Chapter 19 Section 5 The Selsdon Woman

When I returned to London, I was transferred to the shadow cabinet education secretary.Edward Boyle is leaving politics to become vice-chancellor of the University of Leeds.Edward was opposed by many at the annual meeting because he was not firm enough to protect the grammar school.Despite our differences of opinion, I am saddened by his passing.He was an old friend of mine in politics, and I know I will miss his wit, acumen and integrity.But it was a complete upgrade for me, even though I later learned that I was originally a back-up option and that Keith Joseph was originally the first choice to replace Edward.I got the job because Reggie Maudlin refused to replace Keith as shadow trade and industry spokesman.

I'm very happy with my new role.I know I got where I am today because I was educated liberally (or nearly so) and I want others to have the same opportunity, socialist education policy - all down to To strike a balance, depriving gifted students of the opportunity to continue their studies is an important obstacle for students to obtain a good education.I was also fascinated by the scientific aspect of the role, which at the time was in charge of the Shadow Cabinet's Department of Education and Science.In addition, I think women, at least mothers, are instinctively concerned with children's education.

Education was one of the main battlefields of political struggle at that time. After the 1964 general election, the Labor Party decided to turn the entire secondary education system into a comprehensive school system, and took a series of measures to require local education authorities to submit reform plans. (A few months after I became shadow education spokesman, the Labor Party introduced the relevant bill to Parliament.) Edward's difficulty in considering how the Conservative Party should respond and explain why it did so quickly came to my attention. in front of. The Shadow Cabinet and the Conservative Party have great differences on the principle of the selection system for secondary education, especially the examination for selecting students over the age of 11, that is, the secondary school entrance examination.For the sake of simplicity, it is necessary to distinguish four different attitudes within the Conservative Party.First, there are people who have no real interest in state education at all because they or their children attend private schools.This group is important, and they are unlikely to be swayed by disputes over political expediency.Second, there are those who have failed, either themselves or their children, to enter a grammar school, and who are disillusioned with the education they receive in modern secondary schools.Third, there were some Conservatives, either because they were teachers themselves, or because they had some other connection to education, who embraced many of the prevailing theories of equality at the time.Finally, there are grammar-school educated people like myself who strongly oppose the abolition of grammar schools and who support selection without hesitation.

I also realize that the views within the shadow cabinet are largely the same as above.In general, shadow ministers do not want to make education a major issue at the next general election.This is not necessarily a silly point.Both internal Conservative polls and public opinion polls show that selection for pupils over the age of 11 is unpopular and people are at least ready to say they support comprehensive schools.Whether they would feel the same way if they were asked how they felt about the reorganization of certain local schools under a comprehensive plan, and whether they understood what "integrated" means is, of course, another matter.For example, there is a big difference between the comprehensive meaning of the concept of synthesis and a school that is open to all incoming students but divides students according to intelligence.The concept of synthesis belongs first to social engineering and second to education in which students are not divided by intelligence.In fact, as I later pointed out in February 1970 in the debate on the second reading of Labour's Education Bill: the socialist attack on selection is absurd, since selection must continue in some form through the age of eleven. The education system of the above students.I should have added at the time that if you do not select on intelligence, you will inevitably select on some other unsatisfactory criterion, which is in fact often income, because wealthy families move their families to wealthy families. Where the middle class live with good schools for their children's education.Some Labor MPs and many Labor supporters are well aware of this.So they felt betrayed by Harold Wilson when he reneged on the promise he had made to support the grammar schools.My surprise victory in the committee debate, which resulted in Labor removing Section 1 of the Education Bill, was due to the willful absence of two Labor MPs.

When I later took over the shadow education department, the party's policy group had submitted a report.Education policy has been basically determined.It has two main aspects: one is that we have decided to focus on improving primary schools.Second, in order to minimize the debate over the selection system for students aged 11 and above, we emphasize that local education authorities have the autonomy to recommend the retention of grammar schools or the establishment of comprehensive schools, instead of the Labor Party's policy of mandating comprehensive schools. There are good reasons for this plan: first, that improving the education of children is very important if the rising tide of illiteracy and the inability to count is to be checked.Second, in fact the best way to preserve grammar schools is to oppose centralization.Of course there is another reason.There is little point in spending a lot of money on kindergarten, primary education and teachers if the teaching methods and attitudes are wrong.Of course we cannot in the long run defend grammar schools, or private schools for that matter, direct grant schools, or even the integration of separate schools, if our struggle in this area is not based on principle School.

I did everything I could within the limits of established policies and political realities.I later learned that, for some, I had gone too far, and that shortly after my appointment as education spokesman I was invited to a luncheon for education journalists at the Camberland Hotel in London, at There, I learned this.I argue not only for grammar schools but also for modern schools, where children who struggle to excel academically can in fact be given opportunities for self-expression and personal dignity.They would never get that if they were in direct constant competition with the kids who were more academically superior.I'm also fully prepared to see the over-11 selection system be abolished or revised and the children tested at a later date, if people wish.I know that it is very possible to transfer late bloomers to the local grammar school so that their abilities can be properly developed.I'm sure too many modern schools offer a second-rate education.But this disadvantage can be improved by raising the standard of its teaching, not by lowering the standard of grammar schools.Only two people at the Cumberland's luncheon seemed to agree with me.Also, I was dealing with people who were hostile and didn't understand my opinion at all.Not only did they think I was wrong, but they couldn't imagine that I could really believe such things.It amazes me how much those who provide educational information to the public are influenced by socialist ideas.

There are also relatively less important issues to be decided on in Conservative education policy.I fought hard for the Conservative Party's unconditional pledge in their election manifesto to raise the school-leaving age to 16, and succeeded, only the people in charge of the finances were skeptical.I also suggested at the Conservative Party discussion at the Selsdon Park Hotel in early 1970 that the election manifesto should endorse the proposed plan to establish a new independent University of Buckingham, which was strongly urged by Ted Heath be opposed to.Despite the support of Keith Joseph and others, I was unsuccessful, but at least I was finally allowed to mention the university in a speech.I never understood why Ted opposed it so vehemently.

The Conservative Party's policy meeting at the Selsdon Park Hotel over a weekend in late January and early February was a success.But the reason for success is not what is often claimed.It is wrong to say that the Conservative debate at the Selsdon Park Hotel led to a radical rightward shift in Conservative policy.Prior to this, everyone has reached an agreement on the main policies, which have been written into the draft of the election platform.We spent a lot of time thinking it over.We have carefully described our immigration policy.Our proposals for trade union reform have been published in Fair Trading.On income policy, there has been a somewhat inexplicable shift to the right.Labor has completely abandoned its own policy, so there is no need to address the vexing question of whether some kind of "voluntary" income policy is needed.Apparently, Reggie Maudlin is unhappy that we haven't come up with a plan to address what he calls "wage inflation".In fact, this campaign platform eschews both monetarist and Keynesian ideas, simply saying: "The main reason for rising prices is Labor's policy of high taxes and currency devaluation. Labor's mandatory wage controls are One failure, and we will not repeat it." This statement may seem muddled, but it is wise.

But this got us into some trouble later on.During the election campaign, the fallacious argument that high taxes caused inflation led to a short commentary from Central Headquarters which later allowed Labor to claim that the Conservatives said they could cut prices in one fell swoop by cutting taxes. With the heavy coverage of the Selsdon Park Hotel meeting in the press, we appeared to be an alternative to a government that could take a serious long-term view of future British policy.And Harold Wilson's attack on Heath as a "Selsdon man" helped us again by giving us a down-to-earth, popular-winning right-wing party, which contributed to Ted's cold image. In short, both the Selsdon Park Hotel meeting and the Conservative Party's platform "Better Tomorrow" dimmed the Wilson government.Especially after the Wilson government gave up "Replacing the Quarrel" under the pressure of the trade unions, the government was intrigued, unable to decide what to do, and continued to deal.

In the period between our meeting at the Selsdon Park Hotel and the start of the campaign on the 5th, there was a back-and-forth in the polls reflecting the standing of the two parties.When we met at the Selsdon Park Hotel, we were ahead and we thought we could win the election.On the 5th we fell behind very suddenly.A few percentage points behind the Labor Party.Encouraged by the short-term change in opinion poll results, Harold Wilson called a general election on June 10 - a mistake I never forgot as Prime Minister.At the time, most of the Conservative Party, myself included, thought we were going to lose the general election.The melancholy was getting stronger, and one day during the general election I went to the Conservative Research Office in Old Queen's Street to ask for some material, and I was amazed to see how deeply depressed everyone seemed to be.

Exactly how (or to what extent) the change in poll results occurred is unknown.When a general election is approaching, there are always some disenchanted supporters who renew their loyalty to the party.But it is also true that during our many years in opposition we failed to seriously set out to win the struggle against socialist ideas.We will pay a heavy price for this when we govern in the future.Also, what we didn't realize was that we should have done a fundamental rethink of our policies, but we didn't. In this election, the Labor Party has lashed out at our policies.And our side, like any opposition party, but more boldly and timely than most opposition parties, exposed that the Labor Party had broken a series of promises - "industrial steady growth", "without expedient measures", "no tax increases", "no increase in unemployment". number of people", "the pound in your pocket will not depreciate", "economic miracle" and so on.That was what my campaign speech was about, but I also took the opportunity to speak at a dinner organized by the National Federation of Senior Teachers in Scarborough to present our education policy. It's hard to know what turned the tide, if any, against us.Strange to say, but it is true.The two men who made the most significant contributions to the Conservative Party turned out to be two bitter enemies: Ted Heath and Enoch Powell.No one can say that Ted is a good communicator, the important reason is that Ted largely does not pay attention to communication.But over time, Ted was found to be a decent man with integrity and vision.He has a vision of Britain's future - albeit one that smacks of technocracy.In Keith's words to me five years ago, Ted had "a passion to save Britain".This is highlighted by Ted's important quotes for the campaign manifesto.In it he attacked Labour's government as "cheap, mediocre, a swindler".He promised "a new type of government".Ted's final campaign radio address also showed that he was a devoted patriot who cared deeply about his country and would die for her.Although nothing can save him if we lose, he has had a great campaign. Enoch Powell is also excellent.There has been much speculation about whether Enoch will support the Conservative leader and his plans.Attitudes toward Enoch were also widely divided within the party.He spoke to our association in March and we were severely criticized for it.I decided to issue a statement to the effect that: "Those who enjoy this country's great tradition of free speech should not deny that freedom to others, especially those who, like Mr. Powell, built military excellence during the war years." In the June election, Enoch made three important speeches on the Labor government's economic mistakes, law and order, and European issues, calling on people to vote for the Conservative Party.Furthermore, Tony Benn's vicious personal attacks on Enoch - associating him with fascism - likely rallied many voters who would not otherwise have supported him to his side.Some statistics suggest that Enoch's involvement tilted the otherwise close race in the West Midlands towards the Conservatives. When my election results were announced at Hendon Technical College, there was a huge applause from the crowd.The results showed that I had 11,000 more papers than the Labor Party candidate, and my advantage was larger than before.Then I went to the Daily Telegraph party at the Savoy Hotel, where I quickly learned: the polls had been proven wrong and we were on the verge of a parliamentary majority. On Friday, I cleared the papers in my constituency and wrote some thank you notes as usual.I think Ted will absorb at least one woman into his cabinet.Now that Ted has accepted me in the shadow cabinet, I will be that lucky lady.By the same logic, I am likely to get the post of Education Secretary. On Saturday morning, the private secretary at Number 10 called and said Ted wanted to see me.I went to the Cabinet Office to congratulate him on his victory in the general election, but we didn't spend much time being courteous, he was straight and straight.He offered me the post of education secretary, which I accepted. Dennis and I returned to our apartment in Westminster Gardens and then drove back home to Lamberhurst.I am sad that my father did not live to share this moment with me today.I went back to Grantham to see him before he died in February.His chest had always been bad, he developed emphysema, and he was kept alive on oxygen cylinders by his bed.My stepmother Cisse was by his side all the time.They were married a few years ago and my father lived happily with her.While I was there, friends from church, business, local politics, the Rotary Club, and the bowling club would often come to "check on Alf's health."I wish I had as many good friends on my deathbed. I was on a radio show that I know my dad listened to until he died.He would not have imagined that I would become a cabinet minister and I am sure he never envisaged that I would end up as a prime minister.He probably wants it all from me because politics is such a big part of his life and my daughter is so similar to him.But he never considered political power to be the most important, or even the most effective, thing in life.As I was digging through my files, gathering material for this book, on the back of my sixth-grade chemistry notebook, I found some outlines of my father's scattered sermons: No decree, no power, no law can save a human being, a country, or even any particular generation.We worry about it and eventually we lose heart and our beliefs start to waver.And this worry has been around since ancient times—Jesus had these problems 2,000 years ago...that's why Jesus came to earth. My father held this belief until his death.