Political round up.............

First topic message reminder :

Soft thread split, hard thread split, no-deal thread split. Who gives a sh!t as long as we get a thread split by the 15:35 deadline.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Stupid policy from Labour abolishing private schools..

I believe in choice....Looks like the policy is based on jealousy whether it is or isn't..Not a good look.

However I do agree with removing their charitable status...

As for their Deputy Leader debacle...Shambles...

If you are going to try to get rid....Do it....If you back down you lose twice as he is stronger and you look like muppets..

Should have got rid of him...He is poison and always has been since he schemed 24/7 against Blair also.

As someone who wants anyone but Johnson it is depressing stuff..

Yep. Massively stupid. That's today's Labour though for you. Why they think the approach of Michael Foot is going to be any more successful now, than the early 80s, I have no idea. As to charitable status, a nuanced issue I think and the Government could start with more worthy targets, such as religious institutions, before they get on to schools.

Corbyns labour exist just to divide the votes of more competent parties so the Tories can walk back into power unopposed.

navyblueshorts wrote:

Pr4wn wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

Pr4wn wrote:My point is so what if they were driven there? They're doing more about the biggest crisis facing the world than anybody else, especially the fully-grown adults that can only muster contempt for their caring about their future. This after being complicit in ruining it...

A less great point. Of course, no adult is doing anything, at all, are they? As for the 'ruining it' remark, the self-same Greta Thunbergs of the World would also have 'ruined it', had they been born 50 years ago.

But they weren't born 50 years ago, so they didn't ruin it.

My point is that there are still so many people who are, rather than actually trying to do anything positive to solve this crisis, just slagging off these kids.

Fine, but you miss my point. These climate protesters are the same as you, me, Soul etc. They're just of their time and we're a product of ours. Your casual slagging off of all adults is pretty cheap, and more importantly, pretty inaccurate.
I suspect the majority slagging off these kids are doing so because of the general hypocrisy of the majority of protestors and the fact those criticising have their own lives to get on with, filled with the mundane, but important, things such as getting paid, raising kids, worrying about health, retirement etc etc.
Rather than p!ssing off a large proportion of people trying to get on with their daily lives, these protestors could practice what they preach and point out to the various companies why they're not buying smart phones, taking holidays abroad, eating meat etc etc etc. You know, hit those companies in the pocket. Some of them undoubtedly are, but I suspect the majority haven't even thought about it.

If they didn't affect daily lives with their protests no one would take notice...

Catch 22...

History shows from Civil rights movements...Gay rights..Women's rights with Emily Pankhurst types here in the UK..

Aggressive protest is the only way to affect change because when you start affecting the lives of Joe Soap...Politicians get grief..

GSC wrote:Corbyns labour exist just to divide the votes of more competent parties so the Tories can walk back into power unopposed.

Shame on Centrist Labour People for spending four years personally attacking him then when they should have been developing a policy agenda to dethrone him..Wasted years.

Still...I'm voting Labour....I imagine plenty of Lib Dems and Greens will be joining me in marginals very soon regardless of whether Labour deserve it or not.

I want this filthy...racist..mysogynistic..bigot that isn't fit for human consumption...Out of power...(My way of saying I don't like Johnson)

neither do I but equally not sure whether I can drag myself to vote for Corbyns labour either. Leaning Lib Dem as it stands

I am unsure which way to go.

My constituency was in the past a Liberal seat, but now a Tory seat. I traditionally vote Labour, but weigh up a more tactical vote for LD. However, in the last election the LD flopped and Labour were second

My seat is a pretty safe SNP seat, and seeing as im very unlikely to vote for a party that isnt dead set remain it suits me.

Comres...If Britain doesn't leave on Oct 31 ??

Lab 25
Con 22
Lib 21....

Does Claudius have another go at a May like deal...Does he suspend Parliament again for No Deal..

We will see..

Hahahaha....

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-49798357

Cloud cuckoo land.

Interesting Yougov poll on tactical voting..

How would you vote if the only two parties in with a chance of winning your marginal were Lib dems and the Tories ??

Labour...1% for the Tories......47% for the Lib Dems...
Greens 53% for the Lib Dems.....0% for the Tories...

How would you vote if the only Parties that could win were Labour and the Tories ??

Lib Dems.....8% for the Tories........35% for Labour...
Greens........12% for the Tories.......42% for Labour...

Tactical voting looks in play for sure....

navyblueshorts wrote:Hahahaha....

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-49798357

Cloud cuckoo land.

Dear lord

He must have found Theresa's magic money tree

navyblueshorts wrote:Hahahaha....

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-49798357

Cloud cuckoo land.

How the hell have Labour gone from Gordon Brown to this in 12 years.

Four day week...I think it's a good idea....

UK has the longest hours in Europe and has the worst levels of productivity...

In fact New Zealand has done trials and it has shown to be 20% more productive...Staff were happier...No fall in output....

A better work/life balance for all involved..

Who wouldn't want that ????? Apart from an old misery guts like Navy..

The private schools thing is baffling in logical terms. It seems a quite pointed attack on their view of the Tories. It’s loved by Momentum, who seem to be the most immature notorious political ‘group.’

I don’t really have any animosity towards private schools as an entity, suggesting reform around any government funding rather than abolishing them. I don’t think it’ll raise the quality of schools, and whilst it may help the humility of some kids, it may well damage the children from struggling families - although both are unlikely to be wildly obvious consequences.

I mean, they shouldn't really have charitable status, in my opinion. Especially top schools like Eton and Harrow.

You’ve got a school system there screaming for help. Not sure anyone was at their desk blaming those darn private schools.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Four day week...I think it's a good idea....

UK has the longest hours in Europe and has the worst levels of productivity...

In fact New Zealand has done trials and it has shown to be 20% more productive...Staff were happier...No fall in output....

A better work/life balance for all involved..

Who wouldn't want that ????? Apart from an old misery guts like Navy..

It's not a case of not wanting that TRUSS; who wouldn't? It's just a pie in the sky idea, however.

Agreed on removing charitable status.

Disagree with removing the right of parents to choose how to school their kids. It seems like they think it will get rid of the likes of Johnson and Mogg, but in reality they'll just be privately schooled abroad then get to the same positions via their old family connections anyway.

Its the "middle class" who may have worked their butts off to be able to send their kids to private school who'll suffer

A decent compromise would be to remove their charitable status.

If a family can afford to send their child to private school then why not, I'd do it if I could that's for sure. The socialist approach to education does baffle me, different children have different needs and that must be catered for in the system instead of a one size fits all approach. I myself went to grammar school and don't feel I would have survived comprehensive school nor do I feel it would have benefitted me, if you have more academically able students then nurture that.

You don't go to private school because you are more academically able, you go because your family have more money. And the different systems don't cope with the different needs. The complete opposite.

I don't agree with private schools at all. Whether they provide a better education or not is questionable, given the money goes on facilities and a teacher in a private school doesn't need to be a qualified teacher.

But if we assume no one would pay for something that they could get better for free, and therefore that private schools give a better education, why should your child get a better education because you have money, than mine because I don't. Education isn't a privilege. It should be a right for every child

And it encourages debt. I know parents with cards maxed to their eyeballs to send to a local private school in the belief that it is better, when the reality is the exam results are worse than the local comp, half a mile away. Its the Stella Artois, reassuringly expensive. It costs more, therefore it must be better

I don’t really agree with grammar schools. Don’t think it breeds the best of many.

Private schools, well it’s your money, if you’re gonna take anyone as long as they’ve got the dosh then that’s their prerogative. I don’t think they should be funded by anything but these tuition fees though, and that these fees should further be raised to put money back into the public system.

Private healthcare exists too, can’t imagine they’re gonna go cancel that

navyblueshorts wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Four day week...I think it's a good idea....

UK has the longest hours in Europe and has the worst levels of productivity...

In fact New Zealand has done trials and it has shown to be 20% more productive...Staff were happier...No fall in output....

A better work/life balance for all involved..

Who wouldn't want that ????? Apart from an old misery guts like Navy..

It's not a case of not wanting that TRUSS; who wouldn't? It's just a pie in the sky idea, however.

What bit about New Zealand trying it out and finding it a positive idea didn't you get ???...

I see the Tories are having a go again at Angela Rayner (Shadow Ed) for leaving school with no qualifications..

Snobbish crap...My colleagues and myself all have Degrees and most of them are as thick as Pig turd.

So you get to decide how I choose to have MY child educated?

Truss...

New Zealand is a heaven the UK could never be.

Dolphin Ziggler wrote:I don’t really agree with grammar schools. Don’t think it breeds the best of many.

Private schools, well it’s your money, if you’re gonna take anyone as long as they’ve got the dosh then that’s their prerogative. I don’t think they should be funded by anything but these tuition fees though, and that these fees should further be raised to put money back into the public system.

Private healthcare exists too, can’t imagine they’re gonna go cancel that

Don't get me started on private healthcare!!!!

I respect that there will always be private schools and don't see that abolishing them has any legs. I agree with what has been said before that they should not get charitable status and as a minimum should be entirely self-sufficient in the same way as any other business

Soul Requiem wrote:So you get to decide how I choose to have MY child educated?

No. I don't think there should be a choice. Why is your child entitled to more than my child because you have more money?

If you benchmark private education as the best, then all education for all children should be at that benchmark. Not a two tier system depending on how much money you have

Afro wrote:

Soul Requiem wrote:So you get to decide how I choose to have MY child educated?

No. I don't think there should be a choice. Why is your child entitled to more than my child because you have more money?

If you benchmark private education as the best, then all education for all children should be at that benchmark. Not a two tier system depending on how much money you have

Erm because I would have earned that right, not that I have but I see no reason why my life choices should have any impact on anybody else.

We'll turn the country into a communist utopia where everybody is the same then shall we?

So you don't agree that if you can provide the best education for one child, you should try and provide that for all children?

Think we are far apart politically, so may be best to agree to disagree

Afro wrote:You don't go to private school because you are more academically able, you go because your family have more money. And the different systems don't cope with the different needs. The complete opposite.

I don't agree with private schools at all. Whether they provide a better education or not is questionable, given the money goes on facilities and a teacher in a private school doesn't need to be a qualified teacher.

But if we assume no one would pay for something that they could get better for free, and therefore that private schools give a better education, why should your child get a better education because you have money, than mine because I don't. Education isn't a privilege. It should be a right for every child

Yes I was told it was about maximising potential. Smart kids will do fine anywhere. Beyond that there is a requirement for boarding schools in some circumstances.

There was a thread about this on Tw(a/i)tter. Someone pointed out that of the many UK Nobel prize winners only one was privately educated. In my time in academia I can't remember anyone who was privately educated as such.

Afro wrote:So you don't agree that if you can provide the best education for one child, you should try and provide that for all children?

Think we are far apart politically, so may be best to agree to disagree

Well no, I see no reason to dictate to people what they can and can't spend their money on.

Afro wrote:So you don't agree that if you can provide the best education for one child, you should try and provide that for all children?

Think we are far apart politically, so may be best to agree to disagree

It is a compelling argument....Rather than eliminate choice I think more thought needs to go into how we bring poor schools up to a standard where choice becomes of less relevance..

Starting with dumping crappy Teachers......Who may have great knowledge but are crap at getting it across.

Perhaps less emphasis required on the subject knowledge and more on the delivery..

Soul Requiem wrote:

Afro wrote:So you don't agree that if you can provide the best education for one child, you should try and provide that for all children?

Think we are far apart politically, so may be best to agree to disagree

Well no, I see no reason to dictate to people what they can and can't spend their money on.

No, I don't either. Its the fundamentals of whether Education, Healthcare etc are a privilege or a right.

lostinwales wrote:

Afro wrote:You don't go to private school because you are more academically able, you go because your family have more money. And the different systems don't cope with the different needs. The complete opposite.

I don't agree with private schools at all. Whether they provide a better education or not is questionable, given the money goes on facilities and a teacher in a private school doesn't need to be a qualified teacher.

But if we assume no one would pay for something that they could get better for free, and therefore that private schools give a better education, why should your child get a better education because you have money, than mine because I don't. Education isn't a privilege. It should be a right for every child

Yes I was told it was about maximising potential. Smart kids will do fine anywhere. Beyond that there is a requirement for boarding schools in some circumstances.

There was a thread about this on Tw(a/i)tter. Someone pointed out that of the many UK Nobel prize winners only one was privately educated. In my time in academia I can't remember anyone who was privately educated as such.

To nitpick that isn't true, numerous UK nobel prize winners went to independent co-educationals which is where the confusion comes from I assume, private schools not always being called private.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

Afro wrote:So you don't agree that if you can provide the best education for one child, you should try and provide that for all children?

Think we are far apart politically, so may be best to agree to disagree

It is a compelling argument....Rather than eliminate choice I think more thought needs to go into how we bring poor schools up to a standard where choice becomes of less relevance..

Starting with dumping crappy Teachers......Who may have great knowledge but are crap at getting it across.

Perhaps less emphasis required on the subject knowledge and more on the delivery..

Another view of mine is that education of children isn't about teaching children knowledge. Its about teaching children the skills they require to be able to discover that knowledge for themselves. That way, they can continue to use those skills and keep developing

Afro wrote:

No. I don't think there should be a choice. Why is your child entitled to more than my child because you have more money?

Because I've worked for it...just like I worked for my Bentley, just like I worked for my Italian suits, just like I worked for my Swedish model wife and my Brazilian mistress.  Money.  The more you have, the more you can afford.

Afro wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

Afro wrote:So you don't agree that if you can provide the best education for one child, you should try and provide that for all children?

Think we are far apart politically, so may be best to agree to disagree

It is a compelling argument....Rather than eliminate choice I think more thought needs to go into how we bring poor schools up to a standard where choice becomes of less relevance..

Starting with dumping crappy Teachers......Who may have great knowledge but are crap at getting it across.

Perhaps less emphasis required on the subject knowledge and more on the delivery..

Another view of mine is that education of children isn't about teaching children knowledge. Its about teaching children the skills they require to be able to discover that knowledge for themselves. That way, they can continue to use those skills and keep developing

That’s pretty much the view of every teacher. To be fair, it has been for a long time. Many of you will have a mate who posts on Facebook about a teacher who said they couldn’t use calculators as they’d never be allowed them in real life - well now I have one on my phone! Or people who complain of things they were taught that they’ve never needed since. It’s a misunderstanding that the ability to learn is being taught, the ability to think and to use new information in different circumstances.

Saying that, things have moved on. It’s why a lot of maths is now based on more than answering sets of simple questions. It’ll be called different things in different areas, but we had it as Fluency, Reasoning, Problem Solving. Learn what’s right and wrong, be able to explain why it’s right or wrong, use it in a more practical sense.

It’s also why Gove’s grammar lust was so horrible. It’s rote learning of old fashioned nonsense. Was very weird to reduce a subject that has such depth so naturally to a tick chart.

SecretFly wrote:

Afro wrote:

No. I don't think there should be a choice. Why is your child entitled to more than my child because you have more money?

Because I've worked for it...just like I worked for my Bentley, just like I worked for my Italian suits, just like I worked for my Swedish model wife and my Brazilian mistress.  Money.  The more you have, the more you can afford.

Education isnt a commodity.

Samo wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

Afro wrote:

No. I don't think there should be a choice. Why is your child entitled to more than my child because you have more money?

Because I've worked for it...just like I worked for my Bentley, just like I worked for my Italian suits, just like I worked for my Swedish model wife and my Brazilian mistress.  Money.  The more you have, the more you can afford.

Education isnt a commodity.

If you pay for it, it is.

Probably makes sense to say that my education beliefs have been shaped by 15 years of marriage to a school head

Labour apparently rigged it so the conference couldnt vote to back remain

@Afro

Address these issues:

1/ State will have to then pay for all those pupils who did go to a private school, so funding per pupil will go down (bear in mind labour want to reduce working week to 4 days, so may be hard to raise unlimited revenue...)

2/ It gives too much power to the state to give them a monopoly over education. What if an authoritarian government start filling the curriculum with propaganda? Is it okay to crack down on those trying to provide education independent of the state?

3/ Compulsory confiscation of private property. I don’t agree with libertarianism but authoritarianism can go too far.

In my defence, I ultimately said that I felt abolishing private schools was a step too far. I think the focus should be on improving the standard of all state schools is on a par with the private sector. Parents still have a choice but having money doesn’t entitle you to a better education.

I’m sure it’s not achievable for all schools but it is a bar to aim for.

And I would fund by taxing private schools, and removing their charitable status.

Samo wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

Afro wrote:

No. I don't think there should be a choice. Why is your child entitled to more than my child because you have more money?

Because I've worked for it...just like I worked for my Bentley, just like I worked for my Italian suits, just like I worked for my Swedish model wife and my Brazilian mistress.  Money.  The more you have, the more you can afford.

Education isnt a commodity.

I think it should be rephrased. Education shouldn’t be a commodity, it should be a right for all children to have the best education they can

GSC wrote:Labour apparently rigged it so the conference couldnt vote to back remain

'Apparently' being the operative word in the sentence..

I don't read the The Sun or the Mail.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Four day week...I think it's a good idea....

UK has the longest hours in Europe and has the worst levels of productivity...

In fact New Zealand has done trials and it has shown to be 20% more productive...Staff were happier...No fall in output....

A better work/life balance for all involved..

Who wouldn't want that ????? Apart from an old misery guts like Navy..

It's not a case of not wanting that TRUSS; who wouldn't? It's just a pie in the sky idea, however.

What bit about New Zealand trying it out and finding it a positive idea didn't you get ???...

I see the Tories are having a go again at Angela Rayner (Shadow Ed) for leaving school with no qualifications..

Snobbish crap...My colleagues and myself all have Degrees and most of them are as thick as Pig turd.

Nice. New Zealand have a 4-day week now do they? It's so good that's what they're doing is it? Nation-wide? No, they aren't. New Zealand (the Nation) didn't "try it" as you so tritely (and inaccurately) suggest; one company did and claimed it was a success for them. Big ****ing deal.

Some context:

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=12193000

Agree with your comment on criticism of Rayner.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

Afro wrote:So you don't agree that if you can provide the best education for one child, you should try and provide that for all children?

Think we are far apart politically, so may be best to agree to disagree

It is a compelling argument....Rather than eliminate choice I think more thought needs to go into how we bring poor schools up to a standard where choice becomes of less relevance..

Starting with dumping crappy Teachers......Who may have great knowledge but are crap at getting it across.

Perhaps less emphasis required on the subject knowledge and more on the delivery..

You can't separate the two.

Afro wrote:In my defence, I ultimately said that I felt abolishing private schools was a step too far. I think the focus should be on improving the standard of all state schools is on a par with the private sector. Parents still have a choice but having money doesn’t entitle you to a better education.

I’m sure it’s not achievable for all schools but it is a bar to aim for.

And I would fund by taxing private schools, and removing their charitable status.

Yeah those are fair points.

Labour's move to the authoritarian far left is chilling. Despite poor polling, Corbyn could easily end up as PM, all he needs is 280 seats and he'll have a coalition with the SNP, who won't moderate him.

For all the talk of the damage entitled Old Etonians have wreaked on the UK its worth noting that the best most progressive prime minister the UK ever had, Labour's Clement Attlee, was educated privately (though not Eton or any of the other big name private schools).

That said, the private school system is wrong and perpetuates inequality - way too many professions in UK are dominated by private school alumni at the upper echelons where connections are key. Good to see Labour addressing this and shining a light on the issue - whilst some may baulk at the idea of abolishing private schools entirely, removing charitable status of private schools and making sure they pay their way looks a popular move.

I also think the stance on Brexit agreed at conference on confirmatory referendum but not going all out for remain is sensible - the party is clearly split on Brexit and this transcends Corbynite/New Labour labels with Brexiters/Remainers on both right and left of the party (a nuance seemingly lost on many press commentators) though I think they need to do a lot of work on communicating it to voters.