Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Options

Education, education, education – politicalbetting.com

2456

Comments

  • Options
    MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 46,406
    Leon said:

    HYUFD said:

    Leon said:

    If these posho schools can’t get by without an outrageous and immoral bung from the taxpayer, then let them sink

    Starmer and Labour are right on this

    NB: I went to a bog standard comp


    Of course they can get by but they will just become even more exclusive with fewer scholarships and bursaries and less sharing of facilities with the local community.

    So the end result is our top public schools become even more just restricted to the very rich here and from abroad, especially at boarding schools
    Who gives a tiny scintilla of a fuck?

    That means the upper middle classes will be forced into the state sector, and these posh parents will then use their sharp elbows and loud voices to demand better education for their kids in state schools, and, thus, everyone else

    Win win
    Nope. The private schools are already planning for this. The general plan seems to be - cut the charitable contributions to local state schools a bit, tighten belts and hold the resultant fee increase down.

    For example, one local private school will stop paying/providing its sports coaches to teach swimming lessons during the free access to their pool for the local state schools. They will have a lifeguard on duty, but that’s it.
  • Options
    RogerRoger Posts: 19,482
    TimS said:

    Roger said:

    carnforth said:

    Roger said:

    I shouldn't think Stanley's too haopy either battling with the 90 day rule.

    You will no doubt be pleased to learn that Stanley is a french citizen.
    Not pleased. Jealous. French property taxes are expensive so I can well understand how good he must feel not being limited by his f**king son's 90 day deal.
    I have a second home in France and the property tax is tiny. Much lower than equivalent council tax. Maybe I’m lucky.
    FPT. Very lucky. My fonciere and Habitation between them are significantly higher than council tax for a similar property. Maybe it depends on the area?
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 119,491

    Leon said:

    HYUFD said:

    Leon said:

    If these posho schools can’t get by without an outrageous and immoral bung from the taxpayer, then let them sink

    Starmer and Labour are right on this

    NB: I went to a bog standard comp


    Of course they can get by but they will just become even more exclusive with fewer scholarships and bursaries and less sharing of facilities with the local community.

    So the end result is our top public schools become even more just restricted to the very rich here and from abroad, especially at boarding schools
    Who gives a tiny scintilla of a fuck?

    That means the upper middle classes will be forced into the state sector, and these posh parents will then use their sharp elbows and loud voices to demand better education for their kids in state schools, and, thus, everyone else

    Win win
    Nope. The private schools are already planning for this. The general plan seems to be - cut the charitable contributions to local state schools a bit, tighten belts and hold the resultant fee increase down.

    For example, one local private school will stop paying/providing its sports coaches to teach swimming lessons during the free access to their pool for the local state schools. They will have a lifeguard on duty, but that’s it.
    So as with most aspects of inverse snobbery and Labour class war, it ends up hitting ordinary people even more than the rich
  • Options
    MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 46,406

    CD13 said:

    Mr Pete,

    My parents had four boys within 5 years of each other. Three went to the local Grammar and one went to the secondary modern as it was then. The teaching wasn't much different but the discipline was better at the Grammar.

    One or two from the local council estate who'd been left behind joined us later in the following years, As they tended to join the 'A' stream it suggested others could have joined too.

    Anecdote only, but suggestive.

    Tax fiddles for private schools? The way of the world, but not something important enough for me to worry about.

    I have shared my own Comp v Grammar anecdotes many times in the past on PB.

    I would just add that we had a B stream at Grammar School which was predominantly full of the public-sector housed children. The B stream were referred to as "less able" by the staff, relegated to CSEs and few got 5 or more grade ones.

    The sane approach to the whole grammar school roundabout is to stream in every school.

    The Learning Stream for the swats who want to learn and the Idiots Stream for the ones who just want to punch teachers.

    Which stream you’re decided at any point in your school career.

    While this might deprive the idiots of swats to punch… well, someone has to lose out.
  • Options
    MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 26,761
    HYUFD said:

    Leon said:

    HYUFD said:

    Leon said:

    If these posho schools can’t get by without an outrageous and immoral bung from the taxpayer, then let them sink

    Starmer and Labour are right on this

    NB: I went to a bog standard comp


    Of course they can get by but they will just become even more exclusive with fewer scholarships and bursaries and less sharing of facilities with the local community.

    So the end result is our top public schools become even more just restricted to the very rich here and from abroad, especially at boarding schools
    Who gives a tiny scintilla of a fuck?

    That means the upper middle classes will be forced into the state sector, and these posh parents will then use their sharp elbows and loud voices to demand better education for their kids in state schools, and, thus, everyone else

    Win win
    Not everyone with a scholarship to private school is upper middle class, some even come from council estates.

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6614871/Schoolboy-East-End-council-estate-wins-76-000-study-Eton.html

    Plus those upper middle class parents will only send their children to Outstanding state schools anyway, especially grammar schools or faith schools or free schools.

    That means more of the pupils in those Outstanding state schools now will be forced into state schools which only have a Good rating or even Requires Improvement or Inadequate
    You've given an example. I suspect it is a rare example but as you know I am biased, so let's ignore my bias.

    In these difficult times we are obliged as a nation to conduct a cost- benefit analysis on all aspects of tax and spend options . Is your exempt private school VAT value for money? Could it be spent more wisely?
  • Options
    DougSeal said:

    Wow- this is insane - while I know we have a problem with knives, and guns, at least we haven’t graduated to explosives as in Sweden yet

    https://www.politico.eu/article/sweden-stockholm-gang-violence-eropean-union-vision/amp/


    In Stockholm county alone, 126 shootings were recorded in 2022, resulting in 28 deaths, as well as 31 attacks with explosives, which was up from 23 deaths as well as 25 attacks with explosives in 2021. Countrywide, Sweden saw 388 shootings resulting in 61 deaths and 90 attacks with explosives last year; the number of deaths was up by one-third over the previous year.

    It is already clear that the violence has continued into 2023. Last week on Wednesday, a man was shot dead at a train station in Jordbro, on the southern edge of Stockholm, and last Thursday, a bomb was thrown into an apartment block in nearby Farsta, damaging a stairwell.

    Police suspect gang conflicts, many with their roots in competition for control of illegal drug sales, have evolved into a cycle of revenge attacks now sweeping the city. They believe the killing of a man on Christmas Day in the Stockholm suburb of Rinkeby may have triggered subsequent attacks in the city’s south.

    Looks like they have been learning from Denmark. Such attacks - usually using grenades - were a symptom of the Biker gang turf wars in the early 2000s.

    Wikipedia even has its own its own Sweden grenade attacks page

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_grenade_attacks_in_Sweden
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 52,536
    DougSeal said:

    DavidL said:

    DougSeal said:

    CD13 said:

    "We need less quailifed people commenting." Nicely summarised, but confusing. However "Fewer" avoids the ambiguity

    How does one qualify to become “quailified”? Does one have to live as a quail for a certain period or can you self-certify?
    Nah, any game bird will do. No one would grouse about it.
    Does not such a system present a clear and pheasant danger of abuse?
    That is a common snipe but I think I should duck out of that debate.
  • Options
    MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 26,761

    CD13 said:

    Mr Pete,

    My parents had four boys within 5 years of each other. Three went to the local Grammar and one went to the secondary modern as it was then. The teaching wasn't much different but the discipline was better at the Grammar.

    One or two from the local council estate who'd been left behind joined us later in the following years, As they tended to join the 'A' stream it suggested others could have joined too.

    Anecdote only, but suggestive.

    Tax fiddles for private schools? The way of the world, but not something important enough for me to worry about.

    I have shared my own Comp v Grammar anecdotes many times in the past on PB.

    I would just add that we had a B stream at Grammar School which was predominantly full of the public-sector housed children. The B stream were referred to as "less able" by the staff, relegated to CSEs and few got 5 or more grade ones.

    The sane approach to the whole grammar school roundabout is to stream in every school.

    The Learning Stream for the swats who want to learn and the Idiots Stream for the ones who just want to punch teachers.

    Which stream you’re decided at any point in your school career.

    While this might deprive the idiots of swats to punch… well, someone has to lose out.
    That is how my 1970s comp worked, and on a subject by subject basis. I suspect it was a timetabling nightmare, but it worked very well.
  • Options
    TazTaz Posts: 12,556
    Roger said:

    TimS said:

    Roger said:

    carnforth said:

    Roger said:

    I shouldn't think Stanley's too haopy either battling with the 90 day rule.

    You will no doubt be pleased to learn that Stanley is a french citizen.
    Not pleased. Jealous. French property taxes are expensive so I can well understand how good he must feel not being limited by his f**king son's 90 day deal.
    I have a second home in France and the property tax is tiny. Much lower than equivalent council tax. Maybe I’m lucky.
    FPT. Very lucky. My fonciere and Habitation between them are significantly higher than council tax for a similar property. Maybe it depends on the area?
    And they say nurses have it tough.
  • Options
    MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 46,406
    HYUFD said:

    Leon said:

    HYUFD said:

    Leon said:

    If these posho schools can’t get by without an outrageous and immoral bung from the taxpayer, then let them sink

    Starmer and Labour are right on this

    NB: I went to a bog standard comp


    Of course they can get by but they will just become even more exclusive with fewer scholarships and bursaries and less sharing of facilities with the local community.

    So the end result is our top public schools become even more just restricted to the very rich here and from abroad, especially at boarding schools
    Who gives a tiny scintilla of a fuck?

    That means the upper middle classes will be forced into the state sector, and these posh parents will then use their sharp elbows and loud voices to demand better education for their kids in state schools, and, thus, everyone else

    Win win
    Nope. The private schools are already planning for this. The general plan seems to be - cut the charitable contributions to local state schools a bit, tighten belts and hold the resultant fee increase down.

    For example, one local private school will stop paying/providing its sports coaches to teach swimming lessons during the free access to their pool for the local state schools. They will have a lifeguard on duty, but that’s it.
    So as with most aspects of inverse snobbery and Labour class war, it ends up hitting ordinary people even more than the rich
    No. It’s both simpler and deeper than that.

    Humans and human created constructs and complex systems, not linear. That means they react to change like… an eco system for example.

    Expecting linear results from a change is mathematically wrong.
  • Options
    StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 7,400
    WillG said:

    Education has a way of showing off Labour's hypocrisy on the subject to full effect.

    It will be a cause of some fun embarrassment during an election campaign.

    It doesn't need to be.

    "We think private education is a service that should be charged tax like any other service"

    "But YOU send your kids to private school"

    "Yes, and I will happily pay taxes on it"

    Conversation over.
    You’ve worked hard all your life and succeeded against the odds

    You want to make sure your children don’t have to struggle like you did

    But Labour doesn’t want that

    They don’t want people like you to succeed

    They are putting taxes on the best schools so that people like you can’t afford it

  • Options
    MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 46,406
    DavidL said:

    DougSeal said:

    DavidL said:

    DougSeal said:

    CD13 said:

    "We need less quailifed people commenting." Nicely summarised, but confusing. However "Fewer" avoids the ambiguity

    How does one qualify to become “quailified”? Does one have to live as a quail for a certain period or can you self-certify?
    Nah, any game bird will do. No one would grouse about it.
    Does not such a system present a clear and pheasant danger of abuse?
    That is a common snipe but I think I should duck out of that debate.
    I wouldn’t quail before such a challenge
  • Options
    StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 7,400

    Wes had just a perfect response to the private schools/health argument.

    Make the public sector better and so good we don't need private anymore. Aspiration. Good.

    100% agree. That’s a properly conservative approach. So how does Labours policy achieve that?
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 52,536
    Education is a good thing and people should be encouraged to spend money on it. Money spent on private schools means savings for local authorities. The most extreme I know is Edinburgh where nearly 1/3rd of secondary pupils go to private schools. If several of those schools close I am not sure that the local authority could cope.

    But this is all about the politics of envy. And there is never a rational answer to that.
  • Options
    StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 7,400

    I went to a state school and I don't give a fuck if less children go to private school because their parents can't afford the VAT. Boo hoo.

    If they are cutting back on food to afford the new taxes I guess less children might go to private school??
  • Options
    MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 46,406

    CD13 said:

    Mr Pete,

    My parents had four boys within 5 years of each other. Three went to the local Grammar and one went to the secondary modern as it was then. The teaching wasn't much different but the discipline was better at the Grammar.

    One or two from the local council estate who'd been left behind joined us later in the following years, As they tended to join the 'A' stream it suggested others could have joined too.

    Anecdote only, but suggestive.

    Tax fiddles for private schools? The way of the world, but not something important enough for me to worry about.

    I have shared my own Comp v Grammar anecdotes many times in the past on PB.

    I would just add that we had a B stream at Grammar School which was predominantly full of the public-sector housed children. The B stream were referred to as "less able" by the staff, relegated to CSEs and few got 5 or more grade ones.

    The sane approach to the whole grammar school roundabout is to stream in every school.

    The Learning Stream for the swats who want to learn and the Idiots Stream for the ones who just want to punch teachers.

    Which stream you’re decided at any point in your school career.

    While this might deprive the idiots of swats to punch… well, someone has to lose out.
    That is how my 1970s comp worked, and on a subject by subject basis. I suspect it was a timetabling nightmare, but it worked very well.
    Depends on the size of the school probably. If you have 90 in year X, you have 3 classes anyway.
  • Options
    Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 34,982

    DavidL said:

    DougSeal said:

    DavidL said:

    DougSeal said:

    CD13 said:

    "We need less quailifed people commenting." Nicely summarised, but confusing. However "Fewer" avoids the ambiguity

    How does one qualify to become “quailified”? Does one have to live as a quail for a certain period or can you self-certify?
    Nah, any game bird will do. No one would grouse about it.
    Does not such a system present a clear and pheasant danger of abuse?
    That is a common snipe but I think I should duck out of that debate.
    I wouldn’t quail before such a challenge
    Bzzzzzt

    I already used quail upthread
  • Options
    MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 26,761

    Wes had just a perfect response to the private schools/health argument.

    Make the public sector better and so good we don't need private anymore. Aspiration. Good.

    100% agree. That’s a properly conservative approach. So how does Labours policy achieve that?
    Perhaps they could divert the VAT collected to educate the many and not the few.
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 52,536

    I went to a state school and I don't give a fuck if less children go to private school because their parents can't afford the VAT. Boo hoo.

    If they are cutting back on food to afford the new taxes I guess less children might go to private school??
    Quite the reverse I would say. Good quality, healthy food is expensive, junk food cheap. People often accuse the poor and fat of being feckless and lazy but there is a much more straightforward causality at work.
  • Options
    MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 46,406

    Wes had just a perfect response to the private schools/health argument.

    Make the public sector better and so good we don't need private anymore. Aspiration. Good.

    100% agree. That’s a properly conservative approach. So how does Labours policy achieve that?
    Perhaps they could divert the VAT collected to educate the many and not the few.
    My bet is that the VAT actually collected will be quite small compared to spending on education.
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 119,491

    CD13 said:

    Mr Pete,

    My parents had four boys within 5 years of each other. Three went to the local Grammar and one went to the secondary modern as it was then. The teaching wasn't much different but the discipline was better at the Grammar.

    One or two from the local council estate who'd been left behind joined us later in the following years, As they tended to join the 'A' stream it suggested others could have joined too.

    Anecdote only, but suggestive.

    Tax fiddles for private schools? The way of the world, but not something important enough for me to worry about.

    I have shared my own Comp v Grammar anecdotes many times in the past on PB.

    I would just add that we had a B stream at Grammar School which was predominantly full of the public-sector housed children. The B stream were referred to as "less able" by the staff, relegated to CSEs and few got 5 or more grade ones.

    The sane approach to the whole grammar school roundabout is to stream in every school.

    The Learning Stream for the swats who want to learn and the Idiots Stream for the ones who just want to punch teachers.

    Which stream you’re decided at any point in your school career.

    While this might deprive the idiots of swats to punch… well, someone has to lose out.
    Unfortunately, they will still be able to punch the swats in the playground or PE
  • Options
    MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 46,406
    Scott_xP said:

    DavidL said:

    DougSeal said:

    DavidL said:

    DougSeal said:

    CD13 said:

    "We need less quailifed people commenting." Nicely summarised, but confusing. However "Fewer" avoids the ambiguity

    How does one qualify to become “quailified”? Does one have to live as a quail for a certain period or can you self-certify?
    Nah, any game bird will do. No one would grouse about it.
    Does not such a system present a clear and pheasant danger of abuse?
    That is a common snipe but I think I should duck out of that debate.
    I wouldn’t quail before such a challenge
    Bzzzzzt

    I already used quail upthread
    You’re having a lark
  • Options
    ohnotnowohnotnow Posts: 3,233
    Leon said:

    HYUFD said:

    DJ41 said:

    TimS said:

    This is their 2024 foxhunting ban. Every vaguely centrist government in waiting seems to need its red meat policy that has an insignificant practical impact but keeps the more radical grassroots happy.

    And the voters. Don't forget them. The same applies with the foxhunting ban: a very popular policy - and, like the removal of charity status from private schools, it could have been introduced generations ago and it would have been popular then too.

    It's not like Palestine in the 2017 manifesto.
    And as a result we have foxes roaming free everywhere, spreading to urban areas too and more chickens and rabbits getting ripped to pieces
    Foxes have been rampant in urban areas for decades. It has fuck all to do with fox hunting (abolished or not). Foxes are like rats

    A lot more random crap for them to eat kicking about now too due to a mix of lazy sh*ts just chucking half-eaten chicken/kebabs/whatever away and less frequent bin collections.
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 52,536

    Scott_xP said:

    DavidL said:

    DougSeal said:

    DavidL said:

    DougSeal said:

    CD13 said:

    "We need less quailifed people commenting." Nicely summarised, but confusing. However "Fewer" avoids the ambiguity

    How does one qualify to become “quailified”? Does one have to live as a quail for a certain period or can you self-certify?
    Nah, any game bird will do. No one would grouse about it.
    Does not such a system present a clear and pheasant danger of abuse?
    That is a common snipe but I think I should duck out of that debate.
    I wouldn’t quail before such a challenge
    Bzzzzzt

    I already used quail upthread
    You’re having a lark
    I am sure he meant buzzard rather than buzzz.
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 119,491
    edited January 2023

    Wes had just a perfect response to the private schools/health argument.

    Make the public sector better and so good we don't need private anymore. Aspiration. Good.

    100% agree. That’s a properly conservative approach. So how does Labours policy achieve that?
    A proper conservative approach is to expand parental choice as opposed to the traditional socialist approach of restricting choice so you just get what the state gives you
  • Options
    MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 46,406
    edited January 2023
    HYUFD said:

    CD13 said:

    Mr Pete,

    My parents had four boys within 5 years of each other. Three went to the local Grammar and one went to the secondary modern as it was then. The teaching wasn't much different but the discipline was better at the Grammar.

    One or two from the local council estate who'd been left behind joined us later in the following years, As they tended to join the 'A' stream it suggested others could have joined too.

    Anecdote only, but suggestive.

    Tax fiddles for private schools? The way of the world, but not something important enough for me to worry about.

    I have shared my own Comp v Grammar anecdotes many times in the past on PB.

    I would just add that we had a B stream at Grammar School which was predominantly full of the public-sector housed children. The B stream were referred to as "less able" by the staff, relegated to CSEs and few got 5 or more grade ones.

    The sane approach to the whole grammar school roundabout is to stream in every school.

    The Learning Stream for the swats who want to learn and the Idiots Stream for the ones who just want to punch teachers.

    Which stream you’re decided at any point in your school career.

    While this might deprive the idiots of swats to punch… well, someone has to lose out.
    Unfortunately, they will still be able to punch the swats in the playground or PE
    Put Cannae on the curriculum for swats. After I gave my stepson a book on Roman Military history, he rapidly worked out what needed to be done.
  • Options
    StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 7,400
    TimS said:

    This is their 2024 foxhunting ban. Every vaguely centrist government in waiting seems to need its red meat policy that has an insignificant practical impact but keeps the more radical grassroots happy.

    Cameron had the inheritance tax giveaway, although he had to drop that in coalition.

    Having said that, as I write I realise we’ve only had 2 such governments in waiting in my entire life. Thatcher in 1979 was not a centrist needing to keep her right wing quiet. She was the right wing.

    It’s not insignificant though

    A percentage of private schools will close (and stop doing third party charitable work) or will reduce their charitable activities to focus on supporting their parent group.

    There will be a net reduction in charitable activity by the third sector. In return there will be an imperceptible increase in funds flowing into the Treasury

    The impact of the policy will be to reduce diversity in the education ecosystem. I personally believe diversity of perspective is the most important thing in society (hence why diversity of boards etc matters) as it reduces groupthink

    This policy will not be a net positive for society
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 119,491

    HYUFD said:

    CD13 said:

    Mr Pete,

    My parents had four boys within 5 years of each other. Three went to the local Grammar and one went to the secondary modern as it was then. The teaching wasn't much different but the discipline was better at the Grammar.

    One or two from the local council estate who'd been left behind joined us later in the following years, As they tended to join the 'A' stream it suggested others could have joined too.

    Anecdote only, but suggestive.

    Tax fiddles for private schools? The way of the world, but not something important enough for me to worry about.

    I have shared my own Comp v Grammar anecdotes many times in the past on PB.

    I would just add that we had a B stream at Grammar School which was predominantly full of the public-sector housed children. The B stream were referred to as "less able" by the staff, relegated to CSEs and few got 5 or more grade ones.

    The sane approach to the whole grammar school roundabout is to stream in every school.

    The Learning Stream for the swats who want to learn and the Idiots Stream for the ones who just want to punch teachers.

    Which stream you’re decided at any point in your school career.

    While this might deprive the idiots of swats to punch… well, someone has to lose out.
    Unfortunately, they will still be able to punch the swats in the playground or PE
    Put Cannae on the curriculum for swats. After I gave my stepson a book on Roman Military history, he rapidly worked out what needed to be done.
    Or become good at sport too
  • Options
    MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 26,761
    DavidL said:

    Education is a good thing and people should be encouraged to spend money on it. Money spent on private schools means savings for local authorities. The most extreme I know is Edinburgh where nearly 1/3rd of secondary pupils go to private schools. If several of those schools close I am not sure that the local authority could cope.

    But this is all about the politics of envy. And there is never a rational answer to that.

    I can't speak for the rest of the left wing wokerati but my motivation is not the politics of envy. I could afford to pay for private education for my children but I chose not to on a point of principle. I believe selective education either by money or by 11 plus exam deprives the majority of resource, either by money shovelled into Grammar Schools to the detriment of the rest, or by an exemption on VAT. I don't want my taxes to benefit a grammar school elite at the expense of everyone else, and while I don't want to deprive you of the liberty to spend your money on a private education for your children, pay the VAT on it.

    Make universal education fantastic for all, and measure it on added value, not just on GCSE A* passes.
  • Options
    ohnotnowohnotnow Posts: 3,233
    Leon said:

    Re Sweden, after my recent deep dive on Europe and migration, I am now convinced a significant western European country will elect a hard/far right government in the next 5-10 years. And i don’t mean “in coalition” I mean: they will be handed the government, in toto. And they will enact some eye watering polices

    My guess is that the first will either be Sweden or France

    You could argue Italy has done it already with Meloni, but their system is so fucked and fractious nothing ever happens whoever is elected

    Politico's "EU Confidential" podcast did a show about the shift right in Sweden just the other day. Worth a listen.

    https://www.politico.eu/podcast/from-stockholm-sweden-shifts-right-on-crime-and-migration-eu-council-captaincy/
  • Options
    sladeslade Posts: 1,971
    I went to a local grammar school which featured in Jackson and Marsden's Education and the Working Class. It looked at how working class boys (and girls) navigated high quality education which usually lead on to university. This included modified speech and changing attitudes to social and cultural values. Their general conclusion was that these cases were often left rootless - neither working class nor middle class. But I bucked the trend and moved effortlessly on to university and academia.
  • Options
    StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 7,400
    DJ41 said:

    For up-to-the-minute PBers who aim to achieve high Brier scores in relation to what happens next in the Ukraine:

    https://www.e-ir.info/2022/01/27/the-revival-of-the-dnipropetrovsk-and-dnipro-jewish-community-in-ukraine/

    Note: "Dnipropetrovsk and Dnipro" is the author's way of showing she knows that the city changed name. They aren't two different places. One thing I learnt from the article is that Ihor Kolomoisky wasn't only Mr Big from Dnipro - he was actually the governor for a while. Yes, Ukraine is just as much a mafia state as Russia. The article is slanted and the idea that there is no anti-Jewishness among non-Jewish non-Russian-speaking Ukrainians is false. A good read, though, for those who want some background now that Dnipro is getting shelled.

    *Was* is the critical piece

    Dismissed in 2016 by the Ukrainian President. PrivatBank was a very bad organisation but Ukraine was taking steps to clean up the mess that generations of Russian meddling had created.

    Part of the reason for Russias’s invasions of Ukraine over the last decade is to reassert control and their mafia state

  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 119,491

    DavidL said:

    Education is a good thing and people should be encouraged to spend money on it. Money spent on private schools means savings for local authorities. The most extreme I know is Edinburgh where nearly 1/3rd of secondary pupils go to private schools. If several of those schools close I am not sure that the local authority could cope.

    But this is all about the politics of envy. And there is never a rational answer to that.

    I can't speak for the rest of the left wing wokerati but my motivation is not the politics of envy. I could afford to pay for private education for my children but I chose not to on a point of principle. I believe selective education either by money or by 11 plus exam deprives the majority of resource, either by money shovelled into Grammar Schools to the detriment of the rest, or by an exemption on VAT. I don't want my taxes to benefit a grammar school elite at the expense of everyone else, and while I don't want to deprive you of the liberty to spend your money on a private education for your children, pay the VAT on it.

    Make universal education fantastic for all, and measure it on added value, not just on GCSE A* passes.
    Nowadays the average academy is probably better funded than the average grammar school.

    Even if we don't restore the 11 plus (and most grammars have entry at 13 and 16 too) we should at least allow parents to ballot to open new grammar schools, now you can only ballot to close them which is not fair
  • Options
    ohnotnowohnotnow Posts: 3,233

    I've just got one of those fancy Dyson cordless vacuums. What an incredible piece of machinery, the dust it picks up is terrifying though

    A friend came round shortly after I got my first 'robot hoover' and asked 'Oh, when did you get a new carpet?'.

    Oh, the shame...
  • Options
    StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 7,400
    pigeon said:

    Eton gave the land both David Cameron and Boris Johnson. Enough said.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eGOtZDk6wRc

    Walpole
    Pitt
    Wellington (catholic emancipation)
    Grey (voting reform and abolition of slavery)
    Gladstone
    MacMillan

    Enough said
  • Options
    turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 16,444

    HYUFD said:

    CD13 said:

    Mr Pete,

    My parents had four boys within 5 years of each other. Three went to the local Grammar and one went to the secondary modern as it was then. The teaching wasn't much different but the discipline was better at the Grammar.

    One or two from the local council estate who'd been left behind joined us later in the following years, As they tended to join the 'A' stream it suggested others could have joined too.

    Anecdote only, but suggestive.

    Tax fiddles for private schools? The way of the world, but not something important enough for me to worry about.

    I have shared my own Comp v Grammar anecdotes many times in the past on PB.

    I would just add that we had a B stream at Grammar School which was predominantly full of the public-sector housed children. The B stream were referred to as "less able" by the staff, relegated to CSEs and few got 5 or more grade ones.

    The sane approach to the whole grammar school roundabout is to stream in every school.

    The Learning Stream for the swats who want to learn and the Idiots Stream for the ones who just want to punch teachers.

    Which stream you’re decided at any point in your school career.

    While this might deprive the idiots of swats to punch… well, someone has to lose out.
    Unfortunately, they will still be able to punch the swats in the playground or PE
    Put Cannae on the curriculum for swats. After I gave my stepson a book on Roman Military history, he rapidly worked out what needed to be done.
    Gather 80 men, equip them with rectangular shields and form a testudo?
  • Options
    turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 16,444

    DavidL said:

    Education is a good thing and people should be encouraged to spend money on it. Money spent on private schools means savings for local authorities. The most extreme I know is Edinburgh where nearly 1/3rd of secondary pupils go to private schools. If several of those schools close I am not sure that the local authority could cope.

    But this is all about the politics of envy. And there is never a rational answer to that.

    I can't speak for the rest of the left wing wokerati but my motivation is not the politics of envy. I could afford to pay for private education for my children but I chose not to on a point of principle. I believe selective education either by money or by 11 plus exam deprives the majority of resource, either by money shovelled into Grammar Schools to the detriment of the rest, or by an exemption on VAT. I don't want my taxes to benefit a grammar school elite at the expense of everyone else, and while I don't want to deprive you of the liberty to spend your money on a private education for your children, pay the VAT on it.

    Make universal education fantastic for all, and measure it on added value, not just on GCSE A* passes.
    I find the idea that grammar schools had money shovelled into them bizarre. When I attended one in the 80’s it certainly wasn’t any better funded than the other local schools. Why would it be? The difference for me was that most of the kids wanted to be there, and the most disruptive kids were tame by comparison to other places.
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 52,536

    DavidL said:

    Education is a good thing and people should be encouraged to spend money on it. Money spent on private schools means savings for local authorities. The most extreme I know is Edinburgh where nearly 1/3rd of secondary pupils go to private schools. If several of those schools close I am not sure that the local authority could cope.

    But this is all about the politics of envy. And there is never a rational answer to that.

    I can't speak for the rest of the left wing wokerati but my motivation is not the politics of envy. I could afford to pay for private education for my children but I chose not to on a point of principle. I believe selective education either by money or by 11 plus exam deprives the majority of resource, either by money shovelled into Grammar Schools to the detriment of the rest, or by an exemption on VAT. I don't want my taxes to benefit a grammar school elite at the expense of everyone else, and while I don't want to deprive you of the liberty to spend your money on a private education for your children, pay the VAT on it.

    Make universal education fantastic for all, and measure it on added value, not just on GCSE A* passes.
    Not sure where grammar schools come into this. They are state run and, like all state schools, therefore VAT exempt.

    Private schools do not cost the state money, they save it.

    Between £5k and £7k per pupil. This is significantly more than the waived VAT would be, roughly twice as much. Labour claiming that this policy will produce more money for state schools shows a basic innumeracy.

    I accept that there are social costs in that we end up with a relatively small and privileged elite who get a proper education in circumstances conducive to learning which gives them an unfair advantage in life. I agree that the ideal would be that state schools were so good than no one was willing to pay . But they aren't and there is absolutely no focus on making them so. To do that you would need to take on the teachers unions and no one is brave enough to do that.
  • Options
    CookieCookie Posts: 12,357

    DavidL said:

    Education is a good thing and people should be encouraged to spend money on it. Money spent on private schools means savings for local authorities. The most extreme I know is Edinburgh where nearly 1/3rd of secondary pupils go to private schools. If several of those schools close I am not sure that the local authority could cope.

    But this is all about the politics of envy. And there is never a rational answer to that.

    I can't speak for the rest of the left wing wokerati but my motivation is not the politics of envy. I could afford to pay for private education for my children but I chose not to on a point of principle. I believe selective education either by money or by 11 plus exam deprives the majority of resource, either by money shovelled into Grammar Schools to the detriment of the rest, or by an exemption on VAT. I don't want my taxes to benefit a grammar school elite at the expense of everyone else, and while I don't want to deprive you of the liberty to spend your money on a private education for your children, pay the VAT on it.

    Make universal education fantastic for all, and measure it on added value, not just on GCSE A* passes.
    Pretty sure the local grammar schools here get no more funding than the other state schools. They're certainly no less run down. Trafford and Stockport were left deliberately at the back of the queue in Building Schools for the Future and not much money has been forthcoming since.
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 119,491
    edited January 2023

    pigeon said:

    Eton gave the land both David Cameron and Boris Johnson. Enough said.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eGOtZDk6wRc

    Walpole
    Pitt
    Wellington (catholic emancipation)
    Grey (voting reform and abolition of slavery)
    Gladstone
    MacMillan

    Enough said
    Rory Stewart, Tam Dalyell, Justin Welby, Eddie Redmayne, Anthony Eden, Douglas Home, Oliver Letwin, Jacob Rees Mogg, Dominic West, Damian Lewis, Matthew Pinsent and the Prince of Wales and Duke of Sussex of course too
  • Options
    MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 26,761
    HYUFD said:

    DavidL said:

    Education is a good thing and people should be encouraged to spend money on it. Money spent on private schools means savings for local authorities. The most extreme I know is Edinburgh where nearly 1/3rd of secondary pupils go to private schools. If several of those schools close I am not sure that the local authority could cope.

    But this is all about the politics of envy. And there is never a rational answer to that.

    I can't speak for the rest of the left wing wokerati but my motivation is not the politics of envy. I could afford to pay for private education for my children but I chose not to on a point of principle. I believe selective education either by money or by 11 plus exam deprives the majority of resource, either by money shovelled into Grammar Schools to the detriment of the rest, or by an exemption on VAT. I don't want my taxes to benefit a grammar school elite at the expense of everyone else, and while I don't want to deprive you of the liberty to spend your money on a private education for your children, pay the VAT on it.

    Make universal education fantastic for all, and measure it on added value, not just on GCSE A* passes.
    Nowadays the average academy is probably better funded than the average grammar school.

    Even if we don't restore the 11 plus (and most grammars have entry at 13 and 16 too) we should at least allow parents to ballot to open new grammar schools, now you can only ballot to close them which is not fair
    No, because they are fundamentally wrong and unfair. Selection at 11 and 13 is fundamentally wrong. It might in theory be better for those who pass the 11 or 13 plus but I have given an example of further selection whilst in the Grammar School (based on my own experience). What about the rest? I can't explain what an outrageous waste of resource academies are. How much are academy group CEOs paid? Yes it was a Labour folly, and we can condemn the Blair/ Brown Governments for their error .

    Selection at 16 is different, it is is by personal choice, students chose to study for A levels or BTecs or NVQs
  • Options
    HYUFD said:

    Wes had just a perfect response to the private schools/health argument.

    Make the public sector better and so good we don't need private anymore. Aspiration. Good.

    100% agree. That’s a properly conservative approach. So how does Labours policy achieve that?
    A proper conservative approach is to expand parental choice as opposed to the traditional socialist approach of restricting choice so you just get what the state gives you
    So you'll be getting rid of grammar schools, then? Because the 11+ is literally the state telling you what sort of education your children should have.
  • Options
    WillGWillG Posts: 2,267

    pigeon said:

    Eton gave the land both David Cameron and Boris Johnson. Enough said.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eGOtZDk6wRc

    Walpole
    Pitt
    Wellington (catholic emancipation)
    Grey (voting reform and abolition of slavery)
    Gladstone
    MacMillan

    Enough said
    Wellington opposed the Great Reform Act, so not sure he is a beacon of values
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 119,491

    HYUFD said:

    Wes had just a perfect response to the private schools/health argument.

    Make the public sector better and so good we don't need private anymore. Aspiration. Good.

    100% agree. That’s a properly conservative approach. So how does Labours policy achieve that?
    A proper conservative approach is to expand parental choice as opposed to the traditional socialist approach of restricting choice so you just get what the state gives you
    So you'll be getting rid of grammar schools, then? Because the 11+ is literally the state telling you what sort of education your children should have.
    Absolutely not, I would be giving parents the opportunity to ballot to open new grammars not just close them which is all they are allowed to vote on now
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 119,491
    edited January 2023
    WillG said:

    pigeon said:

    Eton gave the land both David Cameron and Boris Johnson. Enough said.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eGOtZDk6wRc

    Walpole
    Pitt
    Wellington (catholic emancipation)
    Grey (voting reform and abolition of slavery)
    Gladstone
    MacMillan

    Enough said
    Wellington opposed the Great Reform Act, so not sure he is a beacon of values
    I expect Wellington wanted to keep the days when male landed gentry and wealthy merchants were the swing voters, not middle income, middle aged, non graduate voters living in the suburbs and ex industrial towns
  • Options
    StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 7,400
    DavidL said:

    DougSeal said:

    DavidL said:

    DougSeal said:

    CD13 said:

    "We need less quailifed people commenting." Nicely summarised, but confusing. However "Fewer" avoids the ambiguity

    How does one qualify to become “quailified”? Does one have to live as a quail for a certain period or can you self-certify?
    Nah, any game bird will do. No one would grouse about it.
    Does not such a system present a clear and pheasant danger of abuse?
    That is a common snipe but I think I should duck out of that debate.
    Stop grousing or people will think you’ve been bittern

  • Options
    StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 7,400

    CD13 said:

    Mr Pete,

    My parents had four boys within 5 years of each other. Three went to the local Grammar and one went to the secondary modern as it was then. The teaching wasn't much different but the discipline was better at the Grammar.

    One or two from the local council estate who'd been left behind joined us later in the following years, As they tended to join the 'A' stream it suggested others could have joined too.

    Anecdote only, but suggestive.

    Tax fiddles for private schools? The way of the world, but not something important enough for me to worry about.

    I have shared my own Comp v Grammar anecdotes many times in the past on PB.

    I would just add that we had a B stream at Grammar School which was predominantly full of the public-sector housed children. The B stream were referred to as "less able" by the staff, relegated to CSEs and few got 5 or more grade ones.

    The sane approach to the whole grammar school roundabout is to stream in every school.

    The Learning Stream for the swats who want to learn and the Idiots Stream for the ones who just want to punch teachers.

    Which stream you’re decided at any point in your school career.

    While this might deprive the idiots of swats to punch… well, someone has to lose out.

    That is how my 1970s comp worked, and on a subject by subject basis. I suspect it was a timetabling nightmare, but it worked very well.
    That’s “setting” rather than “streaming” and is the optimal way of organising things although more complicated to manage.
  • Options
    MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 46,406

    HYUFD said:

    CD13 said:

    Mr Pete,

    My parents had four boys within 5 years of each other. Three went to the local Grammar and one went to the secondary modern as it was then. The teaching wasn't much different but the discipline was better at the Grammar.

    One or two from the local council estate who'd been left behind joined us later in the following years, As they tended to join the 'A' stream it suggested others could have joined too.

    Anecdote only, but suggestive.

    Tax fiddles for private schools? The way of the world, but not something important enough for me to worry about.

    I have shared my own Comp v Grammar anecdotes many times in the past on PB.

    I would just add that we had a B stream at Grammar School which was predominantly full of the public-sector housed children. The B stream were referred to as "less able" by the staff, relegated to CSEs and few got 5 or more grade ones.

    The sane approach to the whole grammar school roundabout is to stream in every school.

    The Learning Stream for the swats who want to learn and the Idiots Stream for the ones who just want to punch teachers.

    Which stream you’re decided at any point in your school career.

    While this might deprive the idiots of swats to punch… well, someone has to lose out.
    Unfortunately, they will still be able to punch the swats in the playground or PE
    Put Cannae on the curriculum for swats. After I gave my stepson a book on Roman Military history, he rapidly worked out what needed to be done.
    Gather 80 men, equip them with rectangular shields and form a testudo?
    Form a tempting target, and just as the bait is taken, your associates say hi from all sides.

    The headmistress was shocked - in her worldview, the “nice” kids were supposed to be the victims.
  • Options
    MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 26,761
    HYUFD said:

    DavidL said:

    Education is a good thing and people should be encouraged to spend money on it. Money spent on private schools means savings for local authorities. The most extreme I know is Edinburgh where nearly 1/3rd of secondary pupils go to private schools. If several of those schools close I am not sure that the local authority could cope.

    But this is all about the politics of envy. And there is never a rational answer to that.

    I can't speak for the rest of the left wing wokerati but my motivation is not the politics of envy. I could afford to pay for private education for my children but I chose not to on a point of principle. I believe selective education either by money or by 11 plus exam deprives the majority of resource, either by money shovelled into Grammar Schools to the detriment of the rest, or by an exemption on VAT. I don't want my taxes to benefit a grammar school elite at the expense of everyone else, and while I don't want to deprive you of the liberty to spend your money on a private education for your children, pay the VAT on it.

    Make universal education fantastic for all, and measure it on added value, not just on GCSE A* passes.
    Nowadays the average academy is probably better funded than the average grammar school.

    Even if we don't restore the 11 plus (and most grammars have entry at 13 and 16 too) we should at least allow parents to ballot to open new grammar schools, now you can only ballot to close them which is not fair
    Don't forget Mrs Thatcher as Ted's Ed. Sec. closed more grammar schools than Labour.

    I am more Thatcherite than you!
  • Options
    StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 7,400
    HYUFD said:

    Wes had just a perfect response to the private schools/health argument.

    Make the public sector better and so good we don't need private anymore. Aspiration. Good.

    100% agree. That’s a properly conservative approach. So how does Labours policy achieve that?
    A proper conservative approach is to expand parental choice as opposed to the traditional socialist approach of restricting choice so you just get what the state gives you
    I disagree

    Conservatives believe in equality of opportunity regardless of background

    Improving the state provided education system - while allowing parents the freedom to choose private or homeschooling if they want - is the right thing to do

  • Options
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Wes had just a perfect response to the private schools/health argument.

    Make the public sector better and so good we don't need private anymore. Aspiration. Good.

    100% agree. That’s a properly conservative approach. So how does Labours policy achieve that?
    A proper conservative approach is to expand parental choice as opposed to the traditional socialist approach of restricting choice so you just get what the state gives you
    So you'll be getting rid of grammar schools, then? Because the 11+ is literally the state telling you what sort of education your children should have.
    Absolutely not, I would be giving parents the opportunity to ballot to open new grammars not just close them which is all they are allowed to vote on now
    But, unless you are imagining something completely unlike any grammar school system we have ever seen, opening new grammar schools is opening schools that most parents won't get their children into.(From memory, the highest percentage of grammar places anywhere is forty percent of the cohort.) Hence the pressure in Conservative areas from Conservative voters to go comprehensive when their children weren't getting into grammar schools.

    And a system where the state decides at age 11 what a child's academic pathway should be? It sounds like Attlee era Socialism, because it is.
  • Options
    SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 21,633
    HYUFD said:

    Wes had just a perfect response to the private schools/health argument.

    Make the public sector better and so good we don't need private anymore. Aspiration. Good.

    100% agree. That’s a properly conservative approach. So how does Labours policy achieve that?
    A proper conservative approach is to expand parental choice as opposed to the traditional socialist approach of restricting choice so you just get what the state gives you
    Give everyone enough money to buy the choice then.
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 119,491
    edited January 2023

    HYUFD said:

    DavidL said:

    Education is a good thing and people should be encouraged to spend money on it. Money spent on private schools means savings for local authorities. The most extreme I know is Edinburgh where nearly 1/3rd of secondary pupils go to private schools. If several of those schools close I am not sure that the local authority could cope.

    But this is all about the politics of envy. And there is never a rational answer to that.

    I can't speak for the rest of the left wing wokerati but my motivation is not the politics of envy. I could afford to pay for private education for my children but I chose not to on a point of principle. I believe selective education either by money or by 11 plus exam deprives the majority of resource, either by money shovelled into Grammar Schools to the detriment of the rest, or by an exemption on VAT. I don't want my taxes to benefit a grammar school elite at the expense of everyone else, and while I don't want to deprive you of the liberty to spend your money on a private education for your children, pay the VAT on it.

    Make universal education fantastic for all, and measure it on added value, not just on GCSE A* passes.
    Nowadays the average academy is probably better funded than the average grammar school.

    Even if we don't restore the 11 plus (and most grammars have entry at 13 and 16 too) we should at least allow parents to ballot to open new grammar schools, now you can only ballot to close them which is not fair
    Don't forget Mrs Thatcher as Ted's Ed. Sec. closed more grammar schools than Labour.

    I am more Thatcherite than you!
    That is not true, a third of grammar schools had already closed under Wilson's Labour government and become comprehensives (with a few going independent) when Thatcher became Education Secretary and a third of grammars remained when she left office.

    Heath just told her not to block local authorities, mainly Labour controlled, from closing them. It was the Tory local authorities that resisted, hence most of the grammar schools remaining are in normally traditionally Tory controlled areas like Kent, Lincolnshire, Buckinghamshire, Skipton and Ripon, Penrith, the Wirral, Solihull, Trafford, Sutton Coldfield, Chelmsford, Colchester, Southend, Poole and Rugby, Stratford Upon Avon, Salisbury and Bournemouth, Bexley, Bromley, Barnet, Redbridge, Enfield, Reading and Kingston on Thames

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_grammar_schools_in_England

    Northern Ireland also has grammars of course as well, thanks to Ulster Unionists
  • Options
    StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 7,400
    HYUFD said:

    pigeon said:

    Eton gave the land both David Cameron and Boris Johnson. Enough said.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eGOtZDk6wRc

    Walpole
    Pitt
    Wellington (catholic emancipation)
    Grey (voting reform and abolition of slavery)
    Gladstone
    MacMillan

    Enough said
    Rory Stewart, Tam Dalyell, Justin Welby, Eddie Redmayne, Anthony Eden, Douglas Home, Oliver Letwin, Jacob Rees Mogg, Dominic West, Damian Lewis, Matthew Pinsent and the Prince of Wales and Duke of Sussex of course too
    And George Jones of Flat B, 7 Axminster Street, Taunton, Somerset* too…

    Eton has 250+ kids a year. Not many go on to become prime minister



    * made up, so apologies if I have accidentally doxxed someone!

  • Options
    StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 7,400
    WillG said:

    pigeon said:

    Eton gave the land both David Cameron and Boris Johnson. Enough said.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eGOtZDk6wRc

    Walpole
    Pitt
    Wellington (catholic emancipation)
    Grey (voting reform and abolition of slavery)
    Gladstone
    MacMillan

    Enough said
    Wellington opposed the Great Reform Act, so not sure he is a beacon of values
    He passed catholic emancipation which is arguably more important from a philosophical perspective
  • Options
    The advocates of grammar schools rarely explain why 75% of pupils should, as a matter of policy, receive an inferior education.
  • Options
    ajbajb Posts: 138
    Not wishing to imply that our esteemed header writer falls into this category, but private education (and other forms of selection by parental wealth) is what puts the dimmer scions of the better off in charge of the rest of us, both in government and in private industry. It might benefit those so selected, but even ignoring the unfairness factor, the damage this does to the economy is immense.
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 119,491
    edited January 2023

    HYUFD said:

    Wes had just a perfect response to the private schools/health argument.

    Make the public sector better and so good we don't need private anymore. Aspiration. Good.

    100% agree. That’s a properly conservative approach. So how does Labours policy achieve that?
    A proper conservative approach is to expand parental choice as opposed to the traditional socialist approach of restricting choice so you just get what the state gives you
    I disagree

    Conservatives believe in equality of opportunity regardless of background

    Improving the state provided education system - while allowing parents the freedom to choose private or homeschooling if they want - is the right thing to do

    You improve it partly through choice
  • Options
    CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216
    edited January 2023
    On Keir Starmer;'s gender comments, A Scot Labour MSP tells me "the UK Labour membership must respect that members of the Scottish Parliament are sovereign in this matter"

    Add that if Sir Keir was to back UK Gvt efforts to block the bill it would have "significant consequences"


    https://twitter.com/bbcdavidwl/status/1614571710988095488

    MSPs are sovereign on U.K. law across the U.K.? Who knew?
  • Options
    Keir Starmer tells #BBCLauraK he has "concerns" about gender legislation in Scotland, doesn't back 16 year olds changing gender, and says he wants to see what UK Govt says about blocking the Scottish bill this week.

    Worth noting Labour MSPs in Scotland backed this legislation.
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 119,491
    edited January 2023

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Wes had just a perfect response to the private schools/health argument.

    Make the public sector better and so good we don't need private anymore. Aspiration. Good.

    100% agree. That’s a properly conservative approach. So how does Labours policy achieve that?
    A proper conservative approach is to expand parental choice as opposed to the traditional socialist approach of restricting choice so you just get what the state gives you
    So you'll be getting rid of grammar schools, then? Because the 11+ is literally the state telling you what sort of education your children should have.
    Absolutely not, I would be giving parents the opportunity to ballot to open new grammars not just close them which is all they are allowed to vote on now
    But, unless you are imagining something completely unlike any grammar school system we have ever seen, opening new grammar schools is opening schools that most parents won't get their children into.(From memory, the highest percentage of grammar places anywhere is forty percent of the cohort.) Hence the pressure in Conservative areas from Conservative voters to go comprehensive when their children weren't getting into grammar schools.

    And a system where the state decides at age 11 what a child's academic pathway should be? It sounds like Attlee era Socialism, because it is.
    That is for local parents to decide.

    Blair allowed parents in local authority areas with grammars to petition to ballot to close them but not parents in local authority areas without them to petition to open new grammars
  • Options
    The government is finally set to announce a new law banning so-called conversion therapy.

    ITV News understands that the ban - due to be announced this week - will outlaw attempts to change a person’s sexuality and also attempts to change someone’s gender identity.

    The government had previously said that trans conversion therapy would be excluded from a ban.

    It’s understood that Downing Street has been surprised by the level of cross-party support - including from within the Conservative Party - for a total ban.

    https://www.itv.com/news/2023-01-15/government-to-announce-law-banning-conversion-therapy

    I truly don't see how this works, but I expect the reality to be:

    G/B of any age says I think I am really a B/G: Yes of course you are, hurrah! = good, Are you quite sure about this, and sure you'll be sure in say 3 months time = criminal offence. Great.
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 119,491
    edited January 2023

    The advocates of grammar schools rarely explain why 75% of pupils should, as a matter of policy, receive an inferior education.

    In deprived areas like poor seaside towns or ex industrial towns and cities in the North, the Midlands and Wales often 100% of pupils now receive an inferior education in the comprehensives there. Whereas before even areas like Grimsby, Barnsley, Clacton or Rotherham, West Bromwich and Hastings had a grammar school pre 1965
  • Options
    BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 33,904
    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    Education is a good thing and people should be encouraged to spend money on it. Money spent on private schools means savings for local authorities. The most extreme I know is Edinburgh where nearly 1/3rd of secondary pupils go to private schools. If several of those schools close I am not sure that the local authority could cope.

    But this is all about the politics of envy. And there is never a rational answer to that.

    I can't speak for the rest of the left wing wokerati but my motivation is not the politics of envy. I could afford to pay for private education for my children but I chose not to on a point of principle. I believe selective education either by money or by 11 plus exam deprives the majority of resource, either by money shovelled into Grammar Schools to the detriment of the rest, or by an exemption on VAT. I don't want my taxes to benefit a grammar school elite at the expense of everyone else, and while I don't want to deprive you of the liberty to spend your money on a private education for your children, pay the VAT on it.

    Make universal education fantastic for all, and measure it on added value, not just on GCSE A* passes.
    Not sure where grammar schools come into this. They are state run and, like all state schools, therefore VAT exempt.

    Private schools do not cost the state money, they save it.

    Between £5k and £7k per pupil. This is significantly more than the waived VAT would be, roughly twice as much. Labour claiming that this policy will produce more money for state schools shows a basic innumeracy.

    I accept that there are social costs in that we end up with a relatively small and privileged elite who get a proper education in circumstances conducive to learning which gives them an unfair advantage in life. I agree that the ideal would be that state schools were so good than no one was willing to pay . But they aren't and there is absolutely no focus on making them so. To do that you would need to take on the teachers unions and no one is brave enough to do that.
    Two responses to that post:

    1. Labour claiming that this policy will produce more money for state schools does not show 'a basic innumeracy'... unless, and this is important, you assume that more than 30% of private pupils will no longer attend private school but will switch to state schools. Now you may think that's the case, Labour clearly don't (nor do I). But in any event there is no innumeracy on Labour's part.

    2. I'm interested in your view that it is the teachers unions, not average spend per pupil (£6.5k state, £15k private), that prevents state schools being as good as private ones. Do you have any evidence for that?
  • Options
    SeaShantyIrish2SeaShantyIrish2 Posts: 16,675
    edited January 2023

    WillG said:

    pigeon said:

    Eton gave the land both David Cameron and Boris Johnson. Enough said.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eGOtZDk6wRc

    Walpole
    Pitt
    Wellington (catholic emancipation)
    Grey (voting reform and abolition of slavery)
    Gladstone
    MacMillan

    Enough said
    Wellington opposed the Great Reform Act, so not sure he is a beacon of values
    He passed catholic emancipation which is arguably more important from a philosophical perspective
    Perhaps worth noting, that strategy of parliamentary supporter of Catholic emancipation, was to get it on the statute book BEFORE reforming the House of Commons.

    Why? Because an expanded parliamentary electorate would clearly be LESS inclined to remove Catholic disabilities than the (as yet) unreformed House of Commons.

    Why? Because Catholic emancipation was NOT popular among the kinds of folk that were most likely to gain the ballot (or increased representation) under the (eventual) 1832 Reform Act.
  • Options
    WillGWillG Posts: 2,267

    The government is finally set to announce a new law banning so-called conversion therapy.

    ITV News understands that the ban - due to be announced this week - will outlaw attempts to change a person’s sexuality and also attempts to change someone’s gender identity.

    The government had previously said that trans conversion therapy would be excluded from a ban.

    It’s understood that Downing Street has been surprised by the level of cross-party support - including from within the Conservative Party - for a total ban.

    https://www.itv.com/news/2023-01-15/government-to-announce-law-banning-conversion-therapy

    I truly don't see how this works, but I expect the reality to be:

    G/B of any age says I think I am really a B/G: Yes of course you are, hurrah! = good, Are you quite sure about this, and sure you'll be sure in say 3 months time = criminal offence. Great.

    And you expect this reality based on what, exactly?
  • Options
    It seems to me that the reason for going to private school isn't going to change under Labour's reforms, so therefore the idea it will cause a load of them to go bust seems very misguided
  • Options
    dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 28,959
    It is a little frustrating that every time we discuss education on here it becomes about grammar schools and private schools.
    Grammars aren't coming back. And the vast majority can't afford private.
    So how will we improve the education of 80%?
  • Options
    WillGWillG Posts: 2,267

    WillG said:

    pigeon said:

    Eton gave the land both David Cameron and Boris Johnson. Enough said.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eGOtZDk6wRc

    Walpole
    Pitt
    Wellington (catholic emancipation)
    Grey (voting reform and abolition of slavery)
    Gladstone
    MacMillan

    Enough said
    Wellington opposed the Great Reform Act, so not sure he is a beacon of values
    He passed catholic emancipation which is arguably more important from a philosophical perspective
    Perhaps worth noting, that strategy of parliamentary supporter of Catholic emancipation, was to get it on the statute book BEFORE reforming the House of Commons.

    Why? Because an expanded parliamentary electorate would clearly be LESS inclined to remove Catholic disabilities than the (as yet) unreformed House of Commons.

    Why? Because Catholic emancipation was NOT popular among the kinds of folk that were most likely to gain the ballot (or increased representation) under the (eventual) 1832 Reform Act.
    Catholic emancipation was passed in 1800 as part of the union with Ireland, but vetoed by George III. Catholics in Ireland were supportive of the Union, seeing it as a way to break the power of the Ascendancy, until that point.

    So George III lost us Ireland as well as America.
  • Options
    OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 15,462
    At my son's state school they've had to cut science lessons because they can't recruit and retain science teachers at current rates of pay, reflecting the government underfunding state schools. A whole load of science teachers just decamped from the school to nearby private schools, who have more money. So don't tell me that these schools aren't harming the state sector and the life chances of our kids, damn right they are.
    There's 31 kids in my son's class. He says it's a good class and the kids don't mess about, but the teachers simply don't have time for individual tuition when the class is so large.
    The problem isn't the unions, or kids not wanting to learn, I can tell you that as a parent. The problem is simple - the schools need more money so they can retain teachers, hire more and recuce class sizes to more manageable levels. If state schools got as much money as their private counterparts and weren't succeeding, then sure look for other causes. But don't tell me that funding isn't the main issue because as a parent I can tell you it absolutely 100% is.
  • Options
    StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 7,400
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Wes had just a perfect response to the private schools/health argument.

    Make the public sector better and so good we don't need private anymore. Aspiration. Good.

    100% agree. That’s a properly conservative approach. So how does Labours policy achieve that?
    A proper conservative approach is to expand parental choice as opposed to the traditional socialist approach of restricting choice so you just get what the state gives you
    I disagree

    Conservatives believe in equality of opportunity regardless of background

    Improving the state provided education system - while allowing parents the freedom to choose private or homeschooling if they want - is the right thing to do

    You improve it partly through choice
    Technically the derivative effects of choice rather than choice itself. But close enough I suppose

  • Options
    I'm not sure this is the vote winner @TSE thinks it is.

    For a start, it's a policy that sends a signal and not in a good way, namely
    let's target those are a bit richer. Schools today, large houses tomorrow.

    Second, it's a bit prejudiced to think Red Wall voters are all class-obsessed oiks who cannot wait to bash the rich. Go to the mills towns north of Manchester and they are proud of the private schools. Even in Manchester, MGS, Withington High and MSG are all respected in their communities

    (Trafford is an interesting one - it's Labour and the party there used to be very anti-Grammar until they got into power and realised how many of their natural grad-educated supporters who were parents liked the system)

    Third, what's Red Wall voters probably more dislike is the hypocrisy of middle class parents trumpeting how they use
    a state school and then pay for private tuition to boost their children's chances. Blocking that would truly be popular.
  • Options
    HYUFD said:

    The advocates of grammar schools rarely explain why 75% of pupils should, as a matter of policy, receive an inferior education.

    In deprived areas like poor seaside towns or ex industrial towns and cities in the North, the Midlands and Wales often 100% of pupils now receive an inferior education in the comprehensives there. Whereas before even areas like Grimsby, Barnsley or Rotherham, West Bromwich and Hastings had a grammar school pre 1965
    As I said, advocates on grammar schools rarely explain why, as a matter of policy, 75% of pupils in a given local authority should be provided with an inferior education.

    There is another poster on PB, forget the name, who makes a case that the weakest pupils should receive extraordinary provision in specialised settings - now that could make a profound difference.
  • Options
    dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 28,959

    I'm not sure this is the vote winner @TSE thinks it is.

    For a start, it's a policy that sends a signal and not in a good way, namely
    let's target those are a bit richer. Schools today, large houses tomorrow.

    Second, it's a bit prejudiced to think Red Wall voters are all class-obsessed oiks who cannot wait to bash the rich. Go to the mills towns north of Manchester and they are proud of the private schools. Even in Manchester, MGS, Withington High and MSG are all respected in their communities

    (Trafford is an interesting one - it's Labour and the party there used to be very anti-Grammar until they got into power and realised how many of their natural grad-educated supporters who were parents liked the system)

    Third, what's Red Wall voters probably more dislike is the hypocrisy of middle class parents trumpeting how they use
    a state school and then pay for private tuition to boost their children's chances. Blocking that would truly be popular.

    Private schooling is something that all should be rightly proud of.
    But private tuition ought to be outlawed?
    OK.
  • Options
    Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 26,717
    HYUFD said:

    pigeon said:

    Leon said:

    If these posho schools can’t get by without an outrageous and immoral bung from the taxpayer, then let them sink

    Starmer and Labour are right on this

    NB: I went to a bog standard comp

    They're only a networking opportunity for the (frequently horrible) children of hugely rich and entitled billionaires and royals anyway. The fees are already so steep that your typical sharp-elbowed, upper-middle-class parent who's worried about their kid ending up in a shit school will simply buy their way into a really good state one by moving house, rather than wasting tens of thousands a term on an exciting opportunity for their offspring to dress up in a silly outfit and get buggered by one of the more obscure members of the Bahraini ruling family.

    What pressing social need justifies giving a fee-paying school enormous tax exemptions? There isn't one, is there? These organisations are parasitic. Their leeching should be stopped.
    I never got buggered by a member of the Bahraini ruling family but I did play tennis a few times with the nephew of the Sultan of Brunei at my public school
    See, there are some benefits to not being a pretty child.
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 119,491

    HYUFD said:

    The advocates of grammar schools rarely explain why 75% of pupils should, as a matter of policy, receive an inferior education.

    In deprived areas like poor seaside towns or ex industrial towns and cities in the North, the Midlands and Wales often 100% of pupils now receive an inferior education in the comprehensives there. Whereas before even areas like Grimsby, Barnsley or Rotherham, West Bromwich and Hastings had a grammar school pre 1965
    As I said, advocates on grammar schools rarely explain why, as a matter of policy, 75% of pupils in a given local authority should be provided with an inferior education.

    There is another poster on PB, forget the name, who makes a case that the weakest pupils should receive extraordinary provision in specialised settings - now that could make a profound difference.
    As I said advocates of comprehensives rarely explain why in poor and deprived areas 100% of pupils should be provided with an inferior education.

    (Plus in some selective areas like Trafford and Bucks the high schools too get perfectly good results)
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 119,491

    At my son's state school they've had to cut science lessons because they can't recruit and retain science teachers at current rates of pay, reflecting the government underfunding state schools. A whole load of science teachers just decamped from the school to nearby private schools, who have more money. So don't tell me that these schools aren't harming the state sector and the life chances of our kids, damn right they are.
    There's 31 kids in my son's class. He says it's a good class and the kids don't mess about, but the teachers simply don't have time for individual tuition when the class is so large.
    The problem isn't the unions, or kids not wanting to learn, I can tell you that as a parent. The problem is simple - the schools need more money so they can retain teachers, hire more and recuce class sizes to more manageable levels. If state schools got as much money as their private counterparts and weren't succeeding, then sure look for other causes. But don't tell me that funding isn't the main issue because as a parent I can tell you it absolutely 100% is.

    Well for the left it always is more money, we know that
  • Options
    dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 28,959
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    The advocates of grammar schools rarely explain why 75% of pupils should, as a matter of policy, receive an inferior education.

    In deprived areas like poor seaside towns or ex industrial towns and cities in the North, the Midlands and Wales often 100% of pupils now receive an inferior education in the comprehensives there. Whereas before even areas like Grimsby, Barnsley or Rotherham, West Bromwich and Hastings had a grammar school pre 1965
    As I said, advocates on grammar schools rarely explain why, as a matter of policy, 75% of pupils in a given local authority should be provided with an inferior education.

    There is another poster on PB, forget the name, who makes a case that the weakest pupils should receive extraordinary provision in specialised settings - now that could make a profound difference.
    As I said advocates of comprehensives rarely explain why in poor and deprived areas 100% of pupils should be provided with an inferior education.

    (Plus in some selective areas like Trafford and Bucks the high schools too get perfectly good results)
    But it doesn't HAVE to be inferior.
    That's the whole point.
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 119,491
    dixiedean said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    The advocates of grammar schools rarely explain why 75% of pupils should, as a matter of policy, receive an inferior education.

    In deprived areas like poor seaside towns or ex industrial towns and cities in the North, the Midlands and Wales often 100% of pupils now receive an inferior education in the comprehensives there. Whereas before even areas like Grimsby, Barnsley or Rotherham, West Bromwich and Hastings had a grammar school pre 1965
    As I said, advocates on grammar schools rarely explain why, as a matter of policy, 75% of pupils in a given local authority should be provided with an inferior education.

    There is another poster on PB, forget the name, who makes a case that the weakest pupils should receive extraordinary provision in specialised settings - now that could make a profound difference.
    As I said advocates of comprehensives rarely explain why in poor and deprived areas 100% of pupils should be provided with an inferior education.

    (Plus in some selective areas like Trafford and Bucks the high schools too get perfectly good results)
    But it doesn't HAVE to be inferior.
    That's the whole point.
    Comprehensives in Stoke or Barnsley will always be inferior to comprehensives in Surrey, that is just reality.

    When the former had grammars however they had a state school that could compete with state schools in Surrey
  • Options
    dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 28,959
    HYUFD said:

    At my son's state school they've had to cut science lessons because they can't recruit and retain science teachers at current rates of pay, reflecting the government underfunding state schools. A whole load of science teachers just decamped from the school to nearby private schools, who have more money. So don't tell me that these schools aren't harming the state sector and the life chances of our kids, damn right they are.
    There's 31 kids in my son's class. He says it's a good class and the kids don't mess about, but the teachers simply don't have time for individual tuition when the class is so large.
    The problem isn't the unions, or kids not wanting to learn, I can tell you that as a parent. The problem is simple - the schools need more money so they can retain teachers, hire more and recuce class sizes to more manageable levels. If state schools got as much money as their private counterparts and weren't succeeding, then sure look for other causes. But don't tell me that funding isn't the main issue because as a parent I can tell you it absolutely 100% is.

    Well for the left it always is more money, we know that
    13 years of Tory penny pinching and a glance at the state of the country means more and more are thinking they may have a point.
  • Options
    bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 22,434
    Internal bleeding is a fatally serious condition

    SKS thinks you should be able to get a test at home

    Totally batshit they will never get the MRI Scanner through the letterbox and as for patients doing there own endoscopy at home FFS

    SKS FANS PLEASE EXPLAIN
  • Options
    MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 46,406
    dixiedean said:

    I'm not sure this is the vote winner @TSE thinks it is.

    For a start, it's a policy that sends a signal and not in a good way, namely
    let's target those are a bit richer. Schools today, large houses tomorrow.

    Second, it's a bit prejudiced to think Red Wall voters are all class-obsessed oiks who cannot wait to bash the rich. Go to the mills towns north of Manchester and they are proud of the private schools. Even in Manchester, MGS, Withington High and MSG are all respected in their communities

    (Trafford is an interesting one - it's Labour and the party there used to be very anti-Grammar until they got into power and realised how many of their natural grad-educated supporters who were parents liked the system)

    Third, what's Red Wall voters probably more dislike is the hypocrisy of middle class parents trumpeting how they use
    a state school and then pay for private tuition to boost their children's chances. Blocking that would truly be popular.

    Private schooling is something that all should be rightly proud of.
    But private tuition ought to be outlawed?
    OK.
    The anger from state school teachers at the banning of private tuition would be epic. Who do you think does a big chunk of the tutoring?
  • Options
    williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 49,764

    The advocates of grammar schools rarely explain why 75% of pupils should, as a matter of policy, receive an inferior education.

    Do you oppose setting in comprehensives? Should everyone study Latin and Greek?
  • Options
    dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 28,959
    HYUFD said:

    dixiedean said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    The advocates of grammar schools rarely explain why 75% of pupils should, as a matter of policy, receive an inferior education.

    In deprived areas like poor seaside towns or ex industrial towns and cities in the North, the Midlands and Wales often 100% of pupils now receive an inferior education in the comprehensives there. Whereas before even areas like Grimsby, Barnsley or Rotherham, West Bromwich and Hastings had a grammar school pre 1965
    As I said, advocates on grammar schools rarely explain why, as a matter of policy, 75% of pupils in a given local authority should be provided with an inferior education.

    There is another poster on PB, forget the name, who makes a case that the weakest pupils should receive extraordinary provision in specialised settings - now that could make a profound difference.
    As I said advocates of comprehensives rarely explain why in poor and deprived areas 100% of pupils should be provided with an inferior education.

    (Plus in some selective areas like Trafford and Bucks the high schools too get perfectly good results)
    But it doesn't HAVE to be inferior.
    That's the whole point.
    Comprehensives in Stoke or Barnsley will always be inferior to comprehensives in Surrey, that is just reality.

    When the former had grammars however they had a state school that could compete with state schools in Surrey
    Will they?
    Why?
    Please explain.
  • Options
    bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 22,434
    Please God let SKS follow his own policy when he next gets internal bleeding
  • Options
    MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 46,406

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    Education is a good thing and people should be encouraged to spend money on it. Money spent on private schools means savings for local authorities. The most extreme I know is Edinburgh where nearly 1/3rd of secondary pupils go to private schools. If several of those schools close I am not sure that the local authority could cope.

    But this is all about the politics of envy. And there is never a rational answer to that.

    I can't speak for the rest of the left wing wokerati but my motivation is not the politics of envy. I could afford to pay for private education for my children but I chose not to on a point of principle. I believe selective education either by money or by 11 plus exam deprives the majority of resource, either by money shovelled into Grammar Schools to the detriment of the rest, or by an exemption on VAT. I don't want my taxes to benefit a grammar school elite at the expense of everyone else, and while I don't want to deprive you of the liberty to spend your money on a private education for your children, pay the VAT on it.

    Make universal education fantastic for all, and measure it on added value, not just on GCSE A* passes.
    Not sure where grammar schools come into this. They are state run and, like all state schools, therefore VAT exempt.

    Private schools do not cost the state money, they save it.

    Between £5k and £7k per pupil. This is significantly more than the waived VAT would be, roughly twice as much. Labour claiming that this policy will produce more money for state schools shows a basic innumeracy.

    I accept that there are social costs in that we end up with a relatively small and privileged elite who get a proper education in circumstances conducive to learning which gives them an unfair advantage in life. I agree that the ideal would be that state schools were so good than no one was willing to pay . But they aren't and there is absolutely no focus on making them so. To do that you would need to take on the teachers unions and no one is brave enough to do that.
    Two responses to that post:

    1. Labour claiming that this policy will produce more money for state schools does not show 'a basic innumeracy'... unless, and this is important, you assume that more than 30% of private pupils will no longer attend private school but will switch to state schools. Now you may think that's the case, Labour clearly don't (nor do I). But in any event there is no innumeracy on Labour's part.

    2. I'm interested in your view that it is the teachers unions, not average spend per pupil (£6.5k state, £15k private), that prevents state schools being as good as private ones. Do you have any evidence for that?
    When comparing the spend per pupil, it is worth remembering that in the purely academic spend, the difference is a lot lower.
  • Options
    dixiedean said:

    I'm not sure this is the vote winner @TSE thinks it is.

    For a start, it's a policy that sends a signal and not in a good way, namely
    let's target those are a bit richer. Schools today, large houses tomorrow.

    Second, it's a bit prejudiced to think Red Wall voters are all class-obsessed oiks who cannot wait to bash the rich. Go to the mills towns north of Manchester and they are proud of the private schools. Even in Manchester, MGS, Withington High and MSG are all respected in their communities

    (Trafford is an interesting one - it's Labour and the party there used to be very anti-Grammar until they got into power and realised how many of their natural grad-educated supporters who were parents liked the system)

    Third, what's Red Wall voters probably more dislike is the hypocrisy of middle class parents trumpeting how they use
    a state school and then pay for private tuition to boost their children's chances. Blocking that would truly be popular.

    Private schooling is something that all should be rightly proud of.
    But private tuition ought to be outlawed?
    OK.
    Nope, wrong lesson learnt.

    People don't like hypocrisy. Many RW voters would love their kids to get into a private school. Which is why the Assisted Places scheme was popular until the Fettes and Oxford educated Tony Blair abolished it.

    What they certainly don't like is some morally superior middle class person proclaiming loud and proud about their kids going to state school and how principled they the parents are and then giving their children an unfair advantage - and it is an unfair advantage - by paying for tuition on the side which poorer parents cannot afford.

    (Or indeed, being able to pay the house price premium a poor person can't afford to buy a house in the catchment area of an excellent state school - another example of where thinking things come down to private v state is a fallacy).
  • Options
    WillG said:

    The government is finally set to announce a new law banning so-called conversion therapy.

    ITV News understands that the ban - due to be announced this week - will outlaw attempts to change a person’s sexuality and also attempts to change someone’s gender identity.

    The government had previously said that trans conversion therapy would be excluded from a ban.

    It’s understood that Downing Street has been surprised by the level of cross-party support - including from within the Conservative Party - for a total ban.

    https://www.itv.com/news/2023-01-15/government-to-announce-law-banning-conversion-therapy

    I truly don't see how this works, but I expect the reality to be:

    G/B of any age says I think I am really a B/G: Yes of course you are, hurrah! = good, Are you quite sure about this, and sure you'll be sure in say 3 months time = criminal offence. Great.

    And you expect this reality based on what, exactly?
    Instructions from the Kremlin.

    Also, a knowledge that this sort of thing is the orthodoxy

    “This study provides further credence to guidance that practitioners and other professionals should affirm—rather than question—a child’s assertion of their gender, particularly for those who more strongly identify with their gender,” says Russell Toomey from the University of Arizona, who studies LGBTQ youth and is himself transgender."

    https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2019/01/young-trans-children-know-who-they-are/580366/
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 119,491
    edited January 2023
    dixiedean said:

    HYUFD said:

    dixiedean said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    The advocates of grammar schools rarely explain why 75% of pupils should, as a matter of policy, receive an inferior education.

    In deprived areas like poor seaside towns or ex industrial towns and cities in the North, the Midlands and Wales often 100% of pupils now receive an inferior education in the comprehensives there. Whereas before even areas like Grimsby, Barnsley or Rotherham, West Bromwich and Hastings had a grammar school pre 1965
    As I said, advocates on grammar schools rarely explain why, as a matter of policy, 75% of pupils in a given local authority should be provided with an inferior education.

    There is another poster on PB, forget the name, who makes a case that the weakest pupils should receive extraordinary provision in specialised settings - now that could make a profound difference.
    As I said advocates of comprehensives rarely explain why in poor and deprived areas 100% of pupils should be provided with an inferior education.

    (Plus in some selective areas like Trafford and Bucks the high schools too get perfectly good results)
    But it doesn't HAVE to be inferior.
    That's the whole point.
    Comprehensives in Stoke or Barnsley will always be inferior to comprehensives in Surrey, that is just reality.

    When the former had grammars however they had a state school that could compete with state schools in Surrey
    Will they?
    Why?
    Please explain.
    Just see the charts

    32% get GCSE grade 7 or above in London, 29% in the SE of England, less than 19% in the NE and Midlands.

    When we had more grammar schools however there were more schools in the NE and Midlands pushing students to get those top grades and not assuming because they were mostly working class or lower middle class average would do

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-62498631
  • Options

    Please God let SKS follow his own policy when he next gets internal bleeding

    Polls not going your way so onto something else ok
  • Options
    CookieCookie Posts: 12,357
    dixiedean said:

    HYUFD said:

    At my son's state school they've had to cut science lessons because they can't recruit and retain science teachers at current rates of pay, reflecting the government underfunding state schools. A whole load of science teachers just decamped from the school to nearby private schools, who have more money. So don't tell me that these schools aren't harming the state sector and the life chances of our kids, damn right they are.
    There's 31 kids in my son's class. He says it's a good class and the kids don't mess about, but the teachers simply don't have time for individual tuition when the class is so large.
    The problem isn't the unions, or kids not wanting to learn, I can tell you that as a parent. The problem is simple - the schools need more money so they can retain teachers, hire more and recuce class sizes to more manageable levels. If state schools got as much money as their private counterparts and weren't succeeding, then sure look for other causes. But don't tell me that funding isn't the main issue because as a parent I can tell you it absolutely 100% is.

    Well for the left it always is more money, we know that
    13 years of Tory penny pinching and a glance at the state of the country means more and more are thinking they may have a point.
    The thing is, last time the country votes for a bit more spending- 1997 - it was against the backdrop of a healthy and growing economy. If the answer now is more spending, the horrible question is where does the money come from? We've been spending more than we've raised since 2001. We can't carry on doing so indefinitely.
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 119,491
    dixiedean said:

    HYUFD said:

    At my son's state school they've had to cut science lessons because they can't recruit and retain science teachers at current rates of pay, reflecting the government underfunding state schools. A whole load of science teachers just decamped from the school to nearby private schools, who have more money. So don't tell me that these schools aren't harming the state sector and the life chances of our kids, damn right they are.
    There's 31 kids in my son's class. He says it's a good class and the kids don't mess about, but the teachers simply don't have time for individual tuition when the class is so large.
    The problem isn't the unions, or kids not wanting to learn, I can tell you that as a parent. The problem is simple - the schools need more money so they can retain teachers, hire more and recuce class sizes to more manageable levels. If state schools got as much money as their private counterparts and weren't succeeding, then sure look for other causes. But don't tell me that funding isn't the main issue because as a parent I can tell you it absolutely 100% is.

    Well for the left it always is more money, we know that
    13 years of Tory penny pinching and a glance at the state of the country means more and more are thinking they may have a point.
    UK PISA ranking rose from 25th in reading in 2009 for example to 14th in 2018

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-50563833
  • Options
    bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 22,434
    So we have record waiting numbers for NHS appointments and SKS thinks its a good idea to allow people who feel a bit ill to self refer.

    How can policies like this even make it past first base FFS.

    Laughing stock
  • Options
    Jim_MillerJim_Miller Posts: 2,657
    edited January 2023
    Speaking of education, this concluding paragraph from a George Will column may be instructive: "The reasons for shrinking enrollments in traditional public schools include declining birthrates, increased competition from public charter schools and private schools, and more home schooling. But surely another reason is dissatisfaction with public schools that are embroiled in controversies about their “equity” agendas. Which means: There are declining numbers of truly traditional public schools."
    source$: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/01/13/thomas-jefferson-high-school-national-merit-controversy/

    Will was discussing recent events at the very selective Thomas Jefferson High School for Science and Technology. Among other things, the school district recently paid '455,000 to a California consulting firm that says its aim is “equal outcomes for every student, without exception.”'

    And the district's high schools, perhaps in an effort to reach that absurd goal, decided to withold information: "TJHS and other Fairfax secondary schools recently chose not to disclose to students and their parents the fact that the students — at TJHS, 230 of them, mostly Asian Americans — had won National Merit Commendation awards"

    This delay may have kept some of those students from getting admitted to the universities they had applied to.
  • Options
    williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 49,764

    So we have record waiting numbers for NHS appointments and SKS thinks its a good idea to allow people who feel a bit ill to self refer.

    How can policies like this even make it past first base FFS.

    Laughing stock

    So the only way a nationalised system can function is with gatekeepers to limit demand?
  • Options
    EPGEPG Posts: 6,601

    So we have record waiting numbers for NHS appointments and SKS thinks its a good idea to allow people who feel a bit ill to self refer.

    How can policies like this even make it past first base FFS.

    Laughing stock

    This is your automated reminder that the political positioning of the Labour left delivered the party its worst result in postwar history.
  • Options

    So we have record waiting numbers for NHS appointments and SKS thinks its a good idea to allow people who feel a bit ill to self refer.

    How can policies like this even make it past first base FFS.

    Laughing stock

    So the only way a nationalised system can function is with gatekeepers to limit demand?
    It's more about efficient allocation of resources. I have paid the Nuffield for psychiatry and for new hips, and in both cases they quite rightly won't initially talk to me, even at £250 an hour, without a GP referral.
  • Options

    So we have record waiting numbers for NHS appointments and SKS thinks its a good idea to allow people who feel a bit ill to self refer.

    How can policies like this even make it past first base FFS.

    Laughing stock

    Good evening

    He also wants to use the private sector to reduce waiting lists which is common sense
This discussion has been closed.