Fisking Janet Daley

Janet Daley is angry about Tory policy towards grammar schools. Fair enough. But I wouldn't want her to think she has a monopoly on anger.

I found her column this morning about the Tory grammar school policy infuriating - insulting and cheap in places, entirely ridiculous in others. I like and respect Janet, but I think she really let herself down.

Here's the opening sentence on the Tory's grammar school : 

Well the Tories certainly have stolen the limelight from Labour.

How incredibly self-absorbed some Conservatives can be. The idea that last week's speech by David Willetts stole the limelight from Gordon Brown's ascension to the Premiership is ludicrous.

She continued:

Conservatives presented the commentariat with a target to die for by flinging their party into a perfectly executed suicide mission.

This is an interesting manoeuvre. I have never seen anyone present anyone else with a target by committing suicide. Let alone a target to die for. But I'll take it from Janet that this is physically possible. She then caps off her mixed metaphor with this:

And their leader - or the clique of juvenile idiots who advise him - still doesn't get it.

How dare you, Janet. What a pathetic, rude thing to say. Just because you disagree with their position on school selection doesn't justify your remark. David Cameron employs some very able people, a number of whom have been independently successful. I don't always agree with them either, but such a personal attack is lamentable. It is worth noting, in passing, that the political advice of these "juvenile idiots" hasn't done Mr Cameron much harm so far.

Now they are reduced to silencing Michael Howard, who has been a generous patron of their Brave New Party, when he threatens to erupt publicly over the abandonment of a policy which he regards as sacred to the Tories' meritocratic credentials.

If Michael (who incidentally is an honourable person who would not stoop to the insults used in Janet's piece) does regard being in favour of grammar schools as sacred, and perhaps he does, then it is surprising it wasn't his policy when he was leader. The party wanted to allow schools to set their own selection policy while simultaneously arguing that it was against the 11 plus. This wasn't a coherent policy and was always going to need to be changed.

And if reintroducing grammar schools is sacred, it is also surprising that it hasn't been the policy of any Conservative Government since 1964.

By rejecting Clause Four, New Labour was seen to be embracing public opinion and throwing off ties to its own vested interests. By rejecting grammar schools and the principle of academic selection, which are overwhelmingly popular with the public, Cameron's Conservatives are doing precisely the opposite.

So proposing selection is popular, is it?  Let's see. Is any politician ready to get up and announce that they are in favour of secondary modern schools? Thought not. But secondary moderns are the other 75 per cent of the policy, aren't they. School selection became unpopular because 75 per cent of people don't go to the grammar schools. It's interesting that everyone calls the selection policy a policy to bring back grammar schools. No one ever calls it a policy to bring back secondary moderns.   

What else, pray, could David Willetts have meant when he implied that grammar schools had effectively been rendered useless to the cause of social mobility by the selfishness of middle-class parents who will insist on ferrying their offspring to "tennis coaching or music lessons" and even - good grief - arranging for private tuition to fill in the gaps left by appalling state schools?

If it were not for all those greedy middle-class (boo) families out there bunging up the few remaining grammar schools with their over-privileged darlings, there might be a chance for poor, disadvantaged (hooray) children to get a fair crack at them. So tainted is the notion of selective schooling that we must embrace a system which cannot be corrupted by the self-serving bourgeoisie. (Never mind that the favoured system - selection within schools by streaming and setting - would be just as corruptible by parental help and support.)

So let's get this straight: it is now the official Conservative view that parents who struggle and sacrifice their time and money in the interests of helping their children to get on in life are a problem. No, Mr Willetts, it will not do to say that that was not quite what you meant. It is what you damn well said. And it is not just morally objectionable, it is logically absurd from your own point of view.

Not only did David Willetts not quite say this, he didn't say it at all. The things that Janet calls "morally objectionable" and "logically absurd" she made up before attacking. David Willetts did not describe middle class parents as selfish or wrong for wanting the best for their children. He simply said that because they do and act upon it more these days, the 11 plus is no longer as good a test of pure ability as it was and that  grammar schools don't work as a driver of social mobility as well as they used to.

All the stuff about the self-serving bourgeoisie is a figment of Janet's imagination. It wasn't in the speech or anything anybody said about the speech. I have no idea where she got it from.

If you genuinely wish to improve the lot of the disadvantaged, then you cannot want the poor to remain in poverty - and yet by saying that it is only the poorest (those families in receipt of free school meals) whom you deem to be worthy of support, you are effectively branding all those who climb out of poverty by their own efforts as unworthy of your help. So staying poor becomes virtuous (deserving) but pulling yourself out - or pushing your children out - of poverty becomes a vice (undeserving).

Uh? Maybe I am a juvenile idiot too, but I don't follow. David Willetts used free school meal numbers as a useful measure, in the absence of a better one, of seeing how well the social mix in grammar schools matches that of the local population. Nobody said that being poor was virtuous or otherwise

The fate of the underclass and its dire educational prospects is a national tragedy for which some remedy may or may not be possible. But it will certainly not be found by automatically ruling that anyone who is not permanently, irredeemably disadvantaged is ipso facto undeserving.

Again, no one said this.

Mr Willetts is, famously, a very intelligent man: surely he understands that not all advantages are "unfair advantages".

Yes, you are right, Janet. He is intelligent and therefore does understand this.

The Cameron project has, at a stroke, restored patrician condescension to the heart of Conservative philosophy. Apparently oblivious to the sinister aspect that their own upper-class, public-school backgrounds would inject into this debate, they have revived a species of class war that prevailed in this country long before the Marxist version: the aristocratic loathing of the middle-class upstart.

The destitute are sympathetic because they can be patronised and "helped": the real enemy is the striving, overly-conscientious burgher who insists on helping himself.

Of course the striving middle class, who want to improve themselves, should be given every chance and it is vital that the Tories be on their side. But in practice it is these people who turned against grammar schools hardest and quickest. They found their children going to second-class schools, and labelled failures.

I understand that many Conservatives believe in re-introducing grammar schools. There is certainly a case that can be made. And Janet is within her rights to make it and dissent firmly. But a combination of rudeness and attacking arguments that you first put up yourself can't be allowed to go unanswered.

Comments

[David Moss]

For over a year, Mr Finkelstein, you have delighted us with informative articles about framing and anchoring and confirmation bias and all the paraphernalia of the science of marketing. The Conservative campaign seemed to be in good hands, experienced, thoughtful and scientific.

Now we have David Cameron calling his supporters "delusional" [1] and we are the unwilling spectators at one of those dinners where the host (you) and hostess (Janet Daley) go for each other hammer and tongs. Meantime, there is blood in the streets of conservativehome [2].

Maybe you are correct [3] and Conservative supporters have no right to be so shocked.

But they are. Something has gone wrong with the campaign.

It hasn't gone very well, has it, the appliance of all this marketing science. In fact, it is a train wreck [4].

1. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6676447.stm
2. http://conservativehome.blogs.com/torydiary/2007/05/day_six_of_the_.html
3. http://timesonline.typepad.com/comment/2007/05/can_i_ask_a_que.html
4. http://dematerialisedid.com/BCSL/Hilton.html

[Ross]

" How dare you, Janet. What a pathetic, rude thing to say. "

I doubt Cameron and his advisors are as sensitive as yourself, after all Cameron is a man who regards it as perfectly legitimate to describe people with whom he disagrees as "fruitcakes, loons and closet racists". 'Juvenile idiots' is a pretty polite description by comparison.

[Tom]

"The party wanted to allow schools to set their own selection policy while simultaneously arguing that it was against the 11 plus.This wasn't a coherent policy and was always going to need to be changed."

I don't see how this is incoherent. Surely it implies that the Tories felt that the independence of schools to choose their own selection policy was more important than their own distaste for the 11 plus. In other words they favoured decentralisation of power over micro mangagement whilst retaining their own view on best practice. This may be a difficult message to communicate politically but it does not seem incoherent of itself.

[Gabriel]

Mr Finkelstein, if the flash set in the Tories want to stake out an electoral strategy based upon spitting over all the principles and policies conservatives hold dear, that's fine. But don't add insult to injury by expecting us to be polite about it.

Speaking just for myself. I hate Cameron. I hate him in a way I don't recall ever hating another British politician. I hate him for what he's dong to British politics for what he's doing to the Conservative Party; I hate him for what he says, for what he does and, I think, for what he is.

And in the leadership contest I supported him.

Apparently I'm not he only one. Again, if this is a price the leadership and its cheerleader are prepared to pay for whatever thrill it is they get from wielding power, so be it, but don't pretend that you don't what you're doing and, for the love of what's holy, don't get an ostentatious case of the vapours when you're confronted with the rage you've gone out of your way to cause.
THAT is just too much.

[rob]

As A Level Critical Thinkers,it's good to see unsound arguments critically assessed and counter-arguments being used to annihilate a ridiculous argument. Finkelstein clearly showed the flaws in Daley's reasoning. Top marks...

[Stuart]

Good piece Mr F. The most important point, which your detractors here consistentky fail to grasp is this one:

"Is any politician ready to get up and announce that they are in favour of secondary modern schools? Thought not. But secondary moderns are the other 75 per cent of the policy, aren't they. School selection became unpopular because 75 per cent of people don't go to the grammar schools. It's interesting that everyone calls the selection policy a policy to bring back grammar schools. No one ever calls it a policy to bring back secondary moderns."

None of them have even begun to address this argument. They apparently cannot accept that their position effectively tells 75% of the voters that their kids are too thick to deserve a decent education and must accept the scraps from their tables. It's the dirty secret of Kent's (I'm sure excellent) Grammar schools system, that overall their results are pretty average. The rest of the kids are abandoned to worse than mediocrity.

[Anthony Back]

I read Janet Daley's article in the Daily Telegraph and agreed with it.
The people who object to academic selection must explain why selection in sport, music, singing etc, etc is OK but selection for academic ability is a breach of human rights. The idea that setting in schools can achieve an ethos of work for the high-flyers is fantasy as anyone who has taught in schools of various types can testify. The dominant culture is quickly that of the tough more assertive types and academic excellence is sacrificed on the altar of an egalitarian pipe dream. The 11+ is not the only way that selection can take place and indeed in many countries there is swapping between schools at later stages after experience of and suitability for the type of work has been gained.

If Cameron expects his followers to tamely accept his diktat on this very important subject I can assure him that here is one potential Tory voter that he will lose. I doubt that I am alone.

[jimmy]

Hi Daniel,

What's lamentable is that splits are being manufactured in the centre-right of British politics. There was no need for the Conservatives to whip up a little media storm over grammar schools. No need for the centre-right to be at war with itself.

I ask you to reflect that Janet Daley is a talented writer and analyst. Her appearances on Radio 4's Moral Maze were quick-witted and occasionally inspiring. These days, on Head 2 Head (on BBC News 24) she's always worth listening to, and quite often runs rings around her 'opponent' from the left.

Perhaps Monday's article is not her most clearly-argued piece of work (I felt it had an air of exasperation running right through it - maybe even becoming shrill at points). But can her educated opinion really be dismissed with a quick fisk of some of the peripheral points like yours above?

The items you chose to fisk are not part of the main thread of the argument in that article. Forgive the silly football metaphor, but I think you played the man, not the ball.

In summary, though, I find this a sad little episode because conflict has been generated for no good reason, and to no good effect. Unnecessary...

[Robert Adams]

Mr finkelstein, we have mainly secondary modern schools, except we now call them comprehensives!

[Andy Moore]

Actually, I agree with those who defend academic selection process - Anthony, good comparison!

But what amazes me most of all when I'm reading all the articles is intolerance of some authors to others. When educated people call each other idiots, is it a constructive discussion?

This is ironic... Emotions are convincing for a short while, facts are convincing for as long as they are true.

Andy Moore
School Teacher
http://www.dalloway-school.com