Shock! A Corbyn policy worth supporting.

This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.

Shock! A Corbyn policy worth supporting.

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Page 5 of 6 < 1 2 3 4 5 6 >

Hrolf The Ganger 06 Apr 17 4.52pm
Originally posted by Stirlingsays Yes....and Orwell of course was a socialist. He was against the abuses of power by elites....which is pretty much the system we have now. Ah! yes but he highlighted that inevitable strata that develops in a society even when it is kept 'equal'.
Alert a moderator to this post

Hrolf The Ganger

06 Apr 17 4.52pm

Send a Private Message to Hrolf The Ganger

Originally posted by Stirlingsays

Yes....and Orwell of course was a socialist.

He was against the abuses of power by elites....which is pretty much the system we have now.

Ah! yes but he highlighted that inevitable strata that develops in a society even when it is kept 'equal'.

Alert a moderator to this post

DanH SW2 06 Apr 17 5.08pm
Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger Ah! yes but he highlighted that inevitable strata that develops in a society even when it is kept 'equal'. Providing kids with equal opportunities is hardly communism 2.0 is it?
Alert a moderator to this post

DanH

SW2 06 Apr 17 5.08pm

Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger

Ah! yes but he highlighted that inevitable strata that develops in a society even when it is kept 'equal'.

Providing kids with equal opportunities is hardly communism 2.0 is it?

Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721 Reading 06 Apr 17 5.08pm
Originally posted by Stirlingsays If it is then it isn't doing a very good job is it. Social mobility in this country is a joke regardless of the type of government. All children should have access to the best available teachers. Private systems hoard them. We don't have a fire service or army that only serves an elite nor should we have an education system that is broken into two systems. I realise on this I'm pretty far left....But I've honestly never seen how not having equality of opportunity for children is acceptable. Edited by Stirlingsays (06 Apr 2017 2.09pm) Its more of a libertarian / anarchistic stance, the idea that equality of opportunity for each person is more important than an equal distribution of wealth. Quite a lot of the centre right libertarians believe in the idea of opportunity, and the duty of provision of the state being to provide the chances to people to flourish and achieve success. Even some Conservatives fall into this area, including to an extent Thatcher (admittedly without necessarily providing provision for future generations. However the YTS schemes are a good example of this). "One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721

Reading 06 Apr 17 5.08pm

Originally posted by Stirlingsays

If it is then it isn't doing a very good job is it.

Social mobility in this country is a joke regardless of the type of government.

All children should have access to the best available teachers. Private systems hoard them.

We don't have a fire service or army that only serves an elite nor should we have an education system that is broken into two systems.

I realise on this I'm pretty far left....But I've honestly never seen how not having equality of opportunity for children is acceptable.

Edited by Stirlingsays (06 Apr 2017 2.09pm)

Its more of a libertarian / anarchistic stance, the idea that equality of opportunity for each person is more important than an equal distribution of wealth.

Quite a lot of the centre right libertarians believe in the idea of opportunity, and the duty of provision of the state being to provide the chances to people to flourish and achieve success.

Even some Conservatives fall into this area, including to an extent Thatcher (admittedly without necessarily providing provision for future generations. However the YTS schemes are a good example of this).

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721 Reading 06 Apr 17 5.15pm
Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger I agree, but meritocracy leads to what we have now. That is the bind. Those that succeed make the rules. What is the point of doing well in education if it has no meaning full advantage? Those that have money want their kids to well and so it goes. In practice, would banning private education really improve all other education? We don't have a meritocracy. I would argue that we should ensure that university students don't pay tuition and receive reasonable grants and funding irrespective of their background. The problem is that university is used as a means of providing professional entry into corporate bodies, not as a means of academic standards. You shouldn't have to get a degree to get an entry job in a law firm or corporation. And taxpayers and students shouldn't be paying for that. Not everyone should go to university (or have to go), but everyone who qualifies for a place should have the opportunity and funding to make the most of it. We don't need every university in the country churning out 100 students a year with a Business and IT communications degree. "One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721

Reading 06 Apr 17 5.15pm

Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger

I agree, but meritocracy leads to what we have now. That is the bind. Those that succeed make the rules. What is the point of doing well in education if it has no meaning full advantage? Those that have money want their kids to well and so it goes.
In practice, would banning private education really improve all other education?

We don't have a meritocracy. I would argue that we should ensure that university students don't pay tuition and receive reasonable grants and funding irrespective of their background.

The problem is that university is used as a means of providing professional entry into corporate bodies, not as a means of academic standards. You shouldn't have to get a degree to get an entry job in a law firm or corporation. And taxpayers and students shouldn't be paying for that.

Not everyone should go to university (or have to go), but everyone who qualifies for a place should have the opportunity and funding to make the most of it.

We don't need every university in the country churning out 100 students a year with a Business and IT communications degree.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

Hrolf The Ganger 06 Apr 17 5.24pm
Originally posted by DanH Providing kids with equal opportunities is hardly communism 2.0 is it? I'm all for it ideologically but I just don't see how it works in the real world. It is the nature of people to gain an advantage. How do you allow people to succeed in education and then in a profession or politics and not expect them to fix the game? What would actually happen if we outlawed private schools? We need to consider ultimate consequence.
Alert a moderator to this post

Hrolf The Ganger

06 Apr 17 5.24pm

Originally posted by DanH

Providing kids with equal opportunities is hardly communism 2.0 is it?

I'm all for it ideologically but I just don't see how it works in the real world.
It is the nature of people to gain an advantage. How do you allow people to succeed in education and then in a profession or politics and not expect them to fix the game?
What would actually happen if we outlawed private schools? We need to consider ultimate consequence.

Alert a moderator to this post

Hrolf The Ganger 06 Apr 17 5.34pm
Originally posted by jamiemartin721 We don't have a meritocracy. I would argue that we should ensure that university students don't pay tuition and receive reasonable grants and funding irrespective of their background. The problem is that university is used as a means of providing professional entry into corporate bodies, not as a means of academic standards. You shouldn't have to get a degree to get an entry job in a law firm or corporation. And taxpayers and students shouldn't be paying for that. Not everyone should go to university (or have to go), but everyone who qualifies for a place should have the opportunity and funding to make the most of it. We don't need every university in the country churning out 100 students a year with a Business and IT communications degree. You could argue that, but merit is measured in many ways and ultimately by one's ability to succeed within the system. The system was created by those who achieved the position required to do so by fair means or foul and it is an on going process. The rules are set from the outset by evolutionary processes of which the education system is an extension.
Alert a moderator to this post

Hrolf The Ganger

06 Apr 17 5.34pm

Originally posted by jamiemartin721

We don't have a meritocracy. I would argue that we should ensure that university students don't pay tuition and receive reasonable grants and funding irrespective of their background.

Not everyone should go to university (or have to go), but everyone who qualifies for a place should have the opportunity and funding to make the most of it.

We don't need every university in the country churning out 100 students a year with a Business and IT communications degree.

You could argue that, but merit is measured in many ways and ultimately by one's ability to succeed within the system. The system was created by those who achieved the position required to do so by fair means or foul and it is an on going process. The rules are set from the outset by evolutionary processes of which the education system is an extension.

Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays 06 Apr 17 5.52pm
Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger I'm all for it ideologically but I just don't see how it works in the real world. It is the nature of people to gain an advantage. How do you allow people to succeed in education and then in a profession or politics and not expect them to fix the game? What would actually happen if we outlawed private schools? We need to consider ultimate consequence. It's true that most people look for an advantage. It's also true that the sharp elbowed and resourceful are very useful people when funneled into the right areas. They are also very damaging when not. However the state has a moral duty, in my view, to give each of its sons and daughters an equal chance at the spoils of society. The hoarding of advantage may be a truism in the real world but this isn't something that the state should also feed into. The state is meant to work for all its people....not just the talented ones or rich ones. Provision for the talented can be made from within the state system using sets...same as it ever was. Equality of opportunity......The more truthful the state is in designing institutions in providing for it...then the more truthful a meritocracy the state becomes. Edited by Stirlingsays (06 Apr 2017 5.53pm) '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

Stirlingsays

06 Apr 17 5.52pm

Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger

It's true that most people look for an advantage. It's also true that the sharp elbowed and resourceful are very useful people when funneled into the right areas. They are also very damaging when not.

However the state has a moral duty, in my view, to give each of its sons and daughters an equal chance at the spoils of society.

The hoarding of advantage may be a truism in the real world but this isn't something that the state should also feed into.

The state is meant to work for all its people....not just the talented ones or rich ones. Provision for the talented can be made from within the state system using sets...same as it ever was.

Equality of opportunity......The more truthful the state is in designing institutions in providing for it...then the more truthful a meritocracy the state becomes.

Edited by Stirlingsays (06 Apr 2017 5.53pm)

'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

gambler Kent 06 Apr 17 6.56pm
Why is this needed? Firstly, a large proportion can presumably already afford their kid's meals so it isn't really necessary. Secondly, the kids of parents who can't afford school meals, do they not already qualify through benefits for free meals? Edited by gambler (06 Apr 2017 6.57pm)
Alert a moderator to this post

gambler

Kent 06 Apr 17 6.56pm

Why is this needed?

Firstly, a large proportion can presumably already afford their kid's meals so it isn't really necessary.

Secondly, the kids of parents who can't afford school meals, do they not already qualify through benefits for free meals?

Edited by gambler (06 Apr 2017 6.57pm)

Alert a moderator to this post

Oliver Bodega Bay 06 Apr 17 6.56pm
Originally posted by DanH The fact that private schools are VAT exempt and have charitable status is bizarre. ^^^ I have prepared one of my own time capsules. I have placed some rather large samples of dynamite, gunpowder and nitroglycerin. My time capsule is set to go off in the year 3000. It will show them what we are really like.
Alert a moderator to this post

Oliver

Bodega Bay 06 Apr 17 6.56pm

Originally posted by DanH

The fact that private schools are VAT exempt and have charitable status is bizarre.

^^^

I have prepared one of my own time capsules. I have placed some rather large samples of dynamite, gunpowder and nitroglycerin. My time capsule is set to go off in the year 3000. It will show them what we are really like.

Alert a moderator to this post

Nest 06 Apr 17 7.08pm
Countdown for another Labour 'Shock' policy to be stolen.......
Alert a moderator to this post

Nest

06 Apr 17 7.08pm

Countdown for another Labour 'Shock' policy to be stolen.......

Alert a moderator to this post

hedgehog50 Croydon 06 Apr 17 7.13pm
Originally posted by gambler Why is this needed? Firstly, a large proportion can presumably already afford their kid's meals so it isn't really necessary. Secondly, the kids of parents who can't afford school meals, do they not already qualify through benefits for free meals? Edited by gambler (06 Apr 2017 6.57pm) You are quite right, the idea is nonsense. It is the same with the £200 fuel allowance for older people - Alan Sugar gets it. We have now sunk to a depth at which the restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men. [Orwell]
Alert a moderator to this post

hedgehog50

Croydon 06 Apr 17 7.13pm

Originally posted by gambler

Why is this needed?

Firstly, a large proportion can presumably already afford their kid's meals so it isn't really necessary.

Secondly, the kids of parents who can't afford school meals, do they not already qualify through benefits for free meals?

Edited by gambler (06 Apr 2017 6.57pm)

You are quite right, the idea is nonsense. It is the same with the £200 fuel allowance for older people - Alan Sugar gets it.

We have now sunk to a depth at which the restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men. [Orwell]

Alert a moderator to this post

serial thriller The Promised Land 06 Apr 17 7.46pm
I actually think Hrolf makes a good point. Expecting equality of opportunity in a society as economically unequal as ours is head in the clouds. But this isn't reason to do nothing. We need a more equal society financially, if we're going to give kids some aspiration. One of the biggest problems we have right now is kids growing up with no belief they will get anywhere, and statistically, they're right to think that. If punk ever happened I'd be preaching the law, instead of listenin to Lydon lecture BBC4
Alert a moderator to this post

serial thriller

The Promised Land 06 Apr 17 7.46pm

Send a Private Message to serial thriller

I actually think Hrolf makes a good point. Expecting equality of opportunity in a society as economically unequal as ours is head in the clouds.

But this isn't reason to do nothing. We need a more equal society financially, if we're going to give kids some aspiration. One of the biggest problems we have right now is kids growing up with no belief they will get anywhere, and statistically, they're right to think that.

If punk ever happened I'd be preaching the law, instead of listenin to Lydon lecture BBC4

Alert a moderator to this post

Page 5 of 6 < 1 2 3 4 5 6 >

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Crystal Palace FC Supporters' Website - The Holmesdale Online

Shock! A Corbyn policy worth supporting.

Site Map

New users

Existing users

Sponsors