ConservativeHome's 100policies

Tony Emmerson: Biology, physics and chemistry - not single science

Tony Emmerson is a freelance writer, Conservative activist, and currently teaches Chemistry at Notting Hill & Ealing High School (GDST) where he is also the representative of the Association of Teachers and Lecturers.

> Policy Summary

Science education must be strengthened by focusing on the academic content of all three scientific disciplines, actively recruiting Chemists and Physicists, and abandoning any suggestion of the "Single Science" option in secondary schools.

> Policy Explanation

Science education is a mess at the moment and needs fixing. The sciences are the home of logic, reason, rational debate and intellectual meritocracy. As Conservatives we should like these things, for these are what separate us from the animals and socialists.

Currently most state secondary schools teach "Dual Award", where all three disciplines (Chemistry, Physics and Biology) are examined, in either separate or joint papers. The result is two joint GCSE grades. David Willetts currently wants pupils to be able to choose any combination of the three subjects - an intellectual pick and mix. He is right when he says "There are very distinctive scientific disciplines here and part of the excitement of studying science at school is that you shouldn’t just have a general introduction." He is so right that I want to hug him tight and polish his dome until my smile reflects off it into the stars. But Single Science is not the answer.

The question the Conservative Party must ask about education is this: Do we lower our aspirations to meet the needs of the nation's whims, or do we tell the nation to quit 'whimming' and learn stuff?

Going down the Single Science route, allowing pupils to study "any combination" of the sciences, will wipe poor grades from the books by abandoning important and demanding subjects. However this will not improve the dismal number of pupils who take Physics at A Level, or the sciences at university. For a start every schoolkid knows biology is the easiest science. If we go down this route Britain will become the nation of unemployed biologists.

To be a well balanced adult you need at least an understanding of how complex the world around you is, and this is what the three sciences bring when combined. You may not know how to build a nuclear reactor but you know you'd better not fool around with one. You show me someone who forks out a wad of cash for a homeopathic remedy and I'll show you someone who snoozed too much in their chemistry lessons. A little knowledge may be a dangerous thing but zero knowledge is lethal.

Is this the society that we are Building to Last? A world of lost opportunity and intellectual submission. So teach all three sciences. It isn't the Dual Award that makes science education "general", it’s the lack of specialist chemists and physicists. Many good schools teach a Dual Award course but teach the disciplines separately.

Offer the specialists a decent wedge of cash in recognition of their skills. We're a rare breed and we like to be appreciated, and nothing says "I love you" like a pile of booze vouchers with the Queen's head on them.

Move to enforce discipline in schools so us beardy test-tube jockeys want to work there. We love teaching our subject, but it's hard to talk when you're cowering behind your desk having firecrackers thrown at you.

Right now every decent independent school is defecting to the IGCSE because of its more rigorous academic content. So restore the domestic qualification to 'O Level' standard and make it something to be proud of.

But, for the sake of education, abandon Single Science. If this genie gets out of the bottle no amount of belting over the head will get the little sod back in again.

> Political Risks and Opportunities

By strengthening the academic content of GCSE courses there will be a drop in examination grades. Nobody is allowed to fail these days, and the result is similar to an election where everybody kind of gets in no matter how few votes they got. However after the extensive Days of Blair, we will have a mandate to make sweeping change and restore the credibility of our qualifications. This will win the support of many in academia and industry who are currently in public despair over the ineptitude of "well qualified" school leavers.

Restoring a more "traditional" approach to education will also appeal to a great percentage of voters, who really are starting to wonder what is going on in the classroom. It will also mean that they will no longer have to fork out huge fees just to give their child the opportunity of an academic education.

Teachers get irritated by change, but the recent domestic GCSE science syllabus was so badly received that many would support an overhaul, restoring rigour to their subject, providing that the change was decisive, well thought out, utilised the input of teaching staff, and wasn't too half-witted and silly.

> Questions for ConservativeHome readers

• What would be the best way to cap "grade inflation"?
• While we work to make education fit for society, shouldn't we also focus on making society fit for education?
• Are "academic" and "rigour" dirty words in education?

> Costs

How would I know? We have mathematicians to deal with this sort of stuff. But consider this. Giving every properly qualified Chemistry and Physics teacher an extra couple of grand a year could be recouped from dropping nitwit schemes in PHSE and Citizenship. Increasing retention would also lower the extensive bills for supply teachers who have to be drafted in when the real ones run off with nervous breakdowns. Get some sponsorship from grateful industries. Auction David Willetts on ebay. In short, do what we have to in order to do what we must.

David Walsh: Compulsory British History at GCSE

David Walsh is a postgraduate law student soon to commence his vocational training to become a barrister.

> Policy summary

The introduction of a compulsory ‘British History’ GCSE.

> Policy explanation

The present system means that it is possible for a child to finish their history education aged 13 or 14. Of course, not all of their studies to this point will have been exclusively on British history and so their knowledge of the subject is likely to be scant. Moreover, those who do take history to GCSE level will find that a large proportion of the course is focused on the history of nations other than our own.

A compulsory GCSE focused solely on British history would provide all children with a basic understanding of our past. It is critical for young people to be able to make sense of the country around them and see where they fit into the story of our nation.

With unprecedented levels of migration and a constant search for things that bind together our diverse population, the need for knowledge of our heritage and history has never been greater or more important. It is our common inheritance.

The subject ought to be rigorous and assessment should include the critical analysis of source material rather than simply the rote learning of dates.

The periods of history that ought to be included should be a matter of debate and suggestions from ConservativeHome readers in the comments section are welcome.

The GCSE course spans two years and my suggestion would be that breadth of study should be the priority. Social, economic, political and military history should all be included. A starting-point for discussion might be the following themes / periods: (i) Monarchs from 1066; (ii) Civil War and Restoration; (iii) Empire and Industrialisation; (iv) 1914-1945; (v) Post-war Britain to 1990. However, the policy should not stand or fall on these suggestions!

> Political risks and opportunities

Opportunities:

• This would be a positive contribution to the debate on tackling the lack of social cohesion.
• It provides a serious policy on our national identity to counter Gordon Brown’s idea of flagpoles in our front gardens. 
• By compelling candidates to take another serious and rigorous GCSE, the scope for choosing ‘Mickey Mouse’ subjects diminishes.
• The pursuit of a similar policy by John Howard in Australia appears to have put the Left squarely on the back-foot.

Risks:

• The content of the syllabus might be hi-jacked by those with a leftist agenda. Obviously the good and the bad points of our past need to be examined but the worst result would be for children to be indoctrinated that this country is responsible for all the ills of the world for two years.
• The focus exclusively on British history is portrayed as failing to recognise the ‘diversity’ of the nation. In the current political climate though, one would hope that this risk is minimal.

> Questions for ConservativeHome readers

1. Which periods of British history ought to be covered or specifically emphasised?
2. Ought there to be an element of local history within the course to reflect the importance of local and regional history?
3. Should ancient British history to be included?
4. Ought the policy to be driven centrally so as to ensure control over the content of each course or should a large discretion be given to teachers?

> Costs

Start-up costs: There will be some initial cost in terms of devising a curriculum and providing extra teaching resources for schools. 

Running costs: It is unlikely that children will want to take this subject on as an extra subject and so it will probably be at the expense of one of their other ‘options’. Thus, the overall number of subjects being taught to each pupil is not likely to increase, rather resources will need to be reallocated. 

Julia Manning: More teaching and less testing in schools

Julia Manning is a healthcare professional and a first wave member of the Priority List.  Julia was PPC for Bristol East at the last General Election.

> Policy Summary

To change the primary school SATs [Standard Assessment Tasks] tests:

• Removing the Key Stage 1 test in year 2 [at age 7]
• Moving the Key Stage 2 test to year 5 [at age 9-10]
• Introducing a 4th, randomly selected subject into the Key Stage 2 test.

Primary Schools will be freed up to focus on more teaching and less testing, and encouraged to teach a broad range of subjects in addition to English, Maths and Science. This is to enable a broader and better educational start for children and a much fairer reflection of the standard of education offered by the primary school.

> Policy Explanation

School league tables, introduced by a Conservative Government, were initially introduced to help teachers establish the effectiveness of their teaching. It didn’t take long for them to become pressurised exams, undertaken three times formally during a child’s education, before they reach their GCSE year.

Many schools use the same criteria to assess their pupils on a yearly basis. End of year exams are helpful to both pupil and teacher in establishing what has been learned and understood. But because a primary school's position in a league table is based on the results of Key Stage 2 SATS, taken at the start of the summer term in year 6, it has become a real temptation for schools to only teach Maths, English and Science up to year 6. This has many deleterious effects. Children get bored with the monotony and misbehave. They miss out on years of a broad education, comprising geography, history, art, music, foreign language, IT, drama and DT. They arrive at secondary school with little sense of culture, identity and heritage. They also lack the social and reasoning skills that have been squeezed out of the curriculum by the culture of testing and ticking boxes.

In fact, some primary schools, by introducing more subjects after the SATs, can still look good to Ofsted, even though the broader range of subjects is only available in the last few weeks of term. Believe me, the timetable the school produces can bear no relevance to what happens during the week.

The reasoning behind the policy therefore is that:

• Children do not need to be tested at age 7.
• Moving the SATs to year 5 means that the curriculum in year 6 can be one that properly prepares pupils for secondary school.
• Extending the range of examined subjects to include a random 4th subject such as geography or a language, not notified to the school ahead of time, would mean that schools would be encouraged to provide a broader and better curriculum.
• The league tables would therefore reflect more accurately the education that a school provides.

> Political Risks and Opportunities

It would not be surprising for some schools to object to this policy. They’ve got their league table ranking through a solid, boring 'three-subjects-approach' and they don’t want that jeopardised.

However, the opportunities for children – less pressure at an early age, engaging their interest, a more stimulating environment, more variety, a broader education and time to prepare for secondary school - would be significant. It says that the Conservative Party cares about the majority of British children who attend state primary schools having a rounded primary education. What parent would object to that?

The risks are in schools demanding more money to be able to offer a broader curriculum. The issue of money is more crucial when it comes to having to deal with a class that is so diverse [in language, background, disability and culture] that just keeping it together is a huge challenge. This needs another policy altogether, along with a wholesale review of the content of the national curriculum.

However, a good teacher would appreciate that getting together new schemes of work would be interesting for both them and their pupils; children with a flair for a particular subject would be encouraged who otherwise could have gone unnoticed – or worse, given detention for poor behaviour as a response to monotony.

> Questions for ConservativeHome readers

• Should we only be concerned with English, Maths and Science for the 11’s and under, or should we ensure that they are offered a broader early education?
• If a random fourth subject is to be tested, what subjects should be included?
• How would we reassure teachers that this is for the benefit of all? What else do they need to be in place to help them to teach?

> Costs

• Schools: None. A teacher would take a year to put together schemes of work as they do for the standard three subjects, that they could perform with their classes. After this the plans would be in place for subsequent years.
• Examining Authorities: Overall reduction.  Another SAT test would have to be devised for each subject agreed. However, if we are abolishing testing at 7, the overall cost of administering SATs would reduce significantly.

Next week on 100policies.com

Next week is education week on 100policies.com:

Monday: Alex Morton proposes that headteachers set the wages of their school's teachers (delayed until Saturday)

Tuesday: Julia Manning proposes less testing in schools

Wednesday: David Walsh recommends that all students study British history at GCSE

Thursday: Tony Emmerson proposes changes to science teaching

Friday: Mike Christie wants all secondary schools to become directly state-funded but independent trust schools

Saturday: Alex Morton proposes that headteachers set the wages of their school's teachers

If you have a policy idea please suggest it to Tim via email.  ALL ideas are considered.

Kevin Davis: Education should start later

Kevin Davis (blog) is the Chief Executive of a not-for-profit working in education.

> Policy summary

Education; there is too much of it, too early and with too little effect. Increasing the starting age of education and stopping the transfer, at age 11, would contribute to making kids have a more focused and socialised school education.  For the “iPod, skype and msn” kids of today “less is more”.

> Policy explanation

The Labour Government believes that children should be educated and appraised from the earliest possible age. Children of 2 or 3 are now being assessed by some crazy Government doctrine that governs how nurseries and play schemes should have a “curriculum”. Other countries take a different view. The most successful education systems tend to be in Scandinavia, yet here formal education, reading and writing, does not start until children are 7, or even 8. Till then parents or playgroups are expected to give children the space to be children and learn to play. More importantly children are the responsibility of their parents and not handed over to some state sponsored pre education system, whose sole purpose, at times, seems to be to drive the mother or father out to work. The greatest looming crisis in our education system is the expected mass retirement of senior teachers, due sometime in the next five years. A policy that full time education of children did not start until age 7 would militate against some of those problems.

In the UK, the child having spent up to 7 years in the education system, we then inflict another injustice on them; transfer to secondary school. Why? Many teachers will tell you that the most difficult period for a child in education is the transfer from primary to secondary. All certainty in their lives is upended and many spend the first years of secondary school recovering from the trauma of transfer. Parents also do not survive the transfer. Whereas parents are often very engaged in their child’s primary education they quickly drop out when their child transfers.  Once again the most successful systems have all-through schools that go from 7 or 8 through to 16 or 18, and we should adopt this system nationally.

The opportunity for all-through schools is here. The current programme to rebuild, or substantially refurbish, every secondary school in the country is in its early stages. A more radical approach to this programme could be used to fulfil the difficulty of all-through schools.

A key problem would be the limiting size of urban sites within London to take all-through schools. However, not all schools need to have 2,000 pupils. There have been a myriad of studies that have shown that small “schools”, not necessarily small “classes”, are far better at raising standards and behaviour than the increasing size of school this Government is currently set on building. (See Lindsay, Paul (1982). The Effect of High School Size on Student Participation, Satisfaction, and Attendance, Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 4 (1), 57-65 and Barker, R. and Gump, P. (1964). Big School, Small School: High School Size and Student Behavior. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press)

If we accept that small is best then many of the existing secondary and primary sites could be adapted to suite a range of schools. After all a typical 2 form of entry primary school would have 14 forms. A 1 form entry all-though school, starting at age 7, would need 10 or 11 forms. 

> Political risks and opportunities

Teaching unions would complain that this is more change after decades of change. Political opponents would paint this as a lessening in the learning opportunities for young children and an attempt to limit the opportunities for poorer families to have both parents’ working. Would the policy actually not be a positive benefit to a Conservative party looking to give families more time?  Currently GCSE study takes two years – a more focused approached to learning leading up to that might actually increase the ability, especially if you did not have to spend a whole year adjusting to a new school and a whole new method of learning.

> Questions for ConservativeHome readers

• Do you believe a school that took your child through from the start to the end of their education would benefit them?

• Do you believe there is any benefit in formerly assessing the progress of kids at the age of 3, 4 or 5?

• What ideas do we have as to how we can use the money, and the time, released by starting learning at age 7 to help families who want to work?

> Costs

There are pluses and minuses. The cost of not providing formal state education  for children between the years of 2 and 7 (£5,750 per pupil per annum by 2008) could be used to fund more generous child care allowances.

David Davies: Prisoners should serve full sentences

David Davies is MP for Monmouth.

> Policy summary

All prisoners to serve in full the sentence handed down to them in the courts.

> Policy explanation

It is well known that few prisoners serve the sentences that they are given in court, but most people are unaware of how lenient the system actually is.

Most prisoners are automatically released half way through their sentences. Many are released on a tag prior to the half way point being reached. A criminal sentenced to four years imprisonment can be released after just over one year and seven months. A prisoner given a two year sentence may be released after just over seven months behind bars. Those who are not automatically released half way through their sentences will usually be successful in gaining early release by a parole board.

The term “life imprisonment” is completely meaningless. Over 50 prisoners sentenced to life imprisonment since 2000 have already been released. Some of these “lifers” served less than 18 months behind bars.

Under this proposal all forms of early release would end. There would be no automatic early release, no tagging, and the parole boards would be disbanded. Prisoners would serve their sentences to the day.

> Political risks and opportunities

Risk: Prison discipline would deteriorate.

Response: Prison governors use a range of carrots and sticks to maintain discipline – moving prisoners between different prisons, on different regimes, and allocating better or worse jobs.

Risk: If judges know that sentences will be served in full they may simply compensate by reducing the sentence they give.

Response: This could happen but at least we the public would know exactly how sentencing operates and if sentences are too lenient the government of the day will be put under pressure to find ways of increasing them.

Opportunity: People are angry. In South Wales last month, a child rapist was released early from prison only to recommit the same offence. This policy would prevent many such offences from taking place, make our streets safer, deter habitual criminals and restore some much needed public confidence in our system of justice.

> Costs

The intention of this policy is to ensure that criminals spend longer in prison. In the short term there would be a significant cost. More prisons would need to be built, more prison staff taken on. It might be necessary to gain their support and cooperation by giving prison officers a rise in pay.

These costs will not be as high as they appear. By keeping people in prison large numbers of crimes will be prevented. There is a significant cost to investigating these crimes, bringing defendants to court and paying their legal fees. There is also a financial cost to the victims which is passed on to us all via the insurance companies. In addition it should be remembered that many prisoners, on leaving prison go straight on to benefits, therefore the real cost to the government of keeping people in prison is less than it first appears.

In the long term this policy could actually lead to a reduction in prison numbers and therefore costs. Sentences are so lenient at present that they offer no deterrent to hardened criminals. Increasing the length of sentences served could act as a deterrent and reduce the number of people willing to take the risk of committing crime.

However in thinking about financial costs we should also remember the cost in human misery paid by those many people, including young children, who have been raped murdered or seriously injured by criminals on early release from prison. We can prevent crimes like this from being carried out by prisoners on early release, and I would be happy to pay to do so.

Jonathan Sheppard: A frontline role for community pharmacists

Jonathan Sheppard is Editor of ToryRadio.

> Policy summary

The Health Service, and in particular primary care is coming under increased pressure to deliver. An untapped resource - in the shape of the local pharmacist - can and should be used to relieve pressure on an under-delivering NHS.

> Policy explanation

NHS resources are stretched to breaking point. The Government claims that funding is at record levels yet actual health outcomes are failing to show improvements. Money continues to be wasted on bureaucracy and isn't targeted to the areas where it will achieve the best results for healthcare.

People still use NHS services inappropriately. For example, hospital A&E departments are full of people who could be dealt with by their GP in a primary care setting. At the same time, GPs are unable to spend quality time with people who need more specialist care because their surgeries are filled with people who have minor ailments that can be dealt with elsewhere.

People need to take responsibility for their own health to prevent or delay long term illnesses in the future. The under utilised resource is community pharmacy.

Pharmacists are highly skilled professionals - they go through five years of training - they are experts in medicines and have far more knowledge on the subject than any other health professional including GPs. Pharmacists are accessible where people live, shop and work 24/7 and should be the first port of call and entry point to the NHS.  It is estimated that six million people visit pharmacies daily.

With the new pharmacy contract, pharmacists are helping people manage their illnesses and providing support and advice to those with chronic diseases like diabetes, asthma and heart disease. They are already prescribing repeat medicines for patients instead of them visiting the GP every time. Additionally two thirds of patients do not understand their medicines, half of patients stop preventative medication within 1 year, 60% patients forget to take medication regularly and 82% of patients want to know more.

Using pharmacists, patients can be enabled to understand their medicines better - it will save lives, improve health outcomes, empower patients to look after their health better and prevent ill health.

Demands on the NHS are only going to increase over time, It is imperative to use the skills and resources in the NHS as effectively as possible and that means there is the need to get the right professional for the right job.  Pharmacists are an untapped resource in the NHS.

One of their key roles would be to ensure that medicines are being used properly, reducing wastage, increase effectiveness and thereby improve health outcomes.  This would deliver Win for Govt a Win for NHS and most importantly a Win for patients.

> Questions for ConservativeHome readers

• Is there a specific financial cost given to a patient visiting their GP?
• How many GP visits are there per year?
• How many could be equated as unnecessary and dealt with by a pharmacist?

> Costs

There should be no overall cost as any additional spend, could be redistributed resources and money from secondary care to primary care as improvements to health flow through. 

Eleanor McHugh: Public infrastructure should not be a profit-making venture

Eleanor McHugh is a resident of Edmonton and a life-long Tory voter. She currently provides consultancy services relating to next-generation internet technologies and the social changes associated with their mass adoption. For light relief she produces and plays guitar with punk band 'Toxic Frock'.

> Policy summary

Some public infrastructure is vital to the life of the nation and should not be a profit-making venture (water and sewage, highways, railway tracks, gas pipelines, electricity grid, network backbone).

> Policy explanation

Privatisation works well where a genuine competitive market can be established, but where large-scale fixed infrastructure is concerned, consumers (whether private individuals or businesses) are forced to purchase their supply from whomever provides that infrastructure in their geographic region without access to alternative suppliers. This leads to grotesquely profitable monopolies, running contrary to the core Conservative belief that the fair operation of the free market will ensure an equitable price for the product supplied.

One approach is to regulate the industries as is the current case, however the controversy surrounding the water industry as well as ongoing concerns regarding the effectiveness of BAA and Network Rail suggest that regulation does not sit well with the voting public or provide the value for money expected by government. Indeed for those of us living in the southeast of England under perennial hose-pipe bans, the whole affair is reminiscent of the worst years of the nationalised industries.

The natural Labour approach would be to nationalise these companies and put them under state control, which experience suggests would lead to equally indifferent performance and doubtless increase the overall cost of their services.

As Conservatives nationalisation is not our natural instinct, so what can we do? Increasing market competition is difficult due to the exclusive nature of fixed infrastructure so how about encouraging the corporations that manage these infrastructures to restructure themselves as charitable organisations operating not for the profit of share-holders but for the most efficient delivery of services to the public?

These corporations would be encouraged to raise capital for large-scale projects through bond issues, would continue to be regulated to ensure quality of service, and would charge service-providers for access to the infrastructure. Removal of the profit motive would encourage lowering of prices and greater investment in infrastructure, both desirable outcomes.

> Political risks and opportunities

Investors would expect to be compensated and there will be allegations of nationalisation via the backdoor. This could be politically embarrassing for a Conservative administration and might lead to a drop in market confidence, but this depends upon the mechanism used. Conversely the public confidence would be boosted by removing the profit motive from services which are currently seen as the preserve of unaccountable monopolies. The Conservative party's social justice credentials would be greatly enhanced and the impact on inflation due to price increases in these sectors would be reduced. Labour would either have to nationalise or look obstructively reactionary.

> Questions for ConservativeHome readers

• How best to create effective free markets for the provision of commercial services over these non-commercial infrastructures?
• How to manage the transition to non-profit status without damaging market confidence?
• Could the same principle be applied to Local Government and/or the worthier organs of the welfare state?

> Costs

Difficult to assess, but probably equivalent to the upfront cost of nationalisation (as a pure guess, £20 billion for the Water industry), plus the investment required to reorganise management as effective not-for-profit commercial enterprises. After that the primary costs would be those associated with the regulatory process. As charities these organisations would not be paying taxes so there would be a consequent loss of revenue to the Exchequer, balanced by decreased pressure on inflation and stimulation of the market in service provision.

Cllr Matt Davis: Passenger security profiling

> Policy summary

To introduce security screening based upon passenger profiling at all UK airports and ports, including the Channel Tunnel links, in order to target security resources where they are best used and minimise the massive disruption and inconvenience currently being caused to air travellers.

> Policy explanation

One day last week the Matt cartoon in The Daily Telegraph showed a middle aged woman frisking her husband on the doorstep whilst telling him; “Someone’s been bringing dead birds into the house and it seems unfair to only check the cat.”  This seems to completely sum up the current government response to the most recent terrorist plot to blow up civil airliners, which is plainly based more upon political correctness than it is upon proven aviation security principles. As Baron Stevens, ex Metropolitan Police Commissioner John Stevens, recently and rightly pointed out in the News of the World:

“I'm a white 62-year-old 6ft 4ins suit-wearing ex-cop—I fly often, but do I really fit the profile of suicide bomber? Does the young mum with three tots? The gay couple, the rugby team, the middle-aged businessman? No. But they are all getting exactly the same treatment and devouring huge resources for no logical reason whatsoever.”

The unarguable fact is that Islamic terrorism in the West has been universally carried out by young Muslim men, mainly from ethnic minority backgrounds. However the present severely increased security procedures being enforced at our airports fail to take any account at all of this fact or to make proper use of the passenger screening techniques that have been proven time and again, especially by Israeli airlines, to work better than anything else at keeping flying safe for everyone.

As the Wall Street Journal recently said:

“A return to any kind of normalcy in travel is going to require that airport security do a better job of separating high-risk passengers from unlikely threats. However, the fact that we may have come within a whisker of losing 3,000 lives over the Atlantic still isn't preventing political correctness from getting in the way of smarter security."

As Conservatives we should be calling for the best possible use of resources allied to causing the minimum disruption to the maximum number of air travellers and that unquestionably must mean the introduction of passenger profiling.

> Political risks and opportunities

There is truly only one real political risk attached to this policy and that is, as Metropolitan Police Deputy Commissioner Tariq Ghaffur put it, that it would make a “crime of flying while Asian.". Therefore there is a genuine risk that we will be accused of some form of racism by the Muslim community, much of whom continue to remain in complete denial about the origin of the terrorist attacks in the UK. However this risk needs to be balanced against the reality that the terrorist attacks and plots are indeed being executed by British born Muslims and that they remain the most likely source of future attacks. This is a fact that has not passed the majority of British air travelers by and we will reap the rewards of telling the truth about this issue from a populace that is sick and tired of political correctness and double standards. It is of course essential that security screeners are also continually aware of the possibility of a non-Asian Muslim, perhaps a convert like Richard Reid, being the source of an attack.

On the positive side we would have better, more effective and efficient security at our airports and ports, far less disruption to the vast majority of ordinary travelers, and we would all feel much safer about traveling. These are outcomes that can be very easily contrasted with the Labour Government’s response, to show them up for the politically correct incompetents that we know them to be.

> Questions for ConservativeHome readers

• Is this policy really racist, or just common sense?
• Are we so desperate to secure Muslim votes that we ought to continue to allow much of that community to be in denial about the reality of Islamic Terrorism?
• Are you prepared to be considerably delayed and have your freedom to travel as you wish, and with what you wish, massively infringed upon simply to be “fair” in some nefarious way?

> Costs

This policy is in fact most likely to be financially positive since it will cut the unsustainable level of cost associated with the current all encompassing search routine as well as cutting the losses being sustained by the airlines as a result of both the security measures themselves and also by the loss of public confidence in air travel that leads to a drop in bookings. Not only that but passenger screening can be introduced at no cost whatsoever to the travelling public since it only needs a reallocation of existing resources and the political will to tell the truth about the threat that faces us.

Damon Lambert: Replace the House of Lords with a fully elected House of Defenders

> Policy summary

To replace the Lords with a wholly elected House of Defenders to review laws, hold the executive accountable, and defend the liberty of individuals from government encroachment and incompetence.

> Policy explanation

The lack of an effective second chamber hurts, the UK is over-legislated, the executive makes avoidable errors and the Prime Minister resembles an elected dictator.   

The House of Defenders will review, amend and pass or block all legislation, both primary and secondary, increasing the quality and reducing the quantity of new law.  The Defenders can initiate new law, but only if they remove sufficient law to leave the net quantum of legislation constant or lower.   

The Defenders will call the Executive Branch of government to account.  With better scrutiny, recent mistakes, eg tax credits, home office failures, MG Rover, and the surrender of much of the EU rebate could have been avoided.

The Defenders will approve treaties, sizable military actions and international agreements, ending the undemocratic one-man foreign policy of Prime Ministers since 1945 which saw amongst other errors, the botched entry into the EU and the Suez Crisis. The second chamber will have full rights over money bills, would approve the spending allocations in the budget, and ensure that the Budget process is accurate and consultative.   

The House will approve the appointment of senior judges, heads of government departments, EU Commissioner and ambassadors reducing Prime Ministerial patronage and ensuring that key positions go to the best qualified, not the best connected.  It would prevent anomalies, eg the UK has always had europhile EU Commissioners, despite mainstream public opinion being eurosceptic.   

Members must seek electoral mandates and show their desire for the role, rather than the current "embalmed, but not buried" Lords membership for retired politicos.

The name emphasizes the break from the UK’s undemocratic past, and the role of members in defending the people from excesses of either of the legislative or executive branches of government.

> Political risks and opportunities

A radical policy would establish clear blue water between Conservatives and opponents by directly campaigning for democracy.  It stresses our belief in the individual over the power of the State.  Using a name other than the "Lords" highlights and hallmarks the originality of the concept to voters, stressing the unique selling points of the Conservative reforms.   It would remove the stigma that Conservatives merely seek to protect the establishment.  The risks are low, campaigning against democracy is politically dangerous.  The opposition will seek to label detailed proposals as unworkable, but will struggle.   

> Questions for ConservativeHome readers

• Can you think of a better name for the second chamber?
• What other roles should an elected second house have?
• Do you think that all members should be elected by region, county, metropolitan area or should some be elected by list?
• Is say a 6 year or 8 year term suitable for Defenders?
• Do you concur that members should be elected in tranches, as per the US Senate, rather than the entire membershp elected at once?

> Costs

There will be additional costs of elections.  These can be minimised by holding certain of the elections during Council, European Parliament or mayoral elections.  However, the substantial benefits of a stronger legislature that better monitors and checks the lower house and the executive should produce far greater benefits through improved governance of the realm.