I was pleased to read that new grammar schools are not ruled out after all ??by the Conservative leadership. They are good schools, which offer opportunity to children of all backgrounds who can make the academic commitment. I also look forward to reading how Mr Willetts is going to accelerate a grammar stream in every comprehensive, which remains the quickest way of giving more opportunity to the many who cannot afford independent schools.

The BBC are doing a good series of reports from Putin’s Russia. The world they describe is one where the enthusiasts for democracy struggle against the rising tide of authoritarianism. If anyone doubts our need to develop energy sources for the future that do not depend on gas from Russia, they should listen to these journalistic essays. Our oil and gas companies are learning the hard way that contracts in Russia can be changed or torn up by the government.

Spin is such a misleading waste of time. I have read a great deal about how the Conservatives are now the true heirs to Blair, based on remarks by George Osborne. Yet when I talk to George, or hear him interviewed on the BBC, what he said was far narrower than the idea that we are going to inherit Blair’s policies and style and carry on with them.

I was relieved to hear George say, in answer to one question, that he could be in the studio all afternoon listing Blair’s mistakes and failures to deliver. Amen to that. There is no way the Conservative party can or should be heir to Blair’s wars, to his failure to reform welfare (the historic task of his first term) or his failure??to buy much progress in health and education with all the money he spent on them (task of second term). He gave us extra money without reform whilst telling us this could not work. We have no wish to be heir to his destruction of democracy, his failure to treat the Commons seriously, his botched constitutional reforms, his gift of so?? much power to the EU,his sofa soundbites and his policies made up for the cameras one day and quietly dropped on another.

The specific claim George made was about choice in education and health. Again, he prefaced it by pointing out that Blair himself undid the??hesitant ??moves towards more choice introduced by the Major government, before coming round to understanding that it was the only way to get some value for all the extra money being spent, and to respond to the wish of people to enjoy better treatment and higher quality education. Once Blair reached that understanding he found that Gordon Brown was a roadblock to reform, and found that enough of his own backbenchers were against it. As a result it took Conservative votes in the Commons to push City academies through.

??Tony Blair has all too little to show for his ten years of unprecedented power, based on his huge majorities in the Commons. There are only a handful of new Academies, and private treatment centres catering for NHS patients have only scratched the surface of what is needed. George is right that we need to do much more to reform these state leviathans, and open them up to new providers at the same time as giving all of us more choice within the free at the point of use framework.?? We need to link this to less spin, drawing a line under the Blair years when presentation triumphed over delivery.

At a time when the 6 deputy Leadership candidates are lurching to the left and keen to condemn privilege it is perhaps useful to remind ourselves how they got where they are today.

Hilary Benn?? Holland Park Comprehensive?? BA Sussex

Hazel Blears?? Wardley GS, BA?? Trent Poly

John Cruddas Oaklands Comprehensive, BSC/MA/PHD Warwick University

Alan Johnson?????? Sloane Grammar School Chelsea

Peter Hain???? Emmanuel School Wandsworth, BSc Queen Mary London,?? M.Phil Sussex

Harriet Harman?? St Paul’s Girls School?? BA York University

??

<font face="Times New Roman" size="3" />

<font face="Times New Roman" size="3" />

<font size="3"><font face="Times New Roman">?????????? </font></font>

Harriet Harman attacks Blairite spin.

Two cheers for Harriet Harman condemning the front page story about the government seeking Stop and question? powers to fight? terrorism. Readers of this website will know I thought this was one of the more ludicrous ideas that has come from this spin mad government. Now we learn from Harriet that the idea had not been discussed by Cabinet and the police had not been consulted.

??I would like to believe her when she says that a Gordon Brown government will do things properly. If a Home Secretary wishes to change police powers and the style of policing he should first discuss it with the police and in his own department. When he has a scheme that they think can work, he should then take it to the relevant Cabinet committee for approval, where collective discussion should tease out more of the problems and pitfalls. If it passes that test he should then seek a date from the Leader of the House and the Speaker’s Office to make a Statement to Parliament, where he should expect cross examination to test it out further. Following the Statement he should brief the press.

It seems a long time ago that policy went through these hoops before implementation. It seems strangely old fashioned, but it is a system which worked much better. It got rid of silly or unworkable ideas before they saw the light of day, and meant Ministers were properly prepared to defend the proposals and to implement them by the time they brought them to the House. I hope it is the future as well as the past.

David Cameron’s restatement of the Conservative position on schools should have calmed down the flurry of dispute when David Willetts made his original speech. It was good to read, in DC’s own words, that this is not a "Clause IV" moment, and good to see that we do still believe as?? a party in the excellence?? of the surviving grammar schools and want to keep them. Graham Brady and Nigel Evans have given strong voice to the case to keep the Grammar schools??we have, encouraged by a BBC ever willing to seek a "split" in the Conservative party.??Once ??they??realise David Cameron??and??Graham Brady??agree the BBC??may find it less exciting sport.

The Conservatives need to learn from the presentational mistake of the Willetts speech. It should have been tweaked following the Shadow Cabinet meeting which considered it, to take full account of the views of all those Shadow Cabinet members who represent places with grammar schools and who wanted our support for them to be clearer in the text. Then all could have been united in presenting the new point – that we have some answers on what to do about standards in the vast majority of schools that are not grammars, where the battle of playing fields will be fought in the next election.

David Willetts now needs to work up his ideas of the creation of a grammar stream in every comprehensive, on how the new Academies will be run, financed and how they will choose their pupils, and on the introduction of synthetic phonics into every primary to teach reading more effectively. He should have a busy summer filling out the details and persuading the teaching unions this is the way to go.

"Excuse me, who are you?" "Where are you going?" "Why are you walking about on the streets this afternoon?" "Are you a terrorist?"

You?? couldn’t make up anything so silly. The man who wanted to be the anti terrorist supermo so much he decided to break up the Home Office so he could concentrate on anti terrorism, has come up with the bizarre idea that they might catch more terrorists if they stopped and asked people at random on the streets who they are and what they are doing.

Does he seriously expect a??criminal stopped in this way to blurt out that he is a terrorist just popping down to the agricultural supplier to buy a bag of fertiliser? If someone belongs to a highly trained radical group, they will have put in place forged papers(or been given entry papers by this government at its weak border controls), or they willl be home grown young people radicalised by others. They will be able to answer the quesitons who are they, where?? they live and what are they doing without having to reveal their terrorist aims.

What does he think the odds are to apprehend a terrorist on the streets anyway, given that there are maybe a few hundred potential terrorists in a population of 60 million? On a random basis you would have to interview a very large number of people before catching the odd honest terrorist.

There can be no substitute for eavesdropping, intercepting, and infiltrating??their networks, no??shortcut to the need to collect evidence and build up a picture of who is in these terrorist groups, where they??go to recruit and train,??how they get their money and where they buy the components for their weapons.??Talking to a few people outside the shops ??is not going to advance our intelligence, just as random searches or fixed search points cannot prevent a determined bomber from getting around the security by deception in order to carry out his or her murderous intentions.

??Let’s hope his replacement under Gordon Brown is more sensible, and understands that taking away more civil liberties from the law abiding is not going to lead to the arrest of more terrorists.

The London lawyers have done it again – another blockbuster divorce settlement following hard on the heels of a big settlement after just three and a half years of marriage. I wonder how big the legal fees were on all that? Our Petitioner/Respondent system encourages lawyers to encourage their clients to fight every inch of the way, instead of trying to get a more amicable agreement based around arbritration.

This time the ??Judge himself implied it was all a bit much, and suggested Parliament looks again at the law.

I hope the government agrees. People entering a marriage should be able to draw up an agreement about the assets they bring to the marriage,and which they can keep on divorce,??so it does not automatically mean they lose half if the marriage goes wrong. Such pre nuptial agreements should be respected by the courts.

At the moment divorce is great financially for the poorer partner but bad for the richer one. It needs to be fairer to both, based on their view of what is fair before their relationship goes sour. If agreements between couples were valid and could be enforced it would also cut down legal fees and the incitement to some to pursue unpleasant claims endlessly through the courts, based on a very one sided view of what went wrong.

In the early days of communism after the Russian revolution there was a titanic struggle between those who thought communism should concentrate on the one country that had adopted it, Russia, and those who thought it must be a global movement through continuous revolution. Stalin led the Russians, Trotsky the internationalists. Stalin won, the Russians suffered, and in the end the free world so showed the superiority of its system that communism in Russia collapsed. In a way Trotsky was right – it was only if they wiped away the alternative that communism had a chance of controlling all of the people all of the time.

The greens are similarly split today. The ultra greens have a messianic creed. They think there is only one??overriding global problem, the human output of CO2. ??They believe their perceptions must be central to the conduct of government and to the lifestyles of everyone on the planet. Some of them believe in implementing their policies strongly in one or a few countries where the democratic process offers them most hope of success. Others realise their vision is a global one, and will only succeed if they persuade the whole world to follow their recipe.

The globalists are right. Greenery in one country is said to be better than nothing, but it will not get anywhere near solving the problem the ultra greens have now identified. They believe that the most pressing environmental problem is the output of CO2 by people, and believe the environmental problem is more important than any other. If you suggest that maybe world poverty and the high death rates in Africa??are?? bigger pressing problems, they counter by linking Africa’s suffering to global warming, ignoring bad government, civil war and poor economic management.

If you believe human CO2 is the most pressing problem, then a single country has a number of options to cut its carbon footprint. These include taxing and regulating in a way which drives energy using business out of the country, and cutting the population by immigration control. The UK is currently doing the first of these. Neither of these methods make any contribution to reducing world output of CO2. Business sets up energy using activities somewhere else. The people denied access to one country go to another.

I am an enthusiastic green. I was a keen supporter of the successful camapign to get rid of lead in petrol and?? keen to see Nox and Sox reductions. I am ??strongly in favour of better insulation and fuel saving measures at home and work, optimistic about the role technology can play in cleaning the planet, a campaigner to save green fields around our towns and cities and an advocate of clean air and water. I dislike the way environmentalism has now been narrowed to CO2, and cannot understand how people can believe in anything other than a global approach to the problem.

The Dispatches programme tonight spent a long time and a lot of money coming to three obvious conclusions:

1. Most people want weekly, not fortnightly collections

2. After a fortnight rubbish has 30 times as many bacteria and spores as rubbish kept for a week

3. The rubbish stinks far more after two weeks than one, and the gases given off are unpleasant chemicals

??They also discovered that people did not recycle more in their experiment they ran if they only had the bins emptied fortnightly rather than weekly.

??It’s about time government and Councils understood that we are fed up with being offered a worse service for more money, and then being blamed by government for our behaviour.If my Council wanted to go over to Bin taxes and/orfortnightly collections??I would much prefer being allowed to arrange my own rubbish removal from a?? contractor who wanted my business, and receive a lower Council Tax to reflect that.I would have it taken away more often than fortnightly.

All too many Councils fail to offer a comprehensive recycling service, missing out some materials. They often ask you to mix different materials in the same bin, leading to problems with using the materials in recycling later in the process. They often do not supply sufficient capacity in the recycling bins for your needs. They usually only collect the recycling materials fortnightly, meaning you need large storage spaces to keep it.

??Instead of sticking??electronic chips in bins, appointing bin police, and making life difficult for all of us Councils should wake up to what we want. We do not want stinking refuse on our streets for up to two weeks between collections. We do not want to face fines and legal actions if we make a mistake over where we put a yoghurt pot or a tin can.

In the week when the EU attacks the USA again for not doing enough to curb its carbon emissions, we learn?? that last year US carbon emissions fell by 1.3% despite good growth in the economy, whilst EU emissions rose by 1- 1.5%!! That’s the difference between the technology approach in the US and the regulatory approach in the EU.

??

It is high time the EU apologised for trying to claim the green moral high ground when its own policies have failed. Its carbon trading scheme has allowed Germany to increase its carbon emissions, whilst the UK has had to buy permits from abroad to meet its requirements. The continent has exported permits (because they created too many) and we have exported money (because we created too few) . The UK government looks on helplessly, whilst we are hit by the scheme and others make money out of it.

??It is rank humbug for the EU to lecture the rest of the world for generating too much carbon, whilst themselves failing to hit targets they claim credit for setting. It is also time we had a UK government that would understand there has to be a global appproach to this problem, otherwise the few who take it seriously just end up exporting their industry to the many who do not.

??

Of course the Uk could cut its carbon back quickly, if it exported its main energy using industries to other countries, driven out by the high price of energy and by the carbon taxes imposed in the UK. It would not, however, make one jot of difference to the overall carbon output of the world, merely change who generated most of it. What is the point of that? How much more damage does the EU and the UK government wish to do with its carbon scheme, which does?? not even succeed in curbing overall EU emissions, let along global ones?

??

<p>This week I went to dinner with Principals from the 13 FE Colleges serving the Thames Valley, and with fellow MPs from both the Labour and Conservative parties. There was no lack of Principals at the feast.</p>
<p>Funding hovered over the ample dinner like Banquo’s ghost. Eventually the inevitable happened. We were back in that futile argument I have lived with all my life in the UK public sector. If you, the politicians, give us more money the world will be perfect. If you don’t give us more, there will have to be cuts in what we do.</p>
<p>This was a good humoured and sensible version of a common argument. I do not wish to pick on the FE Colleges, as they are amongst the better run parts of the rambling public sector. The truth is, as Labour are discovering, pushing much larger amounts of cash into the public sector does not suddenly solve all the problems. There is no amount of cash likely??to be granted which will take away the need for "tough choices" and improved performance.</p>
<p>In practise, with a Labour or a Conservative government, each sector, department or main activity in the public sector will receive next year the same amount as last plus an allowance for inflation, plus some real growth. Enormous energy goes into arguing over whether the increment will be 1%, 2% or 3% real, and hugely different outcomes are predicted depending on which it is. Most of this is poppycock. Anyone running an activity with a guarantee they will not be paid less in real terms than?? the previous year is in a very comfortable position compared to most businesses. Many politicians foolishly stoke this argument, attributing magic powers to the additonal 1% or 2% they claim their side has voted which the other might not have done.</p>
<p>Contrast the position of manufacturing industry. Every year the main customers in the global market are likely?? to seek price reductions. A UK business may be told lower your prices by 10% or we will start to buy from China or India. After a negotiation they might settle for??3% a year price reductions for 3 years. Overall UK manufacturing has achieved a 5% productivity increase each year. In other words, a UK manufacturer can give his customer a 3% price cut and still earn more profit to buy the better machines and invent the new products so he has a future. They do this by constant striving to make it better cheaper, faster. They apply new technology. They give their staff incentives to perform better. They cut out waste, try new methods, raise their quality. They do not save money by reducing quality or skimping on service, for then they would lose the business.</p>
<p>??We need to change the way the public sector is managed so we can start to enjoy decent productivity gains there too. Instead of reaching for the government cheque book as the automatic response to more demand or more difficulty, public sector bodies should also look to increase their private sector incomes, cut their costs, change the way they do things. The internet, broadband communications and the greatly enhanced data processing capacities of cheap modern computers offfers huge scope to transform public service delivery. Why do we not use distance learning techniques, video lessons from the best lecturers and teachers,and individual teaching packages on line to improve the quality and cut the cost of some of our teaching service? Why do we not use school facilities more in the evenings and week-ends for other purposes to raise revenue?</p>
<p>??
</p>

When David manfully plunged his dagger through the heart of the policy of building new grammar schools in places that do not have them, did he realise this policy was long since dead? The Aunt Sally of grammar school building was dead under Maragret Thatcher and remained dead under all the subsequent leaders of the party. There is no need for a murder investigation to trace the hand of Willetts, as he was attacking a corpse.

The most contentious thing David Willetts said was that the gramnmar schools?? no longer helped children from lower income backgrounds get on in the world. He did not explain that is predominantly because there are no grammar schools left in the poorest parts of our country, nor did he temper his critique by saying it is good news that some do get on through grammar schools. Their parents may be in?? his eyes "middle class" but they are not usually rich or privileged, in the way the parents of Public School children often are.

My advice to the party is to calm down about all this. The leadership agrees with the majority of us who think many excellent grammars should remain. A future Conservative government will not be in the business of abolishing them, as many in Labour would like to do. More importantly, a future Conservative government would turn its attention to the plight of many students in?? comprehensives which are not offering them a demanding and interesting education.

Putting grammar streams into comprehensives will make things better for the academically gifted of all backgrounds. Changing the way English and Maths are taught in primary schools should equip more to get something out of their secondary schooling.

The Conservative party needs to speak for the aspirations and realities of the many, but it should never let it look as if it is against the few excelling through effort and hard work. Labour are the jealous party – jealous of those whose parents bought them a good education, and jealous of those who earned themselves a good education by competitive exam. We must be the party of social advancement by all these means. Above all we must hold out the hope of a better life to all those who are stuck in poor state schools without the skills they need.

With many questioned thinking HIPs is an unpleasant disease, and many in the estate agency and surveying world condemning the idea of Home Information packs, it was good to learn at the eleventh hour today that Home Information Packs are to be delayed. It’s a pity they were not put in the dustbin instead.

??It was never a good idea to demand that before you try to sell your home you need to spend ??500-1000 on an information pack which the eventual buyer might not accept as sufficient, or which might expire before you sold the property requiring you to spend another ??500-1000 to be allowed to carry on with your sales efforts.

??Today thanks to legal action by the RICS and continued Parliamentary action by Michael Gove and the Conservatives, Ruth Kelly was forced to concede.

Now we are told the Home Information pack will last for 12 months, rather than the original planned 3 months. We are told that it will only apply in the early days to people selling homes with four or more bedrooms, and only from 1 August rather than 1 June as planned.We are told that there will eventually be enough energy surveyors to carry out the energy survey component of it.

??

The Minsiter had no convincing definition of a 4 bedroom house – presumably people will now be redesignating upstairs rooms as studies, utility rooms and the like. When?? I suggested to her that people in holes should stop digging, she just made a silly political point that if I didn’t believe in Home Information packs I was not green.

??

On the contrary, I am very keen that we promote better home energy efficiency. I don’t think you do it by forcing people to have an energy audit when they sell. You do it by encouraging them to put in better insulation, more efficient boilers and appliances, by telling them of the advantages and giving approrpriate tax breaks to speed up the market response to the obvious logic.

??

Reading David Cameron’s education policy article in today’s Times, it is difficult to see what all the fuss has been about. There is the continued support for existing grammar schools, to reassure the MPs for Buckinghamshire, Kent, Berkshire and the other places lucky enough to retain these good academic schools.

There is the new proposal that we will create a grammar stream in every comprehensive – the quickest and fairest way of giving the more academically inclined pupils everywhere?? more challenging courses and more chance of getting into a good university.

There is the proposal that a Conservative government will let people and institutions establish new schools, that can compete to offer pupils a better deal, paid for by state money to cover the fees or costs.

Of course the leasdership is right that we must offer opportunity to all, regardless of background, income and geography. This new education policy allows us to do just that.

This is not a Clause IV moment. The new policy builds on our excellent principles of choice, competition and quality, rather than renouncing them. Labour needed a Clause IV moment because its belief in the state as owner and manager of business did not work. We need a rejection of spin moment, to re-engage the many who have given up on all the political parties because they do not trust them. A good place to start would be for Conservative peers to vote down the secrecy Bill in the Lords.

I spent some of yesterday lobbying Conservatives to speak and vote against the FOI Bill when it reaches the Lords. I am pleased to report that the leadership of the party recognises the damage this Bill is doing to trust in Parliament and is certainly not encouraging the Lords to push it through. Better still, my enquiries revealed that so far no peer has come forward to sponsor and propose the Bill in the Lords. As this is a private members Bill and not a government one, it needs a willing peer to pick it up and run with it.

Now the peers have seen what the media did to David Maclean, they are obviously having second thoughts. Brave as our peers are, it is not much of an invitation to be asked to carry a hand grenade with the pin already out through the Lords stages, especially when the cause is such a bad one. Or to change the metaphor, the leading ladies and genetlemen in the Upper House wouldn’t mind a starring role, but are?? not so keen to play the villain??by being ??the assassins of open government.

This gives those of us against the Bill more time to rally our forces against the day that the Lords may tackle this issue. I am told the proposers are trying to find a collective of peers who will propose it together. That could just be pushing?? more peers into the media character mincer.

It would be an amusing end to the Commons shenanigans if no??lord or lady??would take it on. That would truly be the end of the peer show.

I was pleased to see press briefing that the Conservative leadership is not behind attempts to exclude Parliament from FOI.

David Willetts went on the record expressing disagreement with the FOI amendment Bill. One cheer for that – but where were you David on Friday when you could have expressed your disagreement by voting against? I cancelled my engagements that day – why didn’t you? Clearly the Leader of the Opposition and?? the Prime Minister in waiting would find it difficult to cancel when many more people would be disappointed if they did not turn up, but the rest of us can always offer to reschedule an??engagement??for another date when Parliament calls.

I am pressing the Opposition to officially back voting this Bill down in the Lords, and to use their influence to encourage more Conservative peers to turn up and vote "No" to this measure. Actions speak louder than words. The Opposition now needs to show it will put some voting power behind its disagreement with this Bill.

The Conservative party does not need a Clause IV moment to show it has broken with its past. It needs a rejection of the political establishment??moment, when it shows it has re-engaged with a public deeply cynical??about all political parties. Our battle should not be with Conservatives past, but with apathy present. The way to tackle apathy and disillusion is to champion the rights of individuals, families and the "small platoons" against the secrecy, interference and bossiness of the state. What better way to show we have "got it", than to oppose exempting Parliament from FOI, and stand in favour of greater openness and transparency in the political process?

We need to offer a bold programme of trusting people more and asking government to do less. People are sick and tired of political parties which say one thing and do another, and with a government that interferes too much but achieves so little.