So it's class war then...
Discussion
FredClogs said:
Instead they used the cash to help me with the deposit on my first house and give me the time to make some good decisions in my late teens and early twenties which freed me from the tyranny of inherited prejudice and the shackles of indentured servitude to a rotten system of capitalist idolatry.
Listen to you, taking time out from reading about this year's record tractor production figures to tell us all about your textbook path to true comradeship. Whilst extolling the virtues of Mummy and Daddy having given you a massive leg up the hateful capitalist property ladder.
The irony is strong in this one.
FredClogs said:
This is true, before we had our 3rd child we were in a position where we could quite comfortably put 2 kids through private school on fairly average household income, the third one would be a stretch. But we decided we won't even if we could afford it, partly because the nearest fee paying school isn't particularly good but also because I don't believe that my children's future WILL suffer by going to a local high school. Mine didn't and my parents we more than financially able to educate me privately, my father attended a quite prestigious public school and the experience and memories of it galavanised his opinion that they were little more than breeding grounds for bigoted elitism and some very dodgy ethics. Instead they used the cash to help me with the deposit on my first house and give me the time to make some good decisions in my late teens and early twenties which freed me from the tyranny of inherited prejudice and the shackles of indentured servitude to a rotten system of capitalist idolatry.
Might I suggest that you and I have a very different view and have almost done this as exact polar opposites. I have been exposed to such vast left wing dogmatic adherence and educated in a fekking awful series of schools and I am where I am despite the state education system not because of it. Also my parents could not have afforded it in a million years, nor would they have "allowed" it.
Also our local state schools are nothing short of atrocious, in every sense of the word.
My future didn't suffer, well at least I am doing ok I guess, could I have done more - maybe who knows!?
Also I will very respectfully suggest you seem to have a very influenced view of a system from your father that was not your own and also the last line of that post - that is some pretty strong sentiment there that is akin to the likes of something I would expect to hear from the very dyed in the wool pit working, Thatcher hating, anti anything that is not within 3 miles of where they live relatives of mine in Worksop and Bolsover!
Greg66 said:
FredClogs said:
Instead they used the cash to help me with the deposit on my first house and give me the time to make some good decisions in my late teens and early twenties which freed me from the tyranny of inherited prejudice and the shackles of indentured servitude to a rotten system of capitalist idolatry.
Listen to you, taking time out from reading about this year's record tractor production figures to tell us all about your textbook path to true comradeship. Whilst extolling the virtues of Mummy and Daddy having given you a massive leg up the hateful capitalist property ladder.
The irony is strong in this one.
Besides this is a class war, isn't it?
FredClogs said:
turbobloke said:
What is the current imbalance we need to redress, precisely?
One of the widest and rapidly accelerating wealth gaps in the developed world...http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/oct/...
People are literally being priced out of "society".
Anyway what income-to-wealth ratio should we have? Exactly. How would we get there?
FredClogs said:
turbobloke said:
What will 'balanced' actually look like after the redressing?
Young people will be able to afford housing, people won't have to load themselves with mortgage sized debts to obtain an education, old people won't have to suffer the indignity of selling their property to afford care homes and medical care. People born in the same hospital on the same day won't have radically different life chances and aspirations because of the happenstance of their parenting or the freak luckery of biology.What is 'affordable' and how young should the people be to afford the price of housing, what's the 'right' price for a house anyway, does it apply to all houses even mansions that may be taxed, what variation would your preferred politburo allow if any? And so on.
What educational level should everyone be able to attain?
How much will care home fees be set at by central kommand?
In terms of ironing out the influence of parents, how will the nature (genetics / eugenics) side be handled as opposed to the nurture side, where armies of State Nannies can go in to check up on every family's efforts?
The reality is that this is all so much hot air, so much pie in the sky, so much placating of Guardian readers and yes wider envyists.
Some people operating at a mostly emotional level really feeeeeeel that it's all not fair and somebody else is to blame, usually anyone more successful and wealthier - yet we're told that money doesn't really matter.
Equality will never happen while there are bad-decision makers at large, you could hand them whatever sum you thought of on the spur of the moment and it'd be gone soon enough. For example, try lottery wins. No amount of ongoing interference in lives from whatever monstrouns central bureaucracy could cope with the interventions needed to maintain any semblance of balance across businesses, employment and home life.
The nail in the coffin is that those daft enough to posture and come out with these platitudes bashing the rich and attacking public schools, i.e. Labour and probably some LibDems, are incapable of redressing a shop window dummy let alone any perceived inequality in society. If Red Ed gets in the top 1% will be delighted. Everyone else can look forward to widening income/wealth gaps and social mobility stuck in neutral.
Not that this matters, those who are the target of this nonsense are like Labour - incapable of working it through to see if it would be effective in practice, and not caring about it anyway, as shown by that poll of Labour voters on the top rate of tax. As long as it just sounds like a good idea to the target audience, detail is for competent people and that's not the proposers of this nonsense.
heppers75 said:
FredClogs said:
This is true, before we had our 3rd child we were in a position where we could quite comfortably put 2 kids through private school on fairly average household income, the third one would be a stretch. But we decided we won't even if we could afford it, partly because the nearest fee paying school isn't particularly good but also because I don't believe that my children's future WILL suffer by going to a local high school. Mine didn't and my parents we more than financially able to educate me privately, my father attended a quite prestigious public school and the experience and memories of it galavanised his opinion that they were little more than breeding grounds for bigoted elitism and some very dodgy ethics. Instead they used the cash to help me with the deposit on my first house and give me the time to make some good decisions in my late teens and early twenties which freed me from the tyranny of inherited prejudice and the shackles of indentured servitude to a rotten system of capitalist idolatry.
Might I suggest that you and I have a very different view and have almost done this as exact polar opposites. I have been exposed to such vast left wing dogmatic adherence and educated in a fekking awful series of schools and I am where I am despite the state education system not because of it. Also my parents could not have afforded it in a million years, nor would they have "allowed" it.
Also our local state schools are nothing short of atrocious, in every sense of the word.
My future didn't suffer, well at least I am doing ok I guess, could I have done more - maybe who knows!?
Also I will very respectfully suggest you seem to have a very influenced view of a system from your father that was not your own and also the last line of that post - that is some pretty strong sentiment there that is akin to the likes of something I would expect to hear from the very dyed in the wool pit working, Thatcher hating, anti anything that is not within 3 miles of where they live relatives of mine in Worksop and Bolsover!
These threads and conversation occur on forums from time to time and amongst people I know, generally I find a decent minority of privately educated people suggest it was a waste of time and money whilst a small majority suggest they feel they got a better education through the private sector which has put them in good stead for life. Conversely (as you and I do) the over whelming majority of people who have gone through the state sector suggest they have achieved "despite" going to a "bog standard" state school. It's all really just a question of personal reflection, self esteem and perspective.
One thing I hope we can agree on, and it seems we might, is the ridiculous post code lottery attached to the education system, where people live would appear to have a far greater impact on your offspring's educational options and life chances than how much money you have and how you choose to spend it - and to that end it's clear only centralised governmental control has the ability to level the playing field (so to speak).
Whatever the economics, it's not right for a private company to receive charitable status when they do not engage in wholly charitable activities. I've no issue with private schools but let those who use them pay for them . . . it's a choice isn't it ? Bit like paying Biffa for a big bin in your garden . . . the council will empty your council provided bin as part of your council tax but if you choose to have a Biffa bin instead because it's bigger, then isn't it your responsibility to pay for it ? Do Biffa need charitable status to make it profitable . . . I think not !
Fuss about nothing . . . there's more important issues than private school tax !
Fuss about nothing . . . there's more important issues than private school tax !
FredClogs said:
This is true, before we had our 3rd child we were in a position where we could quite comfortably put 2 kids through private school on fairly average household income, the third one would be a stretch. But we decided we won't even if we could afford it, partly because the nearest fee paying school isn't particularly good but also because I don't believe that my children's future WILL suffer by going to a local high school. Mine didn't and my parents we more than financially able to educate me privately, my father attended a quite prestigious public school and the experience and memories of it galavanised his opinion that they were little more than breeding grounds for bigoted elitism and some very dodgy ethics. Instead they used the cash to help me with the deposit on my first house and give me the time to make some good decisions in my late teens and early twenties which freed me from the tyranny of inherited prejudice and the shackles of indentured servitude to a rotten system of capitalist idolatry.
And so the revolution started in the house daddy bought.Mr Whippy said:
Labour, envy taxes, stupidity taxes, live on credit to subsidise apathetic voting jobsworths or dossers. A shadow of what they used to represent.
Liberal Democrats, be as illiberal as possible to everyone. They used to get my vote until they just targeted everyone for their liberal lifestyle choices in the late 90's.
Conservatives, lies and lies to satisfy idiots, with a hint of crony capitalism seeping into what used to be my default vote for UK government.
They're all idiots now. You're just voting for one and the same thing. Self serving people, who perhaps once were idealists but have succumbed to a singular goal of climbing the greasy pole of party political prestige and position, at the cost of serving their constituents.
It's no wonder UKIP fare so well. Even if they turn out s
t, it'll be no worse than it is with the current bunch in government.
You are absolutely right.Liberal Democrats, be as illiberal as possible to everyone. They used to get my vote until they just targeted everyone for their liberal lifestyle choices in the late 90's.
Conservatives, lies and lies to satisfy idiots, with a hint of crony capitalism seeping into what used to be my default vote for UK government.
They're all idiots now. You're just voting for one and the same thing. Self serving people, who perhaps once were idealists but have succumbed to a singular goal of climbing the greasy pole of party political prestige and position, at the cost of serving their constituents.
It's no wonder UKIP fare so well. Even if they turn out s
t, it'll be no worse than it is with the current bunch in government.What is desperately needed is me as benign dictator.
The old plan of walls, blindfolds and rifles will be quickly followed by the invasion of France, then I'll get to sorting out these socialist types with a spot of public service.
See how they like that...
mybrainhurts said:
Mr Whippy said:
Labour, envy taxes, stupidity taxes, live on credit to subsidise apathetic voting jobsworths or dossers. A shadow of what they used to represent.
Liberal Democrats, be as illiberal as possible to everyone. They used to get my vote until they just targeted everyone for their liberal lifestyle choices in the late 90's.
Conservatives, lies and lies to satisfy idiots, with a hint of crony capitalism seeping into what used to be my default vote for UK government.
They're all idiots now. You're just voting for one and the same thing. Self serving people, who perhaps once were idealists but have succumbed to a singular goal of climbing the greasy pole of party political prestige and position, at the cost of serving their constituents.
It's no wonder UKIP fare so well. Even if they turn out st, it'll be no worse than it is with the current bunch in government.
You are absolutely right.Liberal Democrats, be as illiberal as possible to everyone. They used to get my vote until they just targeted everyone for their liberal lifestyle choices in the late 90's.
Conservatives, lies and lies to satisfy idiots, with a hint of crony capitalism seeping into what used to be my default vote for UK government.
They're all idiots now. You're just voting for one and the same thing. Self serving people, who perhaps once were idealists but have succumbed to a singular goal of climbing the greasy pole of party political prestige and position, at the cost of serving their constituents.
It's no wonder UKIP fare so well. Even if they turn out s
t, it'll be no worse than it is with the current bunch in government.What is desperately needed is me as benign dictator.
julian64 said:
crankedup said:
To answer your first point 'why can't they match them'. In a word MONEY. This is the driver of everything in a Capitalist Society. The state schools cannot hope to match the private schools regards quality of education, that's not saying the level of teacher quality is lower. Its more to do with time and facilities available to teachers, class sizes, mixed education abilities within classes.
I don't think anybody is saying that a shift in responsibilities is being sought. Looks like the debate centres around the level of commitment by private schools in assisting public schools is not reflecting the value of the subsidy being given to private schools.
I'm with you regarding the education being opened up to all classes of pupil, rated upon merit not money. But I am not sure the subsidy policy is working as well as it could perhaps, drawing attention to it may be a good thing that could, we hope, promote increased links between the two sectors.
I'm sorry but I think you're wrong, or at least misleading. Teachers in private education ARE better teachers. To say otherwise is just to perpetuate a very long term excuse by sucessive governments.I don't think anybody is saying that a shift in responsibilities is being sought. Looks like the debate centres around the level of commitment by private schools in assisting public schools is not reflecting the value of the subsidy being given to private schools.
I'm with you regarding the education being opened up to all classes of pupil, rated upon merit not money. But I am not sure the subsidy policy is working as well as it could perhaps, drawing attention to it may be a good thing that could, we hope, promote increased links between the two sectors.
Along with ..
We don't have the best soldiers in the world
We don't have the best doctors in the world
That is simply something politicians say to use patriotism as a form of argument, and frankly the rest of the world laugh at us when they hear it. As hard as it is to hear you need to understand the limitations of some forms of work.
Your argument is akin to sayning mo farrow is the fastest runner in the world even if we took his shoes away. Or the armed forces are the best in the world if we give them thirty year old technology.
A teacher is not the stuff of movies, they are the sum of their ability to enthuse and educate. Without the money behind them to help its impossible to say how good a teacher is had these been available. Furthermore the sort of disincentive that chonic poor funding gives creates crap teachers though little fault of their own.
One last point, its not the merit of the pupil thats important, again this is simply movie film quotes with no basis in reality. Its the merit of the family environment thats important. Its that which turns okay kids into interested pupils and high achievers. Unless a government is going to micromanage to the level of the family then there will never be equality.
Unless you accept this education discussions will just bog down in the sort of irrelevant political class arguments that are on this thread.
I didn't say that teachers in the state sector are worse or better than in the private sector.
I disagree with your assertion regarding 'the family environment' not pupil merit. That cannot be the top parameter, it is however a very important one. A wonderful family environment will always be of great value whether its a C- child or a A+++ child.
Sorry I do not accept that it is your parameters and only yours that merit the validity of a discussion.
FredClogs said:
heppers75 said:
FredClogs said:
This is true, before we had our 3rd child we were in a position where we could quite comfortably put 2 kids through private school on fairly average household income, the third one would be a stretch. But we decided we won't even if we could afford it, partly because the nearest fee paying school isn't particularly good but also because I don't believe that my children's future WILL suffer by going to a local high school. Mine didn't and my parents we more than financially able to educate me privately, my father attended a quite prestigious public school and the experience and memories of it galavanised his opinion that they were little more than breeding grounds for bigoted elitism and some very dodgy ethics. Instead they used the cash to help me with the deposit on my first house and give me the time to make some good decisions in my late teens and early twenties which freed me from the tyranny of inherited prejudice and the shackles of indentured servitude to a rotten system of capitalist idolatry.
Might I suggest that you and I have a very different view and have almost done this as exact polar opposites. I have been exposed to such vast left wing dogmatic adherence and educated in a fekking awful series of schools and I am where I am despite the state education system not because of it. Also my parents could not have afforded it in a million years, nor would they have "allowed" it.
Also our local state schools are nothing short of atrocious, in every sense of the word.
My future didn't suffer, well at least I am doing ok I guess, could I have done more - maybe who knows!?
Also I will very respectfully suggest you seem to have a very influenced view of a system from your father that was not your own and also the last line of that post - that is some pretty strong sentiment there that is akin to the likes of something I would expect to hear from the very dyed in the wool pit working, Thatcher hating, anti anything that is not within 3 miles of where they live relatives of mine in Worksop and Bolsover!
These threads and conversation occur on forums from time to time and amongst people I know, generally I find a decent minority of privately educated people suggest it was a waste of time and money whilst a small majority suggest they feel they got a better education through the private sector which has put them in good stead for life. Conversely (as you and I do) the over whelming majority of people who have gone through the state sector suggest they have achieved "despite" going to a "bog standard" state school. It's all really just a question of personal reflection, self esteem and perspective.
One thing I hope we can agree on, and it seems we might, is the ridiculous post code lottery attached to the education system, where people live would appear to have a far greater impact on your offspring's educational options and life chances than how much money you have and how you choose to spend it - and to that end it's clear only centralised governmental control has the ability to level the playing field (so to speak).
We agree - right up until the last line after the hyphen. They have NEVER in all of our recorded history let alone recent history demonstrated an ability to do that.
The unpalatable fact really is as someone else pointed out, there are winners and losers in life and there are those in the middle. For the most part I have come to the conclusion through experience and just general understanding that irrespective of pretty much any educational influences the cream will rise to the top and the s
t will sink to the bottom. And these debates for the most part are nothing much more than yet one more race to the bottom!
fblm said:
FredClogs said:
This is true, before we had our 3rd child we were in a position where we could quite comfortably put 2 kids through private school on fairly average household income, the third one would be a stretch. But we decided we won't even if we could afford it, partly because the nearest fee paying school isn't particularly good but also because I don't believe that my children's future WILL suffer by going to a local high school. Mine didn't and my parents we more than financially able to educate me privately, my father attended a quite prestigious public school and the experience and memories of it galavanised his opinion that they were little more than breeding grounds for bigoted elitism and some very dodgy ethics. Instead they used the cash to help me with the deposit on my first house and give me the time to make some good decisions in my late teens and early twenties which freed me from the tyranny of inherited prejudice and the shackles of indentured servitude to a rotten system of capitalist idolatry.
And so the revolution started in the house daddy bought.Privilege is a wonderful thing. Every revolutionary should have wealthy parents and access to BoMaD as they strive for equality with poorer people.
fblm said:
crankedup said:
The state schools cannot hope to match the private schools regards quality of education, that's not saying the level of teacher quality is lower...
In my, admittedly limited experience, of 1 state and 1 public school, have a massive 
FredClogs said:
One thing I hope we can agree on, and it seems we might, is the ridiculous post code lottery attached to the education system, where people live would appear to have a far greater impact on your offspring's educational options and life chances than how much money you have and how you choose to spend it - and to that end it's clear only centralised governmental control has the ability to level the playing field (so to speak).
How do you level the 'good' school in a middle class commuter belt with a 'bad' school next to an inner city estate? turbobloke said:
fblm said:
FredClogs said:
This is true, before we had our 3rd child we were in a position where we could quite comfortably put 2 kids through private school on fairly average household income, the third one would be a stretch. But we decided we won't even if we could afford it, partly because the nearest fee paying school isn't particularly good but also because I don't believe that my children's future WILL suffer by going to a local high school. Mine didn't and my parents we more than financially able to educate me privately, my father attended a quite prestigious public school and the experience and memories of it galavanised his opinion that they were little more than breeding grounds for bigoted elitism and some very dodgy ethics. Instead they used the cash to help me with the deposit on my first house and give me the time to make some good decisions in my late teens and early twenties which freed me from the tyranny of inherited prejudice and the shackles of indentured servitude to a rotten system of capitalist idolatry.
And so the revolution started in the house daddy bought.Privilege is a wonderful thing. Every revolutionary should have wealthy parents and access to BoMaD as they strive for equality with poorer people.
crankedup said:
To answer your first point 'why can't they match them'. In a word MONEY. This is the driver of everything in a Capitalist Society. The state schools cannot hope to match the private schools regards quality of education, that's not saying the level of teacher quality is lower. Its more to do with time and facilities available to teachers, class sizes, mixed education abilities within classes.
I don't think anybody is saying that a shift in responsibilities is being sought. Looks like the debate centres around the level of commitment by private schools in assisting public schools is not reflecting the value of the subsidy being given to private schools.
I'm with you regarding the education being opened up to all classes of pupil, rated upon merit not money. But I am not sure the subsidy policy is working as well as it could perhaps, drawing attention to it may be a good thing that could, we hope, promote increased links between the two sectors.
There is already a public benefit test. As a result of which there has been a switch in independent schools from scholarships to bursaries (which are now twice the size of non-means tested scholarship payments) and also to sharing sports facilities etc. Schools already do enough in general IMO to justify their charitable status. I don't think anybody is saying that a shift in responsibilities is being sought. Looks like the debate centres around the level of commitment by private schools in assisting public schools is not reflecting the value of the subsidy being given to private schools.
I'm with you regarding the education being opened up to all classes of pupil, rated upon merit not money. But I am not sure the subsidy policy is working as well as it could perhaps, drawing attention to it may be a good thing that could, we hope, promote increased links between the two sectors.
This proposal is not about that but forcing up costs very considerably by forcing the sharing of both teachers and leadership.
How much surplus funds to you think the average independent school has to start educating pupils that the government should be educating.
What does it say about state education, and its leadership, when apparently the only hope for the 93% of pupils in the state sector is for an independent school to move into partnership with their own?
crankedup said:
turbobloke said:
fblm said:
FredClogs said:
This is true, before we had our 3rd child we were in a position where we could quite comfortably put 2 kids through private school on fairly average household income, the third one would be a stretch. But we decided we won't even if we could afford it, partly because the nearest fee paying school isn't particularly good but also because I don't believe that my children's future WILL suffer by going to a local high school. Mine didn't and my parents we more than financially able to educate me privately, my father attended a quite prestigious public school and the experience and memories of it galavanised his opinion that they were little more than breeding grounds for bigoted elitism and some very dodgy ethics. Instead they used the cash to help me with the deposit on my first house and give me the time to make some good decisions in my late teens and early twenties which freed me from the tyranny of inherited prejudice and the shackles of indentured servitude to a rotten system of capitalist idolatry.
And so the revolution started in the house daddy bought.Privilege is a wonderful thing. Every revolutionary should have wealthy parents and access to BoMaD as they strive for equality with poorer people.
turbobloke said:
rovermorris999 said:
fblm said:
How do you level the 'good' school in a middle class commuter belt with a 'bad' school next to an inner city estate?
You do the usual socialist thing and level down. It's 'fair' then.My son is on the school rugby team, we played one of the local comps several months ago. We happened to win, pretty much hands down to be fair.
However there was the post match stuff on the field the usual man of the match etc. So we had best try, man of the match and players player, cheapo trophies that get passed on week to week, you know the stuff we probably all did as kids.
They had none of that but the teacher/coach did a we may have lost but we are all winners kind of speech and they all got a "participation" ribbon!!!
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff