This Charming Man?

[humbersloop]

In setting out his stall as Dave's successor, has Boris Johnson -who's no fool - offered the Conservatives a clear and compelling future manifesto?

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/nov/27/boris-johnson-thatcher-greed-good

[Quizmonster]

Tora, had you actually cared to read what Mill had to say about Conservatives and intelligence in my earlier thread, you might just have spotted the following:
"I never meant to say that the Conservatives are generally stupid. I meant to say that stupid people are generally conservative."
I assume you also failed to notice his use of the distinction between Conservative with an upper-case 'C' and conservative with a lower-case 'c'.
In other words, one doesn't - in your words - "have to be stupid to be a conservative"; it's just that, with the bulk of truly stupid people tending towards the 'right', right-wing parties should generally do well in elections.
If Thatcher was so bright, it's odd that she never seemed to grasp why she was so widely detested.

[humbersloop]

Any chance of dropping the ritual exchange of insults and getting back to the OP, which was serious?

I think for practical purposes he has.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2514720/Boris-Johnson-Tackling-economic-equality-futile-peoples-IQ-low.html

[New Judge]

The problem that Conservative voters face is that, at present, they have nobody to vote for. It’s rather like the situation Labour supporters found themselves in when Mr Blair led their party.

Despite his rhetoric David Cameron is a subscriber to Tory values to about the same degree as Keir Hardie. They pretend to like a free market when their first reaction to any problems it throws up is the regulate and legislate. They pretend to want to encourage social mobility but refuse to sanction new grammar schools (even to the extent of blocking Sevenoaks school’s plans for expansion). They pretend to be champions of free enterprise but continue to weigh business and commerce down in ever-increasing reams of red tape. They pretend to believe in a smaller state yet continue to sanction laws which interfere with every minutiae of people's lives. Yes I know they are somewhat hidebound by the LibDems in the current situation but I have no reason to believe their core policies would be much different if they were not.

The two main parties are petrified of appearing nasty and are terrified of offending anybody. Labour moved to the centre in the mid 1990s as they believed they would not be elected otherwise. The Tories did the same prior to 2010 for the same reason.

The end result of this is that everybody gets what nobody wants. So it comes as a great shock when somebody like BoJo puts forward radical views which have not seen the light of day for decades. Of course he is correct. The ridiculous strive for economic equality is completely futile. You could draw in all the money in the land today and distribute it evenly. By tomorrow some people will be skint and others multi-millionaires. That’s the way life is - there will always be winners and losers and to pretend otherwise and try to do something about it is about as sensible as trying to stem the tide. He is absolutely right about education. The current thinking that eleven-plus failures were consigned to a second-rate education is not correct. They underwent a different education more suited to their abilities. What happens now is that almost all children are consigned to a second rate education (apart from those educated privately and those lucky enough to attend the few grammar schools). The problem is that all our children cannot go on to be brain surgeons or nuclear physicists. Alas under the current education policy none of them can.

Unless and until these fundamental truths are accepted (which seems most unlikely in view of the reception Boris's speech got) the UK will continue its journey down the kharzi.

[Quizmonster]

"The problem is that all our children cannot go on to be brain surgeons or nuclear physicists. Alas under the current education policy none of them can." (My italics)
That's clearly nonsense, NJ, or are you seriously claiming that the 'supply' of physicists and surgeons has utterly dried up?
In addition, there is a multitude of examples of people who were consigned in the past to a 'lower' order of education at the age of 11 but who subsequently triumphed in a variety of fields.
Only last week, when on holiday in Scotland, I spoke to an ex-colleague - a chemist. He told me of a child in his class who was advised by "the powers that be in the school" not to try to get a qualification above O Grade (the Scottish equivalent of GCSE) as she would never make make it. She now has a doctorate in the subject.
This country is awash with similar examples.

[New Judge]

No I'm not suggesting that, QM, but the State education system views it that way. But the vast, vast majority of people filling posts which require a high degree of academic achievement have a background which includes either a private or grammar school education.

Of course there are children who make it despite the State education system. The example you quoted was one and all all credit to them. At secondary level State education needs to be different for different children because, like it or not, some are more academically capable than others in the same way that some can run faster than others.

[Quizmonster]

NJ, you say, "The current thinking that eleven-plus failures were consigned to a second-rate education is not correct."
I would counter that by saying the belief may not have been 100% correct; most children may well not have benefited from grammar schools. However - even if it were 90% correct - I would consider it a crying shame that so many thousands of children over the years were prematurely 'discarded' at the age of 11, when it is perfectly-well established that some youngsters come into their own educationally at later stages of life. Indeed, I illustrated that in my earlier contribution.