Sunday, June 03, 2007

Day 19 of the Great Grammar School debate, and Graham Brady shows that his education was worthless

Yes we are now in day 19 of the Great Grammar school debate, and Graham Brady, who went to a grammar school has demonstrated that his education does not stop him saying things which are patently untrue.

In this article for the News of the World, where he clearly seeks to do yet more damage to the party he says this:
"People are frustrated by a political establishment that talks about choice but won't let them choose a grammar school."
No, Graham, parents don't choose a grammar school, unless their children pass the 11+.
"Instead of telling working-class families to put up with the schools they're given, we should be angry so many children are being let down. "
Well, Graham, if you had read past the bit on Grammars having a relatively low percentage of people with disadvantaged backgrounds the policy is to allow parents to choose any school, and what is more to allow them to set up their own if they don't think there are any good ones locally.

So do us all a favour and stop damaging our poll ratings.

You can read more of Graham Brady's "thoughts" in the News of the World here. (Please note that they will break the link next week.)


James Higham said...

Benedict ... don't forget to get those nominations in for the Blogpower Awards - vote early and vote often!

Andy Cooke said...

With a grammar school, the parents don't have free choice (that essential mechanism of the free market).

Where they would work better is if the authorities could get the selection correct - ie unbiased according to family status (which would involve either prohibiting private tuition/primary education or somehow weighting the 11+ results to take that into account) - and not simply being a blunt "academic/non-academic" selection.

This blunt and inaccurate authority imposition is seen as somehow more in keeping with modern Conservatism than the "independence, money following the pupil (ie free market mechanisms used instead of centralised diktat), streaming" approach by Willetts.

The sheer irony is that I've seen many of the unshakeably pro-grammar-school posters on ConHome describe their stance as "factual" against the Willetts "ideology" approach.

Words fail me ...

Benedict White said...

James, many thanks, but I have not been nominated *sob* :)

Andy, yes I do think they have missed the point and avoided understanding the policy in favour of having a rant.

Very annoying.

Welshcakes Limoncello said...

I saw him on "Sky" at lunchtime and thought he didn't know what he was talking about! - "Our great secondary moderns" indeed: he should try applying for a job from one! What era is this man living in? I think Cameron has been courageous on this.

Anonymous said...

I like the idea of our dave causing a barny it gets him in the newspapers and tv good or bad ,and keeps mcavity's profile low ,the only thing I won't forgive if he signs up to this piece of euro garbage the blair wants to sign us up to,if he does that nothing will get me to vote conservative.

Benedict White said...

Welshcakes, many thanks, I think that may be what Brady is missing!

Anonymous, A Conservative government is bound to sign some new European treaty, but the aim will be a repatriation of powers rather than giving more away.

Anonymous said...

"I saw him on "Sky" at lunchtime and thought he didn't know what he was talking about!"
I don't think that Adam Boulton could believe his luck, he did not have to do much just give Brady the bullets and then sit back and watch him fire them at his own party.