The schools battle
Matthew d'Ancona 11:30am
As Jonathan Freedland and Coffee House favourite Steve Richards have pointed out, the row over school admissions is turning into a proper Left-Right punch-up. And quite right, too. For much too long, the most publicly visible battle lines (expertly drawn by Gordon Brown) have been between “Labour investment versus Tory cuts” – mostly nonsense, but politically adhesive.
Now, there is a different and no less rowdy argument rising in prominence: namely between the central control of the supply of public goods and the drive to make public service institutions free of central control and encourage diversity. As it happens, I rather like Ed Balls – sorry, CoffeeHousers – and, as I said in my Sunday Telegraph column he is a clever and quick-witted politician. But it is quite wrong of his ideological champions to believe that, in this row, he on the side of the mass of parents. The Admissions Code may indeed be (regrettably) the law of the land, but it is being applied here with condign literalism. As the Daily Telegraph reveals today, the Jewish schools that seek voluntary donations from parents are fighting back with clear evidence that subverts the claim that such contributions are fees in all but name.
Johann Hari argues in the Independent today that enforcement of the code is best for the least affluent pupils. Fraser’s evidence from the Swedish model suggests that diversity is a better way of ensuring that the less well-off get a fair chance. It is excellent that this is now becoming a front-line row. Let battle continue!
Previous
Mike
April 10th, 2008 12:14pm Report this commentI'm sorry Ed Balls may be clever and quick witted (as you claim), but given his arrogance, unbridled and transparent ambition for the top job and most damningly as architect of all the failed economic structures Brown has built (e.g. tri-partite regulation, tax credits, pensions raid) he is simply a figure of hate for right-thinking people.
The Laughing Cavalier
April 10th, 2008 12:27pm Report this comment"a clever and quick-witted politician"? Really? Where's the evidence? We hear this from his cheerleaders but there seems to be little verification of it. As for his judgment, it's appalling.
bill
April 10th, 2008 12:48pm Report this commentMatthew
Why do you like Ed Balls?
David Lindsay
April 10th, 2008 3:56pm Report this comment"the row over school admissions is turning into a proper Left-Right punch-up"
Only in the Press. Guardian columnists and Spectator columnists have strikingly different views on this, as on many other important matters.
But as to the two front benches, on this as on all other important matters (and even most of the important ones), there is no difference at all.
As I have said before, the Tories even voted in favour of the Government Bill to ban the creation of any more grammar schools.
And as I've also said before, like Tory Eurosceptics or advocates of Wisconsin welfare, you seem to think that if you keep saying something then it will eventually become the truth. It won't.
Frank Pulley
April 10th, 2008 4:51pm Report this commentWhatever turns you on Matt! You do worry me at times. I remember some time ago you confessing to a minor addiction to Diet Coke. And that from a man who edits a magazine which purports to be "Champagne for the Brain". Obviously the DC is beginning to rot yours. Anyone who would stoop to becoming an apparatchik of the Brown cabal can neither be clever nor quick witted. Cunning and slimy tongued, if you wish - I'll buy that. Balls is an ideologue with an insidious agenda; he must be vilified at every turn and as editor of the Speccy you should not encourage the enemy. Far too much fraternisation is evident here. Get down and dirty; this is no time for gentlemanly conduct, there's a culture war going on at full tilt - get your bloody spurs on! And why are you giving plugs to Joan Hari - come back Scott Burgess! You are sorely missed. God you'll be telling us that Livingstone is a well-meaning cheeky chappie next.
bill
April 10th, 2008 9:32pm Report this commentMr D'Ancona is one reason I still won't pay for the Speccie.
Ann
April 11th, 2008 11:46pm Report this commentCavalier and Pulley (is that a 1940s comedy duo?) have said it so much better than I could have done. The appalling Balls (and even more appalling Livingstone) must be vilified at every turn for the simple reason that they are vile people, out for all they can get with little or no interest in the welfare of this country or in simple honesty, to varying degrees between them.
Stephen
April 13th, 2008 9:35am Report this commentI'm still at a loss to understand how religious schools can function without being allowed to select pupils. Surely the religious adherence of their intake is part of their raison d'etre?
Back to top