Believing that the object of any Education Policy should be the welfare of the child rather than the forwarding of some plan of educational progress, based on social theories, and keeping in mind that our immediate aim should be to develop our existing national system on practical lines, and to link up elementary education more closely with the various forms of advanced study… -Stanley Baldwin, 1924 Election Address

Today, Iain Duncan Smith releases his long-awaited report into poverty and social justice within British society. His policy review group has titled the report ‘Breakthrough Britain’, and it has uncovered much evidence about the root causes of poverty and social breakdown. Educational failure, family breakdown and addiction have all been highlighted by his team as major contributory factors to social ills within British communities.

The approach outlined in the ‘Breakthrough Britain’ report not only emphasises the importance of individual people being responsible for their own choices, it also highlights the role of government in helping people make the right choices in their adult lives, both for themselves and their offspring. Proper and practical education are clearly parts of the framework needed to lift people out of a desperate situation.

Last night, I chaired a policy forum meeting of Party activists from two local constituencies, Chesham & Amersham and Beaconsfield, discussing the importance and relevance of practical education in 21st century Britain. After much debate, we agreed on the principle importance of numeracy and literacy skills underpinning a future practical education. The general belief was that the education system should equip all of our young with the skills needed to realise their potential, be that academic or practical. It should also facilitate the full participation of all people in British society, both economically and culturally. And not only should this education attainment be limited to the young, but that it should also be applied to the millions of adults who sadly have poor numeracy and literacy skills as a consequence of the failed education policies of the past. For their full and active participation in future British society was strongly felt by all present to benefit British society.

In preparation for last night’s meeting, I discovered that Conservative Party policy on education had changed little in the last eighty years. The quotation above was taken from Balfour’s ‘manifesto’ in 1924. We Conservatives have always believed in practical politics, that is, policies that directly benefit individuals. Effective education has always been regarded as important by Conservatives because we have always known that it faciltates personal fulfilment, raises self-esteem and, above all, improves social mobility.

The ‘Breakthrough Britain’ report is a bold attempt to highlight the failures of the social experiment instituted and continued by Labour administrations over the last half century. It falls to the Conservative Party to be bold and brave in this realm of domestic policy, for we have a moral responsibility to help those trapped in poverty by Socialist dogma. Never has it been so clear that Britain now needs a resurgent Conservative Party to improve the lives of all Britons.

The natural aristocracy I consider as the most precious gift of nature for the instruction, the trusts, and government of society. – Thomas Jefferson

The on-going grammar school debate is about much more than a few academic state schools in Kent, Buckinghamshire and elsewhere. Judging by the anger and frustration shown by Conservative MPs across the spectrum of the party, it would appear that access to good education, in particular, access to a selective academic education for those children from more modest backgrounds, is an important defining issue for natural Conservatives. And this is because social mobility matters to people who are Conservative by experience. The BBC’s Political Editor, Nick Robinson, in his blog a few days ago, neatly encapsulated the present tensions within the Conservative Party generated by the recent education policy announcement.

It is widely believed that Margaret Thatcher’s electoral success was firmly based upon appealing to the ‘aspiring class’, to those people who believed that merit and hard work should be rewarded with success in life. Mrs Thatcher’s political gift was realising that a large section of the British electorate agreed with that famous American politician, Thomas Jefferson, who had argued in favour of a ‘natural aristocracy’. For Jefferson believed, that the development of such a social framework would benefit not only those that had the ability and application to succeed in life, but would also greatly aid the ‘common good’ by improving the overall governance of his country.

I have written previously on my own views about grammar schools. The “do we, don’t we” argument about grammar schools, however, should not be the real issue for us Tories. It should be more about our views regards the value of meritocracy in society. Jefferson felt strongly that an “artificial aristocracy” founded on “wealth and birth, without either virtue or talents” was a “mischievous ingredient in government”. I believe that for the Conservative Party to be electorally successful, it needs to re-establish its meritocratic credentials. Our education policy goes to very core of that task. If we allow ourselves to be charactured as appealing solely to those who are already successful in life, we will only guarantee ourselves electoral defeat.

It is nothing short of a national disgrace. This is in the 21st century, not Victorian Britain. – David Frost, Director General, British Chambers of Commerce

My 2005 General Election campaign in Blaenau Gwent taught me many things. One experience I did not anticipate, however, was to be harangued by constituents about the absence of a grammar school in the valley. In what was then the safest Labour seat in Wales, I did not expect to be ‘button-holed’ about selective education. And it did not just happen once. On my many visits to markets throughout the constituency, I met people who were fed up with the lack of opportunity for their children and grandchildren. The general feeling could be summed up as being: “none of our kids have a chance now, with a grammar school at least some of them would have”.

Yesterday, David Frost, director general of the British Chambers of Commerce, accused the education system in this country of “creating two nations – of haves and have nots”. Speaking in the opening sessions of the Chamber’s annual conference in London, he reported that half of Britain’s youngsters were leaving school without five decent GCSEs. He emphasised the need to tackle the “national disgrace” of young people leaving education without decent qualifications. As part of this drive to raise standards, he called for the re-introduction of grammar schools, institutions he described as “the escape route for the working class in post-war Britain”.

In his speech, Mr Frost quoted recent figures showing that more than one million young people were not in work, education or training while one in five were facing a lifetime on government handouts, double the figure in Germany and France and still growing. I saw many young people in Blaenau Gwent whose futures were that bleak. With the arrival of many workers from Eastern Europe, often with better skills and an impressive work ethic, I fear for their future. As there are now over 600,000 people from Eastern Europe working in the UK, the development of an unskilled “underclass” cannot be far off.

Increasingly, ‘average’ families are making sacrifices to send their children to private schools. Middle-class disillusionment with local state education services is often illustrated by “postcode spikes” in property prices near respected schools. These parents understand that life can be tough and that school should be about preparing their children for the realities of adult life. Competitive sport, academic streaming and proper discipline are all important parts of an education system. For me though, the key attribute that a private school education provides is self-confidence; the belief that if one has talent and applies oneself that there is no limit to success in life. Grammar schools once provided the same ethos.

I am a product of a grammar school (pictured above), and have no doubt that it was that sound academic base that provided me with the opportunity to become a doctor. The school motto,‘Te digna sequere’ (Follow things that are worthy of you), summed up the educational approach within the school. I fear that if I had been at a comprehensive school, I would not have gone on to study medicine. It is not that I needed an ‘escape route’ per se, more that I, and people from my background, would not not have had the opportunity to progress in life without the benefit of a grammar school education.

Clearly, in an ideal world the educational needs of all children could be provided under the same roof. Sadly, none of us live in an ideal world. With increasing movement of people across continents, competition for work will only become more intense in the future. In the light of that, Mr Frost’s candid comments yesterday are to be welcomed. Going to school should be about nurturing and supporting talent whilst engendering a good work ethic. It should not be about political ideology.

Drug addicts need help, not condemnation. They need to be understood, not locked up. It would follow, therefore, that to encourage crime amongst addicts would make little sense. Or, that is what you might think would be government policy. However, it is not.

Apparently, if a drug addict is arrested, he is entitled to immediate treatment for his addiction (that is, within 24 hours) only if the offence he has committed is NOT drug-related. Hence, if he has mugged an elderly lady, for example, he will be treated immediately. Perversely, if he is picked up in possession of a banned substance, he will have to wait up to 10 days to receive treatment. Now, I do not know why this odd situation has arisen. It is, however, indefensible. I care for some drug addicts in the Thames Valley. The last thing that these individuals need is time in prison – a place not known for preventing drug abuse.

This government, and indeed any future Conservative government, must get its drug policies right. To not do so, is socially irresponsible. All of us must recognise that drug addiction is a problem that needs to be dealt with maturely and calmly. In particular, politicians must resist the temptation to resort to empty sound-bites about being “tough on drugs”. Young people – for let us remember the majority using these drugs are under thirty years – will see through the charade of this fake toughness. Interestingly, it is these young people that all parties need to encourage to vote. Maybe if we addressed this issue appropriately (and sensibly) younger people might consider voting for us? Proper policy implementation in the realm of drugs use may lead to both better treatment of addicts and less apathy on voting day.

We make a living by what we get, but we make a life by what we give – Winston Churchill

Much has been written of late about the ‘obscene’ city bonuses paid out at the end of last year. It has been claimed that over 4000 city workers took home more than £1 million each in bonuses. Along with that have come the increased pay packets of ‘top bosses’, which according to some sources, have grown by over 40% in the last 12 months. Peter Hain, Northern Ireland Secretary, and more importantly, candidate for the Deputy Leadership of the Labour Party, tapped into the ‘Left’s’ disgust at the size of these financial rewards by calling for the recipients to give two-thirds of their windfalls to charities that help the poor.

Ignoring the blatant attempt to woo the left of his party, Mr Hain’s call should strike fear into the hearts of city folk. He implied that a future Labour administration could increase tax and regulation on the City if those who have have received a bumper Christmas bonus were not charitable enough. In saying this, Mr Hain revealed his Old Labour heart.

I recognise that the City of London, and its enlightened regulatory structure, are of great importance to the British economy. The high-bonus earners in the City that Mr Hain so despises are wealth creators – for example, making vast sums of money for pension funds. They also generate the wealth that would be taxed so heavily by the likes of Hain, Johnson and Cruddas to pay for their proposed increase in the size of the state. My fear would be that an increase in the burden of that taxation would lead to the capital, offices and jobs moving abroad. We could easily see London’s pre-eminence as a financial centre disappear should private equity and other such financial organisations be singled out for more punitive taxation. Private equity funds increase their financial returns by increasing companies’ profitability. They achieve this by increasing efficiency and improving output, beyond the plans of the established management team. This, in turn, increases capital, thereby benefitting the whole British economy.

However, I also recognise that the image of a successful few, spending their money ostentatiously, can lead to social imbalance, and the politics of envy. The recipients of these bonuses should be encouraged to earn more, but in doing so, be also encouraged to spend their hard-earned wealth with more social responsibility. That is why I think Boris Johnson has a point in yesterday’s Telegraph. The successful few have benefitted greatly from our capital city’s historic location near the centre of the global economy. That position will only be strengthened and maintained by proper investment in the talent of the future. What better way to spend a proportion of a city bonus than on investing in university education. Not only do I think it would be more worthy of each individual, it would also have a better long-term reward for their families than a new yacht. Philanthropy is commonplace in America. It should become so here.