Most members disagree with Cameron on grammar schools and candidates' A-List

The ConservativeHome Members' Panel's January survey found high satisfaction levels with David Cameron's leadership but it has also revealed that most members disagree with two of his key policy initiatives - on education and parliamentary candidate selection.

ConservativeHome asked 1,351 members what they thought of five key initiatives taken by David Cameron since he became leader at the start of last month.  For each initiative we asked whether they agreed with the initiative and whether they thought they were good or bad politics.  The results for each of the initiatives are set out below - in numbers and in charts.  On the right is an explanatory graphic for the charts.  The policies that score highly in the top right of the charts are rated in doubly positive terms: members agree with them and think that they are good politics.  The policies that register high scores in the bottom left quadrant threaten to cause the Tory leadership problems with grassroots members.  Such bottom left positioning suggests that members neither agree with the issue nor think that it is good politics.

DAVID CAMERON'S STATEMENT THAT "THERE'LL BE NO GOING BACK TO GRAMMAR SCHOOLS" UNDER HIS LEADERSHIP

This statement only enjoys the unequivocal backing of a fifth of Tory members.

More than twice as many - 44% - think it a disagreeable policy that is also bad politics.

Nearly three-quarters of Tory members disagree with this statement.

48% think it bad politics.  David Cameron's embrace of the pledge to wrongfoot Tony Blair's education reforms has persuaded 49% to accept it as good politics, however.

DAVID CAMERON'S COMMITMENT TO PUT TOGETHER A CANDIDATES' 'A LIST' OF 50% MEN AND 50% WOMEN

Only 37% of Tory members agree with David Cameron's 50/50 'Priority List' - more details of which were revealed this week.  60% disagree with this policy and Bernard Jenkin and his team will have to work hard to win more grassroots support for this controversial proposal.

That support may come from the fact that 62% of members agree that the 50/50 list is "good politics" despite the bloc who personally disagree with it.

The hardcore opposition comes from the 33% of members who think it bad politics and contrary to their views. 

DAVID CAMERON'S COMMITMENT TO LEAVE THE EUROPEAN PEOPLES' PARTY

David Cameron's campaign commitment to leave the European Peoples' Party was said to have been crucial to his wooing Cornerstone and other more Eurosceptic MPs to his colours during the leadership race.  The ConservativeHome Members' Panel result suggests that it may also be helping the grassroots to digest his other more controversial initiatives.

76% of members agree with the pledge.

20%, however, worry that the pledge might not be good politics.  This fifth of members are, perhaps, worried about the vocal opposition to the policy of Ken Clarke and leading MEPs. A defection or two of a Tory MEP to the LibDems, for example, would certainly cause a political headache for Mr Cameron.

DAVID CAMERON'S SUGGESTION THAT THE CONSERVATIVE PARTY STAND UP TO BIG BUSINESS

If Tory traditionalists might have been expected to support the EPP pledge there is less predictable good news for Team Cameron in the grassroots' agreement with two of his 'modernising pledges'

The New Year's Day commitment.to stand up to big business is supported by 64% of members surveyed.

Mr Cameron and Mr Osborne must now work to address the concerns of those 30% of members who disagree with the policy.  30% opposition may partly explain an unfamilarity with the policy and a concern that it is anti-business.  The Tory leadership must show that it is about championing freer markets and start-up businesses against the cosy and corporatist links between big business and government that have so poisoned American politics.  If they can achieve this they will have found a 'crunchy conservative' policy that is in tune with the decentralised mood of our age.

69% think the suggestion is good politics.

DAVID CAMERON'S SUGGESTION THAT THE TEST OF EVERY POLICY SHOULD BE ITS IMPACT ON THE POOR

The first act of David Cameron's leadership was to establish the social justice policy group and he was using a speech to the Centre for Social Justice to promise to build 'the nation of the second chance' when this ConservativeHome.com poll went live.

A full 64% of members agree with the test but 33% do not.  This 33% may reflect concern that the impact of Gordon Brown's stealth taxes and public service failures have hurt middle income workers, too, and these should not be forgotten.  A future ConservativeHome poll will attempt to explore the thinking of this 33%.

This 'test' pledge wins a very high 86% rating when members are asked if it is "good politics".  Of all the five pledges put to the Panel this pledge was rated most highly on the "good politics" scale.

THERE WILL BE MORE PANEL RESULTS TOMORROW:

• Which shadow cabinet members are performing best and worst?
• Do Tory supporters think very differently on these issues to members?

VISIT CONSERVATIVEHOME.COM ON MONDAY FOR THE ANSWERS!

Comments

[Fred Hansen]

What about the party members opinion about health reform especially keeping the NHS?

[Frank Young]

"The survey also found 60 per cent opposed his move to ensure that constituencies choose more women as parliamentary candidates."

Thats from the Observer report, makes us sound narrow minded doesn't it?

[Ted]

Mrs Thatcher quoted in today's Sunday Telegraph is more in line with David Cameron than our membership:
The notion that "the state should select children by the single criterion of ability and direct them to one of only two sorts of school", is, she writes, "far more consonant with socialism and collectivism than with the spontaneous social order associated with liberalism and conservatism. State selection by ability is, after all, a form of manpower planning. And variety and excellence in education are far more securely founded, and far more politically defensible, when parental choice rather than state selection of children by ability is their justification".
The point is that grammar school selection operates from the supply side - it's a form of educational rationing. Selection should operate on both sides, parents selecting schools that suit their children and schools having clear entry criteria.
Grammar/Secondary split was rejected by many because there was a tendency to skew resources and effort into Grammar Schools - Secondary Moderns were for those not good enough for Grammars.
Personally I think decisions on education models shouldn't be taken from the centre - it should provide funding, manage standards and monitor performance - neither should schools necessarily be a state or local authority monopoly. Heads & Teachers are scared of parental involvement because they become directly accountable to their users instead of the educational establishment - so there is a large organised single issue group ready to attack any proposals around localisation & parental choice.
If our policy is about increasing school autonomy, more parental choice and involvement, diversity in supply we need to start a campaign soon to bring those ideas into the forefront and gain support - we can wait to firm up proposals but we need to quickly start campaigning on the philosophy.

[Richard]

I can see the point Mrs Thatcher is making. Rather than enforcing selection using state power, it should be allowed to form on the free market i.e an education system without state intervention (thus allowing schools to have 100% control over admissions). However, such a vision is probably too radical for the electorate at the moment. In which case, enforcement of selection may be the least worst option.

[John Hustings]

"However, such a vision is probably too radical for the electorate at the moment. In which case, enforcement of selection may be the least worst option."

Why?

[Rob Largan]

I think that A selective school system and a school voucher system are compatable. A selective system, is also compatable with localism and school autonomy. The old Grammar/secondary modern system had problems, mainly because Secondary moderns were underfunded and technical schools were barely developed. That doesnt mean that a new selective system would have the same problems.

[Ted]

Couple of points:

1 Selection : The success of charter schools in US in raising the standards of education for both poor & middle class students have been achieved without academic selection (which isn't allowed) - its been, as Mrs Thatcher says, as a result of increasing diversity and choice with schools needing to achieve to continue to attract pupils. Over-subscribed schools in some cases have a lottery to select pupils (so getting a mix of academic & non academic, well off and poor) and still get better results than the monocultural state system.

2: Vouchers aren't a new idea. Tom Paine was among the first to suggest that all "scholars" should be given a grant (or voucher?) paid for by the state, with a decentralised education - looking to increase choice by putting funding of education into the hands of parents. The states role aside from funding would be the inspection of schools. He recognised that this would level the educational playing field between the rich and poor - offering to all the benefits that in the 18th (and 21st century) were only available to the rich (choice, diversity).

This idea might still be too radical for the electorate but the first tentative steps in TBs White Paper are worth supporting unless the compromises mean that the experiment will fail through a pretence of parental choice while centralised management still rules.

[Editor]

"What about the party members opinion about health reform especially keeping the NHS?"

Fair question, Fred.

We could only ask a limited number of questions this time and I'm sorry if you don't think the questions we prioritised were the most pertient. There's always next month and the month after etc so all suggestions for issues for the Panel are welcome.

Thanks, Tim

[Richard]

""However, such a vision is probably too radical for the electorate at the moment. In which case, enforcement of selection may be the least worst option."

Why?"

Because selective education is clearly superior to comprehensive education. If people aren't prepared to let go of state-controlled education, the state should at least try providing the best possible system.

[John Hustings]

"Because selective education is clearly superior to comprehensive education. If people aren't prepared to let go of state-controlled education, the state should at least try providing the best possible system."

I'm sorry I made my question unclear.

Why is "such a vision" (schools being free of state control) too radical for the electorate? I don't see why.

[petersmith]

We must stop running away from making the 'difficult' arguments for what is right. If we don't have vision, if we don't communicate vision and argue for real engines of change, then what it the point of us?

[Derek]

Surely the big problem in education today is the huge rise in disruptive pupils. Unless heads are able to successfully control or expel these, then the school will not be adequate. This problem has grown as a direct result of the abolition of corporal punishment, coupled with the "children's rights" agenda. If that cannot be reversed, which I believe it should, then we will have to provide special schools to take these children. This is one reason why so many schools are failing, and why so many parents are prepared to pay for education.

[Richard]

"Why is "such a vision" (schools being free of state control) too radical for the electorate? I don't see why."

To be honest, now I'm asked the question directly, I'm not sure why. I suppose it's because I fear that the usual arguments would be effectively trotted out against it. "It will only benefit the middle classes, the Tories are obsessed with privatisation, newly privatised schools will only accept the intelligent" etc. It's not so much the theory people would object to, but the way its opponents would portray it.

Nevertheless, if there's a chance the Tories can successfully sell the idea of self-governing schools then I say go for it.

[Richard Allen]

"We must stop running away from making the 'difficult' arguments for what is right. If we don't have vision, if we don't communicate vision and argue for real engines of change, then what it the point of us?"

Indeed, but that would take courage and conviction which seem to be sadly lacking.

[tory guy]

Some of these questions miss the point. A modern conservative agenda includes lower taxes, school choice, social insurance for all etc. The problem is not ruling out grammar schools, or saying we will stand up for big business or test policies on their impact on the poorest. The problem is the change in Conservative Party policy away from choice and less government won't help the poor and people who are dependent on their wages/salary to live. This unnecessary and undesirable change of policy has been well documented by the excellent think tank, Reform:

http://www.reform.co.uk/website/pressroom/bulletinarchive.aspx?o=131

The media is lazily confusing those in the party who regret the party is now ruling out serious reform (except in the area of policing) with those who are upset about grammar schools or the patients' passport or who don't like the party taking a more inclusive, tolerant attitude to minorities. Our objections would be more easily communicated and get a better hearing if we refused to confuse these two very different objections to the new party leadership.

[petersmith]

You're right, Tory Guy. Those who want radical reform to make life better in Britain for the poor souls at the bottom of the heap are tarred with the 'right-wing-nutters-against-the-modern-world' brush. It's absurd.

[libertorian]

if we don't communicate vision and argue for real engines of change, then what it the point of us?

To provide jobs for public school types like Cameron and his mates, it seems.

[tory guy]

It actually helps those in the party who support ruling out serious reform of tax, education and health for us to be confused with those who hold reactionary views.

That ridiculous Newsnight the other night contributed to the confusion. It is not in our interests to go along with it.

[libertorian]

Those who want radical reform to make life better in Britain for the poor souls at the bottom of the heap are tarred with the 'right-wing-nutters-against-the-modern-world' brush

Good point. Those of us of radical reforming right need to do more to divorce ourselves from the intolerant backward-looking right. The two are far to often grouped together, while their priorities are often very different.

[Sean Fear]

"The media is lazily confusing those in the party who regret the party is now ruling out serious reform (except in the area of policing) with those who are upset about grammar schools or the patients' passport or who don't like the party taking a more inclusive, tolerant attitude to minorities. Our objections would be more easily communicated and get a better hearing if we refused to confuse these two very different objections to the new party leadership"

This confusion is understandable because the party leadership is alienating both groups. They can live with criticism from Peter Hitchens and Simon Heffer; they should worry about criticism from people Anatole Kaletsky and John Clare.

[Rob Largan]

"Surely the big problem in education today is the huge rise in disruptive pupils."

Why do you think their is a rise in diruptive pupils? Its because the education system completely neglects students of practical ability. They naturally become frustrated with a system that cannot help them and does not provide for them. Social Mobility is the key. I for one, hope we dont go into another general election, with all we have to say on the massive issue of education is 'School Discipline'. The 2005 manifesto was the biggest cop out in history.

[John Hustings]

"Its because the education system completely neglects students of practical ability. They naturally become frustrated with a system that cannot help them and does not provide for them. "

This is a good and rarely made point. Compulsory academic education to 16 is not suitable for some young people and as you say, it just frustrates them and leads to them to disruption. What's the point of paying any attention in History class when you know its of no importance to yourself?

[Mike Christie]

"Its because the education system completely neglects students of practical ability. They naturally become frustrated with a system that cannot help them and does not provide for them."

Hear hear! I work in a school and this is so true. Our education system is ridiculously over-academic. Children are forced into doing academic subjects even if they are no good at them. There are children in many schools is being forced to endure hours of lessons in subjects they have no aptitude for and that have little or no relevance to their life. All these children learn is failure, their teachers have no expectations of them, they are predicted to get GCSE grades which will be of no use to them in finding a job. Their whole education and outlook on life is based on them being 'low ability'.

In my school at least, only the really disruptive pupils are put on an alternative timetable, with specialists taking the time to find them work placements and the like. This in turn teaches others that in order to get this more interesting education they must be disruptive, and those non-academic pupils who are just too nice to be disruptive get left doing academic subjects to get a handful of E grade GCSEs.

Then we wonder why these kids leave school with low self esteem and poor employment prospects. This is the real national disgrace in our education system. We are deliberately churning out an under-class with no prospects and a whole host of problems.

[Peter]

Tim the problem I had with the EPP policy is that Cameron is going over the heads of the MEPs which to me shows that he feels that he can do what he likes without taking into account other peoples views within the party. To me thats wrong and what people should do is just get of their backsides next time we select our candidates and select ones who have our individual views on the policy?

[Richard]

"Tim the problem I had with the EPP policy is that Cameron is going over the heads of the MEPs which to me shows that he feels that he can do what he likes without taking into account other peoples views within the party. To me thats wrong and what people should do is just get of their backsides next time we select our candidates and select ones who have our individual views on the policy?"

The MEP's have to accept that the majority of the British electorate (and especially Tory voters) are Eurosceptic. By trying to promote their own pro-European agenda they are ignoring the wishes of their voters. Cameron is right to ensure that our views do not go unrepresented.

[Derek]

Rob and Mike are both raising good points. We need to offer places in technical schools to the non-academic pupils, or include these courses in the larger comprehensives. Of course if these students see no job opportunities a the end of it then they will see no point.

The reality is that thousands of pupils have no opportunity to find gainful employment, and that needs to be addressed.