My 250/1 punt on Sunak for next PM looking good – politicalbetting.com
Comments
-
No it is 20% times ( number of secondary school children / total population). If 10% of the population is at secondary school than that is 2% of total GDP.Charles said:
Are those stats right?OnlyLivingBoy said:
That's incorrect. According to the World Bank, Singapore spent 21.6% of its GDP per capita on each secondary school pupil in the most recent year for which data are available (2017) while the UK spent 21.2% (2016). Since Singapore's GDP per capita is approximately 50% higher than ours, this means that they spent about 50% more per pupil than we did. Which I suppose could account for their higher PISA score.HYUFD said:
Singapore spends far less than we do as a percentage of its gdp but is top of the PISA rankings nowOnlyLivingBoy said:
We know that wealthy people think a lot of money should be spent on educating children, from revealed preference. They just don't want other people's kids to have that kind of money spent on them.TOPPING said:And fpt:
Private schools are a symptom not a cause. Take them away and parents will find a zillion ways to give their children a "better" start in life - for a start they will have £40k after tax to play with to do so.OnlyLivingBoy said:
You keep saying this, despite the evidence that grammar schools get captured by the middle class via tutoring and prep schools. If grammar schools were these incredible engines of social mobility, then Kent (where they still exist) would be a classless society. Anyone who has spent more than a few minutes in Kent will know that the opposite is the case.HYUFD said:
The best instrument we had for getting people from average or below average income backgrounds into top positions was of course the grammar schools.OnlyLivingBoy said:
The whole rationale of the state is to prevent people's choices from harming other people. Otherwise we wouldn't need it, we could all just do whatever we want.felix said:
No - it's about not letting the state decide everything and accepting that individuals and indeed parents have the right to make choices - and that those choices have consequences which no amount of state engineering can, or should negate.kinabalu said:
That's just the old "if we can't totally deal with an issue let's not deal with it at all" shtick.HYUFD said:
They are still not going to send their kids to the average or below average local comp.kinabalu said:
For sure. It's kind of a tax cut for the rich. In fact that's how I'd sell it in the drawing rooms and boardrooms of England.IshmaelZ said:
I can promise you there's also people who can and do afford it who'd be secretly not wholly disgruntled if the option were denied them, and they had to spend the money on horses and yachts instead, dammit.kinabalu said:
I think that is making the perfect the enemy of the good. Elitism can be reduced but not eradicated. In fact you shouldn't even try to eradicate it. That leads to totalitarianism and - yes - elites. Worse ones. I'm just thinking about what's realistic in England 2021. This could be possible one day. But not this day, I'm fully aware of that. It's electoral poison. People who can't afford this privilege still support it. Until this changes, no chance of reform, I'll be talking to the hand.IshmaelZ said:
Cutting the head off a hydra, mate. Everywhere has oligarchies, nowhere else has public schools (except in the sense of actually public actual schools). If you strike them down, they will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine.kinabalu said:
Gets my goat it really does. Private schools have to go. It's the only way imo.Foxy said:
And the Lord that drew up the shortlist was enabled by David Cameron, who was in the same dissolute dining club.kinabalu said:
Yes. What we need is a tape with Johnson saying, "Ah, Fergie! He was in the old Bullers with me. Sound as a pound. Hired."MattW said:FPT:
I don't need one.Gardenwalker said:
Despite your archaeology you haven’t really found a good reason why Boris should be picking an old school friend to head the Boris-monitoring committee, have you?MattW said:
I think what we may get here at some time is similar to what happened to selection of Bishops, where the process was that the PM got 2 names and a theoretical convention that they could choose either - which has only been used once in 100-200 appointments.OldKingCole said:
At this level it looks bad, though. However, I agree that we've not seen evidence that, for example, Johnson looked at the shortlist and said 'He's the one. Know him. Good chap' or similar. Nor have we seen any suggestion, AFAIK, that a selection committee produced three names in order of preference, and the Good Chap was third.MattW said:
That's the Indy. And there seems to be not a shred of actual evidence of malpractice.OldKingCole said:
Jobs for the sons and daughters of friends is as old as jobs themselves. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't; sometimes it's not the best way of hiring someone but sometimes it can work. Rather depends on how how up the chain the job is.Foxy said:
I don't think I have ever defended cronyism in the Labour Party either.JosiasJessop said:
That is wrong IMO.Foxy said:What an extraordinary coincidence that the best person to be on the anti-sleaze watchdog just happened to be an old chum of Johnsons from his Bullingdon Club days.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/boris-johnson-sleaze-committee-standards-public-life-b1895212.html
However, I remember some Corbyn fans on here defending McDonnell employing Corbyn's son in a taxpayer-funded role. By an astonishing coincidence, the son of his best bud was the best candidate for the job.
(Hint, he wasn't.)
If we want to stop people hiring friends, family and chums to roles, especially to taxpayer-funded roles, then it needs to apply equally to all.
The nepotism and Chumocracy does show how illusory "taking back control" was.
Has anyone provided any evidence that Johnson had a corrupt role in the process, or how the process worked such that Johnson could manipulate it? Or that the member appointed is unfit to be on the Committee or is corrupt?
Or is this just Hoof-in-Mouth Rayner howling at the moon because it is Tuesday and she still does not have anything to say?
"You were in a student club with him 35 years ago" is some way beyond farfetched.
The only possible chink I can see is if the PM is supplied with say 50 names, from which he then gets to choose who he wants, and that would still require a lot more evidence that we have.
It's quite a dangerous argument to make because it shrinks the pool of acceptable candidates - 'No, you went to the same school when you were six!" - and undermines the expectation of personal integrity.
That has now been replaced with the second name being a "reserve" if eg the first one dies.
Quite concerning, though, is the dire quality of opposition a reliance on painting this stuff in poster paints indicates.
I was pointing out that this particular outrage bus is fuelled by BS and hot air.
Short of that, as Charles would stress, nothing to see and unfair to insinuate.
It's almost like a self replicating oligarchy.
They will make sure they live in the most expensive postcodes and thus the locals schools their kids attend will still be those mainly attended by the offspring of the wealthy.
So you would have to ban expensive detached houses too and make everyone live in a 2 bed semi or council flat
I want the state to do its best to create a level playing field so that (a) everyone gets a fair shot in life and (b) the best people end up in top positions. It should be fairly evident that that's not happening right now, and private schools play a big part in that failure.
Labour of course could not have that so abolished most of them, for socialists equality of outcome is more important than equality of opportunity
Personally I am all for equality of opportunity - equality of outcome is impossible in education because some people are just smarter than others. The way to get equality of opportunity is to fund all schools better, rigorously enforce standards, pay teachers better to get good teachers to stay in the profession, and to make sure there are no kids too hungry to learn.
So you've got to go back to the root cause and then you are either build a Communist state or become like Finland, which would mean a root and branch transformation of our schooling - and university - system.
Problem is, as the man said, I wouldn't have started from here. Today we have bog standard comprehensives, Eton, Winchester and Oxbridge. All that would need to be reformed to get to "free" education.
I imagine that the extra percentage of GDP to be spent plus the requirement for all teachers to have a masters degree might also cause some problems, politically, as an example.
You say that spending more on schools would cause political problems. Why is that? The problem we have is that the constituency for spending more money on schools is too small, because many of those who feel most passionately about education have taken matters into their own hands. In many cases they have become opponents of funding state schools more generously in the process.
Incidentally, UK spending has gone down from a peak of 31.2% of per capita GDP in 2010, thanks to the Tories.
Roughly speaking Uk government spending is about 50% of GDP, so if we are spending 20% of gdp we are spending 40% of the government budget. Yes there will be extra around the edges for private sector etc but that analysis doesn’t pass the sniff test0 -
I assume it's the per capita point which makes it a very odd metric. Per pupil funding is c. 5k per pupil, vs GDP per capita of more like 32k, so after allowing a bit more funding which is not allocated on a per pupil basis you can probably construct a 20% ish ratio.Charles said:
Are those stats right?OnlyLivingBoy said:
That's incorrect. According to the World Bank, Singapore spent 21.6% of its GDP per capita on each secondary school pupil in the most recent year for which data are available (2017) while the UK spent 21.2% (2016). Since Singapore's GDP per capita is approximately 50% higher than ours, this means that they spent about 50% more per pupil than we did. Which I suppose could account for their higher PISA score.HYUFD said:
Singapore spends far less than we do as a percentage of its gdp but is top of the PISA rankings nowOnlyLivingBoy said:
We know that wealthy people think a lot of money should be spent on educating children, from revealed preference. They just don't want other people's kids to have that kind of money spent on them.TOPPING said:And fpt:
Private schools are a symptom not a cause. Take them away and parents will find a zillion ways to give their children a "better" start in life - for a start they will have £40k after tax to play with to do so.OnlyLivingBoy said:
You keep saying this, despite the evidence that grammar schools get captured by the middle class via tutoring and prep schools. If grammar schools were these incredible engines of social mobility, then Kent (where they still exist) would be a classless society. Anyone who has spent more than a few minutes in Kent will know that the opposite is the case.HYUFD said:
The best instrument we had for getting people from average or below average income backgrounds into top positions was of course the grammar schools.OnlyLivingBoy said:
The whole rationale of the state is to prevent people's choices from harming other people. Otherwise we wouldn't need it, we could all just do whatever we want.felix said:
No - it's about not letting the state decide everything and accepting that individuals and indeed parents have the right to make choices - and that those choices have consequences which no amount of state engineering can, or should negate.kinabalu said:
That's just the old "if we can't totally deal with an issue let's not deal with it at all" shtick.HYUFD said:
They are still not going to send their kids to the average or below average local comp.kinabalu said:
For sure. It's kind of a tax cut for the rich. In fact that's how I'd sell it in the drawing rooms and boardrooms of England.IshmaelZ said:
I can promise you there's also people who can and do afford it who'd be secretly not wholly disgruntled if the option were denied them, and they had to spend the money on horses and yachts instead, dammit.kinabalu said:
I think that is making the perfect the enemy of the good. Elitism can be reduced but not eradicated. In fact you shouldn't even try to eradicate it. That leads to totalitarianism and - yes - elites. Worse ones. I'm just thinking about what's realistic in England 2021. This could be possible one day. But not this day, I'm fully aware of that. It's electoral poison. People who can't afford this privilege still support it. Until this changes, no chance of reform, I'll be talking to the hand.IshmaelZ said:
Cutting the head off a hydra, mate. Everywhere has oligarchies, nowhere else has public schools (except in the sense of actually public actual schools). If you strike them down, they will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine.kinabalu said:
Gets my goat it really does. Private schools have to go. It's the only way imo.Foxy said:
And the Lord that drew up the shortlist was enabled by David Cameron, who was in the same dissolute dining club.kinabalu said:
Yes. What we need is a tape with Johnson saying, "Ah, Fergie! He was in the old Bullers with me. Sound as a pound. Hired."MattW said:FPT:
I don't need one.Gardenwalker said:
Despite your archaeology you haven’t really found a good reason why Boris should be picking an old school friend to head the Boris-monitoring committee, have you?MattW said:
I think what we may get here at some time is similar to what happened to selection of Bishops, where the process was that the PM got 2 names and a theoretical convention that they could choose either - which has only been used once in 100-200 appointments.OldKingCole said:
At this level it looks bad, though. However, I agree that we've not seen evidence that, for example, Johnson looked at the shortlist and said 'He's the one. Know him. Good chap' or similar. Nor have we seen any suggestion, AFAIK, that a selection committee produced three names in order of preference, and the Good Chap was third.MattW said:
That's the Indy. And there seems to be not a shred of actual evidence of malpractice.OldKingCole said:
Jobs for the sons and daughters of friends is as old as jobs themselves. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't; sometimes it's not the best way of hiring someone but sometimes it can work. Rather depends on how how up the chain the job is.Foxy said:
I don't think I have ever defended cronyism in the Labour Party either.JosiasJessop said:
That is wrong IMO.Foxy said:What an extraordinary coincidence that the best person to be on the anti-sleaze watchdog just happened to be an old chum of Johnsons from his Bullingdon Club days.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/boris-johnson-sleaze-committee-standards-public-life-b1895212.html
However, I remember some Corbyn fans on here defending McDonnell employing Corbyn's son in a taxpayer-funded role. By an astonishing coincidence, the son of his best bud was the best candidate for the job.
(Hint, he wasn't.)
If we want to stop people hiring friends, family and chums to roles, especially to taxpayer-funded roles, then it needs to apply equally to all.
The nepotism and Chumocracy does show how illusory "taking back control" was.
Has anyone provided any evidence that Johnson had a corrupt role in the process, or how the process worked such that Johnson could manipulate it? Or that the member appointed is unfit to be on the Committee or is corrupt?
Or is this just Hoof-in-Mouth Rayner howling at the moon because it is Tuesday and she still does not have anything to say?
"You were in a student club with him 35 years ago" is some way beyond farfetched.
The only possible chink I can see is if the PM is supplied with say 50 names, from which he then gets to choose who he wants, and that would still require a lot more evidence that we have.
It's quite a dangerous argument to make because it shrinks the pool of acceptable candidates - 'No, you went to the same school when you were six!" - and undermines the expectation of personal integrity.
That has now been replaced with the second name being a "reserve" if eg the first one dies.
Quite concerning, though, is the dire quality of opposition a reliance on painting this stuff in poster paints indicates.
I was pointing out that this particular outrage bus is fuelled by BS and hot air.
Short of that, as Charles would stress, nothing to see and unfair to insinuate.
It's almost like a self replicating oligarchy.
They will make sure they live in the most expensive postcodes and thus the locals schools their kids attend will still be those mainly attended by the offspring of the wealthy.
So you would have to ban expensive detached houses too and make everyone live in a 2 bed semi or council flat
I want the state to do its best to create a level playing field so that (a) everyone gets a fair shot in life and (b) the best people end up in top positions. It should be fairly evident that that's not happening right now, and private schools play a big part in that failure.
Labour of course could not have that so abolished most of them, for socialists equality of outcome is more important than equality of opportunity
Personally I am all for equality of opportunity - equality of outcome is impossible in education because some people are just smarter than others. The way to get equality of opportunity is to fund all schools better, rigorously enforce standards, pay teachers better to get good teachers to stay in the profession, and to make sure there are no kids too hungry to learn.
So you've got to go back to the root cause and then you are either build a Communist state or become like Finland, which would mean a root and branch transformation of our schooling - and university - system.
Problem is, as the man said, I wouldn't have started from here. Today we have bog standard comprehensives, Eton, Winchester and Oxbridge. All that would need to be reformed to get to "free" education.
I imagine that the extra percentage of GDP to be spent plus the requirement for all teachers to have a masters degree might also cause some problems, politically, as an example.
You say that spending more on schools would cause political problems. Why is that? The problem we have is that the constituency for spending more money on schools is too small, because many of those who feel most passionately about education have taken matters into their own hands. In many cases they have become opponents of funding state schools more generously in the process.
Incidentally, UK spending has gone down from a peak of 31.2% of per capita GDP in 2010, thanks to the Tories.
Roughly speaking Uk government spending is about 50% of GDP, so if we are spending 20% of gdp we are spending 40% of the government budget. Yes there will be extra around the edges for private sector etc but that analysis doesn’t pass the sniff test0 -
No. Nothing at the momentTheuniondivvie said:
If you've got some fresh, exciting observations on Brexit or Covid or BJ, knock yersel oot.pigeon said:Is there a rule that this site has to have at least one futile, circular argument about Scottish independence every single day?
Scottish public opinion, which is the ultimate arbiter, was heavily split before the 2014 vote, heavily split afterwards, and is heavily split today. Nothing that has happened in the last seven years - neither Brexit, nor the rise of Boris Johnson, nor elderly pro-Union voters kicking the bucket, nor the pandemic - has caused a fundamental shift either for or against the Union. Nothing. And it shows no imminent sign of changing, either.
Therefore, what is there left to discuss?
(I would imagine that the very encouraging indications of the total number of Covid patients in hospital having levelled off has already been discussed circa 4pm)0 -
Yeah but most of them are wealthy, unless these schools have a magic money tree growing in their ample grounds that enable them to spend much more per pupil than local state schools while charging no fees.JosiasJessop said:
I should perhaps mention that many kids going to private schools don't have 'rich' parents. Many are on scholarships or subsidised, and many parents scrimp and save to send their kids to the school.OnlyLivingBoy said:
But Kinabulu, if you're not smart enough to have a rich daddy then how much potential have you really got?kinabalu said:
It's not levelling down or up. It's levelling. But probably you'd see a net uplift since there'd be more potential realized.maaarsh said:
Given you have no control over systems overseas (in the thought experiment where you, terrifyingly, have control on this island) how much relative educational & economic performance are you willing to sacrifice for more egalitarianism? Or is it a panacea and closing the best schools will also improve the overall average?kinabalu said:
That's a very fair and clarifying question. Where have you been all my life?JosiasJessop said:
Okay, let's put it this way. You want a change. What is the output of that change? What is the end result you want?kinabalu said:
Yes I am a parent.
It is sober. It's not an extreme position. The fact it is painted as such says a great deal about how relaxed we are about privilege and inequality.
No I haven't decided all private schools are evil. Or indeed any of them. I have no personal criticism of those who use private schools or personal prejudice against those who went to one.
Some of my best friends ... 🙂
But my strong and considered view is that they contribute significantly to our imo far too unequal society. Since I'm egalitarian inclined I'd like to see this addressed. Call that ideology if you like. It's not a dirty word in my book. You need some otherwise you're just flapping around with anecdote and tinker.
The output is a society where the link between parental bank balance and life prospects is significantly weaker than it is today.
I think an egalitarian education system would contribute greatly to that. And I think the private schools are a serious impediment to creating an egalitarian education system.
I define an egalitarian education system as one where a similar - and high - standard of schooling is available to all children. It will never be perfectly achievable but this should be the goal.
The scholarships are only there so they can do the whole charity tax dodge bollocks.1 -
You're the one who called me stupid for going to a state school, I was only responding in kind.JosiasJessop said:
LOL. I rather think you're off aim there. I prescribe attendance at a CCF course.OnlyLivingBoy said:
Try not to trip over your silver spoon while you're running, old chap.JosiasJessop said:
If you find it bewildering, perhaps you should have got a better education.OnlyLivingBoy said:
Very well put. I find it bewildering that anyone would object to this argument, although I guess the privileged will always seek to maintain their privilege.kinabalu said:
That's a very fair and clarifying question. Where have you been all my life?JosiasJessop said:
Okay, let's put it this way. You want a change. What is the output of that change? What is the end result you want?kinabalu said:
Yes I am a parent.
It is sober. It's not an extreme position. The fact it is painted as such says a great deal about how relaxed we are about privilege and inequality.
No I haven't decided all private schools are evil. Or indeed any of them. I have no personal criticism of those who use private schools or personal prejudice against those who went to one.
Some of my best friends ... 🙂
But my strong and considered view is that they contribute significantly to our imo far too unequal society. Since I'm egalitarian inclined I'd like to see this addressed. Call that ideology if you like. It's not a dirty word in my book. You need some otherwise you're just flapping around with anecdote and tinker.
The output is a society where the link between parental bank balance and life prospects is significantly weaker than it is today.
I think an egalitarian education system would contribute greatly to that. And I think the private schools are a serious impediment to creating an egalitarian education system.
I define an egalitarian education system as one where a similar - and high - standard of schooling is available to all children. It will never be perfectly achievable but this should be the goal.
(runs for cover)
But your comments hint that it's not outcomes you are interested in, but class hatred.
I don't hate the upper middle class, I just wish they would stop fucking up this country for everyone else.0 -
For once a logo that isn’t totally naff….and which multi million pound design consultancy came up with it?
https://twitter.com/standardnews/status/1422646209764810755?s=210 -
Genuine socialists are interested in outcomes, equality of outcome.JosiasJessop said:
LOL. I rather think you're off aim there. I prescribe attendance at a CCF course.OnlyLivingBoy said:
Try not to trip over your silver spoon while you're running, old chap.JosiasJessop said:
If you find it bewildering, perhaps you should have got a better education.OnlyLivingBoy said:
Very well put. I find it bewildering that anyone would object to this argument, although I guess the privileged will always seek to maintain their privilege.kinabalu said:
That's a very fair and clarifying question. Where have you been all my life?JosiasJessop said:
Okay, let's put it this way. You want a change. What is the output of that change? What is the end result you want?kinabalu said:
Yes I am a parent.
It is sober. It's not an extreme position. The fact it is painted as such says a great deal about how relaxed we are about privilege and inequality.
No I haven't decided all private schools are evil. Or indeed any of them. I have no personal criticism of those who use private schools or personal prejudice against those who went to one.
Some of my best friends ... 🙂
But my strong and considered view is that they contribute significantly to our imo far too unequal society. Since I'm egalitarian inclined I'd like to see this addressed. Call that ideology if you like. It's not a dirty word in my book. You need some otherwise you're just flapping around with anecdote and tinker.
The output is a society where the link between parental bank balance and life prospects is significantly weaker than it is today.
I think an egalitarian education system would contribute greatly to that. And I think the private schools are a serious impediment to creating an egalitarian education system.
I define an egalitarian education system as one where a similar - and high - standard of schooling is available to all children. It will never be perfectly achievable but this should be the goal. (runs for cover)
But your comments hint that it's not outcomes you are interested in, but class hatred.
That is why they wanted to close the grammar schools as they meant too many working class pupils were becoming higher earning professionals and abandoning their Labour roots and becoming property owning Tories.
The same reason they opposed council house sales, as voters who move from social housing to owning a property are again more likely to become Tories and class traitors.
In a socialists ideal world everyone would work for the public sector, live in a council house, send their kids to an average comprehensive and vote Labour. The last thing they want is too much ambition and equality of opportunity0 -
It's why he's CofE now, for sure. But as someone bright, personable, numerate and ambitious, it was always a likely step on his career path.Richard_Nabavi said:
I thought he became Chancellor because he had less self-respect than Javid.Charles said:
I don’t think you can say it’s because he is Chancellor he’s a strong candidate to be PMHYUFD said:As Chancellor of the Exchequer it is fairly obvious Sunak should be favourite to succeed Boris as PM as long as the Tories stay in power.
Of the postwar changes of PM in government, 3 of the new PMs were the Chancellor, Macmillan, Major and Brown, 1 was a former Chancellor, Callaghan. 3 were Foreign Secretary Eden and Home and Callaghan, 1 was a former Foreign Secretary, Boris and 1 was Home Secretary, May.
So merely by being Chancellor Sunak is favourite to succeed with historical precedent suggesting Raab would be his only serious rival. Though credit to PT for spotting him before he got the role
He’s Chancellor because he’s a powerful politician and it’s a desirable role. Those attributes also make him a serious contender for PM
But he has got there awfully young, and he doesn't have much political experience outside the Treasury. Which (together with his own political instincts) might explain why he seems to have bought so thoroughly into a cost of everything / value of nothing mindset. OK, on one hand it's his job, and it was even more so when he was Chief Sec. But there's not much in his personal or political CV to balance it out. It's hard to imagine him following in the steps of John Major, pointing out to his PM that it must be awfully hard to keep a room warm in the depths of a cold snap and that it was time to unlock the emergency fuel allowance.
And there is the whole willingness to wear Dom's gimp mask thing. Understandable, but no house points for doing that.
So I'm not sure he'd be a great PM if there was the metaphorical bus accident tonight. Give him a few years, quite possibly. On the other hand, he'd be an improvement on the incumbent. A bit like PJ O'Rourke on the Clinton-Trump election; Clinton might have been a rotten candidate, but she would have been a bad president in a normal way, which would have been better then the alternative.0 -
At the risk of prolonging what has now been officially called the most boring topic, if you want independence for Scotland. just go for Hard Scexit i.e. tell everyone yes it will hurt, yes we will have to make sacrifices but, if this is what we want, then pride in oneself beats fear / money. If you argue for anything other than a clean, hard brake, it is just opening your cause up to endless pointing outs of the issues, problems etclondonpubman said:
Absolutely correct Big G. Notwithstanding all the froth of the cybernats on here, in the real world Scotland will not vote for independence - keep dreaming SNP!!Big_G_NorthWales said:
Not sure the Scots want independenceRochdalePioneers said:
Why is it ridiculous? Scotland has just re-elected a 4th term SNP government on a record turnout with a record majority of pro-independence MSPs. Not my choice, I campaigned for the LibDems, but it is the "settled will" up here.Omnium said:
You make ridiculous points poorly. Can I declare my house an independent state?RochdalePioneers said:
Whilst that is true, telling Scotland that they need to suck it up isn't a good way to promote the union. The challenge for Shagger is that he is trying to build a centralised control system where his magnificence will permeate into all things.CarlottaVance said:
He was elected in the United Kingdom - which Scotland voted to remain part of.Carnyx said:
Nevertheless, she was elected in Scotland. He wasn't.DavidL said:
There has been a strong tendency in the UK government under both Cameron and May to pussy foot around Sturgeon and try to give her her way where possible in the slightly bizarre thought that this would keep her quiet. Under Boris that has changed. She is not invited to COP26 even although it is in Glasgow. He is not interested in giving her a photoshot with him at Bute House. She wanted to have a "greenport" instead of a freeport in Scotland. She was told to get lost. There is more UK government advertising on local Scottish radio. His response to a demand for a further referendum has so far been blunt.MrEd said:
I don't see the disadvantage. It won't change many minds one way or another in Scotland I would imagine. And it winds up NS.stodge said:Interesting to see the UK Prime Minister treating the Scottish First Minister as though she were the Mayor of Manchester or the leader of Surrey County Council.
I'm not sure it's helpful but no doubt it plays well in some circles.
Boris has worked out that playing nice with Nicola is playing on her terms. He isn't minded to.
Like Thatcher before him, he can't stand the idea that in places people actively vote for the other option. So instead of accepting that the democratic will is different in places, like Thatcher he wants to abolish democracy. London votes against me? Scrap the GLC! Scotland votes against me, scrap devolution!
It is Hailsham's Elective Dictatorship, the tyranny of the masses.
If England - because the Westminster government was elected with its big majority in England - is to dictate to Scotland and overrule the votes of the people of Scotland then what is the point in democracy? Same with all the other places where people vote for the opposite of Johnson and his circus.
Certainly there has been a move against over the last few months, but then the Scots are canny and sensible and while the SNP are the preferred government I know within our family there are those who support the SNP but not independence0 -
Lots of them would otherwise be wealthy but aren't because they are shelling out 36,000 per year per child out of taxed income, which is a fuck of a lot of money to almost anyone. I don't say that like it's a good thing; there's lots of cases of more or less conscious parental resentment (especially when one parent is keener then the other on private education) and child guilt. The boarding thing doesn't help either.OnlyLivingBoy said:
Yeah but most of them are wealthy, unless these schools have a magic money tree growing in their ample grounds that enable them to spend much more per pupil than local state schools while charging no fees.JosiasJessop said:
I should perhaps mention that many kids going to private schools don't have 'rich' parents. Many are on scholarships or subsidised, and many parents scrimp and save to send their kids to the school.OnlyLivingBoy said:
But Kinabulu, if you're not smart enough to have a rich daddy then how much potential have you really got?kinabalu said:
It's not levelling down or up. It's levelling. But probably you'd see a net uplift since there'd be more potential realized.maaarsh said:
Given you have no control over systems overseas (in the thought experiment where you, terrifyingly, have control on this island) how much relative educational & economic performance are you willing to sacrifice for more egalitarianism? Or is it a panacea and closing the best schools will also improve the overall average?kinabalu said:
That's a very fair and clarifying question. Where have you been all my life?JosiasJessop said:
Okay, let's put it this way. You want a change. What is the output of that change? What is the end result you want?kinabalu said:
Yes I am a parent.
It is sober. It's not an extreme position. The fact it is painted as such says a great deal about how relaxed we are about privilege and inequality.
No I haven't decided all private schools are evil. Or indeed any of them. I have no personal criticism of those who use private schools or personal prejudice against those who went to one.
Some of my best friends ... 🙂
But my strong and considered view is that they contribute significantly to our imo far too unequal society. Since I'm egalitarian inclined I'd like to see this addressed. Call that ideology if you like. It's not a dirty word in my book. You need some otherwise you're just flapping around with anecdote and tinker.
The output is a society where the link between parental bank balance and life prospects is significantly weaker than it is today.
I think an egalitarian education system would contribute greatly to that. And I think the private schools are a serious impediment to creating an egalitarian education system.
I define an egalitarian education system as one where a similar - and high - standard of schooling is available to all children. It will never be perfectly achievable but this should be the goal.
The scholarships are only there so they can do the whole charity tax dodge bollocks.
0 -
No we opposed selling the council houses because now there are no council houses and we have a housing benefit bill that's crippling the country, rent is taking up half people's wages and there is massive overcrowding and homelessness.HYUFD said:
Genuine socialists are interested in outcomes, equality of outcome.JosiasJessop said:
LOL. I rather think you're off aim there. I prescribe attendance at a CCF course.OnlyLivingBoy said:
Try not to trip over your silver spoon while you're running, old chap.JosiasJessop said:
If you find it bewildering, perhaps you should have got a better education.OnlyLivingBoy said:
Very well put. I find it bewildering that anyone would object to this argument, although I guess the privileged will always seek to maintain their privilege.kinabalu said:
That's a very fair and clarifying question. Where have you been all my life?JosiasJessop said:
Okay, let's put it this way. You want a change. What is the output of that change? What is the end result you want?kinabalu said:
Yes I am a parent.
It is sober. It's not an extreme position. The fact it is painted as such says a great deal about how relaxed we are about privilege and inequality.
No I haven't decided all private schools are evil. Or indeed any of them. I have no personal criticism of those who use private schools or personal prejudice against those who went to one.
Some of my best friends ... 🙂
But my strong and considered view is that they contribute significantly to our imo far too unequal society. Since I'm egalitarian inclined I'd like to see this addressed. Call that ideology if you like. It's not a dirty word in my book. You need some otherwise you're just flapping around with anecdote and tinker.
The output is a society where the link between parental bank balance and life prospects is significantly weaker than it is today.
I think an egalitarian education system would contribute greatly to that. And I think the private schools are a serious impediment to creating an egalitarian education system.
I define an egalitarian education system as one where a similar - and high - standard of schooling is available to all children. It will never be perfectly achievable but this should be the goal. (runs for cover)
But your comments hint that it's not outcomes you are interested in, but class hatred.
That is why they wanted to close the grammar schools as they meant too many working class pupils were becoming higher earning professionals and abandoning their Labour roots and becoming property owning Tories.
The same reason they opposed council house sales, as voters who move from social housing to owning a property are again more likely to become Tories and class traitors3 -
England is outperforming the other nations because it hasn't got it's own parliament. In other words it isn't over governed.RochdalePioneers said:
Blimey, a Scotland post from you that isn't your usual bombastic crap. "An English Parliament" is the elephant missing from the room. The United Kingdom no longer works as a democratic entity, and the heart of that is the missing English parliament.
Instead of the Clown making comments about wanting to scrap devolution he should be trying to extend it. Give democracy to England, all 4 nations have parliaments allowing their people to make their own decisions.
The only people proposing an English parliament are politicos who like the idea of jobs for failed politicians. Because that's who would be the candidates for this stuff - people who wouldn't make the cut for the Commons, or people who lost their seats and were looking for another sinecure.
If you look at Scotland, it has just 5 million people but elects 1,227 councillors, 129 MSPs (who are paid £64,470 each plus expenses), and 59 MPs.
Would the cuts in drug services in Scotland have been prevented if money wasn't diverted to find money for £16.5 million cost of the Scottish parliament each year? (https://www.parliament.scot/-/media/files/msps/allowances/expenditure-details-for-2019-to-2020.pdf)
Why on earth would England wish to replicate this wasteful "jobs for politicians" system?0 -
I don't disagree, an English Parliament and devomax for Holyrood but all still within 1 UK is fine by meRochdalePioneers said:
Blimey, a Scotland post from you that isn't your usual bombastic crap. "An English Parliament" is the elephant missing from the room. The United Kingdom no longer works as a democratic entity, and the heart of that is the missing English parliament.HYUFD said:
Scotland voted to stay in the UK knowing full well that it was the UK government that would have the power to decide whether to ever allow it another legal independence referendum again.RochdalePioneers said:
The referendum was should Scotland leave the UK. Having voted no Scotland still has a separate government with clearly defined powers. Are you saying that having voted no the majority (England) gets to toss those powers and that government aside?maaarsh said:
The relevant demos is the UK without distinction. The people of Scotland were offered an opt out of that demos and thought better of it by a comfortable margin.RochdalePioneers said:
Why is it ridiculous? Scotland has just re-elected a 4th term SNP government on a record turnout with a record majority of pro-independence MSPs. Not my choice, I campaigned for the LibDems, but it is the "settled will" up here.Omnium said:
You make ridiculous points poorly. Can I declare my house an independent state?RochdalePioneers said:
Whilst that is true, telling Scotland that they need to suck it up isn't a good way to promote the union. The challenge for Shagger is that he is trying to build a centralised control system where his magnificence will permeate into all things.CarlottaVance said:
He was elected in the United Kingdom - which Scotland voted to remain part of.Carnyx said:
Nevertheless, she was elected in Scotland. He wasn't.DavidL said:
There has been a strong tendency in the UK government under both Cameron and May to pussy foot around Sturgeon and try to give her her way where possible in the slightly bizarre thought that this would keep her quiet. Under Boris that has changed. She is not invited to COP26 even although it is in Glasgow. He is not interested in giving her a photoshot with him at Bute House. She wanted to have a "greenport" instead of a freeport in Scotland. She was told to get lost. There is more UK government advertising on local Scottish radio. His response to a demand for a further referendum has so far been blunt.MrEd said:
I don't see the disadvantage. It won't change many minds one way or another in Scotland I would imagine. And it winds up NS.stodge said:Interesting to see the UK Prime Minister treating the Scottish First Minister as though she were the Mayor of Manchester or the leader of Surrey County Council.
I'm not sure it's helpful but no doubt it plays well in some circles.
Boris has worked out that playing nice with Nicola is playing on her terms. He isn't minded to.
Like Thatcher before him, he can't stand the idea that in places people actively vote for the other option. So instead of accepting that the democratic will is different in places, like Thatcher he wants to abolish democracy. London votes against me? Scrap the GLC! Scotland votes against me, scrap devolution!
It is Hailsham's Elective Dictatorship, the tyranny of the masses.
If England - because the Westminster government was elected with its big majority in England - is to dictate to Scotland and overrule the votes of the people of Scotland then what is the point in democracy? Same with all the other places where people vote for the opposite of Johnson and his circus.
Just the same as if England had a Tory majority in 2024 but there was a majority across the UK of Labour, SNP and LD MPs you would have to accept Starmer would become PM of the UK. Personally I would prefer an English Parliament too but we are one United Kingdom
Instead of the Clown making comments about wanting to scrap devolution he should be trying to extend it. Give democracy to England, all 4 nations have parliaments allowing their people to make their own decisions.1 -
But you don’t need to give political advantages to your opponents. Sturgeon, regardless of what she thinks is not the same political rank as Boris. It’s a little dismissive to compare her to Andy Burnham or Sadiq Khan.IanB2 said:
The American habit of acting to wind up your opponents rather than in the interest of good government has little to commend it.MrEd said:
I don't see the disadvantage. It won't change many minds one way or another in Scotland I would imagine. And it winds up NS.stodge said:Interesting to see the UK Prime Minister treating the Scottish First Minister as though she were the Mayor of Manchester or the leader of Surrey County Council.
I'm not sure it's helpful but no doubt it plays well in some circles.0 -
Prof. Christina Pagel
@chrischirp
·
1h Spoke briefly to
@BBCHughPym
today about the reduction in cases after 19th July... basically, acknowledging that I (along with many others!) was (pleasantly) surprised by the drop.
https://twitter.com/chrischirp/status/1422628347604049922
Almost as if piggy backing on the back of models that have been shown to not match real world data at every turn, in order to predict 100K case load is a mistake.2 -
Newsom not looking in a great position in California:
https://emersonpolling.reportablenews.com/pr/newsom-clings-to-lead-in-recall-while-crime-becomes-a-top-issue-for-ca-voters0 -
Anecdote time:
I took a stroll after work. Very pleasant it was too. Several women had decided that it was warm enough for shorts. Just thought I'd throw that in...
Anyway, I popped in to the local convenience store. Before entering I donned my face covering, but once inside discovered that I was the only person wearing one. Other customers, chap on the till, all bare faced. Next time, no scarf for me.
As an aside, the reason I went was to buy some vinegar. Things have gone badly wrong when you've got a choice of three types of balsamic in the house but no malt vinegar for your chips.3 -
@Mike - If you like long shots, take a look at Nicholas Dupont-Aignan for the Elysée next spring. He may come across as a bit of a banana, but he knows how to pivot, is persistent, and tries to seize the moment. (Disclosure: I'm on him at >500.)
A Macron defeat is likely to involve a radical "right" candidate amassing 2nd-round votes from voters who backed a radical "left" candidate in the 1st round - or vice versa. There isn't the same "rather vote for a crook" attitude there once was. This observation applies in both directions, mutatis mutandis.0 -
There are still plenty of council houses but I don't disagree profits from council house sales can be reinvested in new social housingOnlyLivingBoy said:
No we opposed selling the council houses because now there are no council houses and we have a housing benefit bill that's crippling the country, rent is taking up half people's wages and there is massive overcrowding and homelessness.HYUFD said:
Genuine socialists are interested in outcomes, equality of outcome.JosiasJessop said:
LOL. I rather think you're off aim there. I prescribe attendance at a CCF course.OnlyLivingBoy said:
Try not to trip over your silver spoon while you're running, old chap.JosiasJessop said:
If you find it bewildering, perhaps you should have got a better education.OnlyLivingBoy said:
Very well put. I find it bewildering that anyone would object to this argument, although I guess the privileged will always seek to maintain their privilege.kinabalu said:
That's a very fair and clarifying question. Where have you been all my life?JosiasJessop said:
Okay, let's put it this way. You want a change. What is the output of that change? What is the end result you want?kinabalu said:
Yes I am a parent.
It is sober. It's not an extreme position. The fact it is painted as such says a great deal about how relaxed we are about privilege and inequality.
No I haven't decided all private schools are evil. Or indeed any of them. I have no personal criticism of those who use private schools or personal prejudice against those who went to one.
Some of my best friends ... 🙂
But my strong and considered view is that they contribute significantly to our imo far too unequal society. Since I'm egalitarian inclined I'd like to see this addressed. Call that ideology if you like. It's not a dirty word in my book. You need some otherwise you're just flapping around with anecdote and tinker.
The output is a society where the link between parental bank balance and life prospects is significantly weaker than it is today.
I think an egalitarian education system would contribute greatly to that. And I think the private schools are a serious impediment to creating an egalitarian education system.
I define an egalitarian education system as one where a similar - and high - standard of schooling is available to all children. It will never be perfectly achievable but this should be the goal. (runs for cover)
But your comments hint that it's not outcomes you are interested in, but class hatred.
That is why they wanted to close the grammar schools as they meant too many working class pupils were becoming higher earning professionals and abandoning their Labour roots and becoming property owning Tories.
The same reason they opposed council house sales, as voters who move from social housing to owning a property are again more likely to become Tories and class traitors0 -
On private schools, this issue only seems to exist to a problematic extent in Britain. I think part of the fault is our binary approach to public and private sector.
Private schools are hugely expensive on the whole and only becoming more so. As a result they become ever more exclusive reserves of the upper middle classes and the gap between their outcomes and those of most other schools gets larger. There is pitifully little cross pollination, no intermediate or mixed models.
Where are the easyschools, or the state schools with privately funded sixth forms, or the state-private joint ventures? How about means tested school fees, or school fees regulated by government, as happens in telecoms and energy markets? The most we ever seem to manage is business sponsorships of the occasional academy school. I’m not saying these would all work (and we all remember the excesses of PFI), but there is little or no experimentation. Two systems living an almost mutually exclusive existence.0 -
I think this site is brilliant. I sometimes wonder why this site isn't far more widely read, and why we get the same hundred or so posters accounting for 95% of the posts in any one month (is this true? It feels about right). But I suppose on reflection lengthy circular arguments on Scottish independence aren't for everyone.pigeon said:
No. Nothing at the momentTheuniondivvie said:
If you've got some fresh, exciting observations on Brexit or Covid or BJ, knock yersel oot.pigeon said:Is there a rule that this site has to have at least one futile, circular argument about Scottish independence every single day?
Scottish public opinion, which is the ultimate arbiter, was heavily split before the 2014 vote, heavily split afterwards, and is heavily split today. Nothing that has happened in the last seven years - neither Brexit, nor the rise of Boris Johnson, nor elderly pro-Union voters kicking the bucket, nor the pandemic - has caused a fundamental shift either for or against the Union. Nothing. And it shows no imminent sign of changing, either.
Therefore, what is there left to discuss?
(I would imagine that the very encouraging indications of the total number of Covid patients in hospital having levelled off has already been discussed circa 4pm)
On a less-frequented subject, does anyone remember the sitcom 'Morris Minor's Marvellous Motors' from about 1989 - improbably, a spin off of the novelty single 'Stutter Rap'? In my memory, it had a weirdly catchy theme tune, the chorus to which went:
Morris Minor
Never let's you down
gets you round town
Gets you from A to B
Nothing finer
I'd never something something
Something something something something
So that's the car for me.
Except I've just looked this up on YouTube and it turns out the theme tune is far slower and less catchy than I remember and also lines 2,3,6 and 7 are a figment of my imagination.
So either a one-series sitcom had two separate versions of the theme tune or I've completely invented a much better melody and partial additional lyrics for it.
If anyone wants to shed any light on this I'd be most interested.
This, by the way, is the sort of matter you can turn your attention to when on holiday from the real world.1 -
One interesting sub-stat in that poll - the only group in favour of recalling Newsom? Hispanics, by 54-41.MrEd said:Newsom not looking in a great position in California:
https://emersonpolling.reportablenews.com/pr/newsom-clings-to-lead-in-recall-while-crime-becomes-a-top-issue-for-ca-voters
Given that and what has been happening in Texas, that is not a good sign for the Democrats and the Hispanic vote.0 -
There are free schools plus academies now thanks to Blair and Cameron.TimS said:On private schools, this issue only seems to exist to a problematic extent in Britain. I think part of the fault is our binary approach to public and private sector.
Private schools are hugely expensive on the whole and only becoming more so. As a result they become ever more exclusive reserves of the upper middle classes and the gap between their outcomes and those of most other schools gets larger. There is pitifully little cross pollination, no intermediate or mixed models.
Where are the easyschools, or the state schools with privately funded sixth forms, or the state-private joint ventures? How about means tested school fees, or school fees regulated by government, as happens in telecoms and energy markets? The most we ever seem to manage is business sponsorships of the occasional academy school. I’m not saying these would all work (and we all remember the excesses of PFI), but there is little or no experimentation. Two systems living an almost mutually exclusive existence.
Still a few grammars around as well and most public schools are trying to expand their bursary provision0 -
Why bother? Smart kids will do well regardless, and they'll just be surrounded by a load of awful people.IshmaelZ said:
Lots of them would otherwise be wealthy but aren't because they are shelling out 36,000 per year per child out of taxed income, which is a fuck of a lot of money to almost anyone. I don't say that like it's a good thing; there's lots of cases of more or less conscious parental resentment (especially when one parent is keener then the other on private education) and child guilt. The boarding thing doesn't help either.OnlyLivingBoy said:
Yeah but most of them are wealthy, unless these schools have a magic money tree growing in their ample grounds that enable them to spend much more per pupil than local state schools while charging no fees.JosiasJessop said:
I should perhaps mention that many kids going to private schools don't have 'rich' parents. Many are on scholarships or subsidised, and many parents scrimp and save to send their kids to the school.OnlyLivingBoy said:
But Kinabulu, if you're not smart enough to have a rich daddy then how much potential have you really got?kinabalu said:
It's not levelling down or up. It's levelling. But probably you'd see a net uplift since there'd be more potential realized.maaarsh said:
Given you have no control over systems overseas (in the thought experiment where you, terrifyingly, have control on this island) how much relative educational & economic performance are you willing to sacrifice for more egalitarianism? Or is it a panacea and closing the best schools will also improve the overall average?kinabalu said:
That's a very fair and clarifying question. Where have you been all my life?JosiasJessop said:
Okay, let's put it this way. You want a change. What is the output of that change? What is the end result you want?kinabalu said:
Yes I am a parent.
It is sober. It's not an extreme position. The fact it is painted as such says a great deal about how relaxed we are about privilege and inequality.
No I haven't decided all private schools are evil. Or indeed any of them. I have no personal criticism of those who use private schools or personal prejudice against those who went to one.
Some of my best friends ... 🙂
But my strong and considered view is that they contribute significantly to our imo far too unequal society. Since I'm egalitarian inclined I'd like to see this addressed. Call that ideology if you like. It's not a dirty word in my book. You need some otherwise you're just flapping around with anecdote and tinker.
The output is a society where the link between parental bank balance and life prospects is significantly weaker than it is today.
I think an egalitarian education system would contribute greatly to that. And I think the private schools are a serious impediment to creating an egalitarian education system.
I define an egalitarian education system as one where a similar - and high - standard of schooling is available to all children. It will never be perfectly achievable but this should be the goal.
The scholarships are only there so they can do the whole charity tax dodge bollocks.0 -
What an utterly ludicrous analysis.HYUFD said:
Genuine socialists are interested in outcomes, equality of outcome.JosiasJessop said:
LOL. I rather think you're off aim there. I prescribe attendance at a CCF course.OnlyLivingBoy said:
Try not to trip over your silver spoon while you're running, old chap.JosiasJessop said:
If you find it bewildering, perhaps you should have got a better education.OnlyLivingBoy said:
Very well put. I find it bewildering that anyone would object to this argument, although I guess the privileged will always seek to maintain their privilege.kinabalu said:
That's a very fair and clarifying question. Where have you been all my life?JosiasJessop said:
Okay, let's put it this way. You want a change. What is the output of that change? What is the end result you want?kinabalu said:
Yes I am a parent.
It is sober. It's not an extreme position. The fact it is painted as such says a great deal about how relaxed we are about privilege and inequality.
No I haven't decided all private schools are evil. Or indeed any of them. I have no personal criticism of those who use private schools or personal prejudice against those who went to one.
Some of my best friends ... 🙂
But my strong and considered view is that they contribute significantly to our imo far too unequal society. Since I'm egalitarian inclined I'd like to see this addressed. Call that ideology if you like. It's not a dirty word in my book. You need some otherwise you're just flapping around with anecdote and tinker.
The output is a society where the link between parental bank balance and life prospects is significantly weaker than it is today.
I think an egalitarian education system would contribute greatly to that. And I think the private schools are a serious impediment to creating an egalitarian education system.
I define an egalitarian education system as one where a similar - and high - standard of schooling is available to all children. It will never be perfectly achievable but this should be the goal. (runs for cover)
But your comments hint that it's not outcomes you are interested in, but class hatred.
That is why they wanted to close the grammar schools as they meant too many working class pupils were becoming higher earning professionals and abandoning their Labour roots and becoming property owning Tories.
The same reason they opposed council house sales, as voters who move from social housing to owning a property are again more likely to become Tories and class traitors.
In a socialists ideal world everyone would work for the public sector, live in a council house, send their kids to an average comprehensive and vote Labour. The last thing they want is too much ambition and equality of opportunity3 -
No, that is the endpoint of socialism.Mexicanpete said:
What an utterly ludicrous analysis.HYUFD said:
Genuine socialists are interested in outcomes, equality of outcome.JosiasJessop said:
LOL. I rather think you're off aim there. I prescribe attendance at a CCF course.OnlyLivingBoy said:
Try not to trip over your silver spoon while you're running, old chap.JosiasJessop said:
If you find it bewildering, perhaps you should have got a better education.OnlyLivingBoy said:
Very well put. I find it bewildering that anyone would object to this argument, although I guess the privileged will always seek to maintain their privilege.kinabalu said:
That's a very fair and clarifying question. Where have you been all my life?JosiasJessop said:
Okay, let's put it this way. You want a change. What is the output of that change? What is the end result you want?kinabalu said:
Yes I am a parent.
It is sober. It's not an extreme position. The fact it is painted as such says a great deal about how relaxed we are about privilege and inequality.
No I haven't decided all private schools are evil. Or indeed any of them. I have no personal criticism of those who use private schools or personal prejudice against those who went to one.
Some of my best friends ... 🙂
But my strong and considered view is that they contribute significantly to our imo far too unequal society. Since I'm egalitarian inclined I'd like to see this addressed. Call that ideology if you like. It's not a dirty word in my book. You need some otherwise you're just flapping around with anecdote and tinker.
The output is a society where the link between parental bank balance and life prospects is significantly weaker than it is today.
I think an egalitarian education system would contribute greatly to that. And I think the private schools are a serious impediment to creating an egalitarian education system.
I define an egalitarian education system as one where a similar - and high - standard of schooling is available to all children. It will never be perfectly achievable but this should be the goal. (runs for cover)
But your comments hint that it's not outcomes you are interested in, but class hatred.
That is why they wanted to close the grammar schools as they meant too many working class pupils were becoming higher earning professionals and abandoning their Labour roots and becoming property owning Tories.
The same reason they opposed council house sales, as voters who move from social housing to owning a property are again more likely to become Tories and class traitors.
In a socialists ideal world everyone would work for the public sector, live in a council house, send their kids to an average comprehensive and vote Labour. The last thing they want is too much ambition and equality of opportunity
Every party seeks to expand its core vote. Labour's core vote is public sector workers living in social housing, just as the Tories core vote is private sector workers and those who own their own property0 -
From an SNP POV, there's no difference between not giving them what they want and being full of bad qualities.Charles said:
I imagine that Sturgeon wants to meet him as an equal and he’s not willing to give her those public images (press conference with flags etc).malcolmg said:
Coward as usual, only wants to meet patsies who bow and scrape. What a useless piece of merde.CarlottaVance said:NEW: ‘I look forward to meeting you soon.’ @BorisJohnson declines @NicolaSturgeon’s invitation for a meeting during his imminent visit to Scotland. But says he wants a ‘structured forum’ so devolved admins can work with UK govt.
https://twitter.com/joepike/status/1422597659647516672?s=20
So there’s nothing cowardly about it, just rational calculation0 -
Free schools and academies are fine, but they are just Comprehensive schools with headed notepaper. I am not saying this is a bad thing, I went to a Comprehensive school and it was great. My kids go to an Academy. It is just the same as my school (probably a bit worse TBH).HYUFD said:
There are free schools plus academies now thanks to Blair and Cameron.TimS said:On private schools, this issue only seems to exist to a problematic extent in Britain. I think part of the fault is our binary approach to public and private sector.
Private schools are hugely expensive on the whole and only becoming more so. As a result they become ever more exclusive reserves of the upper middle classes and the gap between their outcomes and those of most other schools gets larger. There is pitifully little cross pollination, no intermediate or mixed models.
Where are the easyschools, or the state schools with privately funded sixth forms, or the state-private joint ventures? How about means tested school fees, or school fees regulated by government, as happens in telecoms and energy markets? The most we ever seem to manage is business sponsorships of the occasional academy school. I’m not saying these would all work (and we all remember the excesses of PFI), but there is little or no experimentation. Two systems living an almost mutually exclusive existence.
Still a few grammars around as well and most public schools are trying to expand their bursary provision1 -
Clinical evidence that the pandemic from 1889 to 1891 commonly called the Russian flu might have been an earlier coronavirus pandemic
https://sfamjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/1751-7915.138890 -
Well, a lot of them are paying the money because in the state system they'll just be surrounded by a load of awful people. Not an admirable attitude from either side of the fence.OnlyLivingBoy said:
Why bother? Smart kids will do well regardless, and they'll just be surrounded by a load of awful people.IshmaelZ said:
Lots of them would otherwise be wealthy but aren't because they are shelling out 36,000 per year per child out of taxed income, which is a fuck of a lot of money to almost anyone. I don't say that like it's a good thing; there's lots of cases of more or less conscious parental resentment (especially when one parent is keener then the other on private education) and child guilt. The boarding thing doesn't help either.OnlyLivingBoy said:
Yeah but most of them are wealthy, unless these schools have a magic money tree growing in their ample grounds that enable them to spend much more per pupil than local state schools while charging no fees.JosiasJessop said:
I should perhaps mention that many kids going to private schools don't have 'rich' parents. Many are on scholarships or subsidised, and many parents scrimp and save to send their kids to the school.OnlyLivingBoy said:
But Kinabulu, if you're not smart enough to have a rich daddy then how much potential have you really got?kinabalu said:
It's not levelling down or up. It's levelling. But probably you'd see a net uplift since there'd be more potential realized.maaarsh said:
Given you have no control over systems overseas (in the thought experiment where you, terrifyingly, have control on this island) how much relative educational & economic performance are you willing to sacrifice for more egalitarianism? Or is it a panacea and closing the best schools will also improve the overall average?kinabalu said:
That's a very fair and clarifying question. Where have you been all my life?JosiasJessop said:
Okay, let's put it this way. You want a change. What is the output of that change? What is the end result you want?kinabalu said:
Yes I am a parent.
It is sober. It's not an extreme position. The fact it is painted as such says a great deal about how relaxed we are about privilege and inequality.
No I haven't decided all private schools are evil. Or indeed any of them. I have no personal criticism of those who use private schools or personal prejudice against those who went to one.
Some of my best friends ... 🙂
But my strong and considered view is that they contribute significantly to our imo far too unequal society. Since I'm egalitarian inclined I'd like to see this addressed. Call that ideology if you like. It's not a dirty word in my book. You need some otherwise you're just flapping around with anecdote and tinker.
The output is a society where the link between parental bank balance and life prospects is significantly weaker than it is today.
I think an egalitarian education system would contribute greatly to that. And I think the private schools are a serious impediment to creating an egalitarian education system.
I define an egalitarian education system as one where a similar - and high - standard of schooling is available to all children. It will never be perfectly achievable but this should be the goal.
The scholarships are only there so they can do the whole charity tax dodge bollocks.0 -
The King Henry VI Foundation - which supports Eton College - is a serious educational charity. For example:JosiasJessop said:
It's not in the least bit sober. You're looking at it from an ideological viewpoint, not one of what results you want to get. You've decided that private schools are evil, and you want to abolish them whatever the end result of that may be (and I doubt it would be positive).kinabalu said:
They aren't screeches, it's a sober assessment of a situation whereby affluent people purchasing educational advantage for their children feeds inequality. And it's only ideological in the sense that it's making a value judgement, placing a reduction in inequality above the right of affluent parents to purchase that advantage. The fact that a wealthy family background well still be an advantage is no argument for not reducing this advantage.JosiasJessop said:
Something Blair and Labour's pitiful cries of 'education, education, education' failed to understand ...RobD said:
You could also use those figures to argue that Singapore's spending is much more inefficient. The UK spends half as much and still doesn't do too badly. Success isn't gauged on how much money you spend.JosiasJessop said:
This is where linkies would help. Secondary school is just below half of a child's education (and that depends on the educational system run in a country). What about spending on primary schools?OnlyLivingBoy said:
That's incorrect. According to the World Bank, Singapore spent 21.6% of its GDP per capita on each secondary school pupil in the most recent year for which data are available (2017) while the UK spent 21.2% (2016). Since Singapore's GDP per capita is approximately 50% higher than ours, this means that they spent about 50% more per pupil than we did. Which I suppose could account for their higher PISA score.HYUFD said:
Singapore spends far less than we do as a percentage of its gdp but is top of the PISA rankings nowOnlyLivingBoy said:
We know that wealthy people think a lot of money should be spent on educating children, from revealed preference. They just don't want other people's kids to have that kind of money spent on them.TOPPING said:And fpt:
Private schools are a symptom not a cause. Take them away and parents will find a zillion ways to give their children a "better" start in life - for a start they will have £40k after tax to play with to do so.OnlyLivingBoy said:
You keep saying this, despite the evidence that grammar schools get captured by the middle class via tutoring and prep schools. If grammar schools were these incredible engines of social mobility, then Kent (where they still exist) would be a classless society. Anyone who has spent more than a few minutes in Kent will know that the opposite is the case.HYUFD said:
The best instrument we had for getting people from average or below average income backgrounds into top positions was of course the grammar schools.OnlyLivingBoy said:
The whole rationale of the state is to prevent people's choices from harming other people. Otherwise we wouldn't need it, we could all just do whatever we want.felix said:
No - it's about not letting the state decide everything and accepting that individuals and indeed parents have the right to make choices - and that those choices have consequences which no amount of state engineering can, or should negate.kinabalu said:
That's just the old "if we can't totally deal with an issue let's not deal with it at all" shtick.HYUFD said:
They are still not going to send their kids to the average or below average local comp.kinabalu said:
For sure. It's kind of a tax cut for the rich. In fact that's how I'd sell it in the drawing rooms and boardrooms of England.IshmaelZ said:
I can promise you there's also people who can and do afford it who'd be secretly not wholly disgruntled if the option were denied them, and they had to spend the money on horses and yachts instead, dammit.kinabalu said:
I think that is making the perfect the enemy of the good. Elitism can be reduced but not eradicated. In fact you shouldn't even try to eradicate it. That leads to totalitarianism and - yes - elites. Worse ones. I'm just thinking about what's realistic in England 2021. This could be possible one day. But not this day, I'm fully aware of that. It's electoral poison. People who can't afford this privilege still support it. Until this changes, no chance of reform, I'll be talking to the hand.IshmaelZ said:
Cutting the head off a hydra, mate. Everywhere has oligarchies, nowhere else has public schools (except in the sense of actually public actual schools). If you strike them down, they will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine.kinabalu said:
Gets my goat it really does. Private schools have to go. It's the only way imo.Foxy said:
And the Lord that drew up the shortlist was enabled by David Cameron, who was in the same dissolute dining club.kinabalu said:
Yes. What we need is a tape with Johnson saying, "Ah, Fergie! He was in the old Bullers with me. Sound as a pound. Hired."MattW said:FPT:
I don't need one.Gardenwalker said:
Despite your archaeology you haven’t really found a good reason why Boris should be picking an old school friend to head the Boris-monitoring committee, have you?MattW said:
I think what we may get here at some time is similar to what happened to selection of Bishops, where the process was that the PM got 2 names and a theoretical convention that they could choose either - which has only been used once in 100-200 appointments.OldKingCole said:
At this level it looks bad, though. However, I agree that we've not seen evidence that, for example, Johnson looked at the shortlist and said 'He's the one. Know him. Good chap' or similar. Nor have we seen any suggestion, AFAIK, that a selection committee produced three names in order of preference, and the Good Chap was third.MattW said:
That's the Indy. And there seems to be not a shred of actual evidence of malpractice.OldKingCole said:
Jobs for the sons and daughters of friends is as old as jobs themselves. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't; sometimes it's not the best way of hiring someone but sometimes it can work. Rather depends on how how up the chain the job is.Foxy said:
I don't think I have ever defended cronyism in the Labour Party either.JosiasJessop said:
That is wrong IMO.Foxy said:What an extraordinary coincidence that the best person to be on the anti-sleaze watchdog just happened to be an old chum of Johnsons from his Bullingdon Club days.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/boris-johnson-sleaze-committee-standards-public-life-b1895212.html
However, I remember some Corbyn fans on here defending McDonnell employing Corbyn's son in a taxpayer-funded role. By an astonishing coincidence, the son of his best bud was the best candidate for the job.
(Hint, he wasn't.)
If we want to stop people hiring friends, family and chums to roles, especially to taxpayer-funded roles, then it needs to apply equally to all.
The nepotism and Chumocracy does show how illusory "taking back control" was.
Has anyone provided any evidence that Johnson had a corrupt role in the process, or how the process worked such that Johnson could manipulate it? Or that the member appointed is unfit to be on the Committee or is corrupt?
Or is this just Hoof-in-Mouth Rayner howling at the moon because it is Tuesday and she still does not have anything to say?
"You were in a student club with him 35 years ago" is some way beyond farfetched.
The only possible chink I can see is if the PM is supplied with say 50 names, from which he then gets to choose who he wants, and that would still require a lot more evidence that we have.
It's quite a dangerous argument to make because it shrinks the pool of acceptable candidates - 'No, you went to the same school when you were six!" - and undermines the expectation of personal integrity.
That has now been replaced with the second name being a "reserve" if eg the first one dies.
Quite concerning, though, is the dire quality of opposition a reliance on painting this stuff in poster paints indicates.
I was pointing out that this particular outrage bus is fuelled by BS and hot air.
Short of that, as Charles would stress, nothing to see and unfair to insinuate.
It's almost like a self replicating oligarchy.
They will make sure they live in the most expensive postcodes and thus the locals schools their kids attend will still be those mainly attended by the offspring of the wealthy.
So you would have to ban expensive detached houses too and make everyone live in a 2 bed semi or council flat
I want the state to do its best to create a level playing field so that (a) everyone gets a fair shot in life and (b) the best people end up in top positions. It should be fairly evident that that's not happening right now, and private schools play a big part in that failure.
Labour of course could not have that so abolished most of them, for socialists equality of outcome is more important than equality of opportunity
Personally I am all for equality of opportunity - equality of outcome is impossible in education because some people are just smarter than others. The way to get equality of opportunity is to fund all schools better, rigorously enforce standards, pay teachers better to get good teachers to stay in the profession, and to make sure there are no kids too hungry to learn.
So you've got to go back to the root cause and then you are either build a Communist state or become like Finland, which would mean a root and branch transformation of our schooling - and university - system.
Problem is, as the man said, I wouldn't have started from here. Today we have bog standard comprehensives, Eton, Winchester and Oxbridge. All that would need to be reformed to get to "free" education.
I imagine that the extra percentage of GDP to be spent plus the requirement for all teachers to have a masters degree might also cause some problems, politically, as an example.
You say that spending more on schools would cause political problems. Why is that? The problem we have is that the constituency for spending more money on schools is too small, because many of those who feel most passionately about education have taken matters into their own hands. In many cases they have become opponents of funding state schools more generously in the process.
Incidentally, UK spending has gone down from a peak of 31.2% of per capita GDP in 2010, thanks to the Tories.
I used to naively thing that comparing education systems between schools, yet alone countries, was easy. Now I've got a kid in school, I can see it's fraught with difficulties.
I'd prefer to look at the functional illiteracy and innumeracy levels of a country: kids we are failing at a much younger age.
Education starts at home. If parents do not have the means to help their children learn, then their kids are at an automatic disadvantage. That doesn't mean they cannot overcome that disadvantage; it just means they will find it harder.
This is why all the screeches about the evils of private schools are just ideological rubbish. Parents with the resources to send their kids to public school will just use that money to give their kids other advantages.
We need to spend money on the potential parents the education system has missed, preferably before they become parents.
The rest of your post I agree with.
In addition, not all private schools are evil. For all the talk of Eton, mot private schools are less privileged affairs. For instance, I went to a Woodard Foundation school. https://woodardschools.co.uk/ where many pupils were local and many were subsidised.
Forgive me for asking (and you don't need to reply), but are you a parent? Having my own kid enter the educational system has opened my eyes to the advantages some kids have compared to others.
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9727755/amp/Eton-fund-three-new-sixth-form-colleges-aimed-young-people-live-deprived-areas.html
1 -
Also: many of the "public schools" are catering for an international clientele far more than they used to do in, say, the 1970s.TimS said:On private schools, this issue only seems to exist to a problematic extent in Britain. I think part of the fault is our binary approach to public and private sector.
Private schools are hugely expensive on the whole and only becoming more so. As a result they become ever more exclusive reserves of the upper middle classes and the gap between their outcomes and those of most other schools gets larger. There is pitifully little cross pollination, no intermediate or mixed models.
Where are the easyschools, or the state schools with privately funded sixth forms, or the state-private joint ventures? How about means tested school fees, or school fees regulated by government, as happens in telecoms and energy markets? The most we ever seem to manage is business sponsorships of the occasional academy school. I’m not saying these would all work (and we all remember the excesses of PFI), but there is little or no experimentation. Two systems living an almost mutually exclusive existence.1 -
According to Nate Silver, GB pretty much on track in the Olympics, China and especially ROC outperforming, Japan and US under-performing
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/olympics-medal-count/?cid=rrpromo0 -
Not sure the Tory core vote is exactly that anymore. Things have changed.HYUFD said:
No, that is the endpoint of socialism.Mexicanpete said:
What an utterly ludicrous analysis.HYUFD said:
Genuine socialists are interested in outcomes, equality of outcome.JosiasJessop said:
LOL. I rather think you're off aim there. I prescribe attendance at a CCF course.OnlyLivingBoy said:
Try not to trip over your silver spoon while you're running, old chap.JosiasJessop said:
If you find it bewildering, perhaps you should have got a better education.OnlyLivingBoy said:
Very well put. I find it bewildering that anyone would object to this argument, although I guess the privileged will always seek to maintain their privilege.kinabalu said:
That's a very fair and clarifying question. Where have you been all my life?JosiasJessop said:
Okay, let's put it this way. You want a change. What is the output of that change? What is the end result you want?kinabalu said:
Yes I am a parent.
It is sober. It's not an extreme position. The fact it is painted as such says a great deal about how relaxed we are about privilege and inequality.
No I haven't decided all private schools are evil. Or indeed any of them. I have no personal criticism of those who use private schools or personal prejudice against those who went to one.
Some of my best friends ... 🙂
But my strong and considered view is that they contribute significantly to our imo far too unequal society. Since I'm egalitarian inclined I'd like to see this addressed. Call that ideology if you like. It's not a dirty word in my book. You need some otherwise you're just flapping around with anecdote and tinker.
The output is a society where the link between parental bank balance and life prospects is significantly weaker than it is today.
I think an egalitarian education system would contribute greatly to that. And I think the private schools are a serious impediment to creating an egalitarian education system.
I define an egalitarian education system as one where a similar - and high - standard of schooling is available to all children. It will never be perfectly achievable but this should be the goal. (runs for cover)
But your comments hint that it's not outcomes you are interested in, but class hatred.
That is why they wanted to close the grammar schools as they meant too many working class pupils were becoming higher earning professionals and abandoning their Labour roots and becoming property owning Tories.
The same reason they opposed council house sales, as voters who move from social housing to owning a property are again more likely to become Tories and class traitors.
In a socialists ideal world everyone would work for the public sector, live in a council house, send their kids to an average comprehensive and vote Labour. The last thing they want is too much ambition and equality of opportunity
Every party seeks to expand its core vote. Labour's core vote is public sector workers living in social housing, just as the Tories core vote is private sector workers and those who own their own property
I say that as a private sector worker with my own property who by most measures of demographic, financial and educational profiling is a member of the Lib Dem core vote.
0 -
Indeed. Plenty of wealthy families in the Far East and Russia and India and Nigeria send their children to English public schools and then British or US universitiesCarnyx said:
Also: many of the "public schools" are catering for an international clientele far more than they used to do in, say, the 1970s.TimS said:On private schools, this issue only seems to exist to a problematic extent in Britain. I think part of the fault is our binary approach to public and private sector.
Private schools are hugely expensive on the whole and only becoming more so. As a result they become ever more exclusive reserves of the upper middle classes and the gap between their outcomes and those of most other schools gets larger. There is pitifully little cross pollination, no intermediate or mixed models.
Where are the easyschools, or the state schools with privately funded sixth forms, or the state-private joint ventures? How about means tested school fees, or school fees regulated by government, as happens in telecoms and energy markets? The most we ever seem to manage is business sponsorships of the occasional academy school. I’m not saying these would all work (and we all remember the excesses of PFI), but there is little or no experimentation. Two systems living an almost mutually exclusive existence.0 -
Yes, with the facilities and associated costs that requires.Carnyx said:
Also: many of the "public schools" are catering for an international clientele far more than they used to do in, say, the 1970s.TimS said:On private schools, this issue only seems to exist to a problematic extent in Britain. I think part of the fault is our binary approach to public and private sector.
Private schools are hugely expensive on the whole and only becoming more so. As a result they become ever more exclusive reserves of the upper middle classes and the gap between their outcomes and those of most other schools gets larger. There is pitifully little cross pollination, no intermediate or mixed models.
Where are the easyschools, or the state schools with privately funded sixth forms, or the state-private joint ventures? How about means tested school fees, or school fees regulated by government, as happens in telecoms and energy markets? The most we ever seem to manage is business sponsorships of the occasional academy school. I’m not saying these would all work (and we all remember the excesses of PFI), but there is little or no experimentation. Two systems living an almost mutually exclusive existence.0 -
Yes, I think that's right. Obviously he wouldn't be as bad as Boris, but beyond that it's hard to say.Stuartinromford said:
It's why he's CofE now, for sure. But as someone bright, personable, numerate and ambitious, it was always a likely step on his career path.Richard_Nabavi said:
I thought he became Chancellor because he had less self-respect than Javid.Charles said:
I don’t think you can say it’s because he is Chancellor he’s a strong candidate to be PMHYUFD said:As Chancellor of the Exchequer it is fairly obvious Sunak should be favourite to succeed Boris as PM as long as the Tories stay in power.
Of the postwar changes of PM in government, 3 of the new PMs were the Chancellor, Macmillan, Major and Brown, 1 was a former Chancellor, Callaghan. 3 were Foreign Secretary Eden and Home and Callaghan, 1 was a former Foreign Secretary, Boris and 1 was Home Secretary, May.
So merely by being Chancellor Sunak is favourite to succeed with historical precedent suggesting Raab would be his only serious rival. Though credit to PT for spotting him before he got the role
He’s Chancellor because he’s a powerful politician and it’s a desirable role. Those attributes also make him a serious contender for PM
But he has got there awfully young, and he doesn't have much political experience outside the Treasury. Which (together with his own political instincts) might explain why he seems to have bought so thoroughly into a cost of everything / value of nothing mindset. OK, on one hand it's his job, and it was even more so when he was Chief Sec. But there's not much in his personal or political CV to balance it out. It's hard to imagine him following in the steps of John Major, pointing out to his PM that it must be awfully hard to keep a room warm in the depths of a cold snap and that it was time to unlock the emergency fuel allowance.
And there is the whole willingness to wear Dom's gimp mask thing. Understandable, but no house points for doing that.
So I'm not sure he'd be a great PM if there was the metaphorical bus accident tonight. Give him a few years, quite possibly. On the other hand, he'd be an improvement on the incumbent. A bit like PJ O'Rourke on the Clinton-Trump election; Clinton might have been a rotten candidate, but she would have been a bad president in a normal way, which would have been better then the alternative.0 -
Hailshsm had many names during his life. At this point he was not “Mr Hogg”.RochdalePioneers said:
To a point - and that is certainly what Mr Hogg was warning about. My specific point is about regions and nations where the vote is sharply against the government. Whilst the government is duly elected, in the region / nation in question they do not agree and have voted accordingly.maaarsh said:
That punchline works for anyone moaning about any government policy they don't like. Lockdowns were elective dictatorship - a majority are in favour of removing what would be unargued human rights so it's imposed on 100% of people. But that's not a line of argument which tends to make many converts.RochdalePioneers said:
Whilst that is true, telling Scotland that they need to suck it up isn't a good way to promote the union. The challenge for Shagger is that he is trying to build a centralised control system where his magnificence will permeate into all things.CarlottaVance said:
He was elected in the United Kingdom - which Scotland voted to remain part of.Carnyx said:
Nevertheless, she was elected in Scotland. He wasn't.DavidL said:
There has been a strong tendency in the UK government under both Cameron and May to pussy foot around Sturgeon and try to give her her way where possible in the slightly bizarre thought that this would keep her quiet. Under Boris that has changed. She is not invited to COP26 even although it is in Glasgow. He is not interested in giving her a photoshot with him at Bute House. She wanted to have a "greenport" instead of a freeport in Scotland. She was told to get lost. There is more UK government advertising on local Scottish radio. His response to a demand for a further referendum has so far been blunt.MrEd said:
I don't see the disadvantage. It won't change many minds one way or another in Scotland I would imagine. And it winds up NS.stodge said:Interesting to see the UK Prime Minister treating the Scottish First Minister as though she were the Mayor of Manchester or the leader of Surrey County Council.
I'm not sure it's helpful but no doubt it plays well in some circles.
Boris has worked out that playing nice with Nicola is playing on her terms. He isn't minded to.
Like Thatcher before him, he can't stand the idea that in places people actively vote for the other option. So instead of accepting that the democratic will is different in places, like Thatcher he wants to abolish democracy. London votes against me? Scrap the GLC! Scotland votes against me, scrap devolution!
It is Hailsham's Elective Dictatorship, the tyranny of the masses.
We either have elected and empowered regions and nations where Westminster respects their mandate and the will of the people, or we do not.0 -
It still is, certainly in terms of property ownership.TimS said:
Not sure the Tory core vote is exactly that anymore. Things have changed.HYUFD said:
No, that is the endpoint of socialism.Mexicanpete said:
What an utterly ludicrous analysis.HYUFD said:
Genuine socialists are interested in outcomes, equality of outcome.JosiasJessop said:
LOL. I rather think you're off aim there. I prescribe attendance at a CCF course.OnlyLivingBoy said:
Try not to trip over your silver spoon while you're running, old chap.JosiasJessop said:
If you find it bewildering, perhaps you should have got a better education.OnlyLivingBoy said:
Very well put. I find it bewildering that anyone would object to this argument, although I guess the privileged will always seek to maintain their privilege.kinabalu said:
That's a very fair and clarifying question. Where have you been all my life?JosiasJessop said:
Okay, let's put it this way. You want a change. What is the output of that change? What is the end result you want?kinabalu said:
Yes I am a parent.
It is sober. It's not an extreme position. The fact it is painted as such says a great deal about how relaxed we are about privilege and inequality.
No I haven't decided all private schools are evil. Or indeed any of them. I have no personal criticism of those who use private schools or personal prejudice against those who went to one.
Some of my best friends ... 🙂
But my strong and considered view is that they contribute significantly to our imo far too unequal society. Since I'm egalitarian inclined I'd like to see this addressed. Call that ideology if you like. It's not a dirty word in my book. You need some otherwise you're just flapping around with anecdote and tinker.
The output is a society where the link between parental bank balance and life prospects is significantly weaker than it is today.
I think an egalitarian education system would contribute greatly to that. And I think the private schools are a serious impediment to creating an egalitarian education system.
I define an egalitarian education system as one where a similar - and high - standard of schooling is available to all children. It will never be perfectly achievable but this should be the goal. (runs for cover)
But your comments hint that it's not outcomes you are interested in, but class hatred.
That is why they wanted to close the grammar schools as they meant too many working class pupils were becoming higher earning professionals and abandoning their Labour roots and becoming property owning Tories.
The same reason they opposed council house sales, as voters who move from social housing to owning a property are again more likely to become Tories and class traitors.
In a socialists ideal world everyone would work for the public sector, live in a council house, send their kids to an average comprehensive and vote Labour. The last thing they want is too much ambition and equality of opportunity
Every party seeks to expand its core vote. Labour's core vote is public sector workers living in social housing, just as the Tories core vote is private sector workers and those who own their own property
I say that as a private sector worker with my own property who by most measures of demographic, financial and educational profiling is a member of the Lib Dem core vote.
At the last general election for example the Tories won 57% of those who owned their own property while just 22% of property owners voted Labour. By contrast Labour won 45% of social renters to just 33% who voted Tory
https://www.ipsos.com/ipsos-mori/en-uk/how-britain-voted-2019-election0 -
His name was Mr Quintin Hogg. The absurd titles aside his name was still Quintin Hogg.Charles said:
Hailshsm had many names during his life. At this point he was not “Mr Hogg”.RochdalePioneers said:
To a point - and that is certainly what Mr Hogg was warning about. My specific point is about regions and nations where the vote is sharply against the government. Whilst the government is duly elected, in the region / nation in question they do not agree and have voted accordingly.maaarsh said:
That punchline works for anyone moaning about any government policy they don't like. Lockdowns were elective dictatorship - a majority are in favour of removing what would be unargued human rights so it's imposed on 100% of people. But that's not a line of argument which tends to make many converts.RochdalePioneers said:
Whilst that is true, telling Scotland that they need to suck it up isn't a good way to promote the union. The challenge for Shagger is that he is trying to build a centralised control system where his magnificence will permeate into all things.CarlottaVance said:
He was elected in the United Kingdom - which Scotland voted to remain part of.Carnyx said:
Nevertheless, she was elected in Scotland. He wasn't.DavidL said:
There has been a strong tendency in the UK government under both Cameron and May to pussy foot around Sturgeon and try to give her her way where possible in the slightly bizarre thought that this would keep her quiet. Under Boris that has changed. She is not invited to COP26 even although it is in Glasgow. He is not interested in giving her a photoshot with him at Bute House. She wanted to have a "greenport" instead of a freeport in Scotland. She was told to get lost. There is more UK government advertising on local Scottish radio. His response to a demand for a further referendum has so far been blunt.MrEd said:
I don't see the disadvantage. It won't change many minds one way or another in Scotland I would imagine. And it winds up NS.stodge said:Interesting to see the UK Prime Minister treating the Scottish First Minister as though she were the Mayor of Manchester or the leader of Surrey County Council.
I'm not sure it's helpful but no doubt it plays well in some circles.
Boris has worked out that playing nice with Nicola is playing on her terms. He isn't minded to.
Like Thatcher before him, he can't stand the idea that in places people actively vote for the other option. So instead of accepting that the democratic will is different in places, like Thatcher he wants to abolish democracy. London votes against me? Scrap the GLC! Scotland votes against me, scrap devolution!
It is Hailsham's Elective Dictatorship, the tyranny of the masses.
We either have elected and empowered regions and nations where Westminster respects their mandate and the will of the people, or we do not.0 -
Where did it all go wrong, Sandy? Should you have put your foot down when the first bottle of balsamic appeared, or should you have turned a blind eye to that but made a stand on the second?SandyRentool said:Anecdote time:
I took a stroll after work. Very pleasant it was too. Several women had decided that it was warm enough for shorts. Just thought I'd throw that in...
Anyway, I popped in to the local convenience store. Before entering I donned my face covering, but once inside discovered that I was the only person wearing one. Other customers, chap on the till, all bare faced. Next time, no scarf for me.
As an aside, the reason I went was to buy some vinegar. Things have gone badly wrong when you've got a choice of three types of balsamic in the house but no malt vinegar for your chips.1 -
That might be the optimum outcome for someone like Corbyn, who as we all know is a moron, but it isn't for Fabian types, of which I would count myself.HYUFD said:
No, that is the endpoint of socialism.Mexicanpete said:
What an utterly ludicrous analysis.HYUFD said:
Genuine socialists are interested in outcomes, equality of outcome.JosiasJessop said:
LOL. I rather think you're off aim there. I prescribe attendance at a CCF course.OnlyLivingBoy said:
Try not to trip over your silver spoon while you're running, old chap.JosiasJessop said:
If you find it bewildering, perhaps you should have got a better education.OnlyLivingBoy said:
Very well put. I find it bewildering that anyone would object to this argument, although I guess the privileged will always seek to maintain their privilege.kinabalu said:
That's a very fair and clarifying question. Where have you been all my life?JosiasJessop said:
Okay, let's put it this way. You want a change. What is the output of that change? What is the end result you want?kinabalu said:
Yes I am a parent.
It is sober. It's not an extreme position. The fact it is painted as such says a great deal about how relaxed we are about privilege and inequality.
No I haven't decided all private schools are evil. Or indeed any of them. I have no personal criticism of those who use private schools or personal prejudice against those who went to one.
Some of my best friends ... 🙂
But my strong and considered view is that they contribute significantly to our imo far too unequal society. Since I'm egalitarian inclined I'd like to see this addressed. Call that ideology if you like. It's not a dirty word in my book. You need some otherwise you're just flapping around with anecdote and tinker.
The output is a society where the link between parental bank balance and life prospects is significantly weaker than it is today.
I think an egalitarian education system would contribute greatly to that. And I think the private schools are a serious impediment to creating an egalitarian education system.
I define an egalitarian education system as one where a similar - and high - standard of schooling is available to all children. It will never be perfectly achievable but this should be the goal. (runs for cover)
But your comments hint that it's not outcomes you are interested in, but class hatred.
That is why they wanted to close the grammar schools as they meant too many working class pupils were becoming higher earning professionals and abandoning their Labour roots and becoming property owning Tories.
The same reason they opposed council house sales, as voters who move from social housing to owning a property are again more likely to become Tories and class traitors.
In a socialists ideal world everyone would work for the public sector, live in a council house, send their kids to an average comprehensive and vote Labour. The last thing they want is too much ambition and equality of opportunity
Every party seeks to expand its core vote. Labour's core vote is public sector workers living in social housing, just as the Tories core vote is private sector workers and those who own their own property
Your analysis is normally thoughtful, that summary was straight out of a GBNews whining-conversation piece lead-in.1 -
An attribute that is common among powerful politicians. They kick down and kiss up.Richard_Nabavi said:
I thought he became Chancellor because he had less self-respect than Javid.Charles said:
I don’t think you can say it’s because he is Chancellor he’s a strong candidate to be PMHYUFD said:As Chancellor of the Exchequer it is fairly obvious Sunak should be favourite to succeed Boris as PM as long as the Tories stay in power.
Of the postwar changes of PM in government, 3 of the new PMs were the Chancellor, Macmillan, Major and Brown, 1 was a former Chancellor, Callaghan. 3 were Foreign Secretary Eden and Home and Callaghan, 1 was a former Foreign Secretary, Boris and 1 was Home Secretary, May.
So merely by being Chancellor Sunak is favourite to succeed with historical precedent suggesting Raab would be his only serious rival. Though credit to PT for spotting him before he got the role
He’s Chancellor because he’s a powerful politician and it’s a desirable role. Those attributes also make him a serious contender for PM0 -
Couldn't he just open a [edit] jar of pickled onions and empty out a little vinegar?Richard_Nabavi said:
Where did it all go wrong, Sandy? Should you have put your foot down when the first bottle of balsamic appeared, or should you have turned a blind eye to that but made a stand on the second?SandyRentool said:Anecdote time:
I took a stroll after work. Very pleasant it was too. Several women had decided that it was warm enough for shorts. Just thought I'd throw that in...
Anyway, I popped in to the local convenience store. Before entering I donned my face covering, but once inside discovered that I was the only person wearing one. Other customers, chap on the till, all bare faced. Next time, no scarf for me.
As an aside, the reason I went was to buy some vinegar. Things have gone badly wrong when you've got a choice of three types of balsamic in the house but no malt vinegar for your chips.0 -
But I'm not saying removal of this advantage removes all advantages. It won't and also shouldn't. Lots of the advantages that come from parents are because they're good parents, not that they're rich parents. I'm not seeking to interfere with that. Not at all.JosiasJessop said:
Thanks, but I think you're really off-track.kinabalu said:
That's a very fair and clarifying question. Where have you been all my life?JosiasJessop said:
Okay, let's put it this way. You want a change. What is the output of that change? What is the end result you want?kinabalu said:
Yes I am a parent.
It is sober. It's not an extreme position. The fact it is painted as such says a great deal about how relaxed we are about privilege and inequality.
No I haven't decided all private schools are evil. Or indeed any of them. I have no personal criticism of those who use private schools or personal prejudice against those who went to one.
Some of my best friends ... 🙂
But my strong and considered view is that they contribute significantly to our imo far too unequal society. Since I'm egalitarian inclined I'd like to see this addressed. Call that ideology if you like. It's not a dirty word in my book. You need some otherwise you're just flapping around with anecdote and tinker.
The output is a society where the link between parental bank balance and life prospects is significantly weaker than it is today.
I think an egalitarian education system would contribute greatly to that. And I think the private schools are a serious impediment to creating an egalitarian education system.
I define an egalitarian education system as one where a similar - and high - standard of schooling is available to all children. It will never be perfectly achievable but this should be the goal.
People send kids to private school because they think it will give their kids better results and/or prospects in life than sending them to their local state school. It costs them money to do so. In the absence of private school, that money will be spent in other ways to achieve the same aim. everything from home schooling to tutoring. results will still strongly depend on bank balance. Even after-school clubs are an issue.
As an example, we're in a fortunate position where Mrs J earns enough for me not to have to work. This meant I can focus much more on the little 'un, which has proved particularly invaluable during lockdown. How would your egalitarian system make up for that? Or the fact that I could purchase a subscription to Twinkl and other websites during lockdown to help us out (I know a couple of other parents who could not afford it). My son has many more opportunities to do tings because I have a car and can drive - hence our trip to Duxford today. One of his friends does not have such opportunities.
A problem with searching for an 'egalitarian' system is that the starting points are not egalitarian.
I really fail to see how banning private schools will lead to better results for children of either 'rich' or 'poor' parents. In fact, I can see it easily making matters much worse.1 -
My analysis is evidence based, at least, based on 3 years at an Oxbridge College, noting the comparative behaviour (eg drunkenness, drug-taking, treating College staff like shit, not taking work seriously, forming cliques) of state and private school educated people. There was something deeply toxic and unpleasant about the culture that these people seemed to have been raised in. When I see the current government and their corruption, greed and lack of compassion it's not hard to see where it all came from.IshmaelZ said:
Well, a lot of them are paying the money because in the state system they'll just be surrounded by a load of awful people. Not an admirable attitude from either side of the fence.OnlyLivingBoy said:
Why bother? Smart kids will do well regardless, and they'll just be surrounded by a load of awful people.IshmaelZ said:
Lots of them would otherwise be wealthy but aren't because they are shelling out 36,000 per year per child out of taxed income, which is a fuck of a lot of money to almost anyone. I don't say that like it's a good thing; there's lots of cases of more or less conscious parental resentment (especially when one parent is keener then the other on private education) and child guilt. The boarding thing doesn't help either.OnlyLivingBoy said:
Yeah but most of them are wealthy, unless these schools have a magic money tree growing in their ample grounds that enable them to spend much more per pupil than local state schools while charging no fees.JosiasJessop said:
I should perhaps mention that many kids going to private schools don't have 'rich' parents. Many are on scholarships or subsidised, and many parents scrimp and save to send their kids to the school.OnlyLivingBoy said:
But Kinabulu, if you're not smart enough to have a rich daddy then how much potential have you really got?kinabalu said:
It's not levelling down or up. It's levelling. But probably you'd see a net uplift since there'd be more potential realized.maaarsh said:
Given you have no control over systems overseas (in the thought experiment where you, terrifyingly, have control on this island) how much relative educational & economic performance are you willing to sacrifice for more egalitarianism? Or is it a panacea and closing the best schools will also improve the overall average?kinabalu said:
That's a very fair and clarifying question. Where have you been all my life?JosiasJessop said:
Okay, let's put it this way. You want a change. What is the output of that change? What is the end result you want?kinabalu said:
Yes I am a parent.
It is sober. It's not an extreme position. The fact it is painted as such says a great deal about how relaxed we are about privilege and inequality.
No I haven't decided all private schools are evil. Or indeed any of them. I have no personal criticism of those who use private schools or personal prejudice against those who went to one.
Some of my best friends ... 🙂
But my strong and considered view is that they contribute significantly to our imo far too unequal society. Since I'm egalitarian inclined I'd like to see this addressed. Call that ideology if you like. It's not a dirty word in my book. You need some otherwise you're just flapping around with anecdote and tinker.
The output is a society where the link between parental bank balance and life prospects is significantly weaker than it is today.
I think an egalitarian education system would contribute greatly to that. And I think the private schools are a serious impediment to creating an egalitarian education system.
I define an egalitarian education system as one where a similar - and high - standard of schooling is available to all children. It will never be perfectly achievable but this should be the goal.
The scholarships are only there so they can do the whole charity tax dodge bollocks.
I have the money to send my kids to private school but I wouldn't want to expose them to that. They have very nice friends at their local school - hard working, smart, kind, interesting, decent people.1 -
On further investigation - for the first time in my life the comments section of YouTube proves informative - it turns out there were indeed two versions of the theme tune. But there appears to be no recording of the faster version on the internet.Cookie said:
I think this site is brilliant. I sometimes wonder why this site isn't far more widely read, and why we get the same hundred or so posters accounting for 95% of the posts in any one month (is this true? It feels about right). But I suppose on reflection lengthy circular arguments on Scottish independence aren't for everyone.pigeon said:
No. Nothing at the momentTheuniondivvie said:
If you've got some fresh, exciting observations on Brexit or Covid or BJ, knock yersel oot.pigeon said:Is there a rule that this site has to have at least one futile, circular argument about Scottish independence every single day?
Scottish public opinion, which is the ultimate arbiter, was heavily split before the 2014 vote, heavily split afterwards, and is heavily split today. Nothing that has happened in the last seven years - neither Brexit, nor the rise of Boris Johnson, nor elderly pro-Union voters kicking the bucket, nor the pandemic - has caused a fundamental shift either for or against the Union. Nothing. And it shows no imminent sign of changing, either.
Therefore, what is there left to discuss?
(I would imagine that the very encouraging indications of the total number of Covid patients in hospital having levelled off has already been discussed circa 4pm)
On a less-frequented subject, does anyone remember the sitcom 'Morris Minor's Marvellous Motors' from about 1989 - improbably, a spin off of the novelty single 'Stutter Rap'? In my memory, it had a weirdly catchy theme tune, the chorus to which went:
Morris Minor
Never let's you down
gets you round town
Gets you from A to B
Nothing finer
I'd never something something
Something something something something
So that's the car for me.
Except I've just looked this up on YouTube and it turns out the theme tune is far slower and less catchy than I remember and also lines 2,3,6 and 7 are a figment of my imagination.
So either a one-series sitcom had two separate versions of the theme tune or I've completely invented a much better melody and partial additional lyrics for it.
If anyone wants to shed any light on this I'd be most interested.
This, by the way, is the sort of matter you can turn your attention to when on holiday from the real world.0 -
Indeed, and also choice of qualifications - I gather the Int Bacc is much more popular these days. I'm sure a friend told me his child's school doesn't use UK qualifications any more. Which would seem to divorce the public schools even more from the others in the UK from the days when all helped develop such things as Nuffield Science courses.TimS said:
Yes, with the facilities and associated costs that requires.Carnyx said:
Also: many of the "public schools" are catering for an international clientele far more than they used to do in, say, the 1970s.TimS said:On private schools, this issue only seems to exist to a problematic extent in Britain. I think part of the fault is our binary approach to public and private sector.
Private schools are hugely expensive on the whole and only becoming more so. As a result they become ever more exclusive reserves of the upper middle classes and the gap between their outcomes and those of most other schools gets larger. There is pitifully little cross pollination, no intermediate or mixed models.
Where are the easyschools, or the state schools with privately funded sixth forms, or the state-private joint ventures? How about means tested school fees, or school fees regulated by government, as happens in telecoms and energy markets? The most we ever seem to manage is business sponsorships of the occasional academy school. I’m not saying these would all work (and we all remember the excesses of PFI), but there is little or no experimentation. Two systems living an almost mutually exclusive existence.0 -
If he's suggesting that the British team might get to 61 then that would be a pretty strong overall performance: not far short of London (65) or Rio (67) and comfortably ahead of Beijing (51).MrEd said:According to Nate Silver, GB pretty much on track in the Olympics, China and especially ROC outperforming, Japan and US under-performing
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/olympics-medal-count/?cid=rrpromo
Four more medals in boxing and one in sailing are guaranteed, given what's happened so far in the relevant competitions, so it's impossible for the final total to be less than 48.0 -
Yes but most socialists voted for Corbyn, twice.Mexicanpete said:
That might be the optimum outcome for someone like Corbyn, who as we all know is a moron, but it isn't for Fabian types, of which I would count myself.HYUFD said:
No, that is the endpoint of socialism.Mexicanpete said:
What an utterly ludicrous analysis.HYUFD said:
Genuine socialists are interested in outcomes, equality of outcome.JosiasJessop said:
LOL. I rather think you're off aim there. I prescribe attendance at a CCF course.OnlyLivingBoy said:
Try not to trip over your silver spoon while you're running, old chap.JosiasJessop said:
If you find it bewildering, perhaps you should have got a better education.OnlyLivingBoy said:
Very well put. I find it bewildering that anyone would object to this argument, although I guess the privileged will always seek to maintain their privilege.kinabalu said:
That's a very fair and clarifying question. Where have you been all my life?JosiasJessop said:
Okay, let's put it this way. You want a change. What is the output of that change? What is the end result you want?kinabalu said:
Yes I am a parent.
It is sober. It's not an extreme position. The fact it is painted as such says a great deal about how relaxed we are about privilege and inequality.
No I haven't decided all private schools are evil. Or indeed any of them. I have no personal criticism of those who use private schools or personal prejudice against those who went to one.
Some of my best friends ... 🙂
But my strong and considered view is that they contribute significantly to our imo far too unequal society. Since I'm egalitarian inclined I'd like to see this addressed. Call that ideology if you like. It's not a dirty word in my book. You need some otherwise you're just flapping around with anecdote and tinker.
The output is a society where the link between parental bank balance and life prospects is significantly weaker than it is today.
I think an egalitarian education system would contribute greatly to that. And I think the private schools are a serious impediment to creating an egalitarian education system.
I define an egalitarian education system as one where a similar - and high - standard of schooling is available to all children. It will never be perfectly achievable but this should be the goal. (runs for cover)
But your comments hint that it's not outcomes you are interested in, but class hatred.
That is why they wanted to close the grammar schools as they meant too many working class pupils were becoming higher earning professionals and abandoning their Labour roots and becoming property owning Tories.
The same reason they opposed council house sales, as voters who move from social housing to owning a property are again more likely to become Tories and class traitors.
In a socialists ideal world everyone would work for the public sector, live in a council house, send their kids to an average comprehensive and vote Labour. The last thing they want is too much ambition and equality of opportunity
Every party seeks to expand its core vote. Labour's core vote is public sector workers living in social housing, just as the Tories core vote is private sector workers and those who own their own property
Your analysis is normally thoughtful, that summary was straight out of a GBNews whining-conversation piece lead-in.
Not sure if you did?0 -
Come now, HYUFD has unparalleled insights into the minds of socialists, Scots, Sturgeon, Spanish nationalists, Democrats, Republicans, Trump and sundry other groups far removed from the purlieus of Epping.Mexicanpete said:
What an utterly ludicrous analysis.HYUFD said:
Genuine socialists are interested in outcomes, equality of outcome.JosiasJessop said:
LOL. I rather think you're off aim there. I prescribe attendance at a CCF course.OnlyLivingBoy said:
Try not to trip over your silver spoon while you're running, old chap.JosiasJessop said:
If you find it bewildering, perhaps you should have got a better education.OnlyLivingBoy said:
Very well put. I find it bewildering that anyone would object to this argument, although I guess the privileged will always seek to maintain their privilege.kinabalu said:
That's a very fair and clarifying question. Where have you been all my life?JosiasJessop said:
Okay, let's put it this way. You want a change. What is the output of that change? What is the end result you want?kinabalu said:
Yes I am a parent.
It is sober. It's not an extreme position. The fact it is painted as such says a great deal about how relaxed we are about privilege and inequality.
No I haven't decided all private schools are evil. Or indeed any of them. I have no personal criticism of those who use private schools or personal prejudice against those who went to one.
Some of my best friends ... 🙂
But my strong and considered view is that they contribute significantly to our imo far too unequal society. Since I'm egalitarian inclined I'd like to see this addressed. Call that ideology if you like. It's not a dirty word in my book. You need some otherwise you're just flapping around with anecdote and tinker.
The output is a society where the link between parental bank balance and life prospects is significantly weaker than it is today.
I think an egalitarian education system would contribute greatly to that. And I think the private schools are a serious impediment to creating an egalitarian education system.
I define an egalitarian education system as one where a similar - and high - standard of schooling is available to all children. It will never be perfectly achievable but this should be the goal. (runs for cover)
But your comments hint that it's not outcomes you are interested in, but class hatred.
That is why they wanted to close the grammar schools as they meant too many working class pupils were becoming higher earning professionals and abandoning their Labour roots and becoming property owning Tories.
The same reason they opposed council house sales, as voters who move from social housing to owning a property are again more likely to become Tories and class traitors.
In a socialists ideal world everyone would work for the public sector, live in a council house, send their kids to an average comprehensive and vote Labour. The last thing they want is too much ambition and equality of opportunity2 -
Yeah, Oriel is just like that, though.OnlyLivingBoy said:
My analysis is evidence based, at least, based on 3 years at an Oxbridge College, noting the comparative behaviour (eg drunkenness, drug-taking, treating College staff like shit, not taking work seriously, forming cliques) of state and private school educated people. There was something deeply toxic and unpleasant about the culture that these people seemed to have been raised in. When I see the current government and their corruption, greed and lack of compassion it's not hard to see where it all came from.IshmaelZ said:
Well, a lot of them are paying the money because in the state system they'll just be surrounded by a load of awful people. Not an admirable attitude from either side of the fence.OnlyLivingBoy said:
Why bother? Smart kids will do well regardless, and they'll just be surrounded by a load of awful people.IshmaelZ said:
Lots of them would otherwise be wealthy but aren't because they are shelling out 36,000 per year per child out of taxed income, which is a fuck of a lot of money to almost anyone. I don't say that like it's a good thing; there's lots of cases of more or less conscious parental resentment (especially when one parent is keener then the other on private education) and child guilt. The boarding thing doesn't help either.OnlyLivingBoy said:
Yeah but most of them are wealthy, unless these schools have a magic money tree growing in their ample grounds that enable them to spend much more per pupil than local state schools while charging no fees.JosiasJessop said:
I should perhaps mention that many kids going to private schools don't have 'rich' parents. Many are on scholarships or subsidised, and many parents scrimp and save to send their kids to the school.OnlyLivingBoy said:
But Kinabulu, if you're not smart enough to have a rich daddy then how much potential have you really got?kinabalu said:
It's not levelling down or up. It's levelling. But probably you'd see a net uplift since there'd be more potential realized.maaarsh said:
Given you have no control over systems overseas (in the thought experiment where you, terrifyingly, have control on this island) how much relative educational & economic performance are you willing to sacrifice for more egalitarianism? Or is it a panacea and closing the best schools will also improve the overall average?kinabalu said:
That's a very fair and clarifying question. Where have you been all my life?JosiasJessop said:
Okay, let's put it this way. You want a change. What is the output of that change? What is the end result you want?kinabalu said:
Yes I am a parent.
It is sober. It's not an extreme position. The fact it is painted as such says a great deal about how relaxed we are about privilege and inequality.
No I haven't decided all private schools are evil. Or indeed any of them. I have no personal criticism of those who use private schools or personal prejudice against those who went to one.
Some of my best friends ... 🙂
But my strong and considered view is that they contribute significantly to our imo far too unequal society. Since I'm egalitarian inclined I'd like to see this addressed. Call that ideology if you like. It's not a dirty word in my book. You need some otherwise you're just flapping around with anecdote and tinker.
The output is a society where the link between parental bank balance and life prospects is significantly weaker than it is today.
I think an egalitarian education system would contribute greatly to that. And I think the private schools are a serious impediment to creating an egalitarian education system.
I define an egalitarian education system as one where a similar - and high - standard of schooling is available to all children. It will never be perfectly achievable but this should be the goal.
The scholarships are only there so they can do the whole charity tax dodge bollocks.
I have the money to send my kids to private school but I wouldn't want to expose them to that. They have very nice friends at their local school - hard working, smart, kind, interesting, decent people.
I'm not strongly disagreeing with you by the way. But I think many of the people I was at school with were borderline OK and some of the state school bods at Oxford were as bad in their way as the Bullingdon lot1 -
Sturgeons letter to Boris is politics to stir the pot of grievance yet again and distract from her own domestic failures.
There. Simple.
Do we really need to go endlessly in circles with HFUYDs legal position argument, and the usual nats responding to each other.
On topic - that bet on Sunak looks pretty solid I think.
1 -
Now why didn't I think of that?Carnyx said:
Couldn't he just open a [edit] jar of pickled onions and empty out a little vinegar?Richard_Nabavi said:
Where did it all go wrong, Sandy? Should you have put your foot down when the first bottle of balsamic appeared, or should you have turned a blind eye to that but made a stand on the second?SandyRentool said:Anecdote time:
I took a stroll after work. Very pleasant it was too. Several women had decided that it was warm enough for shorts. Just thought I'd throw that in...
Anyway, I popped in to the local convenience store. Before entering I donned my face covering, but once inside discovered that I was the only person wearing one. Other customers, chap on the till, all bare faced. Next time, no scarf for me.
As an aside, the reason I went was to buy some vinegar. Things have gone badly wrong when you've got a choice of three types of balsamic in the house but no malt vinegar for your chips.
More importantly, how will our pickled onion exports to New Zealand be impacted by The Truss' trade deal?0 -
Vinegar on chips.. why spoil them?SandyRentool said:Anecdote time:
I took a stroll after work. Very pleasant it was too. Several women had decided that it was warm enough for shorts. Just thought I'd throw that in...
Anyway, I popped in to the local convenience store. Before entering I donned my face covering, but once inside discovered that I was the only person wearing one. Other customers, chap on the till, all bare faced. Next time, no scarf for me.
As an aside, the reason I went was to buy some vinegar. Things have gone badly wrong when you've got a choice of three types of balsamic in the house but no malt vinegar for your chips.0 -
"America has become its own worst enemy
Like the Soviet Union, the US is dying from despair
BY ED WEST"
https://unherd.com/2021/08/america-is-turning-into-the-soviet-union/0 -
Study the mote in your own eye. There is FAR more contempt from the upper pole of the English apartheid system towards the lower pole than there is in the other direction. It's built in to the culture. Neither knows what life is like at the other pole, but the uppers think they do. Which isn't to say they dwell on it much, but they think they know one or two things. (It's called "confidence".) A plate of baked beans on a tray in front of the television, stuff like that. Most of the lowers don't even begin to think they know anything about what it's like on the other side. If you've no experience of boarding school, for example, and nor have any of your family members, you simply won't appreciate the connotations of a term such as "bedwetter". (Edit: well OK, perhaps you've been to borstal...)JosiasJessop said:
LOL. I rather think you're off aim there. I prescribe attendance at a CCF course.OnlyLivingBoy said:
Try not to trip over your silver spoon while you're running, old chap.JosiasJessop said:
If you find it bewildering, perhaps you should have got a better education.OnlyLivingBoy said:
Very well put. I find it bewildering that anyone would object to this argument, although I guess the privileged will always seek to maintain their privilege.kinabalu said:
That's a very fair and clarifying question. Where have you been all my life?JosiasJessop said:
Okay, let's put it this way. You want a change. What is the output of that change? What is the end result you want?kinabalu said:
Yes I am a parent.
It is sober. It's not an extreme position. The fact it is painted as such says a great deal about how relaxed we are about privilege and inequality.
No I haven't decided all private schools are evil. Or indeed any of them. I have no personal criticism of those who use private schools or personal prejudice against those who went to one.
Some of my best friends ... 🙂
But my strong and considered view is that they contribute significantly to our imo far too unequal society. Since I'm egalitarian inclined I'd like to see this addressed. Call that ideology if you like. It's not a dirty word in my book. You need some otherwise you're just flapping around with anecdote and tinker.
The output is a society where the link between parental bank balance and life prospects is significantly weaker than it is today.
I think an egalitarian education system would contribute greatly to that. And I think the private schools are a serious impediment to creating an egalitarian education system.
I define an egalitarian education system as one where a similar - and high - standard of schooling is available to all children. It will never be perfectly achievable but this should be the goal. (runs for cover)
But your comments hint that it's not outcomes you are interested in, but class hatred.
No surprise that the German Nazis greatly admired the English elite private boarding schools and many friendly exchange programs were arranged with the "Napola" schools.
As for the CCF? Pah! Where are your duelling scars? Talk about doing things halfway!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_rQ1V7m0Kfs&t=33s1 -
Eric Topol
@EricTopol
·
6h
The 4th wave
Louisiana, now the highest per capita rate of covid globally (for a state or country). It's also noteworthy that 72% of the world's population hasn't even had its 1st vaccine shot and there are enough here for every American to be fully vaccinated.
0 -
Except…RochdalePioneers said:
I take your point. I just get amused when people try to deny the facts. A 4th election win for the SNP. On a record turnout. With a record number of pro-independence MSPs elected. Whilst I make no claims for whether or not people would vote for independence in a 2nd referendum, they have clearly and comfortably elected a Holyrood supporting that referendum.pigeon said:Is there a rule that this site has to have at least one futile, circular argument about Scottish independence every single day?
Scottish public opinion, which is the ultimate arbiter, was heavily split before the 2014 vote, heavily split afterwards, and is heavily split today. Nothing that has happened in the last seven years - neither Brexit, nor the rise of Boris Johnson, nor elderly pro-Union voters kicking the bucket, nor the pandemic - has caused a fundamental shift either for or against the Union. Nothing. And it shows no imminent sign of changing, either.
Therefore, what is there left to discuss?
These are the facts. It is simply adding. Trying to claim this isn't true is why we go round in these circles...
Your argument is exactly the same as people claiming that because the US elected Trump the Mexicans are obligated to pay for the Wall.
The SNP may be obligated to ask fir a referendum but it’s entirely Westminster’s decision whether to grant one or not3 -
Isn't this entirely because state funding is all or nothing? I don't think there is any mechanism for places at private schools to be state funded, or for state funded schools to charge for any places.TimS said:On private schools, this issue only seems to exist to a problematic extent in Britain. I think part of the fault is our binary approach to public and private sector.
Private schools are hugely expensive on the whole and only becoming more so. As a result they become ever more exclusive reserves of the upper middle classes and the gap between their outcomes and those of most other schools gets larger. There is pitifully little cross pollination, no intermediate or mixed models.
Where are the easyschools, or the state schools with privately funded sixth forms, or the state-private joint ventures? How about means tested school fees, or school fees regulated by government, as happens in telecoms and energy markets? The most we ever seem to manage is business sponsorships of the occasional academy school. I’m not saying these would all work (and we all remember the excesses of PFI), but there is little or no experimentation. Two systems living an almost mutually exclusive existence.
I think the more I think about this issue, the less I care about it. We have this strange idea that money and power are all that matters. It really doesn't. I'm fairly sure I would be quite capable of doing some review of standards in public life, or whatever. I'd guess the gig probably pays four times what I earn now, plus expenses. I'm not even slightly bothered it's gone to some toff whose mates with Bozo. If he'd rung me up and offered me it, I'd have turned it down.
I earn enough to live on. I enjoy what I do. I'm pretty good at what I do. I work with a decent bunch of lads. What else exactly might I want?
At the end of the day, we can shuffle the pile however we like - only one person gers to be prime minister at a time. Complaining that modern prime ministers are drawn from a fairly small group of people (at least we aren't as bad as US presidents) is pretty pointless - even if we legislated to bar the public schooled from the office, we'd only be benifiting the one comprehensive educated bloke who got the job out of the maybe 40million comprehensively educated people in the county.
We might do better to try and make the lot of all those comprehensively educated types that but better - ideally by reducing the amount of their money which is taken from them as tax and (mostly) wasted, and by dispensing with about half the stupid rules and regulations imposed on them over the last 50 years.
0 -
Collapsing fertility, declining religious faith, stagnant middle class wages and a dominant elite culture of progressivism seem to be the causes of US decline in his viewAndy_JS said:"America has become its own worst enemy
Like the Soviet Union, the US is dying from despair
BY ED WEST"
https://unherd.com/2021/08/america-is-turning-into-the-soviet-union/1 -
The US is going to get a massive kicking. Far too many antivaxxers.rottenborough said:Eric Topol
@EricTopol
·
6h
The 4th wave
Louisiana, now the highest per capita rate of covid globally (for a state or country). It's also noteworthy that 72% of the world's population hasn't even had its 1st vaccine shot and there are enough here for every American to be fully vaccinated.0 -
You have transposed your myopic view of what constitutes a Conservative to the left, and what constitutes a Labour Party supporter.HYUFD said:
Yes but most socialists voted for Corbyn, twice.Mexicanpete said:
That might be the optimum outcome for someone like Corbyn, who as we all know is a moron, but it isn't for Fabian types, of which I would count myself.HYUFD said:
No, that is the endpoint of socialism.Mexicanpete said:
What an utterly ludicrous analysis.HYUFD said:
Genuine socialists are interested in outcomes, equality of outcome.JosiasJessop said:
LOL. I rather think you're off aim there. I prescribe attendance at a CCF course.OnlyLivingBoy said:
Try not to trip over your silver spoon while you're running, old chap.JosiasJessop said:
If you find it bewildering, perhaps you should have got a better education.OnlyLivingBoy said:
Very well put. I find it bewildering that anyone would object to this argument, although I guess the privileged will always seek to maintain their privilege.kinabalu said:
That's a very fair and clarifying question. Where have you been all my life?JosiasJessop said:
Okay, let's put it this way. You want a change. What is the output of that change? What is the end result you want?kinabalu said:
Yes I am a parent.
It is sober. It's not an extreme position. The fact it is painted as such says a great deal about how relaxed we are about privilege and inequality.
No I haven't decided all private schools are evil. Or indeed any of them. I have no personal criticism of those who use private schools or personal prejudice against those who went to one.
Some of my best friends ... 🙂
But my strong and considered view is that they contribute significantly to our imo far too unequal society. Since I'm egalitarian inclined I'd like to see this addressed. Call that ideology if you like. It's not a dirty word in my book. You need some otherwise you're just flapping around with anecdote and tinker.
The output is a society where the link between parental bank balance and life prospects is significantly weaker than it is today.
I think an egalitarian education system would contribute greatly to that. And I think the private schools are a serious impediment to creating an egalitarian education system.
I define an egalitarian education system as one where a similar - and high - standard of schooling is available to all children. It will never be perfectly achievable but this should be the goal. (runs for cover)
But your comments hint that it's not outcomes you are interested in, but class hatred.
That is why they wanted to close the grammar schools as they meant too many working class pupils were becoming higher earning professionals and abandoning their Labour roots and becoming property owning Tories.
The same reason they opposed council house sales, as voters who move from social housing to owning a property are again more likely to become Tories and class traitors.
In a socialists ideal world everyone would work for the public sector, live in a council house, send their kids to an average comprehensive and vote Labour. The last thing they want is too much ambition and equality of opportunity
Every party seeks to expand its core vote. Labour's core vote is public sector workers living in social housing, just as the Tories core vote is private sector workers and those who own their own property
Your analysis is normally thoughtful, that summary was straight out of a GBNews whining-conversation piece lead-in.
Not sure if you did?
In each case you are wrong, both Parties are broad churches. Broad church or not it is just the Conservative Party is not for me.1 -
Yeah people like us should know our place right? Leave the big jobs for our betters.theProle said:
Isn't this entirely because state funding is all or nothing? I don't think there is any mechanism for places at private schools to be state funded, or for state funded schools to charge for any places.TimS said:On private schools, this issue only seems to exist to a problematic extent in Britain. I think part of the fault is our binary approach to public and private sector.
Private schools are hugely expensive on the whole and only becoming more so. As a result they become ever more exclusive reserves of the upper middle classes and the gap between their outcomes and those of most other schools gets larger. There is pitifully little cross pollination, no intermediate or mixed models.
Where are the easyschools, or the state schools with privately funded sixth forms, or the state-private joint ventures? How about means tested school fees, or school fees regulated by government, as happens in telecoms and energy markets? The most we ever seem to manage is business sponsorships of the occasional academy school. I’m not saying these would all work (and we all remember the excesses of PFI), but there is little or no experimentation. Two systems living an almost mutually exclusive existence.
I think the more I think about this issue, the less I care about it. We have this strange idea that money and power are all that matters. It really doesn't. I'm fairly sure I would be quite capable of doing some review of standards in public life, or whatever. I'd guess the gig probably pays four times what I earn now, plus expenses. I'm not even slightly bothered it's gone to some toff whose mates with Bozo. If he'd rung me up and offered me it, I'd have turned it down.
I earn enough to live on. I enjoy what I do. I'm pretty good at what I do. I work with a decent bunch of lads. What else exactly might I want?
At the end of the day, we can shuffle the pile however we like - only one person gers to be prime minister at a time. Complaining that modern prime ministers are drawn from a fairly small group of people (at least we aren't as bad as US presidents) is pretty pointless - even if we legislated to bar the public schooled from the office, we'd only be benifiting the one comprehensive educated bloke who got the job out of the maybe 40million comprehensively educated people in the county.
We might do better to try and make the lot of all those comprehensively educated types that but better - ideally by reducing the amount of their money which is taken from them as tax and (mostly) wasted, and by dispensing with about half the stupid rules and regulations imposed on them over the last 50 years.1 -
"If you've no experience of boarding school, for example, and nor have any of your family members, you simply won't appreciate the connotations of a term such as "bedwetter"."YoungTurk said:
Study the mote in your own eye. There is FAR more contempt from the upper pole of the English apartheid system towards the lower pole than there is in the other direction. It's built in to the culture. Neither knows what life is like at the other pole, but the uppers think they do. Which isn't to say they dwell on it much, but they think they know one or two things. (It's called "confidence".) A plate of baked beans on a tray in front of the television, stuff like that. Most of the lowers don't even begin to think they know anything about what it's like on the other side. If you've no experience of boarding school, for example, and nor have any of your family members, you simply won't appreciate the connotations of a term such as "bedwetter". (Edit: well OK, perhaps you've been to borstal...)JosiasJessop said:
LOL. I rather think you're off aim there. I prescribe attendance at a CCF course.OnlyLivingBoy said:
Try not to trip over your silver spoon while you're running, old chap.JosiasJessop said:
If you find it bewildering, perhaps you should have got a better education.OnlyLivingBoy said:
Very well put. I find it bewildering that anyone would object to this argument, although I guess the privileged will always seek to maintain their privilege.kinabalu said:
That's a very fair and clarifying question. Where have you been all my life?JosiasJessop said:
Okay, let's put it this way. You want a change. What is the output of that change? What is the end result you want?kinabalu said:
Yes I am a parent.
It is sober. It's not an extreme position. The fact it is painted as such says a great deal about how relaxed we are about privilege and inequality.
No I haven't decided all private schools are evil. Or indeed any of them. I have no personal criticism of those who use private schools or personal prejudice against those who went to one.
Some of my best friends ... 🙂
But my strong and considered view is that they contribute significantly to our imo far too unequal society. Since I'm egalitarian inclined I'd like to see this addressed. Call that ideology if you like. It's not a dirty word in my book. You need some otherwise you're just flapping around with anecdote and tinker.
The output is a society where the link between parental bank balance and life prospects is significantly weaker than it is today.
I think an egalitarian education system would contribute greatly to that. And I think the private schools are a serious impediment to creating an egalitarian education system.
I define an egalitarian education system as one where a similar - and high - standard of schooling is available to all children. It will never be perfectly achievable but this should be the goal. (runs for cover)
But your comments hint that it's not outcomes you are interested in, but class hatred.
No surprise that the German Nazis greatly admired the English elite private boarding schools and many friendly exchange programs were arranged with the "Napola" schools.
As for the CCF? Pah! Where are your duelling scars? Talk about doing things halfway!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_rQ1V7m0Kfs&t=33s
You really are a guinea a minute. How do you come up with this stuff?0 -
Only when they appeal to the centre and swing voters as the Tories did in 2019 and Labour did in 1997.Mexicanpete said:
You have transposed your myopic view of what constitutes a Conservative to the left, and what constitutes a Labour Party supporter.HYUFD said:
Yes but most socialists voted for Corbyn, twice.Mexicanpete said:
That might be the optimum outcome for someone like Corbyn, who as we all know is a moron, but it isn't for Fabian types, of which I would count myself.HYUFD said:
No, that is the endpoint of socialism.Mexicanpete said:
What an utterly ludicrous analysis.HYUFD said:
Genuine socialists are interested in outcomes, equality of outcome.JosiasJessop said:
LOL. I rather think you're off aim there. I prescribe attendance at a CCF course.OnlyLivingBoy said:
Try not to trip over your silver spoon while you're running, old chap.JosiasJessop said:
If you find it bewildering, perhaps you should have got a better education.OnlyLivingBoy said:
Very well put. I find it bewildering that anyone would object to this argument, although I guess the privileged will always seek to maintain their privilege.kinabalu said:
That's a very fair and clarifying question. Where have you been all my life?JosiasJessop said:
Okay, let's put it this way. You want a change. What is the output of that change? What is the end result you want?kinabalu said:
Yes I am a parent.
It is sober. It's not an extreme position. The fact it is painted as such says a great deal about how relaxed we are about privilege and inequality.
No I haven't decided all private schools are evil. Or indeed any of them. I have no personal criticism of those who use private schools or personal prejudice against those who went to one.
Some of my best friends ... 🙂
But my strong and considered view is that they contribute significantly to our imo far too unequal society. Since I'm egalitarian inclined I'd like to see this addressed. Call that ideology if you like. It's not a dirty word in my book. You need some otherwise you're just flapping around with anecdote and tinker.
The output is a society where the link between parental bank balance and life prospects is significantly weaker than it is today.
I think an egalitarian education system would contribute greatly to that. And I think the private schools are a serious impediment to creating an egalitarian education system.
I define an egalitarian education system as one where a similar - and high - standard of schooling is available to all children. It will never be perfectly achievable but this should be the goal. (runs for cover)
But your comments hint that it's not outcomes you are interested in, but class hatred.
That is why they wanted to close the grammar schools as they meant too many working class pupils were becoming higher earning professionals and abandoning their Labour roots and becoming property owning Tories.
The same reason they opposed council house sales, as voters who move from social housing to owning a property are again more likely to become Tories and class traitors.
In a socialists ideal world everyone would work for the public sector, live in a council house, send their kids to an average comprehensive and vote Labour. The last thing they want is too much ambition and equality of opportunity
Every party seeks to expand its core vote. Labour's core vote is public sector workers living in social housing, just as the Tories core vote is private sector workers and those who own their own property
Your analysis is normally thoughtful, that summary was straight out of a GBNews whining-conversation piece lead-in.
Not sure if you did?
In each case you are wrong, both are broad churches.
When they are back to their core vote as Labour were in 2019 or the Tories were in 2001 for instance those definitions apply almost exactly to the bulk of their voters0 -
The next Florida death figures are pretty crucial. They have a "good" overall vaccination rate and high uptake amongst over 65s so we are going to get to see how that fares vs Delta.FrancisUrquhart said:
The US is going to get a massive kicking. Far too many antivaxxers.rottenborough said:Eric Topol
@EricTopol
·
6h
The 4th wave
Louisiana, now the highest per capita rate of covid globally (for a state or country). It's also noteworthy that 72% of the world's population hasn't even had its 1st vaccine shot and there are enough here for every American to be fully vaccinated.0 -
How long before GOP strategists notice their Trump people are getting themselves killed and wont be voting next time?FrancisUrquhart said:
The US is going to get a massive kicking. Far too many antivaxxers.rottenborough said:Eric Topol
@EricTopol
·
6h
The 4th wave
Louisiana, now the highest per capita rate of covid globally (for a state or country). It's also noteworthy that 72% of the world's population hasn't even had its 1st vaccine shot and there are enough here for every American to be fully vaccinated.0 -
Open bursaries - mostly, yes. (Some scholarships nowadays at top schools come with very little off the fees. The reduction in their "value" was connected not with charity status per se, but with the acquisition of registered charity status. Previously many schools had functioned as unregistered charities.) To an extent, though, a little new blood is desired - carefully "talent"-spotted of course, and it's not accepted on anybody else's say-so. (Perish the thought.) Those in whose veins it flows are then "taught how to use a knife and fork" in the parlance - and how to "speak properly".OnlyLivingBoy said:
Yeah but most of them are wealthy, unless these schools have a magic money tree growing in their ample grounds that enable them to spend much more per pupil than local state schools while charging no fees.JosiasJessop said:
I should perhaps mention that many kids going to private schools don't have 'rich' parents. Many are on scholarships or subsidised, and many parents scrimp and save to send their kids to the school.OnlyLivingBoy said:
But Kinabulu, if you're not smart enough to have a rich daddy then how much potential have you really got?kinabalu said:
It's not levelling down or up. It's levelling. But probably you'd see a net uplift since there'd be more potential realized.maaarsh said:
Given you have no control over systems overseas (in the thought experiment where you, terrifyingly, have control on this island) how much relative educational & economic performance are you willing to sacrifice for more egalitarianism? Or is it a panacea and closing the best schools will also improve the overall average?kinabalu said:
That's a very fair and clarifying question. Where have you been all my life?JosiasJessop said:
Okay, let's put it this way. You want a change. What is the output of that change? What is the end result you want?kinabalu said:
Yes I am a parent.
It is sober. It's not an extreme position. The fact it is painted as such says a great deal about how relaxed we are about privilege and inequality.
No I haven't decided all private schools are evil. Or indeed any of them. I have no personal criticism of those who use private schools or personal prejudice against those who went to one.
Some of my best friends ... 🙂
But my strong and considered view is that they contribute significantly to our imo far too unequal society. Since I'm egalitarian inclined I'd like to see this addressed. Call that ideology if you like. It's not a dirty word in my book. You need some otherwise you're just flapping around with anecdote and tinker.
The output is a society where the link between parental bank balance and life prospects is significantly weaker than it is today.
I think an egalitarian education system would contribute greatly to that. And I think the private schools are a serious impediment to creating an egalitarian education system.
I define an egalitarian education system as one where a similar - and high - standard of schooling is available to all children. It will never be perfectly achievable but this should be the goal.
The scholarships are only there so they can do the whole charity tax dodge bollocks.0 -
Amazing story, just leave Covid off the death certificate.
https://twitter.com/jonshorman/status/1422537922939695107?s=190 -
I think there's more than a grain of truth in HYUFD's analysis. Of course, there are plenty of lefties such as yourself for whom this is not the aim. But growing up in Greater Manchester in the 1980s the sort of left winger that HYUFD describes was in evidence disappointingly often.Mexicanpete said:
That might be the optimum outcome for someone like Corbyn, who as we all know is a moron, but it isn't for Fabian types, of which I would count myself.HYUFD said:
No, that is the endpoint of socialism.Mexicanpete said:
What an utterly ludicrous analysis.HYUFD said:
Genuine socialists are interested in outcomes, equality of outcome.JosiasJessop said:
LOL. I rather think you're off aim there. I prescribe attendance at a CCF course.OnlyLivingBoy said:
Try not to trip over your silver spoon while you're running, old chap.JosiasJessop said:
If you find it bewildering, perhaps you should have got a better education.OnlyLivingBoy said:
Very well put. I find it bewildering that anyone would object to this argument, although I guess the privileged will always seek to maintain their privilege.kinabalu said:
That's a very fair and clarifying question. Where have you been all my life?JosiasJessop said:
Okay, let's put it this way. You want a change. What is the output of that change? What is the end result you want?kinabalu said:
Yes I am a parent.
It is sober. It's not an extreme position. The fact it is painted as such says a great deal about how relaxed we are about privilege and inequality.
No I haven't decided all private schools are evil. Or indeed any of them. I have no personal criticism of those who use private schools or personal prejudice against those who went to one.
Some of my best friends ... 🙂
But my strong and considered view is that they contribute significantly to our imo far too unequal society. Since I'm egalitarian inclined I'd like to see this addressed. Call that ideology if you like. It's not a dirty word in my book. You need some otherwise you're just flapping around with anecdote and tinker.
The output is a society where the link between parental bank balance and life prospects is significantly weaker than it is today.
I think an egalitarian education system would contribute greatly to that. And I think the private schools are a serious impediment to creating an egalitarian education system.
I define an egalitarian education system as one where a similar - and high - standard of schooling is available to all children. It will never be perfectly achievable but this should be the goal. (runs for cover)
But your comments hint that it's not outcomes you are interested in, but class hatred.
That is why they wanted to close the grammar schools as they meant too many working class pupils were becoming higher earning professionals and abandoning their Labour roots and becoming property owning Tories.
The same reason they opposed council house sales, as voters who move from social housing to owning a property are again more likely to become Tories and class traitors.
In a socialists ideal world everyone would work for the public sector, live in a council house, send their kids to an average comprehensive and vote Labour. The last thing they want is too much ambition and equality of opportunity
Every party seeks to expand its core vote. Labour's core vote is public sector workers living in social housing, just as the Tories core vote is private sector workers and those who own their own property
Your analysis is normally thoughtful, that summary was straight out of a GBNews whining-conversation piece lead-in.1 -
Wednesday’s INDEPENDENT Digital: “Brexit red tape could bring factories to a halt” #TomorrowsPapersToday https://twitter.com/AllieHBNews/status/1422663732673531912/photo/1
0 -
https://twitter.com/disclosetv/status/1422660758446526466
JUST IN - Biden calls Gov. Cuomo to resign.
Not sure about the source tbh0 -
Christ on a fucking bike. Do you claim to have been at one of these places?YoungTurk said:
Open bursaries - mostly, yes. (Some scholarships nowadays at top schools come with very little off the fees. The reduction in their "value" was connected not with charity status per se, but with the acquisition of registered charity status. Previously many schools had functioned as unregistered charities.) To an extent, though, a little new blood is desired - carefully "talent"-spotted of course, and it's not accepted on anybody else's say-so. (Perish the thought.) Those in whose veins it flows are then "taught how to use a knife and fork" in the parlance - and how to "speak properly".OnlyLivingBoy said:
Yeah but most of them are wealthy, unless these schools have a magic money tree growing in their ample grounds that enable them to spend much more per pupil than local state schools while charging no fees.JosiasJessop said:
I should perhaps mention that many kids going to private schools don't have 'rich' parents. Many are on scholarships or subsidised, and many parents scrimp and save to send their kids to the school.OnlyLivingBoy said:
But Kinabulu, if you're not smart enough to have a rich daddy then how much potential have you really got?kinabalu said:
It's not levelling down or up. It's levelling. But probably you'd see a net uplift since there'd be more potential realized.maaarsh said:
Given you have no control over systems overseas (in the thought experiment where you, terrifyingly, have control on this island) how much relative educational & economic performance are you willing to sacrifice for more egalitarianism? Or is it a panacea and closing the best schools will also improve the overall average?kinabalu said:
That's a very fair and clarifying question. Where have you been all my life?JosiasJessop said:
Okay, let's put it this way. You want a change. What is the output of that change? What is the end result you want?kinabalu said:
Yes I am a parent.
It is sober. It's not an extreme position. The fact it is painted as such says a great deal about how relaxed we are about privilege and inequality.
No I haven't decided all private schools are evil. Or indeed any of them. I have no personal criticism of those who use private schools or personal prejudice against those who went to one.
Some of my best friends ... 🙂
But my strong and considered view is that they contribute significantly to our imo far too unequal society. Since I'm egalitarian inclined I'd like to see this addressed. Call that ideology if you like. It's not a dirty word in my book. You need some otherwise you're just flapping around with anecdote and tinker.
The output is a society where the link between parental bank balance and life prospects is significantly weaker than it is today.
I think an egalitarian education system would contribute greatly to that. And I think the private schools are a serious impediment to creating an egalitarian education system.
I define an egalitarian education system as one where a similar - and high - standard of schooling is available to all children. It will never be perfectly achievable but this should be the goal.
The scholarships are only there so they can do the whole charity tax dodge bollocks.0 -
Apparently, he considers himself the last conservative which might surprise you (or it might not).HYUFD said:
Collapsing fertility, declining religious faith, stagnant middle class wages and a dominant elite culture of progressivism seem to be the causes of US decline in his viewAndy_JS said:"America has become its own worst enemy
Like the Soviet Union, the US is dying from despair
BY ED WEST"
https://unherd.com/2021/08/america-is-turning-into-the-soviet-union/0 -
A question i don't know the answer to....how accurate are thr rates, as in we see here some issues around out of date population data... Florida has a very transient population, where famously large number of snow birds, older people go there for the winter, but live elsewhere for 6+ months of the year e.g. bit like oldies from UK used to go to Spain in the off-season, as cheaper than living in the uk with the big heating bills and nice pleasant sunshine. But in terms of Florida, its much more common phenomenon.Alistair said:
The next Florida death figures are pretty crucial. They have a "good" overall vaccination rate and high uptake amongst over 65s so we are going to get to see how that fares vs Delta.FrancisUrquhart said:
The US is going to get a massive kicking. Far too many antivaxxers.rottenborough said:Eric Topol
@EricTopol
·
6h
The 4th wave
Louisiana, now the highest per capita rate of covid globally (for a state or country). It's also noteworthy that 72% of the world's population hasn't even had its 1st vaccine shot and there are enough here for every American to be fully vaccinated.0 -
Presumably he’s called *for* Cuomo to resign rather than calling him to tender his resignation.Floater said:https://twitter.com/disclosetv/status/1422660758446526466
JUST IN - Biden calls Gov. Cuomo to resign.
Not sure about the source tbh0 -
My parents were strongly in favour of state comprehensives, partly because my father was at Wigan Grammar in the 1950s. He hated the petty snobbery of Wigans small middle class.kinabalu said:
But I'm not saying removal of this advantage removes all advantages. It won't and also shouldn't. Lots of the advantages that come from parents are because they're good parents, not that they're rich parents. I'm not seeking to interfere with that. Not at all.JosiasJessop said:
Thanks, but I think you're really off-track.kinabalu said:
That's a very fair and clarifying question. Where have you been all my life?JosiasJessop said:
Okay, let's put it this way. You want a change. What is the output of that change? What is the end result you want?kinabalu said:
Yes I am a parent.
It is sober. It's not an extreme position. The fact it is painted as such says a great deal about how relaxed we are about privilege and inequality.
No I haven't decided all private schools are evil. Or indeed any of them. I have no personal criticism of those who use private schools or personal prejudice against those who went to one.
Some of my best friends ... 🙂
But my strong and considered view is that they contribute significantly to our imo far too unequal society. Since I'm egalitarian inclined I'd like to see this addressed. Call that ideology if you like. It's not a dirty word in my book. You need some otherwise you're just flapping around with anecdote and tinker.
The output is a society where the link between parental bank balance and life prospects is significantly weaker than it is today.
I think an egalitarian education system would contribute greatly to that. And I think the private schools are a serious impediment to creating an egalitarian education system.
I define an egalitarian education system as one where a similar - and high - standard of schooling is available to all children. It will never be perfectly achievable but this should be the goal.
People send kids to private school because they think it will give their kids better results and/or prospects in life than sending them to their local state school. It costs them money to do so. In the absence of private school, that money will be spent in other ways to achieve the same aim. everything from home schooling to tutoring. results will still strongly depend on bank balance. Even after-school clubs are an issue.
As an example, we're in a fortunate position where Mrs J earns enough for me not to have to work. This meant I can focus much more on the little 'un, which has proved particularly invaluable during lockdown. How would your egalitarian system make up for that? Or the fact that I could purchase a subscription to Twinkl and other websites during lockdown to help us out (I know a couple of other parents who could not afford it). My son has many more opportunities to do tings because I have a car and can drive - hence our trip to Duxford today. One of his friends does not have such opportunities.
A problem with searching for an 'egalitarian' system is that the starting points are not egalitarian.
I really fail to see how banning private schools will lead to better results for children of either 'rich' or 'poor' parents. In fact, I can see it easily making matters much worse.
My parents once told me that it was important that articulate demanding parents keep their kids in the state system, as strong advocates for higher standards. Once they opt out, then standards will drop for those without pushy parents.
They weren't left wing. Indeed my mother has been a lifelong member of the Conservative Party, and my father was a Liberal. They just believed in a duty to others, not just their own kin.
1 -
He's basically just listed a load of things he doesn't like and blamed everything on that. It's an evidence-free shapeless ramble of an article that is at least three times too long.HYUFD said:
Collapsing fertility, declining religious faith, stagnant middle class wages and a dominant elite culture of progressivism seem to be the causes of US decline in his viewAndy_JS said:"America has become its own worst enemy
Like the Soviet Union, the US is dying from despair
BY ED WEST"
https://unherd.com/2021/08/america-is-turning-into-the-soviet-union/0 -
1. If you think they don't receive fees funded by the state, think again:theProle said:
Isn't this entirely because state funding is all or nothing? I don't think there is any mechanism for places at private schools to be state fundedTimS said:On private schools, this issue only seems to exist to a problematic extent in Britain. I think part of the fault is our binary approach to public and private sector.
Private schools are hugely expensive on the whole and only becoming more so. As a result they become ever more exclusive reserves of the upper middle classes and the gap between their outcomes and those of most other schools gets larger. There is pitifully little cross pollination, no intermediate or mixed models.
Where are the easyschools, or the state schools with privately funded sixth forms, or the state-private joint ventures? How about means tested school fees, or school fees regulated by government, as happens in telecoms and energy markets? The most we ever seem to manage is business sponsorships of the occasional academy school. I’m not saying these would all work (and we all remember the excesses of PFI), but there is little or no experimentation. Two systems living an almost mutually exclusive existence.
https://www.theguardian.com/education/2019/feb/05/critics-take-aim-at-subsidies-given-to-private-schools
2. Then there's their "charity" status, nudge nudge, wink wink. They do some charity work but the idea that that's their real reason for existence is a legal fiction.
3. Some of the schools were set up and remain run according to royal charter (rather like the BBC) and they could easily be called state bodies even if they never are. Then again, what should we call something like the Corporation of the City of London?0 -
In comprehensives it tends to be middle class kids with pushy parents outside who still do fine, especially as most tend to be sent to high performing comps in leafy suburbs.Foxy said:
My parents were strongly in favour of state comprehensives, partly because my father was at Wigan Grammar in the 1950s. He hated the petty snobbery of Wigans small middle class.kinabalu said:
But I'm not saying removal of this advantage removes all advantages. It won't and also shouldn't. Lots of the advantages that come from parents are because they're good parents, not that they're rich parents. I'm not seeking to interfere with that. Not at all.JosiasJessop said:
Thanks, but I think you're really off-track.kinabalu said:
That's a very fair and clarifying question. Where have you been all my life?JosiasJessop said:
Okay, let's put it this way. You want a change. What is the output of that change? What is the end result you want?kinabalu said:
Yes I am a parent.
It is sober. It's not an extreme position. The fact it is painted as such says a great deal about how relaxed we are about privilege and inequality.
No I haven't decided all private schools are evil. Or indeed any of them. I have no personal criticism of those who use private schools or personal prejudice against those who went to one.
Some of my best friends ... 🙂
But my strong and considered view is that they contribute significantly to our imo far too unequal society. Since I'm egalitarian inclined I'd like to see this addressed. Call that ideology if you like. It's not a dirty word in my book. You need some otherwise you're just flapping around with anecdote and tinker.
The output is a society where the link between parental bank balance and life prospects is significantly weaker than it is today.
I think an egalitarian education system would contribute greatly to that. And I think the private schools are a serious impediment to creating an egalitarian education system.
I define an egalitarian education system as one where a similar - and high - standard of schooling is available to all children. It will never be perfectly achievable but this should be the goal.
People send kids to private school because they think it will give their kids better results and/or prospects in life than sending them to their local state school. It costs them money to do so. In the absence of private school, that money will be spent in other ways to achieve the same aim. everything from home schooling to tutoring. results will still strongly depend on bank balance. Even after-school clubs are an issue.
As an example, we're in a fortunate position where Mrs J earns enough for me not to have to work. This meant I can focus much more on the little 'un, which has proved particularly invaluable during lockdown. How would your egalitarian system make up for that? Or the fact that I could purchase a subscription to Twinkl and other websites during lockdown to help us out (I know a couple of other parents who could not afford it). My son has many more opportunities to do tings because I have a car and can drive - hence our trip to Duxford today. One of his friends does not have such opportunities.
A problem with searching for an 'egalitarian' system is that the starting points are not egalitarian.
I really fail to see how banning private schools will lead to better results for children of either 'rich' or 'poor' parents. In fact, I can see it easily making matters much worse.
My parents once told me that it was important that articulate demanding parents keep their kids in the state system, as strong advocates for higher standards. Once they opt out, then standards will drop for those without pushy parents.
They weren't left wing. Indeed my mother has been a lifelong member of the Conservative Party, and my father was a Liberal. They just believed in a duty to others, not just their own kin.
It is bright working class kids without pushy parents who most needed the grammar schools, otherwise they just end up in below average comps in inner cities or increasingly now declining seaside towns etc without the ladder grammars provided.
There is no great moral benefit in sending your children to comprehensives at all1 -
Yes. (But that's a funny way of asking.) What are you exclaiming about?IshmaelZ said:
Christ on a fucking bike. Do you claim to have been at one of these places?YoungTurk said:
Open bursaries - mostly, yes. (Some scholarships nowadays at top schools come with very little off the fees. The reduction in their "value" was connected not with charity status per se, but with the acquisition of registered charity status. Previously many schools had functioned as unregistered charities.) To an extent, though, a little new blood is desired - carefully "talent"-spotted of course, and it's not accepted on anybody else's say-so. (Perish the thought.) Those in whose veins it flows are then "taught how to use a knife and fork" in the parlance - and how to "speak properly".OnlyLivingBoy said:
Yeah but most of them are wealthy, unless these schools have a magic money tree growing in their ample grounds that enable them to spend much more per pupil than local state schools while charging no fees.JosiasJessop said:
I should perhaps mention that many kids going to private schools don't have 'rich' parents. Many are on scholarships or subsidised, and many parents scrimp and save to send their kids to the school.OnlyLivingBoy said:
But Kinabulu, if you're not smart enough to have a rich daddy then how much potential have you really got?kinabalu said:
It's not levelling down or up. It's levelling. But probably you'd see a net uplift since there'd be more potential realized.maaarsh said:
Given you have no control over systems overseas (in the thought experiment where you, terrifyingly, have control on this island) how much relative educational & economic performance are you willing to sacrifice for more egalitarianism? Or is it a panacea and closing the best schools will also improve the overall average?kinabalu said:
That's a very fair and clarifying question. Where have you been all my life?JosiasJessop said:
Okay, let's put it this way. You want a change. What is the output of that change? What is the end result you want?kinabalu said:
Yes I am a parent.
It is sober. It's not an extreme position. The fact it is painted as such says a great deal about how relaxed we are about privilege and inequality.
No I haven't decided all private schools are evil. Or indeed any of them. I have no personal criticism of those who use private schools or personal prejudice against those who went to one.
Some of my best friends ... 🙂
But my strong and considered view is that they contribute significantly to our imo far too unequal society. Since I'm egalitarian inclined I'd like to see this addressed. Call that ideology if you like. It's not a dirty word in my book. You need some otherwise you're just flapping around with anecdote and tinker.
The output is a society where the link between parental bank balance and life prospects is significantly weaker than it is today.
I think an egalitarian education system would contribute greatly to that. And I think the private schools are a serious impediment to creating an egalitarian education system.
I define an egalitarian education system as one where a similar - and high - standard of schooling is available to all children. It will never be perfectly achievable but this should be the goal.
The scholarships are only there so they can do the whole charity tax dodge bollocks.
0 -
Declining religious faith would do a lot of America a lot of good, and I write that as a Christian.HYUFD said:
Collapsing fertility, declining religious faith, stagnant middle class wages and a dominant elite culture of progressivism seem to be the causes of US decline in his viewAndy_JS said:"America has become its own worst enemy
Like the Soviet Union, the US is dying from despair
BY ED WEST"
https://unherd.com/2021/08/america-is-turning-into-the-soviet-union/0 -
Yes that's a big point that should be in the mix. The more the 'powers that be' are personally invested in something the more they'll be motivated to make it better.Foxy said:
My parents were strongly in favour of state comprehensives, partly because my father was at Wigan Grammar in the 1950s. He hated the petty snobbery of Wigans small middle class.kinabalu said:
But I'm not saying removal of this advantage removes all advantages. It won't and also shouldn't. Lots of the advantages that come from parents are because they're good parents, not that they're rich parents. I'm not seeking to interfere with that. Not at all.JosiasJessop said:
Thanks, but I think you're really off-track.kinabalu said:
That's a very fair and clarifying question. Where have you been all my life?JosiasJessop said:
Okay, let's put it this way. You want a change. What is the output of that change? What is the end result you want?kinabalu said:
Yes I am a parent.
It is sober. It's not an extreme position. The fact it is painted as such says a great deal about how relaxed we are about privilege and inequality.
No I haven't decided all private schools are evil. Or indeed any of them. I have no personal criticism of those who use private schools or personal prejudice against those who went to one.
Some of my best friends ... 🙂
But my strong and considered view is that they contribute significantly to our imo far too unequal society. Since I'm egalitarian inclined I'd like to see this addressed. Call that ideology if you like. It's not a dirty word in my book. You need some otherwise you're just flapping around with anecdote and tinker.
The output is a society where the link between parental bank balance and life prospects is significantly weaker than it is today.
I think an egalitarian education system would contribute greatly to that. And I think the private schools are a serious impediment to creating an egalitarian education system.
I define an egalitarian education system as one where a similar - and high - standard of schooling is available to all children. It will never be perfectly achievable but this should be the goal.
People send kids to private school because they think it will give their kids better results and/or prospects in life than sending them to their local state school. It costs them money to do so. In the absence of private school, that money will be spent in other ways to achieve the same aim. everything from home schooling to tutoring. results will still strongly depend on bank balance. Even after-school clubs are an issue.
As an example, we're in a fortunate position where Mrs J earns enough for me not to have to work. This meant I can focus much more on the little 'un, which has proved particularly invaluable during lockdown. How would your egalitarian system make up for that? Or the fact that I could purchase a subscription to Twinkl and other websites during lockdown to help us out (I know a couple of other parents who could not afford it). My son has many more opportunities to do tings because I have a car and can drive - hence our trip to Duxford today. One of his friends does not have such opportunities.
A problem with searching for an 'egalitarian' system is that the starting points are not egalitarian.
I really fail to see how banning private schools will lead to better results for children of either 'rich' or 'poor' parents. In fact, I can see it easily making matters much worse.
My parents once told me that it was important that articulate demanding parents keep their kids in the state system, as strong advocates for higher standards. Once they opt out, then standards will drop for those without pushy parents.
They weren't left wing. Indeed my mother has been a lifelong member of the Conservative Party, and my father was a Liberal. They just believed in a duty to others, not just their own kin.0 -
You said the UK spent 21% of GDP per capita on education. I challenged that figure.OnlyLivingBoy said:
Please read what I wrote again Charles old bean, you have completely misunderstood it. Must try harder!Charles said:
Are those stats right?OnlyLivingBoy said:
That's incorrect. According to the World Bank, Singapore spent 21.6% of its GDP per capita on each secondary school pupil in the most recent year for which data are available (2017) while the UK spent 21.2% (2016). Since Singapore's GDP per capita is approximately 50% higher than ours, this means that they spent about 50% more per pupil than we did. Which I suppose could account for their higher PISA score.HYUFD said:
Singapore spends far less than we do as a percentage of its gdp but is top of the PISA rankings nowOnlyLivingBoy said:
We know that wealthy people think a lot of money should be spent on educating children, from revealed preference. They just don't want other people's kids to have that kind of money spent on them.TOPPING said:And fpt:
Private schools are a symptom not a cause. Take them away and parents will find a zillion ways to give their children a "better" start in life - for a start they will have £40k after tax to play with to do so.OnlyLivingBoy said:
You keep saying this, despite the evidence that grammar schools get captured by the middle class via tutoring and prep schools. If grammar schools were these incredible engines of social mobility, then Kent (where they still exist) would be a classless society. Anyone who has spent more than a few minutes in Kent will know that the opposite is the case.HYUFD said:
The best instrument we had for getting people from average or below average income backgrounds into top positions was of course the grammar schools.OnlyLivingBoy said:
The whole rationale of the state is to prevent people's choices from harming other people. Otherwise we wouldn't need it, we could all just do whatever we want.felix said:
No - it's about not letting the state decide everything and accepting that individuals and indeed parents have the right to make choices - and that those choices have consequences which no amount of state engineering can, or should negate.kinabalu said:
That's just the old "if we can't totally deal with an issue let's not deal with it at all" shtick.HYUFD said:
They are still not going to send their kids to the average or below average local comp.kinabalu said:
For sure. It's kind of a tax cut for the rich. In fact that's how I'd sell it in the drawing rooms and boardrooms of England.IshmaelZ said:
I can promise you there's also people who can and do afford it who'd be secretly not wholly disgruntled if the option were denied them, and they had to spend the money on horses and yachts instead, dammit.kinabalu said:
I think that is making the perfect the enemy of the good. Elitism can be reduced but not eradicated. In fact you shouldn't even try to eradicate it. That leads to totalitarianism and - yes - elites. Worse ones. I'm just thinking about what's realistic in England 2021. This could be possible one day. But not this day, I'm fully aware of that. It's electoral poison. People who can't afford this privilege still support it. Until this changes, no chance of reform, I'll be talking to the hand.IshmaelZ said:
Cutting the head off a hydra, mate. Everywhere has oligarchies, nowhere else has public schools (except in the sense of actually public actual schools). If you strike them down, they will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine.kinabalu said:
Gets my goat it really does. Private schools have to go. It's the only way imo.Foxy said:
And the Lord that drew up the shortlist was enabled by David Cameron, who was in the same dissolute dining club.kinabalu said:
Yes. What we need is a tape with Johnson saying, "Ah, Fergie! He was in the old Bullers with me. Sound as a pound. Hired."MattW said:FPT:
I don't need one.Gardenwalker said:
Despite your archaeology you haven’t really found a good reason why Boris should be picking an old school friend to head the Boris-monitoring committee, have you?MattW said:
I think what we may get here at some time is similar to what happened to selection of Bishops, where the process was that the PM got 2 names and a theoretical convention that they could choose either - which has only been used once in 100-200 appointments.OldKingCole said:
At this level it looks bad, though. However, I agree that we've not seen evidence that, for example, Johnson looked at the shortlist and said 'He's the one. Know him. Good chap' or similar. Nor have we seen any suggestion, AFAIK, that a selection committee produced three names in order of preference, and the Good Chap was third.MattW said:
That's the Indy. And there seems to be not a shred of actual evidence of malpractice.OldKingCole said:
Jobs for the sons and daughters of friends is as old as jobs themselves. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't; sometimes it's not the best way of hiring someone but sometimes it can work. Rather depends on how how up the chain the job is.Foxy said:
I don't think I have ever defended cronyism in the Labour Party either.JosiasJessop said:
That is wrong IMO.Foxy said:What an extraordinary coincidence that the best person to be on the anti-sleaze watchdog just happened to be an old chum of Johnsons from his Bullingdon Club days.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/boris-johnson-sleaze-committee-standards-public-life-b1895212.html
However, I remember some Corbyn fans on here defending McDonnell employing Corbyn's son in a taxpayer-funded role. By an astonishing coincidence, the son of his best bud was the best candidate for the job.
(Hint, he wasn't.)
If we want to stop people hiring friends, family and chums to roles, especially to taxpayer-funded roles, then it needs to apply equally to all.
The nepotism and Chumocracy does show how illusory "taking back control" was.
Has anyone provided any evidence that Johnson had a corrupt role in the process, or how the process worked such that Johnson could manipulate it? Or that the member appointed is unfit to be on the Committee or is corrupt?
Or is this just Hoof-in-Mouth Rayner howling at the moon because it is Tuesday and she still does not have anything to say?
"You were in a student club with him 35 years ago" is some way beyond farfetched.
The only possible chink I can see is if the PM is supplied with say 50 names, from which he then gets to choose who he wants, and that would still require a lot more evidence that we have.
It's quite a dangerous argument to make because it shrinks the pool of acceptable candidates - 'No, you went to the same school when you were six!" - and undermines the expectation of personal integrity.
That has now been replaced with the second name being a "reserve" if eg the first one dies.
Quite concerning, though, is the dire quality of opposition a reliance on painting this stuff in poster paints indicates.
I was pointing out that this particular outrage bus is fuelled by BS and hot air.
Short of that, as Charles would stress, nothing to see and unfair to insinuate.
It's almost like a self replicating oligarchy.
They will make sure they live in the most expensive postcodes and thus the locals schools their kids attend will still be those mainly attended by the offspring of the wealthy.
So you would have to ban expensive detached houses too and make everyone live in a 2 bed semi or council flat
I want the state to do its best to create a level playing field so that (a) everyone gets a fair shot in life and (b) the best people end up in top positions. It should be fairly evident that that's not happening right now, and private schools play a big part in that failure.
Labour of course could not have that so abolished most of them, for socialists equality of outcome is more important than equality of opportunity
Personally I am all for equality of opportunity - equality of outcome is impossible in education because some people are just smarter than others. The way to get equality of opportunity is to fund all schools better, rigorously enforce standards, pay teachers better to get good teachers to stay in the profession, and to make sure there are no kids too hungry to learn.
So you've got to go back to the root cause and then you are either build a Communist state or become like Finland, which would mean a root and branch transformation of our schooling - and university - system.
Problem is, as the man said, I wouldn't have started from here. Today we have bog standard comprehensives, Eton, Winchester and Oxbridge. All that would need to be reformed to get to "free" education.
I imagine that the extra percentage of GDP to be spent plus the requirement for all teachers to have a masters degree might also cause some problems, politically, as an example.
You say that spending more on schools would cause political problems. Why is that? The problem we have is that the constituency for spending more money on schools is too small, because many of those who feel most passionately about education have taken matters into their own hands. In many cases they have become opponents of funding state schools more generously in the process.
Incidentally, UK spending has gone down from a peak of 31.2% of per capita GDP in 2010, thanks to the Tories.
Roughly speaking Uk government spending is about 50% of GDP, so if we are spending 20% of gdp we are spending 40% of the government budget. Yes there will be extra around the edges for private sector etc but that analysis doesn’t pass the sniff test
Perhaps you can provide your workings?0 -
You're getting sucked into arguing with right wing people on the internet again. 🙂OnlyLivingBoy said:
Yeah people like us should know our place right? Leave the big jobs for our betters.theProle said:
Isn't this entirely because state funding is all or nothing? I don't think there is any mechanism for places at private schools to be state funded, or for state funded schools to charge for any places.TimS said:On private schools, this issue only seems to exist to a problematic extent in Britain. I think part of the fault is our binary approach to public and private sector.
Private schools are hugely expensive on the whole and only becoming more so. As a result they become ever more exclusive reserves of the upper middle classes and the gap between their outcomes and those of most other schools gets larger. There is pitifully little cross pollination, no intermediate or mixed models.
Where are the easyschools, or the state schools with privately funded sixth forms, or the state-private joint ventures? How about means tested school fees, or school fees regulated by government, as happens in telecoms and energy markets? The most we ever seem to manage is business sponsorships of the occasional academy school. I’m not saying these would all work (and we all remember the excesses of PFI), but there is little or no experimentation. Two systems living an almost mutually exclusive existence.
I think the more I think about this issue, the less I care about it. We have this strange idea that money and power are all that matters. It really doesn't. I'm fairly sure I would be quite capable of doing some review of standards in public life, or whatever. I'd guess the gig probably pays four times what I earn now, plus expenses. I'm not even slightly bothered it's gone to some toff whose mates with Bozo. If he'd rung me up and offered me it, I'd have turned it down.
I earn enough to live on. I enjoy what I do. I'm pretty good at what I do. I work with a decent bunch of lads. What else exactly might I want?
At the end of the day, we can shuffle the pile however we like - only one person gers to be prime minister at a time. Complaining that modern prime ministers are drawn from a fairly small group of people (at least we aren't as bad as US presidents) is pretty pointless - even if we legislated to bar the public schooled from the office, we'd only be benifiting the one comprehensive educated bloke who got the job out of the maybe 40million comprehensively educated people in the county.
We might do better to try and make the lot of all those comprehensively educated types that but better - ideally by reducing the amount of their money which is taken from them as tax and (mostly) wasted, and by dispensing with about half the stupid rules and regulations imposed on them over the last 50 years.2 -
But hang on a minute — if it was a grammar school, it would have been based on ability, not ability to pay. Surely that's a good thing. Comprehensive schools are now based on ability to afford a house in the right catchment area.Foxy said:
My parents were strongly in favour of state comprehensives, partly because my father was at Wigan Grammar in the 1950s. He hated the petty snobbery of Wigans small middle class.kinabalu said:
But I'm not saying removal of this advantage removes all advantages. It won't and also shouldn't. Lots of the advantages that come from parents are because they're good parents, not that they're rich parents. I'm not seeking to interfere with that. Not at all.JosiasJessop said:
Thanks, but I think you're really off-track.kinabalu said:
That's a very fair and clarifying question. Where have you been all my life?JosiasJessop said:
Okay, let's put it this way. You want a change. What is the output of that change? What is the end result you want?kinabalu said:
Yes I am a parent.
It is sober. It's not an extreme position. The fact it is painted as such says a great deal about how relaxed we are about privilege and inequality.
No I haven't decided all private schools are evil. Or indeed any of them. I have no personal criticism of those who use private schools or personal prejudice against those who went to one.
Some of my best friends ... 🙂
But my strong and considered view is that they contribute significantly to our imo far too unequal society. Since I'm egalitarian inclined I'd like to see this addressed. Call that ideology if you like. It's not a dirty word in my book. You need some otherwise you're just flapping around with anecdote and tinker.
The output is a society where the link between parental bank balance and life prospects is significantly weaker than it is today.
I think an egalitarian education system would contribute greatly to that. And I think the private schools are a serious impediment to creating an egalitarian education system.
I define an egalitarian education system as one where a similar - and high - standard of schooling is available to all children. It will never be perfectly achievable but this should be the goal.
People send kids to private school because they think it will give their kids better results and/or prospects in life than sending them to their local state school. It costs them money to do so. In the absence of private school, that money will be spent in other ways to achieve the same aim. everything from home schooling to tutoring. results will still strongly depend on bank balance. Even after-school clubs are an issue.
As an example, we're in a fortunate position where Mrs J earns enough for me not to have to work. This meant I can focus much more on the little 'un, which has proved particularly invaluable during lockdown. How would your egalitarian system make up for that? Or the fact that I could purchase a subscription to Twinkl and other websites during lockdown to help us out (I know a couple of other parents who could not afford it). My son has many more opportunities to do tings because I have a car and can drive - hence our trip to Duxford today. One of his friends does not have such opportunities.
A problem with searching for an 'egalitarian' system is that the starting points are not egalitarian.
I really fail to see how banning private schools will lead to better results for children of either 'rich' or 'poor' parents. In fact, I can see it easily making matters much worse.
My parents once told me that it was important that articulate demanding parents keep their kids in the state system, as strong advocates for higher standards. Once they opt out, then standards will drop for those without pushy parents.
They weren't left wing. Indeed my mother has been a lifelong member of the Conservative Party, and my father was a Liberal. They just believed in a duty to others, not just their own kin.1 -
Exactly. It is that opting out from looking after the broader population that drove the sense of alienation behind Brexit.kinabalu said:
Yes that's a big point that should be in the mix. The more the 'powers that be' are personally invested in something the more they'll be motivated to make it better.Foxy said:
My parents were strongly in favour of state comprehensives, partly because my father was at Wigan Grammar in the 1950s. He hated the petty snobbery of Wigans small middle class.kinabalu said:
But I'm not saying removal of this advantage removes all advantages. It won't and also shouldn't. Lots of the advantages that come from parents are because they're good parents, not that they're rich parents. I'm not seeking to interfere with that. Not at all.JosiasJessop said:
Thanks, but I think you're really off-track.kinabalu said:
That's a very fair and clarifying question. Where have you been all my life?JosiasJessop said:
Okay, let's put it this way. You want a change. What is the output of that change? What is the end result you want?kinabalu said:
Yes I am a parent.
It is sober. It's not an extreme position. The fact it is painted as such says a great deal about how relaxed we are about privilege and inequality.
No I haven't decided all private schools are evil. Or indeed any of them. I have no personal criticism of those who use private schools or personal prejudice against those who went to one.
Some of my best friends ... 🙂
But my strong and considered view is that they contribute significantly to our imo far too unequal society. Since I'm egalitarian inclined I'd like to see this addressed. Call that ideology if you like. It's not a dirty word in my book. You need some otherwise you're just flapping around with anecdote and tinker.
The output is a society where the link between parental bank balance and life prospects is significantly weaker than it is today.
I think an egalitarian education system would contribute greatly to that. And I think the private schools are a serious impediment to creating an egalitarian education system.
I define an egalitarian education system as one where a similar - and high - standard of schooling is available to all children. It will never be perfectly achievable but this should be the goal.
People send kids to private school because they think it will give their kids better results and/or prospects in life than sending them to their local state school. It costs them money to do so. In the absence of private school, that money will be spent in other ways to achieve the same aim. everything from home schooling to tutoring. results will still strongly depend on bank balance. Even after-school clubs are an issue.
As an example, we're in a fortunate position where Mrs J earns enough for me not to have to work. This meant I can focus much more on the little 'un, which has proved particularly invaluable during lockdown. How would your egalitarian system make up for that? Or the fact that I could purchase a subscription to Twinkl and other websites during lockdown to help us out (I know a couple of other parents who could not afford it). My son has many more opportunities to do tings because I have a car and can drive - hence our trip to Duxford today. One of his friends does not have such opportunities.
A problem with searching for an 'egalitarian' system is that the starting points are not egalitarian.
I really fail to see how banning private schools will lead to better results for children of either 'rich' or 'poor' parents. In fact, I can see it easily making matters much worse.
My parents once told me that it was important that articulate demanding parents keep their kids in the state system, as strong advocates for higher standards. Once they opt out, then standards will drop for those without pushy parents.
They weren't left wing. Indeed my mother has been a lifelong member of the Conservative Party, and my father was a Liberal. They just believed in a duty to others, not just their own kin.
HYUFD shows why the Tories will fail on the levelling up agenda. They don't really believe in it.3 -
They would have liked to see the Deanery, as Wigan Grammar became, in the 80's then.Foxy said:
My parents were strongly in favour of state comprehensives, partly because my father was at Wigan Grammar in the 1950s. He hated the petty snobbery of Wigans small middle class.kinabalu said:
But I'm not saying removal of this advantage removes all advantages. It won't and also shouldn't. Lots of the advantages that come from parents are because they're good parents, not that they're rich parents. I'm not seeking to interfere with that. Not at all.JosiasJessop said:
Thanks, but I think you're really off-track.kinabalu said:
That's a very fair and clarifying question. Where have you been all my life?JosiasJessop said:
Okay, let's put it this way. You want a change. What is the output of that change? What is the end result you want?kinabalu said:
Yes I am a parent.
It is sober. It's not an extreme position. The fact it is painted as such says a great deal about how relaxed we are about privilege and inequality.
No I haven't decided all private schools are evil. Or indeed any of them. I have no personal criticism of those who use private schools or personal prejudice against those who went to one.
Some of my best friends ... 🙂
But my strong and considered view is that they contribute significantly to our imo far too unequal society. Since I'm egalitarian inclined I'd like to see this addressed. Call that ideology if you like. It's not a dirty word in my book. You need some otherwise you're just flapping around with anecdote and tinker.
The output is a society where the link between parental bank balance and life prospects is significantly weaker than it is today.
I think an egalitarian education system would contribute greatly to that. And I think the private schools are a serious impediment to creating an egalitarian education system.
I define an egalitarian education system as one where a similar - and high - standard of schooling is available to all children. It will never be perfectly achievable but this should be the goal.
People send kids to private school because they think it will give their kids better results and/or prospects in life than sending them to their local state school. It costs them money to do so. In the absence of private school, that money will be spent in other ways to achieve the same aim. everything from home schooling to tutoring. results will still strongly depend on bank balance. Even after-school clubs are an issue.
As an example, we're in a fortunate position where Mrs J earns enough for me not to have to work. This meant I can focus much more on the little 'un, which has proved particularly invaluable during lockdown. How would your egalitarian system make up for that? Or the fact that I could purchase a subscription to Twinkl and other websites during lockdown to help us out (I know a couple of other parents who could not afford it). My son has many more opportunities to do tings because I have a car and can drive - hence our trip to Duxford today. One of his friends does not have such opportunities.
A problem with searching for an 'egalitarian' system is that the starting points are not egalitarian.
I really fail to see how banning private schools will lead to better results for children of either 'rich' or 'poor' parents. In fact, I can see it easily making matters much worse.
My parents once told me that it was important that articulate demanding parents keep their kids in the state system, as strong advocates for higher standards. Once they opt out, then standards will drop for those without pushy parents.
They weren't left wing. Indeed my mother has been a lifelong member of the Conservative Party, and my father was a Liberal. They just believed in a duty to others, not just their own kin.0 -
It is a bit of an exaggeration, 65% of Americans still class themselves as Christian but that is not as strong as it was. Nor is the US birth rate.Foxy said:
Declining religious faith would do a lot of America a lot of good, and I write that as a Christian.HYUFD said:
Collapsing fertility, declining religious faith, stagnant middle class wages and a dominant elite culture of progressivism seem to be the causes of US decline in his viewAndy_JS said:"America has become its own worst enemy
Like the Soviet Union, the US is dying from despair
BY ED WEST"
https://unherd.com/2021/08/america-is-turning-into-the-soviet-union/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_the_United_States
It is a common feature in the world that areas with the lowest levels of religious faith, eg the Far East and much of Europe also have the lowest fertility and therefore inevitably will see decline once that falls below population replacement level. That will in turn feed into declining economic growth ultimately.
Areas which have the strongest levels of religious belief still such as Africa are also areas with the strongest population growth globally and the highest fertility rate.
0 -
Well, to put it politely, I don't recall at the places I went to the knife and fork or speaking lessons, let alone the esoteric significance of "bedwetting." You come across as a fairly intelligent Russian stooge struggling with unfamiliar material.YoungTurk said:
Yes. (But that's a funny way of asking.) What are you exclaiming about?IshmaelZ said:
Christ on a fucking bike. Do you claim to have been at one of these places?YoungTurk said:
Open bursaries - mostly, yes. (Some scholarships nowadays at top schools come with very little off the fees. The reduction in their "value" was connected not with charity status per se, but with the acquisition of registered charity status. Previously many schools had functioned as unregistered charities.) To an extent, though, a little new blood is desired - carefully "talent"-spotted of course, and it's not accepted on anybody else's say-so. (Perish the thought.) Those in whose veins it flows are then "taught how to use a knife and fork" in the parlance - and how to "speak properly".OnlyLivingBoy said:
Yeah but most of them are wealthy, unless these schools have a magic money tree growing in their ample grounds that enable them to spend much more per pupil than local state schools while charging no fees.JosiasJessop said:
I should perhaps mention that many kids going to private schools don't have 'rich' parents. Many are on scholarships or subsidised, and many parents scrimp and save to send their kids to the school.OnlyLivingBoy said:
But Kinabulu, if you're not smart enough to have a rich daddy then how much potential have you really got?kinabalu said:
It's not levelling down or up. It's levelling. But probably you'd see a net uplift since there'd be more potential realized.maaarsh said:
Given you have no control over systems overseas (in the thought experiment where you, terrifyingly, have control on this island) how much relative educational & economic performance are you willing to sacrifice for more egalitarianism? Or is it a panacea and closing the best schools will also improve the overall average?kinabalu said:
That's a very fair and clarifying question. Where have you been all my life?JosiasJessop said:
Okay, let's put it this way. You want a change. What is the output of that change? What is the end result you want?kinabalu said:
Yes I am a parent.
It is sober. It's not an extreme position. The fact it is painted as such says a great deal about how relaxed we are about privilege and inequality.
No I haven't decided all private schools are evil. Or indeed any of them. I have no personal criticism of those who use private schools or personal prejudice against those who went to one.
Some of my best friends ... 🙂
But my strong and considered view is that they contribute significantly to our imo far too unequal society. Since I'm egalitarian inclined I'd like to see this addressed. Call that ideology if you like. It's not a dirty word in my book. You need some otherwise you're just flapping around with anecdote and tinker.
The output is a society where the link between parental bank balance and life prospects is significantly weaker than it is today.
I think an egalitarian education system would contribute greatly to that. And I think the private schools are a serious impediment to creating an egalitarian education system.
I define an egalitarian education system as one where a similar - and high - standard of schooling is available to all children. It will never be perfectly achievable but this should be the goal.
The scholarships are only there so they can do the whole charity tax dodge bollocks.0 -
Most bright working class kids failed the 11 plus because they weren't coached for it, and ended up in shitty Secondary Moderns where they had no chance of a good education. (Funny how nobody ever says bring back the Secondary Moderns, but you can't have Grammar Schools without Secondary Moderns).HYUFD said:
In comprehensives it tends to be middle class kids with pushy parents outside who still do fine, especially as most tend to be sent to high performing comps in leafy suburbs.Foxy said:
My parents were strongly in favour of state comprehensives, partly because my father was at Wigan Grammar in the 1950s. He hated the petty snobbery of Wigans small middle class.kinabalu said:
But I'm not saying removal of this advantage removes all advantages. It won't and also shouldn't. Lots of the advantages that come from parents are because they're good parents, not that they're rich parents. I'm not seeking to interfere with that. Not at all.JosiasJessop said:
Thanks, but I think you're really off-track.kinabalu said:
That's a very fair and clarifying question. Where have you been all my life?JosiasJessop said:
Okay, let's put it this way. You want a change. What is the output of that change? What is the end result you want?kinabalu said:
Yes I am a parent.
It is sober. It's not an extreme position. The fact it is painted as such says a great deal about how relaxed we are about privilege and inequality.
No I haven't decided all private schools are evil. Or indeed any of them. I have no personal criticism of those who use private schools or personal prejudice against those who went to one.
Some of my best friends ... 🙂
But my strong and considered view is that they contribute significantly to our imo far too unequal society. Since I'm egalitarian inclined I'd like to see this addressed. Call that ideology if you like. It's not a dirty word in my book. You need some otherwise you're just flapping around with anecdote and tinker.
The output is a society where the link between parental bank balance and life prospects is significantly weaker than it is today.
I think an egalitarian education system would contribute greatly to that. And I think the private schools are a serious impediment to creating an egalitarian education system.
I define an egalitarian education system as one where a similar - and high - standard of schooling is available to all children. It will never be perfectly achievable but this should be the goal.
People send kids to private school because they think it will give their kids better results and/or prospects in life than sending them to their local state school. It costs them money to do so. In the absence of private school, that money will be spent in other ways to achieve the same aim. everything from home schooling to tutoring. results will still strongly depend on bank balance. Even after-school clubs are an issue.
As an example, we're in a fortunate position where Mrs J earns enough for me not to have to work. This meant I can focus much more on the little 'un, which has proved particularly invaluable during lockdown. How would your egalitarian system make up for that? Or the fact that I could purchase a subscription to Twinkl and other websites during lockdown to help us out (I know a couple of other parents who could not afford it). My son has many more opportunities to do tings because I have a car and can drive - hence our trip to Duxford today. One of his friends does not have such opportunities.
A problem with searching for an 'egalitarian' system is that the starting points are not egalitarian.
I really fail to see how banning private schools will lead to better results for children of either 'rich' or 'poor' parents. In fact, I can see it easily making matters much worse.
My parents once told me that it was important that articulate demanding parents keep their kids in the state system, as strong advocates for higher standards. Once they opt out, then standards will drop for those without pushy parents.
They weren't left wing. Indeed my mother has been a lifelong member of the Conservative Party, and my father was a Liberal. They just believed in a duty to others, not just their own kin.
It is bright working class kids without pushy parents who most needed the grammar schools, otherwise they just end up in below average comps in inner cities or increasingly now declining seaside towns etc without the ladder grammars provided.
There is no great moral benefit in sending your children to comprehensives at all
FWIW it's mostly the middle class parents at our kids' school who organise the fundraising, the PTA, help with extracurricular activities etc, things that all the kids benefit from. And we vote for parties that want to increase funding for schools instead of cutting it. And we want to bring up kids who are at ease with the community they live in because they learn and play with the whole community. So actually, I think there is a whole lot of moral benefit in that, thanks.0 -
Wigan Grammar was full of middle class children who looked down on the few working class children there, who were mocked and bullied for their poverty.Andy_JS said:
But hang on a minute — if it was a grammar school, it would have been based on ability, not ability to pay. Surely that's a good thing. Comprehensive schools are now based on ability to afford a house in the right catchment area.Foxy said:
My parents were strongly in favour of state comprehensives, partly because my father was at Wigan Grammar in the 1950s. He hated the petty snobbery of Wigans small middle class.kinabalu said:
But I'm not saying removal of this advantage removes all advantages. It won't and also shouldn't. Lots of the advantages that come from parents are because they're good parents, not that they're rich parents. I'm not seeking to interfere with that. Not at all.JosiasJessop said:
Thanks, but I think you're really off-track.kinabalu said:
That's a very fair and clarifying question. Where have you been all my life?JosiasJessop said:
Okay, let's put it this way. You want a change. What is the output of that change? What is the end result you want?kinabalu said:
Yes I am a parent.
It is sober. It's not an extreme position. The fact it is painted as such says a great deal about how relaxed we are about privilege and inequality.
No I haven't decided all private schools are evil. Or indeed any of them. I have no personal criticism of those who use private schools or personal prejudice against those who went to one.
Some of my best friends ... 🙂
But my strong and considered view is that they contribute significantly to our imo far too unequal society. Since I'm egalitarian inclined I'd like to see this addressed. Call that ideology if you like. It's not a dirty word in my book. You need some otherwise you're just flapping around with anecdote and tinker.
The output is a society where the link between parental bank balance and life prospects is significantly weaker than it is today.
I think an egalitarian education system would contribute greatly to that. And I think the private schools are a serious impediment to creating an egalitarian education system.
I define an egalitarian education system as one where a similar - and high - standard of schooling is available to all children. It will never be perfectly achievable but this should be the goal.
People send kids to private school because they think it will give their kids better results and/or prospects in life than sending them to their local state school. It costs them money to do so. In the absence of private school, that money will be spent in other ways to achieve the same aim. everything from home schooling to tutoring. results will still strongly depend on bank balance. Even after-school clubs are an issue.
As an example, we're in a fortunate position where Mrs J earns enough for me not to have to work. This meant I can focus much more on the little 'un, which has proved particularly invaluable during lockdown. How would your egalitarian system make up for that? Or the fact that I could purchase a subscription to Twinkl and other websites during lockdown to help us out (I know a couple of other parents who could not afford it). My son has many more opportunities to do tings because I have a car and can drive - hence our trip to Duxford today. One of his friends does not have such opportunities.
A problem with searching for an 'egalitarian' system is that the starting points are not egalitarian.
I really fail to see how banning private schools will lead to better results for children of either 'rich' or 'poor' parents. In fact, I can see it easily making matters much worse.
My parents once told me that it was important that articulate demanding parents keep their kids in the state system, as strong advocates for higher standards. Once they opt out, then standards will drop for those without pushy parents.
They weren't left wing. Indeed my mother has been a lifelong member of the Conservative Party, and my father was a Liberal. They just believed in a duty to others, not just their own kin.
Grammar schools are still dominated by the middle classes demographically, as seen by the percentages on Free School Meals. The 11 plus is not much of a social leveller because the middle classes get a major headstart.2 -
We don't believe in the levelling down agenda of high tax and no parental choice no.Foxy said:
Exactly. It is that opting out from looking after the broader population that drove the sense of alienation behind Brexit.kinabalu said:
Yes that's a big point that should be in the mix. The more the 'powers that be' are personally invested in something the more they'll be motivated to make it better.Foxy said:
My parents were strongly in favour of state comprehensives, partly because my father was at Wigan Grammar in the 1950s. He hated the petty snobbery of Wigans small middle class.kinabalu said:
But I'm not saying removal of this advantage removes all advantages. It won't and also shouldn't. Lots of the advantages that come from parents are because they're good parents, not that they're rich parents. I'm not seeking to interfere with that. Not at all.JosiasJessop said:
Thanks, but I think you're really off-track.kinabalu said:
That's a very fair and clarifying question. Where have you been all my life?JosiasJessop said:
Okay, let's put it this way. You want a change. What is the output of that change? What is the end result you want?kinabalu said:
Yes I am a parent.
It is sober. It's not an extreme position. The fact it is painted as such says a great deal about how relaxed we are about privilege and inequality.
No I haven't decided all private schools are evil. Or indeed any of them. I have no personal criticism of those who use private schools or personal prejudice against those who went to one.
Some of my best friends ... 🙂
But my strong and considered view is that they contribute significantly to our imo far too unequal society. Since I'm egalitarian inclined I'd like to see this addressed. Call that ideology if you like. It's not a dirty word in my book. You need some otherwise you're just flapping around with anecdote and tinker.
The output is a society where the link between parental bank balance and life prospects is significantly weaker than it is today.
I think an egalitarian education system would contribute greatly to that. And I think the private schools are a serious impediment to creating an egalitarian education system.
I define an egalitarian education system as one where a similar - and high - standard of schooling is available to all children. It will never be perfectly achievable but this should be the goal.
People send kids to private school because they think it will give their kids better results and/or prospects in life than sending them to their local state school. It costs them money to do so. In the absence of private school, that money will be spent in other ways to achieve the same aim. everything from home schooling to tutoring. results will still strongly depend on bank balance. Even after-school clubs are an issue.
As an example, we're in a fortunate position where Mrs J earns enough for me not to have to work. This meant I can focus much more on the little 'un, which has proved particularly invaluable during lockdown. How would your egalitarian system make up for that? Or the fact that I could purchase a subscription to Twinkl and other websites during lockdown to help us out (I know a couple of other parents who could not afford it). My son has many more opportunities to do tings because I have a car and can drive - hence our trip to Duxford today. One of his friends does not have such opportunities.
A problem with searching for an 'egalitarian' system is that the starting points are not egalitarian.
I really fail to see how banning private schools will lead to better results for children of either 'rich' or 'poor' parents. In fact, I can see it easily making matters much worse.
My parents once told me that it was important that articulate demanding parents keep their kids in the state system, as strong advocates for higher standards. Once they opt out, then standards will drop for those without pushy parents.
They weren't left wing. Indeed my mother has been a lifelong member of the Conservative Party, and my father was a Liberal. They just believed in a duty to others, not just their own kin.
HYUFD shows why the Tories will fail on the levelling up agenda. They don't really believe in it.
That is why we are Tories after all.
It was lost national sovereignty and uncontrolled immigration that drove Brexit0 -
Unless, of course, they go to an actual comp as my two did. You see, round here it is the comp or private. There is no choice of State schools. So we have middle classes and working classes together in the same classrooms. Which is what a comp is meant to be.HYUFD said:
In comprehensives it tends to be middle class kids with pushy parents outside who still do fine, especially as most tend to be sent to high performing comps in leafy suburbs.Foxy said:
My parents were strongly in favour of state comprehensives, partly because my father was at Wigan Grammar in the 1950s. He hated the petty snobbery of Wigans small middle class.kinabalu said:
But I'm not saying removal of this advantage removes all advantages. It won't and also shouldn't. Lots of the advantages that come from parents are because they're good parents, not that they're rich parents. I'm not seeking to interfere with that. Not at all.JosiasJessop said:
Thanks, but I think you're really off-track.kinabalu said:
That's a very fair and clarifying question. Where have you been all my life?JosiasJessop said:
Okay, let's put it this way. You want a change. What is the output of that change? What is the end result you want?kinabalu said:
Yes I am a parent.
It is sober. It's not an extreme position. The fact it is painted as such says a great deal about how relaxed we are about privilege and inequality.
No I haven't decided all private schools are evil. Or indeed any of them. I have no personal criticism of those who use private schools or personal prejudice against those who went to one.
Some of my best friends ... 🙂
But my strong and considered view is that they contribute significantly to our imo far too unequal society. Since I'm egalitarian inclined I'd like to see this addressed. Call that ideology if you like. It's not a dirty word in my book. You need some otherwise you're just flapping around with anecdote and tinker.
The output is a society where the link between parental bank balance and life prospects is significantly weaker than it is today.
I think an egalitarian education system would contribute greatly to that. And I think the private schools are a serious impediment to creating an egalitarian education system.
I define an egalitarian education system as one where a similar - and high - standard of schooling is available to all children. It will never be perfectly achievable but this should be the goal.
People send kids to private school because they think it will give their kids better results and/or prospects in life than sending them to their local state school. It costs them money to do so. In the absence of private school, that money will be spent in other ways to achieve the same aim. everything from home schooling to tutoring. results will still strongly depend on bank balance. Even after-school clubs are an issue.
As an example, we're in a fortunate position where Mrs J earns enough for me not to have to work. This meant I can focus much more on the little 'un, which has proved particularly invaluable during lockdown. How would your egalitarian system make up for that? Or the fact that I could purchase a subscription to Twinkl and other websites during lockdown to help us out (I know a couple of other parents who could not afford it). My son has many more opportunities to do tings because I have a car and can drive - hence our trip to Duxford today. One of his friends does not have such opportunities.
A problem with searching for an 'egalitarian' system is that the starting points are not egalitarian.
I really fail to see how banning private schools will lead to better results for children of either 'rich' or 'poor' parents. In fact, I can see it easily making matters much worse.
My parents once told me that it was important that articulate demanding parents keep their kids in the state system, as strong advocates for higher standards. Once they opt out, then standards will drop for those without pushy parents.
They weren't left wing. Indeed my mother has been a lifelong member of the Conservative Party, and my father was a Liberal. They just believed in a duty to others, not just their own kin.
It is bright working class kids without pushy parents who most needed the grammar schools, otherwise they just end up in below average comps in inner cities or increasingly now declining seaside towns etc without the ladder grammars provided.
There is no great moral benefit in sending your children to comprehensives at all
It is very, very good. For both.3 -
Also, they're not actually trying. It's all pure blether.Foxy said:
Exactly. It is that opting out from looking after the broader population that drove the sense of alienation behind Brexit.kinabalu said:
Yes that's a big point that should be in the mix. The more the 'powers that be' are personally invested in something the more they'll be motivated to make it better.Foxy said:
My parents were strongly in favour of state comprehensives, partly because my father was at Wigan Grammar in the 1950s. He hated the petty snobbery of Wigans small middle class.kinabalu said:
But I'm not saying removal of this advantage removes all advantages. It won't and also shouldn't. Lots of the advantages that come from parents are because they're good parents, not that they're rich parents. I'm not seeking to interfere with that. Not at all.JosiasJessop said:
Thanks, but I think you're really off-track.kinabalu said:
That's a very fair and clarifying question. Where have you been all my life?JosiasJessop said:
Okay, let's put it this way. You want a change. What is the output of that change? What is the end result you want?kinabalu said:
Yes I am a parent.
It is sober. It's not an extreme position. The fact it is painted as such says a great deal about how relaxed we are about privilege and inequality.
No I haven't decided all private schools are evil. Or indeed any of them. I have no personal criticism of those who use private schools or personal prejudice against those who went to one.
Some of my best friends ... 🙂
But my strong and considered view is that they contribute significantly to our imo far too unequal society. Since I'm egalitarian inclined I'd like to see this addressed. Call that ideology if you like. It's not a dirty word in my book. You need some otherwise you're just flapping around with anecdote and tinker.
The output is a society where the link between parental bank balance and life prospects is significantly weaker than it is today.
I think an egalitarian education system would contribute greatly to that. And I think the private schools are a serious impediment to creating an egalitarian education system.
I define an egalitarian education system as one where a similar - and high - standard of schooling is available to all children. It will never be perfectly achievable but this should be the goal.
People send kids to private school because they think it will give their kids better results and/or prospects in life than sending them to their local state school. It costs them money to do so. In the absence of private school, that money will be spent in other ways to achieve the same aim. everything from home schooling to tutoring. results will still strongly depend on bank balance. Even after-school clubs are an issue.
As an example, we're in a fortunate position where Mrs J earns enough for me not to have to work. This meant I can focus much more on the little 'un, which has proved particularly invaluable during lockdown. How would your egalitarian system make up for that? Or the fact that I could purchase a subscription to Twinkl and other websites during lockdown to help us out (I know a couple of other parents who could not afford it). My son has many more opportunities to do tings because I have a car and can drive - hence our trip to Duxford today. One of his friends does not have such opportunities.
A problem with searching for an 'egalitarian' system is that the starting points are not egalitarian.
I really fail to see how banning private schools will lead to better results for children of either 'rich' or 'poor' parents. In fact, I can see it easily making matters much worse.
My parents once told me that it was important that articulate demanding parents keep their kids in the state system, as strong advocates for higher standards. Once they opt out, then standards will drop for those without pushy parents.
They weren't left wing. Indeed my mother has been a lifelong member of the Conservative Party, and my father was a Liberal. They just believed in a duty to others, not just their own kin.
HYUFD shows why the Tories will fail on the levelling up agenda. They don't really believe in it.0 -
But you voted to Remain like the socialist you truly are!HYUFD said:
We don't believe in the levelling down agenda of high tax and no parental choice no.Foxy said:
Exactly. It is that opting out from looking after the broader population that drove the sense of alienation behind Brexit.kinabalu said:
Yes that's a big point that should be in the mix. The more the 'powers that be' are personally invested in something the more they'll be motivated to make it better.Foxy said:
My parents were strongly in favour of state comprehensives, partly because my father was at Wigan Grammar in the 1950s. He hated the petty snobbery of Wigans small middle class.kinabalu said:
But I'm not saying removal of this advantage removes all advantages. It won't and also shouldn't. Lots of the advantages that come from parents are because they're good parents, not that they're rich parents. I'm not seeking to interfere with that. Not at all.JosiasJessop said:
Thanks, but I think you're really off-track.kinabalu said:
That's a very fair and clarifying question. Where have you been all my life?JosiasJessop said:
Okay, let's put it this way. You want a change. What is the output of that change? What is the end result you want?kinabalu said:
Yes I am a parent.
It is sober. It's not an extreme position. The fact it is painted as such says a great deal about how relaxed we are about privilege and inequality.
No I haven't decided all private schools are evil. Or indeed any of them. I have no personal criticism of those who use private schools or personal prejudice against those who went to one.
Some of my best friends ... 🙂
But my strong and considered view is that they contribute significantly to our imo far too unequal society. Since I'm egalitarian inclined I'd like to see this addressed. Call that ideology if you like. It's not a dirty word in my book. You need some otherwise you're just flapping around with anecdote and tinker.
The output is a society where the link between parental bank balance and life prospects is significantly weaker than it is today.
I think an egalitarian education system would contribute greatly to that. And I think the private schools are a serious impediment to creating an egalitarian education system.
I define an egalitarian education system as one where a similar - and high - standard of schooling is available to all children. It will never be perfectly achievable but this should be the goal.
People send kids to private school because they think it will give their kids better results and/or prospects in life than sending them to their local state school. It costs them money to do so. In the absence of private school, that money will be spent in other ways to achieve the same aim. everything from home schooling to tutoring. results will still strongly depend on bank balance. Even after-school clubs are an issue.
As an example, we're in a fortunate position where Mrs J earns enough for me not to have to work. This meant I can focus much more on the little 'un, which has proved particularly invaluable during lockdown. How would your egalitarian system make up for that? Or the fact that I could purchase a subscription to Twinkl and other websites during lockdown to help us out (I know a couple of other parents who could not afford it). My son has many more opportunities to do tings because I have a car and can drive - hence our trip to Duxford today. One of his friends does not have such opportunities.
A problem with searching for an 'egalitarian' system is that the starting points are not egalitarian.
I really fail to see how banning private schools will lead to better results for children of either 'rich' or 'poor' parents. In fact, I can see it easily making matters much worse.
My parents once told me that it was important that articulate demanding parents keep their kids in the state system, as strong advocates for higher standards. Once they opt out, then standards will drop for those without pushy parents.
They weren't left wing. Indeed my mother has been a lifelong member of the Conservative Party, and my father was a Liberal. They just believed in a duty to others, not just their own kin.
HYUFD shows why the Tories will fail on the levelling up agenda. They don't really believe in it.
That is why we are Tories after all.
It was lost national sovereignty and uncontrolled immigration that drove Brexit0 -
Jabs go-ahead for over-15s: 1.5m 16 and 17-year-olds 'to be told tomorrow' that they will be called for vaccinations within weeks
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9857461/Jabs-British-16-17-year-olds-days.html0 -
Although a slightly scary proportion of Singaporean educators are immigrants, so I wouldn’t go too far down that route.HYUFD said:
Singapore spends far less than we do as a percentage of its gdp but is top of the PISA rankings nowOnlyLivingBoy said:
We know that wealthy people think a lot of money should be spent on educating children, from revealed preference. They just don't want other people's kids to have that kind of money spent on them.TOPPING said:And fpt:
Private schools are a symptom not a cause. Take them away and parents will find a zillion ways to give their children a "better" start in life - for a start they will have £40k after tax to play with to do so.OnlyLivingBoy said:
You keep saying this, despite the evidence that grammar schools get captured by the middle class via tutoring and prep schools. If grammar schools were these incredible engines of social mobility, then Kent (where they still exist) would be a classless society. Anyone who has spent more than a few minutes in Kent will know that the opposite is the case.HYUFD said:
The best instrument we had for getting people from average or below average income backgrounds into top positions was of course the grammar schools.OnlyLivingBoy said:
The whole rationale of the state is to prevent people's choices from harming other people. Otherwise we wouldn't need it, we could all just do whatever we want.felix said:
No - it's about not letting the state decide everything and accepting that individuals and indeed parents have the right to make choices - and that those choices have consequences which no amount of state engineering can, or should negate.kinabalu said:
That's just the old "if we can't totally deal with an issue let's not deal with it at all" shtick.HYUFD said:
They are still not going to send their kids to the average or below average local comp.kinabalu said:
For sure. It's kind of a tax cut for the rich. In fact that's how I'd sell it in the drawing rooms and boardrooms of England.IshmaelZ said:
I can promise you there's also people who can and do afford it who'd be secretly not wholly disgruntled if the option were denied them, and they had to spend the money on horses and yachts instead, dammit.kinabalu said:
I think that is making the perfect the enemy of the good. Elitism can be reduced but not eradicated. In fact you shouldn't even try to eradicate it. That leads to totalitarianism and - yes - elites. Worse ones. I'm just thinking about what's realistic in England 2021. This could be possible one day. But not this day, I'm fully aware of that. It's electoral poison. People who can't afford this privilege still support it. Until this changes, no chance of reform, I'll be talking to the hand.IshmaelZ said:
Cutting the head off a hydra, mate. Everywhere has oligarchies, nowhere else has public schools (except in the sense of actually public actual schools). If you strike them down, they will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine.kinabalu said:
Gets my goat it really does. Private schools have to go. It's the only way imo.Foxy said:
And the Lord that drew up the shortlist was enabled by David Cameron, who was in the same dissolute dining club.kinabalu said:
Yes. What we need is a tape with Johnson saying, "Ah, Fergie! He was in the old Bullers with me. Sound as a pound. Hired."MattW said:FPT:
I don't need one.Gardenwalker said:
Despite your archaeology you haven’t really found a good reason why Boris should be picking an old school friend to head the Boris-monitoring committee, have you?MattW said:
I think what we may get here at some time is similar to what happened to selection of Bishops, where the process was that the PM got 2 names and a theoretical convention that they could choose either - which has only been used once in 100-200 appointments.OldKingCole said:
At this level it looks bad, though. However, I agree that we've not seen evidence that, for example, Johnson looked at the shortlist and said 'He's the one. Know him. Good chap' or similar. Nor have we seen any suggestion, AFAIK, that a selection committee produced three names in order of preference, and the Good Chap was third.MattW said:
That's the Indy. And there seems to be not a shred of actual evidence of malpractice.OldKingCole said:
Jobs for the sons and daughters of friends is as old as jobs themselves. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't; sometimes it's not the best way of hiring someone but sometimes it can work. Rather depends on how how up the chain the job is.Foxy said:
I don't think I have ever defended cronyism in the Labour Party either.JosiasJessop said:
That is wrong IMO.Foxy said:What an extraordinary coincidence that the best person to be on the anti-sleaze watchdog just happened to be an old chum of Johnsons from his Bullingdon Club days.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/boris-johnson-sleaze-committee-standards-public-life-b1895212.html
However, I remember some Corbyn fans on here defending McDonnell employing Corbyn's son in a taxpayer-funded role. By an astonishing coincidence, the son of his best bud was the best candidate for the job.
(Hint, he wasn't.)
If we want to stop people hiring friends, family and chums to roles, especially to taxpayer-funded roles, then it needs to apply equally to all.
The nepotism and Chumocracy does show how illusory "taking back control" was.
Has anyone provided any evidence that Johnson had a corrupt role in the process, or how the process worked such that Johnson could manipulate it? Or that the member appointed is unfit to be on the Committee or is corrupt?
Or is this just Hoof-in-Mouth Rayner howling at the moon because it is Tuesday and she still does not have anything to say?
"You were in a student club with him 35 years ago" is some way beyond farfetched.
The only possible chink I can see is if the PM is supplied with say 50 names, from which he then gets to choose who he wants, and that would still require a lot more evidence that we have.
It's quite a dangerous argument to make because it shrinks the pool of acceptable candidates - 'No, you went to the same school when you were six!" - and undermines the expectation of personal integrity.
That has now been replaced with the second name being a "reserve" if eg the first one dies.
Quite concerning, though, is the dire quality of opposition a reliance on painting this stuff in poster paints indicates.
I was pointing out that this particular outrage bus is fuelled by BS and hot air.
Short of that, as Charles would stress, nothing to see and unfair to insinuate.
It's almost like a self replicating oligarchy.
They will make sure they live in the most expensive postcodes and thus the locals schools their kids attend will still be those mainly attended by the offspring of the wealthy.
So you would have to ban expensive detached houses too and make everyone live in a 2 bed semi or council flat
I want the state to do its best to create a level playing field so that (a) everyone gets a fair shot in life and (b) the best people end up in top positions. It should be fairly evident that that's not happening right now, and private schools play a big part in that failure.
Labour of course could not have that so abolished most of them, for socialists equality of outcome is more important than equality of opportunity
Personally I am all for equality of opportunity - equality of outcome is impossible in education because some people are just smarter than others. The way to get equality of opportunity is to fund all schools better, rigorously enforce standards, pay teachers better to get good teachers to stay in the profession, and to make sure there are no kids too hungry to learn.
So you've got to go back to the root cause and then you are either build a Communist state or become like Finland, which would mean a root and branch transformation of our schooling - and university - system.
Problem is, as the man said, I wouldn't have started from here. Today we have bog standard comprehensives, Eton, Winchester and Oxbridge. All that would need to be reformed to get to "free" education.
I imagine that the extra percentage of GDP to be spent plus the requirement for all teachers to have a masters degree might also cause some problems, politically, as an example.
You say that spending more on schools would cause political problems. Why is that? The problem we have is that the constituency for spending more money on schools is too small, because many of those who feel most passionately about education have taken matters into their own hands. In many cases they have become opponents of funding state schools more generously in the process.
0 -
Not universally true though, Iran has had a major drop in fertility rate, from what used to be one of the world's highest. Much more than religion fertility correlates to secondary and tertiary education of females, though of course there is some confounding. Religious communities often oppose female education.HYUFD said:
It is a bit of an exaggeration, 65% of Americans still class themselves as Christian but that is not as strong as it was. Nor is the US birth rate.Foxy said:
Declining religious faith would do a lot of America a lot of good, and I write that as a Christian.HYUFD said:
Collapsing fertility, declining religious faith, stagnant middle class wages and a dominant elite culture of progressivism seem to be the causes of US decline in his viewAndy_JS said:"America has become its own worst enemy
Like the Soviet Union, the US is dying from despair
BY ED WEST"
https://unherd.com/2021/08/america-is-turning-into-the-soviet-union/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_the_United_States
It is a common feature in the world that areas with the lowest levels of religious faith, eg the Far East and much of Europe also have the lowest fertility and therefore inevitably will see decline once that falls below population replacement level. That will in turn feed into declining economic growth ultimately.
Areas which have the strongest levels of religious belief still such as Africa are also areas with the strongest population growth globally and the highest fertility rate.0
