If grammar schools return we need a whole new education system

Send your letters to letters@independent.co.uk

Theresa May is understood to be planning a new generation of grammar schools (PA)

Why do we worry only about bright kids and grammar schools when our educational system fails most the many who are not academically inclined? To do so is to hasten the re-emergence of the default option: the discredited secondary modern. What is noteworthy about those who criticise comprehensives is their coyness as to the grammar schools' share of intake. We know that the higher the share, the greater the enthusiasm of the middle class for grammar schools.

Conversely, restricting the intake to the 5 per cent who are truly gifted, as opposed to merely academically inclined, will result in a waning of middle class enthusiasm. This calls for a less socially divisive, tripartite secondary school system consisting of grammars and vocational institutes with high schools for the academically inclined sandwiched in-between.

What's wrong with becoming a plumber, electrician, mechanic or joiner? Our civilisation is no less dependent on these trades than those of banking, marketing or even legislating.

Yugo Kovach
Winterborne Houghton, Dorset

Liam Young cites the 1963 Robbins Report to show that the grammar system failed to promote social mobility and academic attainment. In truth, the report found that children of skilled manual workers at grammar school who stayed on to age 18 were as likely (65 per cent) to get two A Levels as children of professional and managerial parents (67 per cent).

Children of manual workers appeared less successful than children of the same ability in other social groups in obtaining the qualifications for entry to university largely because they left school earlier and did not take A Levels.

Dr John Doherty
Stratford-upon-Avon

Stick to the facts on fracking

I am not in favour of fracking but opponents of fracking need to stick to the facts. Your editorial stated this would be a “huge expansion in fossil fuel consumption”. Fracking might lead to a modest increase in gas consumption, if it ever reduces the price of gas in this country (which is not a given), but its principal effect would be a huge reduction in imported gas and a major improvement in our balance of payments. To that extent it should be welcomed.

The only prospect of a significant expansion of gas consumption is if the ‘green meanies’ win the argument over nuclear power and this country becomes dependent on gas power for electricity for all those days when the wind does not cooperate.

Direct compensation for those blighted by fracking is an interesting idea but why should the taxpayer pick up the bill, and why restrict the compensation to fracking? Almost any grant of planning permission has losers as well as a winner. Why should the lucky recipient of planning permission not be required to compensate all those whose property values have been materially diminished by that decision? Land with planning permission is worth something like 100 times as much as land without, so there is a huge pot of money that could be distributed more equitably.

Roger Chapman
Keighley

Why is it when anything new appears on the horizon of this country, it is met with suspicion and distrust? History reveals that everything from the printing press to the motor car have been met with fierce opposition when they first appeared. Even the talking picture and television were considered passing fancies. The idea of a man going to the moon was totally ridiculed.

Now, in this country, we have discovered that beneath the surface there is sufficient gas to make this country completely independent for power for hundreds of years. This newly-found commodity has turned America from being a country that had to import gas to an exporter of this natural product at great profit. Of course, we also have reserves of coal to keep the wheels of industry turning for hundreds of years – but because of the vocal members of the global warming brigade, this black gold will remain buried forever.

Have these antagonists against fracking ever considered what we would do for power if the countries from which we currently rely on for gas should suddenly decide to triple the cost or simply turn off the taps? Why not, just for once, accept this incredible discovery and get on with the job of harnessing the gas and enjoying the benefits that will naturally follow?

Colin Bower
Sherwood, Nottingham

Rights for renters

Ben Chu writes: “They must not get hung up, like their predecessors, on whether new homes are for rent or to buy.” On the contrary, they must get hung up or there will be no solution to the affordability of housing. Some people will never be able to afford to buy. Others don't want to buy. Fairness in renting, with security of tenure, must be part of the solution.

Simon Carne
Architect and planner

Among the political problems associated with [the housing crisis] is that an increase in supply will bring the price of housing down. As I understand it, falling house prices is a vote loser despite the self-evident benefits for society. So is a drop in rent income for landlords. Who are most likely to cast their vote: owner-occupiers, landlords, homeless people, private sector tenants? Take your pick. My fear is that the Tories won't make a move on this, and Labour will be ambivalent. Now, somebody please prove me wrong.

John Burgess
Southall

Be fair to Boris over Brexit

Denis MacShane is being a little unfair to Boris Johnson. The temptation, of course, is to condemn the Foreign Secretary to the naughty step for a few decades at least, reflecting the magnitude of his Brexit misdemeanours. But we are where we are, and we need powerful voices to help nullify the scorched earth tendencies of Messrs Fox and Davis. McShane is wrong not to identify significant differences between these two inveterate Brexiteers and the more nuanced Johnson.

A more credible Boris may be about to come through, the first glimmer being his words in New York last month, arguing for a close post-Brexit relationship with the EU. Only Nixon could go to China, and probably only Boris will be able, over the next few years, to break the news to the relevant Tory faithful, and others, that we really do need to stay quite intimately linked to the EU, even if we leave.

We should negotiate some limit on migration, but keep practically full single market access. The solution may involve paying an eye-watering contribution to the EU budget as an external partner. The figure of £350m per week comes to mind, but one hopes less, even less than the £200 million weekly that we actually do pay.

Boris must know that weighty budgetary payments would be worth every penny, to retain City of London financial ‘passporting’ alone. We may be seeing the first signs that he is manoeuvring towards saying as much. Once he does, it is but a short step to arguing that perhaps we were a little rash to vote to leave in the first place, especially if a deal to remain could involve a generous “emergency brake” on free movement.

Treaty change could be sought, for example, to guarantee that no EU member has to accept net EU migration flows of more than, say, 0.3 per cent of its population each year. If that could be agreed, why would we leave? Boris could help us get to this. Fox and would gleefully sabotage such moves, from the outset.

John Gemmell
Birmingham

It is not whether there should or should not have been a Brexit vote, or even a referendum. The important questions for all of us, whichever way we vote, are 1) what can we learn from this referendum, and 2) what actions should we take to correct the perceived shortcomings and consequences of this referendum?

The real issue is whether a referendum for something with as potentially complex outcomes as remaining in or leaving Europe should ever have been granted in this format, given that Brexit seems to mean different things to different people – even on the Brexit team. Even Remain (albeit with more certainties) meant different wishes.

I doubt that anyone would wish to Brexit on catastrophically bad terms. Conversely, were Leave terms agreed that enabled a) complete autonomy over legislation, b) complete control over immigration and borders, and c) complete freedom over trade within the EU, I suspect that many who voted Remain would then vote Leave. We may die in wishing for that particular package.

The reality is that all of us who voted did so on a platform of beliefs about hopes and perceived probabilities about what that vote would mean. Knowing for sure the terms as to what each vote means should be a given before such complex-issue referenda are held. In fact it might have been easier to negotiate a better Remain package had that been specified.

Any further legislation for referenda should include sanctions (including a new referendum) for material misrepresentations leading to votes (from whichever side the misrepresentations were uttered). The lies told in order to win votes in this referendum were shameful.

Fionna O'Leary
Cheltenham

Time up for Mandelson

When is Lord Mandelson going to realise that his time is over? He as much as any Labour politician is responsible for successive election defeats. He can't keep away. Look at the stats, it was the Tories who took us out not Labour voters. Go back to your daily allowance in the Lords. Stop stirring and making things worse.

Rod Hartley
Preston

Preaching to the Corbynite choir?

Michael Silverleaf is wrong if he thinks Jeremy Corbyn only preaches and enthuses the converted. I have felt disenfranchised for most of my adult life as there was no party I wished to vote for. There seemed to me not a cigarette paper between the Conservative and Labour parties. Now Corbyn has given me, and many like me, new hope for a change for the better in British politics.

The Establishment and its mouthpiece, the media, have not liked this from day one of Corbyn's leadership and have campaigned against him. But we are still hopeful for change, despite the naysayers, and I am hopeful that my voice an at last count in the democracy of this country.

Angela Elliott
Hundleby, Lincolnshire