The Tories have always had to reinvent themselves though, that is the context in which those posts should be read - that they are not the same Tories as the ones people are blaming, look here they are arguing for something that sounds popular as well (whilst somehow moving in the same way and trying to implement the same things that they always do).
Hilton was rude about the party as well - as were many of the Cameroons; they still used them as a vehicle to gain power. That Cummings holds the membership and MPs in contempt is not unusual.
As for fees - he was part of the DfE and it was implemented by that department, plus of course he hasn't done anything to change it whilst in power. Yes, more working class kids go to university now but that is because they have to - loads of entry-level positions (nursing, social work, teaching, emergency services) actually require you to have a degree now, when 10-15 years ago this was not the case. Loading them all with debt and then making them compete against the people of Cummings' class - who usually do not have debts and have the connections - is not in any way meritocratic, and my point about smart working class kids was that they are the ones who are most likely to have to pay the debt (because they get jobs that qualify).
Finally as for Corbyn, yes he went to public school but that is my point - he actually came out and said that system should stop.
I think you're confusing meritocracy with class and political issues. Remove the fees aspects, we have more people attending university from the working class.
Also, this improves the % of people from BME backgrounds, including those to the top universities, which means more people can achieve based on their merit.
Only last year, I remember reading an article in the Guardian where now nearly 20% of young adults from really deprived areas were attending university.
Historically, many universities - namely those in the Russell Group - were closed shops; let's be clear, it isn't perfect but the system is far more open these days.
Admittedly, there is an increase in professions needing a degree, but counter that with the % in the figures above. I can't see how that isn't meritocracy.
Add fees into the agenda, the system has allowed the widening of the university numbers in the United Kingdom alongside with a % of those from the above.
Additionally, the number of people entering university full time, rather than part-time supported by working, has grew by over 100,000 in the past thirteen years.
I'm not going to pretend that the system is perfect and without faults, however I see it as more people are getting more opportunities from all backgrounds.
I also have a real issue with how tuitions fees, initially brought in by Labour, are actually explained, and Martin Lewis talks quite publicly about this issue.
Anyone who earns over £21,000 a year pay for them and repayments are at 9% of earnings over that: the more successful you are financially, the more you pay.
Yes, people from privilege will either be able to not have to pay or will have family etc. to help pay, but that's again not talking purely about meritocracy.
If however you don't earn enough to pay it off, well you don't. It's a tax in many senses, not a debt, and anyone can obtain it regardless of their background.
Like I said, I'm not happy with the system as it is and ideally we wouldn't have tuition fees at all, but it really isn't the demon system that people portray it as.
Young lads or ladies from the inner cities are provided with a better, more rigorous state education in conjunction with the ability to attend the universities.
They are also being able to concentrate on their studies (full time education) rather than in the previous decades where more were reliant on part-time degrees.*
Ideally, I suspect Cummings will believe that this will filter through to the grand mechanics of government although lets be honest it's not going to be overnight.
With regards to being a part of the DfE, again is that not a narrow point? His primary role was to work on the curriculum and free schools and academies.
Does everyone in a specific organisation, especially if employed with a narrow remit, hold responsibility? Did every Labour MP decide on the Iraq war?
Did every current Conservative push through Brexit? Guilty by association isn't ideal really. What are his actual views on tuition fees? Well, I don't know.
To your original point, well I agree to an extent and I actually wrote my dissertation on something similar, where I discussed post-1945 Conservatism as ad hoc.
Loosely following the strain of conservatism (little C) and changing to suit the current demands, but never really straying away from the rope too much.
I eventually came to the point that the different elements of the Conservative Party dogma (one-nation etc.) were similar in the sense that they aren't rigid.
But I'm digressing... You keep talking about the Tories, when my point is that I sincerely and genuinely believe that he isn't a Tory in a literal or subjective sense.
I don't think he ever has or will be either; rather, he will use and work with, in a loose alliance, to support
his view. If necessary, he'll happily throw them away.
Along the way, there'll be questionable decisions that he makes that the Conservative (big C) members will applaud, yet again that's part of the greater picture.
*Less people doing additional degrees as older applicants may play a part too.
