Join the Labour Party and save your country!

bobmcstuff

Stevo 666 wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

narbs wrote:

It's like having a discussion with a blacmange.

You've got no evidence to back up your original claim that grammar schools improve social mobility, so now it's apparently not just about the poor. Unless your name is Theresa May.

I have if you read my posts above, not my problem if you cannot make the simple logical connections.

Also a bit rich coming from somebody who has not shown any evidence to the contrary.

You said it improved social mobility, so where is the evidence for that ?

FFS read my posts earlier in this the thread as I have said several times now. Seems like comprehensive education let you down as well.

Aside from that, why do.you think to you know better than the masses of parents who want grammars? Give the people what they want.

Parents only want it because the grammars are, or are perceived to be, better - it's nothing to do with some desire for segregated education. If we worked on improving attainment across schools then perhaps it would be reduced. Bearing in mind that setting up loads of grammars would be expensive too.

I agree that we should be trying to improve education but I don't support a system where kids are written off of an academic pathway (or at least their chances of attainment substantially reduced) based on tests they took at age 11.

And regarding my mum, she would have taken the 11+ in 1971, in Surrey where I understand they have/had a lot of grammar schools, and she failed it. So unless you're planning on reducing the academic entry requirements I don't see how it would help. Although you mention loads of new grammar schools, how many kids do you see going to grammars? 50%? 60%? Hell let's make it 80% then we can just force all the stupid kids into holding pens until they can start shelf stacking age 16 .

bobmcstuff

http://m.thedailymash.co.uk/politics/po ... 0808111922

ballysmate

I see the rail unions are doing their best to p1ss everyone off again. Just what Labour ordered to help them appear even less attractive.
Eurostar drivers to strike because of a poor work/life balance.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/20 ... fe-balance
Poor exploited comrades. 47k for a 35 hour 4 day week. Pure exploitation by the capitalist bastards. And only 7 or 8 weeks holiday to enjoy your free train travel.
Bob Crow must be smiling in his grave.

http://www.traindrivertrainee.com/Train ... tions.html

tangled_metal

But it's hard work driving trains. You are on your feet all day. You've got all those gauges and levers to operate. Then you've got your fireman shoveling coal in to supervise. It's a hard, physical job.

Sorry I was drifting back into a former life as a steam train driver. You're right, it's a hard job sat on your behind pressing the dead men's brake button every so often. Joking of course. It's a job you need to concentrate on but every train I've ridden in the front on the driver was a perfectly relaxed and free to chat, eat his butties; even pour coffee from a flask and drink it whilst driving along a line with a lot of crossings, signs and the like to concentrate on. That was probably 30 years ago but I'm not sure train driving has got that much harder over those years.

Drivers aren't on a bad deal already. It's just a case that the rail union was clever enough to duck out of supporting no hopper issues like the miners strike and as a result are now pretty strong union. Allows them to hold employers to ransom. Jeez we need a new Thatcher!

Stevo_666

Ballysmate wrote:

I see the rail unions are doing their best to p1ss everyone off again. Just what Labour ordered to help them appear even less attractive.
Eurostar drivers to strike because of a poor work/life balance.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/20 ... fe-balance
Poor exploited comrades. 47k for a 35 hour 4 day week. Pure exploitation by the capitalist bastards. And only 7 or 8 weeks holiday to enjoy your free train travel.
Bob Crow must be smiling in his grave.

http://www.traindrivertrainee.com/Train ... tions.html

What is it, 300 Southern rail staff holding 300,000 commuters to ransom over a dispute about whether train drivers or guards open and close the train doors. Pathetic. Get back to work...

And now with Eurostar RMT are becoming public enemy number 1.

mamba80

Stevo 666 wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

narbs wrote:

It's like having a discussion with a blacmange.

You've got no evidence to back up your original claim that grammar schools improve social mobility, so now it's apparently not just about the poor. Unless your name is Theresa May.

I have if you read my posts above, not my problem if you cannot make the simple logical connections.

Also a bit rich coming from somebody who has not shown any evidence to the contrary.

You said it improved social mobility, so where is the evidence for that ?

FFS read my posts earlier in this the thread as I have said several times now. Seems like comprehensive education let you down as well.

Aside from that, why do.you think to you know better than the masses of parents who want grammars? Give the people what they want.

Parents want what is good for them and their kids, without giving a stuff about the greater good, Governments are supposed to be about looking at the bigger picture?

as for your assertions, no you havent, all you ve done is... nothing really, just bang on about Grammar schools and exam results, you posted no evidence re social mobility or % of poorer children who actually improve their life chances, if they ever get into G/School.

As for your veiled slur, well, plenty of people go to comps and do very well indeed, like my mate, a tiler to the well heeled, earns more and pays more tax than me and you put together, plus he runs a scheme (off his own back) teaching kids skills required, so contributes in more ways too, never went near a Grammar school or how about the Red Arrows pilot who went to a nearby comp, cant get much higher than that

Stevo_666

mamba80 wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

narbs wrote:

It's like having a discussion with a blacmange.

You've got no evidence to back up your original claim that grammar schools improve social mobility, so now it's apparently not just about the poor. Unless your name is Theresa May.

I have if you read my posts above, not my problem if you cannot make the simple logical connections.

Also a bit rich coming from somebody who has not shown any evidence to the contrary.

You said it improved social mobility, so where is the evidence for that ?

FFS read my posts earlier in this the thread as I have said several times now. Seems like comprehensive education let you down as well.

Aside from that, why do.you think to you know better than the masses of parents who want grammars? Give the people what they want.

Parents want what is good for them and their kids, without giving a stuff about the greater good, Governments are supposed to be about looking at the bigger picture?

as for your assertions, no you havent, all you ve done is... nothing really, just bang on about Grammar schools and exam results, you posted no evidence re social mobility or % of poorer children who actually improve their life chances, if they ever get into G/School.

As for your veiled slur, well, plenty of people go to comps and do very well indeed, like my mate, a tiler to the well heeled, earns more and pays more tax than me and you put together, plus he runs a scheme (off his own back) teaching kids skills required, so contributes in more ways too, never went near a Grammar school or how about the Red Arrows pilot who went to a nearby comp, cant get much higher than that

Answer the question then - reposted below as narbs has dodged it, thereby effectively agreeing with the points becuase he can't say he disagrees with any.

Stevo_666

Stevo 666 wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Let me try to make it a bit easier for you:
1. Academic achievement is higher in grammars compared to comps - see my link
2. Grammars select on academic ability so there will a proportion of kids from disadvantaged backgrounds at grammars.
3. Better academic achievement on the whole enhances life and career chances

Therefore these kids benefit.

Which one of my 3 statements above do you disagree with?

Here you go. Which points do you disagree with?

And please explain how you know better than all of the parents who want to send their kids to grammar school.

Here you go mamba. Will you dodge the question as well? Come on, it can't be that hard

rjsterry

Stevo 666 wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Let me try to make it a bit easier for you:
1. Academic achievement is higher in grammars compared to comps - see my link
2. Grammars select on academic ability so there will a proportion of kids from disadvantaged backgrounds at grammars.
3. Better academic achievement on the whole enhances life and career chances

Therefore these kids benefit.

Which one of my 3 statements above do you disagree with?

Here you go. Which points do you disagree with?

And please explain how you know better than all of the parents who want to send their kids to grammar school.

Here you go mamba. Will you dodge the question as well? Come on, it can't be that hard

I'll pitch in. The statements themselves are fine but they don't make a case for grammar schools. Point 1 is just a result of 2: If you filter out all the pupils who are unlikely to achieve 5 or more grade A-C GCSEs then it is not exactly a surprise that the remainder have better exam results than a mixed ability comprehensive. For grammar schools to show that they were better than a comprehensive - in terms of the quality of their teaching rather the ability to set an entrance exam - they would need to demonstrate that their pupils attained higher results than a group of similar academic ability in a comprehensive school - the top two sets in a year, say. The figures in the briefing document you linked to don't show what the 'value added' is for any of the types of school, so who knows?

mamba80

Stevo 666 wrote:

And in the latest round of news, May intends to lift the ban on new grammar schools to improve social mobility for bright but not so well off kids.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37002495

And surprise surprise, Labour and the Lib Dems intend to oppose it. I guess reducing social mobility helps preserve Labours voter base. :roll:

^this is what you posted, when you raised the subject, back up your "statements" and perhaps how it improves social mobility to poorer kids, who are unlikely to going to GS in any case.

So, how would GS help the kids on the IOW ? 8k per pupil spent in tower hamlets, 4k per pupil on the isle, lower rates of attainment, less likely to leave IOW for Uni.

Bottom line is that quality of teaching, spending and class sizes are far more important and can be applied across the board, improving life chances for all and that has to inc streaming for bright kids too.

tangled_metal

I went private purely because the high school was failing. Only one school I could go to since I lived in a rural area and the next nearest selected based on catchment and religion. I was in neither.

That was a long, long time ago but if it wasn't my parents would still have taken me to private school purely because the system is falls down badly if there isn't universal standards. You're relying on living in the catchment area of a good comprehensive. That right there is the failure and the source of the solution. Make all schools as good as possible. Raise standards so that any and all schools are capable of b getting the most out of every child. Stop tinkering around the edges changing syllabus for x subject, making information public which has no real value, etc. Just spend the money on the schools needing it. That includes those outside of London and the inner city.

BTW last time I looked the comprehensive where I grew up has come out of whatever special measures They had back then. It isn't a great school but isn't failing a generation due to poor management. When. Got taken out of state schooling the new head was making good inroads, but I believe it was a very long process measured in decades. It was that bad!

Stevo_666

mamba80 wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

And in the latest round of news, May intends to lift the ban on new grammar schools to improve social mobility for bright but not so well off kids.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37002495

And surprise surprise, Labour and the Lib Dems intend to oppose it. I guess reducing social mobility helps preserve Labours voter base. :roll:

^this is what you posted, when you raised the subject, back up your "statements" and perhaps how it improves social mobility to poorer kids, who are unlikely to going to GS in any case.

So, how would GS help the kids on the IOW ? 8k per pupil spent in tower hamlets, 4k per pupil on the isle, lower rates of attainment, less likely to leave IOW for Uni.

Bottom line is that quality of teaching, spending and class sizes are far more important and can be applied across the board, improving life chances for all and that has to inc streaming for bright kids too.

I'll infer what I need to from your failure to answer the question

mamba80

Stevo 666 wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

And in the latest round of news, May intends to lift the ban on new grammar schools to improve social mobility for bright but not so well off kids.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37002495

And surprise surprise, Labour and the Lib Dems intend to oppose it. I guess reducing social mobility helps preserve Labours voter base. :roll:

^this is what you posted, when you raised the subject, back up your "statements" and perhaps how it improves social mobility to poorer kids, who are unlikely to going to GS in any case.

So, how would GS help the kids on the IOW ? 8k per pupil spent in tower hamlets, 4k per pupil on the isle, lower rates of attainment, less likely to leave IOW for Uni.

Bottom line is that quality of teaching, spending and class sizes are far more important and can be applied across the board, improving life chances for all and that has to inc streaming for bright kids too.

I'll infer what I need to from your failure to answer the question

i ve given you the answer......... spend more on state education for ALL children, you however, cannot back up your assertions because you are wrong lol!

someone back along said it is the parents responsibility etc, this is very true, however, if the parents have had a shitte education, then they perhaps lack the capacity to make good decisions for their kids, so we need to try an break the cycle and concentrate on future generations.

tangled_metal

I'm scared. I agree with mambo. Not very right wing of me but I feel spend more for our future as far as kids education goes.

I believe there's a culture in China, Japan other Asian nations that you sacrifice the present for the future. Long term thought. We don't have that here. The classic example is in some countries the grandparents give up their money to their kids to pay for private education for the grandparents then live with them. The idea is to give your grandkids the best future which means the best education. Those kids are then doing the state schools during the day. Longer hours than UK schools too. Then they go into private schools that are becoming more common. These often run til 10pm. At that time they go home, eat, homework then sleep.

I'm not advocating this here but we need to improve our kids expectations through good, universal education. We need this or we'll just become a backwater country eventually. We need to develop or die.

BTW my personal feeling is we need to.nationalize all schools in this country then use the best thinking to bring up standards across the country. Yes nationalize even Eton, Barrow and other bastions of elitist capitalism and privilege that money buys.

Hah! I'll get kicked out of the Tory party for that view!

tangled_metal

Oh! One more thing, we need to get back to the idea that education is important. I feel there's too many stuck at the bottom who've given up and see education as not for them or their kids. Perhaps given up is unfair, but are generational beaten down to low expectations. We need to turn that around so even the most poorly educated parents are supportive to their kids getting the best education they can. All through my family from before my parents were born there was this positive attitude to education. Indeed it was viewed that you went to school and tried your best to get on. In really hard times for my great grandparents time they still managed to put all their kids through school until 16 at least. These were working class single income family (my great grandad had a stroke very young so could not work). That attitude that you suffer and strive so very.hard for your children to achieve through education is something lost in whole areas of the country. Grammar schools will never have an influence on this. It's a culture change that's needed alongside a better, universal education system not grammar schools.

mrfpb

Tangled Metal wrote:

Longer hours than UK schools too. Then they go into private schools that are becoming more common. These often run til 10pm. At that time they go home, eat, homework then sleep.

I'm not advocating this here but we need to improve our kids expectations through good, universal education. We need this or we'll just become a backwater country eventually. We need to develop or die.

first - What an awful vison of childhood.
second - We are not a backwater country, we are still a G8 country, so there must be something about our current education system that works.

Grammar schools are a means of selecting particular children with an aptitude for a particular model of learning. More matching of children to their best learning model is a good thing. There will always be rich(er) parents who will try and spend their way into a good system, but throwing up our hands and saying "it's no good- it only benefits the rich" is just defeatist. Every model will reach that point eventually Nationalising private schools will only create a greater culture of private tuition. people with money will continue to use it to buy a better life for their children - which is what your second post about great grandparents striving and saving for their children is saying. There are lots of examples of people in politics or in my parents generation who were the first from working class families to go to university, and grammar school was the first step in that direction. It is more socially mobile than a one size fits all comprehensive model that the rich simply opt out of.

mamba80

Tangled Metal wrote:

I'm scared. I agree with mambo. Not very right wing of me but I feel spend more for our future as far as kids education goes.

Hah! I'll get kicked out of the Tory party for that view!

Top man !!!!

tangled_metal

mamba80 wrote:

Tangled Metal wrote:

I'm scared. I agree with mambo. Not very right wing of me but I feel spend more for our future as far as kids education goes.

Hah! I'll get kicked out of the Tory party for that view!

Top man !!!!

Thinking about.what I said above. Tories are all into spending more on education. Currently about £37,000 per year for Eton!

Perhaps my pay packet makes me less of a.Tory as well.

norvernrob

Tangled Metal wrote:

I went private purely because the high school was failing. Only one school I could go to since I lived in a rural area and the next nearest selected based on catchment and religion. I was in neither.

That was a long, long time ago but if it wasn't my parents would still have taken me to private school purely because the system is falls down badly if there isn't universal standards. You're relying on living in the catchment area of a good comprehensive. That right there is the failure and the source of the solution. Make all schools as good as possible. Raise standards so that any and all schools are capable of b getting the most out of every child. Stop tinkering around the edges changing syllabus for x subject, making information public which has no real value, etc. Just spend the money on the schools needing it. That includes those outside of London and the inner city.

BTW last time I looked the comprehensive where I grew up has come out of whatever special measures They had back then. It isn't a great school but isn't failing a generation due to poor management. When. Got taken out of state schooling the new head was making good inroads, but I believe it was a very long process measured in decades. It was that bad!

Schools don't get decades to improve these days. If they fail an OFSTED inspection they go into special measures and get 12 months to improve, if they still don't pass an inspection then the government close the school and reopen it as an academy.

Not that I'm saying privately run Academies are all good either, considering they don't even have to employ qualified teachers.

Lookyhere

NorvernRob wrote:

Not that I'm saying privately run Academies are all good either, considering they don't even have to employ qualified teachers.

yep but they are fantastic for the "Heads", can give themselves nice 6 figure salaries, still fail, go into debt, fcuk up the kids education, go into special measures and still keep the fat salary.... whats not to like?

norvernrob

Lookyhere wrote:

NorvernRob wrote:

Not that I'm saying privately run Academies are all good either, considering they don't even have to employ qualified teachers.

yep but they are fantastic for the "Heads", can give themselves nice 6 figure salaries, still fail, go into debt, fcuk up the kids education, go into special measures and still keep the fat salary.... whats not to like?

That's about the size of it. :?

tangled_metal

So what's your view on the court case over 130,000 New members being banned from voting or not depending on whether the court decides the NEC cash decide the rules on the fly? Great thing that. Loving it.

Owen trying to get the vote postponed. If there's a decision for the NEC tomorrow there could be an appeal. This would extend the dispute very close to the vote. How close to the vote can they get without postponing? Print out ballot papers and send to all including the disputed new members only to find they're banned afterall. Can they identify those.ballots to prevent them being counted? I hope they delay. It'll add time for things to.happen. Entertainment value for Tories would be higher.

BTW whatever happens there is a higher court to appeal to, the supreme court. It might not be over tomorrow afterall.

Another thing I read somewhere Owen isn't the no hoper after two polls reckon it's a close thing afterall. Well only if the 130,000 get blocked of course.

Really 130,000 Trotskyist reentryists? Hah! They're probably using Trotskyist ideas to gain influence but not really international socialists like.Trotskyist reentryists. Momentum.just a counter to the centre left's progress group. Just they're more effective grassroots campaign.

Tom Watson's a flaky tw@t. Couldn't wish him on a better party. Corbyn is a nice guy trying to change politics or a nice guy being.manipulated? Is he for real or just another politician who's going to let his supporters down?

Labour is a great party for entertainment now, let's hope it runs for a while,

mamba80

Until i went on this Forum, i thought i was a fairly middle of the road, Steve0 altered that!!!!

to ans your Q TM, the Labour party is a complete mess, has completely and utterly let down the people of this country, but i dont blame Corbyn, (to quote Dr Who) i name Benn, destroyer of the Labour party.

ballysmate

mamba80 wrote:

Until i went on this Forum, i thought i was a fairly middle of the road, Steve0 altered that!!!!

to ans your Q TM, the Labour party is a complete mess, has completely and utterly let down the people of this country, but i dont blame Corbyn, (to quote Dr Who) i name Benn, destroyer of the Labour party.

The rot really set in when Len McClusky appointed the more hapless of the Miliband brothers.

Thank you Len.

tangled_metal

Why? What's Benn done?

Isn't he the shadow foreign Secretary who was undermined by Corbyn supporters and attack dogs (Diane Abbott and friends)? The guy who then stayed in post and never made any statements against his own leader?

I have no doubt he's one of the more centre left MPs of which many want Corbyn out as leader. Can't blame him.for that. Corbyn allies probably wanted.Blair out too back in.the day. Of course it's good how Corbyn supporters are accusing centre left MPs of.undermining Corbyn their leader when that's what.the Labour awkward squad used to do to.Blair.

ballysmate

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeremy_Co ... aign,_2015

Commentators in the media widely predicted that Corbyn would struggle to pass the threshold of 35 nominations from Labour MPs required to become a candidate. However he managed narrowly, and at the last minute, to secure sufficient support from parliamentary colleagues, with 36 nominations in total.[2] Around 12 of the MPs who nominated him actually supported other candidates, but "lent" him their support in order to widen the contest.[3]

A big thank you to the dozen MPs who helped get Corbyn on the ballot.
Bless you!

mamba80

Ballysmate wrote:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeremy_Corbyn_Labour_Party_leadership_campaign,_2015

Commentators in the media widely predicted that Corbyn would struggle to pass the threshold of 35 nominations from Labour MPs required to become a candidate. However he managed narrowly, and at the last minute, to secure sufficient support from parliamentary colleagues, with 36 nominations in total.[2] Around 12 of the MPs who nominated him actually supported other candidates, but "lent" him their support in order to widen the contest.[3]

A big thank you to the dozen MPs who helped get Corbyn on the ballot.
Bless you!

Do you think the decisions of the Tory government have been a great success Bally? £ plummeting, business confidence (on all measures) a disaster and growth slashed, NHS a mess, terrible infrastructure and educational international league tables - UK at the bottom, hardly a glowing endorsement.

Stevo_666

mamba80 wrote:

Tangled Metal wrote:

I'm scared. I agree with mambo. Not very right wing of me but I feel spend more for our future as far as kids education goes.

Hah! I'll get kicked out of the Tory party for that view!

Top man !!!!

Did you get kicked out or did you leave of your own accord?

Stevo_666

Ballysmate wrote:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeremy_Corbyn_Labour_Party_leadership_campaign,_2015

Commentators in the media widely predicted that Corbyn would struggle to pass the threshold of 35 nominations from Labour MPs required to become a candidate. However he managed narrowly, and at the last minute, to secure sufficient support from parliamentary colleagues, with 36 nominations in total.[2] Around 12 of the MPs who nominated him actually supported other candidates, but "lent" him their support in order to widen the contest.[3]

A big thank you to the dozen MPs who helped get Corbyn on the ballot.
Bless you!

Labour's transformation into a Trotskyist faction is proceeding quite nicely
http://europe.newsweek.com/tom-watson-urges-jeremy-corbyn-tackle-trotskyist-entryism-489257
Wonder when my ballot papers will turn up?

Stevo_666

mamba80 wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

And in the latest round of news, May intends to lift the ban on new grammar schools to improve social mobility for bright but not so well off kids.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37002495

And surprise surprise, Labour and the Lib Dems intend to oppose it. I guess reducing social mobility helps preserve Labours voter base. :roll:

^this is what you posted, when you raised the subject, back up your "statements" and perhaps how it improves social mobility to poorer kids, who are unlikely to going to GS in any case.

So, how would GS help the kids on the IOW ? 8k per pupil spent in tower hamlets, 4k per pupil on the isle, lower rates of attainment, less likely to leave IOW for Uni.

Bottom line is that quality of teaching, spending and class sizes are far more important and can be applied across the board, improving life chances for all and that has to inc streaming for bright kids too.

I'll infer what I need to from your failure to answer the question

i ve given you the answer......... spend more on state education for ALL children, you however, cannot back up your assertions because you are wrong lol!

someone back along said it is the parents responsibility etc, this is very true, however, if the parents have had a shitte education, then they perhaps lack the capacity to make good decisions for their kids, so we need to try an break the cycle and concentrate on future generations.

You answered the question you wanted to answer, not the question I asked. That's because you can't disagree with any of my statements.