advertisement


Labour to abolish independent schools?

Should we abolish independent schools in the UK?

  • Yes

    Votes: 20 24.7%

  • No

    Votes: 57 70.4%

  • Undecided

    Votes: 4 4.9%
  • Total voters
    81
Joe Hutch said:
Quite clearly your teachers failed to teach you the correct possessive form of who. Unless of course the rules of grammar are different in Scotland. I know for example that Scottish people say 'The chimney needs swept' instead of 'the chimney needs sweeping'.
Click to expand...
Hey, cut me some slack.

*
 
misterdog said:
Maybe when someone can explain the difference between Stalin's Communism and Hitlers Fascism I might take politics seriously.
(I have experience of both)

Until such times I will happily sit on the fence and look at all politicians as self serving pillocks.

The answer for those too young to know is that Stalin killed more people in his quest for 'equality for all' than Hitler did.

Priceless.
Click to expand...
How old are you? I thought you said it was your father who was in the Schutzstaffel, not you.
 
Apparently one of the biggest problems at Stalingrad where my Romanian father was forced to be by the Nazi's(or a bullet,paid for by his family ;)) was cannibalism.

The film only goes so far :eek:
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0215750/

Communism/Fascism ? great set of choices there........

Brexit - there will be no food or medicine........ Emily Thornberry.

Clueless.
 
misterdog said:
Apparently one of the biggest problems at Stalingrad where my Romanian father was forced to be by the Nazi's(or a bullet,paid for by his family ;)) was cannibalism.

Communism/Fascism ? great set of choices there........

Brexit - there will be no food or medicine........ Emily Thornberry.

Clueless.
Click to expand...
Would you describe yourself as an outlier?
 
Have you watched the movie ?

Do you think the human condition has changed since the advent of Facebook ? That liberalism has overtaken the human condition to have power and be in charge.
 
misterdog said:
The joys of youth are that 'Socialism' will provide for us all to be equal.
Click to expand...

It is a classic error to confuse the container for the contained.

The aim isn't that all people will "be equal". The 'equality' is on the level of how people are ab initio treated/regarded. Thus allow equality before the law, when arranging access to health care, etc, as the *starting point* for how they are deal with.

i.e. the converse of allowing politicians to have the rich pay less taxes, reducing state education provision, whilst sending their kids to private schools, etc. The 'equality' here is that we set out to ensure all children get an appropriate-for-their-actual ability, talents, etc, education. Not determined by how wealthy their parents *aren't*.

Cynicism is easy. it means you can wash your hands of trying to help anyone else or try and impove things. Thus leading to the perpetuation of what you moan about because you've decided to become part of the damaging uncaring system. "Bring me a bowl, and I will wash my hands."...

One of the main reasons we need to maximise the levels of education is that it would help to combat the way people are badly treated. Education allows people to spot when they're being had, and to work more effecitively to change things.
 
Jim Audiomisc said:
It is a classic error to confuse the container for the contained.

The aim isn't that all people will "be equal". The 'equality' is on the level of how people are ab initio treated/regarded. Thus allow equality before the law, when arranging access to health care, etc, as the *starting point* for how they are deal with.

i.e. the converse of allowing politicians to have the rich pay less taxes, reducing state education provision, whilst sending their kids to private schools, etc. The 'equality' here is that we set out to ensure all children get an appropriate-for-their-actual ability, talents, etc, education. Not determined by how wealthy their parents *aren't*.

Cynicism is easy. it means you can wash your hands of trying to help anyone else or try and impove things. Thus leading to the perpetuation of what you moan about because you've decided to become part of the damaging uncaring system. "Bring me a bowl, and I will wash my hands."...

One of the main reasons we need to maximise the levels of education is that it would help to combat the way people are badly treated. Education allows people to spot when they're being had, and to work more effecitively to change things.
Click to expand...

I agree. Education is amongst the most important challenges facing this country at the moment. Abolishing private schools will do nothing to help, and will almost certainly hinder, progress towards meeting that challenge.
 
eternumviti said:
I agree. Education is amongst the most important challenges facing this country at the moment. Abolishing private schools will do nothing to help, and will almost certainly hinder, progress towards meeting that challenge.
Click to expand...
On this we can agree. As I’ve said, in a democracy, fee paying schools are wholly iniquitous, but I have voted to not abolish them because to do so would be a distraction from urgently needed changes in education for many
 
ks.234 said:
On this we can agree. As I’ve said, in a democracy, fee paying schools are wholly iniquitous, but I have voted to not abolish them because to do so would be a distraction from urgently needed changes in education for many
Click to expand...

The question is really about principle though rather than timing.
 
After 500 posts I don't think anyone has suggested that the idea of a level playing field is morally wrong, it's simply how to implement it, and who should pay. Currently the wealthy pay a decent whack of tax to help fund state education, and then choose to pay again to send sprogs to fee paying schools. There is quite a nice poetry about that, and since it works I still vote leave alone until some government thinks it's important enough to sit down, work it out properly (by asking me natch) and then finding a trillion or so to fund it. maybe they could just get some proper taxes from a dot com billionaire or three. Job done.
 
eternumviti said:
I agree. Education is amongst the most important challenges facing this country at the moment. Abolishing private schools will do nothing to help, and will almost certainly hinder, progress towards meeting that challenge.
Click to expand...

I agree with your first assertion. But not with your second. :)

Note I've not actually been arguing *for* the *abolishing* of private schools, so your second assertion is a Straw Man wrt what I've actually been saying.

However the central issues are as I've described. The way they allow some with the money to get 'badge and polish' advantages for 'old school tie' advantage. And allowing the wealthy to support reductions in their tax which would pay for better resourced state/local schooling and *disadvantage* others by doing so.

Thus if they *were* abolished it might well cause the affected wealthy to change their tactics and ensure state/local schools were better resourced out of their tax, and better run.

But I think there are more effective routes than abolishment, as per what I've written in many earlier postings.
 
Rockmeister said:
After 500 posts I don't think anyone has suggested that the idea of a level playing field is morally wrong, it's simply how to implement it, and who should pay. Currently the wealthy pay a decent whack of tax to help fund state education...
Click to expand...

Do they? So why are there so many LLP's, offshore companies (often with no identifiable owners) which 'loan' things to people who *seem* to be rich but curiously lacking in income, etc, etc?

The real problem in the UK isn't, say, the 'top 10%'. I'm not sure it is even the 'top 1%'. It may be the 'top 0%'. i.e. the ultra-wealthy who curiously seem to not earn or own much, but live as if they do earn/own a remarkable amount.
 
But I think there are more effective routes than abolishment, as per what I've written in many earlier postings.
Click to expand...
Jim, I agree with you. On another thread, you explain that equality doesn’t mean everybody having the same, but rather everybody having the same access to opportunities and services. People may still end up unequal, because some may take more benefit from those opportunities than others, but that doesn’t mean they should be denied them in the interests of some spurious notion of ‘equality’.

People have different strengths and weaknesses, and the important thing is that all have opportunities to develop their own talents and strengths to the best of their ability. For some that will be academic stuff, for others, maybe music and the arts, for others, maybe sport or physical skills.
If we acknowledge that talent deserves centres of excellence to develop it, we mostly need to ensure that elitism can’t dominate them, by providing access for all who show the necessary talent. Lifting up, not dumbing down.
 
Sue Pertwee-Tyr said:
People have different strengths and weaknesses, and the important thing is that all have opportunities to develop their own talents and strengths to the best of their ability. For some that will be academic stuff, for others, maybe music and the arts, for others, maybe sport or physical skills.
Click to expand...

Indeed. This is why - despite working at a Uni - I've long been bothered by the dwindling of support and regard for 'Further Education', local colleges, apprenticeships, etc. Also for the almost total collapse of any kind of educational courses for people well over school/Uni ages that would enable them to learn and change direction in life or take up opportunites that didn't exist when they were young.

We really can't *afford* to let people lack useful educations like this. But in the end it comes down to money, as well as opportunities. Hence the measures I've been suggesting. :)
 
Jim Audiomisc said:
Do they? So why are there so many LLP's, offshore companies (often with no identifiable owners) which 'loan' things to people who *seem* to be rich but curiously lacking in income, etc, etc?

The real problem in the UK isn't, say, the 'top 10%'. I'm not sure it is even the 'top 1%'. It may be the 'top 0%'. i.e. the ultra-wealthy who curiously seem to not earn or own much, but live as if they do earn/own a remarkable amount.
Click to expand...

Why is that 'the real problem'. It a problem I am sure if you have examples, but an equal problem is the governments reluctance to address this topic, the proliferance of middle managers and their salaries, lawyers fees, money wasted on unwanted rail lines, the cost of research groups etc etc. One mans bee is another mans gnat.
 
Rockmeister said:
Why is that 'the real problem'. It a problem I am sure if you have examples, but an equal problem is the governments reluctance to address this topic, the proliferance of middle managers and their salaries, lawyers fees, money wasted on unwanted rail lines, the cost of research groups etc etc. One mans bee is another mans gnat.
Click to expand...

Fairy snuff. Yes, it is one facet of an interwoven complex of such problems which tend to support each other.

For examples, I direct m'learned friends to PE ad naus.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top