Join the Labour Party and save your country!

surrey_commuter

Daniel Finkelstein wrote a very good piece in today's Times on understanding what Corbyn truly believes. Copied and pasted below for those in front of the paywall.

I took out a subscription to the Morning Star yesterday. It’s something I’ve found easy to resist up to now, given that for most of its history it was run by Stalinists, supported the Nazi-Soviet pact, and responded to the fall of the Berlin Wall with the headline “Full steam ahead for GDR”.
When I was a scout I sent a letter to Harold Wilson with a set of questions for our troop newsletter. What newspaper do you read, was one of them. “All of them, except the Morning Star,” he replied. The present Labour leader, by contrast, wrote a column for the paper for more than a decade and can still be spotted reading it.
Yesterday I joined Jeremy Corbyn in learning about the picket of the Bank of England to protest against withholding Venezuelan gold from Nicolas Maduro (12.30pm tomorrow if you’re up for it) and marking the 47th strike of the RMT rail union against Northern Rail (Chester town hall tomorrow morning so if you picket for Maduro, I’m afraid you’ll miss it).
The reason for my subscription is that to understand the Labour leader, it’s worth trying to read what he reads and listen to the people he listens to. In the late 1970s everyone in the political world started reading Friedrich Hayek’s Constitution of Liberty, and trying to get their heads round the right measure of monetary growth. The Conservative opposition had begun to talk a new language and it was necessary to become fluent in it.
Jeremy Corbyn demands the same treatment. Take his position on the single market. It’s easy to understand this as merely political and there is certainly a good dose of politics involved. But watch him speak ten years ago at a rally in Ireland against the EU’s Lisbon treaty. “If you succeed in getting a no vote here,” he tells his audience in footage on the Red Roar website, “that will be such a boost to people like us all over Europe that do not want to live in a European empire of the 21st century.” It isn’t just the words that strike you. It’s the passion. He really means it. His position is ideological and you have to understand his ideology.
A recent book, Corbynism: A Critical Approach by Matt Bolton and Fredrick Harry Pitts, makes this effort. The authors are two Marxist academics who argue that Mr Corbyn’s view of the single market is an expression of his particular brand of socialism.
Those of us not familiar with Marxist dialogue are left struggling with an obscure argument about whether Marx’s Theses on Feuerbach, which was published after his death, should be regarded as part of his canon of work. It is not, however, necessary to have an opinion on this to grasp the authors’ central and powerful point. Corbynism, they suggest, is a version of socialism derived from one understanding of Marx in which the role of class is replaced by “the elite” and “the people”.
A socialist society is being blocked by the power of the establishment (the few) who are preventing the progressive co-operative society which everyone else (the many) would be able to enjoy. In this interpretation the elite are unproductive and leeching off the labour of the people. Their unproductive work includes financial speculation and administrative tasks that could just as easily be done by a democratically organised workforce.
According to the Bennite tradition, of which Mr Corbyn is part, the solution lies in what amounts to a siege economy: state aid for strategic industries, import and capital controls, radical changes in ownership, and control of the means of production. This would do away with the need for the useless paper-shuffling financiers and administrators who are living off everyone else’s hard work.
Naturally, the rules of the European common (and later single) market, with its opposition to state aid and its emphasis on the free movement of capital and goods, would get in the way of such a policy. So leaving the EU has always been central to the Bennite idea. Mr Corbyn’s continued resistance to single market membership is a big hint that he would like to go much further towards the Bennite ideal than the party’s last manifesto (which didn’t include anything that would be prevented by single market rules).
The party’s Alternative Means of Ownership document updates Tony Benn’s Alternative Economic Strategy from the 1970s, arguing for the spread of co-operative ownership and showing where this has been successful in the past. And it bemoans “the failure of the state, not only to democratise and redistribute wealth, but also to prevent it from sliding away from localities”.
The poster child for this idea is Preston city council. What is known as the Preston model is much talked about in Corbynite circles. The council has embarked on a strategy of getting “anchor institutions” such as the council itself, local universities and the police, to buy from local business, some of them co-ops, who will also invest locally.
It’s inspiring and dynamic but there is an obvious problem as the experiment spreads. What happens when the next-door council keeps all the money in their area? All you get are a load of mini-states paying more for their local goods. When this question is asked of Preston they simply say “no one can suggest with any credibility that all of local government, or the local public sector, will swing into action in the same way”. And this works for Preston, but means, logically, it cannot be a model.
Except, of course, for a British socialist state covering the whole country but outside the single market. Yet all this will prove is that wealth and income doesn’t belong to localities and will slide away. You can’t, Trump-style, put a wall around an area and keep all the money in.
And the error is replicated in the account of co-op movements. The experiments they cite are convincing when an existing business is being put under new democratic management. Who will create any new business, though? How will it be financed? Won’t whoever provides finance (even if it is the state) want to take some of the control from the co-op? The whole strategy seems to be based on how to distribute a stock of wealth rather than create a flow of income.
Keep pulling the thread of Jeremy Corbyn’s doubts about the EU single market and it’s amazing what unravels.

Stevo_666

In other news, it's about time we had this fitting tribute to a truly great British PM:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lincolnshire-47134760

rolf_f

Stevo 666 wrote:

In other news, it's about time we had this fitting tribute to a truly great British PM:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lincolnshire-47134760

Must be worth a punt on how long it lasts. Hope it is made of something durable.......

Stevo_666

Rolf F wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

In other news, it's about time we had this fitting tribute to a truly great British PM:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lincolnshire-47134760

Must be worth a punt on how long it lasts. Hope it is made of something durable.......

Like the Iron lady herself, it'll be pretty tough. MT maintains her ability to torment lefties from beyond the grave to this very day

kingstongraham

it would encourage visitors to the town "from both sides of the debate".

Stevo_666

KingstonGraham wrote:

it would encourage visitors to the town "from both sides of the debate".

Now there's an idea - use it as a magnet for saddo socialists then nuke the town from orbit. It's the only way to be safe.

kingstongraham

Stevo 666 wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

it would encourage visitors to the town "from both sides of the debate".

Now there's an idea - use it as a magnet for saddo socialists then nuke the town from orbit. It's the only way to be safe.

I was thinking it's what she would have wanted - attract people who come to urinate on her statue, and sell them souvenirs and food. Capitalism in action.

john80

University fees were one of the worst things to be brought in by a liberal Labour party in 1998. Prior to university fees we had quotas that limited the number of spaces for different discipline available. This was broadly based on country need. Labour started with a pledge in 1998 that they wanted 50% of the population to go to University. This was plainly made up and bore no resemblance to ability. Hence we have had unprecedented growth in course that are easy to teach, low in investment and maximised university profit. They are also suited the middle class youth whose parents are seemingly keen to support a degree in history and psychology to give one example. The tuition fee system does not work as those in power have no understanding of human behaviour and how this conflicts with free market ideology. If you are your standard middle class parent you will want Tarquin to go to university. The likelihood of you assessing dearest Tarquin's intelligence level constructively as she is your daughter is low as you are naturally biased so you are likely to over estimate her intelligence based on her peers. You then decide that the degree she can get into with her grades is a good investment even if it is basket weaving and then the fees are the fees because that was the only course she could get into.

The crime in all of this is that social mobility has fallen as those that are deemed gifted at secondary school are not given the bursaries and grants to achieve their potential. This is also linked to grade inflation over the last 20-30 years that made it almost impossible for universities to determine who were the really gifted kids as for the harder to gain entry degrees the entire application could have almost identical grades.

rjsterry

john80 wrote:

University fees were one of the worst things to be brought in by a liberal Labour party in 1998. Prior to university fees we had quotas that limited the number of spaces for different discipline available. This was broadly based on country need. Labour started with a pledge in 1998 that they wanted 50% of the population to go to University. This was plainly made up and bore no resemblance to ability. Hence we have had unprecedented growth in course that are easy to teach, low in investment and maximised university profit. They are also suited the middle class youth whose parents are seemingly keen to support a degree in history and psychology to give one example. The tuition fee system does not work as those in power have no understanding of human behaviour and how this conflicts with free market ideology. If you are your standard middle class parent you will want Tarquin to go to university. The likelihood of you assessing dearest Tarquin's intelligence level constructively as she is your daughter is low as you are naturally biased so you are likely to over estimate her intelligence based on her peers. You then decide that the degree she can get into with her grades is a good investment even if it is basket weaving and then the fees are the fees because that was the only course she could get into.

The crime in all of this is that social mobility has fallen as those that are deemed gifted at secondary school are not given the bursaries and grants to achieve their potential. This is also linked to grade inflation over the last 20-30 years that made it almost impossible for universities to determine who were the really gifted kids as for the harder to gain entry degrees the entire application could have almost identical grades.

If you are going to post a load of unsubstantiated inverted snobbery at least get your clichés straight. No middle class parent would call their daughter Tarquin.

P.S. When someone has actually looked at the figures they found that the introduction of fees had no effect on the proportion of university students from working class backgrounds.

Stevo_666

KingstonGraham wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

it would encourage visitors to the town "from both sides of the debate".

Now there's an idea - use it as a magnet for saddo socialists then nuke the town from orbit. It's the only way to be safe.

I was thinking it's what she would have wanted - attract people who come to urinate on her statue, and sell them souvenirs and food. Capitalism in action.

Best make sure we sell the leftietwats souvenirs and food before they urinate on the electrified statue.

john80

rjsterry wrote:

john80 wrote:

University fees were one of the worst things to be brought in by a liberal Labour party in 1998. Prior to university fees we had quotas that limited the number of spaces for different discipline available. This was broadly based on country need. Labour started with a pledge in 1998 that they wanted 50% of the population to go to University. This was plainly made up and bore no resemblance to ability. Hence we have had unprecedented growth in course that are easy to teach, low in investment and maximised university profit. They are also suited the middle class youth whose parents are seemingly keen to support a degree in history and psychology to give one example. The tuition fee system does not work as those in power have no understanding of human behaviour and how this conflicts with free market ideology. If you are your standard middle class parent you will want Tarquin to go to university. The likelihood of you assessing dearest Tarquin's intelligence level constructively as she is your daughter is low as you are naturally biased so you are likely to over estimate her intelligence based on her peers. You then decide that the degree she can get into with her grades is a good investment even if it is basket weaving and then the fees are the fees because that was the only course she could get into.

The crime in all of this is that social mobility has fallen as those that are deemed gifted at secondary school are not given the bursaries and grants to achieve their potential. This is also linked to grade inflation over the last 20-30 years that made it almost impossible for universities to determine who were the really gifted kids as for the harder to gain entry degrees the entire application could have almost identical grades.

If you are going to post a load of unsubstantiated inverted snobbery at least get your clichés straight. No middle class parent would call their daughter Tarquin.

P.S. When someone has actually looked at the figures they found that the introduction of fees had no effect on the proportion of university students from working class backgrounds.

Grade inflation, 1989 11.4% got an A turning to 26.7% in 2009 when beyond this they had to introduce another grade above to control this rampant inflation. Maybe we have genetically all got smarter. On a UCAS application for medicine or law it would not be uncommon for all applicants to have straight A's making differentiation almost impossible. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grade_inf ... 88_to_2015

My prediction is that from the last 2008 figures I can see from the government that socio economic groups 5-7 will probably have declined from the high of around 28% of students. http://researchbriefings.files.parliame ... N00620.pdf. Maybe you will get lucky and they will have increased.

I have not found any figures for how the number of degree types will have changed since 1998 but would imagine it follows the statement prior based purely on profit regardless of government aims to promote Stems subjects.

Do you have a daughter called Tarquin as you seem a bit touchy:)

rick_chasey

Education has improved and students are better at passing exams.

I know a lot of people who set the exams and the idea that they are dumbed down is laughable when you see the processes they go through.

tangled_metal

Teaching styles have changed dramatically since I was at school. It's so much better and more focused now. I've spotted that even as early as primary school reception / yr1. Progress is monitored and each child's needs considered. I think teaching now is a totally different job to that of 30 years ago. I can believe it's possible to be as rigorous a testing system as back then and still achieve such high results.

The other point is that even nearly 30 years ago they were talking of differentiation of candidates and for course admissions needing to take into account other indicators. Well that was what our school careers advice was saying.

rjsterry

john80 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

john80 wrote:

University fees were one of the worst things to be brought in by a liberal Labour party in 1998. Prior to university fees we had quotas that limited the number of spaces for different discipline available. This was broadly based on country need. Labour started with a pledge in 1998 that they wanted 50% of the population to go to University. This was plainly made up and bore no resemblance to ability. Hence we have had unprecedented growth in course that are easy to teach, low in investment and maximised university profit. They are also suited the middle class youth whose parents are seemingly keen to support a degree in history and psychology to give one example. The tuition fee system does not work as those in power have no understanding of human behaviour and how this conflicts with free market ideology. If you are your standard middle class parent you will want Tarquin to go to university. The likelihood of you assessing dearest Tarquin's intelligence level constructively as she is your daughter is low as you are naturally biased so you are likely to over estimate her intelligence based on her peers. You then decide that the degree she can get into with her grades is a good investment even if it is basket weaving and then the fees are the fees because that was the only course she could get into.

The crime in all of this is that social mobility has fallen as those that are deemed gifted at secondary school are not given the bursaries and grants to achieve their potential. This is also linked to grade inflation over the last 20-30 years that made it almost impossible for universities to determine who were the really gifted kids as for the harder to gain entry degrees the entire application could have almost identical grades.

If you are going to post a load of unsubstantiated inverted snobbery at least get your clichés straight. No middle class parent would call their daughter Tarquin.

P.S. When someone has actually looked at the figures they found that the introduction of fees had no effect on the proportion of university students from working class backgrounds.

Grade inflation, 1989 11.4% got an A turning to 26.7% in 2009 when beyond this they had to introduce another grade above to control this rampant inflation. Maybe we have genetically all got smarter. On a UCAS application for medicine or law it would not be uncommon for all applicants to have straight A's making differentiation almost impossible. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grade_inf ... 88_to_2015

My prediction is that from the last 2008 figures I can see from the government that socio economic groups 5-7 will probably have declined from the high of around 28% of students. http://researchbriefings.files.parliame ... N00620.pdf. Maybe you will get lucky and they will have increased.

I have not found any figures for how the number of degree types will have changed since 1998 but would imagine it follows the statement prior based purely on profit regardless of government aims to promote Stems subjects.

Do you have a daughter called Tarquin as you seem a bit touchy:)

No: Tarquin is a boy's name, after the last king of Rome before the establishment of the Republic. Maybe you should have studied history

I didn't get lucky I just checked before posting. https://www.hesa.ac.uk/data-and-analysi ... ry/2014-15

https://www.ucas.com/file/92746/download?token=4Ij-BMlr

https://www.hesa.ac.uk/data-and-analysi ... on-summary

Stevo_666

Rick Chasey wrote:

Education has improved

That's quite an admission on this thread. Quoted for future debates with lefties

tangled_metal

Stevo 666 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Education has improved

That's quite an admission on this thread. Quoted for future debates with lefties

To be used out of context for years to come!

Stevo_666

Tangled Metal wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Education has improved

That's quite an admission on this thread. Quoted for future debates with lefties

To be used out of context for years to come!

So what's the right context? Just for future reference

tangled_metal

Stevo 666 wrote:

Tangled Metal wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Education has improved

That's quite an admission on this thread. Quoted for future debates with lefties

To be used out of context for years to come!

So what's the right context? Just for future reference

Whatever would hit home to the Lefties the most.

rjsterry

Someone mentioned the last 30 years earlier; that's 13 years of Blair and Brown; 5 years of Cameron/Clegg; a year Cameron on his own and 2 and a bit years of May. Fair to say that education policy has been some way down the agenda of late.

Everyone can claim some credit/blame for the current state of education.

Stevo_666

rjsterry wrote:

Someone mentioned the last 30 years earlier; that's 13 years of Blair and Brown; 5 years of Cameron/Clegg; a year Cameron on his own and 2 and a bit years of May. Fair to say that education policy has been some way down the agenda of late.

Everyone can claim some credit/blame for the current state of education.

Someone may have done, but not Rick.

tangled_metal

rjsterry wrote:

Someone mentioned the last 30 years earlier; that's 13 years of Blair and Brown; 5 years of Cameron/Clegg; a year Cameron on his own and 2 and a bit years of May. Fair to say that education policy has been some way down the agenda of late.

Everyone can claim some credit/blame for the current state of education.

I believe I mentioned 30 years in relation to earlier comment about the very high level of top grades achieved not being believable. I defended the possibility of modern teaching being so much better than when I was at school 30 odd years ago. That the higher number of top grades isn't necessarily grade inflation but a natural result of the development in teaching methods and approaches. It feels to be more psychological from early years right through. By that I mean it seems to be about using scientific principles to develop a better way to help kids learn. Learn for themselves and to want to learn.

The 30 years was relating to a positive comment about teaching. Unfortunately that means a Labour government seems to have had the longest time to impact this. Have I just given labour a pat on the back? At least it wasn't a socialist labour! Blair / Brown were soft Tories in reality if not party name!

john80

rjsterry wrote:

john80 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

john80 wrote:

University fees were one of the worst things to be brought in by a liberal Labour party in 1998. Prior to university fees we had quotas that limited the number of spaces for different discipline available. This was broadly based on country need. Labour started with a pledge in 1998 that they wanted 50% of the population to go to University. This was plainly made up and bore no resemblance to ability. Hence we have had unprecedented growth in course that are easy to teach, low in investment and maximised university profit. They are also suited the middle class youth whose parents are seemingly keen to support a degree in history and psychology to give one example. The tuition fee system does not work as those in power have no understanding of human behaviour and how this conflicts with free market ideology. If you are your standard middle class parent you will want Tarquin to go to university. The likelihood of you assessing dearest Tarquin's intelligence level constructively as she is your daughter is low as you are naturally biased so you are likely to over estimate her intelligence based on her peers. You then decide that the degree she can get into with her grades is a good investment even if it is basket weaving and then the fees are the fees because that was the only course she could get into.

The crime in all of this is that social mobility has fallen as those that are deemed gifted at secondary school are not given the bursaries and grants to achieve their potential. This is also linked to grade inflation over the last 20-30 years that made it almost impossible for universities to determine who were the really gifted kids as for the harder to gain entry degrees the entire application could have almost identical grades.

If you are going to post a load of unsubstantiated inverted snobbery at least get your clichés straight. No middle class parent would call their daughter Tarquin.

P.S. When someone has actually looked at the figures they found that the introduction of fees had no effect on the proportion of university students from working class backgrounds.

Grade inflation, 1989 11.4% got an A turning to 26.7% in 2009 when beyond this they had to introduce another grade above to control this rampant inflation. Maybe we have genetically all got smarter. On a UCAS application for medicine or law it would not be uncommon for all applicants to have straight A's making differentiation almost impossible. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grade_inf ... 88_to_2015

My prediction is that from the last 2008 figures I can see from the government that socio economic groups 5-7 will probably have declined from the high of around 28% of students. http://researchbriefings.files.parliame ... N00620.pdf. Maybe you will get lucky and they will have increased.

I have not found any figures for how the number of degree types will have changed since 1998 but would imagine it follows the statement prior based purely on profit regardless of government aims to promote Stems subjects.

Do you have a daughter called Tarquin as you seem a bit touchy:)

No: Tarquin is a boy's name, after the last king of Rome before the establishment of the Republic. Maybe you should have studied history

I didn't get lucky I just checked before posting. https://www.hesa.ac.uk/data-and-analysi ... ry/2014-15

https://www.ucas.com/file/92746/download?token=4Ij-BMlr

https://www.hesa.ac.uk/data-and-analysi ... on-summary

Oh No the modern world has turned Tarquin into a girls name. Might be driven by Yanks though and Geoffs algorithm for Google searches might be rubbish. Still no figures for degree subject changes of time though.

https://www.gpeters.com/names/baby-name ... me=Tarquin

rjsterry

Tangled Metal wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Someone mentioned the last 30 years earlier; that's 13 years of Blair and Brown; 5 years of Cameron/Clegg; a year Cameron on his own and 2 and a bit years of May. Fair to say that education policy has been some way down the agenda of late.

Everyone can claim some credit/blame for the current state of education.

I believe I mentioned 30 years in relation to earlier comment about the very high level of top grades achieved not being believable. I defended the possibility of modern teaching being so much better than when I was at school 30 odd years ago. That the higher number of top grades isn't necessarily grade inflation but a natural result of the development in teaching methods and approaches. It feels to be more psychological from early years right through. By that I mean it seems to be about using scientific principles to develop a better way to help kids learn. Learn for themselves and to want to learn.

The 30 years was relating to a positive comment about teaching. Unfortunately that means a Labour government seems to have had the longest time to impact this. Have I just given labour a pat on the back? At least it wasn't a socialist labour! Blair / Brown were soft Tories in reality if not party name!

Who cares what colour the rosette was when it happened? Blair and Brown significantly increased spending on education, both on new/replacement school buildings and teaching. There was a further jump in 2010 when Cameron and Clegg got in, with it levelling off after that and dropping in the last 3 years.

https://www.ifs.org.uk/research/44

surrey_commuter

john80 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

john80 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

john80 wrote:

University fees were one of the worst things to be brought in by a liberal Labour party in 1998. Prior to university fees we had quotas that limited the number of spaces for different discipline available. This was broadly based on country need. Labour started with a pledge in 1998 that they wanted 50% of the population to go to University. This was plainly made up and bore no resemblance to ability. Hence we have had unprecedented growth in course that are easy to teach, low in investment and maximised university profit. They are also suited the middle class youth whose parents are seemingly keen to support a degree in history and psychology to give one example. The tuition fee system does not work as those in power have no understanding of human behaviour and how this conflicts with free market ideology. If you are your standard middle class parent you will want Tarquin to go to university. The likelihood of you assessing dearest Tarquin's intelligence level constructively as she is your daughter is low as you are naturally biased so you are likely to over estimate her intelligence based on her peers. You then decide that the degree she can get into with her grades is a good investment even if it is basket weaving and then the fees are the fees because that was the only course she could get into.

The crime in all of this is that social mobility has fallen as those that are deemed gifted at secondary school are not given the bursaries and grants to achieve their potential. This is also linked to grade inflation over the last 20-30 years that made it almost impossible for universities to determine who were the really gifted kids as for the harder to gain entry degrees the entire application could have almost identical grades.

If you are going to post a load of unsubstantiated inverted snobbery at least get your clichés straight. No middle class parent would call their daughter Tarquin.

P.S. When someone has actually looked at the figures they found that the introduction of fees had no effect on the proportion of university students from working class backgrounds.

Grade inflation, 1989 11.4% got an A turning to 26.7% in 2009 when beyond this they had to introduce another grade above to control this rampant inflation. Maybe we have genetically all got smarter. On a UCAS application for medicine or law it would not be uncommon for all applicants to have straight A's making differentiation almost impossible. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grade_inf ... 88_to_2015

My prediction is that from the last 2008 figures I can see from the government that socio economic groups 5-7 will probably have declined from the high of around 28% of students. http://researchbriefings.files.parliame ... N00620.pdf. Maybe you will get lucky and they will have increased.

I have not found any figures for how the number of degree types will have changed since 1998 but would imagine it follows the statement prior based purely on profit regardless of government aims to promote Stems subjects.

Do you have a daughter called Tarquin as you seem a bit touchy:)

No: Tarquin is a boy's name, after the last king of Rome before the establishment of the Republic. Maybe you should have studied history

I didn't get lucky I just checked before posting. https://www.hesa.ac.uk/data-and-analysi ... ry/2014-15

https://www.ucas.com/file/92746/download?token=4Ij-BMlr

https://www.hesa.ac.uk/data-and-analysi ... on-summary

Oh No the modern world has turned Tarquin into a girls name. Might be driven by Yanks though and Geoffs algorithm for Google searches might be rubbish. Still no figures for degree subject changes of time though.

https://www.gpeters.com/names/baby-name ... me=Tarquin

sometimes it is better to just admit you are wrong

morstar

I'm confused.
Are we supposed to think better education is a good thing because...
a) Our children are better educated.
b) It validates labours education policy.
c) It validates the conservative education policy.
d) we have wonderful teachers

Or alternatively, are we supposed to think it is a bad thing because...
a) it isn't better, it's just easier.
b) it validates that labour education policy was rubbish
c) it validates that conservative policy was rubbish
d) it means teachers are all lazy

FWIW, attended my sons year 7 parents evening in the same school both his older siblings attended. Has done right by all our kids and is now starting to make headway in all the tables. Our oldest and youngest are 12 years apart, despite me not approving of the singular focus on grades and results demanded by modern education, the school is noticeably more professional every year that passes. It is also a fundamentally different prospect to what I encountered over 30 years ago in a comfortable suburban comprehensive. I'd place money on the fact that I would have achieved better results in todays environment.

rjsterry

morstar wrote:

I'm confused.
Are we supposed to think better education is a good thing because...
a) Our children are better educated.
b) It validates labours education policy.
c) It validates the conservative education policy.
d) we have wonderful teachers

Or alternatively, are we supposed to think it is a bad thing because...
a) it isn't better, it's just easier.
b) it validates that labour education policy was rubbish
c) it validates that conservative policy was rubbish
d) it means teachers are all lazy

FWIW, attended my sons year 7 parents evening in the same school both his older siblings attended. Has done right by all our kids and is now starting to make headway in all the tables. Our oldest and youngest are 12 years apart, despite me not approving of the singular focus on grades and results demanded by modern education, the school is noticeably more professional every year that passes. It is also a fundamentally different prospect to what I encountered over 30 years ago in a comfortable suburban comprehensive. I'd place money on the fact that I would have achieved better results in todays environment.

This. Damned for complacency and lack of ambition if results remain unchanged; damned for dumbing down if results improve.

morstar

rjsterry wrote:

morstar wrote:

I'm confused.
Are we supposed to think better education is a good thing because...
a) Our children are better educated.
b) It validates labours education policy.
c) It validates the conservative education policy.
d) we have wonderful teachers

Or alternatively, are we supposed to think it is a bad thing because...
a) it isn't better, it's just easier.
b) it validates that labour education policy was rubbish
c) it validates that conservative policy was rubbish
d) it means teachers are all lazy

FWIW, attended my sons year 7 parents evening in the same school both his older siblings attended. Has done right by all our kids and is now starting to make headway in all the tables. Our oldest and youngest are 12 years apart, despite me not approving of the singular focus on grades and results demanded by modern education, the school is noticeably more professional every year that passes. It is also a fundamentally different prospect to what I encountered over 30 years ago in a comfortable suburban comprehensive. I'd place money on the fact that I would have achieved better results in todays environment.

This. Damned for complacency and lack of ambition if results remain unchanged; damned for dumbing down if results improve.

And it's so unfair on both the kids and teachers. They can only deal with the system presented to them and get the best out of it. To get straight A*'s and to be told you aren't as clever as somebody who got straight A's in 1990 must be hugely frustrating. I assume
I agree completely with the need to distinguish between the best of the best but then grades aren't necessarily the best way to do it anyway.
My daughter is hoping to go to veterinary college and she is planning her applications and open day visits at present.
Two of the 8 universities on her list will accept AAB rather than AAA that all the others require. I am reliably informed that one of those AAB uni's is one of the most demanding in terms of interview procedure and looking at the person as a whole.

briantrumpet

Who'd have thought it, eh? https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politic ... 61246.html

He's doing a fine job, ignoring both party democracy, and opinion polls, stuck in his 1970s dogma about the EU.

Stevo_666

morstar wrote:

My daughter is hoping to go to veterinary college and she is planning her applications and open day visits at present.
Two of the 8 universities on her list will accept AAB rather than AAA that all the others require. I am reliably informed that one of those AAB uni's is one of the most demanding in terms of interview procedure and looking at the person as a whole.

Small world, so is mine. There are a few people on here who have veterinary parents or other halves if you want some independent input.

morstar

Stevo 666 wrote:

morstar wrote:

My daughter is hoping to go to veterinary college and she is planning her applications and open day visits at present.
Two of the 8 universities on her list will accept AAB rather than AAA that all the others require. I am reliably informed that one of those AAB uni's is one of the most demanding in terms of interview procedure and looking at the person as a whole.

Small world, so is mine. There are a few people on here who have veterinary parents or other halves if you want some independent input.

Thanks for heads up. May well have to draw on the collective expertise.