THE honeymoon period for Teresa May may well already be waning with the autumnal moon. Her promise to work towards a more equal and harmonious society has been exposed by the leaking of the real agenda of more division and inequality being brought about by the creation of more grammar schools. Yet again another political promise that had no substance.

The whole education debate regarding comprehensive education as opposed to the grammar school model has been debated for years and the overall conclusion reached by those in the know is that the comprehensive model gives every pupil a more equal opportunity. The 11-plus has previously been exposed as a culturally biased proposition favouring pupils from middle class families and, therefore, not a credible test of true intelligence.

We are fortunate in Wiltshire and particularly in Chippenham as we have an abundance of highly effective primary and comprehensive schools for which we should be grateful. We also have a number of private and boarding schools or, as I have come to understand them, 'foster care' for the wealthy. Future generations will no doubt look back on this outdated system and wonder why, if people truly loved their children, would they send them into the care of strangers?

Some readers might be under the illusion that I am one of those bitter, chip-on-the-shoulder malcontents so jealous of the rich that I bleat on about it because I wasn’t rich enough to send my own children to private school. Well, in fact, their grandfather (on their mother’s side) offered to pay for them to go to private school and I declined, choosing the comprehensive system as I am positive of the overreaching benefits of an inclusive academic and social education.

In truth, if May had equality at the heart of her agenda, she would be implementing not only the abolition of the 11-plus and grammar schools but also the introduction of a bill making it compulsory for members of parliament to only send their children to the state schools (and use the NHS services) in the constituencies they represent, thus ensuring that they are motivated to uphold the same standards for all families, their own included.

Furthermore, perhaps Members of Parliament should in future be only be drawn from individuals who have been educated in the state system as the apparent disconnect from those that have been through the absurd system of schools such as Eton has proven to be unhelpful to say the least.

The fact that May is not fulfilling the election promises set out and voted for in the Conservative manifesto is of grave concern and maybe there should be an amendment to its supposed constitution, insisting on either continuation and fulfilment of an election manifesto or another election being held and fought on the new leader’s own agenda.

Slipping such potentially inflammatory and socially damaging legislation through under the cover of Brexit paranoia is a duplicitous act and exposes May as a potentially dangerous prime minister.

It would appear from the recent extracts from Cameron’s aide that she is more devious and politically ambitious then her shoe obsession would have us believe.

On a lighter note, handing over the control of our future energy security to China might be seen, by those who perceive the Chinese as less then proactive enforcers of human rights, as a little strange and they might be entitled to feel somewhat uneasy. The fact that our public utilities were sold off to the vulture friends of Thatcher was bad enough, the thought of our nuclear power industry in the hands of anyone other than the British public is proof positive of the shortcomings of a grammar school education.