Teaching Grammar

Graham Brady’s decision to resign from the shadow cabinet yesterday cannot be seen as a total surprise after the rebuke he received from the whip’s office. I would also never criticise a member of parliament who resigned from a post over a point of principle – indeed, I suspect there are generally too many principles that are ignored.

However, my initial sympathies for his position go further.

In theory, I have long been a supporter of Grammar Schools. I did not attend one myself, but they always seemed to me a good way of helping to pull some of the brightest youngsters upwards. But hidden in some of the comments by David Willets and David Cameron on this subject are reasons for me to change my mind and, I think, for Graham Brady to at least consider his views, too.

Essentially, the argument is that selection of school based on one particular year of achievement is divisive in the long-term. It is great for those who make it but not so good for those who do not. Secondly, middle class parents have manipulated the system by buying houses close to grammar schools to the exclusion of working class ones. Thus, the argument is now that grammar schools prohibit social mobility rather than promoting it.

If this is the case, then my main reason for supporting them has turned out to be false and I am happy to look for a new way of promoting education. Key to what is needed, however, and was part of what worked for grammar schools and in private education from which we must learn, is the benefit of setting within schools. This allows children to be stimulated and educated at the level that best suits them but recognises that their ultimate potential will be realised at different ages, so over coming the main weakness of the grammar selection cut-off.

This is hardly a radical step in party policy, though. The initial announcement on grammar schools came over a year ago and no Tory government has opened a grammar school for over thirty years (that is to say, not in my lifetime!).

Whatever the media likes to think, thought, this is a Clause Four moment for the Conservative Party. The party’s leadership was not gunning for a showdown and I am pretty sure they have been surprised by the depth and breadth of the opposition to what has been said.

What is most important, as W. F. Deedes pointed out in the Telegraph last week, is that on this issue, the party’s leadership is right and that must be held upper most in our minds as we plan our future policies.

TRG By Invitation: Where is the Responsibility to Protect?

Benedict Rogers, Deputy Chairman of the Conservative Party Human Rights Commission, asks a difficult question

Zimbabwe, Sudan, Burma, North Korea – these are just four of the human rights and humanitarian disasters in the world today. And where is the United Nations, the organisation whose very Charter exists to promote and protect human rights and basic freedoms? What has happened to the Universal Declaration, that wonderful document signed by most countries in the world to declare that “all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights”?

…more

Two Sides on Immigration

There are two-sides to every debate, it is often said. The media has managed to make this point today by carrying two stories at the same time on the subject of immigration.

The first, concerns a report from the generally excellent Jospeh Rowntree Foundation. The report details the higher than expected levels of immigrants who come to the UK expecting to return to their country of origin only to later change their minds and opt to stay.

Such is the general hysteria on the subject of immigration that this story has been near the top of the news all day and BBC News 24, for example, has interviewed several people about different aspects of the story. Underneath it all, I have had the feeling that there is a “the foreigners are flooding in” feeling that I dislike.

The second story, less sensationally covered that the first, explains why immigration is still needed and that in some aspects it is, in fact, declining and causing problems. The National Union of Farmers (NFU) has warned that the strawberry harvest is under threat due to too few immigrant fruit pickers. The main issues that the NFU thinks is the cause of this lack of labour are rising living standards in Eastern Europe and too many job opportunities for immigrants who do still come the UK.

In this case, the immigrant shortage is among unskilled labourers, but there have been plenty of recent studies highlighting the needs for skilled migrants, too, such as the one conducted recently by the British Chambers of Commerce. This study was another that was not carried as loudly in the media as the anti-immigration case.

So, as ever in the debate on immigration, there is one message suggesting there are too many people arriving in the UK and failing to integrate and another message saying there are not enough.

There are few more emotive topics in the current British political climate than immigration. However, we cannot let either side run away with arguments based on prejudice or ignorance. We need immigration – the questions need to be about the levels, border controls and methods.

The Tory party has been handling this well of late, but we must ensure that the wider media does not run away with stories that prevent rational discussion. Both sides of the issues need to be promoted equally. They were not, today.

Iain Dale’s Shadow Cabinet Recommendations

During his spot on GMTV’s political show this morning, Iain Dale, Tory Blogger extraordinaire, suggested that in the next shadow cabinet reshuffle, which he predicts will be mid-June, David Cameron should pull in a couple of heavy-weights with real experience of politics to ensure they look credible to the electorate.

Interestingly, the two names he suggested were Lord David Trimble and Ken Clarke. Now I was pleasantly surprised by his selection, and would wholly endorse both. As if it needed pointing out, Ken Clarke is the TRG’s President and Lord Trimble (this bit is news!) will be the TRG guest of honour at our up coming summery party!

Perhaps we should offer Iain a ticket?

Balancing the Energy Equation

The government has released the latest paper in the barrage of initiatives designed to soften up the public before the next generation of nuclear power stations is announced to a general feeling of “unpleasant but necessary”. This one suggests that the best location for a new nuclear power station is Hinkley Point in Somerset, closely followed by Sizewell in Suffolk (not far from where I grew up as the crow flies, and the subject of my school project when I was 15).

Now, I am not against nuclear power stations on principal and would swallow the argument that we have to have them if we are to reduce our carbon levels sufficiently. But may be we should all be questioning that assumption…

There is an interesting little gadget on the BBC’s website. It is an energy calculator. It lets you enter your preferences for how energy is produced and then tells you how it might all work out by the year 2020. The aim is to ensure that the UK generates enough electricity for our needs while staying within our carbon emission targets and doing so at a reasonable cost.

What intrigued me was not just that this seems to be an excellent aid to understanding competing policy requirements where the explanation of the sources indicates a good deal of thinking and research. It also occurred to me that, quite surprisingly and assuming the inputs are correct, that this is not a hard equation to balance, after all. I would be intrigued to know if others have found the same? I certainly did not need to resort to some of the scenarios the government appears to be suggesting to lead us to build more nuclear stations.

However, before I give more away, I’ll post up my choices as a comment so you can have a play first and then see if your solution looks anything like mine! If we do all disagree, then maybe it is not as straight forward as it seemed to me.

The Macmillan Dinner with George Osborne MP

Last night was one of the bigger events in the TRG’s annual calender: The Macmillan Dinner. This year we were particularly pleased to be hosting the Rt Hon Kenneth Clarke QC MP and George Osborne MP, the last Tory Chancellor and the next Tory Chancellor, together on a platform for the first time.

The event was held in central London with some 150 guests in attendance. We were very pleased to see many of our most loyal members there along with some new faces whom we hope to see again soon!

We thought it was all rather good, but then maybe we were biased! We’ll upload pictures and so forth shortly, but do post up your comments if you attended to let us know what you thought.

Update – 24 May 2007

Following the old adage that there is no such thing as bad publicity it is nice to see a reference to the Macmillan Dinner in the Spy column in the Daily Telegraph, today.

MPs and Privacy

I may have missed something about the debate on the amendment to the freedom of information bill that would see MPs exempted from the need to make public some of their affairs.

Those in favour of the amendment, tabled by Tory David Maclean, seem to advance as their main argument the need to keep certain details private to ensure that constituents and others with grievances feel confident that they can come forward anonymously. This seems fair enough to me.

Those against the amendment, such as Lib Dem Norman Baker, argue that this is unneccessary and that it is really an attempt by some MPs to get out of having to publish their expenses. This latter point is the one that seems to have most interested the media if not Gordon Brown, who, despite saying he wants to make government more open and less full of spin seems unable to live up to his promise by campaigning against the change.

However, this seems to me to not really be a particularly controversial topic. A rewording of the bill could no doubt ensure that constituents secrets are kept safe whilst allowing for expense details to be published to the full extent needed to ensure the public’s confidence in where the money has gone.

Is there any reason why both sides should not be made happy? Perhaps a job for the Lords when they review the bill? Or, have I missed a major point in the debate? Let us know what you think!

You Get What You Vote For

A few moments ago, Alex Salmond MSP became First Minister of Scotland at the head of a minority administration.

I suspect this will be just the start of the problems that Labour (in Westminster and Scotland) will now face with the Scottish administration. Sadly, though, it will not just be the Labour party that will feel the pain. The Tories and Lib-Dems must take heed of what is going on there and not let Salmond wreak long-term, irreparable harm as he seeks short-term point scoring opportunities.

At a dinner hosted by the TRG on Monday, Lord Strathclyde (and I hope he does not mind me reporting this) referred to Salmond as the “Ken Livingstone of Scotland”. This is not a bad description. Both are populists with a disregard for many of the conventions of modern politics. Both are also prepared to play fast and loose with the serious issues of tomorrow if they think it will lead to a good headline today.

All political parties in the UK need to set aside the temptation of quick headlines to ensure the long-term preservation of the union.

Parliamentary Approval for War

MP’s have voted to ensure that Parliament, in future, will be able to vote on decisions to go to War. This is one of the topics that the TRG’s recent foreign policy publication covered.

In his article, “The Trouble with Our Foreign Policy”, Lord Hurd discusses the need for a new body that would be able to advise the government and inform the public about the decisions running up to war. It was a timely article.

A Question of Free Choice

Where to draw the line in the balance between freedom of choice and enforcement of one option for the benefit of the majority?

This is an old debate. Two current government policies through, have made me question where I believe that line should be. In principal, like most Tories, I will always favour free choice rather than believing that the state should try and tell me what I should be doing for my own good.

One small detail from the forth coming ban on smoking, for example, makes me very uneasy. I am a non-smoker and am personally looking forward to smoke-free bars from July. However, I would have been satisfied with tougher rules on making smoke-free areas. What I had not realised until recently is that, as the ban extends to all places of work and company-owned cars are deemed places of work, that a person on their own in car will now not be allowed to smoke. Getting round the obvious difficulties of enforcing this, I cannot see that the individual smoker should be deprived of their choice to smoke when they are clearly not disadvantaging anyone else.

On the other hand, there are times when I think the benefits out weigh the gains. One policy that attracts my support in principle, again assumming that the resources are available, is to raise the age of compulsory education from 16 to 18. However, a critical part of making such a policy work must be the availablity of sufficeint choice in the range of courses available. Meaningful practical qualifications and skills training must be options for those not best suited to traditional academic courses.

There should be a simple guiding rule in the application of any deprivation of choice. Is substantially more benefit derived than lost. This is not the case in parts of the clumsy anti-smoking bill. It would be the case in raising the age of compulsory education.

Let us see if the Prime Minister-in-waiting, is brave enough to make the case for such changes.

New Faces and the Contest to Come

Given that we are likely to be deprived of anything interesting happening during the Labour leadership contest, we have to look at the Deputy Leadership Race to see what the parliamentary Labour Party really want to see as the future for their Party. Will they dump all the vestiges of Blair? Will Brown get his man in? Will their be a triumph for old-Labour?

It is not the most appetising list to chose from. Cruddas represents a wing of the party that many want to see die and puts off voters. Blears, Johnson, Harmen and Hain have all been tested in a variety of roles and been found wanting to various degrees.

At the moment, William Hill seems to have Hilary Benn out in front. He is perhaps the freshest face among the leading pack and may be a good way of reaching out to some of the middle-class, Islington set voters that Blair always kept on-board, but may be worried by Brown.

May battle commence!

We should also take a moment to remember what came before. The resignation of John Prescott in the wake of his leader is also a small moment of significance. Take a moment to look at the BBC’s montage of classic Prezza images. Aah… the memories. How ever did this man get to be a heartbeat away from the top job in politics?

The Passing of the Blair-era

Amidst all the coverage of Blair’s resignation speech yesterday, I am afraid my main thought was, “Oh no, we’ve got seven weeks of this…”. I had already had enough of his emotive language – as ever using phrases such as “I did what I thought was right” rather than emplying reasoned arguments to back-up his actions. However, it was not the coverage as it happened that worried me, it was a fear about what was to come later in the day.

I was scheduled to appear on 18 Doughty Street last night as part of a panel discussing news events of the day, a date picked a week or two ago. To be honest, when I realised that that was also to be the day of the resignation, I knew that was all we were going to talk about. I really thought there might be nothing else left to say. After all, the Tory party has spent over a decade criticising him. However, I am pleased to say, I was wrong.

We talked about the things we thought he had done wrong (a long list), things he had got right (a shorter one) and what will happen next (In a word: Brown – yikes!).

But one thing caught my eye above all of the other comments. It struck me as being an important symbol of the passing of the Blair-era of spin, hypocrisy and emotive language. The Labour Party launched a new website and a new party logo.

Gone are the references to “New” Labour. This is Labour, the old way. The website is pretty good from a website point-of-view and has clearly been in preparation for some time, so there is nothing likely to be ill considered here. Brown is clearly wanting to send a message that the spin of “New” Labour is dead, long live “Labour”.

This feels like a little bit of step back into the past, though. Indeed, the new logo looks like the kind of red stamp that was used in offices in the 1970’s and 80’s that might have otherwise said “Denied”, “Approved” or “Top Secret”. It is somehow punched out and authoritarian – particularly in the way they have chosen to show the rose part of the logo. Maybe that is just my view and the rest of the world will see it differently, but I think there is always a great deal to be said for the importance of symbolic moments like this. Blair is gone. Brown wants to make sure everyone knows that. I suspect the rest of his plans will not be long in un-folding.

Anyway, if you want to know more about the logo and the other (less myopic!) things we discussed last night, you can watch the full show here.

May Poll: Should the Union go on?

Given the results in Scottish Parliament elections this month, it seems time to ask whether TRG supporters are in favour of the continuation of the Union, or not.

So, this month, our poll asks whether you think Scotland should continue to be part of the Union.  Vote using the poll on the right hand of this page and leave your comments as part of the discussion, below.

April Poll Results: Tax Breaks for Married Couples

Last month we asked visitors to this site to vote in response to the following question:

Should we give tax breaks to married couples to encourage marriage?

The responses were as follows:

• Yes – 42%
• No – 58%

The results, then, were fairly close although there was little doubt about the result. I would be interested in anyone commenting on how they would interpret this.

Personally, I don’t like the idea of using the tax system for social manipulation. I prefer to believe that people should be free to do lead their lives as their moral choices dictate. However, there is clear evidence that children that grow up in homes were the parents are married are less likely to commit crime, use drugs and will do better at school. Perhaps governments should, therefore, intervene more through tax to encourage marriage.

TRG By Invitation: Refugees at the Borders

In the latest of our new series “By Invitation”, Jonathon Cox of the Refugee Council discusses some of the key issues in the debate on immigration control.

This week, the House of Commons will debate the UK Borders Bill – the Government’s latest attempt (there have been five since 1997) to convince the public that it is tough on asylum and immigration.

Soon after coming into post last year, Immigration Minister Liam Byrne MP explained that a Guardian opinion poll had reported that only 4% of the public believed that the Government had immigration under control – “my job is to double that figure!” he joked.

Except maybe it wasn’t a joke.

…more

More Thoughts on the Local Elections – from the Labour Left!

When I wrote a short piece about the local election results recently, I started by saying that there was little to be added to the mass of commentary in the media.

But perhaps one dimension that might be of interest to TRG supporters and other Conservative Party members, is the way in which “old” Labour has started to interpret the results. In this case, the voice of the Labour left is Compass, a pressure group that, among other things, is supporting Jon Cruddas for the Labour leadership.

The following as an excerpt from their report on the election results. There is more on their website.

Results mark death knell for New Labour

Comment from Compass Chair Neal Lawson on the election results

It’s been a bad and bruising encounter for Labour. 27 per cent of the votes cast is a miserable tally. Just one per cent up on Labour’s worst result ever. This is not an opinion poll. These are real votes cast by real people. The Tories have consolidated above the 40% barrier and are inexorably shifting from hung parliament territory to potential out right winners at the next election. This can and must be reversed. But it demands the party changes.

Natural Labour supporters have been put off voting for their party because of a toxic combination of Blair, Iraq, sleaze and what’s happening to public services. All of this was avoidable. We said after the 2005 election victory that Blair should go and that if he insisted on prolonging his premiership he would damage the party and the country. The hard work of thousands of councillors and party activists around the country has been undone by a Prime Minister who out stayed his welcome. Where now are the people who said Blair should stay for a full term?

These elections signal the death knell for the politics of Blairism. We have lost five million votes since 1997 – mostly from our traditional base, who no longer feel able to turn out for us and stay at home or protest through the Greens, Liberal Democrats or others. Now Cameron threatens to drain away middle class support – creating a pincer movement that could be devastating for Labour MPs at the next election.

The Party cannot go on run as a tight clique, commercialising public services and playing the nodding dog to George Bush. It is not just Compass that demands a change of direction but the country. Let’s be clear – unless there is a break with Blairism Labour will lose the next election. That means the modernisation of hospitals and schools based the ethos of public services; it means less flexible labour markets; a shift towards Europe; a reconnection with the people of the country through democratic reform and with party members by starting to listen to them. We forgot that we are the servants. On new issues like the environment, well-being and quality of life we have got to get ahead of the Tories and stop lagging behind. All of this can be done and a forth victory secured – but not just through a change of leader – only though a change of direction.

The loss of hundreds of councillors and members will be a hammer blow to local parties. In Labour’s depleted party ranks, councillors tended to be the people who have kept the campaigns and the canvassing going. They are the ones linked into local communities, supporting Labour MPs and keeping the party alive. They are the fabric of the party. The Tory party had lost its councillor base by the early 1990s and the national party crumbled soon after.

Jon Cruddas is the only candidate on the ballot paper for the new leadership who understands the depth of the hole we are in and has the commitment and the plan for the renewal of the Labour party. Others, who have been in the Cabinet and the leadership team, have allowed the party to whither. Now we must chose change.

Some people never learn! It is almost enough to lead us to pity Gordon Brown. But not quite.

John Reid to Quit Cabinet

Just watching the Politics Show on BBC 1 a few minutes ago, I saw John Reid announce his attention to retire from the Cabinet in June, “once Tony goes”.

I wonder if this is the start of a series of high-level departures from Labour’s ranks. Gordon Brown faces a real problem with personnel. Many of the best political operators have already gone (Mandy, Blair himself, etc) and the big names that are left are tired. It will be a really difficult task for him to manage the transition of faces there needs to be if there is to be any feeling of change from the Blair-era while also keeping control of the media and their ministerial responsibilities.

Update – 6 May 2007

It took the BBC a couple of minutes longer than the TRG to get the story up!

Local Election Results

It is hard to say something about the local election results that has not been said by others elsewhere. Labour had a harrowing time and the SNP and Plaid Cymru picked up many of their distressed voters in the Labour heartlands of Wales and Scotland.

The Lib-Dems had had a torrid time, too. Where they go next is far from clear, but was is certain is that they have lost any momentum that might have taken them on to a serious position in British politics and even their role as the party of protest has been shaken.

The Tories had some symbolic victories in the North of England, Wales and some major cities. There is still someway to go, but David Cameron’s first major test at the ballot box has shown that the polls are no aberration. The Conservative Party is really challenging for power. We now hold over half of all the council seats in the country. A truly astonishing position.

The TRG sees all of this as a validation of many of the decisions that David Cameron and his team have taken. The change in mood that has been created had been fast and, this vote shows, real. The emphasis on the environment, public services and a constructive approach so long advocated by the TRG has been shown to benefit us as that ballot box. Now we need to show how those intentions can be converted into actions when (no longer if!) we return to power.

TRG By Invitation: Nick Bourne On All Change for Wales?

Welsh Conservative Leader, and TRG Patron, Nick Bourne AM writes about policies that are made for Wales.

With the Assembly elections almost upon us, all the political parties in Wales are in full campaigning mode. However, the journey leading up to the election has stretched back a year or more. Over the past year, Welsh Conservatives have consulted widely. We have engaged with many organisations and individuals. Most importantly, we have listened to what people want. I believe that period of stocktaking and reflection is paying dividends. Welsh Conservatives are changing; and through that change we are broadening our appeal. The Welsh public are very interested in what we have to say and what we have to offer them. As we gather momentum on the campaign trail, we are determined to ensure that no doorstep is off limits.

…more

TRG By Invitation: Annabel Goldie on the Scottish Elections

Scottish Conservative Leader Annabel Goldie MSP highlights what the Conservatives could do for Scotland.

We are now entering the final phase before the elections to the Scottish Parliament and all 32 local authorities in Scotland. We have a clear message to the people of Scotland – that we care about the real issues that matter, namely: crime, escalating drugs abuse, mounting NHS cuts, slipping education standards and a lack of affordable housing. Our policies for the elections are focused on these areas that go right to the heart of Scottish priorities.

…more