This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|---|
Originally posted by EverybodyDannsNow
Surely this is the opposite of 'we are not the Conservatives'? It's a specific policy which is what everyone has been asking from Labour for months. You keep saying 'ideological reasons' as if that's a bad thing - the 'ideology' of our society being fair and meritocratic is shared by the majority of the population. I see no issue with policies pursuing that aim. The whole thing about state school places is a complete red herring - the reality is hardly any of these parents are going to pull their kids out of the school over a few grand a year difference. The schools will swallow some of the cost, the parents will begrudgingly pay the balance passed onto them, and hardly anything will change beyond the schools making a bit less profit and paying an appropriate level of tax. Can you make a case as to why the taxpayer should be subsidising the richest in society to go to better schools? Not logistical challenges that a change might produce (a la state school places), but an actual case as to why the current status quo is a good thing? I would agree that it's fairer, however it certainly isn't meritocratic. Of course these schools, places at which will be prized, will increase fees. I also take issue with this, painless and no harm, idea that this isn't going to pull children out of better schools into the state system. Of course it is, there are going to be a bottom percent of aspirational middle class families who were stretching their incomes to send their children to these schools. For them the increases will be the straw that breaks that back. Now I agree, there is a wider discussion to be had over the nature of private/public education....something that has been touched upon many times before. However, let's not play here, the left's direction of travel is always towards an equalized education system and the abolition of privilege.....as equality is their obsession and desire in all things regardless of its averaged outcomes (and hated by the aspirational). However, to paraphrase the biblical proverb, 'iron sharpens iron', or in other words if you wish to produce the best minds you must surround them with the best. As Socrates taught Plato, who taught Aristotle, who taught Alexander.
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() |
---|---|
Originally posted by ASCPFC
The data does not really support that; [Link]
|
|
![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() |
---|---|
Originally posted by EverybodyDannsNow
The data does not really support that; [Link] The data does support it. There are a quarter that don't let in non-fee paying students. The other three quarters do. Some even target the poorest children. I should know as I was one of them. The article is somewhat misleading in its findings when read in its entirety. As I said, it's nowhere near to being a one size fits all situation.
Red and Blue Army! |
|
![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() |
---|---|
Originally posted by Stirlingsays
I would agree that it's fairer, however it certainly isn't meritocratic. Of course these schools, places at which will be prized, will increase fees. I also take issue with this, painless and no harm, idea that this isn't going to pull children out of better schools into the state system. Of course it is, there are going to be a bottom percent of aspirational middle class families who were stretching their incomes to send their children to these schools. For them the increases will be the straw that breaks that back. Now I agree, there is a wider discussion to be had over the nature of private/public education....something that has been touched upon many times before. However, let's not play here, the left's direction of travel is always towards an equalized education system and the abolition of privilege.....as equality is their obsession and desire in all things regardless of its averaged outcomes (and hated by the aspirational). However, to paraphrase the biblical proverb, 'iron sharpens iron', or in other words if you wish to produce the best minds you must surround them with the best. As Socrates taught Plato, who taught Aristotle, who taught Alexander. You're correct on the meritocracy point. There will be a tiny percentage of families as you describe who may now be priced out of it... so what? Why should the taxpayer subsidise a luxury they cannot afford? Maybe we can release some useful pamphlets about how to make your weekly shop cheaper, or how to cook dinners, like we do with the poor. They can just cut out the smartphones and Netflix subscriptions.
|
|
![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() |
---|---|
Originally posted by ASCPFC
The data does support it. There are a quarter that don't let in non-fee paying students. The other three quarters do. Some even target the poorest children. I should know as I was one of them. The article is somewhat misleading in its findings when read in its entirety. As I said, it's nowhere near to being a one size fits all situation. I think we're talking about different things here - to my knowledge, grammar schools are state-funded and so not relevant to Labour's policy on private school fees. Happy to be corrected but I didn't think grammar schools were the target.
|
|
![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|---|
Originally posted by EverybodyDannsNow
You're correct on the meritocracy point. There will be a tiny percentage of families as you describe who may now be priced out of it... so what? Why should the taxpayer subsidise a luxury they cannot afford? Maybe we can release some useful pamphlets about how to make your weekly shop cheaper, or how to cook dinners, like we do with the poor. They can just cut out the smartphones and Netflix subscriptions. I have some sympathy with this view. However, this topic is always a bit like the 'legalise/ban it all to hell' issue I have with drugs. Despite both sides of the argument claiming that they are correct personally I feel that whatever side of the fence you fall it will condemn a percent to worse outcomes, many permanently. My settled position is the exclusive education should and very much needs to exist...but as with politics...the money aspect ruins it. I would have the state completely pay all costs for the very brightest minds as measured by IQ at eleven plus for the top ten percent of the population. The wealth of the family would not be a factor. No foreign students or buy in. The decline or rise of a society is ultimately decided by meritocracy. Edited by Stirlingsays (04 Jun 2024 12.25pm)
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() |
---|---|
Originally posted by Stirlingsays
I have some sympathy with this view. However, this topic is always a bit like the 'legalise/ban it all to hell' issue I have with drugs. Despite both sides of the argument claiming that they are correct personally I feel that whatever side of the fence you fall it will condemn a percent to worse outcomes, many permanently. My settled position is the exclusive education should and very much needs to exist...but as with politics...the money aspect ruins it. I would have the state completely pay all costs for the very brightest minds as measured by IQ at eleven plus for the top ten percent of the population. The wealth of the family would not be a factor. No foreign students or buy in. The decline or rise of a society is ultimately decided by meritocracy. Edited by Stirlingsays (04 Jun 2024 12.25pm) If you mean Grammar Schools I have no problem with that but I doubt Labour will agree.
One more point |
|
![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() |
---|---|
Originally posted by EverybodyDannsNow
Well yeah but that's obviously a completely separate point - there is no proposal from Labour to close down private schools, so I don't think we should conflate the two. Who are the Labour MPs who have sent their own children to private schools while looking to close them down? Diane Abbott for one, who when questioned about it replied that her culture always wanted to do the best for their children. Presumably, white culture doesn’t.
hats off to palace, they were always gonna be louder, and hate to say it but they were impressive ALL bouncing and singing. |
|
![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() |
---|---|
The Labour leadership contender defended sending her son James to a £10,000-a-year school claiming: 'West Indian mums will go to the wall for their children.' Miss Abbott also risked fury among her white colleagues in the Labour Party by saying they would 'never understand' the Afro-Caribbean culture of parents wanting to do the best for their children.
Edited by HKOwen (04 Jun 2024 1.41pm)
Responsibility Deficit Disorder is a medical condition. Symptoms include inability to be corrected when wrong, false sense of superiority, desire to share personal info no else cares about, general hubris. It's a medical issue rather than pure arrogance. |
|
![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|---|
Originally posted by Badger11
If you mean Grammar Schools I have no problem with that but I doubt Labour will agree. I talking about the brightest in the country by IQ having the state pay for their education so they can be matched to the most demanding jobs as being right as a concept. So I guess I'm talking about an elite. Grammar schools are a different question. They are essentially a middle class fiefdom. I don't think expecting the working class to pay for the middle class to separate their kids from them can be regarded as creating an elite....more like insulating family incomes. That said, I think the original intention of Grammar schools as a method of social mobility was a noble one.
Edited by Stirlingsays (04 Jun 2024 4.37pm)
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|---|
Originally posted by HKOwen
The Labour leadership contender defended sending her son James to a £10,000-a-year school claiming: 'West Indian mums will go to the wall for their children.' Miss Abbott also risked fury among her white colleagues in the Labour Party by saying they would 'never understand' the Afro-Caribbean culture of parents wanting to do the best for their children.
Edited by HKOwen (04 Jun 2024 1.41pm) Considering her pro Palestinian views calling her son a Hebrew name somewhat raises a smile.
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() |
---|---|
Originally posted by EverybodyDannsNow
You're correct on the meritocracy point. There will be a tiny percentage of families as you describe who may now be priced out of it... so what? Why should the taxpayer subsidise a luxury they cannot afford? Maybe we can release some useful pamphlets about how to make your weekly shop cheaper, or how to cook dinners, like we do with the poor. They can just cut out the smartphones and Netflix subscriptions. If that tiny % is 1 it will be the over 5000 extra school places needed. You do the sums if it’s 2 or 3. Although all those ponces using food banks need to cut their cloth as well with phones and Netflix no doubt.
|
|
![]() |
![]() ![]() |
Registration is now on our new message board
To login with your existing username you will need to convert your account over to the new message board.
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2024 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.