Inferences from recent international comparative data on mathematical attainment, frequently quoted as justification for curriculum change, are critically examined, and the implications are contrasted with expressed curricular aims. Using characterisations by Ball (1990) and Ernest (1991), positions of key actors are analysed in relation to priorities given to different aspects of the mathematics curriculum, in particular facts and skills, cultural heritage, functionality and curricular structure. These are compared with characterisations made in the late 1980s, and in the early years of the New Labour government. This analysis highlights tensions that are likely to arise in the design of a new curriculum in mathematics. (Contains 2 notes.)