Asking the unaskable...

I have recently purchased two volumes of Arthur Seldon's collected articles. Those wishing to daydream about the full potential of the market economy should look no further. This extract from his 1988 article 'Political Bar to Economic Progress' is a perfect illustration of the problems of government ownership and centralization:

'In the commercial market we 'represent' ourselves directly. We spend our money on food, clothing, furnishing, motoring. We use our money - 'votes' - to buy what we want as individuals, families. If we don't like one supplier we can change to another.

The political 'market' is very different. Politicians spend other people's money. We the people are 'represented' indirectly in a tortuous chain of public meetings, conferences, motions, references back, elections, private conclaves, lobbies, compromises, hard bargains.

We submit to majority decisions on intimate personal services like education, medical care, housing and transport. And if we, as individuals or minorities, don't like what this Tower of Babel produces, we cannot escape.

In spending our own money, we make every penny count. In the political 'market' our cross on the ballot-paper makes not a scrap of difference. The cost of voting [...] can be high; the benefit is doubtful, immeasurable or absent.'

The 'Broken Society': Part 1 - Education

Living in Salford, I feel I can pass fairly accurate judgement on the state of Britain's 'society'. Social breakdown which is prevalent across the country is more likely to be exaggerated in less affluent areas, where crime and unemployment are high.

At present, Salford is undergoing a dramatic transformation. Most of Lower Broughton is being rebuilt. The Irwell Riverside will be transformed. Unemployment is comparatively low. So, apparently, is crime.

These days, though, politicians are speaking a different language. The problem has stopped being jobs and the economy and is now a sociological phenomenon centred around such things as deprivation, ignorance, lack of respect for law/family/govt. institutions, and selfishness.

I don't think a Labour government can solve these problems. They have tried to bury meritocracy, and replace it with some peculiar notion of universal equality. Where is the carrot and the stick for young people now? School-leaving teens are treated as clones: GCSEs, A Levels, University undergraduate; and yet, universities are struggling with the number of students having difficulties with basic English grammar, spelling and punctuation. Schools are being polluted by notions that teachers should be responsible for 'citizenship' and other meaningless notions of glib do-goodery. It is not the responsibility of a school to mould a pupil into a decent citizen, least of all a state school. It is for parents to teach children the basics of citizenship. Questions such as 'What does it mean to be British?' are not worth asking, because everyone has a different answer, and it is constantly changing. Being British is what the British do best. We do not need to be TAUGHT how to do it. This sort of nonsense going on in education means kids have less time to learn about important things.

I left university because I didn't believe I would gain enough from it to justify being there. There are few attending university at 18-20 years old who have much (detested phraseology) life experience. Second year students usually move into rented accommodation, at which point, some have to adopt a degree of financial nouse. Many, however, are completely covered by their parents' generous donations, and are left to spend their student loan WHICH THEY WILL HAVE TO PAY BACK.

All Conservatives should believe that only the brightest students should be at university. Universities should be centres of excellence. Britain's much-discussed 'skills shortage' could be replenished by limiting university places and encouraging less academic students to take up apprenticeships and job placements.

We are faced with a huge increase of graduates, whose courses cannot provide them with employment in their respective field. Meanwhile, we are short of plumbers, electricians, plasterers, and all manner of skilled tradesmen.

There is no shame in not attending university, indeed, I believe my prospects are better poised having thrown the towel in on the damn thing.

By-election Disappointment

The recent by-elections in Sedgefield and Ealing Southall were an immense disappointment. The Party was hoping to make significant progress in the London constituency, and maybe even considering the possibility that we might win. Why, then, were the Liberal Democrats able to push us into third place? Their leader appears weak and at times, inept; the Lib Dems do not appear to be the political force that they were under the leadership of Charles Kennedy.
I had envisaged today, Friday 20th July, being a day of Lib Dem implosion; of plotting and scheming how to get rid of Ming. Instead, it has become another day of sober reflection, time given to consider why the Conservatives constantly do so badly in by-elections. After the death of Eric Forth, few thought it possible that the Liberal Democrats could run us so close in Bromley and Chislehurst. We nearly lost the seat in the end. It is true that constituencies which have suffered a peculiar result mid-term will return to safe Tory hands at the next election, but it remains worrying that we appear not to be able to perform at these key electoral contests. Had the Conservatives even pushed Labour close in Ealing, it would have been a wake-up call for Brown, who, at the moment, appears almost unassailable in his honeymoon period.
The fact that the Conservative vote increased by less than one per cent in both constituencies is alarming, because after eighteen months of David Cameron (who has been ahead in the polls for most of that time), the Party as a whole should expect an improved performance even in safe Labour seats. We do not need to do any better in our own safe seats! We are racking up huge majorities in very safe county seats, whilst our vote in the suburbs is still unacceptably low. If this is the result in London, it cannot bode well for the northern marginals, where the next election’s battleground will be fought. The Tories must win Blackpool South, South Ribble, Chorley, Bolton North West, Bolton North East, Bury North, Bradford West, Leeds North West and even Wakefield to form the next government. We must poll higher here to win.
In 2001 and 2005, the Conservative vote at the general elections hardly improved at all, indeed, in 2005, it was the Liberal Democrats which caused Labour to lose as many seats as they did. Our vote increased only marginally. In order to win in 2009/10 (or maybe earlier) there has to be an EIGHT PER CENT SWING TO US – not the Liberal Democrats. It is possible to win by polling less than 40% at a general election, but very unlikely, as Labour would have to do very badly – probably even worse than they did in 1983. The Liberal Democrats would also have to lose about half their seats. The Tories have to be in 43-44% territory to be confident of winning, and even then, if Labour poll more than 35% it is by no means guaranteed. The latest Populus poll giving Labour a 7% lead (40-33) is grave news and shouldn’t simply be taken as an anomalous result. YouGov, Mori and ICM have all shown that Brown has given Labour the boost they so badly needed, and he is beginning to succeed in distancing himself from Blair – casino policy, the differences with the US, and more relaxed language on terrorism all prove this.
We have to start convincing the electorate that we mean what we say. Hopefully, once our policy groups have reported in the autumn, we can begin to make progress. If Brown is ahead in a year’s time; possibly even six months’; we will not win, and I can guarantee that.

Will Ming Survive the Summer?

Gordon's Cabinet

I've been having substantial fun today with the BBC's football squad predictor-style Gordon Brown Cabinet predictor. I'll outline my predictions:

TO GO:
Hewitt - has been simply quite dreadful on the recent junior doctors' scandal and her seemingly patronising style does not and can not appeal to the public

Kelly - the sorry state of HIPs says it all. Goodbye. She'll lose her seat at the next GE as well.

Reid (already known) - Blair's 'tough man' has not had an easy time of it since he took over from Charles Clarke. Splitting the Home Office in two is not going to have the desired effect. Reid must know this and has decided to go before it all goes wrong.

Prescott (already known) - a tactless politician whose policy implementation record has been so abysmal he had all his responsibilities taken off him.

Beckett - how she survived the farm repayments fiasco at DEFRA I will never know. She'll be leaving politics to spend more time with her caravan, much to the dismay of the motoring public.

Jowell - I cannot see her staying at DCMS unless Gordon wants her specifically to stay until the 2012 Olympics.

Browne - he may not go, but should be demoted after the row over the navy ex-internees selling their stories. It was a PR disaster from a government whose policies were founded on good PR.

TO STAY:

Charlie Falconer - a close friend of Blair, but is already in position to parachute into the new Department of Justice.

Alan Johnson - has been a safe pair of hands so far after Ruth Kelly's disastrous 2006 saw her demoted, and is the most likely Deputy Prime Minister.

Jack Straw - after his surprise demotion to Leader of the House, Straw will be expecting one of the top three jobs, possibly Chancellor.

David Miliband - a rising star, and is likely to be rewarded for not standing against the Chancellor.

Alistair Darling - has been kept at arm's length by Blair but it likely to get a top job with Brown. A leading Brownite, his only stumbling block is the fact that he's Scottish, and therefore may have to let No. 11 go.

Peter Hain - a good showing in the DPM race may see him rewarded with any number of jobs - having done well seeing through the return of power sharing in Northern Ireland, he's likely to be promoted.

Douglas Alexander - Brownite rising star. He should expect something more challenging than his current brief.

Hazel Blears - for the moment, Hazel will be focusing on her deputy leadership campaign (which isn't going well) but she could be squeezed by Brownite cabinet contenders. DCMS, perhaps.

John Hutton - pensions is a notoriously detailed brief and Hutton may well survive and stay in his job despite the fact that he's known as a Blairite.

THE ALL-IMPORTANT BROWNITE 'OTHERS':

Stephen Timms - currently Chief Sec, he's been close to Gordon for some time and is a competent performer in the Commons. He could surprise everyone and be given something difficult.

Ed Balls - always a favourite for the BBC's Politics Show and Question Time, this capable media performer has been tipped for the Chancellorship before but surely Gordon couldn't be this audacious!

Grammar Schools and Academic Selection: Problems in the Party

Why the Conservative Party should bother itself with this internal disagreement about grammar schools at this stage of a parliament is beyond me. There was absolutely no need for David Willetts (will it or won't it?) to reignite the debate by reannouncing the Party's established position. There was also no need for David Cameron to use such dramatic language in response to concerns from backbenchers and Party grassroots.

The real issue buried amongst the debris here is academic selection. The question posed is: can it be fair for schools to hand-pick the cleverest children at the age of eleven? We then must ask: why is it that schools want to choose the brightest children? They want to achieve the best results, do they not? Of course, that question can also be answered simply: because less intelligent children exist. For those of us who believe that children are NOT born with the same aptitude, it seems natural that those who are the brightest should be helped to reach their full potential. This is not to say that those who are less intelligent are academic cul-de-sacs who should be taught in classes of 40 by ill-equipped supply teachers in a makeshift shelter; it is to point out that the cleverest children thrive in the company of their similarly intelligent peers. It promotes academic competition between pupils and provides social cohesion within a school.

Those kids who are not as bright, many of whom attend comprehensives, might well receive teaching which is just as good but it cannot have the same effect as with a group of brighter children. Neither is this to say that the best teaching should be reserved for the most intelligent. It is, however, a fact of life that kids, at whatever age, are not similarly gifted, talented, intelligent; however you want to put it; and they cannot be taught the same cirriculum simultaneously in one classroom by the same teacher. Clever kids who attend comprehensives are always going to feel alienated at some point because, ridiculously, in this day and age, it is still frowned upon by the left wing establishment for some children to excel in certain areas whilst others lag behind. It is seen as the fault of the intelligent pupil.

One cannot describe academic selection in the terms 'fair' and 'unfair' - because life isn't fair. Phrases like 'everyone in the classroom is capable of doing well' are wrong because, unfortunate as it is, not everyone is capable of doing well academically. Everyone has strengths and weaknesses. All pupils should experience competition, which is why one cannot group the kids in the lowest brackets with those in the top because they cannot compete! Over many decades, children of similar aptitude have been streamed within subjects so that they can get the most from the teaching they receive in their particular groups. The situation is made all the more ridiculous by the fact that many school sports events have been made non-competitive - should it not be the case that pupils less inclined to academic success should be given a chance to shine?

This is the first time I have seriously disagreed with the Cameron team on a matter of policy. It has been very unwise of him, if it has been the case, that he has felt the need to pick a fight with his Party so that he achieves a 'Clause Four' moment. The Conservative Party does not have a 'Clause 4'. He bases his reasons for withdrawing support for grammar schools on the basis that they don't serve the community and are no longer 'relevant'. Mr Cameron, I ask you this: is it not relevant that the most gifted children, from whatever background they come, to receive the best education they can?

Sir John Major talks to Elinor Goodman