Oh for the dignity of a coronation

There was a time in the Conservative party (not so long ago) when a new leader was elected by an inner cabal, and was then feted by the rest of the party as being the best thing since sliced bread and exactly the sort of person that they would have voted for should they have had the opportunity. Now, of course this was wrong and exceptionally undemocratic; but it was at least very dignified and, having watched the contrast between the labour leadership and deputy leadership elections, I sometimes do wonder if there isn't something in that.

Think what you like about Gordon Brown (and it probably isn't a lot worse than what I think), but he has managed to sail through these last few months with dignity and aplomb. Throughout the last few months he has given nothing but the impression of an incredibly serious and able leader; maybe not the sort of person who would play with your children, but certainly the sort of person whom you would trust with your savings.

Contrast this with the deputy leadership contest and the grubby and undignified way in which they have conducted themselves - lynching Margaret Hodge for example, in her attempts to start a discussion (albeit a rather ill-conceived one), and I begin to wonder whether a coronation is so bad after all.

I have no idea if Newsnight did this on purpose (I do think that Newsnight is sometimes rather too enamoured with its kingmaking powers), but the style in which it was conducted reminded me of a bunch of straight-A students trying to get the headmaster to give them the school prize. As there was little difference between the candidates: they are of similar opinions and are broadly high-flyers in the party, it was left for them to make po-faced endorsements of eachother whilst making innuendos behind eachothers' backs and trying to make the boldest-sounding assertions on what are essentially rather banal and mainstream ideas ("we need to re-build trust", "people in this country want to get on with their lives"). Bring back Tony Ben, at least he sang a different tune.

Foetal Alcohol Syndrome

I have recently read an article in the Times by Minnette Mirin bewailing the fact that the government has issued new guidelines saying that you shouldn't drink during pregnancy. Now, I suppose that, as right-wingers, it is reasonable to suppose that such nanny-state announcements have rubbed her up the wrong way.

But why?

I am, of course, against banning things when it is un-necessary; but I hardly think that the issuing of guidelines against something that could very easily harm a defenseless foetus are in this league.

Whilst it is true that a small amount of alcohol is unlikely to harm a foetus, as she herself points out, there is far from scientific consensus on the issue of what amount is safe - and I have recently been told be a teratologist that as little as 3oz on one day in the 'danger zone' of 3-8 weeks could cause the dreaded foetal alcohol syndrome. Is it so important for pregnant women to have a glass of wine, that they are willing to put their child at risk?

Also, this dreadful woman bemoans the fact that we are being 'treated like ninnies' in a state that is issuing 'one rule for all' as a precaution against those who unknowingly break the limit. This point is one that I'm afraid I do not understand. If we are not all 'ninnies' - and therefore, presumably, savvy enough to interpret the evidence and come to reasonable conclusions - then there is no obligation for us to obey the advice. If they are not, and listening to government advice is the way in which they are able to interpret the scientific world as applied to us, then I fear that we will necessarily recieve advice on things that are far from straight-forward being simplified for our purposes.

Whilst I often have very little sympathy for the government, it does seem hideously unfair that advice intended to ensure our health is being interpreted as the grossest assault on our liberties. Perhaps the government should say nothing and leave it for us to work out by ourselves.

Anyhow, I doubt there will be much harm done. If we are all such worldly-wise and functional human beings as Ms. Mirrin, then I'm sure the advice will fall on happily deaf ears anyway.

Are Tories anti-Grammar School?

David Cameron has taken something of a knock over the past week for his stance on Grammar schools and, to some extent, rightly so. There is a great deal of confusion over the attitudes that he actually represents and the idea of social mobility that the conservatives have traditionally stood for.

Tories are rightly wedded to the idea that a good standard of education is the key to social mobility and the environment that the grammar school provides is an excellent vehicle for this. However, I do not think that it is these that the new Cameron tories are against.

What this stance signals is not a lack of faith in grammar schools, it is a lack of faith in secondary moderns. The idea that, at the age of 11, the child can irrevokably decide the class into which they will fall - those of the labouring (all-be-it skilled labour) classes and those of the intelligensia - is intolerable. Secondary moderns have always been a repository for people in whom society no longer takes an interest, and on whom intellectual resources need no longer be spent. This is not the way in which a modern society should treat its children, who should recieve a decent standard of education as long as they require it.

The grammar system is not one that allows a greater deal of social mobility - if it is social mobility that is a problem, then an increase in the standard of education of our children is in order. The grammar school system mainly entrenches a two-tier class system.

The key to social mobility is aspiration and if we encourage children to know their place, rather than to aspire, then we condemn generations into not realising their potential.

I know that this is a rather hard policy to swallow to the right wing who, quite correctly, would like to encourage intelligent people from poorer backgrounds to realise their potential, however times change. We are now in a position where we should be able to give every child a decent education. If we do not do this, then we are failing half of our society. It does not necessarily require a change of attitudes to take a change of policy. Sometimes times just change, and talismans should not be held to just because of what they represent - but should be evaluated in relation to what they actually do.