Consider first Margaret Hodge, the radical minister. Bravely breaking with
decades of accepted practice and flaunting several taboos, Ms Hodge argued
for a change to council housing rules to favour those who could be regarded
as “indigenous” over those who could be classified as “new migrants”,
regardless of actual housing need.
This was amazing stuff. The MP for Barking herself talked of how a “recently
arrived family with four or five children living in a damp and overcrowded,
privately rented flat with the children suffering from asthma” would get
priority over a family who might have lived in an area for “three
generations”, and suggested that a “rebalancing” was needed. For me this
created the wonderfully retro image of the asthmatic children having to stay
put in the damp house by reason of their incorrect origins, while the
perfectly healthy indigenous couple got in ahead of them on the housing
list. All of which, according to Ms Hodge, would “promote understanding
which leads to better tolerance and integration in our society” by making
white people feel that life was less unfair. The asthmatic children’s
response would presumably be for a future generation to cope with.
Consider second the miserable figure of David Willetts, the Shadow Education
Secretary, in making it overclear that the Cameron Tory party has no
intention of returning to the pre-1970 system of 11-plus selection. The mild
Mr Willetts immediately became the target of the most sustained bashing any
Tory politician has received since Iain Duncan Smith. He had sold the soul
of the Conservative Party – not to mention generations of bright but
thwarted youngsters – for a mess of pottage, in this instance the illusion
of electoral appeal to the centre ground.
Perhaps I am insufficiently gender-blind, but it seemed odd that the most
savage of the Willetts floggers were women newspaper columnists. Until, that
is, I read yesterday’s stories of how, judging by the spread of his DNA,
13th-century women must have regarded Genghis Khan as something of a sex
god.
But this is a dangerous digression.
Ms Hodge has spoken her mind, has broken with the consensus, has stepped out
of the comfort zone, has done whatever it is people want done when they
argue that politics should be more edgy and ideological. Lordy, how they do
argue this. The end of the confrontation between world ideologies – between
socialism and capitalism – has left us becalmed in a windless, warm, soupy
Middle Sea. Politics is dominated by a bloodless, inauthentic centrism that
bores voters away from the polls and makes them think that “they’re all the
same” and “it makes no difference”. The result is ennui. That’s why we
needed a bloody big bust-up between Gordon Brown and a powerful articulator
of a radical alternative vision of the Blairite Right/traditional Left
(delete according to taste). Like what they had in France.
The persistence of this shallow trope, and the smugness with which it is
reiterated, is almost physically irritating. Take the current debates in
which Mr Willetts is surely right and Ms Hodge is surely wrong.
It is an eternal conceit that grammar schools were a marvellous ladder for
upward social mobility. They weren’t. From 1965 to 1968 I attended a
comprehensive school, and found myself overwhelmingly in the company of
working-class kids. From 1968 I attended a grammar school, where the
clientele was even more markedly middle-class. They were two miles and a
culture apart.
For this, and other reasons, no Tory government post-1970 attempted to
recreate the selective system – John Major only promised “a grammar school
in every town” in his last desperate manifesto. It was not a vote-winner,
but remained as a kind of totemic nonpledge lodged in the Tory psyche.
Ms Hodge is wrong because her “rebalancing” – by introducing an obvious
element of injustice into the allocation of social housing – will cause far
more trouble than it will alleviate. She is also, however, not typical of
those who seek more ideological policies on the Left. A Sunday night radio
show reminded me that my idea of grim is to have to listen to the complaints
of some union leaders about how Tony Blair has hollowed out Labour and how
what is needed is “reconnection” with the grassroots by going back to
ideological basics, like giving union members more public money and jobs and
not asking too many questions.
In The Westminster Hour Tony Woodley, joint general secretary of the
new superunion, Unite, told listeners that Mr Brown had to reconnect with
“core voters”, and that “more of the same must mean we’re going into
opposition and that Gordon Brown becomes the shortest-lived Prime Minister
in history”. The pathologically pessimistic Mr Woodley has forgotten that Mr
Brown only has to get to July next year to have been in No 10 longer than
Sir Alec Douglas-Home, but as forgetting is an essential part of his act,
this is hardly surprising.
And what a boring act it is! The claim that more ideology equals more
excitement never survived contact with members of the Militant Tendency, or
with Tory golf-club bigots. In any case, who is supposed to be Labour’s
answer to the orgasmic Hugo Chávez? Michael Meacher? As ever, such thinking
proceeds from the delusion that – despite all electoral evidence to the
contrary – the country really yearns for Woodleyism or (in the case of the
Right) a return to the 1840s.
It is true that we are living through a period of political convergence, as
serious parties agree about what the great problems are, and about the
general ways to tackle them. But this is only a difficulty if you think
that, say, climate change is either not a threat or quite fun, or that
Britain should become a very high-tax or very low-tax economy. If you don’t
think those things it is positively capricious to blame politicians for not
conjuring up imaginary storms just to keep you entertained.
In any case true radicalism doesn‘t reside in ideological posturing. Changing
anything in this country, with its addiction to local campaigns to stop this
or halt that, is hard enough. Take NHS “reconfiguration”, which means
hospital closures but also will create a substantially better health service
as a result of concentration. Driving that through takes real guts – and all
serious contenders for office know that it should be done. Call it the
Genghis Willetts syndrome.
The "bring back grammar school" party are f undamentally dishonest - they won't call themselves what they really are, which is the "bring back secondary modern schools" party. They should declare their true airm, to see 80 per cent of children made to feel they are getting a second-rate education. However, if they did that, more people might wake up to the idea that four out of five children wouldn't get into a grammar sxchool, and that means four fifths of voters would see their kids going to secondary moderns. How long to you think any party promoting THAT idea would last?
Terry Collmann, Teddington,
Hello David - I usually read your columns but avoid comments- I agree with many of your views , but not totally with this:- 'It is an eternal conceit that grammar schools were a marvellous ladder for upward social mobility. They weren’t. From 1965 to 1968 I attended a comprehensive school, and found myself overwhelmingly in the company of working-class kids. From 1968 I attended a grammar school, where the clientele was even more markedly middle-class. They were two miles and a culture apart '-
The reason for the difference in classes was, I think because both Comprehensive and Grammar were running alongside one another. When I attended Grammar school, as a working class child, the alternative was either Technology or Intermediate schools. It was not an ideal system , but, as class awareness was alive and well in Ireland in that time, I could say for sure that at least 30 % of the kids were from working class backgrounds - the expected percentage really. High expectations is key
janejill@fastmail.fm, Reigate, UK
I too am a product of the comprehensive, and latterly, Grammar school system. One system works, one doesnt, and its not difficult to work out which is which. The class divide which you highlight between the two is as much about students situation as it is disposition.
Assuming that geographical boundaries are arranged equitably, the grammar school system is the only vehicle for upward social mobility that lower-class children have available to them. Entrance is granted on merit (the 11+) rather than affluence (as is the case for private schools). The horrendous alternative as a hybrid of the two, where entrance is decided on a formal interview with student and parents and ultimately based on good presentation (a typical middle class attribute) rather than intellectual/academic merit. Funnily enough, Tony and Cherie Blair sent their children to such a 'Comprehensive'
Simon Mawdsley, london,
In short, there will always be newer immigrants with more pressing housing needs (more bedrooms, children with asthma, homeless families) than the original population (divorce, elderly relatives, proximity to family). The question is, does the UK prioritise in favour of those who live here already, or does it focus on an endless stream of troubles, while those with MBAs and money to spend distance themselves with impunity from these issues?
Somebody pays, sometime. Who is it going to be?
Severin, London, UK
You are correct about grammar schools but wrong about housing allocation because you are, selectively, ignoring some pertinent facts. It is not fair that people from other EC countries can come here and jump the housing queue ahead of those who have, and whose families have paid taxes for generations to provide that public housing. Let them stay in their own country and be housed there. If their predecessors did not make the investment to provide it they will know who to blame. We made the investment for our children, taking it from us is equivalent to the raid on our pensions.
Taking your example if the "recently arrived family with asthmatic children" get priority over a family who have lived in an area for three generations It will be that family who get the "damp overcrowded privately rented flat" and it won't be "future generations" who have to deal with their response, the response will be immediate, as Margaret Hodge has clearly identified.
R Williams, Sudbury, Suffolk
David, the point is that very few immigrant familys are living in damp, squalid flats with asthmatic children. But working-class British born families are finding it impossible to get a home. I lived in Athens when I was younger and - rightly - I was told that if I wanted a home in the city I was to pay top dollar for it and that I was a non-Greek I would also require a complicated series of visas and certificates to work. I did not pay a middle-man for a fake ID and passport to circumnavigate them. Why should I get priority? I think Margaret Hodge is voicing a complaint that she has heard on countless doorsteps and it should not be dismissed by the middle-class intelligentsia (big house, Polish plumber) as an example of pandering to racism.
There is also a lot of bad feeling coming from the fact that a lot of the immigrants that are benefiting from our generous housing and welfare are then using this position to criticise the UK government. Ungrateful and undeserving.
KingKerouac, London,
It is a long way for Ms Hodges the Islington red flag raiser with the hammer and the sickle to xenophobia (she is not really xenophobic, I am sure, how could she be?). Former young communists in some East Central European countries once again in power are doing the same; moving from the left to the centre right. They are not necessarily nationalistic, just accepting the sad fact that free enterprise is preferable to the command economy. Did I hear opportunistic? Perish the thought. I must say however Ms Hodges and the former young Marxists are still nicer people than the alternative. What a choice for us poor electorates.
Peter Kaldor, Woking, U.K.
So, David! Your own experience is sufficient to prove your case, eh? Well, so's mine then, but it happens to contradict yours! Oh, dear. Does that mean we'll have to seek out the facts as a last resort? Of course not. What a shame that none of the academic rigour taught in grammar schools had any lasting influence on you!
wokrightinn, Rudkøbing, Denmark
My family left england in 1965. I was only a toddler at the time. When I was older I asked my dad why he had emigrated. He told me that by the early 1960s it was obvious to him that immigration into England was simply unsustainable given the poor state of the economy. He also thought that the generous social programs offered to any and all who asked was also economic suicide. Before he passed away my father travelled back to England in the mid 1990s. On his return he told me that by and large he was right to emigrate when he did. The one thing that suprised him more than anything was the decline of the family structure in England. I don't know how accurate his insights were but my wifes' family also emigrated from England and have never regretted their choice...peace to all.
Mark Willmott, Kitchener, Ontario, Canada
Ditch the comments!
Please, it's about time the Times saved us from these reactionary, poorly-written comment boards. I don't care what Ali from Bethnal Green thinks? Let's get back to proper journalism, a la Mr Aaronovitch
Henrietta Forbes Hamilton, London, UK
Immigrants have come to the U.K. as generally economic migrants to take ADVANTAGE of the economic and social climate in the U.K.. Just take a moment to think what message the current system says to the world. If you live in poverty, live in poor, perhaps dangerous housing, come to the U.K. where you get paid for doing nothing and are given a house in which to raise a family. Also perhaps think that there is the bonus of cash in hand work in the black economy, which is now much more blacker and impenetrable due to the multitude of different languages and cultures involved. Why should economic migrants be given a win win situation to come here when they are choking the supply and boosting the demand for housing. This is pushing the cost of housing ever higher for everyone. Social housing is given to those migrants with families who are taking advantage of the system, the U.K. and the economic climate to the detriment of people who are citizens and who have most probably paid taxes
Brian Judge, Doncaster, uk
I moved from a predominantly working class secondary school to a prdominantly working class grammar scholl!
I do not see any middle class families moving to my old pit village to take advantage of the local comprehensive!
Did not the change to comprehensives fail because you could not spread the grammar teachers and facilities across the other say 90% of secondary schools?, and still can not?
Jim Golightly, Prudhoe, England
Why should we believe Mr Aaoronvitch that closing hospitals will lead to a better health service: it may be part of the New Labour dogma at the moment, but there is no evidence at all. Verbose twaddle from this column, again.
Ali, Bethnall Green, UK
Margaret Hodge is blaming immigrants but not her government's ambiguous immigration policy. Uncontrolled immigration will obviously increase the unwanted pressure on local services and may create unpleasant tensions. Economy may benefit from the flow of east European immigrants, but in real term the citizens of this country will have to pay the cost.
H Marph, London , U.K
It's a curious thing, but only yesterday I read of reminiscences by old railway workers. And time and time again their story started with having achieved entry to a grammar school - in many cases the only reason why they stayed on at school past 14 which working class kids didn't usually do back then. A myth?
And if grammar schools are not instruments of social mixing now, might one suggest it's only because only Tory-dominated local authorities still have them. Which means a predominately middle-class electorate and hence a correspondingly middle class intake.
It's also probably PC heresy to say it, but like it or not there *is* a correlation between wealth and intelligence. Not absolute, not automatic and not exclusive, but on average, bright people tend to earn more. So (and I haven't seen this answered anywhere) even given a totally level playing field of parental coaching etc, what percentage of free-school meal children should one expect in an average selective school
Phil, Sevenoaks, UK
The towering fact that the writer attended a comprehensive which had mainly working class kids then a grammar school which contained mainly middle class kids is hardly sufficient justification to kill off grammar schools.
I attended a secondary modern then moved to a grammar school. But moving between the two was not made easy by the local education authority - it took fairly persistent parents & the citing of precedents (as well as ok O Levels). Expectations were higher and work harder at the grammar school. Later in life I went to redbrick, London and Oxbridge universities - an upwards journey of great interest and declining success.
The problem is not grammar schools - it is the lack of mobility - in both directions.
Centres of excellence are precious fragile things worth preserving at almost any cost. But sufficiently bright and hard working kids from any background should have automatic access - regardless of parental interest - or lack of it.
Bob, London, UK
Wouldn't it be refreshing to hear a politician say something like,
"We've had all your money in taxes so now we thought we'd spend it on the things you want. What's that, some of you want academically selective schools? Well sure you can have them, after all you're paying the bills here. Is that man at the front saying that some of you don't want selective schools? Well, the customer's always right so we'll just keep right on with some of the comprehensives too. And is that someone saying he wants his kids to go to a private school? Well fair's fair, you won't be taking up any state school places, so we''ll refund you the cost of what you're not using."
But I guess we'll just get more of the usual,
"Give us your money and let us decide for you what to spend it on. Hey, you reckon you know what's best for your kids? You crazy or something?"
Redcliffe, London, England
I share some of Jon Livesey's views and experiences. My childhood was spent in Dagenham on the Becontree Estate, then the largest agglomeration of public housing in the world. When I, like my elder brother passed the 11+, we went to local grammar schools that were overwhelmingly populated with working class and, often, downright poor children - there simply weren't enough local 'middle class' families to dilute the mix.
My brother and I prospered as a direct result of the academic regime and quality of teaching we enjoyed. Had we been denied that education, provided on the basis of selection, we would likely have found ourselves, at best, in trades rather than professions. He has an MA, I have a PhD and we have both done well in our chosen careers. Truly grateful!
We were working class then but middle class now. Should children from families like ours be denied the same opportunities? Comprehensives with 'streams' are fine in theory but a very poor substitute in practice.
Will, Cambridge,
Your "SPOT ON" about Woodley,i thought that the merging of these two Unions was to bring them into a new era not go backwards with this head in the sand leader Woodley.If Cameron gets in he will do a action replay of what Thatcher did with Scargill "Wipe him out".
Come on you members of his Union he is past his sell by date.
Bill Rees, Pieusse, France
You are writing this now only because you moved schools.
Dr. Keith Anderson, Durham, England
Have to disagree here. I feel that someone that has paid into the public sector slush fund for generations have a bigger right to social housing than those that have just jumped off the ferry. Where do you think the money comes from to build these houses?
The only experience of social housing David seems to have is when he drives past them in his Merc. If he were to look closer, he would see that residents are as likely to have been born there as Mogadishu or Islamabad!
As for Grammer Schools, I think that they are a great idea. The first Comprehensive I went to was an inner-city cesspool of a place. Luckily, I managed to get thrown out and got transferred to one in a posher area. The difference in the quality of teaching was eye-opening. Most of my fellow pupils could speak English as a first language and I did not have to dodge the huge gangs built along racial lines at lunch time.
When I have Children, I am going to have to scrimp & save to send them to a private school.
Rob, Cardiff,
Perhaps the heavy editorial hand that excluded my first post might be lifted slightly to include this one?
***********************
I went from Secondary Modern to Technical College to Grammar School. The last step was not encouraged by the local education authority. I’m grateful to my late parents for pursuing this move. The point is - there should be mobility as of right.
Centres of excellence - at all levels - presumably are far harder to build than centres of mediocrity. They should be nurtured and their model followed. If there is mobility based on ability then why get hung up on a name? Why destroy because of a name?
Advocates of comprehensive education do not advocate a similar approach to tertiary education - that Oxford and Cambridge for example should made mixed ability institutions? I was a post-graduate at Oxford and met a few of the more gifted undergraduates. Some had cultural hobbies pursued at degree level. And they were modest and civilised.
Bob, London, UK
Usually I am a fan of David but this article will not do. Hodge is right to articulate the concerns of indigenous brits - if she doesn't it's a huge open goal for the BNP. While generally migrant labour has been good for the economy and provides a fresh injection of talent in some sectors, white working class communities - so often overlooked - bear the brunt of the social change and are being left resentful. Equally, grammar schools used to be a incentive for talented kids in such communities. Like Jon Livesey I am grateful recipient of grammar school education (in Salford in the 1970's). I do not see those communites making the kind of progress that seemed possible to them forty or fifty years ago. However, the whole grammar/comprehensive debate always manages to miss the elephant in the room - fee paying private schools. Fettes and Eton seem to have had undue influence on the running of our counry in recent times.
Tony, Oldham, UK
"flaunting"? You mean "flouting".
Shame on you!
leRoiHenri, Reading,
“recently arrived family with four or five children living in a damp and overcrowded, privately rented flat with the children suffering from asthma”
If we didn't let the family come into the country in the first place, we wouldn't have to make these choices, would we? The UK is not a life boat for the rest of the world. What the ROW needs is investment by the rich world at on-the-ground level - microbusinesses etc - (ie, NOT their usually corrupt governments) so their populations can start to achieve a decent standard of living for themselves. I'd far rather my tax money was spent on helping poor people get well off IN THEIR OWN COUNTRIES, rather than spent on keeping them in housing and benefits when they come to the UK. People migrate/emigrate here out of desperation, and would far rather be well off in their own countries, if that were made possible.
Jane, London, UK
Far better that polititcians get out of education except to pay them via vouchers. Then, schools would be independent and select as they see fit. Then, we would have a few for the super bright, a few at the other end but most in the middle with little to choose between them. Schools themselves would either sort out troublemakers themselves or pass them on to schools that specialise in that sort of thing. We do in fact have a model for this. It is called the British Independent school system. It does its job with no eye catching initiatives, no LEAs, no 'help' at all. According to the OECD it is the best system in the world. Where I live in SW London there are so many they dominate the scene. We do indeed have a few for the super bright, some at the other end but most in the middle with little to distinguish them. There is absolutely no reason why this could not be done nationwide. Most choice would be in the big cities but elsewhere they would be virtually comprehensive.
R Mason , London, UK
The 11 plus and Grammar schools are two different things and no one is advocating bringing the 11 plus back. But bright kids should go to school together, there would be less bullying, which is endemic in schools and wealthier parents would be unable to buy themselves in to the best state schools by moving close by.
I like the John Major idea of “a grammar school in every town” and allow parents to choose if their child should sit an entrance exam. Most large towns already have the equivalent of this for well off parents through the private sector.
The current education system is producing far too many hopeless kids who are growing up into stupid voters and its time for a rethink. When people have the money to pay for education and health care they do not choose the well intentioned but flawed systems which the left and centrists try to impose on the rest of the population.
Adrian, London,
I don't think I've ever read an article that sets up so many strawmen. I've yet to meet anyone arguing for a "return to the 1840's". And one person's experience of grammar schools doesn't tell anyone anything. And the reason the Tories didn't try and introduce more grammar schools when they were in power was because they didn't feel like taking on the mighty teaching unions, not because they didn't want to.
Converging on the centre also fuels extremist parties like the BNP.
PJ, London,
What we (i.e. the voter and taxpayer) want is for the “recently arrived family with four or five children" not to have been admitted in the first place.
What we (i.e. the voter and taxpayer) want is for our children to be properly educated according to tried and tested formulae, and not subjected to sociological experiments, which change at the whim of party dogma.
All else is (self-)delusion.
Tom Katz, Weybridge, UK
Mr Aaronovich,
You argued your premise well but I`m afraid I must disagree with you. I`m more in the Kaletsky/ Parris/ Thatcher mould. Your comparison of Brown with Douglas-Home is inaccurate as a comparison with Callaghan in 79 will probably eventuate. As my father a lorry driver told me before the June 1964 electiion " Never trust the Labour Party " Wilson and Blair were slipperyt and untrustworthy to say the least , proved him true.
Denver Watt, Osaka, Japan
Is that 'flaunt' or 'flout'?
Andrew Billington, Liverpool, England
Well said Mr Livesey!
Neil , KL, Malaysia
I had thought Aaronovitch to be paid-advocate for the Blairistas but it seems he is a dinner guest of the Cameron brigade too. Outside the metropolitan bubble world of former Marxists these views are not held outside higher education. Virtual reality seems to be a political construct
TomTom, Leeds, England
There are two points about giving housing priority to indiginous people. First, if they and their families have worked for generations to build the economy and culture required for that housing to exist, it seems churlish at least not to believe them more entitled to it than soemone who has just arrived. Second, they live here. The immigrants choose to come; if they don't like what is on offer, nobody is forcing them.
Briatin doesn't have an empire any more. We are not responsible for the well-being of non-Britsh people.
Alex Swanson, Milton Keynes, UK
I wonder if Mr Aaronovitch considers, when about to give out presents to his family on Christmas morning, that since there are poor children down the road who are not getting such nice (or any) presents he had better quickly re-address them. How is immediate family different from indigenous? One group (our own) always has preference over others. It is pretentious and dishonest to deny that this is - or should be - the case, particularly when the others have invited themselves into this country without our consent. Even more is this the case when the numbers are in the millions and are potentially in the billions. Get real!
Bernard, Norwich, UK
David, Who ever said the indigenous family were a 'couple' or even 'perfectly healthy'? Only you and your skewing. You're a great choice for GCSE media writing work, because it's always possible to 'identify the inconsistencies' in your writing. The same with 'following and argument'. Interesting to see that political policy was premised upon your time at two different schools. ('For this and other reasons...) We all dream of having that much influence. And haven't you, with your sensitivity to class differences, ever noticed how 'working class' kids become remarkably 'middle class' when they're exposed to a 'middle class' culture. Or did you carry out exhaustive family background checks at the time? Don't get me wrong. I think you're a great writer, I love reading your stuff.
Jeffrey Miller, Dubai, UAE
The fallacy in the argument here is the assumption that labels are permanent. In your comprehensive you associated with children who were *then* mostly working class, and in your grammar school with those who were *then* mostly middle class.
But the whole point of social mobility is at the margin, with the minority that consists of talented children from poor homes. This mobility works slowly and by example and inspiration. The small number of working class pupils in a grammar school are gradually assimilated until you can no longer tell their origins.
That's why those of us who made it from a poor family into a Grammar School are so attached to them. Not because of what they were, so much as what they changed in us. No comprehensive can do that, even with the best will in the world. Don't just write us off as bigots. We are truly grateful.
jon livesey, Sunnyvale, CA/US
Actually, the beginning of the end for council estates as a post-war success (and the idea of a council flat as something to which families aspired) began with the abandonment of waiting lists as a fair method of distribution. And how one hates Mr Aaronovitch's descent into personal anecdote about his grammar school experiences. As any number of bright 1950s children from inner city council estates can testify, we would not, had we been shoved off to today's local sink comprehensives, easily entered Oxbridge and the professional classes.
kato, oxford,