Theresa May and Grammar Schools

On 11th July 2016 Theresa May took over as Prime minister, due to David Cameron’s resignation. Having been educated at a grammar school herself, May has expressed her desire to reintroduce grammar schools in the UK.

On 9th September, May announced her plans to reintroduce grammar schools and her view that schools should have the right to choose pupils based on ability. The prime minister suggested in her plan schools becoming much more selective and she thinks the ban has been in place far too long, causing a lot of controversy amongst the public. There would be £50m of new funding put towards this plan.

The chief inspector of Ofsted thinks May’s plans will `undo years of progress’ and the labour party thinks the changes will `entrench inequality’. One of the biggest worries is that poorer pupils are under-represented in grammar schools so May declared that new and expanding grammar schools will take quotas of poor pupils or grammar schools will help run other schools to help poorer students get the same opportunities.

The prime minster stated that we are `sacrificing children's potential because of dogma and ideology’ and argues that schools are already selected on house price and wealth. Additionally specialist disciplines such as music and sport can be the basis of selection so the same approach should be taken for those who are academically gifted. The plans will also include the ability for bright children to join grammar schools, not just at 11, but at 14 and 16 as well, so all age groups receive the same opportunities.

Most people assumed an Act of Parliament would be needed to end the current ban introduced by Labour in 1998, however, this is not necessary. To ensure the system is fair, a meeting will take place on how to make the tests more inclusive so it is not limited to families who can pay for tutoring in order to pass the test. Jeremy Corbyn, the leader of the Labour Party, said his party would block these proposals to end the ban and they believe it is ` dividing children on the basis of their perceived ability at the age of 11’.

GC

Brexit means Brexit

On the 31st August 2016, Theresa May led a “Brexit brainstorm” at Chequers Court. 

Along with the many ideas being deliberated at the meeting, Mrs May wanted to make it clear that “Brexit means Brexit”. Yet, there is no need to fret Remainers, as a legal analysis of Article 50 has recently been published, which would have Brexiters across the UK spilling their brandy all over their country-estate-carpet. May said the UK government will not trigger Article 50 until the start of 2017 at the earliest, which in turn would start the 2-year process of Britain leaving the EU. The proposition suggests that once article 50 is invoked there is no turning back – doomsday for Britain. However, the reality is that Article 50 is a notification of Britain’s “intention” to leave the EU. In law, the word “intention” cannot be interpreted as a final and irreversible decision, therefore the “intention” can be withdrawn. So, hypothetically speaking, if a new government was elected which represented the remain side, the intention to leave the EU would be no more, which would cause a rekindling of relationships between the UK and it’s former partner countries. 

Another issue issued discussed at Chequers was the approach towards a possible deal with the EU. May made the need for a "unique" deal for the UK clear, however, what the deal would be or how it would be ratified was not clarified. The reiteration of the issues is hardly ground-breaking progress and, if anything, it is making the idea of a perfect deal which pleases all seem more unattainable than originally thought. The SNP has accused the government of "breathtaking complacency", Mr Hugo Swire MP, who campaigned for Remain, made it obvious that the government has no idea what they want to achieve, and Ex-Chancellor Lord Lawson (a leave campaigner) wants the government to “stop wasting time trying to negotiate the unnegotiable”. 

Is it possible to achieve the “unique deal”? 

Unlikely! Why would the EU grant the UK a perfect deal that would possibly cause the collapse of the whole system? The most likely outcome is that the UK will remain part of the single market, which makes one question the point of the hassle and financial loss, for a life that practically mirrors one inside of the EU. 

Should Brexit really mean Brexit? FB

Leadsom vs May

As Michael Gove was voted out of the leadership race on Thursday, there are now just two contenders left – Andrea Leadsom and Theresa May. This means that the next Tory leader will be a woman, making her the first female Prime Minister since Margaret Thatcher in the 1980s. But the question remains, which of the two is better suited for the role?

In Thursday’s ballot, May received 199 votes whilst Leadsom won just 84. However, it is suggested that she is still able to gain the necessary support to overtake May by September – especially since the vote on September 9^th is opened to all Conservative members.

Leadsom was a prominent figure during the Leave campaign for the referendum, appearing in two TV debates, during which she was highly praised for her well-reasoned arguments. Several MPs, including Nicky Morgan, believe that the best person to lead this country during the upcoming negotiations for Britain’s exit from the EU is a Brexit voter, as they will fully understand the motives for people voting leave and truly want a full exit from the EU. As a result, this favours Leadsom as May was a Remain supporter. However, May believes that Britain does not need a Brexit-supporting Prime Minister, as the exit from the EU will only be a small part of the duties of the next leader. The day-to-day running of the country and domestic issues will still need to be dealt with. Additionally, a pro-EU Prime Minister may help to unite the Conservatives and the public after a divisive referendum, as both Leave and Remain voters will feel as if their wishes are being respected.

May has been in politics for much longer than Leadsom, having become an MP in 1997, whereas Leadsom was elected in 2010. This greater experience may mean that she is better able to cope with the challenges of being the Prime Minister. May has experience of being a senior Tory, as she is one of the longest-serving Home Secretaries in British history, having held this position since 2010. However, she has been criticised for failing to cut net migration down to 100,000 a year as was promised by the government. On the other hand, Leadsom currently occupies a junior position as the Minister for Energy and Climate Change. She claims this is no disadvantage, as she had many jobs in the financial sector before entering politics, including being a Barclays investment banker, working at a fund management company and founding her own charity. This real-world, finance experience could be more valuable, as she understands the needs of businesses. However, this is something May has too as she used to work at the Bank of England.

Andrea Leadsom has been accused of tax avoidance using offshore accounts and as a result she has been pressurised to publish her tax returns. However, she has not said that she will do this if elected. Theresa May, on the other hand, said that she would. This has led to an untrustworthy image being painted of Leadsom, which is particularly harmful in this uncertain time when the public need to feel as if they can trust the leader of the country. She has also previously supported scrapping all workers’ rights for employees in very small businesses. Whilst this contradicts with her current promises to protect workers’ rights, it does lead us to question if the protection of the particularly vulnerable is a priority for her.

A likeable personality and an ability to reassure and persuade the public is needed to lead a country successfully. Critics of Theresa May say that she lacks charisma, making her unsuitable for this role. She has also been criticised for failing to guarantee the rights of EU nationals to stay in Britain following the referendum, when what these people need now is reassurance and certainty.

Overall, I think that May is the candidate more suited for the leadership, as Leadsom’s lack of political experience is a significant issue and May has shown herself to be both capable and competent in holding senior positions in the party.

AE