Free Schools or Rich Fools?

Having just watched "Set up your own school" on iplayer I have to confess I was somewhat won over by the free schools movement. While not entirely convinced by the motivations of the group trying to set up the West London school, I couldn't help but think the principles behind the free schools idea are pretty sound.

The central principle behind both free schools and academies is parental choice. Fundamentally a New Labour idea, thinkers like Lord Adonis have advocated giving people greater choice in public services. The heir to this vision is now the Conservative Party, with Education Secretary Michael Gove building on Swedish and American examples to support free schools.

Some people in the Labour Party have kicked up a lot of fuss about free schools. The main arguments against the idea are based around social division. The thinking here is that allowing a group of parents to create their own school will exclude children whose parents do not share the same social background as the schools' founders. As a result, it is argued, a two-tier divide will open up in state education between children of very privileged parents and children from deprived areas who are unable to access these opportunities. It is this reasoning that also prompted the Liberal Democrats to vote against the proposals at their recent party conference.

My objection to this is the belief that most parents want to do the best for their children. Therefore, most parents would be thrilled to send their kids to the kind of school Toby Young wants to create in West London. Young's school will have an admissions policy where 75% of places are allocated on lottery. So the intelligence or wealth of children in that area of London will make no difference as to their eligibility for admission. Everyone, whether or not they are investment bankers or care workers, will have an equal chance of their child getting in. Much fairer, arguably, than the current system which allocates places based on distance from school, driving up house prices and excluding less affluent children.

As such, I have no principled objection against free schools and wish Toby Young all the best. Here are my caveats, however:

1. Exclusions - Toby Young says he wants a school based on strict discipline and intolerance of bad behaviour. Fine. It's pretty clear though that the majority of children who exhibit signs of bad behaviour will come from the poorer areas of West London. Will they be excluded when they put up the first resistance to compulsory Latin? Will the school retreat into its middle class comfort zone and only admit suitable children? Will it introduce aptitude testing for admission?

2. Cost - I have always thought it odd that a Conservative Party so enthusiastic about cutting public expenditure would promote free schools at this time. Creating an extra school means heating an extra classroom, building new facilities, employing new teachers etc. Where are the funds for this? Will they be diverted from existing successful schools? Will they come from other public services? Vulnerable people will find it difficult to accept cuts in funding just so Toby Young can teach kids Latin.

3. Accountability - as one person pointed out in the programme, like them or loath them, local councillors are elected officials. The performance of schools in an area will directly influence their prospects of re-election. What happens if the West London Free School turns out to be a failure? Who carries the can? What will be the position where a school decides to teach children that homosexuality is wrong, for example? It was interesting to see a 13 year old lad try to tell Young that kids may not flourish by being forced to learn Latin.

4. Motivations - it seems strange that Toby Young would invest so much time and energy in creating a new school because the high-performing state school in his area tries to teach children about multi-culturalism and respect. This suggests that people may want to set up their own school for all kinds of nasty reasons. Maybe someone will object to his local school teaching kids about evolution?

If Gove, Young or Cameron can answer these points, I for one would stand up in support. So let's hear the case.

The Future of Labour

Whatever one says about the Labour Party conference, it sure has been dramatic. With a tale of sibling rivalry drawing Biblical comparisons, Union barons officially 'back' in business, and a new leader that publicly denounces one of the central claims of his predecessor, the 2010 Conference has certainly been one of the most memorable in recent years.

The question is, however, where do we go from now? What should everyone make of Ed (the younger, panda-eyed brother) Miliband? Is he in the pocket of the Unions? Is he only interested in seizing power, whatever the cost? What are his views on the deficit? Is he a Blairite or a Brownite?

Here are my suggestions on what the party needs to do in the immediate future:

1. Put clear distance between itself and the unions when talking about cuts - while it is arguably right to support people that have been consistently mistreated at work, the public simply will not treat the Labour Party seriously if it runs to the hills and calls for strikes every time the Government tries to balance the books. Ed Miliband accepted this in his speech. Actions speak louder than words, however. I for one will be disappointed if the public come to associate Labour with industrial unrest, as we were in the 1970s.

2. Make sensible appointments to the Shadow Cabinet - to my mind this means making sure Ed Balls does not become Shadow Chancellor. While he is definitely combative and well-placed to attack the Tories, his extreme reluctance to engage with the debate on cuts will again suggest to people that we are not a serious party. Having created the deficit we must bear the responsibility of proving that we were going to reduce it. Balls is incapable of understanding this. A better appointment, in my opinion, would be his wife Yvette, or Andy Burnham.

3. Take up the cause of progressive social policy - this is one of the key areas we can challenge the Liberals and inflict damage on the coalition. We should be advocating things like gay marriage and a living wage with increased enthusiasm. Put the ball in Cameron and Clegg's court. Labour should come to be viewed as the only party prepared to fully embrace these ideas.

4. Maintain a tough stance on crime - it is my firmly held view that being tough on crime is in no way "right-wing". The overwhelming majority of crime takes place against the poor. It doesn't happen in middle-class suburban communities inhabited by Guardian readers. Rather, it occurs in the most deprived places in Britain. Labour must understand this and maintain our commitment to rooting it out. This means supporting tough sentencing, police powers, and DNA records.

5. Get rid of the dead wood - as a young member of the party I am dismayed by the influence ageing politicians have in the modern set-up. Ken Livingstone has again been nominated for London Mayor, beating a young woman with new ideas. Lord Kinnock appeared to be one of the most vocal figures at conference, despite last leading the party in 1992. Charlie Whelan. Lord Prescott. Michael Meacher. The list goes on. If Ed is serious about belonging to a new generation then he should put faith in exciting younger talent like Chuka Umunna and Caroline Flint and make us a dynamic alternative.

6. Last but most importantly - let us please unite. No more soap operas. I supported David Miliband from the start and thought he was clearly the best candidate. So did many others. It doesn't matter anymore. The Labour Party should for once speak with a sole united voice and get to work booting out the grubby coalition about to inflict all kinds of problems on this country.

Last of the summer wine

Where did the time go?

This summer, for whatever reason, has gone by far quicker than any other. It only feels like yesterday that I was sitting my final undergraduate exam. Next week I start a new course in London.

On the whole I think it's been a good summer - I've had a great holiday, improved my CV, and earned a reasonable amount of cash. Despite this, I feel like there is some big thing that was meant to happen but didn't. Summer just, well, stopped.

Moving to London means leaving the countryside once again. While I can well understand the gradual boredom one experiences when living here for an extended period of time, to my mind it is impossible not to appreciate the calming and refreshing qualities of country life. I love it. Whether it is the stunning landscapes, the warmth of the local people, or the fact that one can walk for miles without hearing a single sound, the countryside will always be home for me.

That said, I'm sure I will find living in London a diverse and valuable experience. Out with the old and in with the new, as they say.