Opinion: Grammar Schools and Boundary Review – a Lib Dem View

Published on: 17 Sep, 2016
Updated on: 17 Sep, 2016

Zoe Franklin, the Lib Dem’s prospective parliamentary candidate

Zoe Franklin is the Liberal Democrat prospective parliamentary candidate for Guildford gives her views on two current issues, the possible re-introduction of grammar schools in Surrey and the parliamentary constituency boundary review…

Grammar schools

Surrey is fortunate to have many fantastic schools. Where schools are struggling they are working hard to improve the education they provide.

The government’s proposal to reintroduce grammar schools to “increase the number of good schools and improve parent choice” does not help these schools. Instead it enables those who can afford to move closer to support their child through school entrance exams – potentially resulting in “sink” schools for less affluent areas.

The government is also pushing the idea that grammar schools help the poorest children succeed. Independent research concludes that in existing grammar schools only 3% of pupils come from poorer backgrounds. That is not creating social mobility for all.

Speaking with people since the proposal, most have expressed concerns with the idea. One primary leader said that, in their view, it sets the education system back decades and will undo the work done with lower-ability students – labelling them failures before they’ve even hit their teens. Another person spoke of the difficulties they experienced being the only one out of their friends who passed the 11 plus.

Ultimately, this proposal does none of what the government is touting it will achieve – it simply further entrenches inequality. The resources required to make it work would be better spent supporting and enhancing the current system. Let’s not have success for the few at the cost of the many.

Boundary changes

Do you think that constituency boundaries should be reviewed now and altered to allow for changes in populations etc?

Boundary reviews are necessary about every 10 years to take into account increase in the voting population but the timing of any boundary review is difficult because there will always be reasons why another time would be better. However given the turmoil that politics is currently in undertaking a boundary review which has the potential of further increasing this turmoil it could definitely be argued that now is not the best time.

Would proportional representation make such changes less important?

The Liberal Democrats are strong advocates for proportional representation because it would make our voting system much fairer for voters. For example had we had it in 2010 we would have been entitled to 150 seats and in 2015 nearly 50 because we received 23% and 7.9% of the total vote in each election. The way PR works would also mean that where reviews are needed as the population grows they would become less important and potentially less controversial, electorally. This is because the number of MPs would be increased or decreased for an area rather than the physical boundary of a single MP’s constituency changing.

There has been criticism that the review was not based on the most recent registration data set. Is that fair? Would it make much difference?

Well, as I said in my answer to your first question, there will never be a perfect or even good time for these type of boundary views and there has to be a specific cut off point for the registration data set. However, in view of the fact that over two million new voters registered for the referendum retaining the selected date does seem unfair as it does not take into account these voters.

I’m not sure that we can know conclusively that it would make a difference but what’s important here is perception – if people perceive that this is unfair and people are not being counted then the data set choice needs to be revisited. Many already distrust politicians and question their transparency – this does not help.

Jeremy Corbyn has suggested that inner city constituencies should be allowed to be smaller in terms of no. of constituents, as are some island constituencies. Would that be fair?

I’m not sure I see the logic of this approach for cities. Island constituencies make sense because there is a clear and defensible boundary – it wouldn’t make sense to include a mainland town in the constituency of the Isle of Wight for example. Inner city areas are more fluid thereby meaning that there are not the clear constituency boundaries that cannot be moved.

Should the Guildford parliamentary constituency remain unchanged, as proposed?

In all honesty there would be benefits of changing our boundary to align more with the borough boundary, however one of the aims of the boundary review is to standardise constituencies to around 75,000 voters. The Guildford constituency does have approximately this number and therefore the decision to leave the boundary unchanged is unsurprising.

How awkward is it that the Guildford parliamentary constituency includes wards from four different borough councils?

I can only speak from my own experience. The Liberal Democrat local parties are currently arranged on the basis of the borough council boundaries which means that there are areas, for example the eastern wards of Guildford for example, Lovelace, Effingham, the Horsleys, that are our responsibility in terms of day-to-day campaigning but in a general election they are in another constituency. We have the reverse in the form of the Cranleigh wards.

There is an argument to say that for residents it would be better for the boundary moved so that the borough and parliament boundaries align and their MP is entirely focused on a single borough area.

My experience has been that the Liberal Democrat local parties have always worked very well together to ensure the best outcomes for local residents. There’s the odd blip sometimes but generally it works and so rather than being awkward we simply embrace the arrangement we have.

Anne Milton, Guildford’s Conservative MP has also been asked to give her views.

Share This Post