This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum.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
Stirlingsays 09 Jan 18 6.14pm | |
---|---|
Originally posted by johnno42000
did you go to an all boys grammar school as well? If only. Not many Grammar schools in Stockwell in the eighties.....not that I was probably bright enough anyway.
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
johnno42000 09 Jan 18 6.21pm | |
---|---|
Originally posted by Stirlingsays
If only. Not many Grammar schools in Stockwell in the eighties.....not that I was probably bright enough anyway. Mine was in Brockley, it didn't last for too long after I started, which was a pity as it gave a lot of 'lower/working class' kids a great opportunity. Making more grammar schools is one of the few things I agree with the Conservatives about (just not single sex - as it costs a fortune to have the curtains cleaned).
'Lies to the masses as are like fly's to mollasses...they want more and more and more' |
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
Stirlingsays 09 Jan 18 6.51pm | |
---|---|
Originally posted by johnno42000
Mine was in Brockley, it didn't last for too long after I started, which was a pity as it gave a lot of 'lower/working class' kids a great opportunity. Making more grammar schools is one of the few things I agree with the Conservatives about (just not single sex - as it costs a fortune to have the curtains cleaned). If grammar schools actually did improve social mobility I would agree with you.....in reality they get stuffed full of middle class kids......the bright working class kids are blocked either by location or a family that can't pay for the extra after school tutors...so in reality money still plays a part. Edited by Stirlingsays (09 Jan 2018 6.53pm)
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
johnno42000 09 Jan 18 7.31pm | |
---|---|
Originally posted by Stirlingsays
If grammar schools actually did improve social mobility I would agree with you.....in reality they get stuffed full of middle class kids......the bright working class kids are blocked either by location or a family that can't pay for the extra after school tutors...so in reality money still plays a part. Edited by Stirlingsays (09 Jan 2018 6.53pm) Not sure about elsewhere but my school was packed with kids from working class families. My dad received a grant for uniform and I got a free bus pass as I lived far enough away in Sydenham. I must admit I tried for Alleyns and there were questions in French...I had never been taught French, but I think that was a fee paying public school in those days.
'Lies to the masses as are like fly's to mollasses...they want more and more and more' |
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
Mr_Gristle In the land of Whelk Eaters 09 Jan 18 10.17pm | |
---|---|
Originally posted by Stirlingsays
If grammar schools actually did improve social mobility I would agree with you.....in reality they get stuffed full of middle class kids......the bright working class kids are blocked either by location or a family that can't pay for the extra after school tutors...so in reality money still plays a part. Edited by Stirlingsays (09 Jan 2018 6.53pm) Education is probably the only topic I'll ever be able to say "100% agree" to Stirling on. Selective schools have become another tool for entrenching social divides. House prices (and rents) in areas with such schools are an ever-enlarging barrier to access, as are the hidden costs that Stirling alludes to such as the after hours tuition often needed to compete in entrance exams etc. What good Grammar schools may well have been in the past isn't what they are now.
Well I think Simon's head is large; always involved in espionage. (Name that tune) |
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
Stirlingsays 09 Jan 18 10.57pm | |
---|---|
Originally posted by Mr_Gristle
What good Grammar schools may well have been in the past isn't what they are now. Yep, the concept isn't a bad idea, the practice not so great....well great if you're middle class.
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
johnno42000 10 Jan 18 12.43am | |
---|---|
Originally posted by Mr_Gristle
Education is probably the only topic I'll ever be able to say "100% agree" to Stirling on. Selective schools have become another tool for entrenching social divides. House prices (and rents) in areas with such schools are an ever-enlarging barrier to access, as are the hidden costs that Stirling alludes to such as the after hours tuition often needed to compete in entrance exams etc. What good Grammar schools may well have been in the past isn't what they are now. I lived a fair distance from my school (around 3+ miles). Perhaps not confining them to a relatively small catchment area may be a partial answer?
'Lies to the masses as are like fly's to mollasses...they want more and more and more' |
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
matt_himself Matataland 10 Jan 18 8.28am | |
---|---|
What alarms me about this reshuffle is the apparent hope May is putting in young/fresh faces invigorating her government. This is disingenuous because they, like all decent governments, need a vision and plan that can be summed up in one sentence. At the moment they are veering to the left and promoting a hotch-patch of policies which pleases no one and is intellectually devoid. In a period of time when the opposition is promoting regressive policies which have been proven to fail and lurch Britain into crisis, a Tory government promoting individual liberty, choice, self sufficiency, self respect, family values, meritocracy, entrepreneurship, small business, traditional education, law & order, small government and a vision for a post Brexit Britain, rather than the meaningless ‘jobs first Brexit’ of the opposition, would romp ahead in the polls. If the people really wanted Corbyn, he would be twenty points ahead in the polls at the moment but is far from that. However, such an agenda takes balls and a leader with charisma. May has neither of those. At a time when Brexit offers us so much opportunity, we need more from a Tory government.
"That was fun and to round off the day, I am off to steal a charity collection box and then desecrate a place of worship.” - Smokey, The Selhurst Arms, 26/02/02 |
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
CambridgeEagle Sydenham 11 Jan 18 8.18am | |
---|---|
Originally posted by DanH
She tried to move on two of the cabinet and they stood their ground and she caved in. Greening resigned rather than take up another position offered. Very few people moved at all in the end - what was the point? Housing such a big priority that we're onto our third minister for housing within 12 months. Rudderless. It has been bad PR for May for sure. Losing Greening is bad for their popularity with those they are desperately trying to win over. I don't like her but May should have kept her. Shame Hunt is still there. Horrific individual. Brexit bulldog master negotiator and all round moron and imbecile DD still there. Needed to be sacked long ago. Now complains about EU preparing for No Deal. What a fool and hypocrite.
|
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
CambridgeEagle Sydenham 11 Jan 18 8.20am | |
---|---|
Originally posted by matt_himself
What alarms me about this reshuffle is the apparent hope May is putting in young/fresh faces invigorating her government. This is disingenuous because they, like all decent governments, need a vision and plan that can be summed up in one sentence. At the moment they are veering to the left and promoting a hotch-patch of policies which pleases no one and is intellectually devoid. In a period of time when the opposition is promoting regressive policies which have been proven to fail and lurch Britain into crisis, a Tory government promoting individual liberty, choice, self sufficiency, self respect, family values, meritocracy, entrepreneurship, small business, traditional education, law & order, small government and a vision for a post Brexit Britain, rather than the meaningless ‘jobs first Brexit’ of the opposition, would romp ahead in the polls. If the people really wanted Corbyn, he would be twenty points ahead in the polls at the moment but is far from that. However, such an agenda takes balls and a leader with charisma. May has neither of those. At a time when Brexit offers us so much opportunity, we need more from a Tory government. Which of these policies you refer to are proven to fail? And where is said proof? I suggest you look at the last 7 years of policies proven to fail and hope that we do something else. See Portugal for example.
|
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
matt_himself Matataland 11 Jan 18 8.34am | |
---|---|
Originally posted by CambridgeEagle
Which of these policies you refer to are proven to fail? And where is said proof? I suggest you look at the last 7 years of policies proven to fail and hope that we do something else. See Portugal for example. The industrial and union policies of the current Labour Party are a copy of the same policies from the 1970’s which caused the collapse of British manufacturing through under investment caused by nationalisation and by allowing the unions to strike as, and when, they felt like it over seemingly any issue. A tax and spend economic policy has never worked. Show me where this had brought long term benefit to a country, or more specifically this country? I suggest you look into your history and don’t try and compare a small European economy and population with one of the worlds largest economies. You cannot simply say ‘well this worked in so-and-so for a limited time’, in a country backed up by ECB bailout cash, then state it will work here. Two different countries, economies and scenarios.
"That was fun and to round off the day, I am off to steal a charity collection box and then desecrate a place of worship.” - Smokey, The Selhurst Arms, 26/02/02 |
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
CambridgeEagle Sydenham 11 Jan 18 10.17am | |
---|---|
Originally posted by matt_himself
The industrial and union policies of the current Labour Party are a copy of the same policies from the 1970’s which caused the collapse of British manufacturing through under investment caused by nationalisation and by allowing the unions to strike as, and when, they felt like it over seemingly any issue. A tax and spend economic policy has never worked. Show me where this had brought long term benefit to a country, or more specifically this country? I suggest you look into your history and don’t try and compare a small European economy and population with one of the worlds largest economies. You cannot simply say ‘well this worked in so-and-so for a limited time’, in a country backed up by ECB bailout cash, then state it will work here. Two different countries, economies and scenarios. USA, FDR's new deal until Raegan came along with his monetarism and union busting. If you think the policies are the same now as 70s you're hugely mistaken. Also the basic fundamentals are the same just need to be properly implemented. No politicising of services or control held too much by ministers. There are lots of new and well tested ways of running public services and investment that achieve lower inequality and higher productivity that weren't tried in the 70s. You can learn lessons from places like Portugal whatever you might think.
|
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
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.