Off Topic The Politics Thread

[TootingExcess]

TBH, the benefit of attending a public school wasn't the point of my post. If we move back to a grammar school and secondary modern system, we'll end up with wealthy parents doing the best for their children and putting in the money and time to get their offspring to the required entrance standard so they get those places. The offspring of less wealthy people will not be able to afford to do the same, so their equally talented children will not get the education their potential deserves. They deserve better. We as a society deserve to aim higher.

I believe you're right about Holland Park. I didn't go there, but had friends who did. It was one of the first comprehensive schools, I believe, and my friends who attended in the early '70s seemed to get a pretty decent education.

My mother passed the 11 plus to go to West Ken Grammar, but within a year or so it was comprehensivised and she ended up at Holland Park. This would have been early 60s - even before Wilson was elected - and she said it was a great school then.

If they bring them back now it will be for parents who 40 years ago would have sent their kids private - the clever kids from disadvantaged homes will get pushed aside by richer (and thicker) children benefiting from private tutoring.

 

[sb_73]

TBH, the benefit of attending a public school wasn't the point of my post. If we move back to a grammar school and secondary modern system, we'll end up with wealthy parents doing the best for their children and putting in the money and time to get their offspring to the required entrance standard so they get those places. The offspring of less wealthy people will not be able to afford to do the same, so their equally talented children will not get the education their potential deserves. They deserve better. We as a society deserve to aim higher.

I believe you're right about Holland Park. I didn't go there, but had friends who did. It was one of the first comprehensive schools, I believe, and my friends who attended in the early '70s seemed to get a pretty decent education.

I get that I was just curious. Most parents, not just wealthy ones, will do their best for their kids. Many make tremendous sacrifices for this. If people want private education that is their choice, what I would like is a state system that makes going private a dodgy investment. If that involves selection, whether between or within schools, select on the basis of potential (as you say) rather than how well someone has been coached to take a test.

My mother passed the 11 plus to go to West Ken Grammar, but within a year or so it was comprehensivised and she ended up at Holland Park. This would have been early 60s - even before Wilson was elected - and she said it was a great school then.

If they bring them back now it will be for parents who 40 years ago would have sent their kids private - the clever kids from disadvantaged homes will get pushed aside by richer (and thicker) children benefiting from private tutoring.

Which is why, if we have to have them, selection should be on the basis of potential. But I think we should be able to differentiate and meet needs of different pupils within schools, rather than segregate them.

 

[finglasqpr]

Seeing as I have the thread to myself, let's turn to those cute vermin, foxes. Apparently there are 33,000 urban foxes in the UK and 225,000 rural ones. Of the urban ones, approximately 32,500 live within a mile of my house.

Increasing numbers of people are trying to keep foxes as pets. Breeding them is unregulated. They cannot be tamed, toilet trained, taught anything and they stink. They are wild animals, totally different from dogs which are all descended from wolves and have had millennia of breeding and training to make then fantastic companions (I am a big fan of dogs). A fox can become dependant on a human for food but won't give much back. Even when it wags its tail it is a sign of submission, not pleasure. When the owners get bored of these creatures which will **** all over their house and bite strangers, they can't fend for themselves in the wild.

I like wildlife and think fox hunting is naff. But control of their numbers is sensible and keeping them as pets idiotic.

Thank you for your patience.

I know a few humans like that too.

 

[GoldhawkRoad]

Seeing as I have the thread to myself, let's turn to those cute vermin, foxes. Apparently there are 33,000 urban foxes in the UK and 225,000 rural ones. Of the urban ones, approximately 32,500 live within a mile of my house.

Increasing numbers of people are trying to keep foxes as pets. Breeding them is unregulated. They cannot be tamed, toilet trained, taught anything and they stink. They are wild animals, totally different from dogs which are all descended from wolves and have had millennia of breeding and training to make then fantastic companions (I am a big fan of dogs). A fox can become dependant on a human for food but won't give much back. Even when it wags its tail it is a sign of submission, not pleasure. When the owners get bored of these creatures which will **** all over their house and bite strangers, they can't fend for themselves in the wild.

I like wildlife and think fox hunting is naff. But control of their numbers is sensible and keeping them as pets idiotic.

Thank you for your patience.

In the country, you get a better class of fox. They use toilet paper, and always pull the chain. They have a glossy coat and a beautiful brush. They use the brush to clean my backyard for cash - they also have a bushy tail. They sing rather well. I have a noisy vixen next door - but enough of my neighbour, go country foxes

 

[GoldhawkRoad]

I know a few humans like that too.

...you can find them every other Saturday at Stamford Bridge...

 

[TheBigDipper]

I get that I was just curious.

OK. The primary focus of that school at that time was to get their pupils to Oxford or Cambridge. That's what the parents were paying for. The curriculum was oriented exclusively around achieving that. It worked. Most years, all 6th form pupils went to Uni, and lots of them to Oxbridge colleges. Was it a better education than elsewhere? Who can tell? The people who went through it don't have anything else to compare it with. They weren't the people choosing the school, of course, it was their parents. I think Uni was the place these people started to find themselves and their future contacts in the world.

 

[Shawswood]

I like spiders because they eat flies, and I like foxes because they eat rats and mice. It's the people who feed them that I don't like.

 

[awjm]

I met Right Honourable John Bercow today. I asked him a question about the Remembrancer of the City of London and what role he has in attending at the House of Commons and Lords. He is an extremely eloquent man and is very interesting to listen to (despite being a Tory and fan of the Iron Lady).

 

[sb_73]

Just heard Greening on the radio, claiming that grammar schools were in the last Tory manifesto (I doubt it, Cameron not a fan) and that somehow this policy, which will be implemented in leafy Tory boroughs and probably nowhere else, helps poorer kids. Sir Michael Wilshire, head of OFSTED and most academics disagree, but hey who cares what experts say, they are apparently all corrupt liars and members of the Illuminati. Wilshire also sees no problems with faith schools selecting 100% of their pupils according to faith. I have a problem with faith schools full stop, but I suppose the ghetto-isation of kids at age 4 is a good idea, it's worked so well in Northern Ireland.

Meanwhile, the 3rd presidential candidate, libertarian Gary Johnson, does not know what Aleppo is let alone that it's a city in Syria, in the newspapers and on the TV every single day, even in the famously parochial US. What a choice for president they have.

 

[Stroller]

Just heard Greening on the radio, claiming that grammar schools were in the last Tory manifesto (I doubt it, Cameron not a fan) and that somehow this policy, which will be implemented in leafy Tory boroughs and probably nowhere else, helps poorer kids. Sir Michael Wilshire, head of OFSTED and most academics disagree, but hey who cares what experts say, they are apparently all corrupt liars and members of the Illuminati. Wilshire also sees no problems with faith schools selecting 100% of their pupils according to faith. I have a problem with faith schools full stop, but I suppose the ghetto-isation of kids at age 4 is a good idea, it's worked so well in Northern Ireland.

Meanwhile, the 3rd presidential candidate, libertarian Gary Johnson, does not know what Aleppo is let alone that it's a city in Syria, in the newspapers and on the TV every single day, even in the famously parochial US. What a choice for president they have.

Faith schools are an abomination. To define a child by an imposed religion is disgusting.

 

[GoldhawkRoad]

Just heard Greening on the radio, claiming that grammar schools were in the last Tory manifesto (I doubt it, Cameron not a fan) and that somehow this policy, which will be implemented in leafy Tory boroughs and probably nowhere else, helps poorer kids. Sir Michael Wilshire, head of OFSTED and most academics disagree, but hey who cares what experts say, they are apparently all corrupt liars and members of the Illuminati. Wilshire also sees no problems with faith schools selecting 100% of their pupils according to faith. I have a problem with faith schools full stop, but I suppose the ghetto-isation of kids at age 4 is a good idea, it's worked so well in Northern Ireland.

Meanwhile, the 3rd presidential candidate, libertarian Gary Johnson, does not know what Aleppo is let alone that it's a city in Syria, in the newspapers and on the TV every single day, even in the famously parochial US. What a choice for president they have.

The one approach I am absolutely solid about is "setting". Children have varying talents in different subjects, and so setting per subject, or group of subjects - e.g. 1. languages 2. science and maths 3. English literature and history etc... is vital so that kids aren't held back in their acumen subjects, and conversely don't hold others back and feel pressurised in their weak subjects.

I'm not yet convinced about the return of the Grammar school. There would have to be fixed quotas set in stone for the kids of poor families to give them a chance against middle class parents who move house, pay for their kid's private tuition etc (I'm not knocking these parents, quite the reverse, but a system that allows them to dominate defeats some of the purpose of a Grammar).

My big problem is, it may all come down to the 11 plus again - fail it, and you get a second class education until 18. Theresa May has suggested there may be continual assessments and movements between schools at say, 13, 15 etc. Ok, perhaps. But this could mean moving schools several times (new uniform, new travel plans etc) whereas by "setting", this can all be achieved in the same school.

 

[durbar2003]

The one approach I am absolutely solid about is "setting". Children have varying talents in different subjects, and so setting per subject, or group of subjects - e.g. 1. languages 2. science and maths 3. English literature and history etc... is vital so that kids aren't held back in their acumen subjects, and conversely don't hold others back and feel pressurised in their weak subjects.

I'm not yet convinced about the return of the Grammar school. There would have to be fixed quotas set in stone for the kids of poor families to give them a chance against middle class parents who move house, pay for their kid's private tuition etc (I'm not knocking these parents, quite the reverse, but a system that allows them to dominate defeats some of the purpose of a Grammar).

My big problem is, it may all come down to the 11 plus again - fail it, and you get a second class education until 18. Theresa May has suggested there may be continual assessments and movements between schools at say, 13, 15 etc. Ok, perhaps. But this could mean moving schools several times (new uniform, new travel plans etc) whereas by "setting", this can all be achieved in the same school.

Which we had at Wren

 

[ELLERS]

I like spiders because they eat flies, and I like foxes because they eat rats and mice. It's the people who feed them that I don't like.

I thought owls and birds like eagles eat rats and foxes eat chickens and Glacier mints?

You must log in or register to see images

 

[rangercol]

For as long as I can remember, governments of all persuations have experimented with and royally ****ed up education.

 

[sb_73]

John 'listen to me!' Humphreys just said something remarkable on the wireless, discussing education with David Blunkett. To paraphrase he claimed that all kids (I.e everyone) have some kind of talent. If they are not great academically, they will have other potential - implying to me that they will be good at art, sport or with their hands.

It's just not true is it? Some people don't have any skills at all (just as some are good academically and good at sport and art as well). It's not their fault and it doesn't mean they are worthless and can't lead useful and full lives. I think Humphreys was attempting to walk a particularly modern tightrope, both recognising that people are different and being 'inclusive' making sure no one feels left out. And he ****ed it up.

But he didn't **** it up as much as 'Dr' Fox, calling British businessmen 'fat and lazy' and claiming that they would prefer to play golf than open up new export markets. Conveniently forgetting that he wants to cut ties with our biggest export market, the one which 94% of entrepreneurs running Britain's fastest growing companies wanted us to stay in. He also claims that its a 'duty' for companies to export more. Tell you what Liam, if you think industry should be run for what you perceive to be the national interest, nationalise it. He's ****ing thick in the head, the corrupt cheat.

 

[sb_73]

Now I have read more about what Fox said and he comes across as as a complete ****wit, who knows he is going to fail and is already finding people to blame:
- he talks down British industry, the very thing he is meant to be promoting
- he has a go at the Foreign Office, saying it should be entirely focussed on trade.
- he moans on about 'changing the culture' clearly ignorant of the fact that such wittering never 'changes the culture'.
- he says that he will not impose any import duties to protect British industries, even against rigged competition like in steel.

All these have been brushed off by Downing Street as 'personal opinions' But obviously they are 'personal opinions' expressed by a Secretary of State, which he will lobby for in Cabinet.

But he did announce one policy change. We have spent a long time trying to attract inward investment, foreign companies investing in Britain and creating jobs, both directly and indirectly. Obviously the government benefits by increased tax income, although profits get repatriated abroad. Now they want to reverse this, and encourage British firms to invest overseas, so profits get repatriated here (of course it is a hot topic how and where these profits are taxed). Which apparently is better for us all than job creation in the UK.

Hate is a strong word and I don't use it lightly or often. But I genuinely hate 'Dr' Fox.

 

[Star of David Bardsley]

Now I have read more about what Fox said and he comes across as as a complete ****wit, who knows he is going to fail and is already finding people to blame:
- he talks down British industry, the very thing he is meant to be promoting
- he has a go at the Foreign Office, saying it should be entirely focussed on trade.
- he moans on about 'changing the culture' clearly ignorant of the fact that such wittering never 'changes the culture'.
- he says that he will not impose any import duties to protect British industries, even against rigged competition like in steel.

All these have been brushed off by Downing Street as 'personal opinions' But obviously they are 'personal opinions' expressed by a Secretary of State, which he will lobby for in Cabinet.

But he did announce one policy change. We have spent a long time trying to attract inward investment, foreign companies investing in Britain and creating jobs, both directly and indirectly. Obviously the government benefits by increased tax income, although profits get repatriated abroad. Now they want to reverse this, and encourage British firms to invest overseas, so profits get repatriated here (of course it is a hot topic how and where these profits are taxed). Which apparently is better for us all than job creation in the UK.

Hate is a strong word and I don't use it lightly or often. But I genuinely hate 'Dr' Fox.

I've not read what he's said but imposing tariffs is never the answer IMO. It just protects inefficient industries/companies which, sadly, probably shouldn't exist if they can't turn a profit.

 

[kiwiqpr]

Can we headquarter all the British companies in dublin

 

[durbar2003]

Can we headquarter all the British companies in dublin

Prefer the Caymans!

 

[sb_73]

I've not read what he's said but imposing tariffs is never the answer IMO. It just protects inefficient industries/companies which, sadly, probably shouldn't exist if they can't turn a profit.

May be, but if you are a fan of nation states which require strategic industrial capacity, sometimes they are a necessity. Chinese protectionism and tariffs protect their own inefficient steel industry, flood other markets with cheap (even after tariffs) product. So you end up without the capacity to make steel and dependent on China and other producers.

Personally I'm not a fan of nation states, but I'm less of a fan of the Chinese and other governments, and despite my lukewarm view, nations are still the way we do things, apparently.