Tebbit demands more beef from Cameron

Simon Heffer, Melanie Phillips, Peter Hitchens, Jeff Randall, Irwin Stelzer, Fraser Nelson, Geoffrey Wheatcroft... and now Norman Tebbit.

Former Tory Chairman Lord Tebbit is the latest right-of-centre/ conservative thought leader to express concerns about the direction of 'Cameron's Conservatives'.  In an article for The Sunday Telegraph, Lord Tebbit writes:

"Of course Mr Cameron is right to see that the Conservative Party has to change. Margaret Thatcher saw that too. Nor are all Mr Cameron's changes ill advised. I had been trying to bring Conservative environmentalists on board the party for a long time and I am pleased to see Zac Goldsmith joining, despite his opposition to nuclear power.  Nor should Tories be ashamed of Mr Cameron's concern with world poverty, but throwing money at corrupt dictators because they have ruined their economies will help neither poor Africans nor poor British.

The trouble is that we have other problems here at home. With selection on ability (but not ability to pay) and vouchers ruled out, how will we improve our schools? If the Treasury alone can finance hospitals, how can they be run for patients and not for the Treasury?  New Labour has all but destroyed occupational pension schemes. Would Chancellor Osborne take the Treasury's greedy hands out of pension funds?  How would Cameron deal with multiculturalism, which threatens social stability? Would he encourage marriage and stable families? Could he free us from our masters in Brussels?"

Comments

[R UK]

The problem with Norman Tebbit is that he is always right. But he must stop looking at Cameron's output as policy statement, and see it for what it really is - a charm offensive. Now Norm, you do know what that is, don't you? -

NT the man who made offensiveness charming, must allow the new man to reverse the order, and by doing so, reverse the process. Cameron puts the charm before the offensive. It's all so much less painful that way.

'On yer bike' is now passe - a new version would be like this - the Conservatives are proposing a new way to alleviate the difficulties people are experiencing in locating suitable employment - called 'Net Work', an idea from David Cameron who says that bicycling in City traffic is becoming too dangerous, except where there are dedicated cycle lanes.

This new work-finding initiative allows people to find work by entering their address on a website, and they receive a personalised list of jobs starting with the nearest and the best rates of pay. If any training is needed this will be part-funded, and tax incentives are being given to employers who create more and better jobs.

Norman - it's the new game. 'On Yer Bike' is now more like 'is there anything I can do to help?'. The world's too brutal to confront people with stark reality. They cannot take it any more Norman. It's all that 24 hour news. Don't you see?

[Frank Young]

When will the Daily Telegraph stop giving a platform to people who only wish to rubbish the progress being made by both David Cameron and the Conservative party. It only leads to stories like this and the impression that there is a rift within the party when there is anything but.

I'm starting to become seriously disillusioned with the DT.

[Mike Smith]

'On yer bike' is now passe

Well, anonymous politics expert R-UK, would you care to prove your expertise by telling everybody precisely when Lord Tebbit used the phrase 'On yer bike'?

No doubt you believe he said it all the time, but just a single example will do,

And at the same time perhaps you'd tell us why your blatant misquotation of one of the greatest post-war Tories - a man who suffered physically for his principles - is somehow more honourable and less ignorant and malicious than when the same foul lie is used by the far left?

When will the Daily Telegraph stop giving a platform to people who only wish to rubbish the progress being made by both David Cameron and the Conservative party.

Ever heard of free speech, Frank? No, I thought not.

Yesterday you wanted me to shut up. I'm rather flattered to find myself in the same company as Tebbit and Heffer.

Actually the Telegraph is improving steadily under its new editor. With the welcome return of guest columnists such as Norman Stone, Melanie McDonagh, and Mary Kenny, it's actually beginning to resemble the great newspaper it once was.

And I can already see the seeds of a future turnabout on Eton Dave.

[Peter Franklin]

Lord Tebbit, though very much a man of the right, is being a good deal more reasonable than, say, Simon Heffer. He does two things that other Cameron-sceptics would do well to follow:

(a)He recognises what DC is actually trying to achieve.

(b) His criticisms are constructive and based on principle.

I think Tebbit is being premature in implying that DC will go down the wrong paths described, nevertheless it is this sort of article that provides a useful contribution to the debate rather than rants of the Cameron-is-a-pinko-trot-pantywaist-liberal-traitor variety.

[Frank Young]

I possibly appeared rather censorious, I also find reading and listening to politicians with varied views very interesting and try to reflect on them honestly. The comments by Tebbit were as usual, intelligent and well made.

I just worry that the DT is, after coming out so supportively for Cameron, aligning itself to a very specific sort of Conservatism.

[Ed R]

Another strongly Cameron-sceptic article from the Telegraph. I wouldn't mind that so much if it produced articles criticising what he's saying and adding to the level of debate, but mostly it just seems to be gleeful divisiveness. I'll take Norman Tebbit's wisdom over Simon Heffer's bawling nonsense any day of the week, but that's feint praise indeed...

As much as I like Norman Tebbit, his argument here is built on foundations of sand. Margaret Thatcher was the 'dark blue' alternative in the face of a 'deep red' threat. She rescued the country from that and perhaps destroyed old-style socialist politics in this country. But there is no evidence of a strong desire to return to that level of radicalism. Voters often don't see Blair as some pinko -- when polled to say where on the scale of left wing to right they are, he comes out more right wing than they are. Margaret Thatcher already fought and won the war against unreconstructed socialism. There really is no need, some clearly feel, for all those 'lost' voters to reappear.

Now it is time to win the peace. Cameron identified all the fields of play Labour has staked out as its own almost by default, because the opposition didn't turn up to the match: quality of life, global poverty, social justice, economic competitiveness etc. First he must do some course correction just to demonstrate that he's now on a wavelength with the majority not just of Tory voters but of floating voters. Yes, Conservatives ALWAYS redistribute wealth -- it's only a fiction of the left that the party is out to screw the poor, so let's tackle that. No, we don't want to dismantle or 'privatise' the health service -- another fiction of the left. If Cameron errs on the side of caution too much for the heartlands, if he takes the soft option instead of the hard fight, it's because he's realised that sometimes in peacetime you have to choose your battles. Radicalism is a luxury of necessity and there is no spectre of the winter of discontent to drive voters to the polls. But when Cameron does decide to be radical, he will have earnt the right to be a serious politician talking serious politics.

[Frank Young]

Excellent post. Agree entirely.

[Cllr Iain Lindley]

Agreed. Good job Ed.

[Mike Smith]

Conservatives ALWAYS redistribute wealth

Can we quote you on that, Ed?

[Ed R]

I believe you just did, Mike! Whatever advantages there may be in dismantling the current tax and benefit system and implementing an entirely laissez-faire model, it's not been Conservative policy -- at least, not in my lifetime.

[Cllr Iain Lindley]

The only way to fail to distribute wealth is to abolish government entirely and without exception. Every penny spent is a redistribution one way or another. I don't think even you Mike advocate the complete abolition of government! ;)

[Biodun]

Frank, I'm suprised that you're suprised at the Daily Telegraph!

Don't forget that they were the last of the traditional right-wing papers to come out in support of Cameron.

The former editor, (Martin Newland?)'s support for Cameron in the face of this was one of the things that led to his resignation.

The telegraph did not want Cameron, and only jumped on the bandwagon after it was pretty much certain he was going to win.

Now I think they're trying to steer him towards their own brand of conservatism. It won't work, even after the honeymoon period is over.

[Mike Smith]

I believe you just did, Mike! Whatever advantages there may be in dismantling the current tax and benefit system and implementing an entirely laissez-faire model, it's not been Conservative policy -- at least, not in my lifetime.

Nor mine, much as that may surprise you - but then I am a former Inland Revenue officer.

However my long experience in the Tory Party taught me that vast numbers of party members rank expressions of anti laissez-faire sentiment with the Sin against the Holy Ghost.

Some years ago at a party conference fringe meeting paid for by some denationalised company I had the temerity to ask their spokesman how much salary his chairman received prior to denationalisation and how much afterwards.

I was lucky to escape the room in one piece.

Tory declarations of anti-racism &c. are now old hat, but if you and your fellow-Cameroons think you can take on the Tory Party's love of the almighty £ you are indeed playing with fire.

[Esbonio]

I thought Lord Tebbit's article was well balanced and constructive. We owe a lot to
him and other members of Lady Thatcher's cabinets. They rescued the UK from being the economic sick man of Europe and together with the the US under Reagan helped win the Cold War. If the DT is going to be more eclectic in the right of centre views expressed in its pages so much the better.

The shame is that after forcing the left to accept the winning economic argument, Labour was allowed in with little opposition to cause untold damage to our constitution and civil liberties.

[Frank Young]

My worry is that the DT is not going to be eclectic in its comments pages but is, increasingly, going to be dominated by a particular type of Conservatism.

I understand there is a vacancy at the moment for a weekly commentator and I hope, having made such a fanfare over the arrival of Heffer, that they appoint somebody who challenges their own orthodoxy.

[Daniel Vince-Archer]

It's nice to see Norman Tebbit being reasonable and offering constructive criticism for once and avoiding the 'doomed, doomed I tells ya!' rants preferred by the Simon Heffers, Peter Hitchenses and Mike Smiths of this world. I can't say I agree with everything he says in this article but at least he can present his concerns in a measured, rational manner.

[James Hellyer]

"...that they appoint somebody who challenges their own orthodoxy."

I think it's amazing that some people here protest whenever the Telegrpah has articles by columnists who question parts of Cameron's agenda. The Telegraph is packed full of columnists who are far more than sympathetic to Cameron (e.g. D'Ancona, Thompson, Leith), so these protests seem aimed at actually reducing the breadth of political comment...

[Frank Young]

The measure of these things, like a lot in politics, is eternal vigilance. I certainly wouldn't want to reduce the latitude of these commentators. I find Matthew D'Ancona fascinating and notice another excellent piece in the Sunday Telegraph today.

It will be interesting to see who, if anybody, they appoint to fill their vacancy on the comment pages.

(PS apologies I forget who it is that's just left)

[Mike Smith]

It's nice to see Norman Tebbit being reasonable and offering constructive criticism for once

Have you actually read the whole article, Daniel? I daresay it's on the Telegraph website if you can't bear to buy the paper.

Lord Tebbit's weapon of choice on this occasion is the sly stiletto, but it is at least as deadly as Heffer's bludgeon.

[Phil J]

Don't forget that they were the last of the traditional right-wing papers to come out in support of Cameron

Formally that’s true, but the idea that Newland was hounded out by ‘traditional’ journalists is utterly bizarre and sounds like some Guardianesque fantasy. The Telegraph’s editorial may have endorsed Cameron only a week or so before the voting closed (but why should it have endorsed either candidate before then?) but the general tone of the paper was very pro-Cameron from the moment of his conference speech with such people as Toby Helm, Alice Thompson, Rachel Sylvester, Brendan Carlin, George Jones and Sam Leith clearly ‘on message’. In fact some Telegraph journalists appear to be politically Left in an absolute sense and Rachel Sylvester even writes occasional pieces for Tribune, the ‘old Labour’ publication.

And it would be unrealistic to see Cameron head off leftwards in the way that he has and not hear some polite coughing from what is still meant to be a Tory paper. Cameron still gets the benefit of the doubt from many of us on the Right and I agree with the gist of Ed R’s post above. But hoping that Cameron pulls up short before he starts gouging away at the SWP core vote cannot be a matter of blind faith. Stiletto Tebbit is applying the brakes gently; his article delivers the essential points and frames them well.

(My betting is that the polecat will make its appearance in mid-summer)

[Daniel Vince-Archer]

"Have you actually read the whole article, Daniel?"

Have you actually read my whole post, Mike? I said I didn't agree with everything he said.

"Formally that’s true, but the idea that Newland was hounded out by ‘traditional’ journalists is utterly bizarre and sounds like some Guardianesque fantasy."

I've read that he resigned in a hissy fit about John Bryant being brought in above him as editor-in-chief.

"And it would be unrealistic to see Cameron head off leftwards in the way that he has and not hear some polite coughing from what is still meant to be a Tory paper."

There's a difference between polite coughing and Hefferesque hacking and retching like a melodramatic hypochondriac.

[James Hellyer]

"Voters often don't see Blair as some pinko -- when polled to say where on the scale of left wing to right they are, he comes out more right wing than they are."

Only if they're Liberal Democrats, for everyone else he's more or less on the political centrepoint.But as Anthony Wells noted:

"Come the next election of course, Gordon Brown will be in charge of the Labour party and YouGov found that people perceive him as being far more left-wing, with an average rating of -20...

"When Brown takes over as PM of course, the Labour party will no longer have Blair’s middle-ground appeal, and suddenly they will be a party that is perceived as left wing, led by a Prime Minister who is perceived as left wing."

Brown may nt actually be more left wing than Blair is (he is, after all, the co-architect of New Labour), but he's perceived as being very left wing.

So where doe that leave the Conservatives? Well, the problem we had under Michael Howard wasn't out policy agenda as such (although that was naarrow and hopelessly timid), but rather the perception of Michael Howard himself:

"Dragging [the Conservative Party] out rightwards was the figure of Michael Howard - YouGov found that Conservative voters put him on average at 42, while Lib Dem and Labour voters put him at an increasingly extreme 62 and 65 respectively."

So while we were actually to the right of centre by only a small margin, perceptions of Michael Howard made us appear extreme.

The point of this is that a leader who's perceived as less extremem can move the perception of the party towards the centre ground, without necessarily abandoning right wing policies, and specifically the sort of outlook we need towards the public services.

The point is that the course was corrected the moment the angry man stopped being leader.

And on your own post:

"Yes, Conservatives ALWAYS redistribute wealth -- it's only a fiction of the left that the party is out to screw the poor, so let's tackle that.

Except the party's aim is not redistribution. It's a means and not an end - that's a key distinction that seems to be lost here. The problem is that when the likes of Letwin use leftist language, it's often hard to see that they actually mean anything different when they use it...

We should be showing that compassion for the poor is not the prerogative of the left, rather than confirming it by appropriating their lingua franca!

"or 'privatise' the health service -- another fiction of the left."

Actually rather a lot of us would like to break up the National health service, but that doesn't mean privatising it or introducing a US style private insurance system. Again it seems you've allowed the left to frame the debate, and give the impression that the only options are the NHS or treatment for profit...

[Justin Hinchcliffe]

I carry no torch for Norman Tebbit, but his article seems to be measured and thoughtful. Nevertheless, whenever his name is mentioned, it does remind some people of the Party's 'nasty' image. As mentioned above, it's not our policies that put people off it's was the language we used to use to sell them. Still, give me the polecat anyday over that spiteful Heffer bloke.

[Phil J]

Yes, the Hefferlump does not so much cough as crash about violently, though even there his brusqueness is a refreshing contrast to that of the patricians’ discontent of 20 years ago which expressed itself in caviling weasel words and absurd nonsense about ‘shrill tones’.

But I was talking about Tebbit; and the essential point is that the Cameron has had some good support from the Telegraph and his supporters must now expect his venture to take some rough with the smooth.

[Frank Young]

The public's perceptions of leaders being left/right in relation to thier own a view is a crucial indicator. It will be interesting to see how this indicator develops in the months and years ahead.

I suspect Cameron has this very much in mind with a lot of the things he is doing.

[Biodun]

Again it seems you've allowed the left to frame the debate, and give the impression that the only options are the NHS or treatment for profit...

James you've made this point many times before, but I don't recall you offering any suggestions on what these other options are.

I'd like to hear a few of the alternatives you think should be proposed.

[James Hellyer]

James you've made this point many times before, but I don't recall you offering any suggestions on what these other options are.

Yes I have, as have several other people. I suspect however that any talk of a social insurance model is being wrongly conflated with private insurance by many people.

A prime defect of our health system is that funding flows down from ministers through bureaucratic systems - this means that national politicians will always try and exercise control because they are blamed if something goes wrong. That's why independence is impossible within the NHS framework.

We should make state hospitals independent, self-governing charitable foundations, financed by payments for the individual treatment.

[Frank Young]

Theres a lot of good policy sense here, and much I think we could all agree with.

Are you taking about vouchers here or something more akin to old grant maintained schools?

[James Hellyer]

Voucher schemes are less obviously applicable to the health service than they are to schools - the pattern of service consumption is very different. I'd say you therefore need an external funding body outside the Treasury to disburse the state's payments towards treatments (as is the case in some countries on the continent).

I then also think we need to fundamentally examine what the state funded health service should actually do. I don't see, for example, why the New Years revellers, whose injuries are basically self-inflicted, should receive free treatment for those injuries. It's time for some self-responsiblilty.

[Biodun]

I'd say you therefore need an external funding body outside the Treasury to disburse the state's payments towards treatments (as is the case in some countries on the continent).
I don't see how an state hospital can ever be independent as you initially suggested if it is not in control of it's own funding.

An external funding body would dictate (directly or indirectly) to a large extent how the hospital should be run.

Most revellers with self-inflicted injuries, probably are younger and therefore less likely to suffer from the more chronic and expensive diseases that come with old age. Heart Disease, breast cancer, etc.

I think I've only been to the doctors 2 or 3 times in the last 10 years of regular tax-paying. If in the future I choose to indulge in some New Year revelry and get injured, I shouldn't be penalised for that. The costs would be negligible compared to what I put into the state's coffers.

You could always ask people to pay later if an injury is shown to be self-inflicted, but I suspect even the method of assessment will involve yet more costs and bureaucracy.

In any case, we shouldn't refuse people life-saving treatment if their injuries are self-inflicted.

I don't see how this model would improve the current situation. It would just throw up different problems.

[James Hellyer]

"I don't see how an state hospital can ever be independent as you initially suggested if it is not in control of it's own funding."

That's like saying that WH Smiths isn't independent because it relies on customers for its funding...

"An external funding body would dictate (directly or indirectly) to a large extent how the hospital should be run."

No it wouldn't. The point is that it's outside of political structures, it's free from political control. This can be seen in practice in France, where the social insurance is collected through the payroll by non-government, non-profit agencies, which owe their allegiance to employers and employees. The same can be seen in Germany.

"Most revellers with self-inflicted injuries, probably are younger and therefore less likely to suffer from the more chronic and expensive diseases that come with old age. Heart Disease, breast cancer, etc."

And they aren't going to get older and also suffer from these diseases?

" If in the future I choose to indulge in some New Year revelry and get injured, I shouldn't be penalised for that."

Yes you should. Take some responsibility for your actions.

"In any case, we shouldn't refuse people life-saving treatment if their injuries are self-inflicted."

And that's a great big straw man. Billing someone afterwards is not the same as refusing treatment.

[Mark Fulford]

"I don't see, for example, why the New Years revellers, whose injuries are basically self-inflicted, should receive free treatment for those injuries. It's time for some self-responsiblilty."

So we should alcohol-test anyone who's had an accident? And what about illnesses resulting from poor diet or addiction? Are they self-inflicted?

This suggestion would be so unpalatable that Conservatives would be considered quite mad and unelectable for adopting it.

[Mike Smith]

(My betting is that the polecat will make its appearance in mid-summer)

I agree.

While 'The Quiet Man' was floundering around pitifully two or three years ago another member of the H of L asked Tebbit what he thought of IDS.

‘Iain Duncan who?' came the devastating reply

[James Hellyer]

"So we should alcohol-test anyone who's had an accident?"

They do. And drug test. You have to know what someone's had bofre you can pump drugs into them.

"And what about illnesses resulting from poor diet or addiction? Are they self-inflicted?"

Have you missed the point that NHS trusts are already denying people operations if they're overweight/smoke/drink?

"This suggestion would be so unpalatable that Conservatives would be considered quite mad and unelectable for adopting it."

Codifying exactly what the state will and won't pay for is only reasonable. We don't owe a free ride to the feckless.

[Chris Palmer]

Lord Tebbit doesn't exactly have a perfect record on the "supporting the leader" front. However, what he says is both right... and wrong. Yes, to satisfy those who care about infinite-detail policies, then Cameron must do better. However, for the people the party must win over, being policy-lite can be quite appealing as often it is the image Cameron radiates that is the vote winner rather than the policies themselves. This is perhaps an unfortunate side-affect of the celebrity obsessed world we live in - but is reality and Conservatives must deal with reality (unlike the Lib Dems at the moment who seem to be still living in a fantasy world of there own.)

[Mark Fulford]

So we should alcohol-test anyone who's had an accident?

They do. And drug test.

Yes, but not with a view to charging for treatment.

"Have you missed the point that NHS trusts are already denying people operations if they're overweight/smoke/drink?"

On the basis of clinical benefit in a rationed environment rather than 'it was your own stupid fault'.

[R UK]

It is a key part of the Cameron appeal to the public that the likes of Mike Smith go on a rant.

I disagree about Tebbit. He was fiercely supportive of IDS in February 2003 - constantly battering Portillo when Portillo was hunting the end of IDS.

It was the 'quiet man' who introduced the emphasis on social justice, local democracy and euroscepticism which are the three keys to understanding Cameron.

Trying to build a nice simple picture of Tebbit and the good old lot being agin the very wet new lot doesn't wash, my dear friend. Both IDS and Cameron had and have much greater public appeal than Norm does these days. Let's play to our strengths, and support the leadership we have.

But keep up the rants Mike. It's part of Cameron's game.

[James Hellyer]

"Yes, but not with a view to charging for treatment."

So it can be done with no extra cost :)

"On the basis of clinical benefit in a rationed environment rather than 'it was your own stupid fault'."

Indeed, but it's an admission that these things are self-inflicted. And this is far ore humane - everyone gets their treatment, but the binge drinkers lose some money they would have spent on future nights out.

[Mike Smith]

But keep up the rants Mike. It's part of Cameron's game.

Wow! An IDS fan. Strangely enough, Heffer is one too. Well, he can't be right all the time.

So, R-UK, when did Tebbit use the phrase
'On yer bike'? as you claimed earlier?

I see you have - probably correctly - branded me as 'unintelligent'. Now you have a chance to show off.

As for Tebbit supporting IDS against Portillo, of course he did.

Tebbit disliked Portillo for certain reasons I'm sure I don't have to repeat here.

[James Hellyer]

And as ever it remains fascinating that people want to argue over a throwaway point (because they like subsidising the stupid?), but ignore the wider issue of public service reform.

[Richard]

The problem with the "smokers and drinkers should pay for their treatment" argument is that they contribute significantly to the treasury via duty on cigarettes and alcohol. Revenue from "sin taxes" might also be higher if the government reduced them (fewer black market goods).

[malcolm]

Why are you on this blog Mike? You are judging from the quality of your posts about as far as it's possible to be from mainstream Conservative Party thinking.You're right 'though the Conservative Party has left you not the other way round.Thank God for that.
On the subject of the thread,I have sympathy with Tebbits view and I'm glad he couched more diplomatically than usual.But he must remember that Cameron has only been leader a month.Rather than making detailed policy commitments now Cameron is more interested in showing the public at large how much the Conservative party has changed,something he has been remarkably successful in achieving so far.
One of the ways he has done is by choosing his enemies wisely (like Heffer).If Tebbit is clever he won't do anything to cause Cameron to make an enemy of him too.Tebbit would be loser if he were to do so.
As regards the DTelegraph,I think they are wise to offewr a wide breadth of opinion and not offer unqualified support to Cameron.Having said that if the dismissed Heffer who has become pompous, humourless and dull,I wouldn't complain.

[R UK]

Well put Malcolm - apart from the Heffer bit. The world would be a duller place.
Response to Mike Smith on Hewitt thread.

[Chad]

David Cameron has been leader for just 4 weeks. We could have 4 years before the next general election, i.e, we are about just 1-2% of our way into this journey.

Where would the sense be in rushing out a full manifesto now? David Cameron is seeking to seeking the direction of the party, and has clearly set his six key challenges for the next few years.

And yet, in just one month, suddenly supporters and opposition alike are recognising the rebirth of the Tories as a political force, and there is a genuine buzz about being a Conservative.

It has been a remarkable month, and not all will be so good, but it is fair to say that this month has been the first step in the journey that Cameron invited us all to join during his conference speech.

Only those who fear the real potential of Cameron becoming pm on a progressive agenda could possibly be sniping at this early stage.

Tebbit asks valid questions in the article, but now is simply too soon to expect all the answers. Forward wind three years, then they will be particularly relevant, and will need clear answers, but for now, it is time to reflect and consider direction, exactly as Cameron is doing.

Conservatives are excited once again, and they are smiling. It has been a good month. :-)

[James Hellyer]

"Where would the sense be in rushing out a full manifesto now?"

Nobody is asking for the full manifesto. However, in the pronouncements that have been made there have been some sweeping policy decisions made (only Majorite reforms to the NHS, for example), and future development on some issues (such as school vouchers) completely curtailed. So it's hardly surprising that that these directional noises make some of us worry that David Cameron is going the wrong way.

[Derek]

It's true that many activists will become impatient for policy detail before the 18 months policy commissions have finished their work. At the moment Dave is still in his honeymoon period, enjoying the novelty of being new. He is now able to make some very appealing positive pronouncements, which he is doing very well.

At the end of his first 100 days, the kind of questions raised by Tebbit will be being asked increasingly by many others. I cannot see how he will be able to avoid making policy announcements well before the end of his policy commission deliberations.

Any policy that sets out to achieve something is likely to be controversial. He cannot be all things to all voters. The centre ground is very narrow, and very bland.

[Mike Christie]

"t's true that many activists will become impatient for policy detail before the 18 months policy commissions have finished their work." - Derek

The problem I have here Derek is that Cameron is already making announcements prior to the reports from his policy commissions, the comments on health in particular immediately closed off whole areas of debate in insisting that a monolithic tax funded NHS beauraucracy was here to stay. Rather that deciding what we feel is right then arguing to make it popular I worry that we decide what is popular then convince ourselves that it is right.

[James Hellyer]

"I cannot see how he will be able to avoid making policy announcements well before the end of his policy commission deliberations."

The thing is, David Cameron and his shadow cabinet are already making policy announcements. Today David Willetts rules out a return to grammar schools. Last week David Cameron scrapped the Patient's Passport and ruled out any meaningful NHS Reform. Oliver Letwin has said he'll be "astounded" if ideas like school vouchers survive the policy review. In this light the consultations look anything but - key issues are already being decided, and in a way that favours inetia, rather than considering making any alternate case. It looks like we're surrendering on issues before we've started. That's why there's unrest.

[Mark Fulford]

Anything that can be construed as NHS privatisation is more than an unpopular argument... by the time it's been played out in the media, it's an unwinnable argument. It damages us to fight for unwinnable ground and it's sensible to concede now.

I don't see the same need to concede over Grammar Schools - where there is growing support to reverse the liberal trends. I like Letwin and support Cameron, but it's wrong that they, who've had the best education that money can buy, don't defend the best education you can get for free.

[I despair!]

"Anything that can be construed as NHS privatisation is more than an unpopular argument... by the time it's been played out in the media, it's an unwinnable argument."

All of which works on the assumption that David Cameron and Andrew Lansley are such bas salesmen that they can't communicate a policy mesage.

[James Hellyer]

The schools announcement is pretty poor. It completely surrenders any idea of independence by saying that ministers dictate what gets taught in the classroom. The national curriculum has hardly been an astounding success...

Rather we should have encouraged independence, perhaps only setting a core curriculum, and also encourage a multiplicity of qualifications, with exam boards competing for business. That way only qualification in which people had confidence would have survived.

[wasp]

James under your charge for self inflicted injuries would that include sports injuries?

So nobody plays sport because of the risks, then they all get fat and diabetic but have to pay for that too.

What about all the people that are injured because they are stupid?

[wasp]

James under your charge for self inflicted injuries would that include sports injuries?

So nobody plays sport because of the risks, then they all get fat and diabetic but have to pay for that too.

What about all the people that are injured because they are stupid?

[Frank Young]

I think we should reserve judgement until the public service reform group have reported back.

I think anything that reduces the independence of Headteachers and diminishes the ability of teachers to teach effectively is likely to be a retrograde step.

I'm interested in in these new school trusts and look forward to hearing more about them

[Mark Fulford]

'I despair', we've tried pissing into the wind too often. On health financing we've got to wait for the wind to change - as I believe it has done on education.

[James Hellyer]

"James under your charge for self inflicted injuries would that include sports injuries?"

Yes, and oh look, it's someone else picking up a throwaway point (inspired the horrifc costs of putting a single person through A&E) but ignoring the wider point.

"So nobody plays sport because of the risks, then they all get fat and diabetic but have to pay for that too."

A spurious hypothetical. Nice.

"What about all the people that are injured because they are stupid?"

Do you want to subsidise stupidity?

[Mark Fulford]

What about people who are beaten up because they're irritating ;-)

[James Hellyer]

"'I despair', we've tried pissing into the wind too often."

When have the Conservatives actually tried to make a case for NHS reform, rather than just tinkering with it or allowing more people egress from it?

"On health financing we've got to wait for the wind to change - as I believe it has done on education"

Not on education financing - perhaps because like the NHS we've never actually argued the benefits of alternate systems.

Frankly, I find it hard to see that public opinion will change if we never try and influence it.

[James Hellyer]

"What about people who are beaten up because they're irritating ;-)"

That would be a criminal assault, the cost of which should be borne by the criminal. So there.

[Mike Christie]

Listening to Willets on Today this morning, and the follow-up from the Labour minister desperately trying to argue that ability and aptitude are completely alien to each other, one thing struck me. No-one ever asks Labour why they see selection on ability as such a bad thing.

Prescott in particular rails against selection based on his own experiences. Surely we should reverse the argument and ask him how much better than reaching the office of Deputy Prime Minister he would have done in an education system not tailored to give him an education suitable to his abilities and talents.

[James Hellyer]

The problem with selection is that while grammar schools succeeded, the secondary modern system failed - it was underfunded, got the second rate teachers, and its educational outcomes were never really thought through. Bringing back grammar schools is the easy part of the argument, the hard bit is what you do with everyone else!

[Mike Christie]

Then James we argue from that angle, an overhaul of vocational education designed to engage and enthuse the kids currently left behind by our overly-academic system. An education system designed to prepare all young people for the challenges of the 21st century.

One part of the problem comes from presenting a selection system as a pass or fail, rather than a process of discovering aptitudes and interests.

If rather than using an academic test, a system of aptitude tests and dialogue were used to find out what the child and its family's ambitions and interests were, the whole system could be presented as tailoring education to suit individual needs, rather than a creaming off of the gifted with the rest left to hang. Primary heads could make a recommendation that a child take a particular path, but it would be a combination of parent choice and local school availability that would determine the child's future rather than a simple pass/fail exam mechanism. The fundamental problem with 11+ was that it had failures, rather than children with different educational aims and aspirations. Normally I'm dead against this sort of 'deferred success' type language, but in the case of determining the best type of education for a given child, failure is clearly not a word to be used.

[Mark Fulford]

On issues of funding, where we have an inescapable image of being connected with the better-off, it is extremely easy for other parties to paint our position as uncaring and looking after #1. To explain the pros and cons of funding models requires a level of interest and attention that the majority just don’t have. It’s a fundamental flaw in democracy but it makes the whole issue a damaging non-starter for the Conservative party.

On education, we've turned the entire system into secondary modern. The electorate are still buying the spun exam results but employers know the truth: state education has not improved.

[James Maskell]

Having come from a Grammar School, I am very fond of the selective system, as it provides appropriate education for the pupils. I am not liking the stories today about what Willets is about to announce.

One, it pre-empts the Policy Group again. Whats the point of the Policy Groups if the leadership has already decided what its policies are? Second, the Tories are actually considering supporting university tuition fees, which grates hard with me. I dont support them. Thirdly, Ministers will be given more control over the classroom, meaning more state interference. This is strange because I thought Camerons Conservatives wanted to set teachers free to do their jobs.

[Ted]

The common thread in the policy pronouncements DC has made is to use TB's phrase "the many not the few". Patients passports, grammar schools etc are initiatives that appear targetted at a minority rather than the whole electorate.

Our education policy shouldn't be centred on the gifted few, nor should it focus on the disruptive few. It should be looking at overall standards and raising those - Mike Christie is right in his analysis. We need to bring diversity & choice into the system and drive up standards.

The benefits of private education is the mix between parental choice - finding the school you consider will both provide the best education to your child and one your child will fit into - and the range of schools available with varying admission criteria - from those strong on academic achievement to those which offer a true comprehensive education. Parents accept that their children will not be accepted by every school they approach but equally will usually find one that fits their needs.

[Sean Fear]

Indeed James. How can you allow schools greater independence, on the one hand, while saying that ministers will determine what they teach on the other?

[Mark Fulford]

Our education policy shouldn't be centred on the gifted few, nor should it focus on the disruptive few. It should be looking at overall standards and raising those.

It should be focussed on meeting the needs of every student *including* the gifted few, the disruptive few, the practical and the academic. These different needs can not be met in the same classroom or with the same syllabus. Nor can they be met in large classes.

In terms of raising overall standards, the very little empirical research that compares LEA's shows grammar schools raise the standards for the whole LEA, not just the school.

[James Maskell]

"What I shall be looking for in the months ahead is how best to spread setting, and I would not rule out using central government more in this area".

Anyone notice the comparisons to the A-List issue? Either take it voluntarily or we'll force-feed it to you...

[Frank Young]

Reminiscent of darker New Labour?

[Sean Fear]

That's true James. Northern Ireland is the poorest part of the UK, yet consistently achieves the best overall scores, because of its grammar school system (which is about to be abolished).

[Mark Fulford]

And the main reason for ending selection in NI was that it tended to segregate children from blue and white collar families. The truth is that it's social engineering they're after, not academic results.

[Sean Fear]

In practice though Mark, I expect comprehensivisation will lead to greater social segregation, not less.

[Oberon Houston]

Norman has been talking like this for a long time now, and its seems to me that he is looking for a continuation of the Thatcher project. If he cannot come to terms with more recent developments in Britain (i.e. the last 15 years), then he will find himself increasingly isolated. I am frankly surprised that the Telegraph are willing to let him have so much valuable print space for this.

On that subject, the Telegraph, in my view, is rather like Tebbit - out of date and fixated with views that are old-fashioned, which is a shame because it had a great opportunity to take advantage of the resurgent Tory party, but has squandered it, by prefering Tebbit's, Heffer, Acidic opinion pieces etc. to those more relevant to the mainstream readership.

Fresh faces are needed at this publication, sooner the better, for their sake.

[Sean Fear]

"Norman has been talking like this for a long time now, and its seems to me that he is looking for a continuation of the Thatcher project."

Isn't that our raison d'etre?

[Oberon Houston]

Was. For a while. Time to move on I think, everyone else has.