Everyone has a “divine” right to think well of themselves. That is one of the central messages of Christianity !

My dig at educationalists is at those who breed defeatism by telling those from poorer backgrounds that they are victims of the system and should have no hope.

But we are a long way from Scottish polls – the only even tenuous link I can find to bring us back on track is that for nearly twenty years Tories in Scotland have been taught to believe that they are hated and should not entertain hope of electoral success. Recovering from a generation of defeatism requires a level of character and self-belief which cannot be learned overnight, so it will perforce take time for the party to rebuild its position. But the first steps have been taken, and I am sure that an important further step will be taken at next GE. Even 3 MPs is distinctly more successful than just 1.

Sure, it’s easier for a young brain to take it in. If the first thing you hear at the age of 11 is that you are part of an elite, then self-belief/confidence will grow much better than if you are told that you are the same as everyone else and have no divine right toi think well of yourself.

There are state schools whose ethos allows kids to grow, whose sense of competition feeds leadership learning. They are few and far between and distort the housing market!

My view is that any-one at any age can learn the very simple techniques that can level the playing field a bit.

“.. communication skills and leadership tools are eminently learnable. I mean, if a twelve year old can learn it…”

I believe the Jesuits used to ask for the child at 7 in order to shape them.

Actually, it’s all about self-belief. Like languages, if it is not taught at a young age, it becomes an increasingly harder skill to acquire in later life.

While parents are inherently important to the process, it is true that if you put a child of whatever background into a good public school early enough, it will be difficult to tell them apart at 18.

The sad reality is that most (but not all) state secondary schools do not even try to address these skills, while certain educational philosophies prevalent among state primary schools positively discourage it – because it does require pitting children against each other to find those innate skills.

And, with the best will in the world, not everybody is cut out to be a leader – just as not everyone has a flair for art or music or science.

Perhaps Alec could familiarise himself with the questions so that he can oblige the Telegraph by identifying where he thinks he should belong.

Tories 39 per cent, Labour on 29 and the Lib Dems on 19.

it is spun as a great poll for Conservatives, showing better support in marginals, but national lead is down 4% on last You Gov survey.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/telegraph-view/6673267/The-marginals-that-will-decide-our-destiny.html

Alec, that means you, whatever class you are, are not of the Ruling Class. You are precisely where The Ruling Class would want and expect you to be.

The Ruling Class is not necessarily, and hasn’t nessarily been Conservative, or elected by the people.But it has largely been educated in the private sector, ironically known as “public” schools.

I myself am a product of such an education (though with the benefit of a direct grant-funded scholarship, free travel and meals etc)

What irritates me is that lessons in communication skills and leadership tools are eminently learnable. I mean, if a twelve year old can learn it… (and that’s when those lessons start in the private sector, if not before)

Hope that passes the Comments policy test – even at post number 13something

“The Conservatives are the fourth party in term of support there.”

Not according to the latest YouGov poll – Con 18% LD 12%.

The scenario you describe is a comforting myth believed only by English Tories. Few of those who lost their heavy industry employment (far from all of it nationalised) and found it difficult or impossible to get other work had voted Conservative at least in the immediately pre-Thatcher decades.

If it was a such a good idea to put all these people out of work, how is it that the Thatcher government didn’t manage to fix them with alternative employment? Did they try and fail because they wern’t as smart as they thought they were, or because their theories didn’t fit the real world? Either way, they failed.

The developments described by King Harold were what caused the decline of support and membership of the Conservative Party in Scotland.

Cons may be the third party in Scotland, but have you seen what FPTP did to them last time? I’ve never heard the LbDems say “Oh well, things aren’t so bad, we are the third party in England/UK”

To go from being the usual party of government and the only party to get more than half of the vote to being less popular than the rebranded DDR Commuunists needs some explanation.

Did nobody in the higher levels of the party notice because they were focused on England? If that is so, how well informed was their management of the Scottish economy and other issues? Is that why the SNP have grown from 2% (as was quoted here) to be on the brink of the FPTP breakthrough in the election after next?

Have lessons been learned? So what initiatives are planned to reverse the decline? I’ve explained how it can easily be sorted.

This is a management issue, not a political issue. The fact that the politics is crap is no excuse for not being elected. Lots of elected governments are crap aren’t they?

PaulH-J/King Harold

Schools are a totemic issue in the Westminster playground and a world away from Scottish schools outside big conurbations which were of necessity comprehensive in both ability and social class centuries before the term was invented. In the real world the only predictor of academic success is the level of parental education.

I’d better declare that I was at a Private School (in England that would be called a Public School) and in my year and the year above four boys who would become MPs in different parties, two murderers, a spy, …