Last night took me on an unusual mission: to the House of Commons’ Committee Room 16 for a debate on the government’s plans for more grammar schools, organised by website Conservative Woman.

Rarely does a hack on a relatively liberal title get the chance to peer inside the real guts of the nation’s right wing. It is all too easy to see educational debate through a progressive prism: to peek into the social media echo-chamber and to conclude the voices who really believe in broadening out 11+ selection are few and far between.

Last night’s debate soon put pay to that impression: here was a room full of Conservatives and fully signed up members of the Campaign for Real Education (CRE), an organisation often written-off as, well, rather fringe.

Where usually I attend events in which the audience is rabidly defensive of comprehensive education, here, out of a crowd of around 30, there were no more than a handful who would even offer the meekest defence of their local comp. 

Even the supposedly neutral chair, Conservative Woman’s very own Laura Perrins, was rather unconvincing in her protestations that she wasn’t persuaded of the case for more grammar schools.

One of the few genuinely pro-comprehensive voices in the room was, of course, the lead-speaker against more selection. You might have heard of him? Sir Michael Wilshaw is his name. Sir Michael deployed his many well-rehearsed and convincing arguments against selection, including his not-unjustified pride in the success of London’s schools. (“Our comprehensive system is on an upwards trajectory. Why would you replace it?”)

But the pin-striped crowd hadn’t given up their Tuesday evening to listen to sunny stories of state education. They were here for the red meat of Graham Brady MP - senior Tory backbencher and long-term grammar school advocate - and Chris McGovern, former head and chair of the CRE.

These two took it in turns to make the case for grammar schools by insinuating criticism for the comprehensive system. (Brady: “Comprehensives struggle to get their pupils to achieve the highest grades in the most challenging subjects.”)

Perhaps the most outrageous statement came from Mr McGovern, who, unchallenged, explained that the reason more poor kids didn’t go to the existing grammar schools was because “brainwashed primary teachers” refused to enter them for the 11+.

It turned out that even of the panellists, Sir Michael was very much on his own. The final speaker, who was supposed to be on his side opposing more selection, was a UKIP member-data scientist called Dr Andrew Cadman who told the room that he largely agreed with Mr Brady’s critique.

The only reason to oppose more grammar schools, Dr Cadman explained to an approving room, was because they would prove a distraction from his preferred raft of educational reforms: a voucher model with for-profit school operators. Sir Michael appeared a little dumbfounded.

I’ve looked inside the belly of the beast - it’s not pretty. I recommend you sit back and take a long, luxuriant bath in the comforting warmth of education’s Twitter echo-chamber.