Current Affairs The Labour Party

[degsy]

You know what not to be true? That they divide kids within the same class?

Pffft!

There's emotion that takes control of this debate and serves to obscure matters: anyone who attended those places have affection for them and identify with them (pretty much like most other kids do with their schools); and people who send their kids thre take great exception to anyone who opposes grammar schools because they see it as a slight on their judgement and choice. That creates a defensive attitude.

If you take that emotion out of the equation and ask anyone this question: "Do you think it's right that kids at the age of 11 get seperated and some get better schooling in well resourced schools and some dont, I guarantee that almost 100% would say it was not right.

Dave I misread your post a bit, I took it to mean discriminated internally in the actual school...which was not true.

Do you think its right that kids aged 11 are not allowed to develop to their full potential, and thus sit stagnating in a one size fits all education system, designed in the 60s and 70s to appease the right on Ideological consciences of left leaning social theorists...who probably went to the very schools and universities you seem to despise
As your man Marx put it...
From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.

Short Version; I am in favour of Grammar Schools

 

[degsy]

We all live and learn....

Well some do
Still its all good fun on here with all the usual suspects...even if some like to dismiss something that actually happened as 'Mere Anecdotal Evidence' and would rather pass off opinion as fact.

 

[davek]

Dave I misread your post a bit, I took it to mean discriminated internally in the actual school...which was not true.

Do you think its right that kids aged 11 are not allowed to develop to their full potential, and thus sit stagnating in a one size fits all education system, designed in the 60s and 70s to appease the right on Ideological consciences of left leaning social theorists...who probably went to the very schools and universities you seem to despise
As your man Marx put it...
From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.

Short Version; I am in favour of Grammar Schools

There's arbitrary testing in order to choose, 'on potential', who goes where: 1/ some kids in the school year will be almost a year behind in age from other kids (those born in September have a natural advantage of development time) and will suffer that way, 2/ some kids mature academically after the age of 11 and therefore are disadvantaged by the cut off point, 3/ many kids passing the 11 plus have received extra tuition before taking the test because their parents are prepared and have the ability to pay for it.

 

[degsy]

There's arbitrary testing in order to choose, 'on potential', who goes where: 1/ some kids in the school year will be almost a year behind in age from other kids (those born in September have a natural advantage of development time) and will suffer that way,

Got any figures to back that 'opinion' up??

2/ some kids mature academically after the age of 11 and therefore are disadvantaged by the cut off point,...

Well you see there was once this thing called the 13+ too

3/ many kids passing the 11 plus have received extra tuition before taking the test because their parents are prepared and have the ability to pay for it.

I took the 11+ and The Whole School Year spent 3 months doing old 11+ papers. Back in the day 95% or more of parents...especially where we lived... just didn't do that sort of thing...that was the Teachers job.

What I will add is that things were different back then than now, but the basic premise had more going for it than against.

I'm done - next topic please.

 

[Blues Harp]

Seem to have wandered into a grammar/comprehensive school debate. Interesting though..maybe worth the subject of a separate thread on this particular aspect, or on education itself generally.
Anyway, just wondered whether Starmer and his band will be allowed to take over as the government in 2024 if the media get fed up with the tories by then.

 

[degsy]

Seem to have wandered into a grammar/comprehensive school debate. Interesting though..maybe worth the subject of a separate thread on this particular aspect, or on education itself generally.
Anyway, just wondered whether Starmer and his band will be allowed to take over as the government in 2024 if the media get fed up with the tories by then.

Only if the people get fed up with the tories And the labour party put forward policies that resonate with the voters...unlike the last election.

 

[JimmyJeffers]

Only if the people get fed up with the tories And the labour party put forward policies that resonate with the voters...unlike the last election.

What Labour policies do you disagree with?

 

[degsy]

What Labour policies do you disagree with?

Whaddaya got?

 

[Xizor]

What Labour policies do you disagree with?

I'd just like to point out that wanting policies that resonate with voters (and therefore get in a non-Tory government) is not the same thing as disagreeing with the policies they did adopt.

There are some things that Corbyn was really into that broadly, I support. But it was also obvious that the big 'middle bit' of the country that will get you into power couldn't give two hoots about them.

 

[JimmyJeffers]

Whaddaya got?

I dunno. Don’t think it was so much general policy that lost Labour the election. More their muddled brexit stance.

 

[JimmyJeffers]

I'd just like to point out that wanting policies that resonate with voters (and therefore get in a non-Tory government) is not the same thing as disagreeing with the policies they did adopt.

There are some things that Corbyn was really into that broadly, I support. But it was also obvious that the big 'middle bit' of the country that will get you into power couldn't give two hoots about them.

That’s true. Kinda assumed that @degsy was implying he disagreed with their policies. Obviously might not be the case

 

[roydo]

I dunno. Don’t think it was so much general policy that lost Labour the election. More their muddled brexit stance.

Yep. It seems an age ago now, but that was what done it for me.

 

[JimmyJeffers]

Yep. It seems an age ago now, but that was what done it for me.

I get that. I understand Labour’s position it just wasn’t as easy to communicate as ‘get brexit done’ Would be surprised if many people can mention any of labour’s or the Tory’s proposed policies from the last election.

 

[Black Belt Jones]

I get that. I understand Labour’s position it just wasn’t as easy to communicate as ‘get brexit done’ Would be surprised if many people can mention any of labour’s or the Tory’s proposed policies from the last election.

Labour general policies were OK, just the manifesto was obese IIRC - eroded credibility.

If Siggy announces his policy for our next game as relentless harrying of the opposition, fast and incisive movement, and carrying the ball into the final third at pace - I think we'd all agree they sound like great policies? But they're clearly a delusional fantasy for him to deliver, which would just be aggravating to hear.

But you're right it was the brexit election and labour were brutally boxed in no matter who was in charge. Prime Blair couldn't have resolved that one, although obviously he would never have allowed it to happen in the first place.

 

[davek]

What a happy membership Starmer prevails over:

Survation poll of 5,000 LP members.







Inspiring.

Well done, Sir Keir.