Posh and posher

I was delighted, on Andrew Neil's programme last night on class, to hear the strains of Cowerd's The Stately homes of England (here, I think) at one point. It's a metaphor for the programme - it was all very enjoyable, and there is a proper point, but it was overly simplistic and the argument relied on sleight of hand.

Now, as I agreed with the answer - more selection, more rigour, now - I wondered why I found it so unsatisfying. And it is the shallowness of the debate, mirrored by the shallowness of the debate A and I then had. Having had time to think about it, the essential problem is that it conflated two quite different things. On the one hand, meritocracy and on the other homogeneity, and this permeated the whole debate. Too often, the problems of access to power (education, network etc) being in the hands of a tiny section of the population became mixed up with 'they all went to similar universities.' These are not necessarily linked. For example, were we to ensure that all the best people, regardless of background, went to Oxbridge, would we care that the cabinet was dominated by them? I suspect more people care about the private school thing; more people should care about the latter. But we should recognise the policy issues are distinct.

As an aside, there were also some unconsidered views on elitism (seen as bad, when it's probably good), and a mix up of causal factors: of course a lot of people who became politicians did politics at university. In fact, it's not even surprising they went to Oxford, which is where those kind of people go. Cambridge has a rubbish Prime Ministerial record.

Deserving of more scrutiny is the selection point. I have neither time and inclination to do so, but it is worth making a few points about this debate.

• Firstly, education is complex. There are obvious variations in focus, and importantly it is the main engine of social mobility. Unlike, say health, rank matters as much as attainment. So, within the country, being the longest lived person is less important than living another ten years; within education, coming first is more important than getting a doctorate. This is critical I think to policy development, and often ignored
• Thus, the debate about rigour often seems one sided. Take for example the English Bac debate. We can all agree that Gove should not have done this retrospectively, but it highlights in that wonderful phrase (used by the Economist last week) 'the soft bigotry of low expectations.' Banging on about the unfairness focusing on those 5 GCSEs misses the point. Life demands maths, English, analytical skill in the scientific and human spheres, and an appreciation of other cultures. By not teaching them, children don't just do badly in things that matter later, they don't even place. There is a debate to be had about whether Law is a harder A level than Maths (it isn't), but it misses most of the point.
• Linked to this is the issue of soft selection. Currently, there is extensive selection in the state system. More subtle than an entrance exam, thus only really discernable to the middle class, thus far far worse than hard selection, whereby everyone knows the rules. I find it astonishing that we decry it (absurdly) when Oxford practises an interview system, but allow 'comprehensives' to select on a variety of aptitudes for a proportion of pupils. Selection is good when it's simple and clear. 
• Finally, fairness. A's objection to selection is always that the 11+ is that it is unfair. Andrew Neil seems to agree. So it is - some people do badly out of it. But so is every other system. The test is not 'is it fair?' but is it fairer or better than the alternative. The evidence from social mobility I think is now pretty clear that comprehensive education has failed; attainment is probably better, but also weak. 

Could we design a better system than that of the 1950s? I suspect so, but it would still be highly selective. In an ideal world, a well-resourced streaming comprehensive would be best. And a lot could be done with precision of requirement and focus on objectives even now. However, resources are constrained, and it is easier and cheaper to group and teach accordingly, allowing cohesion and expectation to do the work of individual attention. Without vast resources, sound selection is the best way to do the most good.

Fight for the right to filibuster

I am loving the Lords debate about electoral reform - especially the bit about prime numbers. I'm most amused to see Labour, who drivelled on about family friendly hours and ending all night sittings in the 1990s suddenly converted to the filibuster (though Faulkner is still denying this is what it is).

I'm delighted they're filibustering and I think the Liberals et al miss the point when they claim that is undemocratic. Firstly, the Lords isn't meant to be, and secondly, if all they did was vote, we could do legislation in minutes. Instead, we debate, and if people feel so strongly they're willing to stay up all night to delay it, that's fine. Electorates won't stand for it being done all the time, and in the end government will pass it. So, another anathema on the Liberals.

To the points of substance. I think the issues under debate are being confused unhelpfully. Let's break them out (apart from AV, because no-one cares)

• Is the constituency plan proposed gerrymandering?
• Is the proposed equalisation plan a good idea?
• Is 600 the right number of constituencies?
• Should AV and the equalisation be yoked in legislation?

Firstly, gerrymandering: now, it may be that the process for carving up the new constituencies is corrupt, but no one has alleged this. Instead the accusation on gerrymandering seems to be that this will benefit the Tories. Indeed it will, but only because the current system benefits Labour. Equalising constituency sizes is, on a numerical basis, fair; not gerrymandering

Is it a good idea? Obviously not. This - hidden in this unhelpfully titled article is the real point. It is pointless to keep constituencies if they don't represent real boundaries. That's a bad idea, but it's not gerrymandering, and it's not that important. It's damning that Labour is up all night to block a reduction in its MPs, but not about 'too far too fast' cuts.

The final two points seem to have become Labour causes and I cannot fathom how they are allowed to get away with it. On numbers, while rhetorically it's easy to shout 'why not 500? why not 700?' but why 651? The number is arbitrary and irrelevant. Just pick one and get on with it. And the yoking point is irrelevant. Lots of things are yoked together, especially in coalitions. I suggest if you want to see irrelevant things yoked together in bills you should visit the States. This is mild, and perfectly reasonable. You could divorce the controversial from the uncontroversial, but you could do that with every bill; we'd be here forever with piecemeal legislation and exhausted parliamentarians.

Ultimately, everyone seems to be under a mistaken view of the purpose of an electoral system. Politics is not there to reflect with accuracy the views of the people, thank God. Rather it's there to ensure stability, law, and then prosperity and well-being. A 'democratic' system isn't better if it leads to chaos or war (as this article on Tunisia fails to understand). So, I would recommend everyone stops quibbling, and stops trying to change things, especially the Lords, for they're the best bit of our parliament, even (nay especially) in filibuster mode.