And since you want to keep children going to schools close to them I assume you're keeping catchment areas.
So therefore the richest parents will be able to buy their way into the best schools via buying a home in the catchment area.
Great job! Your ambition of having great schools for everyone is one I share, just strip away the envy.
Indeed. Not standardized. That is what I said!
The rest is same old same old.
"No, we can't try to reduce educational inequality because whatever we do - even something as radical as eliminating private schools - will not eradicate educational inequality."
Sterile. And a recipe for doing nothing - which for many who seek to bog down the debate in this way is the precise objective.
I favour maximising diversity and choice in the education sector, because it’s by that mechanism that we encourage innovation and flexibility so we can raise overall education standards for the maximum number of child as high as possible as broadly as possible.
Fair enough. But that is to accept that parental financial muscle will play a big role in a child's schooling. It allows people who can afford it to buy a "better start in life" for their kids compared to others. They can - and will - do that anyway in other ways but this is to allow money to talk in educational matters too. It's important to be honest about this. You are prioritizing diversity and choice (for some) - and the right of every freeborn Englishman to spend his or her hard earned (or otherwise) money as they see fit - above equal opportunities. It's a VALUE judgement you have made and I make the opposite one. No right or wrong. Difference in values. We could talk about this for ever and that would always be where we end up. I know this because I have often done it.
Money talks everywhere. It’s the way we allocate resources.
How much more is a private sector education quantitatively different from a state one? 30%? 40%? Or 50% max? It’s certainly not 100%. You get smaller class sizes, better facilities and pastoral care and more trips, but the quality of teaching and education to a curriculum isn’t entirely fungible with money.
Meanwhile, by choosing it, you are funding 100% of a state school place for someone else, raising the level of resources available there.
End result: you raise the quality of both the state education by a little bit (prob 2-3%) and our own by (by 30-40%), thereby raising educational outcomes for all.
Far from punishing people who do it we should be encouraging anyone who can afford a private education for their own children who wants one to choose it.
Maybe stop trying to diversify wealth away from anyone then and instead try and enable others to grow their own wealth?
That sounds like a folksy piece of "give a man a fish?" type sentiment. You can't have all winners, I'm afraid. You can't make a serious dent in inequality without being prepared to remove unfair advantage from those who currently have it. To govern is to choose.
What you have said is obviously true, but that is because you have focused on inequality while Mr Thompson is talking about poverty.
You also seem to assume that everyone else has the same definition of unfair advantage as you do.
not reading to your kids and stuffing their faces with greggs sausage rolls accounts for much inequality
edit: its probably best to read the link before jumping to conclusions..
I dont know her back story but isnt her uncle a lord? Very few people in the uk are brought up in abject poverty. Unless say her mum was a smack head or alcoholic. Hair shirt monty python stuff.
edit: its probably best to read the link before jumping to conclusions..
I dont know her back story but isnt her uncle a lord? Very few people in the uk are brought up in abject poverty. Unless say her mum was a smack head or alcoholic. Hair shirt monty python stuff.
I think she's mocking the Monty Python stuff the others are doing.
I'll just repost this from the previous thread about the Guardian's video on abolition:
Utterly bonkers.
For the Left to threaten private education provokes the same kind of emotional reaction as if the Right were threatening the NHS. You're going to get nuclear-level pushback for minimal political gain. Want a Tory vote stuck at 40%+ indefinitely? Then have Labour push spiteful class war policies like this one.
It is not spiteful and it is only class politics if this is our term for making a serious attempt to address the (IMO) grave problem that we have in this country with (lack of) equal opportunities across people and places.
But where I agree with you is on the electoral challenge. We have a powerful attachment to privilege here - and to private schools in particular - and it extends well beyond those who have it or who use them. So, yes, a tough sell.
And since you want to keep children going to schools close to them I assume you're keeping catchment areas.
So therefore the richest parents will be able to buy their way into the best schools via buying a home in the catchment area.
Great job! Your ambition of having great schools for everyone is one I share, just strip away the envy.
Indeed. Not standardized. That is what I said!
The rest is same old same old.
"No, we can't try to reduce educational inequality because whatever we do - even something as radical as eliminating private schools - will not eradicate educational inequality."
Sterile. And a recipe for doing nothing - which for many who seek to bog down the debate in this way is the precise objective.
Yes we can't reduce educational inequality nor should we try to do so. Much of education begins at home, reading to children and then when they're old buying them books and/or taking them to the library. When I was young my mum took me to the library most Saturdays. How do you reduce that? Do you want to have a library tax to discourage people from going to the library? A books tax to discourage people from buying books?
Why do you want to ban people from trying to better educate their children? And if you're not trying to do so, what's your issue with schools?
edit: its probably best to read the link before jumping to conclusions..
I dont know her back story but isnt her uncle a lord? Very few people in the uk are brought up in abject poverty. Unless say her mum was a smack head or alcoholic. Hair shirt monty python stuff.
I think she's mocking the Monty Python stuff the others are doing.
Nandy does indeed seem to have as rich and interesting a backstory as Starmer - Starmer with his father a toolmaker, and journey from representing poll tax rioters and miners to knighted director of public prosecutions, and Nandy with a her father marxist academic from Calcutta and grandather on the other side a Liberal grandee in the House of Lords, and now living in Wigan having been on the board of a London theatre.
Very few modern MP's can boast a backstory as interesting and varied as these.
I don’t think it is. It would divert a lot of resources within the economy from the education sector (that pays for teachers, labs, sports facilities etc, and cross-subsidies the state places it abdicates) into consumption.
10% increase (say) to the education budget (funded from general taxation) but £25k a year (say) income boost to your average erstwhile private school user. That's what I meant by "massive middle class tax break". But all depends how you look at it. And of course the impact on schools and social mobility (up and down). It's just a point to throw in there.
I'll just repost this from the previous thread about the Guardian's video on abolition:
Utterly bonkers.
For the Left to threaten private education provokes the same kind of emotional reaction as if the Right were threatening the NHS. You're going to get nuclear-level pushback for minimal political gain. Want a Tory vote stuck at 40%+ indefinitely? Then have Labour push spiteful class war policies like this one.
It is not spiteful and it is only class politics if this is our term for making a serious attempt to address the (IMO) grave problem that we have in this country with (lack of) equal opportunities across people and places.
But where I agree with you is on the electoral challenge. We have a powerful attachment to privilege here - and to private schools in particular - and it extends well beyond those who have it or who use them. So, yes, a tough sell.
You're tackling the wrong issue. People who want to pay to better educate their children will find a way. If its not fees it will be buying their way into a better catchment area. If its not that, it will be paying for out of school tutoring. If its not that it will be buying them books and reading to them and helping ensure they do their homework. How do you stop it all? Why do you want to?
We shouldn't be trying to fight people who want to better educate their children. We should be trying to improve the education of everyone. If people don't have books at home then why not and what can we do about that? Do we need better library access for example? If people are falling behind what can we do to assist them.
Streaming and setting can be great for this - ensuring the most advanced and gifted can push themselves further, to be the best they can be. While those who've fallen behind can get the attention they need to try and catch up and at least secure the basics. Universality is the worst way to educate children, you need to treat the children as the individuals they are. Help every child get the best education they can get - even if someone else is getting better if everyone is getting as good as we can try to give then we're doing a good job.
edit: its probably best to read the link before jumping to conclusions..
I dont know her back story but isnt her uncle a lord? Very few people in the uk are brought up in abject poverty. Unless say her mum was a smack head or alcoholic. Hair shirt monty python stuff.
I don’t think it is. It would divert a lot of resources within the economy from the education sector (that pays for teachers, labs, sports facilities etc, and cross-subsidies the state places it abdicates) into consumption.
10% increase (say) to the education budget (funded from general taxation) but £25k a year (say) income boost to your average erstwhile private school user. That's what I meant by "massive middle class tax break". But all depends how you look at it. And of course the impact on schools and social mobility (up and down). It's just a point to throw in there.
So, you’re in favour of “busing” kids from Islington to Brixton, with their parents having no say in the matter?
So you want to take all initiative, variance, special abilities and uniqueness away from teachers then? And make them all bog STANDARD?
That's the only way to make them all the same standard. Factory formed homogenous products can be standardised, teachers can't unless you strip them of everything unique.
I value unique and dedicated teachers. Why don't you?
Standard is not a good word. I value the exceptional.
You're not engaging with me, Philip.
Standard has 2 meanings*. 1. Quality, as in high "standard". 2. Uniform. As in the "standard" way of doing something.
I'm talking about (1). Schools of the same "standard" (= quality). Not schools that do everything in the same "standard" way.
Could you please just confirm with an "OK" that you have this now. I'm asking because that's 3 posts you've done with this misunderstanding and we will be at cross purposes all night if we don't get agreed terms of reference.
* EDIT: 3 meanings even (flag). But it's obvious neither of us are meaning that, so as we were.
Ultimately it seems @kinabalu we'll never agree as we come from completely different points of view.
I'm upset by those parents that don't value their childrens education. Those who don't read to them, take them to parks, try to give them a full upbringing. Those who don't try and ensure they do their homework, treat their school with respect.
You're upset by those parents that do value their childrens education. Those who do want to help their children.
I'll just repost this from the previous thread about the Guardian's video on abolition:
Utterly bonkers.
For the Left to threaten private education provokes the same kind of emotional reaction as if the Right were threatening the NHS. You're going to get nuclear-level pushback for minimal political gain. Want a Tory vote stuck at 40%+ indefinitely? Then have Labour push spiteful class war policies like this one.
It is not spiteful and it is only class politics if this is our term for making a serious attempt to address the (IMO) grave problem that we have in this country with (lack of) equal opportunities across people and places.
But where I agree with you is on the electoral challenge. We have a powerful attachment to privilege here - and to private schools in particular - and it extends well beyond those who have it or who use them. So, yes, a tough sell.
It's not just a tough sell, and it is absolutely motivated by spite. Personally, the way I feel about private education is the way Casino Royale feels about eating meat - anyone seeking to curtail freedom in this area is essentially declaring that the rules of civilized politics don't apply anymore. The Left should be very careful about targeting those things the other side holds most dear, lest their tactics be reciprocated.
Maybe stop trying to diversify wealth away from anyone then and instead try and enable others to grow their own wealth?
That sounds like a folksy piece of "give a man a fish?" type sentiment. You can't have all winners, I'm afraid. You can't make a serious dent in inequality without being prepared to remove unfair advantage from those who currently have it. To govern is to choose.
What you have said is obviously true, but that is because you have focused on inequality while Mr Thompson is talking about poverty.
You also seem to assume that everyone else has the same definition of unfair advantage as you do.
not reading to your kids and stuffing their faces with greggs sausage rolls accounts for much inequality
That reminds me, it's my weekly visit to my son's so I will be reading a chapter of Harry Potter to my granddaughter tonight . Still can't do Hagrids accent.
So the earliest it could happen is in 5 to 10 years under say PM Starmer by which time we would likely be back in the single market with devomax proposed for Holyrood anyway
So you want to take all initiative, variance, special abilities and uniqueness away from teachers then? And make them all bog STANDARD?
That's the only way to make them all the same standard. Factory formed homogenous products can be standardised, teachers can't unless you strip them of everything unique.
I value unique and dedicated teachers. Why don't you?
Standard is not a good word. I value the exceptional.
You're not engaging with me, Philip.
Standard has 2 meanings. 1. Quality, as in high "standard". 2. Uniform. As in the "standard" way of doing something.
I'm talking about (1). Schools of the same "standard" (= quality). Not schools that do everything in the same "standard" way.
Could you please just confirm with an "OK" that you have this now. I'm asking because that's 3 posts you've done with the misunderstanding and we will be ay cross purposes all night if we don't get agreed terms of reference.
I don't want all schools to be of the same quality. The only way that's possible is for them all to be of the minimum quality. Any school that diversifies to be better will be of a different and better standard.
Are you OK with banning better quality education? Because I want to encourage it, not ban it.
Nandy's backstory yells descendant of comfortable off middle class public sector elite stock, just like the rest of them.
What's wrong with that?
Absolutely nothing, as long as you don;t claim affiliations that don;t exist, or say that others are precluded by privilege from pitching to ordinary people.
Before 2016: interfering in other country's politics is wrong! We must leave the EU and prevent such interference! After 2016: interfering in other country's politics is right! We must maintain a presence in the EU and enable such interference!
I don't want all schools to be of the same quality. The only way that's possible is for them all to be of the minimum quality. Any school that diversifies to be better will be of a different and better standard.
The objective is for all schools to be of the same (high) standard. This can never be 100% achieved - or even close - but it should IMO be the goal we keep working towards. The "direction of travel" if you will. Like peace on earth.
Oh, and a UK government shutting down Eton and Harrow won’t make them go away. They’ll simply reappear in Singapore or Dubai, and add millions of $currencyunit to those economies instead.
I don't want all schools to be of the same quality. The only way that's possible is for them all to be of the minimum quality. Any school that diversifies to be better will be of a different and better standard.
The objective is for all schools to be of the same (high) standard. This can never be 100% achieved - or even close - but it should IMO be the goal we keep working towards. The "direction of travel" if you will. Like peace on earth.
And this is where I came in, so ...
I disagree. The objective is for all schools to be of the best (possible) standard and they should diversify to achieve that in their own ways. The more competition the better and competition means differences.
Why the feck is the US 'insisting' that chlorinated chicken be part of a trade deal? is it a minimal but totemic part of their economy like fishing is in ours?
I don't want all schools to be of the same quality. The only way that's possible is for them all to be of the minimum quality. Any school that diversifies to be better will be of a different and better standard.
The objective is for all schools to be of the same (high) standard. This can never be 100% achieved - or even close - but it should IMO be the goal we keep working towards. The "direction of travel" if you will. Like peace on earth.
And this is where I came in, so ...
All schools equally mediocre yes, no incentive to get outstanding exam results or great extracurricular activites as you will get the same numbers of pupils on the rolls anyway, no incentive to be a great teacher as you will get assigned a school at the same rate of pay anyway
Why the feck is the US 'insisting' that chlorinated chicken be part of a trade deal? is it a minimal but totemic part of their economy like fishing is in ours?
If Richard Burgon can qualify as a solicitor then surely anyone can.
Whilst acknowledging that there are many fine upstanding members of the legal profession, especially those lovely people who post here or publish my articles, I have to say the probability of one being as dumb as a bag of clotted bogies is far higher than you would expect given the profession's reputation
Why the feck is the US 'insisting' that chlorinated chicken be part of a trade deal? is it a minimal but totemic part of their economy like fishing is in ours?
Why the feck is the US 'insisting' that chlorinated chicken be part of a trade deal? is it a minimal but totemic part of their economy like fishing is in ours?
Why the feck is the US 'insisting' that chlorinated chicken be part of a trade deal? is it a minimal but totemic part of their economy like fishing is in ours?
I suspect 'chlorinated chicken' is just shorthand for the broader concept of 'We'll send you whatever crap we like and don't you dare object'.
It would be a funny start to the negotiations if the Americans were already agreeing that their farmers and their shite foods could get stuffed wouldn't it? At the moment, of course, they are insisting on everything. They're talking tough, as are we with our threat of the digital tax, which I suspect will be canned in the negotiations.
Why the feck is the US 'insisting' that chlorinated chicken be part of a trade deal? is it a minimal but totemic part of their economy like fishing is in ours?
Why the feck is the US 'insisting' that chlorinated chicken be part of a trade deal? is it a minimal but totemic part of their economy like fishing is in ours?
Why the feck is the US 'insisting' that chlorinated chicken be part of a trade deal? is it a minimal but totemic part of their economy like fishing is in ours?
Why the feck is the US 'insisting' that chlorinated chicken be part of a trade deal? is it a minimal but totemic part of their economy like fishing is in ours?
Why the feck is the US 'insisting' that chlorinated chicken be part of a trade deal? is it a minimal but totemic part of their economy like fishing is in ours?
Why the feck is the US 'insisting' that chlorinated chicken be part of a trade deal? is it a minimal but totemic part of their economy like fishing is in ours?
Chlorinated chicken ok, as long as it's labelled as such.
"Can I have a large such please, Derek?" "What's a "such", Morag?" "I dunno, but a bloke on the Internet said it had to have that label" (Audience laughs)
So the earliest it could happen is in 5 to 10 years under say PM Starmer by which time we would likely be back in the single market with devomax proposed for Holyrood anyway
This poll is pretty useless except for Boris's current purpose. UK Unionists will take from it one key message: The Scots say they want a referendum as long as it isn't now, and the further way it is the more they want it.
May I respectfully suggest that a referendum on Irish unity is in fact much more urgent as well as being more geographically sensible and that they should have the next turn.
Why the feck is the US 'insisting' that chlorinated chicken be part of a trade deal? is it a minimal but totemic part of their economy like fishing is in ours?
Why the feck is the US 'insisting' that chlorinated chicken be part of a trade deal? is it a minimal but totemic part of their economy like fishing is in ours?
Why the feck is the US 'insisting' that chlorinated chicken be part of a trade deal? is it a minimal but totemic part of their economy like fishing is in ours?
Why the feck is the US 'insisting' that chlorinated chicken be part of a trade deal? is it a minimal but totemic part of their economy like fishing is in ours?
Why the feck is the US 'insisting' that chlorinated chicken be part of a trade deal? is it a minimal but totemic part of their economy like fishing is in ours?
I suspect 'chlorinated chicken' is just shorthand for the broader concept of 'We'll send you whatever crap we like and don't you dare object'.
UK consumers can vote with their wallets then.
Not if they don’t know where the chicken has come from...
I thought most packaging had country of origin on it, in some cases in the form of a flag?
The argument is that the US want country labelling banned
I don't think that's true, I think the argument is that the US won't respect country of origin rules for European food products, they will market food products like champagne that don't come from the Champagne region etc...
It's one of the reasons US olive oil is so terrible.
Why the feck is the US 'insisting' that chlorinated chicken be part of a trade deal? is it a minimal but totemic part of their economy like fishing is in ours?
Why the feck is the US 'insisting' that chlorinated chicken be part of a trade deal? is it a minimal but totemic part of their economy like fishing is in ours?
I suspect 'chlorinated chicken' is just shorthand for the broader concept of 'We'll send you whatever crap we like and don't you dare object'.
UK consumers can vote with their wallets then.
Not if they don’t know where the chicken has come from...
I thought most packaging had country of origin on it, in some cases in the form of a flag?
The argument is that the US want country labelling banned
I don't think that's true, I think the argument is that the US won't respect country of origin rules for European food products, they will market food products like champagne that don't come from the Champagne region etc...
It's one of the reasons US olive oil is so terrible.
That’s not country of origin labelling, that what the EU call “Geographic Indicators”, and will be an absolute red line for any trade deal whatsoever with the EU. It’s their reddest of red lines in every trade deal.
My understanding is that America will insist that Britain cannot enforce the labelling of its foul fowl as 'chlorine washed' or similar. Because that would be a non tariff barrier. At any rate, there will be ways that middle class consumers can easily avoid it. It will be for the likes of KFC or its generic rivals to get cheaper chicken for their chicken gobbets or similar. I would not even contemplate it entering the food chain myself.
So the earliest it could happen is in 5 to 10 years under say PM Starmer by which time we would likely be back in the single market with devomax proposed for Holyrood anyway
This poll is pretty useless except for Boris's current purpose. UK Unionists will take from it one key message: The Scots say they want a referendum as long as it isn't now, and the further way it is the more they want it.
May I respectfully suggest that a referendum on Irish unity is in fact much more urgent as well as being more geographically sensible and that they should have the next turn.
No, as Sinn Fein do not even have most seats in Northern Ireland unlike the SNP in Scotland and like Scotland more Northern Irish voters voted for Unionist parties at the last general election than Nationalist parties
What will make me smile is if Boris manages to get the Americans to lift their unfair ban on haggis as part of these negotiations. Imagine the discomfiture of the SNP. Would they have the balls to congratulate Boris? Would almost be worth chlorine chicken to get that (not in monetary terms obvs.).
Why the feck is the US 'insisting' that chlorinated chicken be part of a trade deal? is it a minimal but totemic part of their economy like fishing is in ours?
My understanding is that America will insist that Britain cannot enforce the labelling of its foul fowl as 'chlorine washed' or similar. Because that would be a non tariff barrier. At any rate, there will be ways that middle class consumers can easily avoid it. It will be for the likes of KFC or its generic rivals to get cheaper chicken for their chicken gobbets or similar. I would not even contemplate it entering the food chain myself.
It’s a good point that food standards aren’t as important in the supermarket, as they are in commercial food sales. The latter are much more price-conscious, the buyer is not the end consumer and there is very little origin labelling to the person who will eat the food.
Does the outrage about chlorinated chicken extend to chlorinated bagged salad or does Waitrose use the right sort of chlorine?
Isn't it more an animal welfare issue?
The US chickens are kept in such unhealthy, cramped conditions disease is rampant, they need chlorine to clean that off them
Lettuce does not have such veg welfare issues to the best of my knowledge.
Yes. It's the fact the poor creature is so dirty and diseased that it needs a chlorine wash that is the issue.
That's not to say that vegetable produce can't have its own issues, pesticide residue and poor nutritional value from nitrogen fertiliser use being two.
Thanks to people for that exchange on the merits and demerits of purchasing privilege via private schools. TBC I hope. No bigger issue.
And we did the whole thing - at least this time - without the dreaded "The only way to sort the problem is to make state schools so good that nobody chooses to go private".
Why the feck is the US 'insisting' that chlorinated chicken be part of a trade deal? is it a minimal but totemic part of their economy like fishing is in ours?
And yet the Daily Mail tells us that folk on £100k are "Middle Class".
Well, as opposed to what?
Where the 'middle' is ?
I wouldn't say people on £100k are the epitome of middle class, but how else would you classify them, other than middle class?
Absolutely not the middle as that excuses them for not recognising that they are absolutely at the top end of income.
So upper / Top or anything other than middle as suggesting that is 'middle' makes them feel that they are not hugely privileged.
I think we're talking at crossed purposes here. Clearly it's an upper tier salary. My point is that it doesn't make a person "upper class".
I earn over 100k and live in London. I'm also mortgaged to the hilt on a 2 bed flat. I definitely am not anyone's idea of upper class, even by @kinabalu's weird description.
Accidentally watched an episode of Question Time recently, where there was spat between Richard Burgon and an audience member. Burgon said that anyone earning over £80k was well off, and the audience member said that he was lying; he earned that and wasn't, and that every solicitor or doctor earned more than that. Burgon said that when he practised a solicitor he earned half of that.
I didn't see/hear how it ended.
Firstly, Richard Burgon has clearly never heard of inflation. Secondly, that probably tells you how good Richard Burgon was as a solicitor.
Burgon did qualify that with "starting out" as a solicitor.
The QT member of the public was a total areshole, he got heckled by the audience so infuriated were they by him constantly claiming that earning eighty grand put him in the BOTTOM 50%.
Maybe stop trying to diversify wealth away from anyone then and instead try and enable others to grow their own wealth?
That sounds like a folksy piece of "give a man a fish?" type sentiment. You can't have all winners, I'm afraid. You can't make a serious dent in inequality without being prepared to remove unfair advantage from those who currently have it. To govern is to choose.
Teach a man to fish and he will never go hungry
Teach a man to fish for compliments and he becomes tiresome and needy
I can’t get excited about chlorinated chicken. I could get excited about no labelling so the consumer didn’t know. But, if we had Genuine Kentucky Chicken “made in the USA 🇺🇸” £1.99 on the stuff in Iceland, with NB: this chicken may have been pre-processed with chlorine before washing and packing, then I’d be absolutely fine with it. I might even buy and try it to see what all the fuss is about.
I get far more excited about our unequal extradition treaty, which I think is a disgrace and has nothing to do with trade or Brexit.
Why the feck is the US 'insisting' that chlorinated chicken be part of a trade deal? is it a minimal but totemic part of their economy like fishing is in ours?
Why would anyone think they're bastards? Love people from the continent. Hope (and feel sure) we'll stay friends. Don't want to participate in an incipient superstate with them. If they do, wish them all the best.
Does the outrage about chlorinated chicken extend to chlorinated bagged salad or does Waitrose use the right sort of chlorine?
Chlorine is about animal welfare. Last l heard you could not be cruel to a salad.
I'm pretty sure the chlorine is post death, at least I hope it is. And if there's an obvious choice of being really nasty to a salad then chlorine is up there.
Why would anyone think they're bastards? Love people from the continent. Hope (and feel sure) we'll stay friends. Don't want to participate in an incipient superstate with them. If they do, wish them all the best.
Does the outrage about chlorinated chicken extend to chlorinated bagged salad or does Waitrose use the right sort of chlorine?
Chlorine is about animal welfare. Last l heard you could not be cruel to a salad.
You can't be cruel, but the principle is the same. 'Cruelly' grow a vegetable, lots of nitrogen fertiliser for bulk/yield, lots of pesticides, you'll get a poor nutritional profile and an unhealthy food. Same with animals. Their welfare, health and nutrition isn't just a question of being nice, it directly affects our own health. We are what we eat. And we are what they eat.
Comments
The rest is same old same old.
"No, we can't try to reduce educational inequality because whatever we do - even something as radical as eliminating private schools - will not eradicate educational inequality."
Sterile. And a recipe for doing nothing - which for many who seek to bog down the debate in this way is the precise objective.
How much more is a private sector education quantitatively different from a state one? 30%? 40%? Or 50% max? It’s certainly not 100%. You get smaller class sizes, better facilities and pastoral care and more trips, but the quality of teaching and education to a curriculum isn’t entirely fungible with money.
Meanwhile, by choosing it, you are funding 100% of a state school place for someone else, raising the level of resources available there.
End result: you raise the quality of both the state education by a little bit (prob 2-3%) and our own by (by 30-40%), thereby raising educational outcomes for all.
Far from punishing people who do it we should be encouraging anyone who can afford a private education for their own children who wants one to choose it.
https://www.conservatives.com/donations/Own-Brexit?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=1679&utm_content=top-link&code=wr1679&amount=25
I dont know her back story but isnt her uncle a lord? Very few people in the uk are brought up in abject poverty. Unless say her mum was a smack head or alcoholic. Hair shirt monty python stuff.
But where I agree with you is on the electoral challenge. We have a powerful attachment to privilege here - and to private schools in particular - and it extends well beyond those who have it or who use them. So, yes, a tough sell.
Why do you want to ban people from trying to better educate their children? And if you're not trying to do so, what's your issue with schools?
Very few modern MP's can boast a backstory as interesting and varied as these.
We shouldn't be trying to fight people who want to better educate their children. We should be trying to improve the education of everyone. If people don't have books at home then why not and what can we do about that? Do we need better library access for example? If people are falling behind what can we do to assist them.
Streaming and setting can be great for this - ensuring the most advanced and gifted can push themselves further, to be the best they can be. While those who've fallen behind can get the attention they need to try and catch up and at least secure the basics. Universality is the worst way to educate children, you need to treat the children as the individuals they are. Help every child get the best education they can get - even if someone else is getting better if everyone is getting as good as we can try to give then we're doing a good job.
Standard has 2 meanings*. 1. Quality, as in high "standard". 2. Uniform. As in the "standard" way of doing something.
I'm talking about (1). Schools of the same "standard" (= quality). Not schools that do everything in the same "standard" way.
Could you please just confirm with an "OK" that you have this now. I'm asking because that's 3 posts you've done with this misunderstanding and we will be at cross purposes all night if we don't get agreed terms of reference.
* EDIT: 3 meanings even (flag). But it's obvious neither of us are meaning that, so as we were.
I'm upset by those parents that don't value their childrens education. Those who don't read to them, take them to parks, try to give them a full upbringing. Those who don't try and ensure they do their homework, treat their school with respect.
You're upset by those parents that do value their childrens education. Those who do want to help their children.
That can't be reconciled.
https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1222871398516916224?s=20
So the earliest it could happen is in 5 to 10 years under say PM Starmer by which time we would likely be back in the single market with devomax proposed for Holyrood anyway
This usually means interesting people.
Are you OK with banning better quality education? Because I want to encourage it, not ban it.
Before 2016: interfering in other country's politics is wrong! We must leave the EU and prevent such interference!
After 2016: interfering in other country's politics is right! We must maintain a presence in the EU and enable such interference!
And this is where I came in, so ...
https://twitter.com/meljomur/status/1222944658822701056?s=20
https://www.redtractor.org.uk/
"What's a "such", Morag?"
"I dunno, but a bloke on the Internet said it had to have that label"
(Audience laughs)
Pause
I miss Roy Hudd...
May I respectfully suggest that a referendum on Irish unity is in fact much more urgent as well as being more geographically sensible and that they should have the next turn.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandatory_country-of-origin_labeling_of_food_sold_in_the_United_States#Canada_kills_COOL_at_the_WTO
It's one of the reasons US olive oil is so terrible.
Still, all this taking back control looks like being fun, doesn’t it.
http://lordsoftheblog.net/2013/10/03/selective-family-memories/
The US chickens are kept in such unhealthy, cramped conditions disease is rampant, they need chlorine to clean that off them
Lettuce does not have such veg welfare issues to the best of my knowledge.
That's not to say that vegetable produce can't have its own issues, pesticide residue and poor nutritional value from nitrogen fertiliser use being two.
REJOICE.
And we did the whole thing - at least this time - without the dreaded "The only way to sort the problem is to make state schools so good that nobody chooses to go private".
☺
'No EU plan to ban Union Flag from British meat packs'
https://tinyurl.com/rrlm7y5
And that, dear reader, is why we're leaving the EU tomorrow evening.
The QT member of the public was a total areshole, he got heckled by the audience so infuriated were they by him constantly claiming that earning eighty grand put him in the BOTTOM 50%.
https://twitter.com/HBO/status/1222950102425272320?s=20
Teach a man to fish for compliments and he becomes tiresome and needy
You own this now.
https://twitter.com/joncstone/status/1222928005141532677?s=20
I get far more excited about our unequal extradition treaty, which I think is a disgrace and has nothing to do with trade or Brexit.
Big night because the clocks go back too!
57 years.
Couldn’t resist...
http://www.newslettereuropean.eu/what-is-at-stake-with-labelling-the-eu-goods/
Some American food might be even better if I judge by that Man vs Food TV series:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VptaT0j8TCs
Unfortunately that's the reason why americans are big, they have massive amounts of cheap food, obesity will probably explode.
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2020/01/in-the-iowa-endgame-the-agony-of-the-undecideds