@DavidL - I don't see how societal divisions are acceptable if parents are prepared to pay for it out of their own pockets. Perhaps we should abolish state education, and then those without kids can save some money and those with kids can vote with their feet as to what kind of education they want for their children.
I think societal divisions that arise from parents paying out of their own pockets are an inevitable consequence of having a free society where we are able to choose our priorities with our own resources and that the alternatives are worse but I don't deny they cause problems. I just don't see why the State should add to those problems.
Many argue that society would benefit from depriving the wealthy 7% of the right to buy great advantage for their offspring, whilst at the same time doing great damage to the vast majority who lack the resources to be able to consider such an option. I can well understand why those who belong to the powerful elite would wish to self perpetuate their positions, but see no good reason why everybody else should tolerate it.I suspect that most private schools have little impact beyond those who attend them, but the continued existence of the Top Public Schools - Eton - Harrow- Winchester - Westminster - Haileybury et al - imposes massive social costs via the networks they seek to sustain.
"I see no good reason..." Well there is the personal freedom argument - and also the overseas earnings, as quite a large slug of students are foreign.
Personal freedoms in practice are restricted when the interests of society as a whole demand it - ie firearm possession - use of recreational drugs etc. On the whole. I think it would be a 'price worth paying' - and am inclined to say the same about Health and the Justice system.
You are, of course, entitled to that view. The likely outcome of any such policy would be simply to shift these institutions overseas. Those who struggle to pay for private education (or health) might well drop out, but what you most dislike about the system would almost certainly persist.
As for recreational drugs, that particular policy is a pretty dismal example if you compare the costs (crime being the most salient) with the benefits (other than moral complacency, few).
Interesting article about a (newly alarming) piece of history:
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/cover_story/2017/04/able_archer_almost_started_a_nuclear_war_with_russia_in_1983.html Reagan did not see these approaches as contradictory. He believed that candor about America’s intentions, which he saw as self-apparently noble, and candor about Soviet intentions, which he believed were obviously nefarious, would show the communists that aggression was futile and that their system of government was ultimately doomed, thus ending the Cold War. It is one of the Reagan administration’s greatest ironies that his effort at clarity so confused the Soviet Union that in 1983 its leaders became convinced the United States was planning a nuclear first strike...
With bleakly amusing (if you're not a resident) detail: (Both sides embraced the idea of “nuclear signaling” during the Cold War. According to David Abshire, the U.S. ambassador to NATO at the time, the Americans’ preferred “signal city” was Kiev and the Soviets’ was Boston.)
This was the basis for a gripping television drama - Deutchland 83 - about a year ago on Channel 4.
What worries me is a scenario where the negotiations break down or an agreement fails on ratification. What happens if the choice is between revoking A50 (which, it seems, may well be possible) and crashing out with no deal?
@DavidL - I don't see how societal divisions are acceptable if parents are prepared to pay for it out of their own pockets. Perhaps we should abolish state education, and then those without kids can save some money and those with kids can vote with their feet as to what kind of education they want for their children.
I think societal divisions that arise from parents paying out of their own pockets are an inevitable consequence of having a free society where we are able to choose our priorities with our own resources and that the alternatives are worse but I don't deny they cause problems. I just don't see why the State should add to those problems.
Many argue that society would benefit from depriving the wealthy 7% of the right to buy great advantage for their offspring, whilst at the same time doing great damage to the vast majority who lack the resources to be able to consider such an option. I can well understand why those who belong to the powerful elite would wish to self perpetuate their positions, but see no good reason why everybody else should tolerate it.I suspect that most private schools have little impact beyond those who attend them, but the continued existence of the Top Public Schools - Eton - Harrow- Winchester - Westminster - Haileybury et al - imposes massive social costs via the networks they seek to sustain.
Wouldn't it be easier just to shoot the 7%, in order to create opportunities for the rest?
I've always thought The Purge was unfairly overlooked as an option...
Lindsay Anderson's 'If' is perhaps a more targeted solution ?
One of my very favourite films - close tie between that and Godfather II - and a reminder of sorts of my own schooldays. It's not elitist education that worries me so much as what the values of our elite schools are. If the only value driving them is personal ambition with no regard for civic responsibility we're in trouble.
I think societal divisions that arise from parents paying out of their own pockets are an inevitable consequence of having a free society where we are able to choose our priorities with our own resources and that the alternatives are worse but I don't deny they cause problems. I just don't see why the State should add to those problems.
Many argue that society would benefit from depriving the wealthy 7% of the right to buy great advantage for their offspring, whilst at the same time doing great damage to the vast majority who lack the resources to be able to consider such an option. I can well understand why those who belong to the powerful elite would wish to self perpetuate their positions, but see no good reason why everybody else should tolerate it.I suspect that most private schools have little impact beyond those who attend them, but the continued existence of the Top Public Schools - Eton - Harrow- Winchester - Westminster - Haileybury et al - imposes massive social costs via the networks they seek to sustain.
"I see no good reason..." Well there is the personal freedom argument - and also the overseas earnings, as quite a large slug of students are foreign.
Personal freedoms in practice are restricted when the interests of society as a whole demand it - ie firearm possession - use of recreational drugs etc. On the whole. I think it would be a 'price worth paying' - and am inclined to say the same about Health and the Justice system.
You are, of course, entitled to that view. The likely outcome of any such policy would be simply to shift these institutions overseas. Those who struggle to pay for private education (or health) might well drop out, but what you most dislike about the system would almost certainly persist.
As for recreational drugs, that particular policy is a pretty dismal example if you compare the costs (crime being the most salient) with the benefits (other than moral complacency, few).
The Top Public Schools in particular have represented a major barrier to the emergence of a truly meritocratic society. I suspect that in practice having attended them opens far more doors than being admitted to an Oxbridge College.Moreover , until the 1950s /60s Oxbridge was often little more than a finishing school for those whose parents had had the means to send them to a good Public School.
"... quite a large slug of students are foreign..."
That has always been the case. However, the number of pupils from mega rich foreign families have now reached the point where, for a good number of schools, they are actually killing off the benefit they sought to buy and English Public Schools are becoming less and less relevant as their fees increase ever upwards.
Switzerland has always had a number of schools with huge fees whose pupils come from overseas but which have little or no impact on the local populace. The UK is perhaps going the same way. The state perhaps needs to do nothing, other than make provision for more children as all but a few schools catering for the very rich will wither and decline.
Re secondary schools in the UK, I suspect I am almost alone on PB in facing exactly this dilemma right now.
I have an older daughter age 10, shy, introverted, funny and very smart (judging by her mock SATS). We looked at her local grammar. Dame Henrietta Barnett. It's one of the best schools in the country, private or state, and ludicrously oversubscribed - 2000 kids try for 200 places.
But when I went to the open day - wow. Originally intended as a "good school for local girls" -it is now some weird hothouse for massively tutored Asian girls. This is no exaggeration: I saw more women in niqabs/burqas at the open day than white women. Staggered by this, I checked the stats, and my impression was right, it's gone from 20% BME kids to 80% or more in 15 years, and judging by the new intakes it will be 90-100% Indian/Muslim very soon.
White parents are now covertly shunning it.
That experience put me off grammar schools.
And yet, my daughter, by a stroke of good luck, has just got into Fortismere. This is like the white comprehensive version of Henrietta Barnett. It is largely British/European, one of the 20 best comprehensives in the country, with an intake governed by those who can afford to live in the catchment area - people pay £200,000 premium on houses to get their kids into the school.
So in my daughter's part of London you have one "local" grammar which has become a racially exclusive hothouse for bright Asian/Muslim girls, often from many miles away, who have parents who can afford to tutor them, and on the other you have a so-called "comprehensive" which supposedly takes everyone - but actually take mainly middle class kids whose parents can afford to buy massively expensive houses in Muswell Hill.
Mr. T, under XI Jinping, the Chinese military has also expanded. It's become more bullish over disputed islands and has committed a massive land grab in the South China Sea.
O/T but German polls are now showing the CDU pulling away from the SPD, with the CDU, FPD, and AFD polling above 50% in total.
Is the FDP above the 5% threshold? It did seam to be stuck on 3-4% for a long time, which IIRC meant that it did not get any seats under the German form of PR.
Averaging 5-7% now. Centre-right voters won't make the mistake of shutting them out this time.
On current polling, a left wing coalition would be impossible.
Thanks for the Update, Shan.
For what its worth, I see the FDP as being Moderately Libertarian/classical Liberals, and improve whichever government they join.
Rather stupidly, the CDU set out to maximise their vote share in 2013, resulting in their FDP allies just falling under 5%, and narrowly costing the centre right a majority.
I remember that happening, CDU getting a record vote, but having to share poser with the a left wing party as a result.
P.S. sorry for spelling your name wrong, in my last comment.
Re secondary schools in the UK, I suspect I am almost alone on PB in facing exactly this dilemma right now.
I have an older daughter age 10, shy, introverted, funny and very smart (judging by her mock SATS). We looked at her local grammar. Dame Henrietta Barnett. It's one of the best schools in the country, private or state, and ludicrously oversubscribed - 2000 kids try for 200 places.
But when I went to the open day - wow. Originally intended as a "good school for local girls" -it is now some weird hothouse for massively tutored Asian girls. This is no exaggeration: I saw more women in niqabs/burqas at the open day than white women. Staggered by this, I checked the stats, and my impression was right, it's gone from 20% BME kids to 80% or more in 15 years, and judging by the new intakes it will be 90-100% Indian/Muslim very soon.
White parents are now covertly shunning it.
That experience put me off grammar schools.
And yet, my daughter, by a stroke of good luck, has just got into Fortismere. This is like the white comprehensive version of Henrietta Barnett. It is largely British/European, one of the 20 best comprehensives in the country, with an intake governed by those who can afford to live in the catchment area - people pay £200,000 premium on houses to get their kids into the school.
So in my daughter's part of London you have one "local" grammar which has become a racially exclusive hothouse for bright Asian/Muslim girls, often from many miles away, who have parents who can afford to tutor them, and on the other you have a so-called "comprehensive" which supposedly takes everyone - but actually take mainly middle class kids whose parents can afford to buy massively expensive houses in Muswell Hill.
Pff!
Well done in getting her into Fortismere.
That can't be right. If it is a local comp then then every child in the area can go there. So why the need for congratulations?
I wish young Miss SeanT every success and happiness, but her entry into a jolly good school seems to be based on the fact that her Dad has lots of money (and good luck to him for that) and so can buy in the catchment area.
Re secondary schools in the UK, I suspect I am almost alone on PB in facing exactly this dilemma right now.
I have an older daughter age 10, shy, introverted, funny and very smart (judging by her mock SATS). We looked at her local grammar. Dame Henrietta Barnett. It's one of the best schools in the country, private or state, and ludicrously oversubscribed - 2000 kids try for 200 places.
But when I went to the open day - wow. Originally intended as a "good school for local girls" -it is now some weird hothouse for massively tutored Asian girls. This is no exaggeration: I saw more women in niqabs/burqas at the open day than white women. Staggered by this, I checked the stats, and my impression was right, it's gone from 20% BME kids to 80% or more in 15 years, and judging by the new intakes it will be 90-100% Indian/Muslim very soon.
White parents are now covertly shunning it.
That experience put me off grammar schools.
And yet, my daughter, by a stroke of good luck, has just got into Fortismere. This is like the white comprehensive version of Henrietta Barnett. It is largely British/European, one of the 20 best comprehensives in the country, with an intake governed by those who can afford to live in the catchment area - people pay £200,000 premium on houses to get their kids into the school.
So in my daughter's part of London you have one "local" grammar which has become a racially exclusive hothouse for bright Asian/Muslim girls, often from many miles away, who have parents who can afford to tutor them, and on the other you have a so-called "comprehensive" which supposedly takes everyone - but actually take mainly middle class kids whose parents can afford to buy massively expensive houses in Muswell Hill.
Pff!
Well done in getting her into Fortismere.
It was more luck than judgement. We just realised we had a chance, at the very edge of the catchment area, so we sent an appeal - and we got her in. Yay. She is very happy: it's where she really wanted to go. Fortismere (as the new incarnation of Creighton Comprehensive et al) is the school of Rod Stewart and Ray Davies of the Kinks. I like that.
Can happen like that. And if she’s happy and stays happy she’ll do better than if she isn’t. Has she got friends going there; that’s important;probably more so than with boys. Our No 3 Granddaughter, with an excellent singing voice, has just got into a school with a reasonable academic record which also concentrates on the performing arts.
What worries me is a scenario where the negotiations break down or an agreement fails on ratification. What happens if the choice is between revoking A50 (which, it seems, may well be possible) and crashing out with no deal?
Depends how tangible the costs of no deal are to the wider public. People make a choice and commit to it in the face of difficulty, and plenty of others see a Rubicon as having been crossed, it takes more than 'it will be terrible in the future, we promise' to lead to a change in opinion, and it would have to be massive to lead to it being considered a viable option politically even if it may be a legal option. That's before we even get into who would make the choice and how, since without revocation we're out before the next GE, and if one party splits on the issue it needs to be major to force an early one, and then it is certain politicians would want democratic cover for such a major shift.
Re secondary schools in the UK, I suspect I am almost alone on PB in facing exactly this dilemma right now.
I have an older daughter age 10, shy, introverted, funny and very smart (judging by her mock SATS). We looked at her local grammar. Dame Henrietta Barnett. It's one of the best schools in the country, private or state, and ludicrously oversubscribed - 2000 kids try for 200 places.
But when I went to the open day - wow. Originally intended as a "good school for local girls" -it is now some weird hothouse for massively tutored Asian girls. This is no exaggeration: I saw more women in niqabs/burqas at the open day than white women. Staggered by this, I checked the stats, and my impression was right, it's gone from 20% BME kids to 80% or more in 15 years, and judging by the new intakes it will be 90-100% Indian/Muslim very soon.
White parents are now covertly shunning it.
That experience put me off grammar schools.
And yet, my daughter, by a stroke of good luck, has just got into Fortismere. This is like the white comprehensive version of Henrietta Barnett. It is largely British/European, one of the 20 best comprehensives in the country, with an intake governed by those who can afford to live in the catchment area - people pay £200,000 premium on houses to get their kids into the school.
So in my daughter's part of London you have one "local" grammar which has become a racially exclusive hothouse for bright Asian/Muslim girls, often from many miles away, who have parents who can afford to tutor them, and on the other you have a so-called "comprehensive" which supposedly takes everyone - but actually take mainly middle class kids whose parents can afford to buy massively expensive houses in Muswell Hill.
Pff!
Well done in getting her into Fortismere.
It was more luck than judgement. We just realised we had a chance, at the very edge of the catchment area, so we sent an appeal - and we got her in.
In my experience appeal panels are generally looking for reasons to say yes to appeals, it's always worth a go even on not particular strong cases (outside of infant class size appeals). Congrats.
Re secondary schools in the UK, I suspect I am almost alone on PB in facing exactly this dilemma right now.
I have an older daughter age 10, shy, introverted, funny and very smart (judging by her mock SATS). We looked at her local grammar. Dame Henrietta Barnett. It's one of the best schools in the country, private or state, and ludicrously oversubscribed - 2000 kids try for 200 places.
But when I went to the open day - wow. Originally intended as a "good school for local girls" -it is now some weird hothouse for massively tutored Asian girls. This is no exaggeration: I saw more women in niqabs/burqas at the open day than white women. Staggered by this, I checked the stats, and my impression was right, it's gone from 20% BME kids to 80% or more in 15 years, and judging by the new intakes it will be 90-100% Indian/Muslim very soon.
White parents are now covertly shunning it.
That experience put me off grammar schools.
And yet, my daughter, by a stroke of good luck, has just got into Fortismere. This is like the white comprehensive version of Henrietta Barnett. It is largely British/European, one of the 20 best comprehensives in the country, with an intake governed by those who can afford to live in the catchment area - people pay £200,000 premium on houses to get their kids into the school.
So in my daughter's part of London you have one "local" grammar which has become a racially exclusive hothouse for bright Asian/Muslim girls, often from many miles away, who have parents who can afford to tutor them, and on the other you have a so-called "comprehensive" which supposedly takes everyone - but actually take mainly middle class kids whose parents can afford to buy massively expensive houses in Muswell Hill.
Pff!
Well done in getting her into Fortismere.
That can't be right. If it is a local comp then then every child in the area can go there. So why the need for congratulations?
I wish young Miss SeanT every success and happiness, but her entry into a jolly good school seems to be based on the fact that her Dad has lots of money (and good luck to him for that) and so can buy in the catchment area.
Catchment areas often overlap, especially in heavily built-up areas.
@DavidL - I don't see how societal divisions are acceptable if parents are prepared to pay for it out of their own pockets. Perhaps we should abolish state education, and then those without kids can save some money and those with kids can vote with their feet as to what kind of education they want for their children.
I think societal divisions that arise from parents paying out of their own pockets are an inevitable consequence of having a free society where we are able to choose our priorities with our own resources and that the alternatives are worse but I don't deny they cause problems. I just don't see why the State should add to those problems.
Many argue that society would benefit from depriving the wealthy 7% of the right to buy great advantage for their offspring, whilst at the same time doing great damage to the vast majority who lack the resources to be able to consider such an option. I can well understand why those who belong to the powerful elite would wish to self perpetuate their positions, but see no good reason why everybody else should tolerate it.I suspect that most private schools have little impact beyond those who attend them, but the continued existence of the Top Public Schools - Eton - Harrow- Winchester - Westminster - Haileybury et al - imposes massive social costs via the networks they seek to sustain.
Wouldn't it be easier just to shoot the 7%, in order to create opportunities for the rest?
I've always thought The Purge was unfairly overlooked as an option...
Lindsay Anderson's 'If' is perhaps a more targeted solution ?
Nah: the Purge is more democratic... . Although as the films themselves point out, it (the in-universe Purge) is skewed towards those who can live in gated communities and afford security: it (the IRL franchise) is weirdly left-wing for a horror movie franchise, which are usually more right-wing/libertarian/survivalist.
I may be overanalysing this...
Lindsay Anderson is about as subtle as a brick: see also "Britannia Hospital", and his cameo in "Chariots of Fire".
@DavidL - I don't see how societal divisions are acceptable if parents are prepared to pay for it out of their own pockets. Perhaps we should abolish state education, and then those without kids can save some money and those with kids can vote with their feet as to what kind of education they want for their children.
I think societal divisions that arise from parents paying out of their own pockets are an inevitable consequence of having a free society where we are able to choose our priorities with our own resources and that the alternatives are worse but I don't deny they cause problems. I just don't see why the State should add to those problems.
Many argue that society would benefit from depriving the wealthy 7% of the right to buy great advantage for their offspring, whilst at the same time doing great damage to the vast majority who lack the resources to be able to consider such an option. I can well understand why those who belong to the powerful elite would wish to self perpetuate their positions, but see no good reason why everybody else should tolerate it.I suspect that most private schools have little impact beyond those who attend them, but the continued existence of the Top Public Schools - Eton - Harrow- Winchester - Westminster - Haileybury et al - imposes massive social costs via the networks they seek to sustain.
Wouldn't it be easier just to shoot the 7%, in order to create opportunities for the rest?
I've always thought The Purge was unfairly overlooked as an option...
Lindsay Anderson's 'If' is perhaps a more targeted solution ?
Nah: the Purge is more democratic... . Although as the films themselves point out, it (the in-universe Purge) is skewed towards those who can live in gated communities and afford security: it (the IRL franchise) is weirdly left-wing for a horror movie franchise, which are usually more right-wing/libertarian/survivalist.
I may be overanalysing this... .
In the films aren't too few people 'purging' and so the government basically goes around with hit squads to wipe out the undeserving poor on that night to get things moving?
What worries me is a scenario where the negotiations break down or an agreement fails on ratification. What happens if the choice is between revoking A50 (which, it seems, may well be possible) and crashing out with no deal?
Depends how tangible the costs of no deal are to the wider public.
It doesn't matter how tangible the costs are to the wider public. It matters how tangible they are to Theresa May when she's in the all night negotiating session as the clock runs out.
What worries me is a scenario where the negotiations break down or an agreement fails on ratification. What happens if the choice is between revoking A50 (which, it seems, may well be possible) and crashing out with no deal?
Depends how tangible the costs of no deal are to the wider public.
It doesn't matter how tangible the costs are to the wider public. It matters how tangible they are to Theresa May when she's in the all night negotiating session as the clock runs out.
Those two things are related to one another - without it being obvious enough to the public so that she would not suffer electoral consequences for changing position, she won't change position (at least, not a 180).
Politicians will always choose a problem tomorrow over a problem today.
Catchment areas often overlap, especially in heavily built-up areas.
Fair enough, Mr. Cole, but that doesn't take away from the fact that that the wealthy can buy their offspring a better education by being able to afford to move into to the right area. That for me is worse than people, who can afford it, buying private education. Or, come to that the situation in our day, when the toffs went off leaving the grammar schools the preserve of the bright children from working class families, who could then give the public school children a run for their money later on (Oxbridge took a majority of its intakes from state schools then on a level playing field).
reminds me of Sky News yesterday describing Russia as a superpower.The US is. China probably can claim that too. Nobody else.
Of this is true, then why are the Visegrad group and the Balts making smellypants regarding Russian insertions into the Eastern EU and why is Serbia still flirting with both sides? We keep measuring Russian capability by economy size, when their armed forces are good, being modernised, getting better, and Putin has a warfare model that works (see Ukraine, South Ossetia). Discounting Russia is a bad idea.
@DavidL - I don't see how societal divisions are acceptable if parents are prepared to pay for it out of their own pockets. Perhaps we should abolish state education, and then those without kids can save some money and those with kids can vote with their feet as to what kind of education they want for their children.
I think societal divisions that arise from parents paying out of their own pockets are an inevitable consequence of having a free society where we are able to choose our priorities with our own resources and that the alternatives are worse but I don't deny they cause problems. I just don't see why the State should add to those problems.
Many argue that society would benefit from depriving the wealthy 7% of the right to buy great advantage for their offspring, whilst at the same time doing great damage to the vast majority who lack the resources to be able to consider such an option. I can well understand why those who belong to the powerful elite would wish to self perpetuate their positions, but see no good reason why everybody else should tolerate it.I suspect that most private schools have little impact beyond those who attend them, but the continued existence of the Top Public Schools - Eton - Harrow- Winchester - Westminster - Haileybury et al - imposes massive social costs via the networks they seek to sustain.
The top public schools in the UK are probably the best schools in the world, which is why so many of the global super rich send their children to them. Getting rid of them would do nothing for the worst or even average state schools, British parents with children in private schools would simply send them to comprehensives, academies or faith schools in the most expensive catchment areas or to grammars however it would destroy a major draw of foreign wealth into the UK
Of this is true, then why are the Visegrad group and the Balts making smellypants regarding Russian insertions into the Eastern EU and why is Serbia still flirting with both sides? We keep measuring Russian capability by economy size, when their armed forces are good, being modernised, getting better, and Putin has a warfare model that works (see Ukraine, South Ossetia). Discounting Russia is a bad idea.
I completely agree with this however Russia is executing an aggressive and high-risk strategy from a position of weakness.
It's plausible that it will end very badly with the Russian Federation going the way of the USSR and collapsing in on itself but in a way that resembles the break up of Yugoslavia. The reports of persecution of gays in Chechnya highlight how little say Moscow has over what goes on in certain parts of Russian territory.
Catchment areas often overlap, especially in heavily built-up areas.
Fair enough, Mr. Cole, but that doesn't take away from the fact that that the wealthy can buy their offspring a better education by being able to afford to move into to the right area. That for me is worse than people, who can afford it, buying private education. Or, come to that the situation in our day, when the toffs went off leaving the grammar schools the preserve of the bright children from working class families, who could then give the public school children a run for their money later on (Oxbridge took a majority of its intakes from state schools then on a level playing field).
Surely the whole point of wealth is to buy better things for your family?
All the evidence is that the current selective schools advantage wealthier folk.
@DavidL - I don't see how societal divisions are acceptable if parents are prepared to pay for it out of their own pockets. Perhaps we should abolish state education, and then those without kids can save some money and those with kids can vote with their feet as to what kind of education they want for their children.
I think societal divisions that arise from parents paying out of their own pockets are an inevitable consequence of having a free society where we are able to choose our priorities with our own resources and that the alternatives are worse but I don't deny they cause problems. I just don't see why the State should add to those problems.
Many argue that society would benefit from depriving the wealthy 7% of the right to buy great advantage for their offspring, whilst at the same time doing great damage to the vast majority who lack the resources to be able to consider such an option. I can well understand why those who belong to the powerful elite would wish to self perpetuate their positions, but see no good reason why everybody else should tolerate it.I suspect that most private schools have little impact beyond those who attend them, but the continued existence of the Top Public Schools - Eton - Harrow- Winchester - Westminster - Haileybury et al - imposes massive social costs via the networks they seek to sustain.
Wouldn't it be easier just to shoot the 7%, in order to create opportunities for the rest?
I've always thought The Purge was unfairly overlooked as an option...
Lindsay Anderson's 'If' is perhaps a more targeted solution ?
Nah: the Purge is more democratic... . Although as the films themselves point out, it (the in-universe Purge) is skewed towards those who can live in gated communities and afford security: it (the IRL franchise) is weirdly left-wing for a horror movie franchise, which are usually more right-wing/libertarian/survivalist.
I may be overanalysing this... .
In the films aren't too few people 'purging' and so the government basically goes around with hit squads to wipe out the undeserving poor on that night to get things moving?
Indeed. Although that was not the direction I would take the Purge, should I inaugurate and run it. Which kind of encapsulates the problem of hanging a coherent political critique on a horror franchise.
Catchment areas often overlap, especially in heavily built-up areas.
Fair enough, Mr. Cole, but that doesn't take away from the fact that that the wealthy can buy their offspring a better education by being able to afford to move into to the right area. That for me is worse than people, who can afford it, buying private education. Or, come to that the situation in our day, when the toffs went off leaving the grammar schools the preserve of the bright children from working class families, who could then give the public school children a run for their money later on (Oxbridge took a majority of its intakes from state schools then on a level playing field).
Indeed so. If you pay £200,000 extra for a house in Muswell Hill as against Crouch End, just so you can get your two kids into Fortismere, then you are paying £100,000 a child for an education which you can say is *comprehensive* - but is actually pretty elitist. Not Eton, but definitely elitist.
Compare with Channing School, the local north London private school. It costs £15,000 a year. So for two kids over 7 years each, that's about £200,000. Spookily similar.
In parts of London comprehensive schooling is private education by another name.
Not sure that's right. There are council estates in all parts of London, including Muswell Hill. There'll be plenty of kids getting free school meals at Fortismere. Not so many at Channing.
Edit: just looked it up. Under 6%, so low. SeanT has a point!!
Of this is true, then why are the Visegrad group and the Balts making smellypants regarding Russian insertions into the Eastern EU and why is Serbia still flirting with both sides? We keep measuring Russian capability by economy size, when their armed forces are good, being modernised, getting better, and Putin has a warfare model that works (see Ukraine, South Ossetia). Discounting Russia is a bad idea.
I completely agree with this however Russia is executing an aggressive and high-risk strategy from a position of weakness.
It's plausible that it will end very badly with the Russian Federation going the way of the USSR and collapsing in on itself but in a way that resembles the break up of Yugoslavia. The reports of persecution of gays in Chechnya highlight how little say Moscow has over what goes on in certain parts of Russian territory.
I hate to say this, but I assumed the persecution of gays in Chechnya wasn't something the current Russian administration disapproved of: quite the contrary, in fact
Catchment areas often overlap, especially in heavily built-up areas.
Fair enough, Mr. Cole, but that doesn't take away from the fact that that the wealthy can buy their offspring a better education by being able to afford to move into to the right area. That for me is worse than people, who can afford it, buying private education. Or, come to that the situation in our day, when the toffs went off leaving the grammar schools the preserve of the bright children from working class families, who could then give the public school children a run for their money later on (Oxbridge took a majority of its intakes from state schools then on a level playing field).
Indeed so. If you pay £200,000 extra for a house in Muswell Hill as against Crouch End, just so you can get your two kids into Fortismere, then you are paying £100,000 a child for an education which you can say is *comprehensive* - but is actually pretty elitist. Not Eton, but definitely elitist.
Compare with Channing School, the local north London private school. It costs £15,000 a year. So for two kids over 7 years each, that's about £200,000. Spookily similar.
In parts of London comprehensive schooling is private education by another name.
Though when you sell your place in Muswell Hill you get the money back.
Fortismere sounds a much better bet than Henrietta Barnett by your description, not least because that is where she wants to go. It is particularly important that she feels in control of her own destiny. Their is a shocking rate of eating disorders amongst bright introverted girls of posh London parents.
Catchment areas often overlap, especially in heavily built-up areas.
Fair enough, Mr. Cole, but that doesn't take away from the fact that that the wealthy can buy their offspring a better education by being able to afford to move into to the right area. That for me is worse than people, who can afford it, buying private education. Or, come to that the situation in our day, when the toffs went off leaving the grammar schools the preserve of the bright children from working class families, who could then give the public school children a run for their money later on (Oxbridge took a majority of its intakes from state schools then on a level playing field).
Surely the whole point of wealth is to buy better things for your family?
All the evidence is that the current selective schools advantage wealthier folk.
The main disconnect is that didn't used to be the case. Even just 18 years ago when I started at secondary school it wasn't like that. I could see it towards the end of my time at secondary school, the intake had definitely changed during my time there. In my year it was pretty mixed in terms of everyone's backgrounds, by the time I left it was not as mixed as parents began to game the entry exam with tuition and such. Fixing the entry exam so that it can't be gamed would be a big step forwards, but the middle classes will probably whine about how unfair life is at that stage. They clearly don't want Tarquin to be friends with Dave or Kev.
Catchment areas often overlap, especially in heavily built-up areas.
Fair enough, Mr. Cole, but that doesn't take away from the fact that that the wealthy can buy their offspring a better education by being able to afford to move into to the right area. That for me is worse than people, who can afford it, buying private education. Or, come to that the situation in our day, when the toffs went off leaving the grammar schools the preserve of the bright children from working class families, who could then give the public school children a run for their money later on (Oxbridge took a majority of its intakes from state schools then on a level playing field).
Indeed so. If you pay £200,000 extra for a house in Muswell Hill as against Crouch End, just so you can get your two kids into Fortismere, then you are paying £100,000 a child for an education which you can say is *comprehensive* - but is actually pretty elitist. Not Eton, but definitely elitist.
Compare with Channing School, the local north London private school. It costs £15,000 a year. So for two kids over 7 years each, that's about £200,000. Spookily similar.
In parts of London comprehensive schooling is private education by another name.
Not sure that's right. There are council estates in all parts of London, including Muswell Hill. There'll be plenty of kids getting free school meals at Fortismere. Not so many at Channing.
I would be very surprised if that was the case, Fortismere is almost exclusive middle and upper middle class.
"Looking to avoid such a fate, Rochkind started dating a woman who isn’t a bikini model...
I can honestly say that when you get five or six supermodels into bed at once, the fights they have over who gets to please you first almost make it not worth doing.
Catchment areas often overlap, especially in heavily built-up areas.
Fair enough, Mr. Cole, but that doesn't take away from the fact that that the wealthy can buy their offspring a better education by being able to afford to move into to the right area. That for me is worse than people, who can afford it, buying private education. Or, come to that the situation in our day, when the toffs went off leaving the grammar schools the preserve of the bright children from working class families, who could then give the public school children a run for their money later on (Oxbridge took a majority of its intakes from state schools then on a level playing field).
Indeed so. If you pay £200,000 extra for a house in Muswell Hill as against Crouch End, just so you can get your two kids into Fortismere, then you are paying £100,000 a child for an education which you can say is *comprehensive* - but is actually pretty elitist. Not Eton, but definitely elitist.
Compare with Channing School, the local north London private school. It costs £15,000 a year. So for two kids over 7 years each, that's about £200,000. Spookily similar.
In parts of London comprehensive schooling is private education by another name.
Not sure that's right. There are council estates in all parts of London, including Muswell Hill. There'll be plenty of kids getting free school meals at Fortismere. Not so many at Channing.
Aaaaand... you're wrong. 5% of kids get Free School Meals at Fortismere. 1 in 20. The national average is 13.5%.
It's a seriously wealthy enclave.
Google "Peter Hitchens" and "selection by wealth", he has been making this point for a long time. Many politicians send their children to such "Comprehensives" to deceitfully tick a box. You aren't doing that of course, but it does show the stupidity of people who argue that there should be no "selection" in schools, when there already is
Of this is true, then why are the Visegrad group and the Balts making smellypants regarding Russian insertions into the Eastern EU and why is Serbia still flirting with both sides? We keep measuring Russian capability by economy size, when their armed forces are good, being modernised, getting better, and Putin has a warfare model that works (see Ukraine, South Ossetia). Discounting Russia is a bad idea.
I completely agree with this however Russia is executing an aggressive and high-risk strategy from a position of weakness.
It's plausible that it will end very badly with the Russian Federation going the way of the USSR and collapsing in on itself but in a way that resembles the break up of Yugoslavia. The reports of persecution of gays in Chechnya highlight how little say Moscow has over what goes on in certain parts of Russian territory.
I hate to say this, but I assumed the persecution of gays in Chechnya wasn't something the current Russian administration disapproved of: quite the contrary, in fact
Possibly, but if so then not for the reason you're implying. The Kremlin tacitly approves of brutality meted out by the Chechen leadership as a warning to its opponents, and because they're afraid of reigniting the conflict there. Boris Nemtsov was assassinated by a Chechen gunman in Moscow as a kind of tribute offering.
Catchment areas often overlap, especially in heavily built-up areas.
Fair enough, Mr. Cole, but that doesn't take away from the fact that that the wealthy can buy their offspring a better education by being able to afford to move into to the right area. That for me is worse than people, who can afford it, buying private education. Or, come to that the situation in our day, when the toffs went off leaving the grammar schools the preserve of the bright children from working class families, who could then give the public school children a run for their money later on (Oxbridge took a majority of its intakes from state schools then on a level playing field).
Indeed so. If you pay £200,000 extra for a house in Muswell Hill as against Crouch End, just so you can get your two kids into Fortismere, then you are paying £100,000 a child for an education which you can say is *comprehensive* - but is actually pretty elitist. Not Eton, but definitely elitist.
Compare with Channing School, the local north London private school. It costs £15,000 a year. So for two kids over 7 years each, that's about £200,000. Spookily similar.
In parts of London comprehensive schooling is private education by another name.
Not sure that's right. There are council estates in all parts of London, including Muswell Hill. There'll be plenty of kids getting free school meals at Fortismere. Not so many at Channing.
Aaaaand... you're wrong. 5% of kids get Free School Meals at Fortismere. 1 in 20. The national average is 13.5%.
It's a seriously wealthy enclave.
Yep - just looked it up and did an edit of my original post.
The other side of the story is this: I went to the last grammar school in what was then ILEA. I lived closest to the school of anyone at the school. To get in you needed to pass the 11+ and do an interview. I passed the 11+, but was initially rejected after the interview and only got in after some of the boys who had been accepted dropped out to go private. The same happened to another boy from my primary who only got in after a term had gone by and more had gone private. He lived maybe five minutes from the school gates. My Dad mended lifts, his drove a taxi. We weren't considered a good fit.
Catchment areas often overlap, especially in heavily built-up areas.
Fair enough, Mr. Cole, but that doesn't take away from the fact that that the wealthy can buy their offspring a better education by being able to afford to move into to the right area. That for me is worse than people, who can afford it, buying private education. Or, come to that the situation in our day, when the toffs went off leaving the grammar schools the preserve of the bright children from working class families, who could then give the public school children a run for their money later on (Oxbridge took a majority of its intakes from state schools then on a level playing field).
Indeed so. If you pay £200,000 extra for a house in Muswell Hill as against Crouch End, just so you can get your two kids into Fortismere, then you are paying £100,000 a child for an education which you can say is *comprehensive* - but is actually pretty elitist. Not Eton, but definitely elitist.
Compare with Channing School, the local north London private school. It costs £15,000 a year. So for two kids over 7 years each, that's about £200,000. Spookily similar.
In parts of London comprehensive schooling is private education by another name.
Not sure that's right. There are council estates in all parts of London, including Muswell Hill. There'll be plenty of kids getting free school meals at Fortismere. Not so many at Channing.
Aaaaand... you're wrong. 5% of kids get Free School Meals at Fortismere. 1 in 20. The national average is 13.5%.
It's a seriously wealthy enclave.
According to the recent Ofsted report, pupil premium pupils at Fortismere had 46% fewer making 5 A to C GCSE's than the rest of the pupils. Probably true of all schools, but it shows that there is much more of a problem than admissions to deal with.
Catchment areas often overlap, especially in heavily built-up areas.
Fair enough, Mr. Cole, but that doesn't take away from the fact that that the wealthy can buy their offspring a better education by being able to afford to move into to the right area. That for me is worse than people, who can afford it, buying private education. Or, come to that the situation in our day, when the toffs went off leaving the grammar schools the preserve of the bright children from working class families, who could then give the public school children a run for their money later on (Oxbridge took a majority of its intakes from state schools then on a level playing field).
Indeed so. If you pay £200,000 extra for a house in Muswell Hill as against Crouch End, just so you can get your two kids into Fortismere, then you are paying £100,000 a child for an education which you can say is *comprehensive* - but is actually pretty elitist. Not Eton, but definitely elitist.
Compare with Channing School, the local north London private school. It costs £15,000 a year. So for two kids over 7 years each, that's about £200,000. Spookily similar.
In parts of London comprehensive schooling is private education by another name.
Not sure that's right. There are council estates in all parts of London, including Muswell Hill. There'll be plenty of kids getting free school meals at Fortismere. Not so many at Channing.
Aaaaand... you're wrong. 5% of kids get Free School Meals at Fortismere. 1 in 20. The national average is 13.5%.
It's a seriously wealthy enclave.
Google "Peter Hitchens" and "selection by wealth", he has been making this point for a long time. Many politicians send their children to such "Comprehensives" to deceitfully tick a box. You aren't doing that of course, but it does show the stupidity of people who argue that there should be no "selection" in schools, when there already is
An exampl;e in Essex is, or certainly was, the Anglo-European School at Ingatestone. When we were looking or a new house we had a look round there; Tiny flates were going for (then) astronomical prices so that parents could claimm they lived in the area.
Catchment areas often overlap, especially in heavily built-up areas.
Fair enough, Mr. Cole, but that doesn't take away from the fact that that the wealthy can buy their offspring a better education by being able to afford to move into to the right area. That for me is worse than people, who can afford it, buying private education. Or, come to that the situation in our day, when the toffs went off leaving the grammar schools the preserve of the bright children from working class families, who could then give the public school children a run for their money later on (Oxbridge took a majority of its intakes from state schools then on a level playing field).
Indeed so. If you pay £200,000 extra for a house in Muswell Hill as against Crouch End, just so you can get your two kids into Fortismere, then you are paying £100,000 a child for an education which you can say is *comprehensive* - but is actually pretty elitist. Not Eton, but definitely elitist.
Compare with Channing School, the local north London private school. It costs £15,000 a year. So for two kids over 7 years each, that's about £200,000. Spookily similar.
In parts of London comprehensive schooling is private education by another name.
Though when you sell your place in Muswell Hill you get the money back.
Fortismere sounds a much better bet than Henrietta Barnett by your description, not least because that is where she wants to go. It is particularly important that she feels in control of her own destiny. Their is a shocking rate of eating disorders amongst bright introverted girls of posh London parents.
Very true.
I have a niece with anorexia in London. She is a very intelligent girl, but was never allowed her own life choices, so took control of the one thing she could. The hardest part of being a parent is letting go, something very difficult to get right.
What with it being a holiday and all here's an aimless anecdote. I was in Oxford and as you do went on the bus tour. Saw the Four Candles Wetherspoons in honour of Ronnie Barker and all the various colleges and museums. As we'd go past each college the guide would give us a little information. That's Somerville College where former prime minister Margaret Thatcher studied, that's Lady Margaret Hall where current prime minister Theresa May studied and then as we came to the next building he stated 'and if there are any fans of Strictly Come Dancing aboard, that there is Keble College, where Ed Balls studied.'
I smiled as he said it but it felt a bit disconcerting to be reminded of how irrelevant the Labour Party has become. That obviously for most people, even on an Oxford bus tour, Ed Balls is the guy off Strictly, not a politician.
Comments
The likely outcome of any such policy would be simply to shift these institutions overseas. Those who struggle to pay for private education (or health) might well drop out, but what you most dislike about the system would almost certainly persist.
As for recreational drugs, that particular policy is a pretty dismal example if you compare the costs (crime being the most salient) with the benefits (other than moral complacency, few).
Me too. 48% in, 52% out.
(Before Trump)
That has always been the case. However, the number of pupils from mega rich foreign families have now reached the point where, for a good number of schools, they are actually killing off the benefit they sought to buy and English Public Schools are becoming less and less relevant as their fees increase ever upwards.
Switzerland has always had a number of schools with huge fees whose pupils come from overseas but which have little or no impact on the local populace. The UK is perhaps going the same way. The state perhaps needs to do nothing, other than make provision for more children as all but a few schools catering for the very rich will wither and decline.
Mind you the Russisns are claiming an even bigger bomb. My dick is bigger than yours...
http://www.haaretz.com/us-news/1.783372?v=ECFF86C9C3471CCDF99A764C90A2E819
Mr. Glenn, reminds me of Sky News yesterday describing Russia as a superpower.
The US is. China probably can claim that too. Nobody else.
Takeoff has happened at Coventry ....
Congrats on your daughter's school, incidentally.
P.S. sorry for spelling your name wrong, in my last comment.
I wish young Miss SeanT every success and happiness, but her entry into a jolly good school seems to be based on the fact that her Dad has lots of money (and good luck to him for that) and so can buy in the catchment area.
That's a US prosecution, not a UK one.
Our No 3 Granddaughter, with an excellent singing voice, has just got into a school with a reasonable academic record which also concentrates on the performing arts.
I may be overanalysing this...
Lindsay Anderson is about as subtle as a brick: see also "Britannia Hospital", and his cameo in "Chariots of Fire".
Well, it’s a good example!
Politicians will always choose a problem tomorrow over a problem today.
It's plausible that it will end very badly with the Russian Federation going the way of the USSR and collapsing in on itself but in a way that resembles the break up of Yugoslavia. The reports of persecution of gays in Chechnya highlight how little say Moscow has over what goes on in certain parts of Russian territory.
All the evidence is that the current selective schools advantage wealthier folk.
Edit: just looked it up. Under 6%, so low. SeanT has a point!!
Fortismere sounds a much better bet than Henrietta Barnett by your description, not least because that is where she wants to go. It is particularly important that she feels in control of her own destiny. Their is a shocking rate of eating disorders amongst bright introverted girls of posh London parents.
http://nypost.com/2017/04/12/why-hot-people-arent-worth-dating/
"Looking to avoid such a fate, Rochkind started dating a woman who isn’t a bikini model...
I can honestly say that when you get five or six supermodels into bed at once, the fights they have over who gets to please you first almost make it not worth doing.
Reminder this is, unusually, the most representative of the sessions as it occurs during the same time of day as both qualifying and the race.
The other side of the story is this: I went to the last grammar school in what was then ILEA. I lived closest to the school of anyone at the school. To get in you needed to pass the 11+ and do an interview. I passed the 11+, but was initially rejected after the interview and only got in after some of the boys who had been accepted dropped out to go private. The same happened to another boy from my primary who only got in after a term had gone by and more had gone private. He lived maybe five minutes from the school gates. My Dad mended lifts, his drove a taxi. We weren't considered a good fit.
I smiled as he said it but it felt a bit disconcerting to be reminded of how irrelevant the Labour Party has become. That obviously for most people, even on an Oxford bus tour, Ed Balls is the guy off Strictly, not a politician.