I am old enough to remember when another Anthony led us into a disastrous war, and was economical with the truth. He then resigned, gave way to his Chancellor of the Exchequer who two and a half years later was rewarded with an increased Parliamentary majority and a demoralised Opposition losing its third election in succession. One thing is certain. If we go back to the bad old days of seeming to be a divided party we will go down to a certain fourth defeat and deservedly so.

The electoral arithmetic is difficult enough as it is. Don’t our MPs, candidates, and Central Office realise this?

On the by elections, it seems little money was spent and little help given at Sedgefield – the party workers and candidate left to fend for themselves. Everything was poured into Ealing, Southall. But why, or why, parachute in an unknown candidate who, however likeable, had only two weeks earlier donated £4,800 to the Labour Party? Was there no proper procedure for establishing how long he had been a member of the Party and what of his history and background? And what about this (Sunday Telegraph, July 15): George Osborne "standing barefoot in an orange hygiene hat serving lentil curry in a Sikh temple". I regard that as a gimmick which, judging by the result, did us no good and on which may well have put off some voters.

Of much more importance were four announcements during late June and early July. Under normal circumstances a Government in its eleventh year of office would be on the ropes. Alas, these are not normal times.

An independent report concluded that the gap between the richest and poorest people in the UK is at its widest for 40 years.

One of Gordon Brown’s last acts as Chancellor was to knock £2 billion off the health budget in England.

In some parts of the country couples are now having to borrow up to 10 times their average salary to gain a mortgage.

Irrespective of the need for equipment etc., more British soldiers pro rata are being killed in Iraq than American soldiers.

I haven’t the faintest idea as to the response from our front bench spokesmen. Yet there was plenty of comment in the newspapers. I sincerely hope we are not expecting journalists like Minette Martin, Patience Wheatcroft and Ron Liddle to do the job for us. So are we making the most of the opportunities given to us to attack Government failures?

I think we would be foolish to underestimate the ability of Gordon Brown to appeal to Middle England (whatever that is). After 13 years of coveting the top job he is now "primus inter pares" and will be no push over. The fact that he is a Scot is irrelevant. He is no James Callaghan coming to the job at close on retirement age. In his speeches he often refers to British values and the United Kingdom despite the fact that the Scottish Nationalists are in control in Scotland and the Welsh Nationalists are in a coalition with Labour in the Welsh Assembly. So the case is made both for unity and devolution (with the West Lothian question conveniently ignored) – a classic example of being in the circus and riding at the same time two horses pulling in opposite directions.

The Prime Minister, whatever he says to the contrary, is a believer in big Government, high taxation and the mighty hand of the State in determining how people should organise their lives. We are promised more directives, more reform and upheaval in the National Health Service, the House of Lords or whatever. Government is truly the master of the people, not its servant. This should be fertile ground for all Conservatives. There is a good case to be made for the smaller state; one which could be made without seeming to be harsh, uncaring or extremely right wing. I often hear this phrase: "I joined the Labour Party because I share its values!" How often do we Conservatives talk about values? Too little, I’m afraid. And the words "heir to Thatcher" or "heir to Blair" are bandied about as if they have any real meaning. As far as I am concerned the only heirs to Thatcher and Blair are their children.

We cannot escape the tremendous changes which have taken place over the last ten years and some of them have been for the better. And if things are seen to be working, we should, as in the past, leave them alone.

The response from those on the left to the report of Iain Duncan Smith’s Social Justice Commission was entirely predictable. A long list of those people it does not help and a glossing over of the idea that marriage and stability in family life should be encouraged. Maybe they are afraid accepting such policies would lose them votes.

How then should we fight the next General Election whenever it comes? We have to be realistic. We know from John Major’s experience that an overall majority of 20 is probably insufficient and were we to have a majority of 43 (as in Margaret Thatcher’s first election) we would need to gain 147 seats in a Parliament of 645 members. Not only that – we would need 42% of the total poll and at least an 8% lead over Labour. We are nowhere near achieving this. But on the positive side we still can gain many marginal seats in and around the big English conurbations. We do exactly what Labour did in 1992. Well behind in the national poll, they concentrated their resources and manpower in the 70 or so most marginal seats, picking up 50 or so of them, and in the 1992-1997 Parliament they were able to harry an administration which had become tired after 13 years in office and reeling as a result of the economic crisis caused by leaving the ERM and rebellious Euro Sceptic back benchers. In addition we now have a lot more councillors, many of whom are in crucial marginal seats. But the lessons of Ealing Southall must be learnt. An article in the Sunday Times of July 29 in the Review Section confirms this was a disaster waiting to happen. Labour, in power, has been very very lucky. There has been no serious economic crisis and whenever disaster has seemly struck it has been ridden out with a display often bordering on arrogance.

I believe we must put a clear and convincing case for a smaller state. Again I quote from the Sunday Times: "The average Briton this year will have to work from January 1 to July 23 to meet the cost of Government. In 2000 people only had to work until June 26" – nearly a month more. And under Gordon Brown’s Chancellorship!! Over the last 10 years Labour has built up what some commentators on the right call "its client state" – by which they mean more and more people dependent on welfare benefits or on the public sector for a job, and we have somehow been unable to find an appealing formula to counter their social justice coupled with economic efficiency claim.

I believe history teaches us a lot and things tend to happen in thirds of centuries. Thirty three years between Peel’s win in 1841 and Disraeli’s in 1874, 34 years between the Reform acts of 1832 and 1867. Thirty seven years between the Liberals great win in 1908 and Labour’s in 1945. Thirty four years from 1945 until Margaret Thatcher’s win in 1979. So the time is not quite ripe for change.

Gordon Brown was in Parliament for 14 years before becoming Chancellor of the Exchequer. David Cameron has been an MP for just over six years.

After Southall and Sedgefield he knows in no uncertain terms that there can be no more stunts as in Gordon Brown he faces one of the biggest beasts in the jungle. Cameron has to be an optimist and to believe he can win. At the same time he needs to involve ordinary members of the party in policy development and discussion. Our position now, even after 10 years in opposition, is in terms of Parliamentary seats weaker than Labour’s in 1983. In addition, he is the only leader, apart from Iain Duncan Smith, never to have sat in Cabinet. He needs to have experienced advisers around him – not simply the Notting Hill set.

It would, I think, be foolish to dismiss Cameron as another faliure just because of two poor by election results. He does, however, need his "blood, toil, tears and sweat" moment. We were, after all, five years from victory when Churchill made this speech. Some of our party members and activists still do not fully grasp the scale of our defeat in 1997. They dream of Margaret Thatcher’s wins 20 or more years ago in the fond forlorn hope that somehow the electorate will see the error of its ways and suddenly come running back. This simply isn’t going to happen. "Main ou sont les neiges d’antan?" (where are the snows of yesteryear?) as Francois Villon (15^th century) put it.

David Cameron deserves his chance. To use another phrase beloved of the 1980’s – "There is no sensible alternative".

BY A CONSERVATIVE

Governments make the news. Oppositions rarely do so. Yet the headlines over the last few days have read something like this. "Cameron faces grass roots rebellion on schools" or "Willetts says ‘No’ to more grammar schools" or "Shadow cabinet steamrollered into accepting new schools policy".

The education of all our children and all our young people (and I repeat the world "all") is very important because it is upon them that our whole future rests. We have all been given varying talents to be used not selfishly but for the good of all. We need skilled doctors, engineers, lawyers, plumbers, painters, engine drivers and so on. Which is why I for one would welcome an open debate. Sadly we seem to have adopted entrenched positions – goats on the one side; sheep on the other.

In previous articles I have mentioned my own education. I passed the 11 plus examination and for eight years from the late nineteen fifties to the mid nineteen sixties attended the local grammar school at Cowbridge in the Vale of Glamorgan. I was one of the top 20% ‘creamed off’ because I was good at arithmetic, mental arithmetic, English language and spelling. Had ‘cutting out’, art, drawing and weaving been the examination subjects I would have been an ignominious failure. Cowbridge was one of the best grammar schools in the area. It had been exclusively run and governed by Jesus College, Oxford from 1685 to 1919 when the local Glamorgan Education Authority became involved in a joint scheme which lasted until 1949. The local authority then took over completely, although Jesus College still continued to provide four governors. Until 1919, all the headmasters appointed by the College were clergymen in communion with the Church of England.

The school also took boarders. A maximum of 50 per year. We had annual rugby and running fixtures with Jesus College and we did consider ourselves part of an ‘elite’. We modelled ourselves on the public schools – the classics were important subjects in the curriculum. One main drawback was the lack of finance – we, thus, could not be totally independent of the state as the public schools were. Because of this, the sons of miners, railwaymen, labourers, etc easily mixed with the sons of businessmen, solicitors, farmers etc. And two of our former pupils, Sir Anthony Hopkins, the actor, and Gerald Leeke, a local businessman and entrepreneur, have made it to the Sunday Times Top Thousand Richest People in Great Britain.

We were streamed – into ‘A’ and ‘B’ groups, approximately 30 in each group. But the ‘B’ groups always fared worse – for one thing they had the poorer teachers (and, believe me, there were teachers who had appalling communication skills), and could not study Greek. Many, even though they had passed the eleven plus, were not interested in studying what might be classed as academic subjects, and left at 16 with three or four ‘Ordinary’ levels to their name including English Language and, if they were lucky, Mathematics. I remain convinced that the top 15 or so pupils in the top stream of the local secondary school would have done as well as, if not better than, the bottom 15 or so pupils in the ‘B’ stream of my grammar school. And our elitism was not confined to just academic subjects – we rarely, if ever, played rugby or cricket against the local secondary modern schools. We would always travel to Swansea, Neath, Bridgend, or Cardiff to play the local grammar school.

I know from my own experience, that had I not passed the 11 plus, I would have been bitterly disappointed. My parents, somehow, would have found the money to give me a private education but it was not something that I really wanted.

Some of our party workers forget the fact that our party has often in the past supported comprehensive education. I believe I am right in saying that in the early nineteen sixties the Conservative controlled Leicestershire County Council was one of the first to abolish the eleven plus and take on the principle of comprehensive education. Indeed, many Conservative voting parents were in favour precisely because their own son or daughter had failed to get into the local grammar school. At present in England there are 164 grammar schools. We know that grammar schools do very well when the annual league tables are produced. All other schools should, therefore, be encouraged to accept the grammar school ‘ethos’ – high academic standards, discipline, respect for teachers etc.

I always remember seeing Sir Rhodes Boyson (Dr Boyson as he then was) dressed in his red academic robes showing a distinguished visitor around his school (Highbury Comprehensive, I believe). A successful school is often the result of good leadership from its headmaster or headmistress and I am certain Dr Boyson had exceptional qualities and was a firm disciplinarian. Why else would the late former Prime Minister, James Callaghan, describe him in a speech to a Labour Party Conference as ‘Wackford Squeers"?

It seems to me quite impracticable to suggest the building of a new grammar school in every major town or city. Apart from the cost we would be faced with this question: "If you want to control public expenditure, what part of the education budget are you proposing to cut to pay for this inevitable upheaval? Nursery places, perhaps? Maybe free school dinners." Labour and the Liberal Democrats would have a field day. Our approach should surely be: "If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it."

I am quite sure that our objectives, for example the grammar school example, streaming, discipline etc. can be achieved within the present system itself. It can be done provided the will is there.

If we are not careful, we will be seen as caring for only those at the top of the pile. And this is a position both David Cameron and David Willetts are determined to avoid.

Let’s assume we get 300 MPs elected in 2009/2010/ Despite our better ‘mix’ of candidates, at least 20% (60) will have been educated at private or public school. Voters will ask: "With an education like that, what can he (or she) know about the bog standard inner city comprehensive school where my child goes?" And again we will be forced on to the defensive.

I think the way forward is to take what is good in the present system, improve it and apply it throughout. We might consider having a maximum of 500 pupils per school (although here again the practicalities would have to be considered as well as the cost). What certainly is not the case is the view held (thankfully by only a small minority) "Public schools/grammar schools – good. Comprehensive/city academies – bad."

We have to accept that even though ours is a wealthy country, only 8% of the population can afford to educate a child at a public school. Some others will pay a tutor privately or attempt to move to a catchment area, often in a leafy suburb, where there is a good comprehensive school. To do this, they will mortgage themselves to the hilt and incur enormous debt. I have already mentioned "high academic standards". Nearly everyone (apart perhaps from Government Ministers) recognises that a Grade ‘A’ at Advanced Level today has not nearly the same weight as a Grade ‘A’ thirty years ago.

We have to get out of the "There can be no losers" mentality. There is no point in a competition where all have won and all must have prizes. Having said that, good teachers will always be able to bring out the best in their pupils. I am convinced that many people do not go into teaching, not because of the comparatively low salary compared to many other professions, but because of the lack of discipline and basic good manners shown by so many young people today. And many have been turned off from attending trade union meetings where Socialist Worker and the other motley collections of left wing activists hold sway.

One of the strengths of our Party is that in a long history it has always been able to adapt to changing circumstances. Initial scepticism or opposition has always been followed by an acceptance that maybe things have turned out better than expected. Perhaps that is why, as Education Secretary, Margaret Thatcher oversaw the closure of hundreds of grammar schools, or why during the 18 years in Government, from 1979 – 1991, no new grammar schools were built.

David Cameron and David Willetts, both of were given an excellent education, are trying to make policies which ensure that all our children from whatever background are given the chance to maximise, his or her true potential.

What, I ask, is wrong with that?

FROM THE GRASSROOTS

A CONSERVATIVE

I was 60 on Easter Monday and if I live another 30 years to 90, an age both my parents attained, I believe I will see further massive changes in British society and in the way we are governed. They do not thrill me and while I am no Nostradamus, here are a few predictions. Incidentally we will have been prepared for these changes due to the actions over the last 10 years of Tony Blair’s Labour Government. They will be part of his long-term legacy.

The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland will no longer exist. The "West Lothian" question will be unresolved. An English electorate will have tired of continually subsidising public expenditure in Scotland.

Scotland will have a measure of independence in the North West European region. But North Sea oil and gas will be under control of the European Parliament in a United States of Europe.

Northern Ireland will have left the Union, a referendum demanded by Sinn Fein in 2020, showing the Unionist people, largely Protestant, to be a minority in the Six Counties.

Wales will have ceased to exist, confirming the publication issued way back in 2004 when the country was removed from the European map issued by the European Parliament.

There will be more practising Muslims in this part of the North West region of Europe than Christians.

Although preparations for the coronation of King Charles III went ahead it was only after a huge argument over whether he should be anointed "Defender of the Faith" or "Defender of Faiths" and also whether his Queen, a lady previously divorced, could be crowned and anointed with him.

The European Parliament, to which a nominally Westminster Parliament, was totally subservient, decreed that in the interests of European unity, the monarchies of the former United Kingdom, Netherlands and Norway would be abolished – without any reference to the local Parliament or a referendum.

The disastrous economic policies pursued by the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, one Gordon Brown, finally came home to roost as our section of the North West region was unable to meet its financial obligations, it being noted that billions of pounds had been left off the balance sheets from 1997 to 2007 due to ‘dodgy’ accounting practices. Consequently, strict financial controls were put into effect leaving many citizens impoverished and unable to sustain their current standard of living. The gap between those receiving pensions from a private employer and those who had worked in the public sector was the widest in living memory.

The North West region was one of comparatively low productivity, primarily because our education system had been one which failed adequately to reward those who had achieved high success. An "A" grade in GCSE Mathematics could be gained with a mark of 30%. 25% of students were gaining "A" grades at Advanced Level, many in courses which could not be deemed academic. In addition, tutors at universities (not necessarily the oldest or most prestigious) were complaining that students could not spell correctly, had no knowledge of English grammar, and were unable to engage in reasoned argument. Latin had long gone from the school curriculum, it being deemed "detrimental to the learning of foreign languages in schools". This failed to take into account that Latin was the basis of three European languages – French, Italian and Spanish.

NATO, once the bedrock of the defence of the United State of America, Canada and Western Europe, had been replaced when the United States, after its failure in Iraq some 25 years earlier, had decided to go it alone and adopt a policy of "splendid isolation". An angry American electorate had consistently and continually elected Presidents on the slogan "America first" and, with the continued threat from states such as Iran and North Korea, now holding nuclear weapons, was intent on protecting its own. Europe’s response was a common defence policy based on the pooling of resources and an end to each individual region going it alone. Defence headquarters of the European Defence Union (EDU) were based in London. This was primarily because when the North West region was forced to adopt the Euro (there being no realistic alternative), it was agreed that London – with its long history as a major financial centre, would be ideal and quite easily accessible to mainland Europe. In addition, it ensured that the old "United Kingdom" part of the region would never cede and that we had been forgiven for slavish adherence to the United States policy in Iraq when other European nations had been openly sceptical.

Ten predictions. Some of which could easily happen.

I well remember the shock and horror that erupted when the late Enoch Powell made his famous speech nearly 40 years ago. But I believe his predictions have sadly proved to be true. We have built up a whole host of problems for future generations. Today it is Labour Home Secretaries who are talking about limits, controls and the Home Office being "not fit for purpose". We have allowed into this country people who not only despise our values, history and culture, but openly preach against it.

I am a Conservative in attitude more than anything else. I am very set in my ways: I tend to resist change. I believe in a minimum of Government interference. Yet as I look back over 60 years I realise how much has changed. And, I have to admit, must of it has been for the better. We live in an era of "big" government and we have become accustomed to it. The present Government without any shadow of doubt delights in "nannying" us. Not a day goes past without some decree or edict coming from one or other Department of State. Our system of taxation is now so complex and complicated that even qualified accountants and tax experts are often baffled and bemused. Our payment of benefits and the whole apparatus of the social security system discourages many from actively seeking work. This is particularly true of mothers in their late 20’s or early 30’s who have young children. Our oldest and most prestigious universities have become the hapless victims of the Government’s "social engineering". More people than ever work for the state in one capacity or another and even more are dependent on it for state benefits in whatever form.

Ending this culture of state dependency in a nation which has over the last 10 years amassed one £trillion of personal debt will be the major task of the next and future Parliaments. The proposed level of envisaged public expenditure in 2010/1011 (700 billion pounds?) is probably not sustainable and there will inevitably be what may be termed a diminution of rising expectations (i.e. severe cuts). Whichever party wins the next General Election will have been handed a poisoned chalice. Joy will soon turn to despair as the magnitude of what needs to be done is exposed.

Thirty years ago Margaret Thatcher proposed radical solutions to a nation who had seemingly lost all hope and all sense of direction. Her recipe for success was unpalatable not only to her political opponents but to many in her own party. Yet by force of her own personality and determination she achieved a fair measure of success in her objectives. Both her successors may have been more likeable, but they have hardly been more successful. Even today, nearly 17 years after her fall, we respond to "Thatcherism" and if Simon Jenkins is to be believed, Blair and Brown have been only too eager to continue the Thatcher revolution. Yet, somehow, I do not see another Thatcher on the horizon. David Cameron exudes optimism and has loads of charisma and confidence which is natural for someone educated at Eton College and Oxford University. But does he fully understand the enormity of the task involved? Does he have the vision? Were he to win, he would lead a divided nation with no mandate in Scotland (devolution, far from seeing the SNP wither and vanish, has seen it flourish as the main opposition party now within a whisker of power) and very few MPs in the northern cities of England and would these two facts alone cause him to proceed with great caution and thus eschew the radical solutions needed? Probably so. And Gordon Brown, were he to become Prime Minister, for the foreseeable future and win in 2009/2010? More of what we have endured from him as Chancellor these last 10 years. A lack of vision, continual interference in his Ministers’ portfolios, a re-emphasising of the view that the gentleman in Whitehall really knows best, coupled with a dour and brooding presence which no amount of spin doctoring will dissolve. And then what? Things will have got so bad that we unconditionally accept salvation in the European institutions imposed upon us and as outlined in the previous pages of this article. And anyone who has doubts has only to look at what has happened over the last 40 years. Henry J Ford once said "History is bunk!". I, for once, venture to disagree.