Reply to: William Hague

[Sysman]

On the radio the other morning William Hague was quick to point out that he went to a state comprehensive school, not a private one. (He did go to Oxford though).

It is probably why he was never going to be Prime Minister.

From the article I posted earlier:

William went up to Oxford in the days when the dons there still looked down on northern prodigies. He proved to be quite brilliant. A First in Politics, Economics and Philosophy. President of the Union. Within seconds he was political advisor to the likes of Geoffrey Howe and Leon Brittain at the heart of the new Thatcher government. By '87 he'd taken his first step into the hustings back home in Wentworth, and took a sound beating in a strong Labour mining constituency.

I can remember that attitude from my own university days, though fortunately not from any of my own lecturers. It was definitely true in the sports area.

[Green Mango]

Actually it was s bit more complex than that BBC view, a bit of both Conservative and Labour as this Times article states :-

The grammar schools’ slow death since 1963Graham Stewart: Past notes Recommend? Can it really be that the Conservative Party has turned its back on Rab Butler, whose 1944 Education Act created the postwar grammar school, in favour of Tony Crosland, the Labour Education Minister, whose “Circular 10/65” heralded the age of nonselective education?

Yet comprehensive schools did not sweep all before them because Labour’s anti-selection ideologues won power in the 1964 and 1966 general elections. In 1963, Edward Boyle, the Tory Education Secretary, wrote Educational Opportunity, a pamphlet that questioned whether sharply differentiating at age 11 between academically able children and the other 80 per cent was the way forward.

Boyle, an Old Etonian baronet with progressive views, was gently moving the Tories towards supporting comprehensives. Meanwhile, Harold Wilson, the grammar-school-educated Labour leader, fought the 1964 election campaign with the assurance that grammar schools would disappear over his “dead body”.

Of course, some politicians will say anything to get elected and the Wilson Government duly got down to denying funds to schools that refused to go comprehensive. But comprehensivisation was already under way in the Tory years and would not have been stopped had Boyle continued as Education Secretary after 1964.

Indeed, A Better Tomorrow, the 1970 Conservative manifesto, left it to local authorities to decide what sorts of school they wanted. While it hoped that the best of the grammar schools might go unmolested, the manifesto nonetheless took pride that “many of the most imaginative new schemes abolishing the 11-plus have been introduced by Conservative councils”.

The Tories won the election. Both Edward Heath and his new Education Secretary, Margaret Thatcher, were proud products of grammar schools. But having committed the party to letting local education authorities decide what was best, they limited their own scope to interfere. Overwhelmingly, the local authorities opted to go comprehensive. This was why more grammar schools (3,286 in all) were scrapped during Mrs Thatcher’s tenure as Education Secretary than in any other period.

At the time, opinion polls showed massive support for comprehensives. Many wrongly imagined, however, that comprehensives and grammars could happily coexist. Further confusion was sown by Labour claims that comprehensives were “grammar schools for all”.

Thus the debate took place in a haze of misunderstanding. Unlike, of course, today when the replacement of “bog standard” comps by city academies, foundation or specialist schools and selection by aptitude but not ability is so readily understood

Yes, memory is a selective business.

The Grammar school I went to was denied funds, the teachers pay and perks.
In 1979, I believe the teachers got a vote and voted to go Comprehensive.

It was a case of both parties and parents rallying against Grammar schools.

However, I believe this was a mistake.
I think there should have been a Technical School alternative to Grammars maybe
aside from the drop to the Secondary Modern.

Anyway, the Academy seem to be Grammar school by another name, they appear to be more
selective than Grammars and any trouble at an Academy and the pupil is excluded.

[Green Mango]

Your memory must be a bit selective (excuse the pun)

BBC NEWS | Education | Grammar schools - why all the fuss?

"Look at the facts. How many grammar schools did the Conservative governments of Margaret Thatcher and John Major create? Answer: none.

Going further back, how many grammar schools were turned into comprehensives under Edward Heath's government, when a certain Margaret Thatcher was education secretary? Answer: lots.

Indeed, Mrs Thatcher (as she then was) is understood to have signed away more grammar schools between 1970 and 1974 than any other education secretary before or since. "


Education: The end of the grammar school? - Education News, Education - The Independent

"And Margaret Thatcher holds the prize as the secretary of state who closed or merged the most grammar schools for a comprehensive alternative."

Actually it was s bit more complex than that BBC view, a bit of both Conservative and Labour as this Times article states :-

The grammar schools’ slow death since 1963Graham Stewart: Past notes Recommend? Can it really be that the Conservative Party has turned its back on Rab Butler, whose 1944 Education Act created the postwar grammar school, in favour of Tony Crosland, the Labour Education Minister, whose “Circular 10/65” heralded the age of nonselective education?

Yet comprehensive schools did not sweep all before them because Labour’s anti-selection ideologues won power in the 1964 and 1966 general elections. In 1963, Edward Boyle, the Tory Education Secretary, wrote Educational Opportunity, a pamphlet that questioned whether sharply differentiating at age 11 between academically able children and the other 80 per cent was the way forward.

Boyle, an Old Etonian baronet with progressive views, was gently moving the Tories towards supporting comprehensives. Meanwhile, Harold Wilson, the grammar-school-educated Labour leader, fought the 1964 election campaign with the assurance that grammar schools would disappear over his “dead body”.

Of course, some politicians will say anything to get elected and the Wilson Government duly got down to denying funds to schools that refused to go comprehensive. But comprehensivisation was already under way in the Tory years and would not have been stopped had Boyle continued as Education Secretary after 1964.

Indeed, A Better Tomorrow, the 1970 Conservative manifesto, left it to local authorities to decide what sorts of school they wanted. While it hoped that the best of the grammar schools might go unmolested, the manifesto nonetheless took pride that “many of the most imaginative new schemes abolishing the 11-plus have been introduced by Conservative councils”.

The Tories won the election. Both Edward Heath and his new Education Secretary, Margaret Thatcher, were proud products of grammar schools. But having committed the party to letting local education authorities decide what was best, they limited their own scope to interfere. Overwhelmingly, the local authorities opted to go comprehensive. This was why more grammar schools (3,286 in all) were scrapped during Mrs Thatcher’s tenure as Education Secretary than in any other period.

At the time, opinion polls showed massive support for comprehensives. Many wrongly imagined, however, that comprehensives and grammars could happily coexist. Further confusion was sown by Labour claims that comprehensives were “grammar schools for all”.

Thus the debate took place in a haze of misunderstanding. Unlike, of course, today when the replacement of “bog standard” comps by city academies, foundation or specialist schools and selection by aptitude but not ability is so readily understood

[Bagpuss]

Your memory must be a bit selective (excuse the pun)

BBC NEWS | Education | Grammar schools - why all the fuss?

"Look at the facts. How many grammar schools did the Conservative governments of Margaret Thatcher and John Major create? Answer: none.

Going further back, how many grammar schools were turned into comprehensives under Edward Heath's government, when a certain Margaret Thatcher was education secretary? Answer: lots.

Indeed, Mrs Thatcher (as she then was) is understood to have signed away more grammar schools between 1970 and 1974 than any other education secretary before or since. "


Education: The end of the grammar school? - Education News, Education - The Independent

"And Margaret Thatcher holds the prize as the secretary of state who closed or merged the most grammar schools for a comprehensive alternative."

[Green Mango]

More Grammar schools closed under Margaret Thatcher than any Labour Education Minister.

Thats not my rememberance of that time.

The schools were generaly closed by Labour legislation which meant that staff in Grammar schools did not
get equivalent pay/benefits to comprehensive school staff thats what happened at the Grammar school I went to.

Plus Labour school authorities were keen to clear out the Grammars using Labour legislation.

Grammars survived in some Tory led areas eg Kent.

Please post some evidence to support your allergation.

[Bagpuss]

Labour destroyed the Grammar schools, but Labour poiticians hardly ever
send their kids to state schools.

No wonder Labour have reduced upwards social mobility.

They want every one to be the same....

More Grammar schools closed under Margaret Thatcher than any Labour Education Minister.

[Sysman]

WHS, and he wrote a good biography of William Pitt the Younger.

Good link thanks.

William Pitt the Younger
by William Hague
HarperCollins £25, pp651

Except MoscowMule was replying to this post:

BWT has Cameron actually ever had a real job in his life?

[Green Mango]

has one of the most annoying droning voices that I have ever had the misfortune to listen to.

BWT has Cameron actually ever had a real job in his life?

Thats who some Yorkshire people talk.

[d000hg]

has one of the most annoying droning voices that I have ever had the misfortune to listen to.

It is a slightly weird voice. But those who have left the school playground behind don't judge others on such trvialities

BWT has Cameron actually ever had a real job in his life?

Who cares. I fail to see how stacking shelves in Tesco is useful experience for running a government.

[Green Mango]

And back in the 1970s all the Labour ministers who were so keen on comprehensives sent their own offspring to private schools.

Labour destroyed the Grammar schools, but Labour poiticians hardly ever
send their kids to state schools.

No wonder Labour have reduced upwards social mobility.

They want every one to be the same....

[stek]

We should have made Malcolm Tucker Foreign Secretary - he knows how to deal with Yanks, ****etty-bye.....

[stek]

WHS, and he wrote a good biography of William Pitt the Younger.

And Pitt the Even younger? Pitt the Embryo? Pitt the Glint in the Milkman's Eye?

You can't beat a bit of Blackadder!

[OwlHoot]

Nope, he's spent his entire life training to be PM. Probably the best man for the job.

WHS, and he wrote a good biography of William Pitt the Younger.

[Sysman]

Gawd I'm fed up with the Tory public school toffs line.

The Liberal chappie is also a public school toff.

So is Tony Blair (as are a good few others no doubt).

John Major wasn't.

And back in the 1970s all the Labour ministers who were so keen on comprehensives sent their own offspring to private schools.

[BolshieBastard]

Hague is a slap headed ****. Thinks he's churchil incarnate. Cant wait to see the the State department spit him out in bits in about 12 - 18 months time.

Jesus, and how any 'statesman' can talk in that stilted boring monotenous tone of his beats me.