Labour Conference....total maddness or even possable ?

[Derek Smith]

Breadvan72 said:

People who bang on about grammar schools rarely mention secondary moderns.

That was the dark side of grammars. You were fodder for the mines and such. They varied to an extent but the premise behind inner city secondary moderns was to train the kids for work. Flower late and you got a lathe.

Round my way, SMs had more interesting after-school classes, but even here it was sport or hobbies, very little mind-stretching. If you weren't in the top 10% (actually a slightly lower percentage) is was factories for you, lad. The first comprehensive in my neck of the woods, Kidbrooke, was a massive upping of opportunities for kids who failed their 11+. I married a comprehensive school product and she at least knows how to use apostrophes.

[hairyben]

Derek Smith said:

So, taking the above on board (which may or may not be right I accept) what's your bet for the floating voter and the knuckle draggers?

We are right royally . . . .

Floating voters practically by definition wont vote for corbyn.

Theres a risk a weak enough candidate/campaign by the conservatives might see low turnout and a hung parliment with a labour minority government.

As a floater the choice right now for me is deep concern about the spectre of corbyn and giving up and protesting the whole circus.

[Europa1]

James_B said:

He doesn’t seem too sharp, whatever age.

Conflating going to Oxford with being posh, and assuming that his firm is representative of the wider jobs market is not the sort of thing you expect from someone so keen to tell everyone how very clever he is.

I’m in the fortunate position of employing a higher quality of graduate than his firm does, and they really aren’t posh on the whole, they are just bright, driven, and keen.

Bold opening gambit, sir, very bold.

[Wills2]

I'm completely baffled by the medias coverage of this "government in waiting" we've just an election they lost and now they are the government in waiting? WTF.....

It's bizarre.

They stand up and tell a room of supporters that they will build everything/raise everything/deal with all injustice and balance the books...it's an utter fantasy and then the media announce they are the government in waiting.

[turbobloke]

Wills2 said:

I'm completely baffled by the medias coverage of this "government in waiting" we've just an election they lost and now they are the government in waiting? WTF.....

It's bizarre.

They stand up and tell a room of supporters that they will build everything/raise everything/deal with all injustice and balance the books...it's an utter fantasy and then the media announce they are the government in waiting.

Most of the media don't think much they just regurgitate verbatim the drivel they get from Momentum's / Labour's PR people. How radio and TV presenters keep a straight face is a mystery, even the beeb must realise it's bill hooks.

[Murph7355]

Breadvan72 said:

People who bang on about grammar schools rarely mention secondary moderns. I went to a comprehensive school and it didn't hold me back, and it was at least possible for the kids in the lower sets who had not been doing all that well at eleven to flourish and do better later. I had a friend who moved up from the bottom set to the top one over a couple of years. That was rare, but not unheard of. He would probably have been dumped into a secondary modern if the borough had not gone to comprehensive schooling by 1974.

I received a better and even slightly more classical education than some people I know who were at middling private schools at that time. That was in the 70s, before the underfunding of state education of the Thatcher years, and the flight of many middle class parents to an expanded and improved private education sector. It remains pretty scandalous that no Government of either party has been able to deliver consistency in state education. It is very good in some places, dire in others...

I suspect I went through a similar education to you BV and don't feel it held me back either. I also saw a few kids rise through the forms (and some drop).

However, I don't think that isn't to say students with certain attributes couldn't have done even better using grammars (for example), and that that might have benefitted the rest too by allowing their talents to receive more focus.

The issue we have with education is that we are trying to force one size fits all. That's not how people are. We need room to allow those who are academic to excel, but also those who are not to excel at what they are good at.

I always find it curious that we have no qualms with this in sport/other physical attributes/skills. People with strong skills in one sport are nurtured down that path, not forced to do things that don't suit once they have shown talent. And we have no issues with advertising that some are a lot better at these things than others. And yet where more academic subjects/skills are concerned we seem to shy away from wanting to do this. It's daft.

I think this is one of the biggest factors in us sliding down the international academic league tables over the last 30yrs.

There have always been, and will always be, variable quality teachers (they're only human). Piss arsing around with the syllabus every 5mins, and ways of teaching things even more often to try and be more "inclusive" has done our kids no favours. We have been developing a consistent set of "mediocre" rather than encouraging excellence in areas. But that's what always happens when we spend too much time trying to level a playing field that can never be truly level as nature doesn't work that way.

The same goes with all areas of "equality" and striving too far down that path as Mr Corbyn and his colleagues seem intent on doing. We'll all be equally dumb and poor. But as long as we're "equal", I guess he won't care.

[Pan Pan Pan]

We are all equal, except it seems that there are always going to be some who believe they are more equal than some others

[Mrr T]

Breadvan72 said:

People who bang on about grammar schools rarely mention secondary moderns.

They never mention Technical Secondary Moderns.

[turbobloke]

Murph7355 said:

Breadvan72 said:

People who bang on about grammar schools rarely mention secondary moderns. I went to a comprehensive school and it didn't hold me back, and it was at least possible for the kids in the lower sets who had not been doing all that well at eleven to flourish and do better later. I had a friend who moved up from the bottom set to the top one over a couple of years. That was rare, but not unheard of. He would probably have been dumped into a secondary modern if the borough had not gone to comprehensive schooling by 1974.

I received a better and even slightly more classical education than some people I know who were at middling private schools at that time. That was in the 70s, before the underfunding of state education of the Thatcher years, and the flight of many middle class parents to an expanded and improved private education sector. It remains pretty scandalous that no Government of either party has been able to deliver consistency in state education. It is very good in some places, dire in others...

I suspect I went through a similar education to you BV and don't feel it held me back either. I also saw a few kids rise through the forms (and some drop).

However, I don't think that isn't to say students with certain attributes couldn't have done even better using grammars (for example), and that that might have benefitted the rest too by allowing their talents to receive more focus...

Good point, also it's unlikely that the anonymous student would have been 'dumped' as described. Intelligence as defined by intelligence test scores doesn't change much over time, certainly for 11-18. It's extremely unlikely that there was any change worthy of mention. Given a particular level of raw material, achievement in school depends also on attitude and effort, the more likely reason for making it into a top set situation lies there.

A more realistic scenario is the one you alluded to, where the student would likely have passed and gained entry into a grammar school and may well have done even better in that environment. As demonstrated clearly by Ofsted's research, very able students are failed far too often in comprehensives.

In one of the recent grammar school threads I posted details of data and allied research using actual evidence (rather than social science models and other dubious methodology) which showed that grammar schools do help with social mobility.

Murph7355 said:

The same goes with all areas of "equality" and striving too far down that path as Mr Corbyn and his colleagues seem intent on doing. We'll all be equally dumb and poor. But as long as we're "equal", I guess he won't care.

Comprehensive school standard motto: "no worse than any other boggo comp". Equality in mediocrity isn't one of the best ideas around.

Still can't see Conference voting to support the Tory manifesto aim of expanding grammar schools - more's the pity.

[andymadmak]

turbobloke said:

Comprehensive school standard motto: "no worse than any other boggo comp". Equality in mediocrity isn't one of the best ideas around.

.

"As we celebrate mediocrity, all the boys up stairs want to see, is how much you'll pay for what you used to get for free".

Tom Petty.. The Last DJ

[Wait Here Until Green Light Shows]

Wills2 said:

I'm completely baffled by the medias coverage of this "government in waiting" we've just an election they lost and now they are the government in waiting? WTF.....

It's bizarre.

They stand up and tell a room of supporters that they will build everything/raise everything/deal with all injustice and balance the books...it's an utter fantasy and then the media announce they are the government in waiting.

I was thinking the same...Surely the next election isn't till 2022?
Who the hell cares about the Labour party idiots and their 'a bit council' shindig

[768]

The sales manager at the local Asda.

[anonymous-user]

Derek Smith said:

Breadvan72 said:

People who bang on about grammar schools rarely mention secondary moderns.

That was the dark side of grammars. You were fodder for the mines and such. They varied to an extent but the premise behind inner city secondary moderns was to train the kids for work. Flower late and you got a lathe.

Round my way, SMs had more interesting after-school classes, but even here it was sport or hobbies, very little mind-stretching. If you weren't in the top 10% (actually a slightly lower percentage) is was factories for you, lad. The first comprehensive in my neck of the woods, Kidbrooke, was a massive upping of opportunities for kids who failed their 11+. I married a comprehensive school product and she at least knows how to use apostrophes.

Nice dig Derek.

The kids who were late bloomers, as you put it, back then usually found a proper apprenticeship program at their work and had the opportunity to move up the ladder through work or by studying at night school. It was a very different world back then where there was far more need for people to enter factory work environments. Where that led to was up to you and your abilities.

My dad was one such kid, he left school and went to work at Crossley engines in Manchester, turning ship engine cranks. He served an apprenticeship there and in the evening he went to night school and trained in the new fangled subject called electronics. He then once he had his qualification went to work for Rumbelows, initially as a TV repair man, he ended there as an in house trainer of the electronics engineers. From there he moved on to one of the major computer companies working on the mainframe systems. He then moved on to working on the electronics systems used in Hospitals and was responsible for the intensive care machines, developing new systems still used now.

Vocational training has a major role to play in allowing people to advance, that's one thing we should be rebuilding in this country, university education is not the only answer and often not the correct answer for individuals or industry.

[Derek Smith]

hairyben said:

Floating voters practically by definition wont vote for corbyn.

I'm not sure that's a correct interpretation of the term.

They will vote either way depending on all sorts of circumstances. There's a world out there that's different to the comforting overriding view of PH.

There will be, most likely, special circumstances in the next election, one of which might well be rejection of the libdems. These have often been the target of protest votes. Cameron's clever destruction of them might well come back to bite the tories. If they squabble in the run up to the elections, which would hardly be unusual, and there's no consensus on direction, which is the norm, but often hidden, then those that think 'anything but May/Johnson/R-Mogg have only one place to go. It doesn't take a massive swing.

I think the move to labour is a short term event and that in normal circs they would be abandoned in the next GE but these are far from normal times. No one knows what will happen to the economy. No one knows what we will get from brexit. The only agreement for both sides seems to be that there will be hard times when we leave. That's never good for a sitting government.

The readers of the Mail, Telegraph and similar, they'll vote tory, but these are not the ones who will define what happens in the next GE.

The only certainty is that if labour get in, Corbyn will be sacked and a real left winger will replace him.

[Mrr T]

turbobloke said:

Good point, also it's unlikely that the anonymous student would have been 'dumped' as described. Intelligence as defined by intelligence test scores doesn't change much over time, certainly for 11-18. It's extremely unlikely that there was any change worthy of mention. Given a particular level of raw material, achievement in school depends also on attitude and effort, the more likely reason for making it into a top set situation lies there.

You do understand intelligence test result do not alter very much because the test is changed to take account of age.

The problems of intelligence tests are well known:

1. They suit generalists with good ability to do cross word puzzles.
2. They are terrible for measuring extremes.
3. You can teach to the test.
4. The results for the test are a normal distribution so the lower the level of the cut off the more people within the margins of error.

Most importantly while there is a correlation with academic success which is very high at the 98% level, the level used for most grammars schools today, at the 80% level used in the Butler system it drops significantly.

turbobloke said:

As demonstrated clearly by Ofsted's research, very able students are failed far too often in comprehensives.

I agree with this but that and see no problem with the current grammar system where selection is at the 98% level.

turbobloke said:

In one of the recent grammar school threads I posted details of data and allied research using actual evidence (rather than social science models and other dubious methodology) which showed that grammar schools do help with social mobility.

I missed it would you post again. Tks.

[mikal83]

Drinking game.

"Back to basics"....1/2 pint.
"Unite the country"....short.
"The people have spoken"....a drink of your choice.

Theres more but I cant be arsed.

[Frank7]

Wills2 said:

I'm completely baffled by the medias coverage of this "government in waiting" we've just an election they lost and now they are the government in waiting? WTF.....

It's bizarre.

They stand up and tell a room of supporters that they will build everything/raise everything/deal with all injustice and balance the books...it's an utter fantasy and then the media announce they are the government in waiting.

I'm not so much baffled at the media saying it, after all, they're just reporting what Labour Party members and politicians have said.
I do however, dislike hearing Mr. Corbyn and his cohorts saying it to interviewers, it may not make my blood run cold, but it certainly chills it a bit.
Having had the good fortune to enjoy reasonably good health, plus having a work ethic that if there's a £ to be earned, I'll get off my a**e, and go out and earn it, I'm not over keen at the prospect of a bunch of quasi socialists giving my tax £s to anyone whose main skill is being able to fill in a benefits claim form.
From time to time, you read of some Z list sleb saying that if X party wins the election, they'll leave the country, although they never seem to do so.
For quite a few years now, I've been keeping my desire to sell up and relocate to S.W. France on the back burner, mainly because my wife, who is beautiful and intelligent, suffers from the English disease of being a monoglot.
Were it not for me, she'd starve to death on the streets of Bordeaux or Toulouse, e.g., "Frank, how do you say medium to well, or ham sandwich, tell them I want dry white wine, not sweet."
If the socialists look like getting power here, it may be just the impetus I need to switch my ill gotten gains to Crédit Agricole, and let M. Macron take a bite at them.
All I'll need is a laminated, printed card for my wife:
DONNEZ-MOI TOUT, MON MARI PAIERA. (Give me everything, my husband will pay).

[B210bandit]

Frank7 said:

Having had the good fortune to enjoy reasonably good health, plus having a work ethic that if there's a £ to be earned, I'll get off my a**e, and go out and earn it, I'm not over keen at the prospect of a bunch of quasi socialists giving my tax £s to anyone whose main skill is being able to fill in a benefits claim form..

Agreed. £369million of taxpayers' money to do up the home of the UK's most workshy family, when they have loads of loot pilfered over hundreds of years.

[kev1974]

Corbyn's speech. Is there a man that keeps holding up an "Applause" board every few seconds, or are the audience all just on a timer to auto-clap every time he takes a breath.

[Murph7355]

Frank7 said:

...
I do however, dislike hearing Mr. Corbyn and his cohorts saying it to interviewers, it may not make my blood run cold, but it certainly chills it a bit.
...

The best thing the Tories can do for the next 5yrs is keep pretty quiet and just let Corbyn and McDonnell tell everyone how they're going to be the next government.

Nothing will be so certain to start cutting back on their vote share. The more they talk themselves in knots about what they're going to do, the better.