David Davis focuses on education (again)

On Saturday David Davis made a significant policy statement on grammar schools.  He was in Beaconsfield last night and made another speech on education - to 350 Tory activists.

He was more dismissive of Labour's education reforms than the more consensual David Cameron:

"Some people say we need to build on the Blair Education reforms. This would be building on sand. The so-called reforms are just a fraud, a collection of soundbites and gimmicks that add up to very little. We need our own radical Conservative education policy."

He emphasised his continuing support for school choice:

"Every family deserves the ability to choose, not just those who can afford it.  So I would introduce a programme of School Choice on the Swedish model. Parents would be given the power and the money to choose a school that suited their child. I would start this policy in the cities, where the problems are worse and where the numbers who need rescuing are greatest.  Giving parents choice is pointless unless they have schools between which they can choose. So I would also allow new groups to set up schools within the state system. Charities, Churches, educational groups, private companies—all have ideas which may appeal to parents and allow the full range of educational opportunities to be available to all our children."

Finally, Mr Davis reiterated his opposition to tuition fees:

"I am convinced that they will take us back to the time when a university education was largely a middle-class privilege. We should be moving in the opposite direction, opening up the universities to people from all types of background. In the 1970s Oxford and Cambridge had intakes where more than 70% came from the state sector. That fell to below 50%, before recovering to some extent in recent years. My proposals on grammar schools and school choice will redress this to some extent, but I do not think the next Conservative Government should put new obstacles in the way of aspiring university entrants by accepting the Blair settlement on tuition fees.  This will mean that the headlong expansion of the university sector needs to stop, if we are going to be able to afford proper funding of our universities. We have seen increasing evidence that too many degrees provide no benefit to those who obtain them or to the wider economy. We have ever more graduates, but continuing shortages in skills such as engineering. Expansion plus tuition fees will be a dead end for our universities and their students."

Writing again today for The Platform Blog Michael Gove takes issue with this opposition to tuition fees.  Michael's post (which argues that Liam Fox and David Cameron share a similar outlook on a number of issues) argues:

"DC, unlike DD, recognises that resources in higher education will only be allocated rationally if we accept a more market-based system building on top-up fees. Its an insight most younger conservatives instinctively grasp. DD’s opposition to tuition fees, like Michael Howard’s own scepticism, reflects a generational gap. LF is on the same side as that gap as DC. During his time as party chairman he identified a huge potential reservoir of support for the party among those younger voters who had grown up knowing, understanding, and appreciating the liberating power of markets. But these Britons’ experience of the Tory party over the last few years has left them with the impression that we are opportunistic and crusty rather than dynamic and open. Both DC and LF have tried, in their approach, to directly address this problem."

Comments

[James Hellyer]

How does Mr Davis square his support for grammar schools with his credo of "choice"? For all the merits of a grammar schools system, the one thing it doesn't do is give parents "the power and the money to choose a school that suited their child."

[TC]

"Britons’ experience of the Tory party over the last few years has left them with the impression that we are opportunistic and crusty rather than dynamic and open."

If we keep slagging off the party, people are bound to believe us. While Labour have clearly run out of ideas (you can drink in a pub 24 hours a day but not have a beer on the train home after work), the Conservative Party is coming up with a myriad of refreshing policies. With a potential charismatic leader, we could be in a strong position. If we could start promoting the party for once.

[kris]

David Davis' Education policy has put me in a dilema. I would fully support his policies of reintroducing the grammar school system and the abolition of Tuition fees. I also agree that we shouldn't build on Labours education policy because it has been nothing short of disastrous. I find myself in complete agreement with Mr David, who, up to now, i had seen very little to connect with. Unfortunately i can't see him winning a general election, i can't see him increasing the party's support among floating voters and i can't even see him winning the leadership election, with or without my vote.

[Wat Tyler]

TC- we all agree...it's just that we first have to choose our leader. And there are clearly some significant- albeit certainly not showstopping- differences between them. We're all trying to bring them out, and maybe we sometimes go a bit over the top.

I think we all understand what Gove is doing here- pitching for Fox supporters on the basis that DC and LF represent the future not the past. We may think it's a little flimsy, but hey, you can't blame him for trying.

Still, once all this is done, I'm pretty sure we'll all fall in behind our new man, and train our combined firepower where it really ought to be. Something we can all look forward to.

[michael]

But wouldn't Davis build just a handful of grammar schools?

Knocking on doors over the past few years, I've found scrapping Tuition Fees a very difficult policy to sell to voters. The floating voter would ofetn tell me they thought it right that a student should contribute something towards their education in return for a qualification which would give them a bigger salary.

I found this simple logic difficult to argue against.

[malcolm]

Kris,I would absolutely agree with everything you wrote.The Davis approach to education seems far more plausible and attractive to me but sadly like you I just can't see him winning an election.

[Anthony]

If the choice is between a winning policy and a losing policy, surely the smart thing to do is choose the winning policy? Am I missing something?

But we aren't electing a policy (although I dispute these policies are winning ones)- we are electing a leader.

The choice being a winning leader or a losing leader.

[loyal_tory]

Some of us would like to know what our "winning leader" plans to do before making a decision to support him.

[Anthony]

"Loyal Tory" - exactly. If Cameron comes out for the introduction of the euro, switching to driving on the right hand side of the road, or increased income tax, or whatever, then it doesn't matter how nicely he smiles, we're dead.

[RobC]

Michael - The argument against tuition fees is that graduates will pay for their education through paying more taxes as a result of earning more money. Lets put it this way, as a graduate I am already sharing the proceeds of income growth between me and the state.

[Graham D'Amiral]

I live in an area that fortunately does still have grammar schools (4 of them), Selection is about meeting the needs of the individual child rather than applying the one size fits all model of education that holds back the brightest kids and leaves behind the less gifted. But whilst I welcome David Davis's pledge to build 20 new grammar schools we do have to accept this would improve educational opportunities for the few but not the many, if you'll forgive me that Blairite phrase.

What we need to address is how we raise standards in all our schools? Secondary Education policy has been a wasted opportunity for Labour, It has taken them 8 years to get back where they started, hardly an impressive achievment. As the SUN put it "GM Schools were a tory idea and they worked".

I think consensual politics is excusable when the white paper proposes setting schools free from LEA control, creating independent state schools, making it easier for faith groups, parents etc to set up their own schools and increases parental power. All of which we have argued for over many years. What it represents is a staggering policy U turn from Labour and an admission that tory ideas on education work.

[michael]

Yer, by winning leader, I mean a person with the charisma and clarity to engage and excite enough floating voters so that they will actually listen to what we are saying.

Your concerns are that you want policy detail.

This is difficult at this stage as Davis is running the rsik of painting himself into a corner and secondly, it excludes people like me and you from being able to have a say in developing policy detail over the next four years. I want to be part of shaping the 2009 manifesto - I don't want to rubber stamp it next week.

[Daniel Vince-Archer]

"Yer, by winning leader, I mean a person with the charisma and clarity to engage and excite enough floating voters so that they will actually listen to what we are saying."

Would this be somebody who lost a previously-safe Conservative seat in the Midlands in 1997 or somebody who almost trebled his majority in a marginal seat in Yorkshire and the Humber in 2005?

[Fed Up]

"The floating voter would ofetn tell me they thought it right that a student should contribute something towards their education in return for a qualification which would give them a bigger salary.

I found this simple logic difficult to argue against."

You obviously didn't try very hard. If a university education does lead to a higher income, then the former students will be contributing through the taxes on their additional earnings.

[Graham D'Amiral]

Really Daniel comparing 1997 to 2005 is rather silly.

1997 people wanted to kick out a deeply unpopular conservative government, that had been in power for 18 years, and a fresh faced tony blair seemed to offer hope of a better future to many people, 2005- not a great election for us but we were no longer hated and people had grown tired of Tony Blair, all the hope of 8 years earlier had evaporated.

[Mark Fulford]

Daniel, considering how rubbish your 1997 election argument is, you totally overuse it and it makes you look daft.

[michael]

Oh gawd, not this again...Yes Daniel, it would be someone who campaigned for a Party that suffered its worst defeat since 1832.

I wouldn't want a leader who has only ever won elections. You learn just as much from defeat as victory.

[Daniel Vince-Archer]

"Really Daniel comparing 1997 to 2005 is rather silly."

Perhaps, Graham, perhaps. But I think constantly peddling a falsehood that David Cameron can win the next election by building upon our traditional support and reaching out to new and floating voters, when his track record in serious electoral tests proves otherwise, is rather silly.

[Daniel Vince-Archer]

"Daniel, considering how rubbish your 1997 election argument is, you totally overuse it and it makes you look daft."

It's an argument that you and your fellow axis members have yet to counter successfully. Is that why you attempt to discredit it so much?

"I wouldn't want a leader who has only ever won elections. You learn just as much from defeat as victory."

In which case, we'll be learning a lot when your man becomes leader.

[Graham D'Amiral]

I wouldn't say that because in 2001 there was a 5% swing to the lib dems in Haltemprice & Howden meant David Davis was a poor candidate in that leadership election.

But now we aren't saying who secured a good or bad swing as a candidate, we are talking about who has the best leadership qualities it is a different thing entirely.

[michael]

Fedup, of course and I agree that higher earners pay more taxes, which should in theory fund all public services.

But surely, I shouldn't have been arguing for a populist policy! It was meant to be my vote Tory clincher.

The people on the doorstep believed it was fair that a student should pay directly for an education they had received.

[michael]

Daniel, your daft argument was countered ages ago, when someone asked you about Blair losing his deposit in Beaconsfield.

If Cameron had secured a swing to the Conservatives in 1997, we'd have instantly made him leader then or sent him to Lourds to perform other miracles.

[Daniel Vince-Archer]

"Daniel, your daft argument was countered ages ago, when someone asked you about Blair losing his deposit in Beaconsfield."

This did not counter my argument at all! No statistics or background facts were provided for comparison purposes for starters. In any case, how does Blair's performance in Beaconsfield relate to the inability of Cameron to build upon traditional support and reach out to new and floating voters in his one serious electoral test? Interesting that a Cameronite would choose to make a direct comparison between Blair and Cameron though.

"If Cameron had secured a swing to the Conservatives in 1997, we'd have instantly made him leader then or sent him to Lourds to perform other miracles."

Sorry to set fire to your straw man Michael, but I didn't actually argue that Cameron should have secured a swing to the Conservatives. At the very least though, he should have been able to counter the swing against the Conservatives with a smaller swing against himself. However, he failed to secure a swing to the Conservatives (as you allude to), he failed to counter the swing against the Conservatives and he failed to match the swing against the Conservatives. In fact, the swing against Cameron was greater than the general swing against the Conservatives to the proportional equivalent of 190,093 national votes in the 2005 General Election! All in all, not a very good supporting argument for those who claim that David Cameron can build upon our traditional support and reach out to new and floating voters!

[michael]

You can't be serious?!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

"No statistics or background facts were provided for comparison purposes for starters. In any case, how does Blair's performance in Beaconsfield relate to the inability of Cameron to build upon traditional support and reach out to new and floating voters in his one serious electoral test?"

No need for statistics...Blair LOST HIS DEPOSIT! As leader he went on to win 3 General Elections with substantial majorities.

How this relates is bleeding obvious...A man who failed to reach out to floating voters in his first serious electoral test went on to reach out to floating voters in subsequent electoral tests when said man became leader.