CCHQ was worried that they'd struggle to win headlines during the early days of Brown's leadership campaign

Headlines from today's newspapers (from top): The Sun, Guardian, Daily Mail, Times, Telegraph and Daily Express.

Comments

[Jamie]

Is it me or is this element of the story nothing new?

a) DC made this policy position clear in the leadership election. He won a clear majority against David Davis, who pledged to build more grammar schools.

b)The Conservative party hasn't had an active policy of building more grammar schools since Harold Macmillan was PM. The education secretary who closed the most grammar schools was Margaret Thatcher in the 1970-74 government.

The big story actually is 'Conservatives seem set to offer less freedom and local autonomy in terms of who can set up a school and who determines what it is like'. That is certainly the indication of Willetts speech which dissapointed me most.

[Nick]

Surely another crucial point is that Labour have managed to get out the news that Gordon will just be appointed PM in a coronation on a day when we have had our eye off the ball?

[Graham Checker]

Every cloud has a silver lining..

Maybe if this drags out and turns into a "battle" which Cameron "wins" he'll have had his Clause 4 moment and he'll be satisfied to move on, get over it & leave alone our other principles.

I'm convinced that this is what he's been trying to engineer for 18 months. No-one has given him a serious fight yet.

This is it.

[Joseph]

Tories will have no need to worry about the headlines, they will get them but not those of their choosing.
After so many U-Turns that Cameron has made to support Labour's policy the electorate will ask themselves why vote for the clone when they can vote for the real McCoy.
I can no longer see a Conservative party and I am sure I am not alone in that.
This is called chickens coming home to roost time.
Just watch the capital Brown will make over this.
These headlines are just the starters.

[Edward]

And people will realise Cameron is changing the whole party and they will listen to us with respect when we rationally and reasonably explain why we want to move the country forward in specific, *conservative* ways in the future.

[John]

I think the fact that they don't intend to build new grammar schools is not the issue here.

I agree that the fact that this policy contradicts the themes of localism and choice is a big issue.

In addition by suggesting that Grammar Schools actually work against poorer kids only provides ammunition for those who would like to close them.That too would be a big issue should Grammar Schools be threatened.

Add to this that it was predictable that this would cause an uproar and considering the way Cameron responded in the way he did (rather Blair like I thought)trivialising the views of a large section of Conservative support just proves how much Cameron has misjudged the mood.

There was no need to focus on Grammar Schools in the way Willett's did. There was no need to drop selection completely.

As a result Cameron has probably lost votes and the Brown accession has slipped through quietly.

Quite an own goal!

[Traditional Tory]

Maybe if this drags out and turns into a "battle" which Cameron "wins"

If you are right about this Cameron is an even bigger fool than I had hitherto supposed.

If an in-party battle takes place it's irrelevant who thinks they've won. The real fight for a party thus weakened, dispirited and bitter will come at the General Election, which Cameron will lose.

It's now clear to an increasing number of posters here that what a staunch few of us have been saying all the time is true. Cameron is prepared to spout any PC nonsense and ditch any Conservative principle in pursuit of his manic lust for power.

We need a return to a safe, moderate, pair of hands, trusted by the party. Either it has to be Davis, or Hague should return.

That 'anti-Blair' poll lead - always soft and suspect - is dropping fast. As soon as it drops into negative figures we'll begin to scent blood.

We made a big mistake. Let's correct it ASAP.

[matthew]

why are you all getting so worked up? How many grammar schools did Thatcher and Major build between 1979 and 1997?

Zero?

So what is the net change as a result of Dave's announcement?

Nothing.

[welberry]

Time for new Personnel in the CCHQ Press Office - what a disaster!

[Bill]

I agree that insulting as the privileged Tory toffs approach towards grammar schools is, the real issue is the leadership's manic search for a mythical "Clause 4" moment coupled with its continued patronising and contemptuous attitude towards traditional Tories who do not
see the world through their Notting Hill perspective.

[Bill]

Joseph writes some sense. If all the major parties' offerings are left of centre you might as well vote for the real thing. At least they might not patronise you as much as this one does.

[Tory T]

Jamie - no, it's not just you.

"Shock as Cameron repeats policy on which he was elected"

"Restatement of constant Tory policy causes chaos"

Nothing new here at all.

[James Maskell]

The problem I find isnt so much that this is a restatement of an already announced policy but that this is actually the detailed speech on the issue. Lets not forget when it was brought up over a year ago, all the announcement was was that there would be no more grammar schools. Now we get the details on it.

We are all aware that this is already policy. we just wasnt aware of the detail of the policy until yesterday...

[Oberin Houston]

" Chaos as Conservative Party discusses policy... I've had enough says shattered MP. "

[Oberin Houston]

" Tory policy debate decends into farce as Willetts says 'think', Grassroot's are furious."

[Simon Chapman]

Tory T at 1011:
"Shock as Cameron repeats policy on which he was elected"

Was he elected on the promise of no more grammar schools? I can find no record of him saying anything about this until after the leadership election. I am happy to stand corrected, if you can do so.

[Kevin Davis]

Funny how this happens at the very time that Brown decides to talk about education. Being cynical is this just good news management?

[ToMTom]

why are you all getting so worked up? How many grammar schools did Thatcher and Major build between 1979 and 1997?

Zero?

Because she was one of those who went from Grammar School to Somerville at Oxford and politicked in OUCA instead of meeting her tutor Dorothy Hodgkin.

She changed from Methodist to C of E and sent her children to public school once she joined the Conservative Inner Circle.

It is an old story of social climbers kicking away the ladder....Labour had a book about it called Fame Is The Spur by Howard Spring.....the Conservative Party is back to its old game of playing both ends against the middle

[malcolm]

Tory T, Oberon, I normally have so much respect for your opinions , why are you being so foolish with above posts today?
It has been a bad 24 hours for the Conservative party, hopefully all will learn from it and it won't be repeated.
But please don't descend to the half witted abuse of the headbangers who infest this site.

[Edward]

I am still baffled at the bile being expended on this matter. I like the grammar idea but can accept we're never going to sell it. Even if I didn't I can hardly see it is the totemic issue some are making out.

[ACT]

I really don't get this spurious defence by the Cameroons: 'what's new here? this was the policy he was elected on? etc etc. Sure, but in that case, why did the Frontbench drag it into public view again? Nobody (certainly no reactionary Trogs) forced Two Brains and Wonderboy to start spouting on about this. Why did they? What could did *they* think it would do *us* as a Party to start doing so? As others have said, all this goes to show is just how 2nd rate the spin operation is. Campbell & Mandy 93-97 would never have ballsed up this way.

[ACT]

Uh, for 'could' read 'good', which probably sounds better in German.

[Bruce Mackie]

I was absoulutely dismayed when I heard of the latest uttering from the 'Joke Factory'.This statement on Grammar Schools made by David Willetts appears to be a betrayal of one of the principles on which the Tory Party should stand.Where did David Willetts and David Cameron receive the Education? Certainly not it would appear to be in the ordinary education system to which the vast majority of us have had to go through. It seems that they are trying to make it difficult for the rank & file of the Party to follow them on issues such as this. It is alright to attempt to appear to be all things to all men but what will be the result if the alienate their own support without which,we can never win an election.

[Joseph]

Traditional Tory:
The problem being regarding a "safe pair of hands" I would have heartily agreed with you prior to Cameron taking over that Davis would have fitted the bill.
Unfortunately as he has gone along with all Cameron's "say anything do anything get elected at any cost" U-Turns he is now tarred with the same brush and has lost all credibility. Sad but a fact of life just who is going to take a man seriously who can forget life-long principles at the drop of a hat?
As for William Hague,excellent at the dispatch box, a first class speaker great jester a marvellous author but more interested in his bank balance and outside interests, Plus the fact he led the Tories to the worst defeat in living memory. The general public seen him as an old man at 17 years old and the electorate see him now as a talker rather than a do-er.
He has earned the nick-name the highest paid part-timer in the country.

[James Maskell]

Why is the debate on grammar schools and the wider debate on education so "entirely pointless"?

[Londoner]

I saw Tim on Newsnight last night and he acquitted himself well - well done.

I did not add to the record traffic on this yesterday though. Not only because my family buys private education (just to feed some people's paranoia on here), but because it is a non-story isn't it? Willetts and Cameron have been saying for months that they will not support new grammar schools, and this new policy will not force the existing ones to close. So, no change really.

Whether this is good or bad, I find difficult to judge. The fact that the private sector, driven by market forces and what parents want, is often highly selective must tell you something (although high selection hurdles at age 3 or 4 for London private pre-preps are ridiculous and probably mostly just a reflection of a supply shortage). On the other hand, surely this battle has been lost long ago and it's better to fight for educational excellence in the State sector in other ways?

Still rather glad my family can afford to go private though. If not, and provided my children seemed bright, I'd probably move to Kent for the grammar schools. Contradictory (or even hypocritical) to the above - probably.

The only real solution is vouchers, then the market will decide. This would include the non-selective State-sponsored secondary schools having to make themselves very attractive to bright children or else they will take their vouchers to the selective private sector. With setting etc there is no reason why a less selective school should not be as good. I had a child through a relatively non-selective private school, he turned out bright and got to a top University. To realise that potential it was much more about quality and attitude than it was about the average, or lowest level, ability of fellow pupils.

[Edward]

I 100% concur Londoner. More sense like that, please!

[Graham Checker]

The Cameron "fightback" has started!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6658613.stm

Interesting. Read his diary on Webcameron.

You'll see him defending Faith Schools (selection often on basis of faith). Defending schools for the excluded (selection on basis of behaviour). Defending schools for the disabled (selection on basis of (dis)ability!)

If you can select on basis of faith, behaviour and (dis)ability, why can't you select on the basis of ability, which is the precise opposite?!

We're admitting that specialist schools work. This makes a mockery of all our arguments that grammar schools exclude and divide.

Stupid, stupid, STUPID.

Our position is incoherent, illogical, immoral and for pure political expediency.

[Annabel Herriott]

I made the point on another thread, but it can bear repeating. DC wants streaming and setting in all schools, not just the cut off at 11 years, which can be divisive and counter productive. Grammar schools can greatly benefit the all rounders, but for people like me, who would in a streamed school, be in the top set for humanities, and the remedial set for anything math related, well, I wouldnt even have got there. I would be at the secondary modern, doing hairdressing. As it was, I was pulled out of the state system by my parents, who could afford to send me to a private school who did stream me, even initially keeping me down a year. Result, a good career in the NHS. Read the small print folks, and see what is actually being proposed, before you all start running off at the mouth.

[Tory T]

Hear hear Annabel

Graham, you can and will select on the basis of ability under the Tories but you will do it within school not between schools

Malcolm, I think when the next few polls come out you'll see these have been very good days for the Tories. Back on the news agenda and commitments to faith schools, discipline, traditional teaching methods, traditional subjects, expulsion powers, streaming and setting

This is a FAR more traditional agenda than any previous party leader since 97

NOBODY has built new grammar schools, Thatcher did not

And note Willets wants CTCs (Tory) instead of Academies (Lab, watered down) where possible

As Annabel says, read the small print. Speaking as somebody who'd like to abolish GCSEs and go back to O levels and A levels and traditional curricula, and uniforms, I welcome this wholeheartedly

[Curly]

There is more to this than just educational issues, this is symptomatic of DC's aim to change nothing after the Blair-Brown years!
When will he learn that "standing in the middle of the road is the best place to get knocked down"?

Now we are all scurrying about trying to limit the damage caused by this PR disaster, our energies ought to have been aimed against Gordon Brown this week!

[Bradford Lad]

When are we going to face up to it - CAMERON HAS TO GO!

[malcolm]

Oh please Tory T! Your claims are as inaccurate as they are unconvincing.
We have had 10 years of spin and twisting of the truth from Labour, please please let's not follow them.
I would prefer it if CCHQ (which I'm wondering if you work there) were straight with members and the electorate even if that means bad headlines for a few days.

[toryintheeast]

Hey hey, look where DC is placing ads for CCHQ IT peeps.

http://jobs.guardian.co.uk/browse/it-and-telecoms/general/vacancy-w102453.html

how about them apples?

[Michael McGowan]

The most charitable thing you can say about Willetts' speeech is that by prescribing more city academies as the solution to social immobility, he is offering nurofen as a cure for cancer. Malcolm is right: they are an expensive and distortive Blairite gimmick....and at least nurofen is cheap. But then Cameron is the Heir to Blair.

[Graham Checker]

"Graham, you can and will select on the basis of ability under the Tories but you will do it within school not between schools"

?? WTF?

And this makes *what* difference?

I've just pointed out that we support SEPERATE schools for different selection criteria (faith, behaviour, disability) so we've conceded this point already. We're saying "seperate schools aren't a problem; socially or educationally". We've also conceded that teaching by ability isn't an issue - as you've just pointed out.

The only reason I can see NOT to have special schools that select by ability is because they upset people. Especially the namby-pamby guardianistas and the BBC. And because Cameron is trying to use this as a "tool" to rebrand ourselves - again.

Don't like the term "Grammar Schools". Fine. Call them something else then. Revise the 11+ procedure so it takes into account achievements throughout primary school, or find mechanisms to make non-grammar schools better. Schools that specialise in other stuff. More the merrier.

But there's no logical reason to prevent the establishement of new elite schools that select by ability if people want them - none at all.

[Deputy Editor]

torymemberintheeast, that was also on the Party website and W4MP.

[Andy Cooke]

So. Summary of Willets speech:

1 - Grammar schools work well but the entrance system has been systematically "gamed" by middle-class families and age 11 is too late to give poor-but-bright children their way into education. Existing Grammar schools to continue without interference, but creation of new ones would not be the solution.

2 - We want to move towards Education Vouchers. Current stumbling block is supply of effective schools.

3 - Stumbling block to be overcome by:

a - Reducing hurdles for setting up schools in the maintained sector.

b - Reduced central control by using "self-governing" Academies/CTCs.

c - Increase autonomy of Academies/CTCs from central government; encourage small "networks" of similar Academies/CTCs to get an "economy of scale" boost and share techniques without Government interference.

d - The one major "interference" from Government would be to compel "whole class teaching, setting and streaming, and a robust discipline policy ".

e - Use Government resources for independent research to provide advice on teaching methods to teachers (note: advice, not compulsion).

Is that more or less what you've read out of the speech (question aimed at those who have actually read the speech/proposals)?

[Edward]

Yes, and it's good. And it does not mean we can't have Graham Checker's "establishement of new elite schools that select by ability if people want them".

[toryintheeast]

Deputy Editor,

I would hope they put the ad on the party site and w4mp, but did they advertise for it in the Telegraph or even on this site?

I think placing the ad in the Guardian is perhaps as revealing as the Grammar Schools' announcement yesterday.

[Jon Gale]

A) Yesterday morning when I heard about this on the news I shouted "NO!" at the TV

B) Yesterday morning I said on this site that it must be "stupid idea day".

C) about 4pm I read Willetts speech. It was surprisingly persuasive, but I had some doubts.

D) This morning I read Willetts rebuttal of the CPS criticism. I am convinced.

He argues that if Grammar Sschools selected by ability they should have roughly the same ration of poor to better-off pupils as their catchment area (unless poor people geneticaly stupid). But they dont, GS are disproportionately full of the better-off.

He makes the case that this is because modern middle-class parents of less-able pupils 'cheat' by paying for extra tuition to get them selected, while working class kids are held-back by high levels of family breakdown.

He argues that City Technology schools/City Academies do a better job of helping the more-able students (like GS used to), shown by the fact that they are more representative of their catchment area AND achieve good results.

He also wants good schools/city academies to be able to expand, move toward vouchers, streaming/setting etc.

He might be wrong, but all this crap about "pulling up the ladder", "against aspiration" "against selection" "betraying conservative principles" etc. is completly out-of-order

[Deputy Editor]

I can't find it in Telegraph Jobs but the Guardian is clearly the newspaper market leader in job vacancies and this job is practical rather than ideological. Even the HQ Press Team often has non-Conservative professionals.

[Nick Longworth]

We all seem to agree what the objectives of Conservative education policy should be. To raise standards across the board and create more opportunities for pupils from poor families to benefit from the best education.
The differences arise over how to achieve them.
David Willetts is arguing that the solutions of the past will not work in the 00s because the world has changed and the evidence shows wealthier parents better able to beat the system.
I would support him in this. The quickest and surest way of ensuring a better education for all pupils is to re-establish classroom discipline and raise the proportion of children in streamed classes.
Both these are more easily achieved through an expanded version of the City Academies, each with more autonomy than Labour would allow, together with a loosening of the rules for establishing other non-state run, but state-financed schools.
Trying to establish a new network of grammar schools would be expensive, time consuming and divisive.
David Cameron and David Willetts should be supported for arguing the case for a policy that will benefit the majority of British kids quickly and effectively.

[Bill]

If any "crap" as you describe it has been spouted of late Jon Gale the last place it has come from is critics of Willetts, Cameron et al.

[Michael McGowan]

Nonssense, Nick. The two Davids should be mocked for peddling spurious logic and promoting sticking plaster gimmicky "solutions" to a much more deep-seated problem. This is all about playing to the prejudices of the Islington dinner party set. Parents using the existing grammar schools and private schools should not take at face value any Tory assurances about their security. We are dealing here with a cabal who would barbecue their grandmothers if it would win them another 100,000 votes in a few marginal constituencies.

[Richard]

Academies among worse schools in England

Rebecca Smithers
Thursday March 30, 2006
Guardian Unlimited

More than half the government's flagship city academies are today listed among the worst schools in the country in new league tables, despite some year-on-year improvement in their pupils' performance in the core subjects in national tests.

[Nick Longworth]

Michael McG. Abuse is a poor substitute for argument.
This is not about "playing to the prejudices of the Islington dinner party set" as you put it. This is about finding solutions to the failures of our state education system.

[Michael McGowan]

It wasn't abuse, Nick. It was an entirely accurate description of what is going on. Reading your last sentence simply makes me laugh: "this" seems to be more about canning tried and tested solutions to some of these problems in favour of expensive, gimmicky non-solutions. But then Dave is a PR man through and through so we should not be surprised.

[Joseph]

Sorry Nick, it is more about winning votes than having convictions.
It is not the Tory faithful you should be trying to convince, it is the electorate outside of Tory Circles and people see it for what it is.
Heir to Blair, nothing more nothing less.
Why have the clone when one can have the real thing?
Still if you wish to keep with "Dolly the Sheep" prepare for another 5 years in the political wilderness.
Do not under-estimate the intelligence of the British electorate they can see through the smoke and mirrors. They see Cameron for what he is.

[Nick Longworth]

Joseph and Michael McG. I wouldn't dream of questioning your motives or principles, so why do you insist on doing so for others?
Joseph, your point that it is not the Tory faithful that need to be convinced is spot on. People who care about their children's education and fear for their future under the present shambles need to be convinced that the Conservative Party is looking for solutions that will benefit their children.
Grammar Schools would only ever benefit the minority and, as David Willetts has pointed out, that minority is increasingly the wealthy middle class.
This is a pragmatic policy framework that accepts the world as it is, not as some on ConservativeHome would like it to be. I, for one, am happy to support it.

[TomTom]

The quickest and surest way of ensuring a better education for all pupils is to re-establish classroom discipline and raise the proportion of children in streamed classes.

So now tell us the steps you will take to restore classroom discipline.

Streaming in non-selective schools ? Ha. Ha. The teachers will refuse to permit that.

No point in changing from Gordon...Labour has ten years experience...why change horses in mid-stream for untested Tories ?

[bill]

I agree with the comment that "The quickest and surest way of ensuring a better education for all pupils is to re-establish classroom discipline and raise the proportion of children in streamed classes."

I see discipline as the sine non qua of effective education. I think Willetts mentioned it once in his speech for the seventeen odd references to grammar schools which gives you an idea of his sense of priorities. Restoring discipline will be a far more difficult task than the others (most of which may entail pouring money down a drain). This is because it will involve reversing fifty years of cultural, social, legal, political and educational decadence. And based on the evidence so far, Call Me Dave and his lads and ladettes are not up to it.

[ToMTom]

increasingly the wealthy middle class.

Complete boll*cks...look at the cars outside the Comprehensive Schools - the Range Rovers and the Mercedes for parents wgo make NO sacrifice in material living standards for their child's "education".....the middle class loathe education and learning and worship money which is why they don't want competition from kids with brains but poor postcodes - best to let them fester in the neighbourhood school so they can buy privilege....isn't that the Blue Labour approach......

[Richard Weatherill]

I think Cameron is making a big mistake in ruling out new Grammar Schools. However, I also think TomTom is being unduly cynical in saying that the teaches will refuse to permit streaming.

My sons' comprehensive has no less than 11 maths sets from Year 8 on, which are graded by ability.

[Oberon Houston]

malcolm: okay, I take your point about foolishness, but the thread is about 'headlines', and I was making the obliquely serious point that yesterday was a good day for the party as the first serious policy debate began, whilst taking a swipe at those that didn't enter the debate, but simply threw stones around. Some of our MP's yesterday were doing just that, and its unacceptable to me. I think the last 24 hours have been very engaging; why do you think they have been very bad? Your usually quite measured, so to come across so irritated is unusual so possibly I'm completely missing something here.

[Joseph]

Nick, apologies if you think I am questioning your motives I am not.

What I am doing is pointing out that quite a healthy majority in this country from ALL political persuasions thinks it has been a huge mistake to diminish the role of the grammar schools and a lot of people would like to see them returned.
I think huge Capital could have and should have been made out of this. It is one way of having clear blue water between the party's.
Have you any idea of just how many U-Turns Cameron has made since becoming the Tory leader? I think that in the very near future we are all going to be reminded of them chapter and verse.
In the meantime with no policies on the table after a year and what there is, is seen more as a carbon copy of Blair and Nu-Labour than conservative, who are you trying to convince?
A few weeks down the line and Brown is going to swamp the Country with new policies, Cameron is going to be found wanting.
He has missed the train.

[toryintheeast]

Deputy Editor,

All things being equal, you would rather a Conservative, conservative IT person working on your campaign than a non-Conservative, conservative....so why not expand the circle to include sites/papers that have a larger Conservative, conservative readership than the Guardian????

One would think if not the Telegraph, then at the very least this site.

Finally, some update on Project Cameron here in Singapore, at least among my work colleagues:

1) "I". 55 from Manchester. Married, two kids. State school educated, no university. He has always voted Tory even in '97 and '01, strong supporter of Thatcher. Recently became an Australian citizen and does not support Project Cameron and will not be voting Tory (or at all in the UK in the future).

2) "P". 32 from Glasgow. Married three kids. State school, some university, no degree. Labour voter in '97 and '01. Lib
Dem in '05. Very anti-Thatcher but recently has come around to the view that she was probably nesc. Is pretty conservative, ie for lower taxes, law and order, lower levels of immigration etc. Disquested by the "hug a hoodie" speech. Believes that Cameron is a stuck up elitist who only cares about his Eton/Oxford clique. Will probably vote for Gordo in next election.

3) "A", 43 from Cornwall. Private school, university degree. Married, one child from previous marriage. Converted to Islam to marry current wife (Malay) Switched from Lib Dem to Tory to Lib Dem. Very libertarian viz. economics. Possible tory voter in next election (thinks that Gordo will be a complete disaster as PM) but really really dislikes David Cameron, much like "P" thinks he is a total toff. Is not enthusiastic at all about next GE.

4) "M" 35 from Essex. Gay. State school, university degree. Typical Blair-ite. Much like "P" #2 grew up with strong anti-Thatcher inclination but has come to better appreciate her legacy. Has always voted Labour, not impressed with David Cameron's social liberalism, believes him to be 'fake'. Does not particularly care for Gordo and depending on how the Blair-ites in Government are treated, will probably switch to Lib Dem.

Not very impressive for Project Cameron.

[Nick Longworth]

Toryintheeast: When I lived and worked in Singapore in the 80s most of us thought Mrs T was a bit of a wimp!

[Graham Checker]

Feel strongly about Grammar Schools?

"Dave" has just posted a diary article claiming bewilderment at the fuss over Grammar schools today:

http://www.webcameron.org.uk/page.php?id=75

Please post a comment and tell him what you think!

[Michael McGowan]

Nick, we are not as deluded as you seem to think. Please to question my motives....as long as you accept that I will do the same about yours.

We know that the grammar schools only ever benefited a minority and they were not a complete answer to the social mobility problem. However, they had a disproportionate impact in terms of enabling talented but less well-off children to break into enclaves previously reserved to the wealthy and privileged (think Heath, Wilson, Thatcher and Callaghan as opposed to Hume, Eden, Churchill and MacMillan). Your argument smacks suspiciously of the Labour dogma that because they only benefited a (significant) minority, then noone should be entitled to such benefits at all.

Which brings us to the jibe about the "wealthy middle class" using grammar schools. This is untrue: those I know who use such schools in Surrey and Kent are anything but wealthy. Secondly, the reason why those schools no longer play the same role as in the past is because Labour, aided and abetted by the Tories, shut most of them down. The post-war record of the Tories on education is deeply shameful. They are simply not to be trusted.

[Edward]

You should put them in touch with MORI, toryintheeast...

[toryintheeast]

Project Cameron's calculus is thus:

They are modernizing the party to get #3 "A" to switch back from Lib Dem to Tory and get #4 "M" to consider voting Tory for the first time, while assuming #1 "I" has nowhere else to go.

It seems to me however that they are losing #1 "I", doing nothing to attract #2 "P", only marginally attracting #3 "A" (not so much because he is pro-Cameron but because he is scared of Gordo even more: this could change the more DC opens his mouth), all on the hopes of capturing #4 "M"'s vote.

I think a better strategy would entail making #1 "I" and #3 "A" much more enthusiastic about voting Tory, while targetting #2 "P" as the potential vote switcher (which would not alienate #1 "I" and #3 "A" and forgetting about #4 "M".

[Edward]

Michael McGowan: I agree with you. This shouldn't be a reason not to try to see whether there are other better alternatives which can benefit a more significant minority though should it?

[Edward]

So why's your "calculus" failed so miserably since 1997 toryintheeast?

[michael]

Outside this daft website thing, real families will be pleased that Cameron is showing real concern for improving education for all children and not focusing on providing an escape route for a few (see the comments of Edward Leigh MP).

I want to see the best services on my doorstep, making the whole distraction on 'choice' irrelevant.

In that sense these selected headlines are good for the Party.

[Michael McGowan]

Edward, I have no problem with seeking better alternatives. What is proposed is however not a better alternative.

[Opinicus]

@Jon Gale 12.48
Of course, poor people have, on average, a lower IQ than rich people. In current society, riches are directly proportional to IQ. I know it isn't polite to say so but there it is. Public school children ie rich kids are 7% of total school intake and 25% of A level intake and an even higher percentage of triple A results. To earn the money to send your child to public school you need to be bright. You meet other bright people at University and intelligence being 90% genetics, you have bright offspring and the cycle is repeated. Read Murray's Bell Curve where it is clearly explained.

The point about Grammar Schools is that they are or were the principle mechanism whereby children like me and it seems quite a significant number of other contributors to this site, got off the estate and onto the escalator. Of course, they have fewer pupils with FSM than the home population. The issue is whether they have a larger or smaller percentage of people with free school meals *and* an IQ of 130+ than the home population. People who can't analyse statistics shouldn't be allowed to use them.

[Michael McGowan]

Michael, what makes you think others want to see the worst services on their doorstep? The question is how you achieve this. By the way, I am working hard om improving my social circle: wouldn't want to be a social misfit because unlike you I went to a grammar school and didn't benefit from the rich human tapestry of a comp.

[Tory T]

Graham Checker thank you for the link

David Cameron responds on Webcameron

"I announced over a year ago that the party would not go back to a policy of opening new grammar schools or introducing the 11 plus and so am slightly surprised that the press has got so excited about this clear pledge being given all over again by David Willets.

The Telegraph coverage and comment is near hysterical. They simply don’t understand that the idea of introducing a few extra grammars says nothing to thousands of parents worried about children languishing in failing schools. In many ways, “bring back grammars” is a meaningless slogan, as the reason the 11 plus went in so many parts of the country is because it was so unpopular with parents. It is a classic example of fighting a battle of the past rather than meeting the challenges of the future. And it is politically naïve as it just says “we’ll help a few more escape failing schools rather than turn them round for all children.” The way to win the fight for aspiration is to put those things that worked in grammars – aggressive setting to stretch bright pupils, whole class teaching, strong discipline to name but three – in all schools.

What is sad is that the commentators miss all the things we’d do that would help standards and aspiration for all – synthetic phonics at primary school, zero tolerance of bad behaviour, unchallengeable rights for heads to exclude difficult pupils, enforceable home school contracts, saving special schools, setting and streaming, and expanding academies, allowing churches, voluntary bodies and others to open new schools.

Perhaps if I put the words “Bring back” in front of some of these policies they might just get it."

[Editor]

Thanks Tory T - that deserves a separate post - I'll get on to it now!

[ToMTom]

Outside this daft website thing, real families will be pleased that Cameron is showing real concern for improving education for all children

Funny. I think most people have written Cameron off as a lightweight and wait for his replacement....Tory leaders do not last long and this one has signed his death warrant....

No believes state education can be improved - the structure is wrong and the PFI contracts will bury them financially

This area has £400 million of PFI school building going ahead which essentially privatises all the public physical assets while leaving in place bog-standard comprehensive intake.

I can see the construction projects as i drive past and the absenteeism rates in the same school are enormous....if they cut down pupil absenteeism the teacher absenteeism shoots up

[Yet Another Anon]

You meet other bright people at University and intelligence being 90% genetics, you have bright offspring and the cycle is repeated. Read Murray's Bell Curve where it is clearly explained.
Intelligence is a mixture of genetics, inherited effects from ancestors that are not genetic but due to past environment - more recent discoveries in genetics have found that many genes have what is close to settings in that how past ancestors have lived prior to the conception of children can affect how that gene is set and of course there are factors such as the physical condition of the mother that can relate to the physical condition her mother was because how people are born and develop before birth is a major factor in how they end up.

Things such as poisons, bacteria in the gut, remnants of viruses in cells can be passed down the generations.

Then of course there is the environment the person themselves is in and inherited factors then affect how they relate to it.

And then in addition to that there is the fact that intelligence is only partly down to intelligence and that there are successful including even some academically successful people who are not particularily intelligence and also total failures who have high intelligence. Some with Aspergers Syndrome are very intelligent but totally unable to function in society and the same is true with some people with mood & anxiety disorders and schizophrenia.

Of course if the logical position was that the most potentially productive would always succeed then for reasons of boosting the economy the logical thing would be to have no state social support and simply exterminate the old, sick, mentally ill, handicapped and those of low intelligence who would be holding back economic and technological advancement.

However it's not quite that clear cut.

[Michael McGowan]

David Cameron is being disingenuous when he says that most grammars were closed because that is what parents wanted. It was in fact what the then Labour and Tory establishments wanted which is a very different thing. And they wanted it because of the deeply misguided 1960's and 1970's dogma that social justice was to be achieved by levelling everyone down to an educational lowest common denominator. That dogma has been tested to destruction....and it is beyond satire that the so-called modernisers now invoke the 1970's to defend their failed ideas.

[Opinicus]

@Yet Another Anon
That was predictable. And you are of course right in your specifics. However, you are talking about individual phenotypic effects of genotype whilst I was very clearly talking about "on average".
I have to say that your penultimate paragraph is nonsense and doesnt even follow from my argument ad absurdam. Society does not need everyone to be intelligent, let alone have a high IQ (which as you say is a subset of intelligence, as we all know of shadow secretaries for education with ginormous IQs who behave stupid as very short planks). As for exterminating the old and sick (presumably irrespective of intelligence aka Prof S Hawkins) that must be a "logical" argument you picked up at a very bog standard comp.

[Michael Rutherford]

Even Thatcher didn't re-introduce grammar schools. Get with real life: people don't want them and there are underlying problems.

[Opinicus]

Isn't it extra-ordinary how these old Conservative lefties are all of a sudden only too happy to call Mrs T to their aid?
She was arguing, wrongly - yes even Homer nods, admidst the zeitgeist of the early Seventies. Thirty years of school failure have proven the arguments for comprehensivisation totally false. The CCHQ mob wouldn't recognise real life if it came up and gang raped them. Parents fight like ferrets in a sack for grammar schools where they can. If they don't want them how many grammar school aboilition ballots have been fought let alone won?

[Michael Rutherford]

I'm not anti-Thatcher at all. She was the right PM and the right party leader at the right time. But she would be an awful choice of PM now.

Selection within schools is a must; and that is recognised by the leadership. I think that grammar schools can only work if you take out the ability of people to "pay" for entry by getting private tuition.

Grammar schools cannot be a cheap way of going to private school. They have to be earned on merit. As far as I can see, the only way that this can work is by only having "grammar schools" in inner city areas, so I hope that city academies can be used for exactly this purpose.

[Michael Rutherford]

I'm not anti-Thatcher at all. She was the right PM and the right party leader at the right time. But she would be an awful choice of PM now.

Selection within schools is a must; and that is recognised by the leadership. I think that grammar schools can only work if you take out the ability of people to "pay" for entry by getting private tuition.

Grammar schools cannot be a cheap way of going to private school. They have to be earned on merit. As far as I can see, the only way that this can work is by only having "grammar schools" in inner city areas, so I hope that city academies can be used for exactly this purpose.

[Michael Rutherford]

I'm not anti-Thatcher at all. She was the right PM and the right party leader at the right time. But she would be an awful choice of PM now.

Selection within schools is a must; and that is recognised by the leadership. I think that grammar schools can only work if you take out the ability of people to "pay" for entry by getting private tuition.

Grammar schools cannot be a cheap way of going to private school. They have to be earned on merit. As far as I can see, the only way that this can work is by only having "grammar schools" in inner city areas, so I hope that city academies can be used for exactly this purpose.

[Yet Another Anon]

As for exterminating the old and sick (presumably irrespective of intelligence aka Prof S Hawkins) that must be a "logical" argument you picked up at a very bog standard comp.
I wasn't advocating it, but just pointing out that there were no easy measures of usefulness and that changes in society could change who was the most useful.

There are people who advocate such measures, it has been known for such debates inside think tanks and reports of meetings of MENSA have mentioned such discussions, and is for many a logical next step for dealing with societies problems just as mass nationalisation and massive taxation is advocated by many in the Labour Party and so just as much has to be critiqued.

Obviously the more intelligent, well informed and capable at strategic thinking the General Population is on average the more successful the country is likely to be.

[TomTom]

. I think that grammar schools [public schools, surely ?] can only work if you take out the ability of people to "pay" for entry by getting private tuition.

What Willetts needs is a commitment to end selection by money and to abolish public schools as socially divisive and preserving moneyed privilege.

That would be a real Clause iV Moment for the Conservative Party - abolition of educational aparheid and integration of public schools into the Academy system

[Traditional Tory]

On this morning's front page a smiling Gordon Brown presiding over his unopposed 'coronation' as the Cameroon pygmies squabble.

In last night's Standard I read with amusement Dave-the-victim's pitiful bleat that he never said the actual words 'Hug a Hoodie' - a dishonest exercise in hairsplitting if ever I heard one.

'Hug a Hoodie' will be inscribed on his tombstone.

The last couple of days have shown just how incompetent are the Cameron Mafia. Unlike Boy Dave and the Toytown Chancellor Willetts hasn't even got the excuse that he is a total novice.

Yes Cameron must go - and so must the rest of his raggle-taggle Bluelabour Mafia along with the PC 'A List' clones.

Right now, we are seeing Tory Democracy in action and its great. We are speaking for Conservatism and speaking for Britain.

Memo for 'Tory' T, Annabelle and others. If you hate Grammar Schools there's a natural home for you.

It's called the Labour Party

[Gordon Henderson]

I have now had a couple of days to cool down and think more deeply about David Willett’s speech in which he appeared to reverse the Conservative Party’s long standing support for grammar schools.

My initial reaction when I saw the headlines and heard the news was one of deep anger. Support for selective education has been one of the tenets on which our Conservative principles were built. It is one of the reasons I am a Conservative. To see that support apparently abandoned with such disdain was very disappointing.

Whatever anybody else says, I am absolutely convinced that grammar schools are an educational escape route to a better future for many academically gifted working class children who otherwise would never get the opportunity to make the most of those gifts. Wealthy people have always had the means to send their children to private schools, less affluent parents, including many who would consider themselves to be middle class, do not have that luxury. Grammar schools were their saviour.

David Willetts himself urged us not to believe the headlines but to read his speech in full before condemning him. So I read his speech. It was pretty heavy going; full of socio-educationalist mumbo jumbo. But I persevered and although I didn’t understand all the speech, I did take some comfort from certain sections. Unless I totally misread his views, David supports academic selection as long as that selection takes place within a school by means of “streaming”.

I can live with such a policy, indeed, my own education helps me to understand the reasoning behind it. There will be some who argue that it is intellectually unsustainable to support selection within a streamed school environment, but oppose selection when it is used to decide the most appropriate school for children.

The argument that David puts forward is that it is easier to transfer children - particularly late developers (many of whom are affected adversely by a disrupted family life) – from one stream to another within a school, than it is to transfer them to another school entirely. Personal experience supports this theory.

So, having read David’s speech I am slightly less concerned about the apparent change in policy, because little has changed. Bright children from working class backgrounds will still be given educational help by a Conservative Government, albeit it in a different form and in a different environment.

However, I am still angry at those headlines. The way in which this whole matter was handled is politically inept. Either our educational team set out deliberately to upset our core Conservative supporters, which is inexcusable, or they are totally incompetent, which is even more worrying!

Instead of headlines reading “Tories abandon grammar schools” what we should have seen were headlines that read “Tories to expand ‘grammar school’ ethos” or “Tories to give more working class kids a ‘grammar school’ education”. That is the reality of David’s speech so why on earth didn’t we trumpet the good news?