Tory unity at stake in 'grammar school war'

The 'grammar school war' is how a leader in The Daily Telegraph describes David Cameron's most difficult period since he became Tory leader.   After yesterday's resignation by Graham Brady the newspaper adopts a more positive tone than was evident last week when Tory-Telegraph relations deteriorated noticeably.  The leader accuses the Tory leadership of blundering and fumbling into this row but it goes on to praise the broad thrust of Conservative education policies that would deliver more competition, more discipline and 'grammar streams'.  It concludes by saying that the 'war' must be won by David Cameron:

"In the space of 18 months, he has revitalised the Conservative Party, giving it the confidence and élan it has lacked for a decade. For that transformation to deliver electoral victory (without which all policy wrangles become academic), he must show toughness under fire and stick to his guns.  Mr Cameron has set his course against a return to grammar schools and for a broader approach to better schools: he must pursue it without flinching. If, in the course of doing so, some fall by the wayside, so be it. Mr Cameron needs to know who is with him and who is not."

If 'Leader image' - one point of the iron triangle of political success - has been strengthened by grammarsgate there is a risk that another point - the party's reputation for unity - could be diminished.

The Independent's Colin Brown is focusing on the danger to the party's reputation for unity posed by the grammar schools row in his examination of this month's Communicate Research poll for the newspaper.  Quoting two sets of data that are not easily comparable he writes:

"Asked which leader would be able to keep his party united, 40 per cent said Mr Brown and only 37 per cent said Mr Cameron. A similar poll a month ago showed that 64 per cent thought Labour were divided, compared with only 36 per cent who thought the Tories were disunited."

In terms of headline numbers the Communicate Research survey gives the Conservatives a 4% advantage this month - compared to 9% last month.

Comments

[Andrew Smith]

When Dave is looking around the benches for a replacement for Graham Brady as Europe Minister, and in the interests of a united front bench, he should look no further than Ken Clark. The Tory policy of Ever-Closer-Union would assuredly have Ken's unqualified support.

[CDM]

Although it has diminished, the fact that our lead remains suggests that support for Cameron is not as soft as his critics would have us believe.

[Tory T]

CR is a very good poll for us, although all such polls must be taken with a large pinch of salt due to CR's unenviable reputation for volatility (and Labour overstatement, although some of the factors that led to that have been corrected).

Again politicalbetting is the site to read for poll analysis.

CR's poll was taken over the Bank Holiday weekend when it is much harder to get Tories around - as Mike Smithson points out, ICM and YG avoid Bank Holidays for their erratic nature.

The Tories are holding steady in this poll minus 1%, which is absolutely meaningless.

Labour's bigger vote share comes almost entirely from the Liberal Democrats and "likelihood to vote" factor.

And (drum roll) with all their "Brown bounce" PR, Labour are STILL 4% behind!

Finally, the Indie has spun almost all their CR polls as poorly as they could for the Tories. Doesn't make any difference. Again, yet *another* poll showing what ConHome labels "grammarsgate" has made no difference at all. Tories steady, Labour gains from LibDems.

[malcolm]

'the partys reputation for unity- could be diminished'. We don't have a reputation for unity! At least not for many,many years.
This whole affair has not been good for the party, not for Cameron and the leadership and not for people like me who oppose his view on the future of our education systems.
I see the whole issue as one of competence. Blair sought his Clause 4 moment when he was sure he was going to win it. Not before.
I strongly suspect that DC has been very suprised by the reaction to Willetts speech which seems to have come from all wings of the party. Perhaps he should not have been. Certainly the water could and should have been tested first to see what many in the party sought. The reaction of people like Nadine Dorries suggests that this did not happen. I hope a lesson has been learned.
Unity is a wonderful thing but it will only come through mutual trust and respect. Something I think that has been sadly lacking in the Conservative party for far too long. Trust and respect has to be earned and that applies to those members who have sought to undermine DC from the moment he was elected but also from DC and his team who sought to close down this debate by calling it pointless and then foolishly called Grammar school supporters delusional. Once again I hope a lesson has been learned.
Anyone who reads this should remember that in order to change things we need to WIN. No leader of the opposition can increase or abolish Grammar Schools or make any changes to the education of our children whatsoever Only a PM can do that. I hope that all who wish the Conservative party well will think very carefully in the days ahead.

[William MacDougall]

We've abandoned all our principles and still don't have a winning percentage? Of course the Party is splitting, not over educational selection alone, though that is important, but over the wholesale abandonment of all we believe. If we are going to lose anyway, let's at least keep to our views, for the long run.

[malcolm]

'If we are going to lose let's keep our views'- William Macdougall. What a totally defeatist and rather ridiculous line. I devote a whole lot of my tine to politics because I want to change this country for the better. I'm not interested in losing again nor am I arrogant enough to believe that 'my views' are always acceptable to the majority of the country or even the party. Either I have to sell them better or compromise has to be reached. Losersd can't change anything!

[HF]

The cause of this row needs to be removed because there is a feeling that an injustice has been done and the row just goes on. The best outcome is for Willetts to resign.

1. He deliberately chose to ignore the policy team.
2. He chose to "speak tough" about an issue that was of minority interest to voters but on which there are very strong feelings in the party.
3. He provided ammunition that undermines the case for the present grammar schools which gives the story a longer term future.
4. He chose to release selective statistics which brought the Brady reaction.

If he goes there is a chance that justice will be seen to be done and he can then take the blame for some sloppy words. Leave him in place and the row will continue.

If an issue lasts past the 2nd weekend of the papers, then the person responsible has to be fired. That person is Willetts.

[Mark Fulford]

the party's reputation for unity - could be diminished

Unity -- on this site -- LOL. The coverage of grammar schools has been totally over-blown, especially on CH. Never before have so many column-inches of outrage been devoted to such a trivial, inconsequential issue.

[Bill]

Perhaps Mr Fulford, that is because it ain't just about grammar schools.

[mike clarke]

Anyone considered asking Nadine Dorries to challenge for the leadership of the Conservative Party? She appears to have an abundance of that which the current leadership is so conspicuously lacking; commonsense!

[Local Chairman]

Willets out !

[Bill]

I wonder how long we'll have to wait for an Etonian to depart?

[simon]

Does the Cameron OUT campaign start here.... We'll have to see.

[Opinicus]

Malcolm @10.22
The issue is can winners change anything either. As Bill says the hysteria that this has generated isn't just about grammar schools. It's about trusting the current leadership to deliver a better Britain if and when they win.

Needlessly attacking grammar schools as Willets did spoilt a very Conservative statement on setting in normal schools. Why did he do it? Almost certainly because he never gets out of London much into the Party in the country and he really didn't think it was a totemic issue for the Party. Well, he kens the noo.

There are too many CCHQ people on this site who can smell Office and don't mind if it comes only with the illusion of power. Is it going to be worth having Cameron as PM? What is he going to do that I and others on this site want done.

Otherwise, I have to agree with William MacD - better to lose with principles intact and wait for a better day.

[Denis Cooper]

So the education of my children is "a trivial, inconsequential issue". Thanks.

[Tory T]

Note to journalists: it's not that those of us who are wholly behind Cameron and Willets on the restatement of existing party policy have changed our minds, it's that we honestly can't be bothered repeating ourselves on the 76th thread in a row on grammar schools. Let the Core Vote Tories do that if they choose to.

CR is the latest poll to show Tory support holding steady and grammars having no harmful effect.

I much prefer to let facts, and polls, talk for me.

[Tam Large]

Malcolm said : "I devote a whole lot of my time to politics because I want to change this country for the better".

Yes Malcolm, so do we all - and that's the whole point. We need change, not more Blair-politics. If Cameron is elected there will be no change for the better - just more Islington armchair-socialism. When principles and beleifs are ditched, then election becomes pointless. A Blair government by any other name will smell as sour - even if it is labelled Cameron-servative.

[Andrew Lilico]

Lots of silly comments. No-one else is resigning or going to be the subject of any serious "Joe Bloggs OUT" campaign. Let's get back to business, eh? There's a zillion and one ways in which Cameron's team would be better than the Labour Party. That doesn't mean that we can't criticize them or suggest slight modifications to policies or even major changes of approach (indeed, I do that myself from time to time). But when we do that we should remember that we are trying to help our (excellent) leaders to do even better. They're the Good Guys; they're Our Team; we wear their war paint. If I criticize them (as I do often), it's because I think they may be smart and sympathetic enough to listen. I have no such expectation of Brown at all.

This is ConservativeHome, guys, not AnarchistsCentral...

[Denis Cooper]

I don't think of grammar schools as a "totemic" issue, more "symptomatic".

Four decades ago Harold Wilson said that the comprehensive system would mean "a grammar school education for all" - a ridiculous idea, as has become abundantly clear over the years, and no doubt a deliberate lie at the time.

Cameron now promises a "grammar stream" in every comprehensive school - why should we believe that he could and would ensure that, and why should
we believe that "selection within schools" and "grammar streams" would be anywhere near as good as having separate grammar schools, on separate
sites, with separate budgets and head teachers and staff?

I'm fed up with politicians willfully messing up the education of my children,
and I want my money back so that I can make my own arrangements.

[True Blue]

You can't "bring back grammar schools" without "bringing back secondary moderns." They were part of the same system. Bring back the secondary modern!

The policy has never changed, it was an attempt to reach people who currently don't vote Tory! I'm amazed people don't get it.

[realcon]

There's absolutely no evidence that the Blair/Cameron "academies" work any better than bog standards.

There has to be the element of selection - by pupils of schools followed by schools of pupils.

[realcon]

There has to be a mix of types of schools on offer, with a voucher system supporting a mixed economy in terms of public-private.

[G U ( Given Up)]

Brady resigned out of principle, well done.

That Green Dave has produced no real lead, against the worst shambles of a gu'mint in living memory, one that makes even Wilson's look competent,says all you deluded supporters need to know.

When Blair re-modelled Labour he had leads of 20 and 30 %, the country ain't buying what Green Dave is selling and for good reason, its mostly rubbish.

[Denis Cooper]

True Blue @ 12:03 - "You can't "bring back grammar schools" without "bringing back secondary moderns." They were part of the same system."

Grammar schools were the part of that system which worked well for their pupils, so where was the sense in destroying them? But there is no compulsion to return to exactly the same system. There is no compulsion even to call new schools for those with a higher level of academic ability and/or aptitude "grammar schools", and why not devise other types of school, and names, for the children who have less academic ability and/or aptitude? And why assume that the 11-plus is the only, or the best, method for measuring academic ability and/or aptitude?

Answer: because we have an ideological objection to schools which select their intake on the basis of high academic ability and/or aptitude. Selection on the basis of race, or religion, or sporting ability - yes - on an academic basis - no.

Because we're all Fabians now, and know that would be a wicked thing to do.

[TaxCutter]

The Tory Party is united on Grammar Schools, apart from its Old Etonian wing.

Blair's Clause 4 moment came on an issue he knew the Labour Party had lost the debate on 10 years ago, the public knew this, and all he was attacking was the extremists in his own party.

Dave on the other hand is attacking a live issue which the Tories could well win, the public know this and he is attacking all the mainstream parents who want the best education for their kids.

[TomTom]

Why the snobbery about Secondary Modern Schools ? Many were excellent

[True Blue]

Denis;

The policy is in favour of streaming by ability, and supporting existing grammar schools. I'm interested that you think there is a selection by race. Do let me know how this works.

[James Maskell]

Cameron has fumbled this so badly. For someone whose only jobs outside of politics have involved PR, this is a highly bizarre way for this to blow up.

Canmeron spoke of wanting grit and theres been talk of a 100 day blitz on policy...neither have appeared. Wheres the grit? All I see is softy socialist policies which do not hold up against the cold hard stare of scrutiny.

[Denis Cooper]

True Blue, I can only suppose that you missed Monday's article:

"Willetts opens door to selection by race to tackle segregation"

http://conservativehome.blogs.com/torydiary/2007/05/willetts_opens_.html

[James Maskell]

In short Willetts argues that schools should be able to select 10% of their intake along racial lines.

[Traditional Tory]

'If we are going to lose let's keep our views'- William Macdougall. What a totally defeatist and rather ridiculous line.

It's not ridiculous at all.

The first duty of the Conservative Party is to provide an effective opposition to the Blair project of turning our beloved country into what William Hague rightly called 'a foreign land' and I call a cesspool of immorality and greed. They amount to the same thing.

If (as some suppose) it is the will of an unenlightened majority to live in said cesspool then it is the duty of the party to stand against it, not to join the degenerates.

Conservatives believe in standing for what is right; not in meekly following behind the sheeple.

[malcolm]

Well said Andrew Lilico, you put it better than I could have.
Sorry Jonthan, I've been waiting for 'better days' for more than 10 years, my patience has run out.
Tam, I said in my first post that those who wish the Conservative party well should think carefully, you don't do you? That's fair enough, but forgive me if I don't take advice from someone who only wishes my party ill.

[True Blue]

[i]True Blue, I can only suppose that you missed Monday's article:
"Willetts opens door to selection by race to tackle segregation"[/i]

Thank you for the link. I thought that the policy was a little less explicit than that - ie encouraging rather than enforcing racial diversity. It appears that no child would be forced to go to such a school, but that an academy would be permitted to have, effectively, racial quotas. I understand the thinking, but it's not a good idea.

[Joseph]

Posted by: G U ( Given Up) | May 30, 2007 at 12:11
Brady resigned out of principle, well done.

Approximately 2 weeks ago I watched Graham Brady's discussion with a political journalist on television, I do believe it was on ITV, very early on a Sunday morning.
Please forgive me if I have either the day or channel wrong but I do remember well Graham being interviewed.
The subject under discussion was Europe and the political journalist who was hosting the programme made a snide remark about Cameron and the EPP debacle.
Now instead of defending Cameron which is usually the norm for front bench spokes people, Graham looked distinctly uncomfortable and the look he gave the interviewer spoke volumes as to his real opinion of Cameron.
I would suggest that, although I honestly believe Graham resigned out of principle regarding the Grammar Schools, I think there is more to it than meets the eye.
I think he is less content with Cameron and the way he is taking his Party and this has been the earliest opportunity to get out. I am also quite sure that there is a lot more of the discontents on the Tory Front bench than most people give credit for. They will remain silent for a while so as not to rock the boat, but I would not hold my breath once the opinion polls fall which they most certainly will.

[Traditional Tory]

Graham Brady is 100% one of us. An honest, decent, outspoken real Tory.

It's notable how the diehard Cameroons on here have rushed to slag him off. The usual suspects - including those such as Scotty who bleat loudest when someone is 'nasty' about them - all had a little bit of spite to contribute. Cardinal Pirelli's was perhaps the most unpleasant.

It speaks volumes about them, and their true desire, not for party unity, but for Gleichschaltung.

Nasty party indeed.

[Jorgen]

theres been talk of a 100 day blitz on policy

They did it in one day in one big swoop: "the Tories are the heirs to Blair".

[Annabel Herriott]

Hasnt Graham Brady got one or two Grammar schools on his patch? That means votes to be conserved does it not? If he fell in behind Cameron, he would have to answer to all those parents he represents, who have children at one of those Grammar schools.

[Bill]

Full marks for Brady but not for the Tory MPs who swallow the anti-grammar guff whilst using defending their and others right to private schools.

[Oberon Houston]

I have many friends in the party ranging from those more on the centre (like me) to those on the right. When I speak to them, we have conversations about grammars good or bad, Brady this and that, EPP or no etc. etc. but never is the language:

“The Tory policy of Ever-Closer-Union would assuredly have Ken's unqualified support”
“If we are going to lose anyway, let's at least keep to our views, for the long run.”
“The best outcome is for Willetts to resign.”
“Willets out !”
“I want my money back so that I can make my own arrangements.”
“the country ain't buying what Green Dave is selling…, its mostly rubbish.
“All I see is softy socialist policies”
“…the duty of the party to stand against it, not to join the degenerates.”
“It speaks volumes about them… not for party unity, but for Gleichschaltung [a Nazi term].

One thread, and they are all like this, stuffed with this language and many posters trying to converse against those comments. Are there any other blogs around that are not infested with this nonsense?

[Bill]

Oberon variously refers to the content with which he decorously says the thread is "stuffed" and "infested".

[Chris]

Traditional Tory,
I agree that some people have overreacted, but the underlying reason for their attacks is well founded.. If you are a member of the front bench you are bound by collective responsibility, and are expected to support the decisions made by the party. If you wish to voice dissent it is your duty to first resign and then voice your displeasure. Brady clearly ignored this protocol, hence why he is now facing critiscism and why the chief whip had strong words with him.

[malcolm]

I don't think so Oberon. Have a look at labourhome.org and see how the comrades over there behave with each other!
I do agree with you 'though, having a sensible debate can sometimes be difficult on this blog. Not all the infantile posters are on the right of the party, are you listening Jack?! (or is it Jake?).

[Bill]

Re Chris and "If you are a member of the front bench you are bound by collective responsibility, and are expected to support the decisions made by the party." Which decision by the party in particular are you referring to? BTW, perhaps if more decisions were made by the party there'd be less dissent. The problem is politicians as a class are sceptical about real democratic decision making like for instance referenda. There'd rather lose out to another party than deny themselves the right/opportunity to go against the clear wishes of the people. They're actually, a bit like the judiciary, and see themselves as protectors of the people from the people.

[Chris]

Bill,
I agree that more decisions ought to be made by the party membership and by referenda, but policies decided upon by the party leader carry the same weight (even though they ought not to!). The Grammar school debacle has made it clear that the CPF is no where near as strong as it ought to be, in future we may have to look at holding referendums at party conferences on major policy changes (similar to the Lib Dems).

The new grammar schools policy was announced as a party policy and therefore comes under collective responsibility. Numerous Labour ministers have resigned citing collective responsibility as the reason over the past few years, and we all know that the Labour leadership is not representative of the electorate.

[TomTom]

It appears that no child would be forced to go to such a school,

ID cards will be voluntary until compulsion arrives

LEAs are so good at allocating children to schools and so few parents are dissatisfied

[malcolm]

Chris,I was trying to think of Labour ministers who have resigned over the past 10 years out of principle. I can only remember those who went over Iraq and I suppose Tom Watson in the ludicrous failed 'coup' a few months ago. Tim Montgomerie reminded me of 'a minister' (even he couldn't remember their name) who went in the early days over cuts to child benefit.Are their really any others?

[Chris]

malcolm,
I can't remember any more off the top of my head, but I believe there have been a few PPSs that have resigned. Let us not forget though the original point which I was raising, no Labour minister has voiced opposition to government policy, or has voted against government policy without first resigning their position.

Brady himself referenced collective responsibility as his reason for resigning (though I imagine it was more to do with the scathing headlines).

[William Norton]

Oberon:Are there any other blogs around that are not infested with this nonsense?

I share some of Oberon's frustrations at a small number of monomaniacal contributors here but whenever anyone has suggested that ConHome is "anti-Cameron", or variations on that theme, I've often asked "What is the name of a widely-read, highly-informed pro-Cameron loyalist's blog"? And I've never received an answer.

[malcolm]

Oh, I don't know Chris. Peter Hain has made a career out of it.

[William Norton]

Malcolm/Chris: didn't Peter Kilfoyle resign as a minister early on over something like a dislike of the trends displayed by New Labour in office?

[601]

What a farce!
Willets must be removed from education, not because he re-emphasised the position on Grammar schools but because he said "academic selection entrenches advantage" . No they don't.

Send him to International development where he can go on a long fact finding mission across Africa.

[John Blunt]

I think he should be sent up the Limpopo without a paddle. Oh no, that's right he's already there !

[Denis Cooper]

So, Oberon, has Cameron already dismissed the idea of education vouchers? Which would give parents their money back (plus or minus some) and allow
them to make their own arrangements for the education of their children, free
from interference by politicians? If not, why do you object to me saying that?

[Dave Bartlett]

Given that Messrs Willetts and Cameron have not changed conservative policy on grammars any 'party unity' drama over the 'grammars issue' is, in my view, the usual suspects who are happiest railing against the party leadership and welcome any figleaf for trolling.

[Traditional Tory]

...whenever anyone has suggested that ConHome is "anti-Cameron", or variations on that theme...

As I've observed before, the percentage of TRG types such as Oberon Houston on CH is actually much much higher than you would find in a typical association.

OTOH I do grant that the number of centre-right patriots who are prepared to rock the boat is also higher than average.

And I must admit that the shrieks of horror from the Cameroons when said boat-rocking takes place are more spectacular than any noises that ever emanated from the behatted blue-rinse dinosaurs of the past.

[tapestry]

The whole 'grammar game' is designed to make Lib Dem voters more likely to vote Conservative, coupled with ensuring that Conservatives grab the media and not labour's deputy elections.

The calculation is made that Conservatives will not migrate to vote left, but if we move our policies left enough, or at least claim that we are doing so, more LD's will feel it is OK to budge and be Conservative.

The problem is crddibility. Only if nearly all Conservative activists are screaming blue murder will Lib Dems actually beleive Cameron is moving left enough.

I don't think any policy issues are being permanently established. It's all posturing. If any more want to resign the Front Bench with Brady, and become the Tory Devils outcast, the sooner the Lib Dems will believe that Cameron is indeed the new Messiah, and we can all relax.

[Matt Wright]

Re William Macdougal @ 10.15. This is typical of some of the posts on this site which just overstate things negatively. We have not given up all our principles - the basic tenets of Conservatism are there but our approach is being adapted to suit the age. We have always done this as a party and it is why we have been so successful a political force. This approach is right. We do have to be more open minded and forward looking and not just a party that thinks Conservatism is about preserving things. I do not think DC has got everything right but the basic thrust has been right and has put us ahead. There are some on this site that seize on every single thing they can to attack the party. The grammar school debate was just the latest thing they used. The standard of debate of some of these posts is nursery school and is usually peppered with phrases like "Camerloon", "Shameron" and other such childish stuff. It was quite clear they did not want change in the party from day one and indeed those that use the site regularly will see the pattern of negative and disruptive posts.

Matt

[Traditional Tory]

There are some on this site that seize on every single thing they can to attack the party.

No they don't. They're attacking Cameron and the factional mafia that has hi-jacked our party - something very different indeed.

If we're 'against the party' care to explain why we were fighting with Maggie to the bitter end against the TRG scum who waged a backstabbing war of treachery against the greatest leader this country has had since Winston Churchill?

[Bill]

You may not like it, but William MacDougal has a point. There is little point in voting for a
Tory party whose leadership's aim is to ensure the electorate cannot put a fag paper between the Tories and New Labour. They do not deserve to win and take take a perverse delight in rubbishing views which many Tories see as essential tenets of conservatism. The row over
grammar schools was about grammar schools but also about the contemptuous attitude the leadership has. None of us need take lessons
from this overwhelming privileged leadership
on education, the economy, "class war" or anything really for that matter. They are about as representative of Britain today as a packet of woodbines.

[Matt Wright]

Trad Tory, I think the way Lady Thatcher was treated was wrong but I have to say reading all your posts, the nature of your language betrays your attitude and seems to demonstrate an extremist mode of thinking. The words that pepper your posts, such as "scum", "cesspool or immorality" etc etc are very illuminating. It is precisely this sort of attitude that has damaged the Conservative party and made us look seriously out of touch. I read this blog regularly and contribute quite often so I see patterns in the posts. I do notice the same people continually posting negatively and who seem to revel in attacking the party,

Matt

[Traditional Tory]

It is precisely this sort of attitude that has damaged the Conservative party and made us look seriously out of touch.

What made us unpopular with the electorate was month after month of sleaze, incompetence and, yes, dollops of that very sexual immorality that some of you people seem to think is OK.

As far as I am concerned the traitors who betrayed Maggie are scum and always will be scum. It's a word one reads frequently in the Mirror and the Sun, so I fail to see how it puts us out of touch with the voting public.

[Poprishchin]

"That's fair enough, but forgive me if I don't take advice from someone who only wishes my party ill."

Why should he forgive you for your decision to give your loyalty to some centralising political grouping of old Etonians ahead of the country, talcy?

The Tory party split is coming and about time too.

[Matt Wright]

I don't think it is one single word such as "scum" (in the context of what happenned to Lady Thatcher) that is the problem. It is the tendency to paint everything so negatively that is wrong. You have had several posts recently in this vain. Many ordinary voters just don't see things in this way at all and people who go around talking utter doom and gloom actaully make voters think they are extreme and out of touch. That is the point I am making and I think it is a relevant and important one despite the constant stream of negative posts on this site, many from people who don't even have the guts to use their real names,

Matt

[Traditional Tory]

many from people who don't even have the guts to use their real names

And what about the abusive Cameroons who don't use their real names, Matt? Since they are only parroting the party line there must be some reason why they remain anonymous. I can think of several - all discreditable.

The reason why I choose to remain anonymous is obvious. In my association there are deluded colleagues who still remain 'loyal'
to Cameron, and for the moment I don't want them knowing what I am posting here.

Many ordinary voters just don't see things in this way at all and people who go around talking utter doom and gloom actaully make voters think they are extreme and out of touch.

So if everything is sweetness and light in Blair's Britain why bother to change the management?

[Matt Wright]

Well if as you say most people are against the "Cameroons" as you describe them, what are you frightened of?

As regards all being sweetness and light, of course it isn't but its not doom and gloom either. Many people still think they are quite well off at the moment and we have to reason with them, not talk about "scum" and "cesspools". Anyone canvassing like that in most places would be regarded as extreme,

Matt

[Stephen Tolkinghorne]

"Tory party whose leadership's aim is to ensure the electorate cannot put a fag paper between the Tories and New Labour. They do not deserve to win and take take a perverse delight in rubbishing views which many Tories see as essential tenets of conservatism."

That's exactly the point. Why vote Tory at all ? I can vote for Brown - Cameroonies lot will be no better and no different as, afterall, their stated aim is to pursue Bliarite policies and implement them.

If Bliar's policies are so wonderful, why was Cameron desperate for him to resign ? If Cameron loves the state this country is in so much and the policies of Bliar, why is does he not want him to stay ? The reason is so that Cameron can plant himself in the role of leader - then, once he's achieved his ambition, he'll simply let things run along as they have been. There would be no difference between Labour and Tory Executives and their policies - as pretty much stated by Cameron - just different accents.

The grassroots Tories seem to be pretty upset with the leadership, and since there's no difference between the parties, why do they continue to carry on constituency business and fight for the Conservative party when it no longer represents them ? Answer: they only do it out of habit - but habits can be broken; then where'll the Cameroonies be ?

[cleo]

Appealing to the grassroots is not going to win the election. I do wonder how Cameron ever got elected reading this site. He said in his leadership bid that he would not return to wholesale selection and the 11 plus and rightly so. Education has become such a lottery and any aspiring government has to show how it will improve educational achievement for the many not the few. Tony Blair ditched traditional Labour because it was no longer relevant. The Conservatives can not ignore the fact that after 10 years in power, Blair has set the agenda. That agenda is public service reform and patient/parent choice. There is so much they have not achieved and so many important issues not addressed and I am glad to see a party that will continue with reform but also deal with environmental concerns and so many other issues that have been left behind by New Labour

[TomTom]

Cleo you simply recite slogans....it is so vacuous. How are you going to make facts on the ground ?

Noone cares about good intentions. We have had decades of Conservative and Labour promises and we ended up where we are now.

[Kennypoos]

Cameron will not back down. He is determined to forge ahead with the liberalisation of the Conservatives, effectively turning the party into New Labour Mk II.

He has been told by his inner coterie of Eton advisors - you know, the ones who are really in touch with the real world - that the only way he will win the next election is if he walks and talks like Blair.

Oh, is he in for a huge shock!

[Mark Fulford]

So the education of my children is "a trivial, inconsequential issue".

Denis, how, precisely, has Conservative policy towards grammar schools changed? Find the difference between yesterday and today and you'll see what I mean by "trivial [and] inconsequential".

Editor, please can we have some grammar-free days?

[Richard Tyndall]

What the Cameroons on this site forget is that it is not they who will win or lose the election. It is the hundreds of thousands of natural Conservative voters like me who are not members of the party but do believe in principle.

The Conservative party has no god given right to our support and will only receive our votes if it espouses the principles we believe in. I have non interest in a Conservative victory per se except where it advances the causes and beliefs that I adhere to. If it follows a Blairite agenda then it does not deserve and will not receive my support.

And I can assure you thaht there are indeed tens if not hundreds of thousands of people like me out there. They are the missing percentages that mean you are only 4 or 5 points ahead of the worst government in history when your lead should be well into double figures.

[Matt Wright]

Stephen, Blair has talked about ideas borrowed from the Conservatives but didn't quite understand them and his party didn't support them. Not suprisingly he didn't really deliver but the difference is we will actually do them as they are our natural territory. That is the point. It won't be immediate radical Toryism but it will be a real start on the right road. That is the difference and it is a real one that will benefit people. Why you and others wish to stop that chance to go forward and inflict a permanent Labour administration on us is beyond me. Some of the people who post on this site have long since lost the plot or in fact are just deliberately trying to undermine things (Editor please note),

Matt

[Traditional Tory]

Cameron said in his leadership bid that he would not return to wholesale selection and the 11 plus and rightly so.

Would 'Cleo' or any of the other remaining Cameroons kindly inform us who, on CH or elsewhere, has ever called for the return of the 11+.

This is one of the most pernicious red herrings that has been used by the Cameron fan club - including cabinet ministers - as Grammargate has rolled on.

[Traditional Tory]

Mark Fulford - Editor, please can we have some grammar-free days?

Grammargate continues to dominate several threads by popular demand - in other words the Editors are reflecting Tory Democracy, and rightly so.

They are to be warmly praised for resisting the panic-stricken calls for Cameroon Gleichschaltung

[TomTom]

Blair has talked about ideas borrowed from the Conservatives but didn't quite understand them and his party didn't support them. Not suprisingly he didn't really deliver but the difference is we will actually do them as they are our natural territory

Who is Blair ? A Has-Been doing a victory lap to celebrate his wiping the floor with the Conservatives since 1997........

He faced opposition to some of his hare-brained schemes but coolness rather than opposition from Unison etc but if people like Osborne think he is going to overturn things he may find real opposition to his hare-brained notions.....ad little public support.

The Conservatives start to appear unelectable - they have little appeal in Northern England, none in Scotland, and have done very little to ameliorate matters. Boy George is going to be irrelevant after 27th June and is currently just a cheerleader for an outgoing Scotsman as Labour leader from public school

[Traditional Tory]

Coming back to Grammargate; has anybody mentioned Direct Grant schools? It's very sad that these were never brought back by the last Conservative government.

I know how good they were because I attended one. For those who don't remember these were independent public schools, all or almost all day schools, which received substantial government subsidy. Parents who couldn't afford the full fees paid on a sliding scale.

I suppose one of the problems after Wilson and Co abolished the direct grant was that nearly all these schools went totally independent and found that there were parents able to pay the enormous fees demanded. No doubt many of these parents might previously have sent their children to state grammar schools.

It always seemed to me that the Direct Grant day schools (many of which had been called 'grammar' schools for hundreds of years)offered a model which the state grammar schools strove to follow, with smart uniforms, the 'corps' and so forth. Certainly the local state grammar tried to do that.

My wife teaches there now, but it has become a comp and was in 'special measures' a while back. These days the kids don't shoulder Lee-Enfields...they bring their knives instead.

But don't worry. Everybody's happy in Blair's Cool Britannia (so the Cameroons tell us), so this must be an improvement on the bad old days.

'Free expression' I suppose.

[TomTom]

Report

So Margaret Thatcher overruled closure of 90+ Grammar Schools as Education Secretary

Forced Comprehensivisation was stopped in 1979

Read The Report authored in part by Dr Andrew Lilico on the state od education and the importance of Grammar Schools

[Mark Fulford]

Grammargate continues to dominate several threads by popular demand

To me it's a complete turn-off -- and I dare say I'm not alone. Mr Editor, is the session time for each IP address rising or falling?

[Mark Fulford]

Sorry, I posted that before fully reading "It's time to move on".

I'd still be interested to know how many silent supporters Willetts and Cameron have, but I guess that will come out in the May survey.

[TomTom]

To me it's a complete turn-off -

That's all that matters then....you must have others things to amuse yourself with...Playstation perhaps ?