FROM THE GRASS
ROOTS
(The author is a
member of the Conservative Party. The views expressed are personal ones and
should not be interpreted as the views of COPOV or of any of its other members)
It
is now nearly three months since the British public voted to leave the European
Union albeit by a margin of less than 4%.
As one who had voted ‘Remain’ I was somewhat surprised by the outcome
but not that disappointed as my ‘Remain’ vote had been cast with no great
conviction and only on the principle of ‘better the devil you know that the
devil you don’t’. I was never really enthusiastic about economic, monetary and
political union and the retention of the pound as a currency was one thing I
think the Blair government got right. The loss of sovereignty and the continued
mass migration to the United Kingdom from other European countries obviously
had a big impact on those who voted ‘Leave’
and no effective answer to these concerns was given by the ‘Remain’
camp. Coupled with the extraordinary claim made by the then Chancellor of the
Exchequer that if we left the European Union each family would be £4300 worse
off each year only served to confirm the suspicion that the figures could not
actually be verified and were being used as a scaremongering tactic.
From
the outset it was quite clear that the losing side would cry ‘foul’ and not
accept the result. So it has proved. The ‘Remain’ camp talks about having a
second referendum; that it is not binding on Parliament but only advisory. It
has even been claimed in some quarters that because 28% or so of the electorate
did not vote at all they must be satisfied with the ‘status quo’ and thus
support remaining in. Another absurdity is this statement from a voter: ‘I
wanted to remain in but as I thought ‘Remain’ would win I voted ‘Leave’. What part of Brexit do these people NOT understand? Many on the ‘Remain’ side are now banking on
a ‘fudged’ renegotiation of the minor concession David Cameron gained last
March. Others are hoping that the
conditions for leaving the European Union will be so complex and difficult that
in the end the government will weakly cave in and concede that ‘Remain’ is the
only realistic option. For the writer the most depressing indictment is that
many in the ‘Remain’ camp believe that those voting ‘Leave’ were stupid, did
not really understand the issues because they were elderly and had by voting as
they did somehow robbed our young people of their future. They need to be
reminded that our parents and grandparents fought in two world wars to secure the
freedoms we now have and enjoy today. From May 1940 to June 1941 this country
and its then empire (assisted by the lend=lease arrangements with the United
States of America) stood alone against Nazi aggression and fascist aggression.
The original Common Market came about in the mid nineteen fifties so as to
prevent France and Germany going to war with each other again. After the United
Kingdom joined the then Common Market in 1973 the subsequent referendum in 1975
confirmed our intention to remain within a block of nations trading freely with
each other. Economic, monetary and political union were, as far as the writer
remembers, seldom if ever discussed or fully explained. It saddens the writer
that these days so many are ready to belittle the achievements of the United
Kingdom over the centuries and regard themselves primarily as European rather
than British. BREXIT MUST MEAN
BREXIT. Surely it is better to have a
complete break and not to get involved in a messy compromise over the single
market and border controls?
We
need to get on and trigger Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty but only at a time
suitable to us and when it is clearer as to what the future holds. Obviously we
will need to reassess our trading position but there will be many countries, including
some in the E U who will be glad to negotiate trade agreements with us. Freed
from the shackles of the bureaucratic European Union who knows what the future
might hold? And as the great American President Franklin Delano Roosevelt said
in an entirely different context: ‘We have nothing to fear but fear it’.
The
election of Theresa May as Prime Minister and leader of our party solely by
Members of the House of Commons will again have brought into question the role
of party members in the selection of the leader. When on the 24th
June David Cameron announced his resignation as Prime Minister it became quite
clear to the writer that we could not have three months of electioneering and
jockeying for the position of leader and thus Prime Minister. It would have
been completely impractical given the volatility of the markets and the
uncertain future after the referendum vote.
While
the result was conclusive the majority was not overwhelming. The sooner a new
Prime Minister was in Number 10 the better. As a party member the writer was
quite happy to leave it to the Members of Parliament who knew better the
strengths and weaknesses of the candidates. This is not to suggest that party
members should have no say in the election of the leader but maybe different
rules should apply when the party is in opposition. The Conservative Party
loves to be in government and M P s will quickly remove leaders who have lost
their confidence or who are not considered Prime Minister material – as Edward
Heath, Margaret Thatcher and Iain Duncan Smith found out to their cost.
The
question of restoring grammar schools has reared its ugly head and it caught
the new Prime Minister ‘off guard’ at a recent Prime Minister’s Question
Time. If Margaret Thatcher was anything
she was certainly a ‘conviction’ politician. If Theresa May believes that
grammar schools should be restored in parts of the country then she should say
so and not fudge the issue. She might be guided by her Chief of Staff who the
writer understands went to a grammar school in Birmingham. The writer attended
a famous grammar school in South Wales from 1958 to 1966. There were two
streams ‘A’ and ‘B’ but the gulf between the two was enormous. The ‘B’ stream
had the poorer teachers and many in the ‘B’ stream left with few Ordinary level
subjects and some none at all. The writer is convinced that many of those who
did not pass the eleven plus examination and thus went to the secondary school
could have done as well, if not better, than many of our ‘B’ form collegues.
Indeed a number of those who were transferred from the secondary school did
very well and went on to study at university. It would be fair to say that in
primary school everything was geared to the eleven plus examination and little
was done to prepare those who were not fortunate to pass the exam for the wider
world and a non grammar school education.
If
grammar schools are to once again become part of the education system then it
would seem important to lay down certain criteria.
a) The
parents in a particular area must overwhelmingly support it – say 75% on a
turnout of 75%
b) The
parents must be made fully aware that some children might not get places
c) Proper
arrangements should be made for those pupils who do not get places; they should
not be classed as failures but given as much opportunity to fully develop their
skills and talents in other fields.
The
most important thing is the child. Every
child has been given a talent and a good teacher will recognise this talent and
try to develop it. No two schools are
exactly alike – whether they are public, grammar. comprehensive or church. The
writer believes in diversity not conformity. Many of the writer’s friends who
did not go to grammar school have been successful in their particular field and
done well for themselves and their families. And they have skills that make the
writer envious on times.
Finally
some thoughts on David Cameron’s controversial resignation honours list.
Despite the expenses scandal six years ago nothing much has really changed.
Following the practice of previous Prime Ministers chums and cronies were as
usual rewarded. As well as Harold
Wilson’s ‘lavender’ list from 1976 we have this gem from when Harold Macmillan
was Prime Minister and in July 1962 sacked one third of his cabinet.
On
the resignation of Mr. Maclay as Secretary of State for Scotland.
‘You
i.e. Macmillan would like to recommend him for a C H (Companion of Honour) Now
and a Viscountcy later at a suitable time’
(‘Yes
he agrees’ Macmillan wrote by the C.H. ‘Yes it’s yours at any time’ he
(Macmillan) scribbled next to the proposed Maclay Viscountcy)
(Extract
from ‘The Prime Ministers’ by Peter Hennessy Chapter 5 Page 76)
In
terms of balance Theresa May’s Cabinet is one of the best in the history of the
modern Conservative Party. The overall parliamentary majority is very small but
even the most pro EU fanatic on the government benches would be foolish to rock
the boat at this critical time. Outside London every English region voted
‘Leave’ ,17 of the 22 Welsh counties voted ‘Leave’, I million people in
Scotland voted ‘Leave’ and many in
Northern Ireland also. Theresa May has
been given her mandate. She must act upon it.
19
September 2016
