I'm enjoying the woke outrage about Abbott being appointed to a nonsense position. It's pure politics to rile up the lefty luvvies and show the government are irritating the right people.
Fwiw, he's probably going to be pretty good at the job as former PM of a nation that actually needed an independent trade policy. That he's whatever doesn't really make a difference to his ability to advise the government on having an independent trade policy.
Do you not think that government should have a more noble purpose than "to rile up the left luvvies" and "irritate the right people". Or is this the sort of infantilism that we have come to expect from our current rulers?
I'd prefer it if appointments were made on merit rather than on cronyism or winding up government opponents. I've no strong view on Abbott's abilities (though he does seem a bit of a neanderthal boor).
He seems ideally suited to offer advice on how to go about securing trade deals given his track record.
The ones that led to economic colonisation by China and the end of the Australian automotive and clothing industries, amongst others?
You can't really blame Tony Abbott for the end of car manufacturing in Australia. He only became PM in 2013.
Ford Australia closed their engine and body plants in 2016, GM (Holden) and Toyota in 2017. There are no Australian car manufacturers now.
I'm enjoying the woke outrage about Abbott being appointed to a nonsense position. It's pure politics to rile up the lefty luvvies and show the government are irritating the right people.
Fwiw, he's probably going to be pretty good at the job as former PM of a nation that actually needed an independent trade policy. That he's whatever doesn't really make a difference to his ability to advise the government on having an independent trade policy.
Do you not think that government should have a more noble purpose than "to rile up the left luvvies" and "irritate the right people". Or is this the sort of infantilism that we have come to expect from our current rulers?
I'd prefer it if appointments were made on merit rather than on cronyism or winding up government opponents. I've no strong view on Abbott's abilities (though he does seem a bit of a neanderthal boor).
He seems ideally suited to offer advice on how to go about securing trade deals given his track record.
The ones that led to economic colonisation by China and the end of the Australian automotive and clothing industries, amongst others?
You can't really blame Tony Abbott for the end of car manufacturing in Australia. He only became PM in 2013.
Ford Australia closed their engine and body plants in 2016, GM (Holden) and Toyota in 2017. There are no Australian car manufacturers now.
Votes for women, an end to slavery and legalisation of gay marriage would have been considered extreme opinions at one time.
Yes, you will note I am imputing neither vice or virtue to moderation. It's merely an exercise commissioned by Philip Thompson to help us draw up a jury to answer the question that started all this -
Was Labour's 2015 manifesto moderate or was it not?
It was, of course. But we're having to do it the hard way. No probs since I'm not busy.
I`d say that "moderate" usually refers to people who are centre-ish on the left to right spectrum.
So, I`d say that all liberals are moderates, some conservatives are and some collectivists are.
I think it would be peachy if we were all moderates.
You're looking at it much the same as me. And as I said at the onset I think the vast majority of PB posters ARE moderates. Even I am really, if you exclude wanting a new economic model based on common ownership and parents removed from the loop as regards the education of their children.
Parents are responsible for a huge amount of their children's education: removing them from the loop would be child abuse.
We're mainly talking about no more school fees. Hardly think 93% of parents are guilty of child abuse.
Do you really think that paying for an education is the only way that parents are "in the loop" of their children's education? And where are you getting the 93% figure from?
Of course not. Parents do loads of stuff to help their children develop and learn, some bad, mostly good. And long may it remain so - with maximum good and minimum bad. All will agree with that.
We can replace "remove from the loop" with "substantially reduce the impact of parental bank balance" if we want to be more cuddly sounding. But I was wanting to make it sound more radical than it truly is so that I didn't get tagged as a moderate.
The 93% is those who do not pay school fees.
But the size of the parental bank balance is generally a result of parents` hard work and good planning (and sacrifices along the way). If parents choose to prioritise spending by way of school fees, bypassing "free" state provision, then this is an important freedom I think.
Also worth pointing out that all private schools are not equal. The private schools that I`m familiar with are one notch up from state schools and not comparable with the Etons and Winchesters of this world. Look at the cars in the car park - they are no different from at our local state school. Some are tattier. I think the reasons why these "can-only-just-afford-it" parents prioritise private schooling comes down to the happiness and safety of their children - nothing more.
Also worth mentioning that many children that are educated privately are not academic. If you have an academic child you are very lucky. That child will do well in any school and you can save yourself a shed load of money and buy fancy cars and fancy holidays instead. The cream will rise to the top, whereas a non-academic child in a state school can easily get "lost".
But what a twat Ian Brown is, he's nearly as bad as Matt Le Tissier who is proving what a disgraceful numpty he is.
No wonder the dregs of the internet love him.
It doesn't bother me too much because I rarely watch it these days, but those replacements on Soccer Saturday today show what good professionals Le Tissier, Thompson and Nicholas were.
I'm enjoying the woke outrage about Abbott being appointed to a nonsense position. It's pure politics to rile up the lefty luvvies and show the government are irritating the right people.
Fwiw, he's probably going to be pretty good at the job as former PM of a nation that actually needed an independent trade policy. That he's whatever doesn't really make a difference to his ability to advise the government on having an independent trade policy.
Do you not think that government should have a more noble purpose than "to rile up the left luvvies" and "irritate the right people". Or is this the sort of infantilism that we have come to expect from our current rulers?
I'd prefer it if appointments were made on merit rather than on cronyism or winding up government opponents. I've no strong view on Abbott's abilities (though he does seem a bit of a neanderthal boor).
Did you skip Max's second paragraph? That's the noble purpose.
All governments have always tried to wind up their opponents at times. How you do that matters though.
I was fine with Max's second paragraph. I thought the first paragraph was puerile playground stuff, that's all.
Did you complain when labour decided "to rub the rights nose in diversity"? As reported by a civil servant from meetings. I doubt it
The relentless and systematic culture war dog whistling in the here and now of Johnson & Co is in no way justified by that one folk lore incident of a reported remark by some Labour SPAD at some meeting or other 20 years ago.
C'mon. You're not a moderate, that's agreed, but you don't have to wallow in it. You can be moderate sometimes.
Votes for women, an end to slavery and legalisation of gay marriage would have been considered extreme opinions at one time.
Yes, you will note I am imputing neither vice or virtue to moderation. It's merely an exercise commissioned by Philip Thompson to help us draw up a jury to answer the question that started all this -
Was Labour's 2015 manifesto moderate or was it not?
It was, of course. But we're having to do it the hard way. No probs since I'm not busy.
I`d say that "moderate" usually refers to people who are centre-ish on the left to right spectrum.
So, I`d say that all liberals are moderates, some conservatives are and some collectivists are.
I think it would be peachy if we were all moderates.
You're looking at it much the same as me. And as I said at the onset I think the vast majority of PB posters ARE moderates. Even I am really, if you exclude wanting a new economic model based on common ownership and parents removed from the loop as regards the education of their children.
You think children would do better if removed from their parents and raised by the state? Have you seen childrens homes run by the state? This is after all the only way to remove parents from the loop for education else some of those parents might tip the scales by horror of horrors reading to them or even worse giving them help with homework
You know I don't mean that. I'm not doing that "rebutting the absurd extrapolation" business. Fool's errand.
So you are heading for Plato's republic? Where children would be raised and educated away from their stupid, evil parents by philosopher kings?
I always thought that Plato`s Republic has some mileage when dealing with a small tribal entity (say 500 individuals or less) when everyone knows everyone else and they are proceeding towards a common goal. However, this can`t extend to the human populations we now exist within, cheek by jowl with masses of people that we don`t know and, indeed, compete with.
I think democracy begins to break down itself when you go above a certain amount of individuals, which is why I support localism of decision making and think that decisions should be made at the lowest possible level of government. Instead we have ever more centralised governments....the uk and the eu and local democracy is viewed as unimportant as they really don't get to make a lot of decisions.
Quite a lot of philosophers now use the "He was joking" or it was "all a metaphor" to excuse the insanity of the design of the Republic.
If he was joking he should have put a smiley at the end
I am not sure Plato's ideas were insane. They were thought provoking and innovative for sure. They have got legions of intellectuals to examine what fundamentally is society. If we dismiss "left field" views as insane we restrict thought
I'm enjoying the woke outrage about Abbott being appointed to a nonsense position. It's pure politics to rile up the lefty luvvies and show the government are irritating the right people.
Fwiw, he's probably going to be pretty good at the job as former PM of a nation that actually needed an independent trade policy. That he's whatever doesn't really make a difference to his ability to advise the government on having an independent trade policy.
Do you not think that government should have a more noble purpose than "to rile up the left luvvies" and "irritate the right people". Or is this the sort of infantilism that we have come to expect from our current rulers?
I'd prefer it if appointments were made on merit rather than on cronyism or winding up government opponents. I've no strong view on Abbott's abilities (though he does seem a bit of a neanderthal boor).
He seems ideally suited to offer advice on how to go about securing trade deals given his track record.
The ones that led to economic colonisation by China and the end of the Australian automotive and clothing industries, amongst others?
Those deals were a direct cause of the declines of those industries?
Yes, Australia was once a significant manufacturing nation, but now only some food and mineral processing, otherwise just primary products, and tourism for the Asian, mostly Chinese, markets.
But what a twat Ian Brown is, he's nearly as bad as Matt Le Tissier who is proving what a disgraceful numpty he is.
No wonder the dregs of the internet love him.
It doesn't bother me too much because I rarely watch it these days, but those replacements on Soccer Saturday today show what good professionals Le Tissier, Thompson and Nicholas were.
Thompson was the pundit on the Liverpool v Blackpool match this afternoon, he's great.
But I haven't watched soccer Saturday in years, is Kammy still there?
But what a twat Ian Brown is, he's nearly as bad as Matt Le Tissier who is proving what a disgraceful numpty he is.
No wonder the dregs of the internet love him.
It doesn't bother me too much because I rarely watch it these days, but those replacements on Soccer Saturday today show what good professionals Le Tissier, Thompson and Nicholas were.
Thompson was the pundit on the Liverpool v Blackpool match this afternoon, he's great.
But I haven't watched soccer Saturday in years, is Kammy still there?
Yep, he was at a game (can't remember which).
I felt sorry for Stelling as he was having to work quite hard to cover for the inadequacies of his colleagues.
"Where a blended rum meets exotic spices to create a unique and distinctive flavour profile. Those familiar with Saffron cake will certainly find a hint of that alongside notes of Pedro Ximénez Ice cream. Next comes a whisper of creamy caramel followed by vanilla, cinnamon, nutmeg and of course, those subtly sweet undertones of orange. Some have even found notes of pineapple, dried raisins and a pinch of black pepper – but we think they’re just showing off. Suitable for Vegan diets"
Votes for women, an end to slavery and legalisation of gay marriage would have been considered extreme opinions at one time.
Yes, you will note I am imputing neither vice or virtue to moderation. It's merely an exercise commissioned by Philip Thompson to help us draw up a jury to answer the question that started all this -
Was Labour's 2015 manifesto moderate or was it not?
It was, of course. But we're having to do it the hard way. No probs since I'm not busy.
I`d say that "moderate" usually refers to people who are centre-ish on the left to right spectrum.
So, I`d say that all liberals are moderates, some conservatives are and some collectivists are.
I think it would be peachy if we were all moderates.
You're looking at it much the same as me. And as I said at the onset I think the vast majority of PB posters ARE moderates. Even I am really, if you exclude wanting a new economic model based on common ownership and parents removed from the loop as regards the education of their children.
You think children would do better if removed from their parents and raised by the state? Have you seen childrens homes run by the state? This is after all the only way to remove parents from the loop for education else some of those parents might tip the scales by horror of horrors reading to them or even worse giving them help with homework
You know I don't mean that. I'm not doing that "rebutting the absurd extrapolation" business. Fool's errand.
So you are heading for Plato's republic? Where children would be raised and educated away from their stupid, evil parents by philosopher kings?
I always thought that Plato`s Republic has some mileage when dealing with a small tribal entity (say 500 individuals or less) when everyone knows everyone else and they are proceeding towards a common goal. However, this can`t extend to the human populations we now exist within, cheek by jowl with masses of people that we don`t know and, indeed, compete with.
I think democracy begins to break down itself when you go above a certain amount of individuals, which is why I support localism of decision making and think that decisions should be made at the lowest possible level of government. Instead we have ever more centralised governments....the uk and the eu and local democracy is viewed as unimportant as they really don't get to make a lot of decisions.
Quite a lot of philosophers now use the "He was joking" or it was "all a metaphor" to excuse the insanity of the design of the Republic.
If he was joking he should have put a smiley at the end
I am not sure Plato's ideas were insane. They were thought provoking and innovative for sure. They have got legions of intellectuals to examine what fundamentally is society. If we dismiss "left field" views as insane we restrict thought
The social "experiments" inspired by the republic have proved to be insane. The problem from the source onwards is that they omit one small detail.
Humans.
Trying to fit people to a designed society is plan guaranteed to fail. A society that works must take into account the people within it, their desires and ideas.
I remember watching a video of what happens when social idealists try and impose their views on a society. Darkly funny in some ways, but most people here would probably throw up.
But what a twat Ian Brown is, he's nearly as bad as Matt Le Tissier who is proving what a disgraceful numpty he is.
No wonder the dregs of the internet love him.
It doesn't bother me too much because I rarely watch it these days, but those replacements on Soccer Saturday today show what good professionals Le Tissier, Thompson and Nicholas were.
Thompson was the pundit on the Liverpool v Blackpool match this afternoon, he's great.
But I haven't watched soccer Saturday in years, is Kammy still there?
Yep, he was at a game (can't remember which).
I felt sorry for Stelling as he was having to work quite hard to cover for the inadequacies of his colleagues.
It's a pity, I suspect Soccer Saturday will be gone as more and more matches are shown live and plenty of fans can stream matches from alternative sources.
Votes for women, an end to slavery and legalisation of gay marriage would have been considered extreme opinions at one time.
Yes, you will note I am imputing neither vice or virtue to moderation. It's merely an exercise commissioned by Philip Thompson to help us draw up a jury to answer the question that started all this -
Was Labour's 2015 manifesto moderate or was it not?
It was, of course. But we're having to do it the hard way. No probs since I'm not busy.
I`d say that "moderate" usually refers to people who are centre-ish on the left to right spectrum.
So, I`d say that all liberals are moderates, some conservatives are and some collectivists are.
I think it would be peachy if we were all moderates.
I consider myself a liberal (classical not guardian) leaning towards the libertarian end of the liberal scale. I doubt many consider me a moderate
No, you're not a moderate. You should have been one of the first names on the 'not moderate' team sheet. Another lapse on my part. But now rectified so no harm done.
And all it means is that you are ineligible for a place on the panel which will be charged with answering the question -
Was Ed Miliband's 2015 Labour manifesto a moderate offering?
(it's "yes" obviously but we need to confirm by proper due process)
Moderate is like pornography, no one can define it but they know it when they see it. Millibrand,Edward was not a moderate. I will let you know on the other issue in 85 years when they release it to the public as I would not wish to usurp nostradamus and predict its contents
That's why you will not be on the panel. To you - a non moderate - a moderate manifesto will not look moderate. This is exactly why we've gone through all this.
Not at all I would have certainly said Cameron's 2010 manifesto was moderate, the same as I would have said Blair's 1997 one was for example. Just because I don't agree with you that the E Milibrand one wasn't doesn't mean I can't judge a moderate manifesto when I see one. It wasn't. It was only moderate in your view because it matched your views but then , and I maybe wrong on this, but from memory you have described Corbyn as centre left
Jeremy Corbyn is way to the left of left of centre. If I ever said otherwise it was a typo.
As to your judgement, the point is that people will always think they can be objective but the only way to prove whether Labour 2015 were essentially moderate is to ask a panel of moderates. Which excludes you, I'm afraid, but please note that it excludes me too. This is not a self-serving exercise I'm engaged in.
Have you got anyone to admit to being a moderate and to answer the Labour 2015 question yet?
Ah good point. No, we've got sidetracked by the secondary matter of who is moderate in the first place.
And you're one - so you could kick it off. 1st vote, I'll keep track.
We need 12 and a majority 9/3 will be accepted.
Labour 2015 manifesto was moderate. It was a bit confused and all over the place but not extreme.
But what a twat Ian Brown is, he's nearly as bad as Matt Le Tissier who is proving what a disgraceful numpty he is.
No wonder the dregs of the internet love him.
It doesn't bother me too much because I rarely watch it these days, but those replacements on Soccer Saturday today show what good professionals Le Tissier, Thompson and Nicholas were.
Thompson was the pundit on the Liverpool v Blackpool match this afternoon, he's great.
But I haven't watched soccer Saturday in years, is Kammy still there?
Yep, he was at a game (can't remember which).
I felt sorry for Stelling as he was having to work quite hard to cover for the inadequacies of his colleagues.
Rather like top Gear when it changed its 3 presenters i doubt I will bother with the new Soccer Saturday. Its only football (at the end of the day!) and never been a fan of the more earnest style of punditry something Le Tiss , Thomo and Charlie N could never be accused off.They treated it as a laugh and Saturday football should be just that. Glad if Kamara is still pitch reporting as the best moment imho on Soccer Saturday was when Stelling went to him to tell of the sending off at his match and he had no idea anyone had been sent off! He had to count the players !
Votes for women, an end to slavery and legalisation of gay marriage would have been considered extreme opinions at one time.
Yes, you will note I am imputing neither vice or virtue to moderation. It's merely an exercise commissioned by Philip Thompson to help us draw up a jury to answer the question that started all this -
Was Labour's 2015 manifesto moderate or was it not?
It was, of course. But we're having to do it the hard way. No probs since I'm not busy.
I`d say that "moderate" usually refers to people who are centre-ish on the left to right spectrum.
So, I`d say that all liberals are moderates, some conservatives are and some collectivists are.
I think it would be peachy if we were all moderates.
I consider myself a liberal (classical not guardian) leaning towards the libertarian end of the liberal scale. I doubt many consider me a moderate
No, you're not a moderate. You should have been one of the first names on the 'not moderate' team sheet. Another lapse on my part. But now rectified so no harm done.
And all it means is that you are ineligible for a place on the panel which will be charged with answering the question -
Was Ed Miliband's 2015 Labour manifesto a moderate offering?
(it's "yes" obviously but we need to confirm by proper due process)
Moderate is like pornography, no one can define it but they know it when they see it. Millibrand,Edward was not a moderate. I will let you know on the other issue in 85 years when they release it to the public as I would not wish to usurp nostradamus and predict its contents
That's why you will not be on the panel. To you - a non moderate - a moderate manifesto will not look moderate. This is exactly why we've gone through all this.
Not at all I would have certainly said Cameron's 2010 manifesto was moderate, the same as I would have said Blair's 1997 one was for example. Just because I don't agree with you that the E Milibrand one wasn't doesn't mean I can't judge a moderate manifesto when I see one. It wasn't. It was only moderate in your view because it matched your views but then , and I maybe wrong on this, but from memory you have described Corbyn as centre left
Jeremy Corbyn is way to the left of left of centre. If I ever said otherwise it was a typo.
As to your judgement, the point is that people will always think they can be objective but the only way to prove whether Labour 2015 were essentially moderate is to ask a panel of moderates. Which excludes you, I'm afraid, but please note that it excludes me too. This is not a self-serving exercise I'm engaged in.
Have you got anyone to admit to being a moderate and to answer the Labour 2015 question yet?
Ah good point. No, we've got sidetracked by the secondary matter of who is moderate in the first place.
And you're one - so you could kick it off. 1st vote, I'll keep track.
We need 12 and a majority 9/3 will be accepted.
Labour 2015 manifesto was moderate. It was a bit confused and all over the place but not extreme.
Votes for women, an end to slavery and legalisation of gay marriage would have been considered extreme opinions at one time.
Yes, you will note I am imputing neither vice or virtue to moderation. It's merely an exercise commissioned by Philip Thompson to help us draw up a jury to answer the question that started all this -
Was Labour's 2015 manifesto moderate or was it not?
It was, of course. But we're having to do it the hard way. No probs since I'm not busy.
I`d say that "moderate" usually refers to people who are centre-ish on the left to right spectrum.
So, I`d say that all liberals are moderates, some conservatives are and some collectivists are.
I think it would be peachy if we were all moderates.
You're looking at it much the same as me. And as I said at the onset I think the vast majority of PB posters ARE moderates. Even I am really, if you exclude wanting a new economic model based on common ownership and parents removed from the loop as regards the education of their children.
You think children would do better if removed from their parents and raised by the state? Have you seen childrens homes run by the state? This is after all the only way to remove parents from the loop for education else some of those parents might tip the scales by horror of horrors reading to them or even worse giving them help with homework
You know I don't mean that. I'm not doing that "rebutting the absurd extrapolation" business. Fool's errand.
So you are heading for Plato's republic? Where children would be raised and educated away from their stupid, evil parents by philosopher kings?
I always thought that Plato`s Republic has some mileage when dealing with a small tribal entity (say 500 individuals or less) when everyone knows everyone else and they are proceeding towards a common goal. However, this can`t extend to the human populations we now exist within, cheek by jowl with masses of people that we don`t know and, indeed, compete with.
I think democracy begins to break down itself when you go above a certain amount of individuals, which is why I support localism of decision making and think that decisions should be made at the lowest possible level of government. Instead we have ever more centralised governments....the uk and the eu and local democracy is viewed as unimportant as they really don't get to make a lot of decisions.
Quite a lot of philosophers now use the "He was joking" or it was "all a metaphor" to excuse the insanity of the design of the Republic.
If he was joking he should have put a smiley at the end
I am not sure Plato's ideas were insane. They were thought provoking and innovative for sure. They have got legions of intellectuals to examine what fundamentally is society. If we dismiss "left field" views as insane we restrict thought
The social "experiments" inspired by the republic have proved to be insane. The problem from the source onwards is that they omit one small detail.
Humans.
Trying to fit people to a designed society is plan guaranteed to fail. A society that works must take into account the people within it, their desires and ideas.
I remember watching a video of what happens when social idealists try and impose their views on a society. Darkly funny in some ways, but most people here would probably throw up.
One of the most hilarious parts of the Greek satirist Lucian's 'True History' includes a report of the author's visit to the Isles of the Blessed, where he met all the famous dead: the Iliadic heroes, Cyrus the Great, King Numa of Rome, and a number of philosophers, including Socrates and Pythagoras.
Plato was the most glaring absence, however, since he had been condemned to spend eternity living in the Republic according to the rules and regulations that he had himself designed...
Votes for women, an end to slavery and legalisation of gay marriage would have been considered extreme opinions at one time.
Yes, you will note I am imputing neither vice or virtue to moderation. It's merely an exercise commissioned by Philip Thompson to help us draw up a jury to answer the question that started all this -
Was Labour's 2015 manifesto moderate or was it not?
It was, of course. But we're having to do it the hard way. No probs since I'm not busy.
I`d say that "moderate" usually refers to people who are centre-ish on the left to right spectrum.
So, I`d say that all liberals are moderates, some conservatives are and some collectivists are.
I think it would be peachy if we were all moderates.
You're looking at it much the same as me. And as I said at the onset I think the vast majority of PB posters ARE moderates. Even I am really, if you exclude wanting a new economic model based on common ownership and parents removed from the loop as regards the education of their children.
Parents are responsible for a huge amount of their children's education: removing them from the loop would be child abuse.
We're mainly talking about no more school fees. Hardly think 93% of parents are guilty of child abuse.
Do you really think that paying for an education is the only way that parents are "in the loop" of their children's education? And where are you getting the 93% figure from?
Of course not. Parents do loads of stuff to help their children develop and learn, some bad, mostly good. And long may it remain so - with maximum good and minimum bad. All will agree with that.
We can replace "remove from the loop" with "substantially reduce the impact of parental bank balance" if we want to be more cuddly sounding. But I was wanting to make it sound more radical than it truly is so that I didn't get tagged as a moderate.
The 93% is those who do not pay school fees.
But the size of the parental bank balance is generally a result of parents` hard work and good planning (and sacrifices along the way). If parents choose to prioritise spending by way of school fees, bypassing "free" state provision, then this is an important freedom I think.
Also worth pointing out that all private schools are not equal. The private schools that I`m familiar with are one notch up from state schools and not comparable with the Etons and Winchesters of this world. Look at the cars in the car park - they are no different from at our local state school. Some are tattier. I think the reasons why these "can-only-just-afford-it" parents prioritise private schooling comes down to the happiness and safety of their children - nothing more.
Also worth mentioning that many children that are educated privately are not academic. If you have an academic child you are very lucky. That child will do well in any school and you can save yourself a shed load of money and buy fancy cars and fancy holidays instead. The cream will rise to the top, whereas a non-academic child in a state school can easily get "lost".
Not convinced the 1st sentence is true but much of the rest of it certainly is. But here's a question for you -
If you could be genuinely convinced that abolishing private schools would lead to far more winners than losers, and that the winners would be the currently least advantaged and the losers the currently most advantaged, would you support the abolition of private schools?
I sense you wouldn't but I don't always sense right.
Any guesses? 'A former Prime Minister also featured in the tales, with staff claiming he personally blamed one individual for his TV system not working.
Votes for women, an end to slavery and legalisation of gay marriage would have been considered extreme opinions at one time.
Yes, you will note I am imputing neither vice or virtue to moderation. It's merely an exercise commissioned by Philip Thompson to help us draw up a jury to answer the question that started all this -
Was Labour's 2015 manifesto moderate or was it not?
It was, of course. But we're having to do it the hard way. No probs since I'm not busy.
I`d say that "moderate" usually refers to people who are centre-ish on the left to right spectrum.
So, I`d say that all liberals are moderates, some conservatives are and some collectivists are.
I think it would be peachy if we were all moderates.
I consider myself a liberal (classical not guardian) leaning towards the libertarian end of the liberal scale. I doubt many consider me a moderate
No, you're not a moderate. You should have been one of the first names on the 'not moderate' team sheet. Another lapse on my part. But now rectified so no harm done.
And all it means is that you are ineligible for a place on the panel which will be charged with answering the question -
Was Ed Miliband's 2015 Labour manifesto a moderate offering?
(it's "yes" obviously but we need to confirm by proper due process)
Moderate is like pornography, no one can define it but they know it when they see it. Millibrand,Edward was not a moderate. I will let you know on the other issue in 85 years when they release it to the public as I would not wish to usurp nostradamus and predict its contents
That's why you will not be on the panel. To you - a non moderate - a moderate manifesto will not look moderate. This is exactly why we've gone through all this.
Not at all I would have certainly said Cameron's 2010 manifesto was moderate, the same as I would have said Blair's 1997 one was for example. Just because I don't agree with you that the E Milibrand one wasn't doesn't mean I can't judge a moderate manifesto when I see one. It wasn't. It was only moderate in your view because it matched your views but then , and I maybe wrong on this, but from memory you have described Corbyn as centre left
Jeremy Corbyn is way to the left of left of centre. If I ever said otherwise it was a typo.
As to your judgement, the point is that people will always think they can be objective but the only way to prove whether Labour 2015 were essentially moderate is to ask a panel of moderates. Which excludes you, I'm afraid, but please note that it excludes me too. This is not a self-serving exercise I'm engaged in.
Have you got anyone to admit to being a moderate and to answer the Labour 2015 question yet?
Ah good point. No, we've got sidetracked by the secondary matter of who is moderate in the first place.
And you're one - so you could kick it off. 1st vote, I'll keep track.
We need 12 and a majority 9/3 will be accepted.
Labour 2015 manifesto was moderate. It was a bit confused and all over the place but not extreme.
We will roll over until we get there but do any other moderates wish to opine on this thread? Be nice to get this thing finished.
Despise Corbyn and Johnson in equal measure.
2015 Manifesto was fine, particularly as it avoided committing to an 'in/out' referendum, which I believe one party's manifesto had foolishly called for at that election.
She seems like one of the most unpleasant of the new intake of MPs. Here's hoping she doesn't end up being one of those cantakerous old farts who potter about on the backbenches for 30 years, popping up with their nonsense.
Votes for women, an end to slavery and legalisation of gay marriage would have been considered extreme opinions at one time.
Yes, you will note I am imputing neither vice or virtue to moderation. It's merely an exercise commissioned by Philip Thompson to help us draw up a jury to answer the question that started all this -
Was Labour's 2015 manifesto moderate or was it not?
It was, of course. But we're having to do it the hard way. No probs since I'm not busy.
I`d say that "moderate" usually refers to people who are centre-ish on the left to right spectrum.
So, I`d say that all liberals are moderates, some conservatives are and some collectivists are.
I think it would be peachy if we were all moderates.
You're looking at it much the same as me. And as I said at the onset I think the vast majority of PB posters ARE moderates. Even I am really, if you exclude wanting a new economic model based on common ownership and parents removed from the loop as regards the education of their children.
Parents are responsible for a huge amount of their children's education: removing them from the loop would be child abuse.
We're mainly talking about no more school fees. Hardly think 93% of parents are guilty of child abuse.
Do you really think that paying for an education is the only way that parents are "in the loop" of their children's education? And where are you getting the 93% figure from?
Of course not. Parents do loads of stuff to help their children develop and learn, some bad, mostly good. And long may it remain so - with maximum good and minimum bad. All will agree with that.
We can replace "remove from the loop" with "substantially reduce the impact of parental bank balance" if we want to be more cuddly sounding. But I was wanting to make it sound more radical than it truly is so that I didn't get tagged as a moderate.
The 93% is those who do not pay school fees.
But the size of the parental bank balance is generally a result of parents` hard work and good planning (and sacrifices along the way). If parents choose to prioritise spending by way of school fees, bypassing "free" state provision, then this is an important freedom I think.
Also worth pointing out that all private schools are not equal. The private schools that I`m familiar with are one notch up from state schools and not comparable with the Etons and Winchesters of this world. Look at the cars in the car park - they are no different from at our local state school. Some are tattier. I think the reasons why these "can-only-just-afford-it" parents prioritise private schooling comes down to the happiness and safety of their children - nothing more.
Also worth mentioning that many children that are educated privately are not academic. If you have an academic child you are very lucky. That child will do well in any school and you can save yourself a shed load of money and buy fancy cars and fancy holidays instead. The cream will rise to the top, whereas a non-academic child in a state school can easily get "lost".
Not convinced the 1st sentence is true but much of the rest of it certainly is. But here's a question for you -
If you could be genuinely convinced that abolishing private schools would lead to far more winners than losers, and that the winners would be the currently least advantaged and the losers the currently most advantaged, would you support the abolition of private schools?
I sense you wouldn't but I don't always sense right.
I wouldn`t. You forward a utilitarian argument and I am strongly opposed to utilitarianism so you`re on a loser there. I`m interested in principles even if they don`t lead to to maximising aggregate utility.
Edit: that doesn`t mean that I am a full-throated supporter of how things are now. I think that private schools should be stripped of charitable status, for example.
Votes for women, an end to slavery and legalisation of gay marriage would have been considered extreme opinions at one time.
Yes, you will note I am imputing neither vice or virtue to moderation. It's merely an exercise commissioned by Philip Thompson to help us draw up a jury to answer the question that started all this -
Was Labour's 2015 manifesto moderate or was it not?
It was, of course. But we're having to do it the hard way. No probs since I'm not busy.
I`d say that "moderate" usually refers to people who are centre-ish on the left to right spectrum.
So, I`d say that all liberals are moderates, some conservatives are and some collectivists are.
I think it would be peachy if we were all moderates.
You're looking at it much the same as me. And as I said at the onset I think the vast majority of PB posters ARE moderates. Even I am really, if you exclude wanting a new economic model based on common ownership and parents removed from the loop as regards the education of their children.
Parents are responsible for a huge amount of their children's education: removing them from the loop would be child abuse.
We're mainly talking about no more school fees. Hardly think 93% of parents are guilty of child abuse.
Do you really think that paying for an education is the only way that parents are "in the loop" of their children's education? And where are you getting the 93% figure from?
Of course not. Parents do loads of stuff to help their children develop and learn, some bad, mostly good. And long may it remain so - with maximum good and minimum bad. All will agree with that.
We can replace "remove from the loop" with "substantially reduce the impact of parental bank balance" if we want to be more cuddly sounding. But I was wanting to make it sound more radical than it truly is so that I didn't get tagged as a moderate.
The 93% is those who do not pay school fees.
But the size of the parental bank balance is generally a result of parents` hard work and good planning (and sacrifices along the way). If parents choose to prioritise spending by way of school fees, bypassing "free" state provision, then this is an important freedom I think.
Also worth pointing out that all private schools are not equal. The private schools that I`m familiar with are one notch up from state schools and not comparable with the Etons and Winchesters of this world. Look at the cars in the car park - they are no different from at our local state school. Some are tattier. I think the reasons why these "can-only-just-afford-it" parents prioritise private schooling comes down to the happiness and safety of their children - nothing more.
Also worth mentioning that many children that are educated privately are not academic. If you have an academic child you are very lucky. That child will do well in any school and you can save yourself a shed load of money and buy fancy cars and fancy holidays instead. The cream will rise to the top, whereas a non-academic child in a state school can easily get "lost".
Not convinced the 1st sentence is true but much of the rest of it certainly is. But here's a question for you -
If you could be genuinely convinced that abolishing private schools would lead to far more winners than losers, and that the winners would be the currently least advantaged and the losers the currently most advantaged, would you support the abolition of private schools?
I sense you wouldn't but I don't always sense right.
Would you support private schools if it could be shown that abolishing them would lead to more losers than winners?
It will always amuses me that on PB I have been accused of being a far right Tory and a lefty.
At least no one has accused you of being anything sensible?
Worst of all, HYUFD went through a phase of calling me a Lib Dem.
Well you are a LD now, you voted LD at the last general election
If you are going to condemn people as lost to the Tories if they have ever voted for anyone else that excludes a large number of supporters and plenty of MPs, particular ones who likely voted for the Brexit party at the Euros.
You don't believe in redemption? You believe only the pure are able to be a part of your tribe?
Any guesses? 'A former Prime Minister also featured in the tales, with staff claiming he personally blamed one individual for his TV system not working.
Votes for women, an end to slavery and legalisation of gay marriage would have been considered extreme opinions at one time.
Yes, you will note I am imputing neither vice or virtue to moderation. It's merely an exercise commissioned by Philip Thompson to help us draw up a jury to answer the question that started all this -
Was Labour's 2015 manifesto moderate or was it not?
It was, of course. But we're having to do it the hard way. No probs since I'm not busy.
I`d say that "moderate" usually refers to people who are centre-ish on the left to right spectrum.
So, I`d say that all liberals are moderates, some conservatives are and some collectivists are.
I think it would be peachy if we were all moderates.
I consider myself a liberal (classical not guardian) leaning towards the libertarian end of the liberal scale. I doubt many consider me a moderate
No, you're not a moderate. You should have been one of the first names on the 'not moderate' team sheet. Another lapse on my part. But now rectified so no harm done.
And all it means is that you are ineligible for a place on the panel which will be charged with answering the question -
Was Ed Miliband's 2015 Labour manifesto a moderate offering?
(it's "yes" obviously but we need to confirm by proper due process)
Moderate is like pornography, no one can define it but they know it when they see it. Millibrand,Edward was not a moderate. I will let you know on the other issue in 85 years when they release it to the public as I would not wish to usurp nostradamus and predict its contents
That's why you will not be on the panel. To you - a non moderate - a moderate manifesto will not look moderate. This is exactly why we've gone through all this.
Not at all I would have certainly said Cameron's 2010 manifesto was moderate, the same as I would have said Blair's 1997 one was for example. Just because I don't agree with you that the E Milibrand one wasn't doesn't mean I can't judge a moderate manifesto when I see one. It wasn't. It was only moderate in your view because it matched your views but then , and I maybe wrong on this, but from memory you have described Corbyn as centre left
Jeremy Corbyn is way to the left of left of centre. If I ever said otherwise it was a typo.
As to your judgement, the point is that people will always think they can be objective but the only way to prove whether Labour 2015 were essentially moderate is to ask a panel of moderates. Which excludes you, I'm afraid, but please note that it excludes me too. This is not a self-serving exercise I'm engaged in.
Have you got anyone to admit to being a moderate and to answer the Labour 2015 question yet?
Ah good point. No, we've got sidetracked by the secondary matter of who is moderate in the first place.
And you're one - so you could kick it off. 1st vote, I'll keep track.
We need 12 and a majority 9/3 will be accepted.
Labour 2015 manifesto was moderate. It was a bit confused and all over the place but not extreme.
We will roll over until we get there but do any other moderates wish to opine on this thread? Be nice to get this thing finished.
Despise Corbyn and Johnson in equal measure.
2015 Manifesto was fine, particularly as it avoided committing to an 'in/out' referendum, which I believe one party's manifesto had foolishly called for at that election.
Was that the Lib Dems? Or did they only have that in their 2010 manifesto?
Votes for women, an end to slavery and legalisation of gay marriage would have been considered extreme opinions at one time.
Yes, you will note I am imputing neither vice or virtue to moderation. It's merely an exercise commissioned by Philip Thompson to help us draw up a jury to answer the question that started all this -
Was Labour's 2015 manifesto moderate or was it not?
It was, of course. But we're having to do it the hard way. No probs since I'm not busy.
I`d say that "moderate" usually refers to people who are centre-ish on the left to right spectrum.
So, I`d say that all liberals are moderates, some conservatives are and some collectivists are.
I think it would be peachy if we were all moderates.
You're looking at it much the same as me. And as I said at the onset I think the vast majority of PB posters ARE moderates. Even I am really, if you exclude wanting a new economic model based on common ownership and parents removed from the loop as regards the education of their children.
Parents are responsible for a huge amount of their children's education: removing them from the loop would be child abuse.
We're mainly talking about no more school fees. Hardly think 93% of parents are guilty of child abuse.
Do you really think that paying for an education is the only way that parents are "in the loop" of their children's education? And where are you getting the 93% figure from?
Of course not. Parents do loads of stuff to help their children develop and learn, some bad, mostly good. And long may it remain so - with maximum good and minimum bad. All will agree with that.
We can replace "remove from the loop" with "substantially reduce the impact of parental bank balance" if we want to be more cuddly sounding. But I was wanting to make it sound more radical than it truly is so that I didn't get tagged as a moderate.
The 93% is those who do not pay school fees.
You didn't say ban private schools because you have been told its a stupid idea and told why its a stupid idea many many times on here is why you tried an alternative phrase.
Banning private schools would only make the disadvantaged worse off.
7% reduction in education spend per child 7% larger class sizes No hope of renting a house in an area with a good school as they are snapped up by the rich so their offspring don't need to go to gastown secondary modern. Extra money for those that used to pay school fees to spend on home education to make sure their offspring still get the best results and use up the places that some of the disadvantaged got previously in grammar and state selective schools.
Its a policy where if ever implemented you would soon be bemoaning all the unintended side affects on the worst off kids
Well private schools are indisputably engines of class inequality. Nobody in their right mind denies that. So we must turn this around and ask ourselves -
What benefits do they bring which are so great as justify the inequality they create and embed in society?
I could say "answers on a postcard" but will not because that would be flippant. There are benefits. Some are centres of excellence (for those who can afford it). They allow parents (who can afford it) to spend their money on giving their kids a good education. They offer scholarships (not many but some) to bright kids from poor backgrounds. Which is great for them. They rescue some kids who would struggle or be bullied in the mainstream (providing their parents can pay the fees). And this list is not exhaustive.
But is this enough?
It isn't. Not for me. It fails the cost/benefit test.
Votes for women, an end to slavery and legalisation of gay marriage would have been considered extreme opinions at one time.
Yes, you will note I am imputing neither vice or virtue to moderation. It's merely an exercise commissioned by Philip Thompson to help us draw up a jury to answer the question that started all this -
Was Labour's 2015 manifesto moderate or was it not?
It was, of course. But we're having to do it the hard way. No probs since I'm not busy.
I`d say that "moderate" usually refers to people who are centre-ish on the left to right spectrum.
So, I`d say that all liberals are moderates, some conservatives are and some collectivists are.
I think it would be peachy if we were all moderates.
I consider myself a liberal (classical not guardian) leaning towards the libertarian end of the liberal scale. I doubt many consider me a moderate
No, you're not a moderate. You should have been one of the first names on the 'not moderate' team sheet. Another lapse on my part. But now rectified so no harm done.
And all it means is that you are ineligible for a place on the panel which will be charged with answering the question -
Was Ed Miliband's 2015 Labour manifesto a moderate offering?
(it's "yes" obviously but we need to confirm by proper due process)
Moderate is like pornography, no one can define it but they know it when they see it. Millibrand,Edward was not a moderate. I will let you know on the other issue in 85 years when they release it to the public as I would not wish to usurp nostradamus and predict its contents
That's why you will not be on the panel. To you - a non moderate - a moderate manifesto will not look moderate. This is exactly why we've gone through all this.
Not at all I would have certainly said Cameron's 2010 manifesto was moderate, the same as I would have said Blair's 1997 one was for example. Just because I don't agree with you that the E Milibrand one wasn't doesn't mean I can't judge a moderate manifesto when I see one. It wasn't. It was only moderate in your view because it matched your views but then , and I maybe wrong on this, but from memory you have described Corbyn as centre left
Jeremy Corbyn is way to the left of left of centre. If I ever said otherwise it was a typo.
As to your judgement, the point is that people will always think they can be objective but the only way to prove whether Labour 2015 were essentially moderate is to ask a panel of moderates. Which excludes you, I'm afraid, but please note that it excludes me too. This is not a self-serving exercise I'm engaged in.
Have you got anyone to admit to being a moderate and to answer the Labour 2015 question yet?
Ah good point. No, we've got sidetracked by the secondary matter of who is moderate in the first place.
And you're one - so you could kick it off. 1st vote, I'll keep track.
We need 12 and a majority 9/3 will be accepted.
Labour 2015 manifesto was moderate. It was a bit confused and all over the place but not extreme.
We will roll over until we get there but do any other moderates wish to opine on this thread? Be nice to get this thing finished.
Despise Corbyn and Johnson in equal measure.
2015 Manifesto was fine, particularly as it avoided committing to an 'in/out' referendum, which I believe one party's manifesto had foolishly called for at that election.
I didn't vote for it, last voting Labour in 2001, but Ed Miliband's manifesto was banal, and confused, but certainly moderate, as was his front bench team.
She seems like one of the most unpleasant of the new intake of MPs. Here's hoping she doesn't end up being one of those cantakerous old farts who potter about on the backbenches for 30 years, popping up with their nonsense.
Votes for women, an end to slavery and legalisation of gay marriage would have been considered extreme opinions at one time.
Yes, you will note I am imputing neither vice or virtue to moderation. It's merely an exercise commissioned by Philip Thompson to help us draw up a jury to answer the question that started all this -
Was Labour's 2015 manifesto moderate or was it not?
It was, of course. But we're having to do it the hard way. No probs since I'm not busy.
I`d say that "moderate" usually refers to people who are centre-ish on the left to right spectrum.
So, I`d say that all liberals are moderates, some conservatives are and some collectivists are.
I think it would be peachy if we were all moderates.
You're looking at it much the same as me. And as I said at the onset I think the vast majority of PB posters ARE moderates. Even I am really, if you exclude wanting a new economic model based on common ownership and parents removed from the loop as regards the education of their children.
Parents are responsible for a huge amount of their children's education: removing them from the loop would be child abuse.
We're mainly talking about no more school fees. Hardly think 93% of parents are guilty of child abuse.
Do you really think that paying for an education is the only way that parents are "in the loop" of their children's education? And where are you getting the 93% figure from?
Of course not. Parents do loads of stuff to help their children develop and learn, some bad, mostly good. And long may it remain so - with maximum good and minimum bad. All will agree with that.
We can replace "remove from the loop" with "substantially reduce the impact of parental bank balance" if we want to be more cuddly sounding. But I was wanting to make it sound more radical than it truly is so that I didn't get tagged as a moderate.
The 93% is those who do not pay school fees.
You didn't say ban private schools because you have been told its a stupid idea and told why its a stupid idea many many times on here is why you tried an alternative phrase.
Banning private schools would only make the disadvantaged worse off.
7% reduction in education spend per child 7% larger class sizes No hope of renting a house in an area with a good school as they are snapped up by the rich so their offspring don't need to go to gastown secondary modern. Extra money for those that used to pay school fees to spend on home education to make sure their offspring still get the best results and use up the places that some of the disadvantaged got previously in grammar and state selective schools.
Its a policy where if ever implemented you would soon be bemoaning all the unintended side affects on the worst off kids
Well private schools are indisputably engines of class inequality. Nobody in their right mind denies that. So we must turn this around and ask ourselves -
What benefits do they bring which are so great as justify the inequality they create and embed in society?
I could say "answers on a postcard" but will not because that would be flippant. There are benefits. Some are centres of excellence (for those who can afford it). They allow parents (who can afford it) to spend their money on giving their kids a good education. They offer scholarships (not many but some) to bright kids from poor backgrounds. Which is great for them. They rescue some kids who would struggle or be bullied in the mainstream (providing their parents can pay the fees). And this list is not exhaustive.
But is this enough?
It isn't. Not for me. It fails the cost/benefit test.
But it is not costing the tax payer anything but benefits tax payers as its seven percent not taking up education places. So no cost but benefit.
You also haven't answered the assertion I made that if implemented it would make the most disadvantaged worse off educationally. I know you take the opposite view however I think even if I could prove my view was correct that you would still argue for it because to you its better to bring the top downwards even if it makes the bottom poorer
Votes for women, an end to slavery and legalisation of gay marriage would have been considered extreme opinions at one time.
Yes, you will note I am imputing neither vice or virtue to moderation. It's merely an exercise commissioned by Philip Thompson to help us draw up a jury to answer the question that started all this -
Was Labour's 2015 manifesto moderate or was it not?
It was, of course. But we're having to do it the hard way. No probs since I'm not busy.
I`d say that "moderate" usually refers to people who are centre-ish on the left to right spectrum.
So, I`d say that all liberals are moderates, some conservatives are and some collectivists are.
I think it would be peachy if we were all moderates.
You're looking at it much the same as me. And as I said at the onset I think the vast majority of PB posters ARE moderates. Even I am really, if you exclude wanting a new economic model based on common ownership and parents removed from the loop as regards the education of their children.
Parents are responsible for a huge amount of their children's education: removing them from the loop would be child abuse.
We're mainly talking about no more school fees. Hardly think 93% of parents are guilty of child abuse.
Do you really think that paying for an education is the only way that parents are "in the loop" of their children's education? And where are you getting the 93% figure from?
Of course not. Parents do loads of stuff to help their children develop and learn, some bad, mostly good. And long may it remain so - with maximum good and minimum bad. All will agree with that.
We can replace "remove from the loop" with "substantially reduce the impact of parental bank balance" if we want to be more cuddly sounding. But I was wanting to make it sound more radical than it truly is so that I didn't get tagged as a moderate.
The 93% is those who do not pay school fees.
You didn't say ban private schools because you have been told its a stupid idea and told why its a stupid idea many many times on here is why you tried an alternative phrase.
Banning private schools would only make the disadvantaged worse off.
7% reduction in education spend per child 7% larger class sizes No hope of renting a house in an area with a good school as they are snapped up by the rich so their offspring don't need to go to gastown secondary modern. Extra money for those that used to pay school fees to spend on home education to make sure their offspring still get the best results and use up the places that some of the disadvantaged got previously in grammar and state selective schools.
Its a policy where if ever implemented you would soon be bemoaning all the unintended side affects on the worst off kids
Well private schools are indisputably engines of class inequality. Nobody in their right mind denies that. So we must turn this around and ask ourselves -
What benefits do they bring which are so great as justify the inequality they create and embed in society?
I could say "answers on a postcard" but will not because that would be flippant. There are benefits. Some are centres of excellence (for those who can afford it). They allow parents (who can afford it) to spend their money on giving their kids a good education. They offer scholarships (not many but some) to bright kids from poor backgrounds. Which is great for them. They rescue some kids who would struggle or be bullied in the mainstream (providing their parents can pay the fees). And this list is not exhaustive.
But is this enough?
It isn't. Not for me. It fails the cost/benefit test.
Its a sensible reply but that cost /benefit test should be a parental one not a government one imo.
Inequality comes in many forms - how good looking you are, how good your genes are , how rich your parents are , how "cool" you naturally act , How athletic you are - The state should not obsess about making everyone equal (because its not practical to do so in all these areas of advantage in life).The state should help those who need extra resource to overcome natural disadvantages in life (like a good state school edcuation )
If it were possible to make good looking people more ugly would you think the state should do that - just to create equality?
She seems like one of the most unpleasant of the new intake of MPs. Here's hoping she doesn't end up being one of those cantakerous old farts who potter about on the backbenches for 30 years, popping up with their nonsense.
Recognised path to leadership nowadays..
Well sure, but who wants to put in for the long haul like that? Think of all those Tory bumblers ossifying at the rear of the chamnber? No route to leadership for them. They just pick the leader.
Votes for women, an end to slavery and legalisation of gay marriage would have been considered extreme opinions at one time.
Yes, you will note I am imputing neither vice or virtue to moderation. It's merely an exercise commissioned by Philip Thompson to help us draw up a jury to answer the question that started all this -
Was Labour's 2015 manifesto moderate or was it not?
It was, of course. But we're having to do it the hard way. No probs since I'm not busy.
I`d say that "moderate" usually refers to people who are centre-ish on the left to right spectrum.
So, I`d say that all liberals are moderates, some conservatives are and some collectivists are.
I think it would be peachy if we were all moderates.
You're looking at it much the same as me. And as I said at the onset I think the vast majority of PB posters ARE moderates. Even I am really, if you exclude wanting a new economic model based on common ownership and parents removed from the loop as regards the education of their children.
Parents are responsible for a huge amount of their children's education: removing them from the loop would be child abuse.
We're mainly talking about no more school fees. Hardly think 93% of parents are guilty of child abuse.
Do you really think that paying for an education is the only way that parents are "in the loop" of their children's education? And where are you getting the 93% figure from?
Of course not. Parents do loads of stuff to help their children develop and learn, some bad, mostly good. And long may it remain so - with maximum good and minimum bad. All will agree with that.
We can replace "remove from the loop" with "substantially reduce the impact of parental bank balance" if we want to be more cuddly sounding. But I was wanting to make it sound more radical than it truly is so that I didn't get tagged as a moderate.
The 93% is those who do not pay school fees.
You didn't say ban private schools because you have been told its a stupid idea and told why its a stupid idea many many times on here is why you tried an alternative phrase.
Banning private schools would only make the disadvantaged worse off.
7% reduction in education spend per child 7% larger class sizes No hope of renting a house in an area with a good school as they are snapped up by the rich so their offspring don't need to go to gastown secondary modern. Extra money for those that used to pay school fees to spend on home education to make sure their offspring still get the best results and use up the places that some of the disadvantaged got previously in grammar and state selective schools.
Its a policy where if ever implemented you would soon be bemoaning all the unintended side affects on the worst off kids
Well private schools are indisputably engines of class inequality. Nobody in their right mind denies that. So we must turn this around and ask ourselves -
What benefits do they bring which are so great as justify the inequality they create and embed in society?
I could say "answers on a postcard" but will not because that would be flippant. There are benefits. Some are centres of excellence (for those who can afford it). They allow parents (who can afford it) to spend their money on giving their kids a good education. They offer scholarships (not many but some) to bright kids from poor backgrounds. Which is great for them. They rescue some kids who would struggle or be bullied in the mainstream (providing their parents can pay the fees). And this list is not exhaustive.
But is this enough?
It isn't. Not for me. It fails the cost/benefit test.
Its a sensible reply but that cost /benefit test should be a parental one not a government one imo.
Inequality comes in many forms - how good looking you are, how good your genes are , how rich your parents are , how "cool" you naturally act , How athletic you are - The state should not obsess about making everyone equal (because its not practical to do so in all these areas of advantage in life).The state should help those who need extra resource to overcome natural disadvantages in life (like a good state school edcuation )
Perhaps Kinablu should read this to give him some good policies
Good "Hodas & Assoc" poll out for Biden today, +6 PA. Also PA-10 (Smalltown PA, definitely not Pittsburgh or Philly) +5 for the Dems, which is also good for them.
Votes for women, an end to slavery and legalisation of gay marriage would have been considered extreme opinions at one time.
Yes, you will note I am imputing neither vice or virtue to moderation. It's merely an exercise commissioned by Philip Thompson to help us draw up a jury to answer the question that started all this -
Was Labour's 2015 manifesto moderate or was it not?
It was, of course. But we're having to do it the hard way. No probs since I'm not busy.
I`d say that "moderate" usually refers to people who are centre-ish on the left to right spectrum.
So, I`d say that all liberals are moderates, some conservatives are and some collectivists are.
I think it would be peachy if we were all moderates.
You're looking at it much the same as me. And as I said at the onset I think the vast majority of PB posters ARE moderates. Even I am really, if you exclude wanting a new economic model based on common ownership and parents removed from the loop as regards the education of their children.
Parents are responsible for a huge amount of their children's education: removing them from the loop would be child abuse.
We're mainly talking about no more school fees. Hardly think 93% of parents are guilty of child abuse.
Do you really think that paying for an education is the only way that parents are "in the loop" of their children's education? And where are you getting the 93% figure from?
Of course not. Parents do loads of stuff to help their children develop and learn, some bad, mostly good. And long may it remain so - with maximum good and minimum bad. All will agree with that.
We can replace "remove from the loop" with "substantially reduce the impact of parental bank balance" if we want to be more cuddly sounding. But I was wanting to make it sound more radical than it truly is so that I didn't get tagged as a moderate.
The 93% is those who do not pay school fees.
You didn't say ban private schools because you have been told its a stupid idea and told why its a stupid idea many many times on here is why you tried an alternative phrase.
Banning private schools would only make the disadvantaged worse off.
7% reduction in education spend per child 7% larger class sizes No hope of renting a house in an area with a good school as they are snapped up by the rich so their offspring don't need to go to gastown secondary modern. Extra money for those that used to pay school fees to spend on home education to make sure their offspring still get the best results and use up the places that some of the disadvantaged got previously in grammar and state selective schools.
Its a policy where if ever implemented you would soon be bemoaning all the unintended side affects on the worst off kids
Well private schools are indisputably engines of class inequality. Nobody in their right mind denies that. So we must turn this around and ask ourselves -
What benefits do they bring which are so great as justify the inequality they create and embed in society?
I could say "answers on a postcard" but will not because that would be flippant. There are benefits. Some are centres of excellence (for those who can afford it). They allow parents (who can afford it) to spend their money on giving their kids a good education. They offer scholarships (not many but some) to bright kids from poor backgrounds. Which is great for them. They rescue some kids who would struggle or be bullied in the mainstream (providing their parents can pay the fees). And this list is not exhaustive.
But is this enough?
It isn't. Not for me. It fails the cost/benefit test.
The way you sort schools and education, is to concentrate on the failing schools and the disadvantaged pupils. Level up.
You’re trying to concentrate on the already well off and good schools. Levelling down.
Votes for women, an end to slavery and legalisation of gay marriage would have been considered extreme opinions at one time.
Yes, you will note I am imputing neither vice or virtue to moderation. It's merely an exercise commissioned by Philip Thompson to help us draw up a jury to answer the question that started all this -
Was Labour's 2015 manifesto moderate or was it not?
It was, of course. But we're having to do it the hard way. No probs since I'm not busy.
I`d say that "moderate" usually refers to people who are centre-ish on the left to right spectrum.
So, I`d say that all liberals are moderates, some conservatives are and some collectivists are.
I think it would be peachy if we were all moderates.
You're looking at it much the same as me. And as I said at the onset I think the vast majority of PB posters ARE moderates. Even I am really, if you exclude wanting a new economic model based on common ownership and parents removed from the loop as regards the education of their children.
Parents are responsible for a huge amount of their children's education: removing them from the loop would be child abuse.
We're mainly talking about no more school fees. Hardly think 93% of parents are guilty of child abuse.
Do you really think that paying for an education is the only way that parents are "in the loop" of their children's education? And where are you getting the 93% figure from?
Of course not. Parents do loads of stuff to help their children develop and learn, some bad, mostly good. And long may it remain so - with maximum good and minimum bad. All will agree with that.
We can replace "remove from the loop" with "substantially reduce the impact of parental bank balance" if we want to be more cuddly sounding. But I was wanting to make it sound more radical than it truly is so that I didn't get tagged as a moderate.
The 93% is those who do not pay school fees.
You didn't say ban private schools because you have been told its a stupid idea and told why its a stupid idea many many times on here is why you tried an alternative phrase.
Banning private schools would only make the disadvantaged worse off.
7% reduction in education spend per child 7% larger class sizes No hope of renting a house in an area with a good school as they are snapped up by the rich so their offspring don't need to go to gastown secondary modern. Extra money for those that used to pay school fees to spend on home education to make sure their offspring still get the best results and use up the places that some of the disadvantaged got previously in grammar and state selective schools.
Its a policy where if ever implemented you would soon be bemoaning all the unintended side affects on the worst off kids
Well private schools are indisputably engines of class inequality. Nobody in their right mind denies that. So we must turn this around and ask ourselves -
What benefits do they bring which are so great as justify the inequality they create and embed in society?
I could say "answers on a postcard" but will not because that would be flippant. There are benefits. Some are centres of excellence (for those who can afford it). They allow parents (who can afford it) to spend their money on giving their kids a good education. They offer scholarships (not many but some) to bright kids from poor backgrounds. Which is great for them. They rescue some kids who would struggle or be bullied in the mainstream (providing their parents can pay the fees). And this list is not exhaustive.
But is this enough?
It isn't. Not for me. It fails the cost/benefit test.
Its a sensible reply but that cost /benefit test should be a parental one not a government one imo.
Inequality comes in many forms - how good looking you are, how good your genes are , how rich your parents are , how "cool" you naturally act , How athletic you are - The state should not obsess about making everyone equal (because its not practical to do so in all these areas of advantage in life).The state should help those who need extra resource to overcome natural disadvantages in life (like a good state school edcuation )
If it were possible to make good looking people more ugly would you think the state should do that - just to create equality?
I agree that it's a question of values and of our old friend, where do you draw the line?
Votes for women, an end to slavery and legalisation of gay marriage would have been considered extreme opinions at one time.
Yes, you will note I am imputing neither vice or virtue to moderation. It's merely an exercise commissioned by Philip Thompson to help us draw up a jury to answer the question that started all this -
Was Labour's 2015 manifesto moderate or was it not?
It was, of course. But we're having to do it the hard way. No probs since I'm not busy.
I`d say that "moderate" usually refers to people who are centre-ish on the left to right spectrum.
So, I`d say that all liberals are moderates, some conservatives are and some collectivists are.
I think it would be peachy if we were all moderates.
You're looking at it much the same as me. And as I said at the onset I think the vast majority of PB posters ARE moderates. Even I am really, if you exclude wanting a new economic model based on common ownership and parents removed from the loop as regards the education of their children.
Parents are responsible for a huge amount of their children's education: removing them from the loop would be child abuse.
We're mainly talking about no more school fees. Hardly think 93% of parents are guilty of child abuse.
Do you really think that paying for an education is the only way that parents are "in the loop" of their children's education? And where are you getting the 93% figure from?
Of course not. Parents do loads of stuff to help their children develop and learn, some bad, mostly good. And long may it remain so - with maximum good and minimum bad. All will agree with that.
We can replace "remove from the loop" with "substantially reduce the impact of parental bank balance" if we want to be more cuddly sounding. But I was wanting to make it sound more radical than it truly is so that I didn't get tagged as a moderate.
The 93% is those who do not pay school fees.
You didn't say ban private schools because you have been told its a stupid idea and told why its a stupid idea many many times on here is why you tried an alternative phrase.
Banning private schools would only make the disadvantaged worse off.
7% reduction in education spend per child 7% larger class sizes No hope of renting a house in an area with a good school as they are snapped up by the rich so their offspring don't need to go to gastown secondary modern. Extra money for those that used to pay school fees to spend on home education to make sure their offspring still get the best results and use up the places that some of the disadvantaged got previously in grammar and state selective schools.
Its a policy where if ever implemented you would soon be bemoaning all the unintended side affects on the worst off kids
Well private schools are indisputably engines of class inequality. Nobody in their right mind denies that. So we must turn this around and ask ourselves -
What benefits do they bring which are so great as justify the inequality they create and embed in society?
I could say "answers on a postcard" but will not because that would be flippant. There are benefits. Some are centres of excellence (for those who can afford it). They allow parents (who can afford it) to spend their money on giving their kids a good education. They offer scholarships (not many but some) to bright kids from poor backgrounds. Which is great for them. They rescue some kids who would struggle or be bullied in the mainstream (providing their parents can pay the fees). And this list is not exhaustive.
But is this enough?
It isn't. Not for me. It fails the cost/benefit test.
But the cure is worse than the disease. Banning things, taking away people's freedom to organise themselves in the way they think best is an extreme measure that should only be used when there is clear and unequivocal evidence that it actively harms others, not just that it put them at a disadvantage relative to those whose freedom you wish to remove. You want the burden of proof to be on the schools to prove they are useful (and I can see that being fair for their charitable status), but the burden of proof should always be the other way round. The state should need to show that such bans are justified beyond reasonable doubt, and for independent schools that is a far from easy task.
I'm enjoying the woke outrage about Abbott being appointed to a nonsense position. It's pure politics to rile up the lefty luvvies and show the government are irritating the right people.
Fwiw, he's probably going to be pretty good at the job as former PM of a nation that actually needed an independent trade policy. That he's whatever doesn't really make a difference to his ability to advise the government on having an independent trade policy.
Do you not think that government should have a more noble purpose than "to rile up the left luvvies" and "irritate the right people". Or is this the sort of infantilism that we have come to expect from our current rulers?
I'd prefer it if appointments were made on merit rather than on cronyism or winding up government opponents. I've no strong view on Abbott's abilities (though he does seem a bit of a neanderthal boor).
Did you skip Max's second paragraph? That's the noble purpose.
All governments have always tried to wind up their opponents at times. How you do that matters though.
I was fine with Max's second paragraph. I thought the first paragraph was puerile playground stuff, that's all.
It will always amuses me that on PB I have been accused of being a far right Tory and a lefty.
At least no one has accused you of being anything sensible?
Worst of all, HYUFD went through a phase of calling me a Lib Dem.
Well you are a LD now, you voted LD at the last general election
If you are going to condemn people as lost to the Tories if they have ever voted for anyone else that excludes a large number of supporters and plenty of MPs, particular ones who likely voted for the Brexit party at the Euros.
You don't believe in redemption? You believe only the pure are able to be a part of your tribe?
How very Corbynista of you.
There is a difference between a protest vote for a party at local and European elections and still voting for that party at a general election, though obviously I would prefer you to vote Tory at all elections
Votes for women, an end to slavery and legalisation of gay marriage would have been considered extreme opinions at one time.
Yes, you will note I am imputing neither vice or virtue to moderation. It's merely an exercise commissioned by Philip Thompson to help us draw up a jury to answer the question that started all this -
Was Labour's 2015 manifesto moderate or was it not?
It was, of course. But we're having to do it the hard way. No probs since I'm not busy.
I`d say that "moderate" usually refers to people who are centre-ish on the left to right spectrum.
So, I`d say that all liberals are moderates, some conservatives are and some collectivists are.
I think it would be peachy if we were all moderates.
You're looking at it much the same as me. And as I said at the onset I think the vast majority of PB posters ARE moderates. Even I am really, if you exclude wanting a new economic model based on common ownership and parents removed from the loop as regards the education of their children.
Parents are responsible for a huge amount of their children's education: removing them from the loop would be child abuse.
We're mainly talking about no more school fees. Hardly think 93% of parents are guilty of child abuse.
Do you really think that paying for an education is the only way that parents are "in the loop" of their children's education? And where are you getting the 93% figure from?
Of course not. Parents do loads of stuff to help their children develop and learn, some bad, mostly good. And long may it remain so - with maximum good and minimum bad. All will agree with that.
We can replace "remove from the loop" with "substantially reduce the impact of parental bank balance" if we want to be more cuddly sounding. But I was wanting to make it sound more radical than it truly is so that I didn't get tagged as a moderate.
The 93% is those who do not pay school fees.
You didn't say ban private schools because you have been told its a stupid idea and told why its a stupid idea many many times on here is why you tried an alternative phrase.
Banning private schools would only make the disadvantaged worse off.
7% reduction in education spend per child 7% larger class sizes No hope of renting a house in an area with a good school as they are snapped up by the rich so their offspring don't need to go to gastown secondary modern. Extra money for those that used to pay school fees to spend on home education to make sure their offspring still get the best results and use up the places that some of the disadvantaged got previously in grammar and state selective schools.
Its a policy where if ever implemented you would soon be bemoaning all the unintended side affects on the worst off kids
Well private schools are indisputably engines of class inequality. Nobody in their right mind denies that. So we must turn this around and ask ourselves -
What benefits do they bring which are so great as justify the inequality they create and embed in society?
I could say "answers on a postcard" but will not because that would be flippant. There are benefits. Some are centres of excellence (for those who can afford it). They allow parents (who can afford it) to spend their money on giving their kids a good education. They offer scholarships (not many but some) to bright kids from poor backgrounds. Which is great for them. They rescue some kids who would struggle or be bullied in the mainstream (providing their parents can pay the fees). And this list is not exhaustive.
But is this enough?
It isn't. Not for me. It fails the cost/benefit test.
But it is not costing the tax payer anything but benefits tax payers as its seven percent not taking up education places. So no cost but benefit.
You also haven't answered the assertion I made that if implemented it would make the most disadvantaged worse off educationally. I know you take the opposite view however I think even if I could prove my view was correct that you would still argue for it because to you its better to bring the top downwards even if it makes the bottom poorer
We are doing that nasty management consulting trick of interviewing somebody - in this case private schools - for their own job.
Ok, so one benefit iyo is they reduce the education budget.
And you see no costs at all. You don't accept that they increase class inequality and/or you don't think that's a bad thing.
It thus follows that you wish to see that 7% who go private increase as far towards 100% as possible. No costs, all benefit, you must believe this.
Votes for women, an end to slavery and legalisation of gay marriage would have been considered extreme opinions at one time.
Yes, you will note I am imputing neither vice or virtue to moderation. It's merely an exercise commissioned by Philip Thompson to help us draw up a jury to answer the question that started all this -
Was Labour's 2015 manifesto moderate or was it not?
It was, of course. But we're having to do it the hard way. No probs since I'm not busy.
I`d say that "moderate" usually refers to people who are centre-ish on the left to right spectrum.
So, I`d say that all liberals are moderates, some conservatives are and some collectivists are.
I think it would be peachy if we were all moderates.
You're looking at it much the same as me. And as I said at the onset I think the vast majority of PB posters ARE moderates. Even I am really, if you exclude wanting a new economic model based on common ownership and parents removed from the loop as regards the education of their children.
Parents are responsible for a huge amount of their children's education: removing them from the loop would be child abuse.
We're mainly talking about no more school fees. Hardly think 93% of parents are guilty of child abuse.
Do you really think that paying for an education is the only way that parents are "in the loop" of their children's education? And where are you getting the 93% figure from?
Of course not. Parents do loads of stuff to help their children develop and learn, some bad, mostly good. And long may it remain so - with maximum good and minimum bad. All will agree with that.
We can replace "remove from the loop" with "substantially reduce the impact of parental bank balance" if we want to be more cuddly sounding. But I was wanting to make it sound more radical than it truly is so that I didn't get tagged as a moderate.
The 93% is those who do not pay school fees.
You didn't say ban private schools because you have been told its a stupid idea and told why its a stupid idea many many times on here is why you tried an alternative phrase.
Banning private schools would only make the disadvantaged worse off.
7% reduction in education spend per child 7% larger class sizes No hope of renting a house in an area with a good school as they are snapped up by the rich so their offspring don't need to go to gastown secondary modern. Extra money for those that used to pay school fees to spend on home education to make sure their offspring still get the best results and use up the places that some of the disadvantaged got previously in grammar and state selective schools.
Its a policy where if ever implemented you would soon be bemoaning all the unintended side affects on the worst off kids
Well private schools are indisputably engines of class inequality. Nobody in their right mind denies that. So we must turn this around and ask ourselves -
What benefits do they bring which are so great as justify the inequality they create and embed in society?
I could say "answers on a postcard" but will not because that would be flippant. There are benefits. Some are centres of excellence (for those who can afford it). They allow parents (who can afford it) to spend their money on giving their kids a good education. They offer scholarships (not many but some) to bright kids from poor backgrounds. Which is great for them. They rescue some kids who would struggle or be bullied in the mainstream (providing their parents can pay the fees). And this list is not exhaustive.
But is this enough?
It isn't. Not for me. It fails the cost/benefit test.
The way you sort schools and education, is to concentrate on the failing schools and the disadvantaged pupils. Level up.
You’re trying to concentrate on the already well off and good schools. Levelling down.
One thing councils could do straight away that I would like to see is a volunteer mentor scheme. You sign up as a volunteer and pupils can ask to be included at their schools. Your task is to be available to help with homework, advice, just to listen and encourage. Would give libraries a use in the modern age. Now my offspring has flown the nest I would be quite happy to give a few hours a week to help out.
Also a scheme for redundant hardware to be donated. I have several laptops I have outgrown that can still do things like browse the web and office apps.
Also issuing data only sims. My supplier for mobile does 8gb of data for 10£ thats 520 a year per child and I am sure councils could negotiate that down and only supplied to the disadvantaged. 8gb is more than enough for school work in normal times though maybe not the current distant learning.
There are three things that could be done straight away at little cost that would help the disadvantaged that want to learn a hell of a lot more than banning private schools
I would define a moderate as someone that doesn't want to or is too scared to change anything.
Ah. Forgot you. You are an extremist, no question.
That's definitely it now.
It will never be it until you've named everyone.
Cyclefree, Richard Nabavi, OGH, TheScreamingEagles, Southam Observer and more.
You think I’m scared to change?
No! The polar opposite!
I think you have very strong opinions on issues you care about. I respect that, it's a compliment.
Thank you. You are the same and I enjoy my discussions with you, even if we do not often agree.
Given that you are both liberals it is curious that you think you don`t often agree with PT. (Admittedly, he is at the libertarian end of the spectrum.)
Well, without wishing to be rude to @Philip_Thompson, he often posts a lot of uninformed claptrap on legal matters. And we don’t share similar views on Brexit or on the actions of this government.
But he is certainly his own man and on other stuff we do agree. But then I agree with different posters on different topics (eg @kinabalu and @NickPalmer) and find some of @DavidL’s views a bit surprising.
Personally I find DavidL the most interesting of posters, with considered views which often surprise.
David is almost a thoughtful Tory but a bit too unionist at present , he will be an asset to an independent Scotland.
Votes for women, an end to slavery and legalisation of gay marriage would have been considered extreme opinions at one time.
Yes, you will note I am imputing neither vice or virtue to moderation. It's merely an exercise commissioned by Philip Thompson to help us draw up a jury to answer the question that started all this -
Was Labour's 2015 manifesto moderate or was it not?
It was, of course. But we're having to do it the hard way. No probs since I'm not busy.
I`d say that "moderate" usually refers to people who are centre-ish on the left to right spectrum.
So, I`d say that all liberals are moderates, some conservatives are and some collectivists are.
I think it would be peachy if we were all moderates.
You're looking at it much the same as me. And as I said at the onset I think the vast majority of PB posters ARE moderates. Even I am really, if you exclude wanting a new economic model based on common ownership and parents removed from the loop as regards the education of their children.
Parents are responsible for a huge amount of their children's education: removing them from the loop would be child abuse.
We're mainly talking about no more school fees. Hardly think 93% of parents are guilty of child abuse.
Do you really think that paying for an education is the only way that parents are "in the loop" of their children's education? And where are you getting the 93% figure from?
Of course not. Parents do loads of stuff to help their children develop and learn, some bad, mostly good. And long may it remain so - with maximum good and minimum bad. All will agree with that.
We can replace "remove from the loop" with "substantially reduce the impact of parental bank balance" if we want to be more cuddly sounding. But I was wanting to make it sound more radical than it truly is so that I didn't get tagged as a moderate.
The 93% is those who do not pay school fees.
You didn't say ban private schools because you have been told its a stupid idea and told why its a stupid idea many many times on here is why you tried an alternative phrase.
Banning private schools would only make the disadvantaged worse off.
7% reduction in education spend per child 7% larger class sizes No hope of renting a house in an area with a good school as they are snapped up by the rich so their offspring don't need to go to gastown secondary modern. Extra money for those that used to pay school fees to spend on home education to make sure their offspring still get the best results and use up the places that some of the disadvantaged got previously in grammar and state selective schools.
Its a policy where if ever implemented you would soon be bemoaning all the unintended side affects on the worst off kids
Well private schools are indisputably engines of class inequality. Nobody in their right mind denies that. So we must turn this around and ask ourselves -
What benefits do they bring which are so great as justify the inequality they create and embed in society?
I could say "answers on a postcard" but will not because that would be flippant. There are benefits. Some are centres of excellence (for those who can afford it). They allow parents (who can afford it) to spend their money on giving their kids a good education. They offer scholarships (not many but some) to bright kids from poor backgrounds. Which is great for them. They rescue some kids who would struggle or be bullied in the mainstream (providing their parents can pay the fees). And this list is not exhaustive.
But is this enough?
It isn't. Not for me. It fails the cost/benefit test.
But it is not costing the tax payer anything but benefits tax payers as its seven percent not taking up education places. So no cost but benefit.
You also haven't answered the assertion I made that if implemented it would make the most disadvantaged worse off educationally. I know you take the opposite view however I think even if I could prove my view was correct that you would still argue for it because to you its better to bring the top downwards even if it makes the bottom poorer
We are doing that nasty management consulting trick of interviewing somebody - in this case private schools - for their own job.
Ok, so one benefit iyo is they reduce the education budget.
And you see no costs at all. You don't accept that they increase class inequality and/or you don't think that's a bad thing.
It thus follows that you wish to see that 7% who go private increase as far towards 100% as possible. No costs, all benefit, you must believe this.
We're all still part of the UK, for the moment, it is relevant to him even if he lives in one of the more unionist parts of the UK and it won't a decision he takes part in.
Good "Hodas & Assoc" poll out for Biden today, +6 PA. Also PA-10 (Smalltown PA, definitely not Pittsburgh or Philly) +5 for the Dems, which is also good for them.
The GOP won the seat by 40 points in 2016!
Who Hodas? Nate Silver doesn't give them a name check.
Votes for women, an end to slavery and legalisation of gay marriage would have been considered extreme opinions at one time.
Yes, you will note I am imputing neither vice or virtue to moderation. It's merely an exercise commissioned by Philip Thompson to help us draw up a jury to answer the question that started all this -
Was Labour's 2015 manifesto moderate or was it not?
It was, of course. But we're having to do it the hard way. No probs since I'm not busy.
I`d say that "moderate" usually refers to people who are centre-ish on the left to right spectrum.
So, I`d say that all liberals are moderates, some conservatives are and some collectivists are.
I think it would be peachy if we were all moderates.
You're looking at it much the same as me. And as I said at the onset I think the vast majority of PB posters ARE moderates. Even I am really, if you exclude wanting a new economic model based on common ownership and parents removed from the loop as regards the education of their children.
Parents are responsible for a huge amount of their children's education: removing them from the loop would be child abuse.
We're mainly talking about no more school fees. Hardly think 93% of parents are guilty of child abuse.
Do you really think that paying for an education is the only way that parents are "in the loop" of their children's education? And where are you getting the 93% figure from?
Of course not. Parents do loads of stuff to help their children develop and learn, some bad, mostly good. And long may it remain so - with maximum good and minimum bad. All will agree with that.
We can replace "remove from the loop" with "substantially reduce the impact of parental bank balance" if we want to be more cuddly sounding. But I was wanting to make it sound more radical than it truly is so that I didn't get tagged as a moderate.
The 93% is those who do not pay school fees.
But the size of the parental bank balance is generally a result of parents` hard work and good planning (and sacrifices along the way). If parents choose to prioritise spending by way of school fees, bypassing "free" state provision, then this is an important freedom I think.
Also worth pointing out that all private schools are not equal. The private schools that I`m familiar with are one notch up from state schools and not comparable with the Etons and Winchesters of this world. Look at the cars in the car park - they are no different from at our local state school. Some are tattier. I think the reasons why these "can-only-just-afford-it" parents prioritise private schooling comes down to the happiness and safety of their children - nothing more.
Also worth mentioning that many children that are educated privately are not academic. If you have an academic child you are very lucky. That child will do well in any school and you can save yourself a shed load of money and buy fancy cars and fancy holidays instead. The cream will rise to the top, whereas a non-academic child in a state school can easily get "lost".
Not convinced the 1st sentence is true but much of the rest of it certainly is. But here's a question for you -
If you could be genuinely convinced that abolishing private schools would lead to far more winners than losers, and that the winners would be the currently least advantaged and the losers the currently most advantaged, would you support the abolition of private schools?
I sense you wouldn't but I don't always sense right.
Would you support private schools if it could be shown that abolishing them would lead to more losers than winners?
Yes. And I'd go further. If I were not convinced that their abolition would be transformational in terms of reducing class inequality in this country, I would not be that interested in them at all.
Votes for women, an end to slavery and legalisation of gay marriage would have been considered extreme opinions at one time.
Yes, you will note I am imputing neither vice or virtue to moderation. It's merely an exercise commissioned by Philip Thompson to help us draw up a jury to answer the question that started all this -
Was Labour's 2015 manifesto moderate or was it not?
It was, of course. But we're having to do it the hard way. No probs since I'm not busy.
I`d say that "moderate" usually refers to people who are centre-ish on the left to right spectrum.
So, I`d say that all liberals are moderates, some conservatives are and some collectivists are.
I think it would be peachy if we were all moderates.
You're looking at it much the same as me. And as I said at the onset I think the vast majority of PB posters ARE moderates. Even I am really, if you exclude wanting a new economic model based on common ownership and parents removed from the loop as regards the education of their children.
Parents are responsible for a huge amount of their children's education: removing them from the loop would be child abuse.
We're mainly talking about no more school fees. Hardly think 93% of parents are guilty of child abuse.
Do you really think that paying for an education is the only way that parents are "in the loop" of their children's education? And where are you getting the 93% figure from?
Of course not. Parents do loads of stuff to help their children develop and learn, some bad, mostly good. And long may it remain so - with maximum good and minimum bad. All will agree with that.
We can replace "remove from the loop" with "substantially reduce the impact of parental bank balance" if we want to be more cuddly sounding. But I was wanting to make it sound more radical than it truly is so that I didn't get tagged as a moderate.
The 93% is those who do not pay school fees.
But the size of the parental bank balance is generally a result of parents` hard work and good planning (and sacrifices along the way). If parents choose to prioritise spending by way of school fees, bypassing "free" state provision, then this is an important freedom I think.
Also worth pointing out that all private schools are not equal. The private schools that I`m familiar with are one notch up from state schools and not comparable with the Etons and Winchesters of this world. Look at the cars in the car park - they are no different from at our local state school. Some are tattier. I think the reasons why these "can-only-just-afford-it" parents prioritise private schooling comes down to the happiness and safety of their children - nothing more.
Also worth mentioning that many children that are educated privately are not academic. If you have an academic child you are very lucky. That child will do well in any school and you can save yourself a shed load of money and buy fancy cars and fancy holidays instead. The cream will rise to the top, whereas a non-academic child in a state school can easily get "lost".
Not convinced the 1st sentence is true but much of the rest of it certainly is. But here's a question for you -
If you could be genuinely convinced that abolishing private schools would lead to far more winners than losers, and that the winners would be the currently least advantaged and the losers the currently most advantaged, would you support the abolition of private schools?
I sense you wouldn't but I don't always sense right.
I wouldn`t. You forward a utilitarian argument and I am strongly opposed to utilitarianism so you`re on a loser there. I`m interested in principles even if they don`t lead to to maximising aggregate utility.
Edit: that doesn`t mean that I am a full-throated supporter of how things are now. I think that private schools should be stripped of charitable status, for example.
Pleased I called that right. Yes, it's a values clash with a dash of where do you draw the line?
Remove the tax breaks? I'd be disappointed if Starmer is too timid to include that. But I'm not hopeful.
Votes for women, an end to slavery and legalisation of gay marriage would have been considered extreme opinions at one time.
Yes, you will note I am imputing neither vice or virtue to moderation. It's merely an exercise commissioned by Philip Thompson to help us draw up a jury to answer the question that started all this -
Was Labour's 2015 manifesto moderate or was it not?
It was, of course. But we're having to do it the hard way. No probs since I'm not busy.
I`d say that "moderate" usually refers to people who are centre-ish on the left to right spectrum.
So, I`d say that all liberals are moderates, some conservatives are and some collectivists are.
I think it would be peachy if we were all moderates.
You're looking at it much the same as me. And as I said at the onset I think the vast majority of PB posters ARE moderates. Even I am really, if you exclude wanting a new economic model based on common ownership and parents removed from the loop as regards the education of their children.
Parents are responsible for a huge amount of their children's education: removing them from the loop would be child abuse.
We're mainly talking about no more school fees. Hardly think 93% of parents are guilty of child abuse.
Do you really think that paying for an education is the only way that parents are "in the loop" of their children's education? And where are you getting the 93% figure from?
Of course not. Parents do loads of stuff to help their children develop and learn, some bad, mostly good. And long may it remain so - with maximum good and minimum bad. All will agree with that.
We can replace "remove from the loop" with "substantially reduce the impact of parental bank balance" if we want to be more cuddly sounding. But I was wanting to make it sound more radical than it truly is so that I didn't get tagged as a moderate.
The 93% is those who do not pay school fees.
You didn't say ban private schools because you have been told its a stupid idea and told why its a stupid idea many many times on here is why you tried an alternative phrase.
Banning private schools would only make the disadvantaged worse off.
7% reduction in education spend per child 7% larger class sizes No hope of renting a house in an area with a good school as they are snapped up by the rich so their offspring don't need to go to gastown secondary modern. Extra money for those that used to pay school fees to spend on home education to make sure their offspring still get the best results and use up the places that some of the disadvantaged got previously in grammar and state selective schools.
Its a policy where if ever implemented you would soon be bemoaning all the unintended side affects on the worst off kids
Well private schools are indisputably engines of class inequality. Nobody in their right mind denies that. So we must turn this around and ask ourselves -
What benefits do they bring which are so great as justify the inequality they create and embed in society?
I could say "answers on a postcard" but will not because that would be flippant. There are benefits. Some are centres of excellence (for those who can afford it). They allow parents (who can afford it) to spend their money on giving their kids a good education. They offer scholarships (not many but some) to bright kids from poor backgrounds. Which is great for them. They rescue some kids who would struggle or be bullied in the mainstream (providing their parents can pay the fees). And this list is not exhaustive.
But is this enough?
It isn't. Not for me. It fails the cost/benefit test.
But it is not costing the tax payer anything but benefits tax payers as its seven percent not taking up education places. So no cost but benefit.
You also haven't answered the assertion I made that if implemented it would make the most disadvantaged worse off educationally. I know you take the opposite view however I think even if I could prove my view was correct that you would still argue for it because to you its better to bring the top downwards even if it makes the bottom poorer
We are doing that nasty management consulting trick of interviewing somebody - in this case private schools - for their own job.
Ok, so one benefit iyo is they reduce the education budget.
And you see no costs at all. You don't accept that they increase class inequality and/or you don't think that's a bad thing.
It thus follows that you wish to see that 7% who go private increase as far towards 100% as possible. No costs, all benefit, you must believe this.
So, you know, we're not on the same page.
It's not 7%.
Ok, that is the usually bandied around figure but it would be better to be more accurate. Please tell me and I will use it from now on.
I'm enjoying the woke outrage about Abbott being appointed to a nonsense position. It's pure politics to rile up the lefty luvvies and show the government are irritating the right people.
Fwiw, he's probably going to be pretty good at the job as former PM of a nation that actually needed an independent trade policy. That he's whatever doesn't really make a difference to his ability to advise the government on having an independent trade policy.
Do you not think that government should have a more noble purpose than "to rile up the left luvvies" and "irritate the right people". Or is this the sort of infantilism that we have come to expect from our current rulers?
I'd prefer it if appointments were made on merit rather than on cronyism or winding up government opponents. I've no strong view on Abbott's abilities (though he does seem a bit of a neanderthal boor).
Labour decided against transition controls on immigration to rile up the right. I think I'll take one person being appointed to some board or other over a million immigrants pushing down wages.
At the end of the day the Tories are in power and the left have to live with it, I'm glad they didn't u turn on this anyway, Abbott will do a good job of advising on an independent trade policy. Whatever his views are on marriage or gays doesn't really make a difference to what he brings to the table on international trade knowledge. People are allowed to have opinions different to my own and different to the consensus, if everyone had the same opinion about everything the world would be a very boring place.
Comments
Also worth pointing out that all private schools are not equal. The private schools that I`m familiar with are one notch up from state schools and not comparable with the Etons and Winchesters of this world. Look at the cars in the car park - they are no different from at our local state school. Some are tattier. I think the reasons why these "can-only-just-afford-it" parents prioritise private schooling comes down to the happiness and safety of their children - nothing more.
Also worth mentioning that many children that are educated privately are not academic. If you have an academic child you are very lucky. That child will do well in any school and you can save yourself a shed load of money and buy fancy cars and fancy holidays instead. The cream will rise to the top, whereas a non-academic child in a state school can easily get "lost".
C'mon. You're not a moderate, that's agreed, but you don't have to wallow in it. You can be moderate sometimes.
But I haven't watched soccer Saturday in years, is Kammy still there?
I felt sorry for Stelling as he was having to work quite hard to cover for the inadequacies of his colleagues.
Have only tried the spiced one though
"Where a blended rum meets exotic spices to create a unique and distinctive flavour profile. Those familiar with Saffron cake will certainly find a hint of that alongside notes of Pedro Ximénez Ice cream. Next comes a whisper of creamy caramel followed by vanilla, cinnamon, nutmeg and of course, those subtly sweet undertones of orange. Some have even found notes of pineapple, dried raisins and a pinch of black pepper – but we think they’re just showing off.
Suitable for Vegan diets"
Humans.
Trying to fit people to a designed society is plan guaranteed to fail. A society that works must take into account the people within it, their desires and ideas.
I remember watching a video of what happens when social idealists try and impose their views on a society. Darkly funny in some ways, but most people here would probably throw up.
11 moderates to go.
We will roll over until we get there but do any other moderates wish to opine on this thread? Be nice to get this thing finished.
Using that logic.
Plato was the most glaring absence, however, since he had been condemned to spend eternity living in the Republic according to the rules and regulations that he had himself designed...
https://twitter.com/NJ_Timothy/status/1302276796784750592
Correlation is not causation, but does coincide with Rishi's Meal Deal...
Chris Kamara and the red card! Best moment on Soccer Saturday!
If you could be genuinely convinced that abolishing private schools would lead to far more winners than losers, and that the winners would be the currently least advantaged and the losers the currently most advantaged, would you support the abolition of private schools?
I sense you wouldn't but I don't always sense right.
The steward is said to have quipped in response: 'So it's my fault your inflight entertainment is broken? It's your fault the whole country is broken — can we put things into perspective please.'
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8700529/BA-cabin-crew-reveal-shocking-behaviour-celebrities-30-000ft.html
2015 Manifesto was fine, particularly as it avoided committing to an 'in/out' referendum, which I believe one party's manifesto had foolishly called for at that election.
Edit: that doesn`t mean that I am a full-throated supporter of how things are now. I think that private schools should be stripped of charitable status, for example.
You don't believe in redemption? You believe only the pure are able to be a part of your tribe?
How very Corbynista of you.
What benefits do they bring which are so great as justify the inequality they create and embed in society?
I could say "answers on a postcard" but will not because that would be flippant. There are benefits. Some are centres of excellence (for those who can afford it). They allow parents (who can afford it) to spend their money on giving their kids a good education. They offer scholarships (not many but some) to bright kids from poor backgrounds. Which is great for them. They rescue some kids who would struggle or be bullied in the mainstream (providing their parents can pay the fees). And this list is not exhaustive.
But is this enough?
It isn't. Not for me. It fails the cost/benefit test.
You also haven't answered the assertion I made that if implemented it would make the most disadvantaged worse off educationally. I know you take the opposite view however I think even if I could prove my view was correct that you would still argue for it because to you its better to bring the top downwards even if it makes the bottom poorer
Inequality comes in many forms - how good looking you are, how good your genes are , how rich your parents are , how "cool" you naturally act , How athletic you are - The state should not obsess about making everyone equal (because its not practical to do so in all these areas of advantage in life).The state should help those who need extra resource to overcome natural disadvantages in life (like a good state school edcuation )
If it were possible to make good looking people more ugly would you think the state should do that - just to create equality?
Indeed Biden was in the situation room when the mission went in.
http://www.tnellen.com/cybereng/harrison.html
You’re trying to concentrate on the already well off and good schools. Levelling down.
You want the burden of proof to be on the schools to prove they are useful (and I can see that being fair for their charitable status), but the burden of proof should always be the other way round. The state should need to show that such bans are justified beyond reasonable doubt, and for independent schools that is a far from easy task.
A more plausible answer, and one that fits the new lockdowns, is that r is currently above 1, perhaps significantly so.
September figures are likely to help clarify the answer.
NEW THREAD
Ok, so one benefit iyo is they reduce the education budget.
And you see no costs at all. You don't accept that they increase class inequality and/or you don't think that's a bad thing.
It thus follows that you wish to see that 7% who go private increase as far towards 100% as possible. No costs, all benefit, you must believe this.
So, you know, we're not on the same page.
Also a scheme for redundant hardware to be donated. I have several laptops I have outgrown that can still do things like browse the web and office apps.
Also issuing data only sims. My supplier for mobile does 8gb of data for 10£ thats 520 a year per child and I am sure councils could negotiate that down and only supplied to the disadvantaged. 8gb is more than enough for school work in normal times though maybe not the current distant learning.
There are three things that could be done straight away at little cost that would help the disadvantaged that want to learn a hell of a lot more than banning private schools
He doesn’t spend his time in New York and California, he spends his time in places like Flint, Michigan, where the election is going to be decided.
Remove the tax breaks? I'd be disappointed if Starmer is too timid to include that. But I'm not hopeful.
FOUR NIL to Yes on "Was Labour 2015 moderate?"
Another 8 moderates needed for final verdict - but result looking quite clear unless there's a big late swing.
At the end of the day the Tories are in power and the left have to live with it, I'm glad they didn't u turn on this anyway, Abbott will do a good job of advising on an independent trade policy. Whatever his views are on marriage or gays doesn't really make a difference to what he brings to the table on international trade knowledge. People are allowed to have opinions different to my own and different to the consensus, if everyone had the same opinion about everything the world would be a very boring place.