Labour can and must fight back and here is one suggestion as to how.

Losing our deposit in Henley is hardly a disaster but coming fifth behind the BNP is! Rather than wallow in a sea of self pity and recrimination we need to fight back. 'If' we are going to lose the next election (I emphasise the word if) then let us at least do so with our principles and integrity in tact. Labour was once feared as an electoral machine that was ruthless in exposing its opponents' weaknesses and in offering the public a clear alternative to failed Tory ideas and policies.

Can I suggest one way in which we might launch a potential rear guard action and once again expose the Tories for the shallow and elitist bunch that they are. I have long been a campaigner for the abolition of academic selection at age 11 and have written about this issue in Tribune, the Times Educational Supplement and for the Fabian Review. The piece I have written below also appears on the Guardian's Comment is Free website and explains why it is I believe that grammar schools could replace Europe as the Tory party's Achilles' heel.

I really would be interested in your views.

If Europe has long been the Tory party’s Achilles’ heel then grammar schools are fast becoming its pain in the neck. It is now some twelve months since David Cameron experienced his first - and so far his biggest – self-inflicted wound when he ‘wobbled’ over his and his party’s continued support for academic selection. Last June David Cameron called the defenders of grammar schools 'deluded' and said that any debate about selection was 'sterile'. Well he would say that wouldn't he. One year later Cameron and shadow Schools’ Secretary Michael Gove - though, I doubt, the party at large - is still apparently convinced that there should be no more grammar schools and no more selection by ability at age 11. What is puzzling therefore is why Mr Cameron does not take the next logical step in this argument and call for all existing selection to end. Let me suggest why he is so reluctant to move in this direction: it is because the majority of the remaining 164 grammar schools in England are in Tory-held constituencies. Cameron is not opposed to selection out of conviction; rather he is in favour of keeping all existing selective schools out of cold, political calculation. So could the continuation of the 11+ become a major issue at the next general election?

One man who seems to think so is the combative and privately educated Secretary of State for Children, Families and Schools, Ed Balls. In a speech last week to the annual conference of the National College of School Leaders Ed Balls made clear his own personal position on grammar schools. "Let me make clear that I do not like selection," Mr Balls said. He went on to explain how some secondary modern schools are achieving good results despite the fact that they are surrounded by grammar schools makes it more difficult. "I've heard first-hand how some of the young people starting in these schools feel on day one that they have already failed" Balls told the audience of headteachers. Balls will publish his ‘secondary modern strategy’ next month and it is rumoured that each secondary modern will receive up to £1 million in additional funding.

Grammar schools and the whole issue of academic selection is a totemic issue for many backbench Labour MPs and I have no doubt that Ball’s comments and announcement about extra funding will have gone down well with many grass roots members and supporters. There is no doubt that Balls and the Labour party in general are both keen to make selection an issue before the next election and that they believe a debate about the future of grammar schools will help in providing some clear dividing lines between the Labour and Tory front benches.

Cameron often uses the term ‘progressive’ when talking about the modern Tory party but he knows that selection at age 11 is seen by many people to be an archaic and socially exclusive policy, he also knows that opening up a debate about this issue would produce a packet full of trouble for him personally. Tory party members and supporters of a particular age see grammar schools as offering escape routes from poverty for bright working class kids – they disagree with their Eton educated leader and want to see more grammar schools under a future Tory government, not fewer.

So if not quite the Achilles’ heel that is Europe, grammar schools could still end up being a real pain in the backside for the Tories. As yet the Tory party has failed to outline a vision for schooling that will help meet the rising aspirations of the British people. Do the Tories favour an inclusive, comprehensive system that intrinsically values and caters for all pupils regardless of their economic or social capital? Or are they still in favour of a two-tier, elitist system that helps perpetuate privilege and inequality? The answer to this question matters and Ed Balls and David Cameron understand this better than most.




Display: Sort:

Labour can and must fight back (#1)

What do you mean let us lose with our "principles and integrity in intact?"

The Party has very little of either on display. If you want to win, it's exactly those qualities you need to rekindle.

"Expose the Tories for the shallow and elitist bunch that they are" 

And Labour differ in what way?

On your Guardian article, I would say that Labour's Achilles’ heel is now Europe, or at least the EU Treaty.

I'm not anti-Europe at all. I love the French and Germans, but I hate the EU dictatorship.

On schooling, what is better: selection based on ability or having everyone taught to lowest common denominator standards?

This is not to devalue any child. Maybe if we returned to a better system we would still be able to:

a) Teach enough of our own folk to be doctors, dentists, etc. and

b) Provide decent trade apprenticeships for our own folk instead of importing tradesmen on reduced wages.

c) Provide a work ethic that makes young people keen to take a job rather than be dependent on benefits.

I have just read in our local paper, The Stranraer Free Press, that half of all children in the region come from parents receiving benefits.

This is a very serious indictment of 11 years of Labour government.

Why is Labour so intent on homogenising the population anyway?

It is like they are really annoyed that humanity is dynamic and independent; that we have different abilities and gifts, etc. and want to chain us down to mediocrity.

Where I grew up in the South of Glasgow in the 70's, the top 2/5ths of pupils with the best exam results in 2nd year of the local comprehensive secondary school went on to a grammar school.

I'm sure I achieved more than I would have done at the other school and the ones that you might think were 'left behind' probably had a better chance being taught at a level appropriate to their needs.

My question to you is this: what price equality? 

At the expense of academic advancement in some?

At the expense of appropriate education for others?

All just to play political games with your opponents?

I will reiterate one of my favourite sayings:

"The worst form of inequality is to try and make unequal things equal." (Aristotle)

Stewart Cowan

Re: Labour can and must fight back (#2)

In Grampian, where the schools are most mixed, there are no schools under special measures. In Kent, the most segregated schooling results in schools being twice as likely to being under special measures.

In Wake County, North Carolina, when schools were mandated to only accepting a maximum of 40% of kids on free school dinners, the pass rate of kids on free school meals soared from 43% to 60.5%.

And on the matter of the EU being a dictatorship, you recently opposed a treaty which would've increased democratic accountability.

Re: Labour can and must fight back (#3)

I agree with what you say. And yes, it is interesting that eurosceptics and people who dislike the unaccountable and undemocratic nature of the EU reject a constitution/treaty that makes it better. it's just become a gut reaction to jump up and down screaming as soon as the word 'Europe' is uttered.