David Cameron declines to condemn 'faith school fakes' in wide-ranging Times interview

In an interview today David Cameron makes a direct attack on the Prime Minister as that "strange man in Downing Street".  The Times chooses to splash his remarks about non-believers going to church in order to get their children into church schools.  The Tory leader refuses to condemn parents that the newspaper describes as 'faith school fakes':

“I think it’s good for parents who want the best for their kids. I don’t blame anyone who tries to get their children into a good school. Most people are doing so because it has an ethos and culture. I believe in active citizens.”

Melanie Phillips is unimpressed:

"For a politician who aspires to lead his country to endorse lying and cheating is to give the public the message that he himself is not to be trusted. The implication that ‘active citizenship’ means securing advantage by not telling the truth is deplorable. It is possible to acknowledge the fact that so many parents are driven to play the system in this way by the appalling standards in our schools, and to decry the pressures that drive them to do this, without endorsing systematic deception. If Cameron has indeed crossed that line, this will be held against him by a public which already suspects that he is not a man of principle, and taken as proof that their instincts are correct."

Some other highlights from David Cameron's interview with The Times:

The top Conservative team is excelling: "You still see the contrast between our two teams: William Hague, David Davis, George Osborne all are doing well and being seen to be doing well. One can imagine them doing the jobs that they are shadowing far better than the minister they are shadowing.”

Brown sees everything in political terms: “I am afraid that he sees [42 days' detention without trial] as a totally political weapon: let us try and make the Tories look soft on terror. That is my problem with our Prime Minister: he looks at every single issue from the point of view of what is the right dividing line that divides me from my opponent, not what is right for the country, and I think that is what he is doing here.”

On matching Labour on spending: "We will look at [the projected spending figures] and see if they are consistent with our principles. If they are we will support them.  I am being very careful because if you say anything else that strange man in Downing Street will cook up an enormous package of Tory spending cuts. It is complete and utter fiction. I have seen it done before and I have learnt a thing or two in the last few years.”

On Afghanistan: "We should be asking how we can surge the political effort, the aid effort and the hearts-and-minds effort. There is probably no number of troops that could turn Afganinstan into a success story. The success of Afghanistan will be if you manage to get the rule of law; if you manage to have the Government’s writ run round the country; if you manage to train up the Afghan Army; and you co-ordinate the aid.”

On a North Atlantic Free Trade Area: “A new economic alliance, building on the work that is already under way to harmonise market regulation between the two sides of the Atlantic, can provide the West with . . . the increased growth that comes from deeper and wider free trade internally and the scale that will enable us to be at least equal partners with the South Asians. Centre-right free trade economics, and centre-right atlanticism, can together give the West its proper place in the coming century.”

Comments

[Tony Makara]

Disappointing to see the comments in favour of free-trade with the East. The way our economy is structured we cannot compete with an economic power like China in terms of exports so that means we are going to be the passive partner in any free-trade relationship. They make, we buy, they accumulate wealth, we see wealth pass out of our country. Free-trade ideology will eventually destroy our economy because we have lost the will to produce, the will to export, the will to corner markets. A nation that lives by imports is condemned to secondary status in the world.

[Malcolm Dunn]

Don't think I can agree with what Cameron said about Afghanistan. More troops is not the whole answer but trying to get away with rescources we have at present is a sure recipe for disaster in the area.
As regards Faith Schools Cameron is only restating what everyone with any knowledge of the subject already knows happens. Perhaps it wouldn't if we are all as perfect as Melanie Phillips. It is just as well she's a journalist and not a politician,politicians have to deal with the real world!

[Mark Fulford]

My wife and I are atheists but have applied to a C of E school for one of our daughters. I’d prefer her not to be indoctrinated with religious twaddle, but IMO that’s a lesser evil than our other state option.

However, I do condemn fakers. Our application was made honestly, with "atheist" in the religion box, and may suffer as a result. I resent people who will lie to get ahead – whether it’s to a school, an employer, an insurance company or straight-forward queue barging. If we have a broken society, it's this sort of behaviour that's at its root. Children learn honesty and dishonesty by example. Parents should be very wary of what they are teaching their children.

[Sean Fear]

Trade is not a zero-sum activity.

[Adam in London]

A hint of something really radical from Cameron - a North Atlantic Free Trade Area. If this could come about, it provides us with the first viable route out of the EU.

[Tony Makara]

Sean Fear, trade is about cornering markets, It is about dominating markets, it is about knocking out opponents who try to take the markets that you want to exploit. This applies to nations as it applies to individual business concerns. A British government must be proactive in helping British entrepreneurs to 'take' markets away from competitor nations.

[Tanfield]

If the school later establishes that the parents are indeed "fakers" can the school then expel the child?

[Sean Fear]

Tony, trade hasn't been about doing that for 250 years.

[Tony Makara]

Sean Fear, as a nation we need to have a clear economic strategy. The decisions we take now, particularly in relation to the emergence of China, India and Russia will determine our position in the world. If we want to be a major economy in the 21st century we need to be an exporting nation. If we stand back and allow others to corner manufacturing export markets we will diminish as a nation. We have a large and growing population. That population cannot be sustained by the service sector alone. We need to be producing our own goods, producing our own food and even producing our own fuel where possible. Politicians of all the main parties do not seem to understand this, they place emphasis on the free movement of capital rather than looking at the long term consequences for us collectively as a nation. We need to leave the coming generations a nation that can support itself. The things we do, or don't do today, will effect those born 25 and 50 years from now. Our nation must have an economic stategy.

[Alex Swanson]

We have a large and growing population. That population cannot be sustained by the service sector alone.

Yes, it can.

The arguments you are putting forward about physical goods are the same arguments that were applied to agriculture in the 19th century and put forward to defend the Corn Laws. They are fallacious. All that is required is that the country produces enough of value to pay for whatever we don't produce, and if we produce only intellectual content, then so what? Works for Microsoft.

[Paul Oakley]

Countries do not compete with each other, businesses do.

The state is however perfectly capable of damaging the trade undertaken by businesses if tax is high, regulations excessive and tariff walls erected.

Less of the same please.

[Tony Makara]

Alex Swanson, we already have 1.6 million people who have become non-contributors to the nation because the service sector cannot produce enough jobs and that is only the beginning. Mass unemployment is going to develop a larger base with each generation.

The economic theories and facts of the 19th century are as irrelevant as they are when the Marxists use them. We have to deal with the modern world and the new global economy. I am not against trade, but any such trade has to be in the national interest. We can import rice and tea from China, Coffee from Brazil, etc. However the things we can produce ourselves we should produce ourselves. Go in the supermarket, look at the origin of the foodstuffs there, think about how many could have been produced in our country, how many need to be imported. We are currently locked into a situation in which it is difficult for us to cut interest rates to stimulate the economy because that will weaken the pound and push the price of imports up. That creates high street inflation and the knock-on effect of higher wage demands. If we are producing for our home market equilibrium price levels will be established, we will not be hostage to currency fluctuations.

[thaggie]

tony,

if you can't see how paying a premium for goods just because they are produced locally makes us poorer overall, then you must be in the wrong party. it goes against everything Thatcher achieved, for one. even labour don't make those kinds of claims any more.

this country is heavily socialised in many ways, but one of the things I like about England is that its people are about as open to free trade as any in the world. try to think of an English comparison for, say, John Edwards, or Jose Bove. Needless to say, that's because we've probably done as well out of globalisation as any country. Which in turn is because we eshew the arguments you're trying to make

[NorthernMonkey]

I'm delighted Mr. Cameron keeps pushing for further free trade.

Thank goodness we don't have an ugly culture of protectionism in this country - perhaps some individuals who disagree should consider moving to France where economic xenophobia is the norm.

[Tony Makara]

Thaggie and NorthernMonkey, you will find that protectionism will become economic currency in the future. As much out of necessity as out of choice. Nations with a large population that are service-sector led will just become dumping grounds for goods from the East. Thaggie, you quote Thatcherism, but that era has gone. In many aspects Thatcherism was right for its time, but also made mistakes, like allowing our hard industries to die. We cannot keep looking to the past for ideological guidance. What we need are are pragmatic economic policies to maintain our status as a major nation in the 21st century.

[thaggie]

tony, to me the essence of thatcherism is not to support industry that can't stand on its own. one of the great successes of the thatcher years was to run down uneconomic industries. if she hadn't done that the country would be in much worse shape now, because we'd be paying way over the odds for they goods they inefficiently produce.

i think you'll find, tony, that the eternal rules of economics, the same that have held true from the beginning of the market system up to this moment, are unlikely to change any time soon

[Sean Fear]

Tony, the last time rich countries thought that putting up tariff walls, or autarky, was the route to economic successs was back in the 1930s. Trade plummetted, and international output went down with it.

The sensible course for us as a nation is to export those goods and services that make us a profit, while importing those that foreigners provide more cheaply or better.

[Tony Makara]

"while importing those that foreigners provide more cheaply"

Sean Fear, that is called putting capital above the interests of the nation. As I'm sure you will appreciate the 1930s had their own particular set of circumstances, recovering from the 1929 crash etc and were quite different from what we face today. Our biggest problem are the emerging economic giants in the East and the danger of being overrun by them. That applies to the United States too, however the Americans are starting to realise this, unlike certain politicians here.

[Tony Makara]

Thaggie, I don't support proping up ailing industries either. I just want the best deal for British buisness, because what they achieve or don't achieve has knock-on effects for all of us as a nation. Protectionism, either directly or through targeted support for the supply-side will have to happen as a response to the economic potential of the East. It will have to happen or we will face economic oblivion.

[David Sergeant]

Surely I can't be the only one who thinks Melanie Phillips doesn't believe a word of her weird outburst. This is not the first time she has resorted to abject nonsense just to get at Cameron. Why do we pretend to take her seriously?

[TFA Tory]

We have our own fakes in the Conservative Party - the MEPs who pretend to be Eurosceptics and claim to support leaving the EPP to ensure that they are toplisted in their region. At Beazley has had the decency to stand down than tell whopppers.

[TFA Tory]

We have our own fakes in the Conservative Party - the MEPs who pretend to be Eurosceptics and claim to support leaving the EPP to ensure that they are toplisted in their region. At least Beazley has had the decency to stand down rather than tell whopppers like so many of his colleagues

[Richard]

"Sean Fear, that is called putting capital above the interests of the nation."

I call it putting consumers above the interests of inefficient industries.

Anyhow, onto this faith school topic. The real reason the Left has an issue with the middle classes "playing the system" is not because they are playing the system but because they are middle class. However, the fact is that the middle classes make up the majority of the country and pay the most taxes that fund the schools. Therefore Cameron has nothing to lose by standing up for parents who just want to do the best for their children. Yes, the deception is unfortunate but what do you expect from our joke of a state system?

[passing leftie]

The State should not be subsidising peoples' private fantasies. If parents want to perpetuate this pernicious nonsense, then let them do it on their own time and with their own money.

This artificial grouping of middle class people causes a self-perpetuating cycle - middle class children do better than non-middle class ones whereever they go, so if they cluster in a school the results for that school go up. If there was a true lack of selection, then everyone would benefit.

[passing leftie]

This says everything you ever need to know about Cameron's moral compass.

Are we now OK with lying to get a job? You,
know, there aren't many decent jobs around, why not lie about your qualifications? It's perfectly understandable. How about lying to get into power?

I'm glad we know where he stands on this. next time you look at him talking about all the marvellous things he's going to do when he's PM, just remember, he's thinking, "Lying to get what you want is OK."

[Sean Fear]

"The State should not be subsidising peoples' private fantasies"

Don't religious parents pay taxes then?

[Northernhousewife]

Passing Leftie.

Remember Iraq.
Remember Dr Kelly.
Remember Yates of the Yard.
We do.
We know all about lying. You have given us a very thorough education in it.
Perhaps you should look up 'hypocrite' before you log on to Toryhome.
Better still, look up 'twerp'.
Better still, just look up
- from your bunker.

[passing leftie]

We know all about lying. You have given us a very thorough education in it.

In some ways you are right.

At least Cameron isn't even pretending that lying is bad - in fact he's praising it. I can't accuse him of being a hypocrite. At least you know what you are getting - someone who sets low standards and sticks to them.

[passing leftie]

"The State should not be subsidising peoples' private fantasies"

Don't religious parents pay taxes then?

Well, I'm glad at least that you accept the premise that religion is a private fantasy.

You can divide the population up into any kind of groups you like, and say "doesn't this group pay taxes" and then apply this exactly how you want. I seem to remember a lot of right-wing whinging about the GLC "subsidising black lesbians". Well, aren't they taxpayers, too?

[Sean Fear]

"Well, I'm glad at least that you accept the premise that religion is a private fantasy."

I don't.

Public education was virtually invented by the Churches in this country, and schools were built at their expense. They were taken over by the State on the understanding they would remain religious schools. A sufficiently large number of taxpaying parents wish to continue this arrangement to make it viable. Requiring them to fund a purely secular system would be unreasonable.

In fairness, if a secular organisation wished to found a school, and was sufficiently well-qualified to run it effectively, and had a critical mass of support among local parents, I can see no reason why it should not receive public funding on the same basis as a religious school.

I believe that education in Holland is largely run along such lines, and it's a good system.

[Sean Fear]

" I seem to remember a lot of right-wing whinging about the GLC "subsidising black lesbians". Well, aren't they taxpayers, too?"

Indeed they are. Generally speaking, I would say that education is something that the State should fund, but the State should not fund the work of voluntary and charitable organisations, unless it is to carry out some work on behalf of the State.

[Jesus]

Thank you for this wonderful review of David Cameron.

[passing leftie]

Indeed they are. Generally speaking, I would say that education is something that the State should fund, but the State should not fund the work of voluntary and charitable organisations, unless it is to carry out some work on behalf of the State.

I can't think of a better argument against faith schools - thank you.

The state should not fund indoctrination into religious beliefs disguised as work on behalf of the state.

[Sean Fear]

GCSE and A Level results would suggest that religious schools are doing rather good work on behalf of the State.

Still what this amounts to is that you just dislike religion. Fair enough. Send your children to a school that isn't religious.

[passing leftie]

GCSE and A Level results would suggest that religious schools are doing rather good work on behalf of the State.

They don't attract the middle classes because they are good, they are good because the attract the middle classes. It's just back door selection.

Selecting people by the irrational beliefs they hold (or pretend to hold) is no way to run a school system. I refer you to
http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/opinion/Richard-Heller-Britain-cannot-put.3652772.jp
and The Cambridge Primary Review.

I think I've done enough on this thread, now.

[glenn middleton]

Faking religious beliefs has to be condemned, because it sends the wrong signal to children.

Not point tell the next generation is ok to lie because it is laced with good intentions.

Also what do you say to those people who are practising and committed christians, and have their children gazumped by non believers.

Cameron's view is pure thatcherism.

[glenn middleton]

Faking religious beliefs has to be condemned, because it sends the wrong signal to children.

There is no point in telling the next generation is ok to lie because it is laced with good intentions.

Also what do you say to those people who are practising and committed christians, and have their children gazumped by non believers.

Cameron's view is pure thatcherism.

[Mark Fulford]

Passing Leftie, your argument hinges on social class being everything and school quality being nothing. You say that a school becomes good simply because it fills up with middle class children.

“That school over there’s doing really well because it’s full of middle-class kids.”

“This school over here is doing really badly because none of the middle-class kids will go to it.”

Utter bullocks. You’ve simply found a convenient way to absolve those who provide state education of responsibility for its failings. A way to say "it's the customer who's wrong".

I say that the comparative excellence of faith schools has a much simpler explanation. They are better run. It's a first grade lesson: governments are no good at running schools (amongst other things) and we should be encouraging other groupings to take a more prominent role in providing state education.

[Sean Fear]

Good schools attract committed parents, who in turn ensure they remain good. Committed parents leave bad schools, which find it hard to get out of a cycle of decline. There's nothing strange about that, and it's unreasonable to condemn good schools for being good.

[Malcolm Dunn]

It's also rubbish to sugest all faith schools are full of middle class children. Primary schools in particular tend to reflect their immediate neighbourhood and take children of whatever class from the locality.
I fear passing leftie is letting his/her prejudices cloud his/her judgement (again).

[passing leftie]

No, my views are based on one of the largest surveys of its kind ever commissioned. I suggest you look at this article if you don't have time to examine the report.
http://education.guardian.co.uk/egweekly/story/0,,1718920,00.html

[Sean Fear]

Well, the Guardian does tend to lean towards the view that the only reason why comprehensivisation hasn't worked is because we haven't got the social engineering properly worked out yet.

The funny thing is that people like you *ought* to be favouring the old grammar school system, because it gives a better chance to intelligent children from poor households.

But people like you couldn't bear the thought of upward social mobility, so you replaced a system based on intellectual ability with one based upon postcodes and religious affiliation.

Live with what you've created.

[Yet Another Anon]

Schools should be free to select whoever they want, all schools should be funded by charging for services and low interest loans repayable in the same way Student Loans are now should be available. Where parents fail to meet their responsibility for educating their children then the state should place them in a school and charge the parents the costs.

[Mark Fulford]

It's not new that social class accurately predicts academic achievement. The point of Professors Webber's and Butler's work was to factor social background into league tables in order to more accurately show the difference in quality of teaching between schools. Their work absolutely accepted that there is a difference in quality and publish adjusted league tables as a result. Nowhere did Webber or Butler reach the Guardian's conclusion that:

…a school's success is based not on its teachers, the way it is run, or what type of school it is, but, overwhelmingly, on the class background of its pupils

Personally, I don’t think the Guardian can have understood the research.

[passing leftie]

Mark, you are wrong.

This is what Webber says: "The best educational achievement for the largest number of pupils will be achieved by having a broad social mix of pupils in as many schools as possible. Some schools that currently draw their pupils from privileged social strata would lose out, but education standards would increase overall."

Sean, you are wrong, for much the same reason. The wider the selection of pupils in a school, but the better the level of attainment for everybody.

[Bill]

It's funny how the faith school argument brings us back to grammar schools. It's stating the obvious that the whole education debate is a difficult one. I can see both sides of the argument. As someone who believes in liberty and freedom above all I instinctively gag at any further attempts to ram more failed socialist social engineering
down children's throats. My personal experience includes the demanding high standards of a traditional grammar school and the more relaxed environment of a comprehensive. I can see merits in both although it almost goes without saying that a grammar education seemed more stretching. As I was lucky enough to go Oxbridge, I saw how public school educated children appeared in general far better prepared for an Oxbridge education. IMO any unfair advantage public schools have should only be eliminated by improving state schools and not by attacking private schools by one dubious method or another. I'd have more respect for the lefties if they advocated state schools which were run like our best private schools. Instead they often give the impression of not caring about the chaos in our schools (a bit like their attitude to crime etc). The best way forward would IMO be 1) school vouchers coupled with 2) a massive overhaul of the teaching profession to put 3) education and the sine qua non of 4) discipline first. As someone whose had to suffer studying some educational theory, I suggest binning a lot of it along with the social engineering agenda behind a lot of it. I really feel for parents today looking at the violence on our streets and amongst our children and having to decide how and where to educate their children.

[passing leftie]

…a school's success is based not on its teachers, the way it is run, or what type of school it is, but, overwhelmingly, on the class background of its pupils

Personally, I don’t think the Guardian can have understood the research.

Well, I prefer to look at the evidence. This is what Richard Webber (one of the authors) said to me in private correspondence:

I think that this statement is a slight simplification of what I believe to be an objective statement based on the evidence and would put it this way.

"Clearly it would be absurd to propose that how a school is run, what type it is etc makes no difference to the its success. However differences in the quality of its management, teachers etc are now not so great that they affect variations in schools' success as differences in the class background as its pupils".

The situation is somewhat analogous to the safety record of cars. Clearly much effort goes into the design of cars so that they are safe. Therefore variations in the safety performance of cars is no longer that great. This does not mean that the efforts designers take to ensure safety are no longer important.

The key issue in education is what varies more between schools, the quality of the management, teaching etc or the social background of the pupils.

So, a slight simplification, exactly what you'd hope for in quality journalism.

[Mark Fulford]

"Clearly it would be absurd to propose that how a school is run, what type it is etc makes no difference to its success." -- Prof Webber

Which is precisely my point and quite at odds with The Guardian’s

"...a school's success is based not on its teachers, the way it is run, or what type of school it is, but, overwhelmingly, on the class background of its pupils."

There’s no argument that, statistically, students’ social backgrounds are an accurate predictor of their eventual academic achievement. However, within the statistics there is school-by-school variation – and isn’t that precisely what Professor Webber set out to find? Why else does he produce adjusted league tables? Perhaps you’d like to ask him.

No parent should be forced into leaving their child in a school that is serving them badly. If the middle classes are better at exercising their choices then the solution is to get the lower classes exercising their choices too (and this class stuff is all your language, not mine). With one group more able than the other, it’s not the right answer to cripple the more able group.

We have an infant and a junior school, side by side, serving exactly the same social groups. One school is excellent and the other is terrible, despite them getting the same children. You can’t use social class to explain this large difference and, were you to see them in the flesh, you wouldn't attempt to do so. By allowing class to be the whole explanation for difference, you risk overlooking faults that can be solved.

[passing leftie]

...and any attempts at class engineering disguise the genuine variation between schools. Take another look at the car analogy.

The problem isn't people selectiing schools, it's schools selecting people to make them look good. If your two schools have the same intake, then it's easy to say that the differences are down to the quality of education.

The reason they did the study was to elminate the overwhelming factor in schools' success - that is, the social background of the children. Any school given the power to select will look disproportionately good, because indirectly they are selecting children who will do better on average.