I don't have a particular view on it. Do I disagree with academic selection fundamentally? Not really. After all, it's key to "streaming" within state comprehensives. Equally no-one would suggest removing academic selection from universities either.
There's a case to be made that the lowest socio-economic groups will be disadvantaged. Perhaps some would consider that the price for greater mobility for some, and particularly those in the middle. There's something to be said for that - and I think a relentless focus on the very bottom can obscure negative outcomes for those who are far from wealthy, but equally are not on the breadline.
I don't see a great deal of evidence that poor comprehensives really do pull up standards: instead it seems to go the other way in our worst schools. There's something brutal in separating children quite so clearly - but I think you'd have to be deluded not to acknowledge that, in comprehensives, most children know where they lie on the spectrum of attainment anyway.
Grammar schools are great - which is why I'm amazed the debate really focuses on them. What I think is worth discussing is how we can make the Secondary Moderns work.