"I've come to the conclusion that the shy factor isn't about being right wing, it's just about the Tory brand."
I think that's true and has been exacerbated by the Etonian question. Private schooling hasn't previously been on anyone's radar but now out of nowhere people are asking whether it's reasonable for the leadership of the Tory Party to chant the benefits of the public school which is only open to a tiny privileged section of the population. The children of the wealthy. It's Dickensian.
Should we ban holidays, if some cannot afford them?
How about expensive cars, since only a few can buy them?
There will always be some things that only the wealthy can afford. It's no justification for envy.
Besides which, the Gove reforms are about improving education for all, so having had private schooling cannot be a valid criticism against the current government.
First: FPT: taffys said: The difference between UKIP and the mainstream parties boils down to one thing. Belief in the current governmental framework.
The main parties believe in it, and are committed to working within it. UKIP don't think its fit for purpose.
The recent terror case is a great example. The tories are promising crackdowns and gags of preachers, but its all within the current legal framework.
But people don;t want that. They want these people thrown out and their benefits withdrawn. In some cases even if they are British citizens. The main parties will never go there because its outside a legal framework they all believe in, or at least can't be ar&ed to change.
and that explains why UKIP are, and will continue to be, a force. --------------- I could't have put better, taffys.
....and to Alanbrooke: Let's not quibble over semantics, the point is I notice a change in your attitude if not entirely in your thinking. And theres nothing wrong with that.
Another way of putting this is that UKIP believes in the arbitrary application of the law, the other parties believe in the rule of law.
That's pretty much the exact opposite of the truth as it's the political class who put a politically correct filter on the rule of law e.g. grooming.
The key distinction is people who believe the BBC version of reality is true and those who know it isn't.
"Should we ban holidays, if some cannot afford them? How about expensive cars, since only a few can buy them?"
Education is different. It's accepted that it is the biggest influence on one's life chances and only a tiny elite with rich parents-perhaps 5% of the population-can have this benefit irrespective of ability of the children and the Tories see nothing wiffy in it at all. In fact they wallow in it by appearing to favour by promotion those with the good fortune of wealthy parents.
Nuclear power stations are hugely expensive to build and decommission because we assume they must be uranium fueled PWR designs (which must therefore be massive).
If we instead assumed Thorium fueled unpressurised designs then much of the economic grief would go away. But...the existing nuclear industry is totally invested into the legacy model.
It needs a wealthy new player with government backing to break the mould. Or wait for the Chinese or someone else to get there first and play copycat as the economics are refreshed.
Roger - But private schools are not just for the wealthy, they provide scholarships and bursaries for intelligent pupils who would otherwise not afford the fees. If you want to improve the state sector a few more grammar schools would help alongside the Gove reforms
Nuclear power stations are hugely expensive to build and decommission because we assume they must be uranium fueled PWR designs (which must therefore be massive).
If we instead assumed Thorium fueled unpressurised designs then much of the economic grief would go away. But...the existing nuclear industry is totally invested into the legacy model.
It needs a wealthy new player with government backing to break the mould. Or wait for the Chinese or someone else to get there first and play copycat as the economics are refreshed.
I keep hearing about Thorium reactors online. Seems i might need to swot up on it.
"If parents wish to spend their income on improving their child's chances, who are you to say they should not?"
Who are you to tell a parent that they have to send their child to school at all? We're all subject to coercion for the greater good (sometimes real, sometimes perceived). I can hardly think of a greater good than equality of life chances for children.
"Should we ban holidays, if some cannot afford them? How about expensive cars, since only a few can buy them?"
Education is different. It's accepted that it is the biggest influence on one's life chances and only a tiny elite with rich parents-perhaps 5% of the population-can have this benefit irrespective of ability of the children and the Tories see nothing elitist in it at all. In fact they wallow in it by openly promoting other's with the good fortune of wealthy parents.
Education is vital to your chances is it?
Like Bill Gates who, after completing his course... no wait, he dropped out to start Microsoft.
Ok let's try Steve Jobs who, after completing... no wait, he dropped out too.
Nuclear power stations are hugely expensive to build and decommission because we assume they must be uranium fueled PWR designs (which must therefore be massive).
If we instead assumed Thorium fueled unpressurised designs then much of the economic grief would go away. But...the existing nuclear industry is totally invested into the legacy model.
It needs a wealthy new player with government backing to break the mould. Or wait for the Chinese or someone else to get there first and play copycat as the economics are refreshed.
Nuclear power stations are hugely expensive to build and decommission because we assume they must be uranium fueled PWR designs (which must therefore be massive).
If we instead assumed Thorium fueled unpressurised designs then much of the economic grief would go away. But...the existing nuclear industry is totally invested into the legacy model.
It needs a wealthy new player with government backing to break the mould. Or wait for the Chinese or someone else to get there first and play copycat as the economics are refreshed.
Possibly, but like I say reactors are always cheap at the powerpoint stage. There are a lot of tricky engineering problems to solve before you can actually make one that runs reliably.
"If parents wish to spend their income on improving their child's chances, who are you to say they should not?"
Who are you to tell a parent that they have to send their child to school at all? We're all subject to coercion for the greater good (sometimes real, sometimes perceived). I can hardly think of a greater good than equality of life chances for children.
Are you going to ban parents for encouraging their children to do their homework, since others do not?
Should parents not teach them to read, as it might provide an inequality when they go to school?
How in fact do we measure this (supposed) inequality?
Or is it just about people who have more money than you think they should?
"How in fact do we measure this (supposed) inequality?
Or is it just about people who have more money than you think they should?"
Exam results are remarkably easy to measure. And I don't have a problem with wealth - it's a very good thing, so long as the distribution of wealth is relatively (and I emphasise relatively) equitable.
To my mind the rise of Ukip is really quite simple and arises from the confluence of several disparate factors, amongst which are :
1. A growing disconnect between all parties and the public. 2. A continuing disconnect between voters and the EU 3. The absence of the LibDems as opposition to a Conservative government. 4. The Conservatives move to more socially liberal policies. 5. An uninspiring Labour opposition. 6. Normal mid-term blues. 7. Farage as a high profile media friendly leader. 8. Until recently little in depth scrutiny of Ukip policies. 9. Immigration as a continuing concern.
Well while that might explain the rise of UKIP, what the tribal blues have yet to explain is why the current CP can't connect with people who should naturally vote for it. Effectively the blues are increasingly a southern regionalist party with little to offer outside their homelands.
The mantra the voters will come back seems very complacent imo. As someone who's voted blue for most of my adult life I won't at the next GE since I can't see the point. What do the blues offer someone in the Midlands, the North or in Scotland ? There appears very little of note in the conservative debate to engage these parts of the country, therein lies part of the "disconnect" between the current CP and its potential supporters. Have the Conservatives have become a bunch of lazy sods who can't be bothered chasing votes or have they disconnected with the real world to the point where they have no ideas on moving the whole of the country forward ? Whatever it is the lack of dynamism is no better than Ed's lack of policy and decerves to get its rewards at the ballot box.
I think the problem is simply that Blair - an internationalist metropolitan - was the dominant political figure when our current leaders were growing up.
The Tories wanted to emulate him, so elected the same as their leader.
The problem is that, while Labour can rely on many social organisations - the false folk memories, the unions, etc - to preserve links to the ordinary many in the street (and Blair saw this - hence Precott) the Tories can't and haven't given those people who might be able to do that (Hague, Pickles?) sufficient freedom and authority.
It's ironic, perhaps, but Labour can afford an elitest leader in the way the Tories can't. (This is not to say that someone of Cameron's background *can't* connect or show concern for the bulk of the nation, but that he personally appears incapable of doing so)
Charles, saying voters have "false folk memories" is a wonderful encapsulation of a Tory attitude which ensures that many of us who do believe in free markets, enterprise and private ownership would never consider voting Tory. It is magnificently arrogant and perfectly repellant. Congratulations!
Can you explain how it is magnificant'y arrogant and perfectly repellant?
For instance (and don't really want to get into a debate about the specifics because we have done it to death and it's incidental to the argument): the Tories get the blame for closing down the coal industry, while Labour closed a large number of mines as well.
Is that not a 'false folk memory'? Clearly the Tories deserve some blame - for not facing the inevitable in a more compassionate manner and often giving the impression that they revelled in it (the 'hard-faced men') - but not all the blame.
By dismissing something as a false folk memory you are saying it is wrong and you are absolving yourself of engagement - that is arrogant and repellant.
And the closing of the coal mines has never been an issue per se - it's what happened as a result of the closures. When mines closed under Labour there were other jobs to go to and communities were not torn apart.
Yes, they expanded the public sector to take all these people on. That led to its own problems.
Let's also remember that unemployment at its very peak under Thatcher was 11%. Hollande has achieved the same in France - and it's rising. Would you give Hollande the same amount of opprobrium you give Thatcher? At least Thatcher achieved badly needed reform. I personally place the main responsibility on those that allowed the subsidies to creep up and up for the UK coal industry, which was always going to force a nasty experience when they had to be taken away.
I have never heaped opprobrium on Mrs T. As I have said on here before, without her I probably would not have had the life I have had. I owe plenty to her; just as I owe plenty to the welfare state. But I would not dismiss the very real experiences that plenty of others had in the 80s as false memories.
Think that explains it: I would always differentiate between the real experiences that you and others had, and the legend that has grown up around the reality. As with all myths they are built on a seed of truth, but it doesn't mean that the whole is true.
"Should we ban holidays, if some cannot afford them? How about expensive cars, since only a few can buy them?"
Education is different. It's accepted that it is the biggest influence on one's life chances and only a tiny elite with rich parents-perhaps 5% of the population-can have this benefit irrespective of ability of the children and the Tories see nothing wiffy in it at all. In fact they wallow in it by appearing to favour by promotion those with the good fortune of wealthy parents.
I benefited from a fantastic education because my Dad worked bloody hard to afford it. (He left school at 17 himself but later became an autodidact so really valued education beyond most other things).
The question then is how to ensure that everyone can benefit from such an education, regardless of ability to pay. Fundamentally this is what Gove is trying to achieve: giving schools the ability to innovate and improve. Collectivisation has failed in so many other spheres - and has not been a success in the UK education system - so why do we assume that it is still the right way forward?
At the moment the state education system fails most people. The current system isn't working: any suggestions from anti-Govists on how to improve things?
"If parents wish to spend their income on improving their child's chances, who are you to say they should not?"
Who are you to tell a parent that they have to send their child to school at all? We're all subject to coercion for the greater good (sometimes real, sometimes perceived). I can hardly think of a greater good than equality of life chances for children.
Do we think there's a "shy UKIP voter" syndrome going on with the pollsters here and generally? They did better in the locals than predicted. Do by elections at council level have any data at all to back that up?
They did better than general election polling at the time would have predicted, but there wasn't a general election. Did anyone even do any nationwide local election polling?
I've come to the conclusion that the shy factor isn't about being right wing, it's just about the Tory brand.
I think that's the crux. They'd got over it - at least with the sort of people who might consider voting for them - around the time of the Crewe by-election but then they did it again.
"Should we ban holidays, if some cannot afford them? How about expensive cars, since only a few can buy them?"
Education is different. It's accepted that it is the biggest influence on one's life chances and only a tiny elite with rich parents-perhaps 5% of the population-can have this benefit irrespective of ability of the children and the Tories see nothing elitist in it at all. In fact they wallow in it by openly promoting other's with the good fortune of wealthy parents.
Education is vital to your chances is it?
Like Bill Gates who, after completing his course... no wait, he dropped out to start Microsoft.
Ok let's try Steve Jobs who, after completing... no wait, he dropped out too.
"I benefited from a fantastic education because my Dad worked bloody hard to afford it."
It's interesting that you feel the need to say that. If your privileged education had not been the product of a parent's hard work, would you feel ashamed of it? If so, why? If not, why not?
"As ever, you're making the mistake of ascribing honourable motives to many who complain about Old Etonians."
I'm one of those complainants, so I don't have to ascribe anything.
From what I've seen on here you are principled and consistent (if wrong about virtually everything). I've no doubt this is what grounds your complaints about OEs. Many others have baser motives than you.
Nuclear power stations are hugely expensive to build and decommission because we assume they must be uranium fueled PWR designs (which must therefore be massive).
If we instead assumed Thorium fueled unpressurised designs then much of the economic grief would go away. But...the existing nuclear industry is totally invested into the legacy model.
It needs a wealthy new player with government backing to break the mould. Or wait for the Chinese or someone else to get there first and play copycat as the economics are refreshed.
I keep hearing about Thorium reactors online. Seems i might need to swot up on it.
Since Fukushima people pushing nuclear power have been very keen to come up with something that sounds different to the last thing they told us was safe. So the current line is, of course keeping nuclear materials at high pressure is very difficult and expensive, we were only doing that because it was easier to make bombs. But this new technique, using deadly poisonous, highly corrosive salts at high temperatures, will be fine.
"Should we ban holidays, if some cannot afford them? How about expensive cars, since only a few can buy them?"
Education is different. It's accepted that it is the biggest influence on one's life chances and only a tiny elite with rich parents-perhaps 5% of the population-can have this benefit irrespective of ability of the children and the Tories see nothing elitist in it at all. In fact they wallow in it by openly promoting other's with the good fortune of wealthy parents.
Education is vital to your chances is it?
Like Bill Gates who, after completing his course... no wait, he dropped out to start Microsoft.
Ok let's try Steve Jobs who, after completing... no wait, he dropped out too.
James Kelly - Yes, it is far better now of course where what matters is whether your parents can afford a residence in the catchment area of a top comprehensive or private school fees
Nuclear power stations are hugely expensive to build and decommission because we assume they must be uranium fueled PWR designs (which must therefore be massive).
If we instead assumed Thorium fueled unpressurised designs then much of the economic grief would go away. But...the existing nuclear industry is totally invested into the legacy model.
It needs a wealthy new player with government backing to break the mould. Or wait for the Chinese or someone else to get there first and play copycat as the economics are refreshed.
I keep hearing about Thorium reactors online. Seems i might need to swot up on it.
Since Fukushima people pushing nuclear power have been very keen to come up with something that sounds different to the last thing they told us was safe. So the current line is, of course keeping nuclear materials at high pressure is very difficult and expensive, we were only doing that because it was easier to make bombs. But this new technique, using deadly poisonous, highly corrosive salts at high temperatures, will be fine.
Nuclear power stations are hugely expensive to build and decommission because we assume they must be uranium fueled PWR designs (which must therefore be massive).
If we instead assumed Thorium fueled unpressurised designs then much of the economic grief would go away. But...the existing nuclear industry is totally invested into the legacy model.
It needs a wealthy new player with government backing to break the mould. Or wait for the Chinese or someone else to get there first and play copycat as the economics are refreshed.
I keep hearing about Thorium reactors online. Seems i might need to swot up on it.
This is a topic that seems to come up on PB three or four times a year, and I'll play my usual position of grumpy-sod-who-understands-(some)-engineering.
You will read a great deal of nonsense about thorium reactors on the 'net. As is often the case, the supporters tend to rather over-egg the pudding and pretend that the reactors are available right now.
They're not. Safe, reliable thorium rectors for civil use are over two decades away, at the earliest.
As EiT mentions below, there is a long way to go from a theoretical design on paper, to prototype plant, to production plant, to reliable, reproducible production plant. At each stage, timescales and costs tend to go up, and new safety concerns crop up. The same happened with the first and second generation nuclear plants, which really only occurred because of military requirements.
So what stage are thorium reactors at? We know the theory quite well. Prototype plants have been opened in the past, without progressing to the production phase. The reasons are manyfold, but two important factors were the lack of easy weaponisation of the materials, and the fact the designs were not as simple, safe or cheap as first thought. Even now, the designs are technically immature.
India is the most promising as they actually have said politically they want to build up to 62 thorium reactors. This is a sensible (if expensive) strategy; the R&D costs will get spread around the many plants. However the costs, timescale and plan itself are all in severe doubt.
But even then we are talking about the 2050 timeframe for large scale exploitation. What do we do until then?
"In March, we are now told (although it was reported here at the time), Britain came within hours of running out of gas and facing enormous power cuts."
"But at Wednesday’s meeting of the European Council, there were, at last, indications that many countries now recognise that the EU’s bid to lead the world in “de-carbonising” is leading the European economy towards meltdown."
"They have finally cottoned on to the fact that, in recent years, while energy prices in Europe have been doubling, those in the US, thanks to the shale gas revolution, have halved."
"European countries have been alarmed to see ever more European firms being forced either to move their operations outside the EU, or to shut down altogether (as we saw here in Britain recently with the closure of our last remaining major aluminium smelter, at the cost of 500 jobs)."
"Cameron told journalists in Brussels that, with the US now deriving 30 per cent of its energy from shale"
Nuclear power stations are hugely expensive to build and decommission because we assume they must be uranium fueled PWR designs (which must therefore be massive).
If we instead assumed Thorium fueled unpressurised designs then much of the economic grief would go away. But...the existing nuclear industry is totally invested into the legacy model.
It needs a wealthy new player with government backing to break the mould. Or wait for the Chinese or someone else to get there first and play copycat as the economics are refreshed.
I keep hearing about Thorium reactors online. Seems i might need to swot up on it.
Since Fukushima people pushing nuclear power have been very keen to come up with something that sounds different to the last thing they told us was safe. So the current line is, of course keeping nuclear materials at high pressure is very difficult and expensive, we were only doing that because it was easier to make bombs. But this new technique, using deadly poisonous, highly corrosive salts at high temperatures, will be fine.
I *think* that the key point about Thorium reactors, is that they cannot keep going without being primed.
In other words, they fail -> safe, rather than existing reactors which fail -> boom.
"Should we ban holidays, if some cannot afford them? How about expensive cars, since only a few can buy them?"
Education is different. It's accepted that it is the biggest influence on one's life chances and only a tiny elite with rich parents-perhaps 5% of the population-can have this benefit irrespective of ability of the children and the Tories see nothing wiffy in it at all. In fact they wallow in it by appearing to favour by promotion those with the good fortune of wealthy parents.
It's a political millfield, Roger.
The best response for the well educated socialist is to declare an interest and steer clear of the discussions.
Take the example of the Westminster and New College educated Tony Benn who forsook reference to school and university and merely declared in Who's Who: "Education - still in progress".
"Really? So you would deny bright working class kids a better education?
Long live social mobility!"
A return to the grammar schools system would worsen the education of most working class children. Explain to me how that would improve social mobility - if you can.
Nuclear power stations are hugely expensive to build and decommission because we assume they must be uranium fueled PWR designs (which must therefore be massive).
If we instead assumed Thorium fueled unpressurised designs then much of the economic grief would go away. But...the existing nuclear industry is totally invested into the legacy model.
It needs a wealthy new player with government backing to break the mould. Or wait for the Chinese or someone else to get there first and play copycat as the economics are refreshed.
I keep hearing about Thorium reactors online. Seems i might need to swot up on it.
Since Fukushima people pushing nuclear power have been very keen to come up with something that sounds different to the last thing they told us was safe. So the current line is, of course keeping nuclear materials at high pressure is very difficult and expensive, we were only doing that because it was easier to make bombs. But this new technique, using deadly poisonous, highly corrosive salts at high temperatures, will be fine.
I *think* that the key point about Thorium reactors, is that they cannot keep going without being primed.
In other words, they fail -> safe, rather than existing reactors which fail -> boom.
In the same way we were told that a runaway chain reaction could not occur in PWRs / AGRs because the control rods would drop and stop the reaction. Which is fine, except for the various cases where it did not stop the reaction.
Or when it did stop the reaction, and latent heat still led to meltdown, as at Fukashima.
Safety in theory is not the same as safety in practice. This is especially the case in the high-pressure, high-temperature, high-neutron world of nuclear reactors. The critical safety problems will occur where they are least expected.
Hans Blix continues in his bid to rid the world of real (as opposed to imaginary) weapons of mass destruction -
Former UN weapons inspector Hans Blix has said it is time for Britain to relinquish its Trident nuclear programme.
Speaking at the Hay literary festival, the Swedish international lawyer who led the hunt for weapons of mass destruction in the lead-up to the Iraq war, said he did not see how the UK would be any more protected if it extended the life of the nuclear programme – at an estimated cost of £100bn.
Delivering the 2013 Joseph Rotblat lecture to an audience of 1,600 festival goers, Blix said Washington "was not pushing for this costly rearmament" and asked if Trident was "required to protect UK independence or UK pride".
"Japan and Germany seem respected … even without nuclear weapons," he said.
Hans Blix continues in his bid to rid the world of real (as opposed to imaginary) weapons of mass destruction -
Former UN weapons inspector Hans Blix has said it is time for Britain to relinquish its Trident nuclear programme.
Speaking at the Hay literary festival, the Swedish international lawyer who led the hunt for weapons of mass destruction in the lead-up to the Iraq war, said he did not see how the UK would be any more protected if it extended the life of the nuclear programme – at an estimated cost of £100bn.
Delivering the 2013 Joseph Rotblat lecture to an audience of 1,600 festival goers, Blix said Washington "was not pushing for this costly rearmament" and asked if Trident was "required to protect UK independence or UK pride".
"Japan and Germany seem respected … even without nuclear weapons," he said.
Japan will be building the means to make nukes as we speak (assuming they already haven't) because of the rise of China and knowing they can't rely on the US.
Hans Blix continues in his bid to rid the world of real (as opposed to imaginary) weapons of mass destruction -
Former UN weapons inspector Hans Blix has said it is time for Britain to relinquish its Trident nuclear programme.
Speaking at the Hay literary festival, the Swedish international lawyer who led the hunt for weapons of mass destruction in the lead-up to the Iraq war, said he did not see how the UK would be any more protected if it extended the life of the nuclear programme – at an estimated cost of £100bn.
Delivering the 2013 Joseph Rotblat lecture to an audience of 1,600 festival goers, Blix said Washington "was not pushing for this costly rearmament" and asked if Trident was "required to protect UK independence or UK pride".
"Japan and Germany seem respected … even without nuclear weapons," he said.
"Really? So you would deny bright working class kids a better education?
Long live social mobility!"
A return to the grammar schools system would worsen the education of most working class children. Explain to me how that would improve social mobility - if you can.
Not so. If you look at the report that Tim used to love to quote from regarding Grammar schools produced by the Sutton Trust in 2008 they found that Grammar schools produced a small but definable improvement (equivalent to about 3/4 of a grade) in the results for their students but had no measurable impact (no drop) on the results for children at non Grammar schools in the catchment area.
The overall result was a small but measurable improvement in overall education standards for the whole area.
"we have also failed to find any evidence of collateral harm to any other schools, arising from the existence of grammar schools. Overall, schools are just as likely to be performing well, whether or not they are ‘creamed’ by a grammar school."
They do say that Grammar schools do not take enough children at the lower end of the social scale and that needs to be addressed - which seems very sensible to me. But the claim that overall the education of our children suffers as a result of selective education is found to be false. In fact overall there is a slight improvement.
OT I've just taken delivery of a Domino's Pizza - I haven't experienced one in 15+yrs as they were horrid - and I must say judging by today's delivery they've transformed into something quite edible since they fessed up to being bloody awful. Just look at the revolting plastic looking one from their 80s advert - YUCK.
The kitties and doggies are tucking in to a chicken one under BOGOF - its a real hit. Why cats like pizza so much is beyond me - they even prefer it to Chinese. I have a kitty trying to break into my pizza box right now...
Their internet ad/relaunch made me smile at the time -it was very brave PR to accept their product was crap.
"Really? So you would deny bright working class kids a better education?
Long live social mobility!"
A return to the grammar schools system would worsen the education of most working class children. Explain to me how that would improve social mobility - if you can.
Explain to me why a return to grammar schools would worsen the education of most working class children.
"Really? So you would deny bright working class kids a better education?
Long live social mobility!"
A return to the grammar schools system would worsen the education of most working class children. Explain to me how that would improve social mobility - if you can.
Explain to me why a return to grammar schools would worsen the education of most working class children.
Selective education on a national scale certainly doesn't seemed to have harmed Germany.
Some would go however and the rest would be in the same piece of crap comprehensive that they are now so would be no worse off. My son went to a grammar I couldnt afford to send him to some high priced independent school nor afford to live in the catchement of a good school so his only chance was a grammar school. You want to take that away because not every one can go?
Surely it is better to give some a chance rather than write off all those to poor to buy an education?
Take your argument to its logical conclusion and frankly you should be advocating taking all children into care at birth so no one gets an advantage from birth or the mere fact of having parents who care about their childrens education.
I bet you will be jumping through the hoops you hate everyone else having for your kids James and if you don't then frankly you are a shit parent
"Explain to me why a return to grammar schools would worsen the education of most working class children."
Because most would not go to grammar schools.
Maybe the quality of the Scottish national football team would be improved if players were chosen at random from the population rather than selected on ability.
"Maybe the quality of the Scottish national football team would be improved if players were chosen at random from the population rather than selected on ability."
"Maybe the quality of the Scottish national football team would be improved if players were chosen at random from the population rather than selected on ability."
I suspect you're right, Moniker.
I think the policy has been in place for over a decade.
"Really? So you would deny bright working class kids a better education?
Long live social mobility!"
A return to the grammar schools system would worsen the education of most working class children. Explain to me how that would improve social mobility - if you can.
Explain to me why a return to grammar schools would worsen the education of most working class children.
Selective education on a national scale certainly doesn't seemed to have harmed Germany.
Isn't inequality increasing pretty quickly in Germany?
1 I am not a PB tory by any stretch of the imagination 2 If someone doesnt do their best by their kids what do you call them other than a shit parent? I also didnt claim you had kids I said if you wouldnt do it for your kids assuming you probably want some at some point like most people. I suspect you will like most leftie ranters suddenly discover that while you think private or selective education is bad, that somehow there is something to justify you doing it. This is why most of your lot are complete hypocrites
Their internet ad/relaunch made me smile at the time -it was very brave PR to accept their product was crap.
The danger of rubbishing your previous product is that you alienate and even offend people who rather liked it. If you gain more new customers than you annoy, fine, otherwise you get the "no more nasty party" issues.
You don't have to be a tory to think leftie are ranters James. You hang out here telling me my child shouldnt be allowed the benefit of a grammar school because it harms social mobility. My son going to a grammar school is an example of damn social mobility idiot. The first from my family to be able to go to university, (admittedly I was offered a place but couldnt afford to take it).
That is social mobility in action. It was idiots like you that helped cut these chances for thousands, there were problems it is true to say but you didnt sort them out you just condemned all the people who would otherwise have gone to the grammars that were closed to a secondary modern school instead and felt smug about the fact.
All now had an equal chance, none whatsoever unless you were middle class enough to buy in the right area or rich enough to pay fees. T
"In the old days, the neighbourhood was more Swedish and life felt like a dream, but now there are just too many foreigners, and a new generation that has grown up here with just their own culture," he said, gesturing towards the hooded youths milling around in Husby's pedestrianised shopping precinct.</i.
You don't have to be a tory to think leftie are ranters James. You hang out here telling me my child shouldnt be allowed the benefit of a grammar school because it harms social mobility. My son going to a grammar school is an example of damn social mobility idiot. The first from my family to be able to go to university, (admittedly I was offered a place but couldnt afford to take it).
That is social mobility in action. It was idiots like you that helped cut these chances for thousands, there were problems it is true to say but you didnt sort them out you just condemned all the people who would otherwise have gone to the grammars that were closed to a secondary modern school instead and felt smug about the fact.
All now had an equal chance, none whatsoever unless you were middle class enough to buy in the right area or rich enough to pay fees.
T
There seems to be only one person ranting on here. And it's not JK.
The problem with that analysis is that it assumes GCSE results are the be-all and end-all for being successful. The reality is that grammar schools are very good at giving people from all background the broader set of skills needed to be successful at university and in employment.
"Really? So you would deny bright working class kids a better education?
Long live social mobility!"
A return to the grammar schools system would worsen the education of most working class children. Explain to me how that would improve social mobility - if you can.
Explain to me why a return to grammar schools would worsen the education of most working class children.
Selective education on a national scale certainly doesn't seemed to have harmed Germany.
Have any local authorities with selection improved their educational standards as much as London has over the last decade?
You can see that poor children do dramatically worse in selective areas.
There is an idea out there in the ether that grammar schools are better for propelling poor children to the very top of the tree. But, again, that is not true. Poor children are less likely to score very highly at GCSE in grammar areas than the rest. The blue line is below the red on the very right hand side of the graph.
Indeed, I think this whole story is neatly encapsulated by one graph to follow. If you plot how well children do on average by household deprivation for selective conditions and the rest of the country, you can see that the net effect of grammar schools is to disadvantage poor children and help the rich.
I don't do labels. I state what I support and what I don't on an individual topic basis. Your idea's of left and right are meaningless dribble to me. One thing I certainly don't agree with is the basis behind your reason to want to ban grammar schools and one of the more odious ideas the left have ever come up with.
Equality of outcome is a doctrine of mediocrity and leads to the worst of all worlds for all people.
"You don't have to be a tory to think leftie are ranters James."
Then, pray tell, what exactly are you? Another "libertarian floating voter with a fiscal conservative twist"?
Kelly , the Tartan Tory nickname for the SNP will always ring true. The SNP's North East heartland is populated by Northern British Essex Men. You are a natural Labour man whose political beliefs are trumped by a congenital dislike for Britain and particularly the English.
"You don't have to be a tory to think leftie are ranters James."
Then, pray tell, what exactly are you? Another "libertarian floating voter with a fiscal conservative twist"?
Kelly , the Tartan Tory nickname for the SNP will always ring true. The SNP's North East heartland is populated by Northern British Essex Men. You are a natural Labour man whose political beliefs are trumped by a congenital dislike for Britain and particularly the English.
The problem with that analysis is that it assumes GCSE results are the be-all and end-all for being successful. The reality is that grammar schools are very good at giving people from all background the broader set of skills needed to be successful at university and in employment.
There is nothing that is done in a grammar school that cannot be done with streaming from Year 7 in comprehensive schools. I support the theory behind grammar schools, but in practice cannot see how they would not discriminate against those from wealthier backgrounds. Look at the living tutors make in areas where there is still a grammar system.
For those betting on the 2016 Presidential election, you should probably be aware the Republicans are doing everything they can to trash their brand in the swing state of Virginia:
The problem with that analysis is that it assumes GCSE results are the be-all and end-all for being successful. The reality is that grammar schools are very good at giving people from all background the broader set of skills needed to be successful at university and in employment.
There is nothing that is done in a grammar school that cannot be done with streaming from Year 7 in comprehensive schools. I support the theory behind grammar schools, but in practice cannot see how they would not discriminate against those from wealthier backgrounds. Look at the living tutors make in areas where there is still a grammar system.
That's nonsense, in NI private education is for the cream of Ulster society, the rich and thick. The issue on grammar schools in England is they have been butchered to cater for about 2% of the population instead of as previously 30% of the population. England has vastly restricted social mobility as a result.
The problem with that analysis is that it assumes GCSE results are the be-all and end-all for being successful. The reality is that grammar schools are very good at giving people from all background the broader set of skills needed to be successful at university and in employment.
There is nothing that is done in a grammar school that cannot be done with streaming from Year 7 in comprehensive schools. I support the theory behind grammar schools, but in practice cannot see how they would not discriminate against those from wealthier backgrounds. Look at the living tutors make in areas where there is still a grammar system.
They make just the same living in areas without grammar schools. You would be amazed how many people send their kids to tutors to make up for the deficiencies of the state school system.
@Southam I am passionate about education and I am sorry when you get people like James advocating the chance to actually get on in life is taken away from those for whom a grammar school is probably the only chance it makes me spit feathers. It is a policy based on reducing all to the lowest common denominators.
The problem with the Grammar school system wasnt the schools it was the single point of selection at 11 and the fact that secondary moderns were awful. The grammar schools themselves did for the most part an excellent job. The way to sort it out was to improve the secondary moderns and to increase the ways into grammar schools with extra chances to cross into it at a later date.
Instead people like James would rather if a grammar doesn't fit all pupils which it won't to instead make everyone sink into the miasma of low expectations that were the secondary modern system and still is many of the comprehensive schools of the current day.
It infuriates me still further that those that argue most vehemently for the abolition of such systems as grammars are often amongst the first to seek every advantage for their own children
"The SNP's North East heartland is populated by Northern British Essex Men."
So what you're saying is that the SNP would do quite well in Essex? You're certainly a good one for challenging received wisdom, Moniker.
"You are a natural Labour man whose political beliefs are trumped by a congenital dislike for Britain and particularly the English."
I'm not a natural Labour man - Labour are far too authoritarian for me, and probably were even before they moved to their current position in the centre-right. And as you know, I love my part of Britain so much that I want it to be an independent country.
As for the anti-English stuff, well...you're the ethno-nationalist, chum. Touch of projection going on there.
The problem with that analysis is that it assumes GCSE results are the be-all and end-all for being successful. The reality is that grammar schools are very good at giving people from all background the broader set of skills needed to be successful at university and in employment.
There is nothing that is done in a grammar school that cannot be done with streaming from Year 7 in comprehensive schools. I support the theory behind grammar schools, but in practice cannot see how they would not discriminate against those from wealthier backgrounds. Look at the living tutors make in areas where there is still a grammar system.
I agree with you for the most part. I was just pointing out the article tim linked to was not the cut and dry case he seemed to think it was.
I think the one thing it might be difficult to do in comprehensives is preventing the mentality that it's uncool to be smart. Grammar school kids escape that.
I don't do labels. I state what I support and what I don't on an individual topic basis. Your idea's of left and right are meaningless dribble to me. One thing I certainly don't agree with is the basis behind your reason to want to ban grammar schools and one of the more odious ideas the left have ever come up with.
Equality of outcome is a doctrine of mediocrity and leads to the worst of all worlds for all people.
No mainstream political party in the UK advocates equality if outcome. The argument is all about how you best secure equality of opportunity.
"Really? So you would deny bright working class kids a better education?
Long live social mobility!"
A return to the grammar schools system would worsen the education of most working class children. Explain to me how that would improve social mobility - if you can.
Explain to me why a return to grammar schools would worsen the education of most working class children.
Selective education on a national scale certainly doesn't seemed to have harmed Germany.
Have any local authorities with selection improved their educational standards as much as London has over the last decade?
You can see that poor children do dramatically worse in selective areas.
There is an idea out there in the ether that grammar schools are better for propelling poor children to the very top of the tree. But, again, that is not true. Poor children are less likely to score very highly at GCSE in grammar areas than the rest. The blue line is below the red on the very right hand side of the graph.
Indeed, I think this whole story is neatly encapsulated by one graph to follow. If you plot how well children do on average by household deprivation for selective conditions and the rest of the country, you can see that the net effect of grammar schools is to disadvantage poor children and help the rich.
Interesting that you have abandoned your previously favourite source of information on Grammar schools now that others have actually read it and realised how badly you were misquoting it.
Do you know your main problem, Alan? You're a liar.
james, about a month ago you denied any connection with Ireland on the grounds you were 100% scottish. You vehemently denied any connection with Ireland. We shan't be sending you an invite for the Gathering this year. Your loss not ours.
"james, about a month ago you denied any connection with Ireland on the grounds you werre 100% scottish. You vehementkly denied any connection with Ireland. We shan't be sending you an invite for the Gathering this year. Your loss not ours."
Thankyou for openly admitting you are a liar. Saves a lot of time.
"Really? So you would deny bright working class kids a better education?
Long live social mobility!"
A return to the grammar schools system would worsen the education of most working class children. Explain to me how that would improve social mobility - if you can.
Explain to me why a return to grammar schools would worsen the education of most working class children.
Selective education on a national scale certainly doesn't seemed to have harmed Germany.
Isn't inequality increasing pretty quickly in Germany?
No idea, but if it is I doubt it is because of a system that has been in place for decades.
Obviously I didn't explain well enough. I personally don't wear a left or right badge of pride. If I believe an idea is right I say so regardless of where it comes from, likewise if an idea is wrong I make no bones about saying so regardless of origin.
You and many others on this board seem to me at least a tribalist where you will condemn or applaud an idea dependent on the mouth that utters it. I judge you on what you have said on these boards over the year or so I have been reading them and yes it is only my opinion and yes opinions are subjective
"I personally don't wear a left or right badge of pride. If I believe an idea is right I say so regardless of where it comes from, likewise if an idea is wrong I make no bones about saying so regardless of origin. "
Could you direct me to an occasion when you have a trashed a right-wing viewpoint, and labelled its proponents as "ranting Tories"?
The problem with that analysis is that it assumes GCSE results are the be-all and end-all for being successful. The reality is that grammar schools are very good at giving people from all background the broader set of skills needed to be successful at university and in employment.
There is nothing that is done in a grammar school that cannot be done with streaming from Year 7 in comprehensive schools. I support the theory behind grammar schools, but in practice cannot see how they would not discriminate against those from wealthier backgrounds. Look at the living tutors make in areas where there is still a grammar system.
That's nonsense, in NI private education is for the cream of Ulster society, the rich and thick. The issue on grammar schools in England is they have been butchered to cater for about 2% of the population instead of as previously 30% of the population. England has vastly restricted social mobility as a result.
That was not the experience in England.
Perhaps the solution is to abandon the 11 plus as the means of selection.
"Really? So you would deny bright working class kids a better education?
Long live social mobility!"
A return to the grammar schools system would worsen the education of most working class children. Explain to me how that would improve social mobility - if you can.
Explain to me why a return to grammar schools would worsen the education of most working class children.
Selective education on a national scale certainly doesn't seemed to have harmed Germany.
Isn't inequality increasing pretty quickly in Germany?
No idea, but if it is I doubt it is because of a system that has been in place for decades.
"Whatever james, just stick a white hood over your head and cut a couple of eyeholes."
Being a liar clearly isn't enough for you, Alan. Yes, you've now reached "beneath contempt". Well done on your contribution to making PB what it is today.
No mainstream political party in the UK advocates equality if outcome. The argument is all about how you best secure equality of opportunity.
Grammar schools are bad because not everyone gets to go to one....sounds like equality of outcome to me. All children had equal opportunity to go to a grammar before the system was slashed in the name of fairness.
The problem with that analysis is that it assumes GCSE results are the be-all and end-all for being successful. The reality is that grammar schools are very good at giving people from all background the broader set of skills needed to be successful at university and in employment.
There is nothing that is done in a grammar school that cannot be done with streaming from Year 7 in comprehensive schools. I support the theory behind grammar schools, but in practice cannot see how they would not discriminate against those from wealthier backgrounds. Look at the living tutors make in areas where there is still a grammar system.
That's nonsense, in NI private education is for the cream of Ulster society, the rich and thick. The issue on grammar schools in England is they have been butchered to cater for about 2% of the population instead of as previously 30% of the population. England has vastly restricted social mobility as a result.
That was not the experience in England.
Perhaps the solution is to abandon the 11 plus as the means of selection.
13 might be better, or maybe better still the English could just abandon using the education system to pursue class war and give kids a chance to fulfil their potential.
"I personally don't wear a left or right badge of pride. If I believe an idea is right I say so regardless of where it comes from, likewise if an idea is wrong I make no bones about saying so regardless of origin. "
Could you direct me to an occasion when you have a trashed a right-wing viewpoint, and labelled its proponents as "ranting Tories"?
The IEA warns that the rising cost of electricity driven by subsidies for green and renewable energy threaten support for the whole green agenda. Well quite.
I think frustration with this sort of nonsense drives a lot of UKIP's support. The last government's handling of energy policy came pretty close to wilful incompetence (Ed Miliband, take a bow). The Lib Dems in this government have not been much better.
Yes to shale gas. Yes to clean coal technology. Yes to new nuclear. Now. Right now. If renewables can stand on their own two feet and make a profit fine. Otherwise stop it.
Do you know your main problem, Alan? You're a liar.
james, about a month ago you denied any connection with Ireland on the grounds you were 100% scottish. You vehemently denied any connection with Ireland. We shan't be sending you an invite for the Gathering this year. Your loss not ours.
To be fair, vehemently denying you are something does not mean you dislike it. I would vehemently deny I am Dutch - because of course I am not - but that doesn't mean I don't think it is a fantastic country.
Comments
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2329556/How-JFK-secretly-ADMIRED-Hitler-Explosive-book-reveals-Presidents-praise-Nazis-travelled-Germany-Second-World-War.html
How about expensive cars, since only a few can buy them?
There will always be some things that only the wealthy can afford. It's no justification for envy.
Besides which, the Gove reforms are about improving education for all, so having had private schooling cannot be a valid criticism against the current government.
As ever, you're mistaking principled action against inequality for "envy".
The key distinction is people who believe the BBC version of reality is true and those who know it isn't.
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/05/27/dads-army-actor-dies-bill-pertwee-_n_3341773.html
"Should we ban holidays, if some cannot afford them?
How about expensive cars, since only a few can buy them?"
Education is different. It's accepted that it is the biggest influence on one's life chances and only a tiny elite with rich parents-perhaps 5% of the population-can have this benefit irrespective of ability of the children and the Tories see nothing wiffy in it at all. In fact they wallow in it by appearing to favour by promotion those with the good fortune of wealthy parents.
Nuclear power stations are hugely expensive to build and decommission because we assume they must be uranium fueled PWR designs (which must therefore be massive).
If we instead assumed Thorium fueled unpressurised designs then much of the economic grief would go away. But...the existing nuclear industry is totally invested into the legacy model.
It needs a wealthy new player with government backing to break the mould. Or wait for the Chinese or someone else to get there first and play copycat as the economics are refreshed.
Who are you to tell a parent that they have to send their child to school at all? We're all subject to coercion for the greater good (sometimes real, sometimes perceived). I can hardly think of a greater good than equality of life chances for children.
Like Bill Gates who, after completing his course... no wait, he dropped out to start Microsoft.
Ok let's try Steve Jobs who, after completing... no wait, he dropped out too.
...
Ok let's try Steve Jobs who, after completing... no wait, he dropped out too."
Hmmm. I suspect both those chaps probably still benefited from literacy and numeracy.
Should parents not teach them to read, as it might provide an inequality when they go to school?
How in fact do we measure this (supposed) inequality?
Or is it just about people who have more money than you think they should?
Or is it just about people who have more money than you think they should?"
Exam results are remarkably easy to measure. And I don't have a problem with wealth - it's a very good thing, so long as the distribution of wealth is relatively (and I emphasise relatively) equitable.
I'm one of those complainants, so I don't have to ascribe anything.
The question then is how to ensure that everyone can benefit from such an education, regardless of ability to pay. Fundamentally this is what Gove is trying to achieve: giving schools the ability to innovate and improve. Collectivisation has failed in so many other spheres - and has not been a success in the UK education system - so why do we assume that it is still the right way forward?
At the moment the state education system fails most people. The current system isn't working: any suggestions from anti-Govists on how to improve things?
It's interesting that you feel the need to say that. If your privileged education had not been the product of a parent's hard work, would you feel ashamed of it? If so, why? If not, why not?
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-05-26/grant-williams-do-math
"I presume you support grammar schools then?"
Don't be silly. The grammar schools system was an appalling driver of inequality.
You will read a great deal of nonsense about thorium reactors on the 'net. As is often the case, the supporters tend to rather over-egg the pudding and pretend that the reactors are available right now.
They're not. Safe, reliable thorium rectors for civil use are over two decades away, at the earliest.
As EiT mentions below, there is a long way to go from a theoretical design on paper, to prototype plant, to production plant, to reliable, reproducible production plant. At each stage, timescales and costs tend to go up, and new safety concerns crop up. The same happened with the first and second generation nuclear plants, which really only occurred because of military requirements.
So what stage are thorium reactors at? We know the theory quite well. Prototype plants have been opened in the past, without progressing to the production phase. The reasons are manyfold, but two important factors were the lack of easy weaponisation of the materials, and the fact the designs were not as simple, safe or cheap as first thought. Even now, the designs are technically immature.
However, several countries are designing thorium reactors:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium-based_nuclear_power#Current_thorium_projects
India is the most promising as they actually have said politically they want to build up to 62 thorium reactors. This is a sensible (if expensive) strategy; the R&D costs will get spread around the many plants. However the costs, timescale and plan itself are all in severe doubt.
But even then we are talking about the 2050 timeframe for large scale exploitation. What do we do until then?
(Another reasonable article on Thorium: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comment/ambroseevans_pritchard/9784044/China-blazes-trail-for-clean-nuclear-power-from-thorium.html . Note the timescales & the pros and cons. But also note that safety claims should be taken with a pinch of (thorium) salt)
Long live social mobility!
second half
"In March, we are now told (although it was reported here at the time), Britain came within hours of running out of gas and facing enormous power cuts."
"But at Wednesday’s meeting of the European Council, there were, at last, indications that many countries now recognise that the EU’s bid to lead the world in “de-carbonising” is leading the European economy towards meltdown."
"They have finally cottoned on to the fact that, in recent years, while energy prices in Europe have been doubling, those in the US, thanks to the shale gas revolution, have halved."
"European countries have been alarmed to see ever more European firms being forced either to move their operations outside the EU, or to shut down altogether (as we saw here in Britain recently with the closure of our last remaining major aluminium smelter, at the cost of 500 jobs)."
"Cameron told journalists in Brussels that, with the US now deriving 30 per cent of its energy from shale"
etc
Just think what he might be achieving with a suit, tie and public school accent.
He would be making Britain proud.
Just a fine mind and a willingness to work hard
In other words, they fail -> safe, rather than existing reactors which fail -> boom.
What time is 12PM? 12.01PM, I understand, but do they mean 12 Noon?
The best response for the well educated socialist is to declare an interest and steer clear of the discussions.
Take the example of the Westminster and New College educated Tony Benn who forsook reference to school and university and merely declared in Who's Who: "Education - still in progress".
Long live social mobility!"
A return to the grammar schools system would worsen the education of most working class children. Explain to me how that would improve social mobility - if you can.
Or when it did stop the reaction, and latent heat still led to meltdown, as at Fukashima.
Safety in theory is not the same as safety in practice. This is especially the case in the high-pressure, high-temperature, high-neutron world of nuclear reactors. The critical safety problems will occur where they are least expected.
For examples, see the AVR reactor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AVR_reactor ) and the THTR-300 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium_High_Temperature_Reactor ).
Former UN weapons inspector Hans Blix has said it is time for Britain to relinquish its Trident nuclear programme.
Speaking at the Hay literary festival, the Swedish international lawyer who led the hunt for weapons of mass destruction in the lead-up to the Iraq war, said he did not see how the UK would be any more protected if it extended the life of the nuclear programme – at an estimated cost of £100bn.
Delivering the 2013 Joseph Rotblat lecture to an audience of 1,600 festival goers, Blix said Washington "was not pushing for this costly rearmament" and asked if Trident was "required to protect UK independence or UK pride".
"Japan and Germany seem respected … even without nuclear weapons," he said.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/may/26/hans-blix-trident-abandon-britain-nuclear
It brings the best out in all of us.
Blix is missing the point. If Sadaam had had nuclear weapons Blair and Bush would have left him in peace.
The overall result was a small but measurable improvement in overall education standards for the whole area.
http://www.suttontrust.com/research/evidence-on-the-effects-of-selective-educational-systems/
"we have also failed to find any evidence of collateral harm to any
other schools, arising from the existence of grammar schools. Overall, schools
are just as likely to be performing well, whether or not they are ‘creamed’ by
a grammar school."
They do say that Grammar schools do not take enough children at the lower end of the social scale and that needs to be addressed - which seems very sensible to me. But the claim that overall the education of our children suffers as a result of selective education is found to be false. In fact overall there is a slight improvement.
The kitties and doggies are tucking in to a chicken one under BOGOF - its a real hit. Why cats like pizza so much is beyond me - they even prefer it to Chinese. I have a kitty trying to break into my pizza box right now...
Their internet ad/relaunch made me smile at the time -it was very brave PR to accept their product was crap.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AH5R56jILag
Because most would not go to grammar schools.
Surely it is better to give some a chance rather than write off all those to poor to buy an education?
Take your argument to its logical conclusion and frankly you should be advocating taking all children into care at birth so no one gets an advantage from birth or the mere fact of having parents who care about their childrens education.
I bet you will be jumping through the hoops you hate everyone else having for your kids James and if you don't then frankly you are a shit parent
Another to add to the PB Tory Pleasantry collection. This one's a particular achievement given that I don't have children.
I suspect you're right, Moniker.
1 I am not a PB tory by any stretch of the imagination
2 If someone doesnt do their best by their kids what do you call them other than a shit parent? I also didnt claim you had kids I said if you wouldnt do it for your kids assuming you probably want some at some point like most people. I suspect you will like most leftie ranters suddenly discover that while you think private or selective education is bad, that somehow there is something to justify you doing it. This is why most of your lot are complete hypocrites
1. "I am not a PB tory by any stretch of the imagination"
2. "you will like most leftie ranters..."
Explain how those two comments are reconcilable.
Nation wide, the average turnout was 62.38%
That is social mobility in action. It was idiots like you that helped cut these chances for thousands, there were problems it is true to say but you didnt sort them out you just condemned all the people who would otherwise have gone to the grammars that were closed to a secondary modern school instead and felt smug about the fact.
All now had an equal chance, none whatsoever unless you were middle class enough to buy in the right area or rich enough to pay fees. T
- An Iranian immigrant to Sweden
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/sweden/10080320/Stockholm-riots-leave-Swedens-dreams-of-perfect-society-up-in-smoke.html
Then, pray tell, what exactly are you? Another "libertarian floating voter with a fiscal conservative twist"?
This is the darkest day for Ave It since pbc got rid of smilies!
The problem with that analysis is that it assumes GCSE results are the be-all and end-all for being successful. The reality is that grammar schools are very good at giving people from all background the broader set of skills needed to be successful at university and in employment.
Equality of outcome is a doctrine of mediocrity and leads to the worst of all worlds for all people.
Then why do you label me as a "ranting leftie"? I can't deny I'm a touch confused by this line of argument. (By the way, don't you mean 'drivel'?)
Do you know your main problem, Alan? You're a liar.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-05-20/e-w-jackson-candidate-of-virginia-s-swivel-eyed-loons.html
The problem with the Grammar school system wasnt the schools it was the single point of selection at 11 and the fact that secondary moderns were awful. The grammar schools themselves did for the most part an excellent job. The way to sort it out was to improve the secondary moderns and to increase the ways into grammar schools with extra chances to cross into it at a later date.
Instead people like James would rather if a grammar doesn't fit all pupils which it won't to instead make everyone sink into the miasma of low expectations that were the secondary modern system and still is many of the comprehensive schools of the current day.
It infuriates me still further that those that argue most vehemently for the abolition of such systems as grammars are often amongst the first to seek every advantage for their own children
So what you're saying is that the SNP would do quite well in Essex? You're certainly a good one for challenging received wisdom, Moniker.
"You are a natural Labour man whose political beliefs are trumped by a congenital dislike for Britain and particularly the English."
I'm not a natural Labour man - Labour are far too authoritarian for me, and probably were even before they moved to their current position in the centre-right. And as you know, I love my part of Britain so much that I want it to be an independent country.
As for the anti-English stuff, well...you're the ethno-nationalist, chum. Touch of projection going on there.
I think the one thing it might be difficult to do in comprehensives is preventing the mentality that it's uncool to be smart. Grammar school kids escape that.
james, about a month ago you denied any connection with Ireland on the grounds you were 100% scottish. You vehemently denied any connection with Ireland. We shan't be sending you an invite for the Gathering this year. Your loss not ours.
Thankyou for openly admitting you are a liar. Saves a lot of time.
Obviously I didn't explain well enough. I personally don't wear a left or right badge of pride. If I believe an idea is right I say so regardless of where it comes from, likewise if an idea is wrong I make no bones about saying so regardless of origin.
You and many others on this board seem to me at least a tribalist where you will condemn or applaud an idea dependent on the mouth that utters it. I judge you on what you have said on these boards over the year or so I have been reading them and yes it is only my opinion and yes opinions are subjective
Could you direct me to an occasion when you have a trashed a right-wing viewpoint, and labelled its proponents as "ranting Tories"?
Perhaps the solution is to abandon the 11 plus as the means of selection.
http://www.economist.com/news/europe/21573115-inequality-germany-has-been-falling-it-still-firing-political-passions-scissors-and
Being a liar clearly isn't enough for you, Alan. Yes, you've now reached "beneath contempt". Well done on your contribution to making PB what it is today.
The German government was quick to approve a phase-out of nuclear power in the country after the Fukushima nuclear disaster. Now the costs of moving toward renewable energy are just being realized, and low-income consumers are paying the price.