I would only seek power if I was going to do something with it. What is the point in taking power from the government only to carry on with the same policies? If (by a miracle) the next leader of the Liberal Democrats is a true liberal, I'm changing parties.

Posted by: Jack Gunning at January 10, 2006 10:27 AM

There is something very worrying about the British people. For some unknown reason they think that the government should take their cash from them and spend it for them. They seem to accept without question that they are too stupid or too immoral to be trusted to spend money for themselves.

The Tories had no option but to espouse this rubbish educational rhetoric. We still live in times where most people trust in and believe that the state can deliver. They see it as a force for good. They cannot distinguish between public funding and public provision. I sincerely hope that Cameron is playing a tactical game on this issue, and that education vouchers (however named) will be introduced under a conservative government. Perhaps too much to hope for, but I don't see any other way our economy is going to escape this socialism.

Vouchers are the only way we can remove the vital service of providing education from the bureaucratic inefficient public sector. They could be inspiring (I will not rant about them here, see here for one of my recent discussions).

I must agree with James that it seems that there is no longer any way for the free-marketeers amongst us to go at the next election. I suspect that in reality a Cameron government would be very, very much better than a government under Gordon Brown. I just hope that once elected he will be able to agenda-set with the success that New labour has been able to. If he can at least make people consider less government and less state provision we will be moving in the right direction. Unfortunately he seems to be committing himself to continuing Blair’s legacy of choking the economy, harming the rich and the poor.

By the way, did you see the two excellent articles in The Business this weekend? In Dubai has the answer to Brown’s nightmare Britain Allister Heath argues that “Unless the British political establishment – Labour, Tory and Liberal Democrat alike – react and fast to the rise of hungry new business centres such as Dubai and understand that Britain’s consensual commitment to an ever larger welfare state is no longer sustainable”. The other, entitled “Europe must act now to stave off perpetual slump, report warns” points out that unless Europe implements “radical reform”, our economies will be plunged into permanent recession. It also argues that Britain has become a “fading star” (presumably because our economy has become increasingly ‘European’ in terms of tax and spend).

Posted by: Alec Hodgson at January 10, 2006 10:55 AM

David Cameron's strategy seems to be to remove Tory negatives by positioning himself in the same place as the Labour Party.

Unfortunately this leaves only two reasons to elect him: you think he'll be a better manager or you think he's lying, and actually enact a right wing agenda. I'm not about to give someone the benefit of the doubt that they are lying, as Bruce Anderson asserts.

What we're left with is a cowardly and useless vision of Conservatism. It starts from the false principle that we must reflect public opinion - something that precludes any attempt to shape or change that opinion.

The danger as a political strategy is that it may disenchant the right so that they stay at home or vote for fringe parties. The danger for the country is that it condemns us to at least a decade more of expensive and failing public services.

Still, that's okay. Dave and Ollie can afford to go private.

Posted by: James Hellyer at January 10, 2006 10:56 AM

"I would only seek power if I was going to do something with it. What is the point in taking power from the government only to carry on with the same policies?"

I think a crucial difference here is that some Conservatives see power as a means towards enacting their policy agenda, while other see power as an end in itself. It's clear Cameron is in the latter camp, because his message of "change, optimism and hope" seems to actually mean surrendering all arguments to Labour.

Posted by: James Hellyer at January 10, 2006 10:58 AM

...some Conservatives see power as a means towards enacting their policy agenda, while other see power as an end in itself. It's clear Cameron is in the latter camp

There is always the need to find a middle ground in politics: you need to say certain things to get elected, once there you have a degree of 'wiggle room' to enact what you believe in. The crucial thing is how much room you leave yourself. Cameron's potential to be a good, true Conservative leader seems to be diminishing by the day with every policy announcement.

Posted by: Alec Hodgson at January 10, 2006 11:39 AM

One small point concerning the now universal abandonment of school selection, and its replacement with streaming. This apparently reasonable compromise is doomed to failure.

Those wishing to learn and benefit from an education are to be placed in the same institution as those with no ambition or wish to learn anything, many of whom will see it as their mission in life to disrupt the school and bully the “teachers pets, swots, and nerds” trying to get on in life. Meanwhile Nulabour, and Cameron if he gets the chance, will pour resources in to keep a lid on the situation, continue dumbing down and fiddling results to make it look good, and abandon yet another generation of bright children.

Well done socialism, equality of outcome will be further bolstered, while many other areas of the world move onwards and upwards.

Posted by: John East at January 10, 2006 12:55 PM

John,

I totally share your dismay with the current stance on selection. As a state comprehensive, and then grammar school, lad, I can safely say that the difference in culture and performance between these two types of institution is enormous.

Comprehensives of mixed ability result in the dumbing down of classes, the bullying of the brightest, the bullying of the 'different', and the ultimate failure of the school to deliver either discipline or education.

Grammar schools deliver high quality education to high quality minds, minds which are keen to learn and to develop.

I can recall times at my comprehensive when, because most of the class could not read, the teacher and I would perform all the parts in The Merchant of Venice. On other occasions the classes were so disrupted by poor behaviour that the teachers would simply turn on the TV and play boxing videos they had recorded off Sky the night before in a bid to quell the violent masses.

Along with poor results, the school forced good teachers either away or into early retirement. Why would any self-respecting teacher want to spend time being spat at, being threatened, or being told to simply ignore the brightest and the thickest in a bid to guarantee as many C grades as possible?

Other lessons would be taken up with wrestling -- a ring would be constructed out of chairs and whoever wanted to would just fight all lesson. How was this allowed to happen?

Quite simply, some of the kids were so rude and disruptive they literally drove the teacher out of the class. As soon as the teacher had gone, out would come the wrestling ring.

Knives were a problem even back then, I was threatened on several occasions. I suspect the problem has over the last 5+ years got far far worse.

Couple all of the above with the fact that at parents evenings the parents of the disruptive children would never show up. And, if the teacher showed to much of an interest in attempting to help the family, then they would find their head connecting with a lamp post outside the school a few evenings later.

In short, David Cameron (not to mention the other politicians) are all continuing to avoid tackling the real issues in society, and education in particular. Anyone who reads this great site will know what those problems are; it's just a shame none of the people "in power" have the balls to sort it out.

Posted by: Rory at January 10, 2006 03:11 PM

I wouldn't get too disheartened guys:

1. If you did some sort of analysis of policies espoused three years before a successful general election result and actual policies pursued, you'd find a very low correlation.

2.You may remember Mrs Thatcher was hardly very Thatcherite until after about three years in office when victory in the Falklands gave her the authority to do what she really wanted.

Posted by: Ronnie Horesh at January 11, 2006 10:13 AM

This is an important and impressive step from David Cameron, and shows that he won't go down the electoral suicide route of his predecessors.

Posted by: Matthew at January 11, 2006 09:07 PM

Incidentally the idea that Dubai is an answer to our economic problems is laughable. Dubai's economic success is based on oil, government planning, location, and climate. Three natural resources and one 'statist' factors. It has a population of just over 1m.

Posted by: Matthew at January 12, 2006 10:37 AM

"You may remember Mrs Thatcher was hardly very Thatcherite until after about three years in office when victory in the Falklands gave her the authority to do what she really wanted."

That's not actually true. The hardline anti-inflationary policies and tax cuts were introduced in her first term.

Posted by: James Hellyer at January 12, 2006 11:46 AM

This is an important and impressive step from David Cameron, and shows that he won't go down the electoral suicide route of his predecessors.

Why should academic selection mean electoral suicide?

As I see it, the bottom line is that nobody has really made the case for selection properly. Everyone admits the 11+ is not perfect, and that if grammar-type schools were to be introduced, that it would be prudent to consider reforming the selection process (take a look at the education system they have in Germany for the sort of thing I mean). This would ensure that the brightest get the education that they require, and that the rest get the education that they are comfortable with. With processes in place to ensure that the "11+" is not the first and last chance for people to switch between schools, I see no problem with selection on the basis of academic ability.

In attempting to rid selection, in a drive to rid the world of inequality, you simply breed mediocrity -- and mediocrity doesn't pay the taxes required to fund all the greatly overpriced and ineffective social reform schemes that we see being announced by governments every few days.

Posted by: Rory at January 12, 2006 12:18 PM

Not to be too nit-picky, Matthew, but according to the article quoted ("Dubai has the answer to Brown’s nightmare Britain") oil accounts for 5.8% of Dubai's GDP, it's location is on the coast of a barren desert, it's climate is unbearably hot, and it's technically a restrictive Islamic state where whatever religion you happen to be, you tell everybody you're Muslim.

The only reason anybody would go there is for the tax rate.

Posted by: pl at January 12, 2006 01:07 PM

"Will the population continue to find all this attractive? If so, I fear it says something very worrying about the British people."

It's a problem of conviction (as in strongly held beliefs).

On the right and left wing fringes people, such as us, have strong convictions, which originated mostly through upbringing.

The mass decline in political-party membership is due to the decline in people's convictions until today we have a mass in the middle that belong to no party and will believe in anything.

That "anything", though, isn't literally anything, the biggest attractors are emotionally-appealing arguments - the sort of arguments made in support of state funded health and education, and solving world poverty.

Unless the mass in the middle re-acquires strongly held beliefs that revolve around individual responsibility and justice, we are indeed doomed to the "consensus" politics of emotional appeal that has emerged.

Can anyone name any institutions that have traditionally upheld strong convictions?

Posted by: pl at January 12, 2006 02:50 PM

The problem I have with the grammar (selective) school system advocated here by John East and others is that, just like comprehensives, they would be part of a state-organised system imposed on everyone from above.

Libertarians should be against any centrally-imposed system. Providers should have to cater for the market in the way they see best and be answerable to their 'customers'. I don't begrudge John East the choice of a selective school, but not if this removes the choice of a non-selective school for other people. It would also be interesting to know whether those that advocate imposing a selective system would be quite so keen if they thought their child wouldn't 'pass' the selection process.

When I was choosing a secondary school for my daughter, I had no choice in the state sector - just the local comp (generally considered quite good as I'm in one of the top 10 LEAs judged by GCSE results) as most state schools in the area are over-subscribed. However, in the independent sector, we visited many choices and whittled it down to two. One was selective and the other not. We would have been equally happy with either - we chose the selective one because my income went down and it was cheaper. One of my daughter's friends (equally academic) chose the non-selective school partly because she could go to the same school as her less academic siblings. In fact, children from my daughter's prep school (some very unacademic) have gone to all sorts of independent secondary schools - and everyone seems to have found one that suits them.

So the independent sector, in which there is no 'system', just alternative suppliers that have to cater for market demand, offered a more satisfacory choice. The question should be how we can make this choice available for everyone.

Posted by: HJHJ at January 13, 2006 09:23 AM

Pl,

I did read the article. You can measure the oil share of GDP in other ways which makes it nearer 10%, but in any case 5.8% is quite high, and also it was much, much, higher in the past.

Second, tourism accounts for about 20% of Dubai's economy these days. They don't just go for duty-free shopping.

Posted by: Matthew at January 13, 2006 02:48 PM