The Politics Thread

[Lord Kangana]

Interesting, my eldest niece is at a catholic school that is the stellar opposite of the one you described. You see its the law that you can't ban non-catholics.

[William the White]

Hmmm, I think the sensible middle ground here would be that rather than offering "choice", why don't we just make all schools good?

Ridiculous, I know.

So, would you close down all 'public' schools LK?

I would...

And all religiously based ones...

Education secular, universal, free and impossible to buy privilege...

My kids are both at Catholic schools

It means most of the attendees have English as their first language

I think that's a good thing, so until the system ensures my kids can get a fair crack at the teachers time, I'd prefer to keep them open

[thebish]

Hmmm, I think the sensible middle ground here would be that rather than offering "choice", why don't we just make all schools good?

Ridiculous, I know.

So, would you close down all 'public' schools LK?

I would...

And all religiously based ones...

Education secular, universal, free and impossible to buy privilege...

I'm not a passionate advocate of "religious schools" in the 21st century - though they do still seem to be very popular with parents (especially, funnily enough - non-religious parents)... but I think it is true to say that the church travelled a mighty long way down the road of offering education to the poor unwashed masses a long time before the secular state ever thought it was a good idea....

my kids - they're in the regular comp just up the road...

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

Not a debate I really fancy again.

Needless to say that if people want to get together and sell good quality education and others want to get together and buy it, I think it would be an incredible thing to ban them from doing so.

[Lord Kangana]

Thats only a small facet of the argument though.

[William the White]

Not a debate I really fancy again.

Needless to say that if people want to get together and sell good quality education and others want to get together and buy it, I think it would be an incredible thing to ban them from doing so.

I think I could live with that... no subsidy for religious schools, no charity status or tax deductability for public schools...

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

Thats only a small facet of the argument though.

Indeed, I have said I don't fancy the discussion again.

I'm just making one small comment about the suggestion, which stands out amongst others, that private schools should be banned.

[CAPSLOCK]

Interesting, my eldest niece is at a catholic school that is the stellar opposite of the one you described. You see its the law that you can't ban non-catholics.

As they are popular, they are over subscribed

Thus the admission criteria (siblings, feeder schools) ensures the make up of the schools to be one that I believe most likely to give my kids the best chance

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

Not a debate I really fancy again.

Needless to say that if people want to get together and sell good quality education and others want to get together and buy it, I think it would be an incredible thing to ban them from doing so.

I think I could live with that... no subsidy for religious schools, no charity status or tax deductability for public schools...

Ah ok, so now it's not a total ban we're pushing for, but merely a change in their charitable status.

I suppose I should see this as progress.

[Lord Kangana]

Fair enough. It seems that they actively discriminate for Muslim kids as a priority after catholic kids as they see them as being religous/disciplined. I call it brainwashed, which never goes down well with my sister, but hey ho.

[William the White]

Hmmm, I think the sensible middle ground here would be that rather than offering "choice", why don't we just make all schools good?

Ridiculous, I know.

So, would you close down all 'public' schools LK?

I would...

And all religiously based ones...

Education secular, universal, free and impossible to buy privilege...

I'm not a passionate advocate of "religious schools" in the 21st century - though they do still seem to be very popular with parents (especially, funnily enough - non-religious parents)... but I think it is true to say that the church travelled a mighty long way down the road of offering education to the poor unwashed masses a long time before the secular state ever thought it was a good idea....
my kids - they're in the regular comp just up the road...

Yes, the state terribly remiss and, indeed, actively hostile to educating the children of the unwashed poor... No reason now, though, to donate to the church 90% of the expenses of running education for kids now... The state recognises its responsibilities, the churches have no need to intervene, they have plenty of opportunities to spread the faith outside of the classroom...

[William the White]

Not a debate I really fancy again.

Needless to say that if people want to get together and sell good quality education and others want to get together and buy it, I think it would be an incredible thing to ban them from doing so.

I think I could live with that... no subsidy for religious schools, no charity status or tax deductability for public schools...

Ah ok, so now it's not a total ban we're pushing for, but merely a change in their charitable status.

I suppose I should see this as progress.

For someone claiming to have gone to university it seems really difficult for you to read even simple statements of position...

Do you really need me to explain to you the difference between 'could live with...' and 'pushing for...'. not to mention the cautious preliminary of 'I think i could live with'...

Still, I think you are entitled to view it as a concession... i am at heart a libertarian seeking to reconcile this with egalitarianism...

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

William, with respect, have you increased your alcohol intake recently?

[Prufrock]

So, Andy Burnham's thrown his hat in th Labour leader race.

And Diane Abbott. That's the diversity question answered, then.

I like Andy Burnham - he seems a genuine enough bloke, from the North West, and even an almunus of my college (and its drinking society) at university.

I'm not sure he's got the personality to be a 'leader' though.

As for Abbott - I was only thinking a couple of days ago that she should run, but I don't think she's got any sort of base of support in the party. I suppose the fact that people like me like her in her role alongside Michael Portillo on TV is exactly what puts a lot of people off (and I suspect quite a few are actually jealous of her profile). And, horror of horrors, she sent her boy to private school.

I take it you mean she is an hypocrite like the rest of them. After criticising Tony Blair and Harriet Harman for sending their children to private school she goes and does the same.

Ms Abbott was quoted as saying, "I had to choose between my reputation as a politician and my son."

In other words why should I send my son to the failing local comprehensive school when I can make the choice to send him to a private school. Hypocrite doesn't really do it justice does it.

And just so you don't jump down my neck as being a toff basher mummy, I would also send my children to private schools (And get a good education), IF I could afford it.

I was lucky, I got the chance to go to a grammar school. What choice do most children get in inner city areas?

Bollocks. The hypocrites are the ones who make a point of sending their kids to state schools, for their own reputation, whilst still paying for private tutors, living in the massive house, taking the fancy holidays, giving them private healthcare. If there is a good state school, fecking use it, if there isn't, don't make your kids a pawn in your own political battle. It would be nice if there was no need for private schools, I don't believe that is the case.

[Prufrock]

I disagree with religious schools, because kids are not a religion. I think 'public' schools should get more, not less benefit from charitable status, and should get government money so people whose parents can't afford to send them there at the moment, but whose kids have the academic ability, can go there.

[Worthy4England]

Hmmm, I think the sensible middle ground here would be that rather than offering "choice", why don't we just make all schools good?

Ridiculous, I know.

So, would you close down all 'public' schools LK?

I would...

And all religiously based ones...

Education secular, universal, free and impossible to buy privilege...

So no-one would buy after school tutoring etc. to make up the difference then?

[Worthy4England]

It would be nice if there was no need for private schools, I don't believe that is the case.

I have to take issue with this Pru - remind me what the "need" is again?

The "need" for people with money to buy a better start for their kids?

There isn't a "need" for private schools. None whatsoever. That doesn't mean I'd necessarily outlaw them

[thebish]

Hmmm, I think the sensible middle ground here would be that rather than offering "choice", why don't we just make all schools good?

Ridiculous, I know.

So, would you close down all 'public' schools LK?

I would...

And all religiously based ones...

Education secular, universal, free and impossible to buy privilege...

I'm not a passionate advocate of "religious schools" in the 21st century - though they do still seem to be very popular with parents (especially, funnily enough - non-religious parents)... but I think it is true to say that the church travelled a mighty long way down the road of offering education to the poor unwashed masses a long time before the secular state ever thought it was a good idea....
my kids - they're in the regular comp just up the road...

Yes, the state terribly remiss and, indeed, actively hostile to educating the children of the unwashed poor... No reason now, though, to donate to the church 90% of the expenses of running education for kids now... The state recognises its responsibilities, the churches have no need to intervene, they have plenty of opportunities to spread the faith outside of the classroom...

and if you read my post you wouldn't have seen any disagreement with what you now write.

maybe I am over-sensitive - but i do usually react to the "church + schools = unfailingly bad" jingo that I so often hear - given that it was the church (in this country) that first considered that an education for anyone outside the landed elite was even worth doing.

my local experience is that the "faith schools" around here are massively oversubscribed with parents desperate to get their kids into them despite the fact that the state-schools here are fantastic - so there is no language or academic achievement distinction - I don't know what it is - but hordes of non-faith parents want their kids to go to faith schools. For me it was never a consideration - my kids go to the nearest one so that I don't have to drive them!

[thebish]

Hmmm, I think the sensible middle ground here would be that rather than offering "choice", why don't we just make all schools good?

Ridiculous, I know.

So, would you close down all 'public' schools LK?

I would...

And all religiously based ones...

Education secular, universal, free and impossible to buy privilege...

So no-one would buy after school tutoring etc. to make up the difference then?

presumably not - private tutors would be banned - easy!

[malcd1]

So, Andy Burnham's thrown his hat in th Labour leader race.

And Diane Abbott. That's the diversity question answered, then.

I like Andy Burnham - he seems a genuine enough bloke, from the North West, and even an almunus of my college (and its drinking society) at university.

I'm not sure he's got the personality to be a 'leader' though.

As for Abbott - I was only thinking a couple of days ago that she should run, but I don't think she's got any sort of base of support in the party. I suppose the fact that people like me like her in her role alongside Michael Portillo on TV is exactly what puts a lot of people off (and I suspect quite a few are actually jealous of her profile). And, horror of horrors, she sent her boy to private school.

I take it you mean she is an hypocrite like the rest of them. After criticising Tony Blair and Harriet Harman for sending their children to private school she goes and does the same.

Ms Abbott was quoted as saying, "I had to choose between my reputation as a politician and my son."

In other words why should I send my son to the failing local comprehensive school when I can make the choice to send him to a private school. Hypocrite doesn't really do it justice does it.

And just so you don't jump down my neck as being a toff basher mummy, I would also send my children to private schools (And get a good education), IF I could afford it.

I was lucky, I got the chance to go to a grammar school. What choice do most children get in inner city areas?

Bollocks. The hypocrites are the ones who make a point of sending their kids to state schools, for their own reputation, whilst still paying for private tutors, living in the massive house, taking the fancy holidays, giving them private healthcare. If there is a good state school, fecking use it, if there isn't, don't make your kids a pawn in your own political battle. It would be nice if there was no need for private schools, I don't believe that is the case.

How is is what I said bollocks, Pru.

Definition:

"Hypocrisy is the act of persistently professing beliefs, opinions, virtues, feelings, qualities, or standards that are inconsistent with one's actions. Hypocrisy is thus a kind of lie.

The hypocrite thinks that what he usually professes does not somehow apply to him."

Diane Abbott is a class one hypocrite.