Join the Labour Party and save your country!
Comments
-
mamba80 wrote: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.
Yes Mamba, post the Brexit vote, things have been volatile. As I have said on here before, I voted remain and would do so again. Time will tell if Brexit will be good or bad for the UK. People voted on the long term future of the country and not on the basis of how many Euros they will get to the pound on this years trip to Benidorm.
Growth isn't great across Europe either is it?
NHS? When wasn't it a mess. Andy Burnham the soon to be mayor of Manchester has moved on from his Butcher of Stafford days hasn't he?
Education? Yes I'd bring back grammar schools. The subject has its own thread on here if you want to look for my views.0 -
And of course Labour would put all of this rightBallysmate wrote:mamba80 wrote: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.
Yes Mamba, post the Brexit vote, things have been volatile. As I have said on here before, I voted remain and would do so again. Time will tell if Brexit will be good or bad for the UK. People voted on the long term future of the country and not on the basis of how many Euros they will get to the pound on this years trip to Benidorm.
Growth isn't great across Europe either is it?
NHS? When wasn't it a mess. Andy Burnham the soon to be mayor of Manchester has moved on from his Butcher of Stafford days hasn't he?
Education? Yes I'd bring back grammar schools. The subject has its own thread on here if you want to look for my views.
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Stevo 666 wrote:mamba80 wrote:
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.
Yes Mamba, post the Brexit vote, things have been volatile. As I have said on here before, I voted remain and would do so again. Time will tell if Brexit will be good or bad for the UK. People voted on the long term future of the country and not on the basis of how many Euros they will get to the pound on this years trip to Benidorm.
Growth isn't great across Europe either is it?
NHS? When wasn't it a mess. Andy Burnham the soon to be mayor of Manchester has moved on from his Butcher of Stafford days hasn't he?
Education? Yes I'd bring back grammar schools. The subject has its own thread on here if you want to look for my views.
And of course Labour would put all of this right[/quote]
You seem to struggle with who is actually in power, it the Tories and though it might amuse you to take the p1$$ out of Labour, its up to the Tories to have policies to Govern for the whole country and for the common good.
so, we ve got new emphasis on grammars, demoralised junior doctors, removal of nursing bursaries, a sure increase in our reliance on foreign and agency workers and most amazingly, a self inflicted down turn or even a recession.... oh not to mention a economic policy is tatters and very similar to labours 2015 manifesto.
the tories have got this country in a complete mess, at least austerity was a policy of sorts, the people who got us here have all run away, despite saying they d stay and see it all through, are we leaving the EU ? who the xxxx knows!, are we a joke throughout the world? Yes - and yet you have zero criticism of them?0 -
No still in. They thought I meant sending my kid to a better private school. When I said to spend more on education they thought Eton over Harrow! I'm more minor league independent for a couple of terms at best. Although I'd have to get past the other parent who is even totally against trying for one of the last grammar schools in a Labour area! Thinks it's too close to paying for it.Stevo 666 wrote:
Did you get kicked out or did you leave of your own accord?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 !!!!
She's Labour Guardian reader. Everything seems to come straight.from the Guardian newspaper.I should say new Labour not the new, old Labour socialist worker readers type. She's the sort being weeded out if there's a a boundary change after Corbyn wins the leadership again.
You know what, do you reckon that Corbyn supporting MPs will vote for a bill changing boundaries in Tory's favour just to allow an excuse to deselect their opponents? Oh, here's hoping the boundary commission and any others get that sorted before 2020. I'm hoping for a rerun of Thatcher vs socialism, 70s/80s style. Tories have their Thatcher-like. Is Corbyn a Michael Foot type character? Sorry but I was born in the 70s so wasn't really old enough to understand things back then.0 -
mamba80 wrote:Stevo 666 wrote:mamba80 wrote:
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.
Yes Mamba, post the Brexit vote, things have been volatile. As I have said on here before, I voted remain and would do so again. Time will tell if Brexit will be good or bad for the UK. People voted on the long term future of the country and not on the basis of how many Euros they will get to the pound on this years trip to Benidorm.
Growth isn't great across Europe either is it?
NHS? When wasn't it a mess. Andy Burnham the soon to be mayor of Manchester has moved on from his Butcher of Stafford days hasn't he?
Education? Yes I'd bring back grammar schools. The subject has its own thread on here if you want to look for my views.
And of course Labour would put all of this right
You seem to struggle with who is actually in power, it the Tories and though it might amuse you to take the p1$$ out of Labour, its up to the Tories to have policies to Govern for the whole country and for the common good.
so, we ve got new emphasis on grammars, demoralised junior doctors, removal of nursing bursaries, a sure increase in our reliance on foreign and agency workers and most amazingly, a self inflicted down turn or even a recession.... oh not to mention a economic policy is tatters and very similar to labours 2015 manifesto.
the tories have got this country in a complete mess, at least austerity was a policy of sorts, the people who got us here have all run away, despite saying they d stay and see it all through, are we leaving the EU ? who the xxxx knows!, are we a joke throughout the world? Yes - and yet you have zero criticism of them?[/quote]
What a steaming of leftiebollox. Just look at the mess that Labour left when they finished their term of office in 2010 (and back in '79). In both cases the Tories improved things when they took over. Materially."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
You r blind to reality Steve, your stock reply is always sooooo predictable - leftybollox - and you cant back up assertions you first raise.
As Narb said a Blancmange.0 -
Mambaso, we ve got new emphasis on grammars, demoralised junior doctors, removal of nursing bursaries, a sure increase in our reliance on foreign and agency workers and most amazingly, a self inflicted down turn or even a recession.... oh not to mention a economic policy is tatters and very similar to labours 2015 manifesto.
the tories have got this country in a complete mess, at least austerity was a policy of sorts, the people who got us here have all run away, despite saying they d stay and see it all through, are we leaving the EU ? who the xxxx knows!, are we a joke throughout the world? Yes - and yet you have zero criticism of them?
As previously stated, I am in favour of GS, hopefully to push the more academically gifted. Yes the secondary moderns should be improved to cater for their pupils. They can be streamed to push the pupils that are capable and to prepare the pupils that are less capable for life after school.
All sides agreed that the previous agreement with junior docs was unfit for purpose. The sticking point in bringing working practices into the modern day was money. BMA seemed happy to accept the new arrangements once the money was upped, the docs less so.
A nursing diploma used to attract a bursary of £6k, a nursing degree, nothing. Both qualifications led to being on the nursing register. A strange anomaly. But yes, I would have kept the nursing bursary.
A self inflicted downturn? As expected, the markets responded negatively to the vote. But it will take years to establish whether the decision was good or bad. Not the weeks that you seem to have given.
Cameron and Osbourne were shown to be out of tune with public opinion (as indeed you and I were) and had no credibility to negotiate our exit from the EU and had to go. He saw that as well as anyone and resigned.
I wouldn't like to see austerity abandoned. I want the deficit to continue to come down and not live outside our means.
Edit.
A joke? Says who? We are the 5/6 biggest world economy, permanent seat on security council, one of the most open democracies in the world. I bet many other countries would like to be in on the joke.
Stop doing us down.0 -
Bally has summed it up quite well above.mamba80 wrote:You r blind to reality Steve, your stock reply is always sooooo predictable - leftybollox - and you cant back up assertions you first raise.
As Narb said a Blancmange.
You are so desperate to do this country down so that you can blame the evil Tories that it blinds you to the facts. If its as bad as you say, millions would be trying to leave and the country emptying out. Quite the opposite. But ignore the facts if you like "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
In other news, Labour continues to bicker:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37057589
Meanwhile the RMT dinosoars might be starting to understand the irony of ruining the hard earned holidays of tens of thousands of people in the interest of the claimed work life balance of a few hundred staff:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-37062948"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Stevo 666 wrote:
Bally has summed it up quite well above.mamba80 wrote:You r blind to reality Steve, your stock reply is always sooooo predictable - leftybollox - and you cant back up assertions you first raise.
As Narb said a Blancmange.
You are so desperate to do this country down so that you can blame the evil Tories that it blinds you to the facts. If its as bad as you say, millions would be trying to leave and the country emptying out. Quite the opposite. But ignore the facts if you like
Not at all, my view is more that of our sports men and women in Rio, look at your weaknesses, learn from the opposition and beat them.
Yours and ballys is akin to our footballers, revel in past glories, assume you r the best and carrying on losing.
this country has some great people and has achieved brilliant things but it needs to move fwd and progress and in oh so many ways, its not doing that.
Pre Brexit, might get worse.....
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... rants.html0 -
mamba80 wrote:Stevo 666 wrote:
Bally has summed it up quite well above.mamba80 wrote:You r blind to reality Steve, your stock reply is always sooooo predictable - leftybollox - and you cant back up assertions you first raise.
As Narb said a Blancmange.
You are so desperate to do this country down so that you can blame the evil Tories that it blinds you to the facts. If its as bad as you say, millions would be trying to leave and the country emptying out. Quite the opposite. But ignore the facts if you like
Not at all, my view is more that of our sports men and women in Rio, look at your weaknesses, learn from the opposition and beat them.
Yours and ballys is akin to our footballers, revel in past glories, assume you r the best and carrying on losing.
this country has some great people and has achieved brilliant things but it needs to move fwd and progress and in oh so many ways, its not doing that.
Pre Brexit, might get worse.....
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... rants.html
Revel in pat glories? Where have I done that?
From your article dated 18 months ago,
He found that between 1964 and 2011 some 684,000 “highly numerate individuals” left the UK.
And although a similar number of “very numerate immigrants” arrived in the UK over the same period they were dwarfed by the number of low skilled migrants also arriving.
The academic calculated that immigration added some 2.4 million people to the UK population with low numeracy skills.
So there has been no brain drain but a surge of low skilled immigration that depresses the wage market. That is the crux of the argument used by a lot of Brexiters, which you seem to accept as valid.
Maybe you are right. There could be a rush of migrants heading for opportunities in Britain not available in other parts of Europe, eager to get in before the drawbridge goes up. We will see.0 -
As regards your sporting analogy, I agree that we should be like the athletes in striving to be the best. Leanest, strongest, fittest. Why not give our brightest students the best possible education? To my mind, that is selective education by way of GS. Give the other kids incentives to improve by streaming secondary moderns, but lets push our kids. All kids are not created equal academically so why pretend otherwise.
You lambaste the government for trying to shake up some of the working practices in the NHS. practices that were decades out of date. Was it mishandled? Yes. Was it right? Yes. On about past glories - the NHS. A sacred cow as far as people with rose tinted specs are concerned. It has been creaking at the seams for years. It needs taking out of the political arena and a proper debate at how it can be financed for future generations held. Not going to happen as too many people are living in the past.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... -empowered
Social media campaigns to damage brands and reputations can supplement strikes but they cannot replace them. Workers’ power is found, first and foremost, in the workplace. Workplaces are the means of production, distribution and exchange under capitalism. Jeremy Corbyn’s plan to introduce statutory bargaining rights for workers can help here but it will still require cognitive liberation in order for workers to use these rights for their own benefit. Only then will striking return to the rightful levels of before.
Corbyn is keen to return us to what he sees as the golden age. ie Pre Thatcher, where someone could actually use the phrase highlighted in bold and not be thought raving.
That is the irony of you accusing Stevo and me of revelling in the past, when this thread was set up on the back of Corbyn and the Labour party wanting to turn the clock back 50 years to a brand of socialism that failed.
Far from learning from others, Corbyn wants to repeat the same mistakes.0 -
Show me where I am revelling in past glories. Yet again, you are not looking at what I write, but what you imagine your mythical stereotypical Tory might write.mamba80 wrote:Stevo 666 wrote:
Bally has summed it up quite well above.mamba80 wrote:You r blind to reality Steve, your stock reply is always sooooo predictable - leftybollox - and you cant back up assertions you first raise.
As Narb said a Blancmange.
You are so desperate to do this country down so that you can blame the evil Tories that it blinds you to the facts. If its as bad as you say, millions would be trying to leave and the country emptying out. Quite the opposite. But ignore the facts if you like
Not at all, my view is more that of our sports men and women in Rio, look at your weaknesses, learn from the opposition and beat them.
Yours and ballys is akin to our footballers, revel in past glories, assume you r the best and carrying on losing.
this country has some great people and has achieved brilliant things but it needs to move fwd and progress and in oh so many ways, its not doing that.
Pre Brexit, might get worse.....
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... rants.html
I am forward looking by nature - the past is the past: I am am very focused on the future. As Bally says, it is lefties like Corbyn that are stuck in a time warp, harking back to some golden socialist era that never existed."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Seems our sporting infrastructure is pretty good - as Great Britain powers into second place in the medal table at Rio 8)
Let's wait for a leftie try and do us down on that..."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Iceland.0
-
Ballysmate wrote:As regards your sporting analogy, I agree that we should be like the athletes in striving to be the best. Leanest, strongest, fittest. Why not give our brightest students the best possible education? To my mind, that is selective education by way of GS. Give the other kids incentives to improve by streaming secondary moderns, but lets push our kids. All kids are not created equal academically so why pretend otherwise.
Listening to the statistics for those areas that still have grammar schools (on Radio 4 More or Less), they don't seem to bear out the theory that grammar schools improve social mobility, or the overall performance.0 -
Not totally convincing given how many medals Iceland have won (none) compared to team GB (38)Alain Quay wrote:Iceland."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
I listened to that. Meant to post about it. Basically I think the evidence from Thames Medway area is rich do well in grammar schools but poor end up doing worse. Grammar school entry is above the average in better off areas but below in poorer areas. Social mobility seems not to happen in areas with the grammar school system.
Other areas looked at had lower levels going to fewer grammar schools but the same trend was seen.
So evidence is out there but you can always choose not to look or to ignore it. IMHO it's common sense really. If your academic path is dictated by events in your earliest learning years selecting at 11 is too late. If you're insistent about having grammar schools let's have selection at say 2 or 3. Then support the families through the education process years so that the poorest have the same chances. That means paying giving kids support, nutrition, a safe environment, a place to study outside schools, etc. such that the poorest have what a good, middle class, aspirational family has. Until all kids have the same chances grammar schools just increase the divide between haves and have nots. I say this despite being a right wing, independent school educated, middle class parent.
BTW my hypocrisy means I've taken my lad out of my local nursery on favour of a better performing one miles away. I'm also planning on trying.to get him into a local grammar school. One of the few years left in Lancashire. The system is broken so I'm going to use my position, such that it is, to give my child the best chance in.life. Lesson learnt from Labour MPs under Blair and even socialist Labour MPs. Hillary Benn never got where he is on a secondary modern education. He would have been in the catchment area of a really good and well funded/run school.0 -
Stevo 666 wrote:Seems our sporting infrastructure is pretty good - as Great Britain powers into second place in the medal table at Rio 8)
Let's wait for a leftie try and do us down on that...
It's an example of what you can do if you invest a lot of money wisely (in this case mainly from Lottery funding).
Which is the opposite of what we seem to be doing with education...0 -
Tangled Metal wrote:So evidence is out there but you can always choose not to look or to ignore it. IMHO it's common sense really. If your academic path is dictated by events in your earliest learning years selecting at 11 is too late. If you're insistent about having grammar schools let's have selection at say 2 or 3. Then support the families through the education process years so that the poorest have the same chances. That means paying giving kids support, nutrition, a safe environment, a place to study outside schools, etc. such that the poorest have what a good, middle class, aspirational family has. Until all kids have the same chances grammar schools just increase the divide between haves and have nots. I say this despite being a right wing, independent school educated, middle class parent.
Basically agree with this assessment of the facts, although I think trying to segregate at 2 or 3 would go down very badly. The gap between poorest and richest is already apparent when kids enter school and only gets wider, so surely we should be working on a system that addresses this rather than one which waits till the gaps are already entrenched and then dumps the losers out.
It's a nature vs. nurture thing isn't it, it's fair enough to want to segregate kids who want to pursue academics and kids who want to pursue vocational training if that's genuinely where their aptitude lies, but at the moment the biggest determining factor in how well you're going to do is how affluent your parents are (and there are plenty of studies which back this up) - not whether you happen to be academically minded or not.
By way of backing that up: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/s ... 5_Text.pdf
In 2013/14 33.5% of pupils entitled to free school meals get 5+ A*-C GCSEs, compared to 60.5% of pupils not entitled to free school meals. I don't think anyone would argue that people entitled to free school meals happen to be born stupider than other people.0 -
That's why I said assess at 2 or 3 before school. Although that's late as well. In a utopia I guess you'd help all from the earliest age to achieve their potential. Part of this would need every aspect of a child's life to be at its best. Nutrition, parental support, environment, etc. There's so much going into achievement of potential.
Whatever the real situation is you can bet your money on selection at 11 not catching any where close to the whole set with potential to benefit from the grammar school style of education.0 -
Ballysmate wrote:As regards your sporting analogy, I agree that we should be like the athletes in striving to be the best. Leanest, strongest, fittest. Why not give our brightest students the best possible education? To my mind, that is selective education by way of GS. Give the other kids incentives to improve by streaming secondary moderns, but lets push our kids. All kids are not created equal academically so why pretend otherwise.
Corbyn is keen to return us to what he sees as the golden age. ie Pre Thatcher, where someone could actually use the phrase highlighted in bold and not be thought raving.
That is the irony of you accusing Stevo and me of revelling in the past, when this thread was set up on the back of Corbyn and the Labour party wanting to turn the clock back 50 years to a brand of socialism that failed.
Far from learning from others, Corbyn wants to repeat the same mistakes.
No one said they are but the vast majority have fantastic potential in sport, vocational and academic, Grammar schools are a class throw back to earlier days and they had their uses, my cousin got into Law and became a Barrister via a grammar school but she wasnt coached and genuinely gifted kids got into them, now a days, its how deep are your parents pockets and drive?
Do our main first world competitors operate a grammar style system or do they provide for all their kids aspirations and abilities?
socialism bought us the NHS and universal education and the tories (at the time) were against both, so i m not quite sure why you think its such a failure - whats needed now is to fund our public services to world class standards.0 -
Tangled Metal wrote:That's why I said assess at 2 or 3 before school. Although that's late as well. In a utopia I guess you'd help all from the earliest age to achieve their potential. Part of this would need every aspect of a child's life to be at its best. Nutrition, parental support, environment, etc. There's so much going into achievement of potential.
Whatever the real situation is you can bet your money on selection at 11 not catching any where close to the whole set with potential to benefit from the grammar school style of education.
Yeah, which is why I think investing a bunch of money in creating a load of new grammar schools isn't the best way to help. I'd sooner see the same money invested in early years and better quality teaching in primary in poor areas.Ballysmate wrote:All kids are not created equal academically so why pretend otherwise.
Sure - but that's not what testing at age 11 selects for.
It selects just as much on your social class and race (white working class boys are now the lowest achieving group in the country) as your academic ability. As per the government stats I linked above ~30% of kids on free school meals get 5x A*-C @ GCSE compared to ~60% of those not on FSM achieving the same.0 -
I went to a GS in the early 70s (Born in '61) and the education I received was excellent. Perhaps my place there was due to my being the son of a coalminer and living in a coal board house. Very middle class. As far as I know, it was a case of if you passed your 11+ you went to GS. Yes there were kids with rich parents but there were also kids who got free school meals.
I was part way through (3 years?) when it was changed into a comprehensive. The change in the school was remarkable, particularly in respect to the behaviour of the kids which deteriorated.
I accept that nowadays more GS pupils come from 'better' backgrounds. What I can't accept is the argument that kids of parents that care and push their kids, should be denied a challenging education on the basis that it is not fair on the other kids whose parents don't give a fcuk.
Fast forward 25 or so years. My son went to the local comp. After a prize giving, he came home with a shield for achieving the best GCSE results that year. Now my lad is reasonably bright but best in year? He is nothing special and thinking back to my GS peers, I would have thought him middle of the road.
But we were the type of parents who pushed their kids. Never missed a parents' evening and always took an interest. Wife's sister put 5 kids through the same school and as fear as I know, she only set foot in the school to play her face at some perceived injustice. Her kids without exception did poorly. So there may be something in the nurture vs nature. But as I said earlier, I would find it difficult to explain to a child that they can't get the education they want because it wouldn't be fair to the kids whose parents were indifferent to their child's well being.
Edit.
Recently found out from his sister that my lad was bullied at school. The root cause? He was considered clever. Hence my earlier post regarding comprehensives, repeated below
0 -
mamba80 wrote:Ballysmate wrote:As regards your sporting analogy, I agree that we should be like the athletes in striving to be the best. Leanest, strongest, fittest. Why not give our brightest students the best possible education? To my mind, that is selective education by way of GS. Give the other kids incentives to improve by streaming secondary moderns, but lets push our kids. All kids are not created equal academically so why pretend otherwise.
Corbyn is keen to return us to what he sees as the golden age. ie Pre Thatcher, where someone could actually use the phrase highlighted in bold and not be thought raving.
That is the irony of you accusing Stevo and me of revelling in the past, when this thread was set up on the back of Corbyn and the Labour party wanting to turn the clock back 50 years to a brand of socialism that failed.
Far from learning from others, Corbyn wants to repeat the same mistakes.
No one said they are but the vast majority have fantastic potential in sport, vocational and academic, Grammar schools are a class throw back to earlier days and they had their uses, my cousin got into Law and became a Barrister via a grammar school but she wasnt coached and genuinely gifted kids got into them, now a days, its how deep are your parents pockets and drive?
Do our main first world competitors operate a grammar style system or do they provide for all their kids aspirations and abilities?
socialism bought us the NHS and universal education and the tories (at the time) were against both, so i m not quite sure why you think its such a failure - whats needed now is to fund our public services to world class standards.
I commented on the NHS and education because you specified them in a previous post. The NHS is creaking at the seams and the way it is being funded at present is perhaps not sustainable. A fresh look needs to be taken as to the best way to fund it, preferably not using it as a political football.
As an aside, there is a poster on the wall in my doc's waiting room, informing patients how many people have been removed from the practice due to repeatedly missing appointments.
Similarly, there is a poster in the waiting room at the hospital displaying how many missed appointments there were the previous month - hundreds.
We don't help ourselves do we?0 -
2 or 3 is clearly too early to assess. But I fundamentally disagree with you on selection. We are selected all through our lives on ability, achievement etc: life is competitive whether you likemit or not and schooling cannot ignore that - in fact as something that prepares kids for life it should reflect that.Tangled Metal wrote:That's why I said assess at 2 or 3 before school. Although that's late as well. In a utopia I guess you'd help all from the earliest age to achieve their potential. Part of this would need every aspect of a child's life to be at its best. Nutrition, parental support, environment, etc. There's so much going into achievement of potential.
Whatever the real situation is you can bet your money on selection at 11 not catching any where close to the whole set with potential to benefit from the grammar school style of education.
Also why hold back the academically able kids while giving the non academic ones an education that doesnt suit their needs?"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
If you look at state school league tables you will see a disproportionate number of grammar schools near the top. This is borne out locally by the two grammars in my borough being head and shoulders above the comps and have 8 applicants for every place on average. As I said before, this has to benefit the kids that go to these schools.KingstonGraham wrote:Ballysmate wrote:As regards your sporting analogy, I agree that we should be like the athletes in striving to be the best. Leanest, strongest, fittest. Why not give our brightest students the best possible education? To my mind, that is selective education by way of GS. Give the other kids incentives to improve by streaming secondary moderns, but lets push our kids. All kids are not created equal academically so why pretend otherwise.
Listening to the statistics for those areas that still have grammar schools (on Radio 4 More or Less), they don't seem to bear out the theory that grammar schools improve social mobility, or the overall performance.
The answer is simple: we need more grammars and the demand from parents strongly reflects this. The parents involved really aren't interested in a bunch of self righteous lefties trying to tell them that they know better about what's right for other people's children.
Aside from that, politicians are surely in the job to give the people what they want. And they clearly want more grammars."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Bally - it's great it worked for you as intended and you became socially mobile due the opportunities taken.
Two points on that. Different times back then with more of what I described as a better attitude to education. Working class families often instilled the idea that you encourage and support your kids with an education. It's reminiscent of developing countries in that education is a way out of deprivation. Not saying you were from a deprived family.
The other point is because of this change kids aren't able to get in a gs not because they don't have potential but because by the time they're assessed they're already so far behind due to potentially many factors. Selection is only fair if.everyone is assessed on an even playing field. 11+ isn't that mechanism so gs cannot be fair
One last point. You say it's unfair to penalise those with parents who support their kids, not their fault? Is it the fault of those with unsupporting parents? Not the kid's fault but they're suffering. You post that picture showing a tall flower being cut. That's not the kid with a good home life and able to take advantage of his potential. It's the kid with potential but that was taken away by misadventure that what could easily be called bad parents. That kid lost out at a very young age, well but the 11+. Talk about cut off before his/her prime.
So you want your kids to do well with a gs. Great but make no mistake that is at the expense of poorer kids with an unsupported home life. One last question, is it better to get more to a moderate level or fewer to a greater level of success. Evidence shows better off families end up with better families with gs system. It also shows the worst off families do a lot worse with gs system. That's increasing the division between haves and have note.
So if gs creates a lowering of overall standards, IMHO based on what I've read about gs results based on socio-economic data, what else is there? Perhaps rather than going back to old ideas isn't it worth looking at newer ideas? Oh, course not.because that.is the Tory way, keep.power and success to the higher socio-economic groups. Know your place like the famous sketch with John Cleese et all.0 -
Stevo 666 wrote:
If you look at state school league tables you will see a disproportionate number of grammar schools near the top. This is borne out locally by the two grammars in my borough being head and shoulders above the comps and have 8 applicants for every place on average. As I said before, this has to benefit the kids that go to these schools.KingstonGraham wrote:Ballysmate wrote:As regards your sporting analogy, I agree that we should be like the athletes in striving to be the best. Leanest, strongest, fittest. Why not give our brightest students the best possible education? To my mind, that is selective education by way of GS. Give the other kids incentives to improve by streaming secondary moderns, but lets push our kids. All kids are not created equal academically so why pretend otherwise.
Listening to the statistics for those areas that still have grammar schools (on Radio 4 More or Less), they don't seem to bear out the theory that grammar schools improve social mobility, or the overall performance.
The answer is simple: we need more grammars and the demand from parents strongly reflects this. The parents involved really aren't interested in a bunch of self righteous lefties trying to tell them that they know better about what's right for other people's children.
Aside from that, politicians are surely in the job to give the people what they want. And they clearly want more grammars.
You are confusing correlation and causation. The fact that the grammars are head and shoulders above the rest is because they take all the best achieving kids, not the other way round.0 -
I see nobody bothered to answer my actual facts about how poorer kids objectively achieve worse by virtue of the fact they are poorer. Obviously doesn't fit with your world view.0
