Keir Starmer

[threespires]

We need to get the girl guides and boy scouts in charge because I have zero faith in any sitting politician festering in the big house right now.

Greed is everywhere, the only decision you or I have to make is which greedy bastard do we trust more.

I get your cynicism about Labour but I really don't think they're anywhere near in the same boat as the current incarnation of the Tory party. Labour may well be Tory Lite, I guess we're going to find out soon enough, but the Tory party is in the clutches of extremists, economic headbangers and middle to old-aged delinquents.

As for the Guides and Scouts, I know a couple of leaders in both and though one of the four is sound I'm not sure about the other three! What about the National Trust? They've got experience of restoring things that are on their arse, they recently saw off a bunch of political nutters trying to take them over for their own ends and the cakes in their cafes are better than English Heritage.

 

[metalblue]

That's nothing to do with my comment. I was just explaining why the private school teacher would prefer a bigger bursary system, rather than VAT.

On profit - which schools are you talking about? Private schools that aren't paying VAT are charities/non-profit.

You said:

The private schools wants the brightest kids, not because they want to make a difference to society. They want them because having bright kids pushes up the standards of everyone, and brings up their exam results, helping them attract more rich kids.

I assumed you meant profit.

On profit - which schools are you talking about? Private schools that aren't paying VAT are charities/non-profit

Correct. I was waiting for someone to twig they don’t make profit but put it back in to the school.

Teachers at private schools are no more or less likely to favour the private education system. No more than a doctor or nurse who works in BUPA would favour private over NHS.

Anyway why do you think having the brightest achieve their full potential is bad for the state system? What do you think more likely…that bright kids lift the class or the kids that fuck around drag the bright kids down?

 

[Mr Kobayashi]

Teachers at private schools are no more or less likely to favour the private education system. No more than a doctor or nurse who works in BUPA would favour private over NHS.

Citation?

Got some stats for the educational backgrounds of private school teachers?

Bupa doesn't have a role in educating people before they are adults with qualifications.

 

[bluenova]

You said:

The private schools wants the brightest kids, not because they want to make a difference to society. They want them because having bright kids pushes up the standards of everyone, and brings up their exam results, helping them attract more rich kids.

I assumed you meant profit.

On profit - which schools are you talking about? Private schools that aren't paying VAT are charities/non-profit

Correct. I was waiting for someone to twig they don’t make profit but put it back in to the school.

Teachers at private schools are no more or less likely to favour the private education system. No more than a doctor or nurse who works in BUPA would favour private over NHS.

Anyway why do you think having the brightest achieve their full potential is bad for the state system? What do you think more likely…that bright kids lift the class or the kids that fuck around drag the bright kids down?

You probably only have to look at some of our recent PMs and cabinet ministers to see that "full potential" isn't necessarily what a private education achieves.

The teacher was already against the VAT charge, and offering an alternative, which would benefit her school. That's why I was *shocked, I tell ya, shocked!*. I'd be astonished if teachers in the private sector aren't significantly more likely to be in favour of private education. If you can show me any proof of that statement I'd love to see it, because it's very counterintuitive.

The argument is essentially grammar/secondary modern. It's one that had been argued for many years, and I can give you plenty of reasons why I think society benefits from schools with a mixed intake, while I'm sure you can fill this forum for days with counter arguments. Ultimately I believe schools do better with a mix of kids, that even the brightest benefit from mixing with others, and that streaming/small group hothousing, can give a great level of education in the state sector for even the brightest.

What the bursary/scholarship system does is select not just the more academically gifted, but selection at 11 also favours the more middle class kids from the most settled families. If anything, it's another advantage to kids who are already advantaged, and there are many other kids who could benefit a lot more from the small classes/high teacher ratios of the private sector.

It's such a big subject that we could be here all day, bur fortunately for anyone reading I'm off to a gig so this is my last comment :)

 

[hilts]

He had his phone cut off one month mate. Lived in fhe wastelands of the Surrey / Kent borders. You don’t survive that sort of hostile environment if you’ve not got summit about you. That kid knew real hardship.

You may laugh but he asked for a 47' Cheval Blanc and got a 48', hard to come back from that, inner steel.

 

[threespires]

You may laugh but he asked for a 47' Cheval Blanc and got a 48', hard to come back from that, inner steel.

A man who can simultaneously neck cheap bourbon whilst making Cheval Blanc jokes. I like your style, sir.

 

[pirate]

It’s not progressive tax, if they just increased tax on the top tax payers to pay for it I would agree.

The wealthy pay more - progressive
Tax on cigs for smokers - progressive
Tax on beer for drinkers - progressive
Tax on fuel for drivers - progressive

I can’t see how taxing a small group of people to pay for an education system they won’t use as progressive. Particularly as it’s education.

its progressive as it taxes the rich, those in the 7% who are rich enough to send their kids to private schools.
and in fact it only taxes them if the private schools choose to pass the tax increase on

 

[Chris in London]

Not at all, but they are very nearly the same. We have a choice which is Tory or Tory lite I choose to choose neither although I will most definitely vote.

My vote will not go to an incumbent.

Your posting history suggests that as between Tory and Tory lite you have decided neither are right wing enough for your tastes.

Each to their own.

 

[Mr Kobayashi]

Your posting history suggests that as between Tory and Tory lite you have decided neither are right wing enough for your tastes.

Each to their own.

He's politically homeless, his party abandoned him.

Exhausted, sad, and dejected: Britain First rules out contesting general election – HOPE not hate

Britain First leader Paul Golding announces his party is too tired to run any election candidates this year

hopenothate.org.uk

 

[BobKowalski]

But I’m not voting conservative at this election. Anything else in your locker or are we done here?

Oh, I don’t know. I can see you being tempted to vote Tory out of concern of a Labour ‘supermajority’ - otherwise known as ‘a lot more seats’ - to ensure a strong opposition and in the interests of democracy.

But then I’m bit of a cynic.