I didn't say the Tories are directly responsible for the rich getting richer, but they certainly aren't doing anything about it and the more idealistic of them still believe in trickle-down - Ha Ha Ha
I certainly don't defend globalisation and I'm not sure that 'the left' do either, but I'm not here to defend them
Where do you think 'the right' stand on globalisation?
I went to a Grammar school and would wholly support their re-introduction if they did what they were supposed to
I'm concerned that just like the best state schools now the middle-classes would find a way to exclude the less well-off
And now I say that I need to look at some figures to see if it worked in my day. I did seem to be there with a lot of kids from Chandlers Ford ???
I think the right are happy to adopt the term globalisation and know it is really the old capitalism with a new name which enables full on profiteering instead of the old restrained version of capitalism. The difference is that the left defend Globalisation while denouncing capitalism. The right don't. When they are both on the same page why vote for the ones that are trying to pretend it is something else.
I certainly don;t think the right will be doing anything about globalisation without pressure being applied, however the left are obviously not bothered either while they protect globalisation. What's the point for voting for the left if it will continue anyway?
I agree with your first sentence on Grammar schools however you could cover lots of policies with that one. The problem is not with the policy, it is with how the policy is administered. It is a good policy to get people on "disability" back to work if they are able to. The policy there is not the problem it is the administration of that policy where quite obviously people who are not able are being assessed as able.
I agree that the administration of grammar school policy will be a problem but that does not make the policy wrong.
With both these are problems of the system, not the policy itself. I am sure that gifted children from poor or rich backgrounds can be spotted without any extra tutoring and it shouldn;t be down to paying for extra tutoring to get through the exams. A bright kid is a bright kid poor or rich. Even so if only 5% (my bad example figure) of poor kids get into the grammar school that is 5% more than when there aren't grammar schools so it is still a positive. Try to increase the % from there. I'll take that a 5% chance over a 0% chance every time. I just do not understand that way of thinking.
And again if the middle class find a way to exclude the working class then that is another administration problem and not the policy itself. It needs to be administered better.
A lot of the constant debate about policy is what happens rather than what should have happened. The solution should be to correct what happens not bin the policy.
The left argument always seems to be pessimistic and resists change because of what "might" happen. Or denouncing this as "enabling" something. If something is enabled because of a policy then again sort out that problem. We seem stuck in a politics that won;t change anything for fear of a side effect rather than dealing with that side effect.
There may well have been more kids from Chandler's Ford. Would be the same all over the country. Clever people get rich. Clever people tend to be more likely to have bright kids. Poor people tend to be less involved with their children's education than richer people who are more driven. Try and sort that out. Don;t deprive those that did have a chance just because others didn't have a chance. The bright poor kid whose parents are involved and help him/her can't do anything about the other bright kids that didn't get that help so why deprive him/her of that chance to advance? Sort the system out before you complain about policy.
I actually got both my boys into what is a grammar school in all but name. IT is pretty selective without being allowed to be selective so they use a back door policy of giving a number of places to each primary school in the city and the closest get the places. Therefore being well away from the Council Estates in all directions it means parents of Council Estate kids would have to transport them across the City which they won't do. So in my kid's primary school there were 4 places offered and only 2 were prepared to do the travelling rather than choose the Comp school they are next to. Posh parents fight for places at this school and most working class parents aren't prepared to put the effort/cost of transport etc in so almost all the places are left over from the "allocations" of the council estate schools and are offered up to boarding pupils or service pupils from the local RAF camps with the rest going to the affluent local area lot.
My kids are bright and this is a school that hits over 90% at C or above compared to the Comps that do well to hit 50%. It's a no brainer so we put that effort in and I help with homework etc.
If there was a grammar school then my boys could pass the test and then get their transport paid for whereas because I am not choosing the local Comp I cannot claim for transport. So at the minute I as a low income person am out of pocket to get my kid into a good school. I thought the left were fighting for the opposite?
The current system is "go to the nearest available school or you will have to pay transport" which eliminates a lot of low earners from this supposed "choice." That was the system under Blair too hence why there is the posh parents buying houses local to the good schools.
In effect I am having to pay to get my kids into the best school. Transport is not cheap for low earners.
A week later the numeracy test results came back from EMREB and I was the only 100%. 100% in 40 minutes. Those on the quiz team that should have been there got 96% to 98% while the one that shouldn't have been there got 89%
) but this part made me think of a Bond villain stroking a cat and plotting how to wipe out a whole generation for the greater good (as he sees it). 
