In his article for ConservativeHome this morning William Hague offers a very upbeat review of the grammar schools row. The party's de facto deputy leader argues that David Cameron's leadership has been strengthened because of his willingness to face down critics of his policy shift. Mr Hague also believes that the lasting impression on the electorate will be that the next Conservative government is determined to focus on the education of the many, not the few.
Those two conclusions are probably true but the Conservative leadership shouldn't ignore the downsides of the row. Many activists and MPs feel bruised. Many believe that the press management of the announcement was inadequate and we've got to rebuild the Tory-Telegraph relationship. I continue to hope that the leadership will use David Davis and Liam Fox more energetically. They should be more central to policy formulation and more central to keeping the conservative coalition together. In today's Telegraph Iain Dale suggests that some big commitments to more defence spending will reassure traditionalists.
Iain agrees that "lessons need to be learnt to improve the media and party management of the controversial policies which will be announced over the rest of the year." That must be right. You can only offend MPs and activists so many times before the party risks its reputation for unity - the third point of the iron triangle of political success.
As we go into the bank holiday and leave the grammar schools row behind I would add two other lessons to be learnt. I've probably spoken to about 25 Conservative MPs from all wings of the party since this story broke and two themes repeatedly emerge: (1) that frontbenchers outside of the shadow cabinet feel out of the loop and (2) the whips office is not functioning as well as it might.
The parliamentary party might work better if frontbenchers received better briefings from their shadow cabinet ministers. Members of four frontbench teams have told me that they sometimes learn about announcements in their own 'departments' from the media. The whips office is the other area of concern. Backbenchers feel that the whips are not communicating their concerns to the leadership and get treated like "NCOs". One MP told me that the whips office had a barracks room ethos rather than a boardroom ethos. "It was stuck in the personnel management methods of the 1950s," another MP said. This may be one explanation for the fact that half of the 2005 intake have rebelled against frontbench positions at least once according to revolts.co.uk.
Postscript: On GMTV's Sunday programme John Bercow will say that it will be "electoral suicide" for the Tories to go on about grammar schools. Mr Bercow also has confidence that there'll be no retreat by David Cameron from his modernising mission: "I think the big difference between David and his predecessors is that he has the advantage of seeing how his predecessors failed by backtracking, by compromising, by resorting to appeals to the core vote, David is simply not going to retreat into that sort of right wing laager because he knows it’s not worth it, he won’t win, we would lose again. It’s just not going to happen."
Related link: The centre-right case against more selection by James O'Shaughnessy
Cambo obviously has no idea about party management. Has he met with the various Conservative Parliamentary groupings (TRG/Cornerstone/ etc.) individually? If not then he's made a rod for his own back. He may not agree with some of them, but keeping them 'involved' should lessen the 'attacks'...
Posted by: Simon | May 25, 2007 at 12:33
Potted history of secondary education:
1. Tory government opens no new grammars.
2. Tory government opens City Tech Colleges.
3. Blair thinks CTCs a good idea, but wants
to call them City Academies ( must make
people think it's a NuLab idea).
4. Many in OldLab hate the idea.
5. Cameron supports Blair in parliament to
get legislation thru.
6. Cameron says he would promote CAs but
with more freedom and flexibilty. Also,
would not open more grammars.
Why the fuss?
Posted by: Perdix | May 25, 2007 at 13:15
Big lesson from Grammargate? Simple, don't trust Dave and his posh mates. Don't expect to win any Kent marginals either.
Posted by: TaxCutter | May 25, 2007 at 13:18
Very interesting. I am not surprised about the whips office comments, it was obvious something was wrong here and I said so last week. This is worrying given the strategy Cameron has got and it is a potential train-wreck waiting to happen: and so easily avoided. Extra measures are especially needed during the policy roll out period to ensure things are controlled and coordinated properly.
The Tory-Telegraph relationship is really suffering at the moment, however the owners need to understand that if their editor’s cannot see why and where the party is going then they are as much to blame for this as anyone. It is my view that they need to take the plunge at some point, just like everyone else has done (or still have to do in many case’s)
Tim, please don’t take this the wrong way, because I admire greatly what you have achieved and are doing for conservatism in this country, but as CH grows more & more influential, I suspect you may find powerful influences to contend with, resist the temptation of Conservativehome becoming the voice and lever of the right.
Finally, defence spending ; this came out of the blue for me here, but this is a golden opportunity for us. We should be pledging more money for the armed forces, it is right strategically and right politically. The vast majority of the British public sympathise with the dreadful way the armed forces have been politicised, stretched, pulled and cut by Labour. This will be popular with all wings of the party, not just the right, and with the vast majority of the public. We should be putting Labour into the vice on this and twirling the handle, God knows why it’s been left to hang this long.
Posted by: Oberon Houston | May 25, 2007 at 13:21
"We should be putting Labour into the vice on this and twirling the handle, God knows why it’s been left to hang this long."
I agree Oberon, but suspect that the answer is that Defence is regarded as a traditional "old Tory" issue that needs to be kept on the presentational backburner.
Posted by: Simon Chapman | May 25, 2007 at 13:29
This is a dead horse that's being thoroughly flogged.
Posted by: Tory T | May 25, 2007 at 13:30
Simon, I suspect that in the current circumstances there is much more sympathy for this issue given that to foreign wars are both being fought concurrently. If for example, the spending was targeted at front line conventional units like the armoured and infantry units then this would be broadly popular. If it was a £100bn order for a moon-based missile system made in the US then that would be different (not talking about the Nuclear deterrent).
Posted by: Oberon Houston | May 25, 2007 at 13:38
"I agree Oberon, but suspect that the answer is that Defence is regarded as a traditional 'old Tory' issue that needs to be kept on the presentational backburner."
If the subject is handled as badly as was that of the Grammar School issue, there's a risk that the general public will perceive any additional defence spending as being an extension to US foreign policy funded by the British taxpayer.
Posted by: Mike H | May 25, 2007 at 13:42
Mike, true - we could cock it up royally if it's poorly though out and managed, but properly done it is a potential vote and party winner.
Posted by: Oberon Houston | May 25, 2007 at 13:48
"lessons need to be learnt to improve the media and party management of the controversial policies which will be announced over the rest of the year."
What next? Hug-the-not-a-constitution?
Posted by: Gospel of Enoch | May 25, 2007 at 14:06
The lesson for team Cameron to learn is don't pee down my back and tell me its raining.
Posted by: Bill | May 25, 2007 at 14:11
Rather than commit to spending a whole lot more on defence, I think we should commit to spending more on criminal justice, police, rehabilitation units, prison places etc. Also on the pre-criminal justice end of the education system - pupil referral units. This will really make a difference in the country - and appeal to the right - but the rehab/PRU aspect can also appeal to the left. Its about setting firm boundaries, so that people know there are real consequences when they do the wrong thing, but also giving some resources to help people get back on track.
Posted by: Happy Tory | May 25, 2007 at 14:51
Bercow is a latterday leftwing opoortunist squatting on the Tory benches. The fact that he therefore backs Cameron is wholly unsurprising. His malign contributions and personality have disfigured the Conservative Party for many a year. First in his Monday Club headbanger incarnation. Now in his post-midlife crisis Culrtual Marxist phase. In the words of Clement Attlee, his most constructive contribution on any issue would be a prolonged period of silence.
Posted by: Michael McGowan | May 25, 2007 at 15:27
I am not a fan of Bercow either, Michael.
Other lessons learnt. Where my MP went to school. How Willetts educated his children.
Posted by: Bill | May 25, 2007 at 15:33
The Economist's Bagehot columnist is moving on after five years, he gives Mr Blair qualified praise, has little complimentary to say of Mr Brown, and says of Mr Cameron and the conservatives:
Posted by: Dave Bartlett | May 25, 2007 at 15:36
Forgot the article link! Economist, Bagehot column.
Posted by: Dave Bartlett | May 25, 2007 at 15:39
Is it really news that a leftwing journalist backs David Cameron? The Economist must be one of the most overrated publications in this country: glib, cliche-ridden and self-satisfied. Its commitment to liberalism has always been skin-deep.
Posted by: Michael McGowan | May 25, 2007 at 15:44
I think the DC and hilton should really try and use more of the front bench, however, wheeling the wrong ones out could potentially damage our polling because if it looks like they're all old style tories, i mean that in the least offensive sense. After all polling is showing DC is more popular than the party. Davis is probably a good one, but Fox he is more out of his depth than Willets and that is saying something.
Posted by: ThePrince | May 25, 2007 at 15:46
Agreed again Michael. I think the Economist backed the UK's entry into the ERM which was around about the time I stopped reading it.
Posted by: Bill | May 25, 2007 at 15:47
I thought only Old Etonians worked at the economist - apart from dear old Emma Duncan who probably married one instead.
The Economist is even more peripheral to life in Britain than John Bercow, with the bulk of its readership in the USA
I had thought there was a marginal chance of the Conservatives displacing Labour at the next election, but after the bizarre behaviour of Willetts and Cameron, I think I must resign myself to quite a period of Gordon Brown.....they just cannot make enough mistakes as a government for the Conservatives to be credible as an alternative
Posted by: Bradford | May 25, 2007 at 16:35
...(some intersting posts apart)...
this thread has really died a death, thank guys, you must be proud. Why dont you just email each other?
Tim: Bet it riles you after taking the time to run the story (which I thought was going to have a long interesing thread).
John: Being slagged off by these guys is a good thing.
Posted by: Oberon Houston | May 25, 2007 at 19:38
The lesson from grammargate is this; despite all the noise and contrived attempt to look like a moderniser, we know that a genuine moderniser would not be centrally imposing limits on selection upon schools.
Cameron is not a moderniser, he is not going to set schools free to pick their own status and admissions policy. He intends to centrally set a bar on ability, just like Labour.
That's a real shame; the real modernising policy is to offer vouchers and impose no central limit on 'ability' at all, but to let the schools decide what is best.
Cameron's education policy is a bit like Brown's budget 'tax cut'. He hints at what he knows people would like delivered, but will not deliver it whilst claiming to have done so. Shame.
When will we see a genuine moderniser who will set schools free from this New and Blue Labour interference?
Posted by: YHN | May 25, 2007 at 19:54
"Don't expect to win any Kent marginals either."
I live in a Kent marginal and I can safely say the "grammars debate" hasn't featured on the radar.
What some members of the Tory party have got to realise is that for 99% of society no one cares about grammars.
The party needs to stop worrying about what the Daily Mail editorial says and start thinking about what the man on the doorstep says.
Thankfully, Cameron realised this ages ago. Keep up.
Posted by: Robson | May 25, 2007 at 20:00
On a broader thing of presentation, as 'ThePrince' says, we need to promote the REST of the shadow front-bench better. At the moment it's a one-man band.
The amount of times, for example, BBC Question Time's Tory representative is Heseltine or Clark. People want to know what Fox/Gove/Lansley/Willetts/Duncan/Vaizey (sorry for the random assortment, but you get the idea) and others have got to say for themselves, and how they do in the spotlight.
Posted by: Robson | May 25, 2007 at 20:08
Robson, tempted to respond to the YHN post you replied to, but he is a disaffected youth, with issues, well known on this site, so moving on…
On the front bencher question, I think that you have a point about visibility, but I would also say this, it's up to the front bench team to get active themselves. For too long the party have been languishing around in opposition, just because a few have 'gone active' and caught the cameras interest, this shouldn't reflect badly on them, rather: it should put the focus on others, they have a brief and a salary. Now Earn It >/b>.
Posted by: Oberon Houston | May 25, 2007 at 20:22
You Hypocrite, Noble.
Back to the thread...
"I continue to hope that the leadership will use David Davis and Liam Fox more energetically. They should be more central to policy formulation and more central to keeping the conservative coalition together."
David Davis has been very supportive of the Cameron leadership since his graceful acceptance of defeat by David Cameron in the 2005 leadership election.
I've read the Ben Brogan article linked to on the frontpage and he's interpreted your suggestion that David Davis hasn't done enough to keep 'the right' on board as an implication that he is responsible for disunity within the shadow cabinet.
I fail to see why the Shadow Home Secretary should have intervened in this ridiculous episode just to placate a few tantrum-throwing malcontents - it has nothing to do with his portfolio and this silly affair has been blown out of all proportion already.
As for Liam Fox, no comment.
Posted by: Daniel VA | May 25, 2007 at 21:23
I and many other critics of the Cameron approach have not been calling for a "retreat into ...[a] right wing laager". We recognise that the party has to find ways of winning the broad centre, winning back people who used to vote Tory, and now vote Lib-Dem or Labour.
But we have two reservations:
1 - There is no point in winning if we abandon all we believe. If the Conservatives are just Labour with different managers, then I think I would prefer the real thing.
2 - Many of Cameron's steps do not in any obvious way contribute to winning the centre. Does the centre really want to ban selective education except for the wealthy, ban school interviews with parents, have a progressive tax on travel, or promote people on the basis of their sex and race rather than their merits?
Posted by: William MacDougall | May 25, 2007 at 21:57
Hasn't John Bercow crossed the floor to New Labour yet?
Posted by: puzzled | May 25, 2007 at 22:09
Daniel VA:
I would say this; David Davis has been supportive of Cameron in the media up to now, and it is much appreciated, BUT, given that his brief is the home office, he might have taken a decision to go public in support of the education policy issue before now (but chose not to)?
Willett's stuck himself on a pole for Davis during the leadership race, but now has now got the wits to see the lay off the land AND put himself in the firing line, AND passed the test. Willetts is an asset to our party and I’m delighted he in ‘one of us’.
Cameron is setting a bear trap for those who pay lip service to the modernisation agenda, but think they will do well to keep quiet about their ‘true feelings’. If they think that will work, then watch this space.
Posted by: Oberon Houston | May 25, 2007 at 22:15
puzzled: Bercow is a truer conservative that you will ever be. Now get back to plodding the streets & handing out water damaged A5 leaflets for your Labour MP.
Posted by: Oberon Houston | May 25, 2007 at 22:36
David Davis has been very supportive of the Cameron leadership since his graceful acceptance of defeat by David Cameron in the 2005 leadership election.
Naturellement. His lips never move.
Derek Conway does the business for him.
Posted by: Traditional Tory | May 25, 2007 at 22:37
Good Night.
Posted by: Oberon Houston | May 25, 2007 at 22:42
"BUT, given that his brief is the home office, he might have taken a decision to go public in support of the education policy issue before now (but chose not to)?"
To what purpose Oberon? Education policy is not within the remit of the home affairs portfolio.
There has already been more than enough time and attention wasted on this phoney row.
Intervention by David Davis would only serve the interests of those who wish to portray a minor outbreak of indignant foot-stamping amongst some eccentric readers of ConservativeHome and the Telegraph as a furore threatening to rip the party in half by treating this rather trivial episode (which is no more a 'furore' than the car Kimi Raikkonen will be driving in Monaco on Sunday) far too seriously.
"Willett's stuck himself on a pole for Davis during the leadership race, but now has now got the wits to see the lay off the land AND put himself in the firing line, AND passed the test. Willetts is an asset to our party and I’m delighted he in ‘one of us’."
I don't really understand what your point is here. David Willetts is Shadow Education Secretary - it makes sense for him to 'put himself in the firing line' on this issue.
If you're insinuating that David Davis is only 'paying lip service to the modernisation agenda', I'd refer you to the stirring defence of the modernisation agenda he gave in one of his two platform speeches at party conference last autumn.
Posted by: Daniel VA | May 25, 2007 at 23:18
I think that what grammargate shows is the gulf that exists between David Cameron, his Eton crew and the rest of the Conservative party.
Interestingly, the stories have mainly been about issues within the Conservatives and not about the different types of schools.
Posted by: Neil Walton | May 26, 2007 at 05:11
puzzled: Bercow is a truer conservative that you will ever be. Now get back to plodding the streets & handing out water damaged A5 leaflets for your Labour MP.
Why is Bercow keen to subcontract the task ?
Posted by: ToMTom | May 26, 2007 at 06:35
Surely the solution to "grammarsgate" is to drive out the rightwing scum that still pollute the Cameron Party and silence their barking mouths.
The sooner Tim Montgomerie joins UKIP the better.
Posted by: David Cameron | May 28, 2007 at 18:38