labour politician* decided to destroy the grammar schools, and which itself has since proved to be undamentally, in some cases disastrously, flawed.

* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tripartite_System

"Labour had won the 1964 election, and Anthony Crosland became Secretary of State for Education in January 1965. He was an adamant critic of the tripartite system, and once angrily remarked "If it’s the last thing I do, I’m going to destroy every last fucking grammar school in England. And Wales. And Northern Ireland" [6]. Soon after he came to office he issued Circular 10/65. This asked Local Education Authorities to begin planning the switch from the Tripartite System to the Comprehensive System, withholding funding for new school buildings from those that did not comply. This change would be reinforced by the 1968 Education Act."

[Steve]

Once again too many people labouring under the illusion that it has been our policies which have turned voters off in the past when it was in fact our tone and attitude (plus the impact of 18 years in power).

Yes let's adopt a more reasoned tone, yes let's review our policies. But don't lets abandon everything we've ever believed in under the mistaken belief that because a hefty majority of the party backed Cameron they inevitably support ditching all our policies in pursuit of a 'modernising agenda'.

Interact with the troops and don't treat them with disdain, or they may well go AWOL when you need them most.

[CliveR]

I thought that his arrogant disregard for the typical party member's views is so typlical of the current cohort of professional politicians that inhabit the New Labour / Blue Labour space which, of course, we all remember as the stamping ground of the Heathite wets.

[Afleitch]

On a side note there are scores of Conservative grassroots members like myself who agree with Cameron on this issue and others. We rarely post because it's often difficult to shout above the 'rabble' that often have the upper hand on here. I also find it unfortunate that there is an impression that to be included as 'grassroots' you have to disagree with Cameron's position on this issue or, by the tone of some posts take the 'anti-Cameron' position on every issue fo principle

To any editors who are reading this, I find this site informative and visit it twice daily. However while the structure of the comment makes it easy to follow arguments, it can be difficult to follow 'points' both pro and anti, discussed. All too often the dissenting view is lost on this site.

[Richard Calhoun]

I cannot believe that the Grammar School question will split the party. I firmly believe that if those that are against the Willett's proposal read the speech very carefully it is frankly difficult to argue against. However it does need to be read with an open mind.
This view is based on my assumption that people in politics, MP's and supporters are there because they believe in doing what is best for whole population and not certain sections of it.

[Tom Paine]

Part of the problem is that, in most of the country, grammar schools are such ancient history that most voters don't know what the row is about. I went to a comprehensive school between 39 and 32 years ago.

Willetts is right to this extent; we can't "go back" to anything. We have to develop a new state education system (including academic selection) which is good enough to persuade even LEAs still running grammar schools to go over to it.

The problem with doing that in comprehensive schools is that they cannot be smaller than about 1500 pupils if they are to sustain even one "grammar" stream. I wish the Party would think this through before anyone else opens his/her mouth in public. There was no pressure on this issue and it's inept to have created some.

[Christina]

T K Hipperdoodly

"I would hope UKIP activists would not feel resentful, but would welcome the expertise and professionalism such people would bring. "

As a UKIP member I would rejoice at such a new party forming and would join it if the UKIP leadership did not co-operate. I'm sure many others would too.

[Editor]

Thanks Mark for your concern for my welfare!

I live very close to the BBC's Millbank studio during the week so I didn't have to get up until 6am.

[olly onions]

on the same topic:
http://ollysonions.blogspot.com/2007/05/grammar-schools-cameron-in-selection.html

[Richard Calhoun]

Afleitch
I am in a similar position to yourself and have been commenting on the grammar schools in support of the Willett's speech.
I am not the only one but we do need the less vociferous to contribute as well, particularly those that are able to be objective and not from any sectional interest.

[Scotty]

"Scotty—I am reading your posting at 9.47 and wonder, where is the consistency?"
Harlequin.dane, you pop up and post your views on the present debate but feel compelled to single ONE poster out and accuse them of not being a parent or grandparent?
Both you and Traditional tory seemed quite obsessed with me and I find that quite creepy.
Rubbish my argument or debate the point but please stop singling me for personal criticism which has nothing to do with the topic of the thread!

[kingbongo]

Daniel VA - my thoughts exactly; I felt Tim on the radio this morning was making very grand statements about activists and speaking for me but I don't remember voting for him.

I do remember DC being elected - funnily enough the ranting that passes for argument makes me think Melissa Kite possibly had a small point in her article on Sunday.

CH has always attracted too many wingnuts and really shouldn't big itself up quite so much - DC will come out of this stronger and the party will have an exciting education policy; others will still be moaning.

[GT]

This should be about good schools. Instead I am reading a discussion about wider leadership issues.

I was brought up in Buckinghamshire and benefited from the grammar schools in that county. There are hardly any private schools in county; there do not need to be. In many other counties, those that can afford to opt out of the state system or move to expensive addresses near top schools do so. Many of these are former grammar schools that have retained the ethos. What is missed in this debate is that many of the secondary modern schools in grammar school areas have better results than comprehensive schools. This means both grammar and secondary stream pupils do better. The education can be tailored to pupils needs in smaller schools.

The grammar school issue has been a real vote winner for the Conservative Party in the last thirty years, both locally and nationally. In grammar school areas parents have been motivated to save the system. Buckinghamshire was the only Conservative County Council in the mid 1990s. Now the Conservative Party proposes to throw away this support.

Those of us that support grammar schools have had to tolerate support by the Party of unpopular and fringe policies which we have little interest in, such as fox-hunting or the staying in the EPP. In a broad political party we each have to help those who strongly believe in their policies in return for their help on things we believe in.

The grammar issue is a touch stone for many families and the Party should get back behind these schools before it is too late.

[jorgen]

T K Hipperdoodly: Split off and form a new party committed to the principles I and many others hold dear.

Yes, I think too that it is necessary and have for some time been waiting for this to happen. The Conservative Party is today too "wide a church" and even if Hague (who else?) took over from Cameron, he would be soon stabbed in the back. Cameron has replaced many real Conservative members with liberals as he wants to win at any cost.

[Richard Calhoun]

Worcs tory @9.48

I support Cameron on education policy but am very surprised at your comments:

"This has been Cameron's worse week so far and it is destined to become a lot worse if he doesn't start behaving a lot more diplomatically to those of us within his own party.

The leftish/liberal/politically-correct/mutlti-culti rot has to stop now."

This is a "free" debate/discussion and your comments above hardly contribute to a free exchange of views for the benefit of all.

For the record I would categorise myself as politically right of centre

[Oberon Houston]

One thing I would like to question (wading back into this)....The CH poll is pretty dodgy, as usually the people that don't like the proposals bombard the place with their votes. During the firemans strike, the BBc had a phone poll of support, 90% supported them, but we all knew there was a massive public discontent for what they were doing. Another time I got am email from a mate to vote on a site that was polling the hunting ban. 99% were against, but that was because 250,000 Countryside Alliance folfs pounced (I'm very very against the ban btw). But point is, how representative is the 72% Humphrys was beating Cameron over thehead with this morning?

[MH]

I think it would be instructive to hold a few polls in the Kent marginals that Dave has just chucked away. What stuns me is the incompetence of it all. With Brown taking over, why now and why use such offensive language against those who disagree with him? Ok, Blair may have done it with Clause 4, but the average voter didn't give a toss about Clause 4. This has upset natural, Conservative-inclined voters. I think Willetts is more No Brains than 2 Brains.

[Puck]

If David Cameron believes that the Grammar School debate is "pointless", why did he initiate the debate?

If David Cameron doesn't want to enter the realms of a "right-wing debating society", is it because his 'House' has started off by pitching the argument in a way that would lose the debate in such a debating society?

I do so hope that David Cameron avoids seeming to speak with the petulent tones of Tony Blair when he is seeking to impose, rather than argue his case.

We do not need a clause 4 moment in our party. The wind is already in our sails and all is set fair - let us focus our guns on Gordon Brown, not Grammar schools or ourselves.

[malcolm]

Oberon, Tim of course can defend CH polls with more authority but this poll was the same poll that gave Cameron approval ratings of 70% plus so I think it unlikely that the findings in this poll were being dominated by the discontented 'usual suspects'.
Kingbongo, CH does attract a few 'wingnuts' but you have got to admit that even on politicalbetting.com (which I know you visit regularly) there has been a great deal of disquiet over the events of the past week amongst those like me who would normally regard themselves as loyal.

[Andrew Smith]

Traditional Tory has it completely wrong. Read what they write and listen to what they say - they hate the middle class.

When Cameron points out that previous Tory Governments have not "build" new Grammar schools and nor would a future one, we should believe him. They did say they believed in Ever Closer Union and they delivered on that commitment - believe what they are telling you.

They might not do all they say as past Tory Governments have not changed the CAP despite 30 years of promises on that score.

You will only count for favourable attention by the Cameron leadership if you can give him what he needs. He needs lots of money and he needs lots of press sympathy. The press will not give sympathetic attention to families who work hard to give their children a good education. To get the photo-shoots you need to be on social security with children bunking off - that was what Willetts was telling us and Traditional Tory should listen.

[Oberon Houston]

I didn't vote on this poll, was it emailed out as usual Tim?

[John]

In response to Anon (12:15):

I think you are correct that this is bad for the party and that is exactly why I raised my initial concerns having seen the media response to Willetts Speech and then read the speech. It was misinterpeted because it allowed those misintepretations.

Remember how this started. A badly constructed speech from a Shadow Cabinet Minister and subsequent inflammatory headlines from the socialist press. Willetts opened up this issue up and quite frankly Cameron is about the only one still stoking the fire!

If he continues to use confrontational language such as 'delusional' it will get worse because increasingly the focus is moving away from Grammar Schools onto Cameron, his personality and his cronies and their backgrounds.

If Cameron and Willetts had used conciliatory language without changing policy, immediately this kicked off, this would have all but died by Friday.

The policy would have been accepted and that would have been that. I personally have no axe to grind over the policy.

Instead he has overtly continued on this 'We're right you're wrong' argument while berating those who support an alternative policy.

Blair made the same mistake over the EU Constitution (and was let off the hook by the French vote)and over Iraq (which eventually finished him).

None of this helps the Conservatives win the election.

This has turned into an increasingly nasty and squalid affair and Cameron needs to think carefully about how he extricates himself from this mess and he needs to do this quickly.

Cameron needs to learn the meaning of the word 'conciliation'.

I hope he chooses the right course and the Conservatives can go on to win the next election. Whether he is the man for the job is another question?

[Jean Smith]

I have always been a loyal supporter of Grammar Schools, but circumstances have changed since they were so successful in large numbers. Successive Governments have 'messed about' with the education system and it now bears no resemblance to that of the 50's. Before comprehensive schools, children who had failed their 11+ could sometimes re-take the entrance exam again the following year. They could also take entrance exams to go to Technical Colleges, Commercial Colleges and Art Colleges at the age of 12/13. These no longer exist.

We now have to look at the existing schools nationwide, together with the needs of the children, and decide how we go forward.

In the 1980s a City Technical College was opened at Kingshurst (Solihull/Birmingham border) and it was sponsored by local companies. The local Labour Party criticised it, and yet here we are in the 21st Century and the Labour Party have copied this idea, only on a larger scale. So when David Cameron praises "Mr Blair's?" City Academies, he is also celebrating an idea nurtured by the Conservative Party in the 80's.

The existing Grammar Schools should remain and we should put all our efforts into improving the standards of education within the rest of the schools.

[William Norton]

Jean Smith: an excellent contribution, which more or less wraps up this topic.

Why don't we all call it quits at that?

[Michael]

I couldn't tell you where my nearest grammar school is. I certainly don't know anyone who went to a grammar school and living in one of the most deprived parts of the Country, people here want to see their local comps deliver a great education for ALL kids...they don't say if only we had a grammar school to help a few of them escape.

[Perdix]

Kingbongo on PoliticalBetting.com -22 May- ConHome "...is the home of the permanently angry UKIP voter..." Some truth in that.

[Oberon Houston]

Fine. Tim, still need to know about the poll though.

The End.

[Traditional Tory]

Don't you all realise that by taking part in this public slanging match - sorry, that's what it is - all you are doing is playing into the hands of the opposition who can now shout 'Tory splits, Tory splits' from the rafters.

All Cameron and Willetts need to do is to apologise and fall in line with grassroots opinion and the split will be at an end.

They won't of course, and so the abscess will continue to fester.

Willetts was on R4 this lunchtime raising the straw man of the 11+, which nobody is arguing for. Obviously this pair believe that when you're in a hole you should keep digging.

I never saw the Cameroons so jittery and despondent as they are today.

They've had a incredibly long run of luck. For months Blair's attitude has been 'apres moi le deluge' and the famous Newlabour spin machine has withered on the vine.

Now the Toytown Cabinet are facing the prospect of a real opponent and what do they do? They panic and blow it. Mind you, as Janet Daley pointed out in yesterday's Telegraph, they certainly made the headlines.

Party on!

[Occasional Visitor]

The Telegraph started an online topic about why ordinary people are alienated by politicians. Now I can't access their website and my computer is working OK otherwise. Would it be fancifully paranoid to speculate that The Telegraph site has crashed under the weight of adverse comments?!

It is an absolute disgrace that politics has become so detached from real life. The Tories' Big Idea could be to reconnect with us oiks and reverese the trend. Not much indication of that so far.

[James Maskell]

Is the Times article today accurate regarding specialist schools under a Conservative Government being allowed more selection?

If yes, then how can Willetts and Cameron have any credibility at all regarding their stance on Grammar Schools?

[richard]

Politicians (on all sides) are always saying that they want to listen, but when people start saying things they don't like then they stop listening. In effect, Dave's response to the grammar school row has been to say bad luck, I'm in charge, forget it, and shut up. Doesn't bode well. It would be a good idea if the declaration of Members' interests required MPs to state which schools their children go to. We know which sector Ruth Kelly, Lord Falconer, Diane Abbott, etc, etc on the Labour benches choose, but it would be interesting to know where the educational 'experts' on state education in the Tory send their children. Two Brains' children are at private schools, so all this turmoil doesn't affect him.

[Joseph]

David Cameron has got the Conservative Party a higher rating in the polls, and remember, it is winning that is important, not having the right policies. Isn't that why he was chosen to lead the Conservatives, with his experience of ... PR ?

Posted by: Hug a PR Junkie | May 22, 2007 at 09:23

If this is the case I would say that come the GE I hope this is brought to the attention of as many floating voters as possible.

This is bordering on the fraudulent in my opinion, but I have rather suspected that he will say anything do anything just get elected at any price since the minute he appeared at the Tory Party conference last year.

I strongly suspect that this man knows he will not win the next GE, he will then quit as leader and sit on the back benches for the remainder of the next parliament, making sure that he has enough outside interest jobs to keep him in the manner he feels he is entitled to.

He is using the right wing Tories to get his Clause 4 moment, what baffles me is just how many people he is fooling. I always gave Conservatives credit for the political savvy that most of them have but I am beginning to think that 10 years in opposition is scrambling some people's brains.
At the moment we do not even enjoy effective opposition, Tories should be miles ahead in the polls by now.

[Giffin]

Re: Winchester Schools
TomTom: have a look at the performance of the top state and private schools in Winchester.

The state schools are not selective. At Westgate, 30% of the results last year were A* or A, which shows it is providing an effective Grammar Stream. These results don't yet reflect the impact of the pupils who are now going there instead of Salisbury's Grammar Schools.

Large school size isn't an indicator of poor discipline, but it clearly requires a better quality of management; one has to wonder whether there are enough effective headteachers to deliver a Grammar Stream in every secondary school.

http://localinfo.hampshirechronicle.co.uk/li/secondary_schools.in.Winchester

GCSE
School / Pupils / %GCSE A*-C / points

Kings' School 1682 70% 446.9
The Westgate School 1164 67% 455.3

St Swithun's School 656 100% 490.9
Winchester College 690 ?% 418.1

A LEVELS
Institution / Students / Student Avg

Peter Symonds College 2860 991

St Swithun's 118 1146.3
Winchester College 279 1113.4

[IRJMilne]

The more I think about this issue, the more I disagree with Mr Cameron, and I don't like the way this has become very confrontational. "Sterile fixation?" It sounds a great deal as if Mr Cameron just intends to bully us.

His comments about "leading the people" rather than following them make him sound dangerously like a James II sort of figure. Of course, James II was right about the Catholics, wheras Mr Cameron is wrong, but there might be other issues in future, and if the response we've seen in the last few days sets the model for how the Tories will respond to issues in future, things look grim.

[TomTom]

Giffin could you go to www.mouseprice.com and feed in postcodes around these schools and let me know the prices of house sold in the past decade in those areas ?

The key strength of the grammar system is that children benefit from being taught in groups of similar ability, but this is a concept that can transported into any school.

If that is indeed true, and the Conservative Party was in government from 1970-1997 with a 4 year period in Opposition (1974-1979)....can you explain why the Conservatives never streamed the comprehensive schools when they had 18 years uninterrupted rule and interferred incessantly in education and schooling.

I do not understand why with such huge majorities the Conservative Party never streamed the comprehensives....

[Denis Cooper]

I've just read Cameron's Times article in full.

I'm afraid it shows what very narrow horizons he has that he can write:

"The second is a bar on academic selection – pupils choosing schools rather than schools choosing pupils. Indeed, it is so important for the new entrants to prove they can do better that none of them wants to be accused of just taking
the children that are academically most able."

It's obvious to anybody with half a brain that one school is not necessarily doing better than another just because its pupils achieve higher academic results. It's also obvious that academic achievement is not the only form of achievement.

Wouldn't it would be good to have some schools which made their reputation by offering an education specifically tailored to children who were not academically inclined and helped them to get satisfactory academic results plus taught them
a trade, while turning away brighter children as better suited to other schools?

I suppose that wouldn't be allowed either.

[Anon]

All I am saying is that it would be better not to air our dirty laundry in public and the only people this thread and others help are the opposition, be they Brown, Ming or UKIP.

And to answer the comment, "All Cameron and Willetts need to do is to apologise and fall in line with grassroots opinion and the split will be at an end." .....

I may be barred from blogging on this site in future for saying this but do we know for certain that the majority of the 'grassroots' are against this policy. NO we don't, as no survey of ALL party members has taken place. I am not defending David Cameron but he was overwhelmingly endorsed as party leader 17 months ago by party members. That is a fact.

This site is the UNOFFICIAL Conservative party gossip-shop where those who feel the need to see sight of their views on a website spend hours each day posting. Neither ConHome, its editors or financial backers or the people who blog on this site are the voice of the grassroots. They are just individual people who are very good at self-promotion. Ask around. Most party members - and by most party members I mean the ladies who stuff the envelopes and cook the lunches and deliverers (not councillors etc) never read this site and many have never even heard of it. I'm not saying ConHome is a bad initiative, far from it. It is an exciting and at times useful communication channel. But can we just have some measure of reality please.

If you want to air your views email David Cameron and David Willetts direct.

Perpetuating this argument on a public site helps no one, least of all the party.

[Bradford]

Wouldn't it would be good to have some schools which made their reputation by offering an education specifically tailored to children who were not academically inclined

You mean Eton College ?

[giffin]

Hampshire CC is Conservative and has been for years. The LEA, however, is hardline Stalinist. It's down to individual Headteachers to resist the LEAs and impose discipline and setting by ability (streaming is whole class). Too few do.

The LEAs can do largely what they like, irrespective of Government or Councillors; their budgets are so large they can allocate funds for pet projects that end up damaging children and their control over staff pay and promotion means no-one can resist. They look at these debates and scoff at our stupidity in believing that thety will ever implement anything Willets or Cameron says.

If we want to make a difference to schools, then we need to fix the Supply-side problems

1. Scrap the LEAs and allocate the budgets they soak up to a School Improvement Fund that will fund effective management and teaching systems for any school that wants it.

2. Create a thriving private sector in school improvement and turnrounds. With performance firmly established as the only criterion for getting paid, schools will abandon failed ideas and adopt what works.

[Denis Cooper]

Very good :-)

[Denis Cooper]

That was for Bradford's joke about Eton.

[Frank McGarry]

Q. When Gordon Brown becomes Prime Minister
who will take over as Leader of the Opposition?

[Simon Denis]

Opponents of grammars usually point to Secondary mods as some sort of "dirty little secret" - the dark underbelly of selection. In fact, they make very good schools, as the statistics show. This is because they focus their attentions on a particular band of the academic intake. The comprehensive is quite simply an overloaded secondary modern, unable to focus at all. As to the objection that grammars favour the wicked bourgeoisie, so what? Are the middle classes to be punished for bringing their children up well? Rather than doing such people down - I'm astonished that I have to make this point to so-called Conservatives - we should be hauling the working class up. And this is properly the province of social, not of education policy.

In all this, we should accept that intelligence is essentially hereditary and that it will usually send its owners into the ranks of the wealthy. As a result, there will be proportionally a great number of intelligent "bourgeois" than intelligent "proles". This means that even the most scrupulous selective system will probably - and very properly - see a preponderance of middle class pupils in its academic stream. If this is considered wrong, let me observe that mixing children up in academic holding pens has done nothing to advance the less privileged. It has merely obstructed and sometimes no doubt destroyed those pupils who might otherwise have done well. We need to get real and stop treating education as the blunt instrument of social levelling. It is because we who are true conservatives recognise that this is what the comprehensive system is all about, that we oppose it absolutely. And Cameron calls this "shallow" - as though his shifty grubbing about for votes at the cost of sincerity and logic were somehow deep.

[Conand]

A. The voice in Gordon Brown's head.

[Conand]

Education itself is inherently Social Engineering. Society has decided it doesn't want to consist of people living in holes only venturing out to hit each other with sticks.

[ian]

Oberon:

I can help you with your poorest kids argument.

My parents were working class. I went to a grammar school, in a deprived area. Most of my school mates were working class too. Yet now, we're successful people. The school is still in a deprived area by any measure, and still providing mobility.

The poorest kids miss out on private education too, yet I don't see Willetts declaring that should be restricted.

[David Bullingdon]

When I passed by Willesden Green Conservative Club on Saturday afternoon there were a couple of dozen police vans parked outside and policepersons (is that the PC word?) milling about everywhere. Surely the club members were not rioting over Cameron and his comments on grammar schools?

[michael]

By reading the comments on here today, there seems to be far more comments that agree with Cameron, (me included) maybe the editor, could conduct another poll on grammar schools. I’m a Conservative activist and I didn’t get a change to vote in this poll, which apparently shows 73% in favour of grammar schools. Maybe it would be a chance to show the grass roots are following our leader (as the last poll received alot of coverage), because lets be honest the evidence is clearly on his side and anybody that thinks otherwise has to be delusional.

[Joseph]

Q. When Gordon Brown becomes Prime Minister
who will take over as Leader of the Opposition?

Posted by: Frank McGarry | May 22, 2007 at 16:19

The far left of the Labour Party and not forgetting the Press and Media who have been the unofficial opposition since 1997.

That was a brammer Frank

[jorgen]

McGarry: Q. When Gordon Brown becomes Prime Minister who will take over as Leader of the Opposition?

Actually, Cameron is Blairite and will at that time become opposition.

[Neil Fitzgerald]

It's worth pointing out again and again that we didn't build any grammar schools in 18 years of government so why would we do so now?

I have no issue with grammar schools but I don't see the need to build any more. Education should be for all.

I'd be happier if we re-introduced the assisted places scheme again which saw those less well off have a chance at a private education.

We need to boost results for all children, not just a few at a grammar.

We all complain about 'chavs' and 'dumbing down', well if we have two tier schoolign we risk the chance of more 'dumbing down'.

[Michael McGowan]

Michael, good to see that you have abandoned debate and joined Cameron, with all his years of work experience, in questioning the mental health of his critics. It is most unlikely he has anything meaningful to offer ordinary aspirational voters. He has also made it clear that his policy groups are not worth a row of beans, because he derails them at will. But then hey he doesn't care: he just has to make enough condescending noises to garner the votes of enough gullible people and win office.

[jorgen]

So, gullible people from Cameron and down are telling the rest of us that we are delusional? I can live with that.

[Simon Denis]

David Bullingdon invites us to be honest - rather offensively as it implies that we have all been telling lies. He also claims that the "evidence is on...[Cameron's]...side". He seriously believes that the evidence supports comps? What evidence? All the experience of employers, universities and anxious mums and dads would seem to contradict it, whilst the most recent research of which I'm aware has ringingly vindicated selection. A teacher myself, I am well aware of the scandal that is mixed ability comprehensive schooling. I've seen it at first hand and now that I teach at a private school I hear about it from colleagues and pupils who have recent experience. And before the Cameron groupies start squawking about streaming, may I recall that only forty percent of comprehensive pupils enjoy the benefits of that process. Let's be honest, indeed. Let's start using our brains, shall we?

[michael]

When we are in touching distance of forming the next government, we are prepared to blow with an argument on an old policy anounced 18 months ago, honestly dont you think that is delusional?

[Oberon Houston]

Ian, I understand what you are saying, but social mobility is a problem in Britain, we are one of the worst in the developed world according to the Sutton Trust (an orgnisation dedicated to increasing social mobility). Old solutions are not good solutions, we, we need to be more ambitious, we need to think more radically, and we need to apply conservative thinking to the issue at hand, and aboveall we need to be braver than Labour. Grammar Schools are popular with those that are thinking with the good old nosalgic heart. What Cameron is trying to achieve is mch more ambitious, and more than that he is dedicating shoe leather and effort into taking the electorate with him. Up until now the brake's have not been public sceptisism, but less forward looking members from within. For the first time we have (1) ambition (2) a moral case and (3) an electorate willing to listen, and yet the thrust of the objection has come from within the party and their arguments have varied from downright childish slander to stoic indifference to, at best, a 'good effort' in a debating competition when handed a lousy motion to object to.

[Peter]

The Tory party under Cameron is becoming unelectable to many Tories. Cameron has the same naivety and arrogance as Blair and really doesn't understand the aspirations of ordinary hard working people. Grammar schools are the proven vehicle for creating social mobility. If Cameron accepts this is true for Kent and other grammar school areas, why deny the rest of the population? By refusing to have academic selection, the better schools will be determined by post code, which condemns inner city schools to perpetual third class status. Good teachers will not want to teach in an unacademic environment and comprehensives have proved it. If Cameron wants a fairer and less elitist education policy he should either scrap public schools or just ban British subjects from teaching or attending them.
The 11+ is an intelligence test and much fairer than common entrance ( something he clearly doesn't understand). The only election held on grammar schools ( Rippon?)
resulted in the overwhelming support for a good school even though the majority of voters had not attended or been involved with the school. The ordinary family in this country wants his/her child to have the opportunity to reach for the stars if their child has the ability. It is true for sport and music, and true for academic ability. The grammar school is there for them if they can take advantage of it. The Tories should provide grammar schools for the academically gifted, and provide schools specializing in vocational skills like carpentry, plumbing etc ( back to the mediaeval guild system of apprentices, journeymen and Masters).

Many like me will never support a Conservative party which has more or less declared war on the aspirations of ordinary people for an excellent free education for their academically gifted children, to have low taxes and money stolen by labour given back to them, and to have a party with policies to reverse the catastrophic effects of large scale immigration on social services and housing and the street crime culture many of them bring with them.
The Tory party is betraying the very people
who aspire to better themselves.

[michael]

Oh and you argue for debate (pro grammar camp), but all you contribute is something like this, 'Cameron is a left liberal upper class toff so what does he know?' That, im afraid is not debate and is quite hypocritical when you complain about Cameron’s language. So if you want debate, try debating policy!!!!!!

[Peter]

The Tory party under Cameron is becoming unelectable to many Tories. Cameron has the same naivety and arrogance as Blair and really doesn't understand the aspirations of ordinary hard working people. Grammar schools are the proven vehicle for creating social mobility. If Cameron accepts this is true for Kent and other grammar school areas, why deny the rest of the population? By refusing to have academic selection, the better schools will be determined by post code, which condemns inner city schools to perpetual third class status. Good teachers will not want to teach in an unacademic environment and comprehensives have proved it. If Cameron wants a fairer and less elitist education policy he should either scrap public schools or just ban British subjects from teaching or attending them.
The 11+ is an intelligence test and much fairer than common entrance ( something he clearly doesn't understand). The only election held on grammar schools ( Rippon?)
resulted in the overwhelming support for a good school even though the majority of voters had not attended or been involved with the school. The ordinary family in this country wants his/her child to have the opportunity to reach for the stars if their child has the ability. It is true for sport and music, and true for academic ability. The grammar school is there for them if they can take advantage of it. The Tories should provide grammar schools for the academically gifted, and provide schools specializing in vocational skills like carpentry, plumbing etc ( back to the mediaeval guild system of apprentices, journeymen and Masters).

Many like me will never support a Conservative party which has more or less declared war on the aspirations of ordinary people for an excellent free education for their academically gifted children, to have low taxes and money stolen by labour given back to them, and to have a party with policies to reverse the catastrophic effects of large scale immigration on social services and housing and the street crime culture many of them bring with them.
The Tory party is betraying the very people
who aspire to better themselves.

[Michael McGowan]

Michael, if I felt that the Tories would do anything constructive with power having won office, I might agree that it was delusional...

[Oberon Houston]

Michael, How can you say that and participte in the threads on this site? Your obviously capable of thinking and constructing thought, but seem to be blinded by a hatred of a conservative party leader who is willing to engage with the electorate - but who is certainly not anything other than a conservative.

[TomTOm]

Come now Oberon....just to have a qualified Maths teacher in every Comprehensive would require the entire output of Maths graduates in Britain and they would not be available then for The City.

That is assuming they can find enjoyment teaching pupils who couldn't care less and were bored silly.

Then to stem the exodus of teachers in early-retirement mode would take a heavy police presence in many school classrooms.

To have streaming in a comprehensive would require doubling up the teaching staff and linear-programming the timetables, and negotiating with the PFI lenders for new configuration schools with extra classrooms

The Operation Research required to set up this optimisation equation would be real fun. I hope Cameron has got the team together so headteachers don't resign en-masse

[michael]

See your proving my point, saying he’s not a Conservative is not debating policy but personality, but on that subject, I would say the policy of enforcing discipline, and compulsory streaming in schools conservative way of thinking. Just because he doesn’t support grammars doesn’t mean he is barred from being a conservative. So if your going to say has not a conservative then back it u with some facts. Lets not forget city academies are a conservative idea so wanting to expand and improve them doesn’t imply we are simply blue labour. I just like to stick with facts........

[michael]

See your proving my point, saying he’s not a Conservative is not debating policy but personality, but on that subject, I would say the policy of enforcing discipline, and compulsory streaming in schools conservative way of thinking. Just because he doesn’t support grammars doesn’t mean he is barred from being a conservative. So if your going to say has not a conservative then back it u with some facts. Lets not forget city academies are a conservative idea so wanting to expand and improve them doesn’t imply we are simply blue labour. I just like to stick with facts........

[Kevan Howley]

1) The fob-off of not doing away with existing Grammar schools is insulting;

2) The number of Grammar School places is less than it used to be, while demand is increasing;

3) Education selection by income is increasing as parents wanting their kids to have a good education are forced to pay for Independent Schools or increase their mortgage to move close to existing Grammar Schools;

4) Cameron’s statements re education aims are the same as those made by Blair in the past and the goal is unattainable in the real world (Blair naively believed it could be done too but Conservatives rightly opposed him then);

5) Cameron does not know how bad many schools have become - it is no more possible for him to radically improve them than it was for Blair to turnaround the NHS despite throwing £billions at it - like Yeltsin / Putin trying to make a prosperous democratic country out of Russia...

6) So much for local choice - how many voters do you think still believe there'll be more local authority under Cameronoons than Blair-Brown-ites, now they've been told they can't choose the schools their communities can have?

7) Watch the opinion poll ratings fall as the inevitable consequence of the policy statement/s on Grammar Schools;

8) I find it tiresome watching Tory leaders dig themselves and the country deeper into holes when they are wrong and refuse to acknowledge that they're off-beam - this is the first time I've responded since telling William Hague over dinner that he didn't have a winning strategy and wouldn't become PM unless he got himself a proper strat-plan... But he, like Cameron, doesn't actually know what a strategy is - thinks a vision is the same.

As Cameron & co dig themselves deeper into their education policy hole (or should that be vacuum?) only UKIP seems to be really listening.

[michael]

See your proving my point, saying he’s not a Conservative is not debating policy but personality, but on that subject, I would say the policy of enforcing discipline, and compulsory streaming in schools is conservative. Just because he doesn’t support grammars doesn’t mean he is barred from being a conservative. So if your going to say has not a conservative then back it up with some facts. Lets not forget city academies are a conservative idea so wanting to expand and improve them doesn’t imply we are simply blue labour. I just like to stick with facts........ (correct version)

[Richard Calhoun]

Kevan Howley states:

"Cameron does not know how bad many schools have become - it is no more possible for him to radically improve them than it was for Blair to turnaround the NHS despite throwing £billions at it - like Yeltsin / Putin trying to make a prosperous democratic country out of Russia..."

One of the more pessimistic statements I have read in a long time.

Blair failed because the Unions would not let him re-structure the nhs before chucking the billions at it, he should have called their bluff but I doubt that he had the support of Brown and a few other suspects.

Cameron can succeed because the Tories are not in hock to the Unions, albeit there is a very small problem with some backwoodsmen in his own party. However I do not think he will have a problem seeing them off.

As for Yeltsin/Putin - forget it!

The Tories can succeed with the Cameron/Willetts proposals and I am confident that they will prevail.

Hold your nerve is my advice!!

[RodS]

"Get a grip guys. There seems to be a blimpish minority who hanker after an apparent golden age in a Bakelite Britain, when everything in the garden was rosy. In those days you sat an 11 plus and if you failed you were consigned to an educational dustbin".

What a load of cobblers !!

For many(probably most of the genuine 'strivers' in our country) failing the 11 plus was a wake up call to get their finger out.Like millions of others , I failed and started work at 15 and then had a hard slog to take 'O' and 'A' Levels at Night School after a long day's work. Life is a competition and when the basic law of 'survival of the fittest' is repealed - we may as well switch the lights out. Cameron is the modern breed of Career Politician who will promote whatever he thinks will sell. He has principles but if they don't work - he has others !!

[Oberon Houston]

TomTom, where did you get these fact from? I don't recognise any of them as being true.

[Richard Calhoun]

tom tom
Maybe the Tories didn't stream the comprehensives because mistakenly they weren't giving education the priority they should have.
However if you go back to those years they were sorting a lot of other problems out, with a large number of privatisations at the same time

[Richard Calhoun]

tom tom
Maybe the Tories didn't stream the comprehensives because mistakenly they weren't giving education the priority they should have.
However if you go back to those years they were sorting a lot of other problems out, with a large number of privatisations at the same time

[John Waine]

"All I am saying is that it would be better not to air our dirty laundry in public and the only people this thread and others help are the opposition, be they Brown, Ming or UKIP"

"If you want to air your views email David Cameron and David Willetts direct.
Perpetuating this argument on a public site helps no one, least of all the party."

(Anon)

I, for one, have emailed DC, the Party Chairman and others on a number of occasions in the past year - I have yet to receive a satisfactory reply (ie, one that does more than simply restate their position without any serious arguments to justify it); though I confess none of them has yet told me I'm "delusional"! THAT's why I'm driven to "airing our dirty laundry in public".

The point is that, whatever one's personal viewpoint on grammar schools, the real issue here is that it was totally unnecessary for Willetts to mention them; he could have simply outlined his plans to improve those schools which are the only options for the majority.

What DC & his ivory-tower-dwelling clique don't seem to realise is that, while it's entirely true that we can't win a general election with our core vote alone, we certainly can't win one WITHOUT that core vote. The trick that DC was expected to perform was attracting back the "floaters" who deserted us in '92 & '97 without upsetting the core vote. Instead he seems to be pitching for the pinko liberals who mostly come from the same social background as himself (Grauniad columnists and the like) with policies that are guaranteed to rack off the core Tories. The irony is that most of the people whose approval he seeks will never vote Conservative, however much they like DC himself! Certainly, none of them will be out on the streets, knocking doors and delivering leaflets - unlike thousands of loyal core Conservatives, many of whom are not even Party members.

[None of the above]

In a socialist state you aren't given the choice to 'fail'. This is what Dave has bought into, and the chavs will just have to get what they are given with no chance to excel as this would mean others being 'excluded'. You now have a choice of hand me downs from the Toffs or handouts by the champagne socialists, who both know better than the plebs.

[Traditional Tory]

Most party members - and by most party members I mean the ladies who stuff the envelopes and cook the lunches and deliverers (not councillors etc) never read this site and many have never even heard of it.

This from the imaginatively named 'anon'. (why do these Cameron sycophants wish to remain anonymous? Are they scared of a future 'change of management'}

For your information, anon, most of the old dears think computers travel from Woking to London every day and if they were into 'silver surfing' they wouldn't be sitting round stuffing envelopes.

This is a slightly more polite variant of the eternal Cameroon whinge that CH has been hi-jacked by 'UKIP trolls'. My rejoinder to that is, where are all the other Cameroons? Why don't they come to the rescue?

Oh sorry. They don't exist.

[Martin Bristow]

I have never felt so dispirited.To call individuals who value aspiration and oppourtunity "delusional" is an awful condemnation of the state of the leadership.People should dwell a little and realise that a public school boy who has enjoyed all the advantages of a challenging education through his family wealth now proposes to deny this opportunity to those of more modest means.

The arguement that no Conservative government of the past has expanded the Grammar School does not justify Cameron's move,it means that those Governments got it wrong also!

Social Mobilty in Britain is in retreat.A rigid target driven system within education and a stifling national curriculum has led to less innovative teaching and an alarming reduction in standards.Reform and Civitas have published detailed papers setting out the issues.

The Conservative Party can only win when it is identified with aspiration.People instictively know that Blair has failed dismally most would pay for their children to be eductaed if they had the means.We should commit not to pull the rug but to expand the grammar school sector bring back selection and ensure through the return of special schools that all children getthe education suited to their needs and abilities.

The City academy idea is untried and untested wherehas Grammar schools are proven to provide and deliver excellence.We should encourage a return to the more traditional academic disciplines and tear up much of the nonsense of the current curriculum.The mantra of social inclusion fails and Conservatives ought not pander to it.I am not interested in being a right wing debationg society but I would like a centre right government not a pale imitation of reheated new labour rubbish.

[Anon]

Traditonal Tory at 07:13

I do not have to give my name to you 'Traditional Tory' and I'm not going to. And you are SO wrong that I am a Cameron sychophant. And scared of what exactly - I've been involved in this party for many years and seen 6 leaders come and go and ooh, guess what, I'm still involved as I care about this party and its future, unlike some of the individuals on this site judging by the postings above.

Why does everything have to come down to personal insults? I know what that's a sign of ..... do you ? Maybe Tim might like to think about not posting remarks containing personal insults - that would be a step forward.

You miss the point entirely about our older helpers and the "grassroots' voice" (but with a pea brain the size of yours I don't expect anything less). (See - insulting people doesn't really get you anywhere, does it)

Try answering the questions posed rather than just being rude.

If you can't be constructive why not just stay quiet and save us all the pain.

Anon

[Puck]

Giffin wrote: Hampshire CC is Conservative and has been for years. The LEA, however, is hardline Stalinist.......LEAs can do largely what they like, irrespective of Government or Councillors;

May I suggest to Giffin, who is presumably from Hampshire, that his County Council may have a majority of Conservative Councillors but the party are clearly not in power, if what he says is correct.

Any Conservative council that allows itself to lose control over part of its operation has yet to understand the meaning of political power - they need to go back to school.....perhaps a Grammar School would suit them well.....oh dear, the Cameroons have just squashed them, great baboons.

[Kennypoos]

The real problem is we have a conservative leadership which won't listen.

How ironic that the re-branding of the Tories as a progressive, left-leaning party is being carried out by a patrician eton toff who'd have been more at home supping port and moaning about gout with the pre-war tory aristocrats.

This arrogance is characterised by the grammar schools "debate" and the imperious way he swept aside any form of dissent from the lower orders (ie rank and file conservatives)

But then this is a boy who's used to getting his own way: A former spin-meister with a privileged past, who didn't need the benefits of a grammar school education; his parents could afford to pay for his schooling.

But when all the spin is unpicked by some awkward questions, what's left? A tetchy, spoilt child who stamps his feet and calls anyone who disagrees with his quasi new labour posturing "right-wing".

The metamorphosis into a new new labour party is almost done. Just get rid of a few more thousand of those awkward "right wing" party members, Dave, and your transformation into Tony Blair II will be complete.

[Simon Denis]

Almost spot on, Kennypoos, except for one thing - the first Tony Blair won elections. Frankly, the current Tory leadership is sickening. Having looked on with admiration as Blair took the whole country for a prolonged ride, they try the same thing themselves at just the point when the poor, wretched punters are beginning to twig. Do they really think the electorate can be sold snake oil twice?

Simon Denis

[Kennypoos]

Simon, you're right of course. And what I said in another post elsewhere on this site is that faced with Brown and Co, or Blair II and Co, the punters will probably stick with the devil they know, however unpalatable the medicine.

Especially if Brown slings in a few bribes, and tweaks a few right-of-centre policies to sweeten the middles classes.

God in heavens - just when the country is in need of some inspirational leadership, some un-spun, clear headed thinking, what do we get as our conservative offering?

A bunch of hand-wringing liberal elite who still think they are in their public school debating society, braying at anyone who disagrees and imperiously telling those who can't who can't afford to buy their way into schools that we should not fight for the very highest standards of selective state education for children of whatever background.

Truly, the party choices we face at the next general election are bleak.

It's enough to make you drink snake oil.

[Peter]

Its time for Cameron to go. He's a disaster.
I hope someone will call a leadership election this autumn. When he was elected he kept most of his unpleasantly arrogant, and naive Blairite personality hidden from view.

He has succeeded in splitting the party. There is no way that I, as Chairman of our local branch, am going to bust a gut to get Cameron elected. Give me a gold plated inflation proof pension, and over £100,000 to give my wife in secretarial support expenses, and I might deliver a couple of leaflets to a few known socialists.
In Kent, we are about to have 180,000 houses foisted on us as the Thames Gateway development. This will be about 400,000 people ( or increasing Kent's population by 20pct.) We will need about 10 new grammar schools. However, Cameron has pledged not to build any new ones. Kent believes in academic selection, and Paul Carter (Tory Leader of Kent County Council) is on the record condemning Cameron's destructive policy on academic selection. If new grammar schools are not possible then it will make the existing grammars in Kent even more in demand. If Cameron wants to eliminate elitism then he should abolish the public schools first. Will he? Of course not. The 11+ exam is meritocratic. The post code system which currently differentiates good and bad state non- grammar schools, is a system which rewards money. The poor remain poor in sink schools even if academically gifted. This is a disgrace, and currently blights our state education system. To hear an ignorant Etonian preaching the virtues of a policy which destroys the aspirations of hard working families for their children is a betrayal of everything the one-nation Tory party used to stand for. Cameron is behaving like a fascist, and he has been rumbled. I fear that if Cameron remains at the helm, many Tories will stay at home or vote UKIP. It was UKIP at the last election that deprived the Toris of about 4 seats in Kent.

[Traditional Tory]

I do not have to give my name to you 'Traditional Tory' and I'm not going to. I've been involved in this party for many years and seen 6 leaders come and go

I don't give a stuff whether you give me your name or not, Anon. As it happens I also have been a member of the party since Heath (is that right? I've been counting my fingers).

Over that period, the only leaders that really deserved our loyalty were Thatcher, Hague and to a lesser degree, Howard. As for 'Party Loyalty', well, the idea of me being loyal to you or you to me is so utterly ludicrous that it doesn't bear thinking about.

Ever read Nietzche? I regard Cameron as the personification of 'The Last Man'.

[Kennypoos]

Peter wrote: "To hear an ignorant Etonian preaching the virtues of a policy which destroys the aspirations of hard working families for their children is a betrayal of everything the one-nation Tory party used to stand for. Cameron is behaving like a fascist, and he has been rumbled."

Too right he has. Voters can just about take lectures about the neo-marxists in New Labour about selective education.They expect it from them.

But to hear an ex public school boy, whose parents never had to struggle and agonise over school choices, postcodes, league tables, etc telling us that grammars do not aid social mobility, when this is exactly what they DID do (when there were enough of them) is canting hypocrisy of the highest order, and worthy of the severe bum-kicking he will get at the next general election.

[Simon Denis]

It comes down to this: Cameron is a disciple of Portillo, the disciple of Maurice Cowling who in turn took a cynical, unprincipled, machiavellian view of politics. This more or less decrees that the only viable ideological options are those endorsed by the big battalions in the political nation. As the big battalions are all agreed that one cannot believe in heredity, then intelligence tests are out and with them grammars. As those same battalions decree that nations equal nationalism equals nazism then immigration control is out. These same battalions, remember, told everyone that laissez-faire was out until Mrs T rammed it down their foie-gras coated throats. They've never forgiven her. Petain-Portillo, the great defeatist, was recently mocking her on "This Week". After his rejection at the polls (and two hours sleep), she rang him up to say, "The fight back starts now." He seemed to think this made her look ridiculous. On the contrary, it showed her Churchillian mettle. His sophisticated sneering, meanwhile, was redolent of some Third Republic hack readying himself to do a deal with the enemy as though they were no different from Paul Reynaud or Leon Blum. It is the fact that so many of the Tories were inwardly defeated that has given the left so free a ride over the last ten years. The official right has lost all conviction. We should glory in being right wing. The right is the international manifestation of good natured common sense - indeed, of sanity. Wins for the conservative party are only good in so far as they are wins for this belief system - for liberty, for the market, for national identity. All other approaches to politics are second rate. Now more than ever, with educational standards in free fall, with terrorists in control of Northern Ireland, with immigration designedly out of control, we need a right wing electoral victory, not a rerun of Edward Heath's regrettable experiments.

[Kennypoos]

Simon wrote: "The official right has lost all conviction. We should glory in being right wing..."

Hard when the term "right wing" is now being used as an insult by the Conservative leadership, and of course by the BBC.

Note how Sarko was always labelled "right wing" by the Beebaristas, while his opponent was given the more Guardian-friendly term "socialist".

Similarly, in New Conservatives, anyone mentioning immigration, grammar schools, even the hint of a reduction in the bloated state sector, and jailing hoodie thugs instead of hugging them, is branded a nazi.