Commentators are claiming that Labour is embarking on a strategy of "class war". But the Conservative are making selective use of MPs' school background.
Leading commentator, Benedict Brogan, today claims that Labour is embarking on a strategy of “class war” but are the Conservative also playing this game?
The ‘Meet the Shadow Cabinet’ section of conservatives.com contains a variable approach to MPs’ school background. David Cameron’s entry makes no mention of Eton while the entry for his chief lieutenant, George Osborne, makes only the anodyne statement that he was “born and educated in London”. Indeed he was, at the exclusive St Paul’s School. Cheryl Gillian’s entry merely reads “Born in Llandaff, Cardiff and educated at local schools until the age of ten,” while omitting to mention that she was later schooled at the prestigious Cheltenham Ladies College. Her own website mentions the Ladies College.
Meanwhile other MPs’ biographies, including Greg Clarke, William Hague, and Philip Hammond, contain details of their state school educational background. This trend is played out again and again on the biographies of the Tory PPCs.
Andrew Lansley used the “class war and politics of envy” defence to explain Gordon Brown’s PMQ attack on Eton on the Daily Politics yesterday. Responding to a specific question about the education listings, Lansley said he had “no idea” why they were left off and referred to his own schooling at private Brentwood School, which does appear on the Tory website. John Hutton said, “they know it’s a problem; they leave it out.”
Perhaps the truth is that the true schooling doesn’t sit so well with their new-found ‘commitment’ to tackling the problems of poverty and inequality.
A longer version of this article appears on http://slingerblog.blogspot.com
22 Responses to “Are the Tories playing class warfare?”
Ben Cooper
The Tories & selective schooling: http://bit.ly/8dqQ8K (via @leftfootfwd) #ToriesNeedAnEducation
Billy Blofeld
Liz,
Disagree. Give me National Insurance Dollars to spend on the NHS hospital that is best able to meet my selection criteria.
Hospitals will vary their price according to their facilities, current capacity, specialists available, MRSA statistics etc…
Demand from people will “pull” resources into the most appropriate hospitals. ‘Just In Time’.
Hospitals will not need expensive consultants trying to second guess efficiency measures and direct resources. The people will place their NHS dollars and the resources will flow to the right place at the right time.
NHS services which are under used will die (use it or loose it people). Other hospitals will be able to attract more investment and become even more specialist in fields such as cancer or heart care etc.
In essence: This model delegates responsibility from politicians to the people. How can some central planner in Whitehall second guess the day to day planning needs of an organisation like the NHS? Let the “demand” of the people pull the central government investment through.
This would increase the quality of the NHS. It would increase quality for all and not by postcode. It would allow more spent on the frontline and less wasted on management.
All I’m suggesting is applying “Lean Manufacturing” concepts in a hospital environment. We could have world class NHS with the amount we spend.
Take responsibility away from politicians and QUANGO’s. Give power to the people. Let “actual demand” govern the NHS and not theoretical models planned months in advance.
Liz McShane
Billy – think it would cause anarchy if nothing else. What about all the research and pioneering techniques that The NHS is great at – not always profitable but essential. How would you pay for this plus all the medical training? something that BUPA et al don’t do but are happy to reap the benefits from free of charge.
Guido Fawkes
One privately educated politician who hides his privileged background, and embarrassing pictures (wearing Nazi uniforms) from his drinking days at Oxford is Ed Balls. And he went to Eton for term…
Billy Blofeld
Liz,
BUPA would be mad if it didn’t make it’s capability available to NHS with NHS Dollars to spend. Thus NHS patients will have access to equal facilities as private patients. BUPA customers would in fact part fund the NHS.
Research and pioneering hospitals would further improve. If Great Ormond Street attracted more “child patients” from across the NHS, then the amount of money and funding flowing their way would increase. More funding means, more money spent on research and pioneering development in children’s medicine – because that is what “actual demand” warranted.
Anarchy? How? A hospital with excess capacity would drop it’s NHS dollars price for a given operation and regulate flow across the whole NHS system.
There would be some level of NHS management in my model, just a lot less, since “actual demand” governs the hospital and tens of thousands or bored, half worked NHS staff or overpaid commercial consultancies.