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.

Let's Hope Selling Peerages is Not Too Heinous

Apparently, the arch-twit of the Labour cabinet (a competitive title, but well-deserved), Lord Falconer, has said that there are some people who should die behind bars because 'people expect that'.

This sort of thing infuriates me. Why do we bother having a professional judiciary if people are going to be sentenced by calumny in the media! Why do we bother employing Lord Wolff and others if Rupert Murdoch is going to decide how long our prisoners are going to stay in jail. The fact is that if we did what the majority of people 'expect' then this country would have gone to the dogs a long time ago.

The laws of this country are far too complex and well thought out to be subject to mob rule and the manipulation of the press who, let's face it, have something of their own agenda. People are far too easily whipped-up into a self-richeous frenzy to be allowed to decide something so important. Has anyone watched the scenes outside an American jail as a prisoner is about to be executed? The sight is absolutely chilling. The problem is that it is those who have sinned who are particularly fond of casting stones.

I realise that there are people out there who have done horrible things and that people would like to see them punished, but even criminals are humans and are subject to human rights and the laws of the land. The fact is that people are the product of the society in which they are brought up, and these demonstrations of public outrage are nothing more than humiliating displays of self-flagellation in a society that has failed itself.

And if we should allow this new form of public trial, I would imagine that Lord Falconer would hope that selling peerages is not the next crime to capture public outrage

Also, I'm pleased to note that Gordon is increasing the scope of his foreign policy credentials, after this apparent visit to Lilliput.

Stop Treating Children Like Adults

Apparently, a commons selcet committee has ruled that each school should have a school council. Here I agree - the school management does not always understand the consequences of their decisions and it is important that pupils can get their views across. Also, it is important for the self-esteem of children to feel enfranchised in the decision-making process.

However, in my experience of leading school councils, the people elected to them, whilst representative of the school body ( the 'cool kids'), were very rarely articulate enough to get their point across effectively, or introspective enough to know what it was about a proposition that instinctively made them dislike it.

I certainly don't agree with the idea that pupils should have a say on the appointment of staff and the running of the school, as was suggested by the committee.

Our school was one of those awful 'progressive' ones, and a few pupils were allowed to interview prospective headmasters. I vehemently disagreed with the rest of the student panel, whose only criterion for a good head was that they would promise them the world. Many of these things, if they are honest, they have no right to promise and have never been implemented, because they were highly impractical.

I agree that children need to be given some responsability for them to get used to the idea of making decisions for themselves and other people. However, they are not yet mature enough to make decisions of that magnitude, and are often unaware of the vital context of the adult world.

Treating children as equals means that we should respect their opinions as fellow human beings, but accept that they are made within the context of someone who has never had to care for themselves in the real world. This isn't patronising, it's just sensible.

LePen for Presidential Candidate!

Before you read the title and hit me, let me explain what I mean....

I do not think that Jean-Marie LePen would be a good, or even adequate president. Blaming France's problems on immigration is like blaming global warming on the flatulence of cows - maybe it has an effect, but are you seriously going to cull them all? The fact is that France is in decline because of restrictive employment laws and all the red tape that comes with the French's preferred style of government (and Europe). Immigration is a cheap and easy excuse, and it is all too easy to stir up that sort of racial hatred.

However, it is absolutely appauling that a man who can get into the second round of a presidential election, can fail to be allowed into the next race because of a democratic nicety. French officials are, in effect, by-passing democracy by failing to give people the chance to vote for LePen.

I hope that these officials will look hard at themselves and ask whether their judgement is really better than that of the voters and, if not, will sign the bloody piece of paper. Then, and only then, will Jean-Marie get the kicking he deserves and we can put the spectre of racism firmly in France's past.

Making martyrs solves nothing