johnny the fox Posted 27 November 2014 Share Posted 27 November 2014 latest figures just released...net immigration is up yet again 260k.. (a record) 16k more than when the Tories took office.. but but mr, Cameron promised to cut it didn't he? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alf Bentley Posted 27 November 2014 Share Posted 27 November 2014 Unless private schools deliver some measurable benefit to wider society, which they may well do, then I don't think they should be subsidised by the state. But I've no problem with people who can afford it paying to give their kids a better education. To want to limit that is nothing but envy, and it's hypocritical too, given the universal access to relatively high quality education we already have in this country. If equality was really what you wanted you'd support cutting education spending in this country in favour of sending money to help the majority of the world's kids who are still stuck with woefully inadequate schools. Funny how otherwise globally minded liberals become such hardcore nationalists as soon as there's something in it for them, isn't it? I accept your "hypocrisy" charge to an extent, Moose. I'd be happy to pay slightly more tax to fund international development, but certainly wouldn't want education funding in this country sacrificed to fund it. Like most, I'm no Mother Teresa. Very few "globally minded liberals" feel no connection to their home nation - and no desire to protect their self-interest to some extent. Doesn't mean that you automatically become ruthlessly self-seeking or a hardcore nationalist. There is some middle ground. While envy influences some people's attitudes to private schools, it's not the only factor. Even if I could afford private school fees, I wouldn't want to send my daughter to one (my wife might, but we'd just have to have a row about that!). Some might criticise that attitude and say that I'd be limiting her potential. I'd respond that it's perfectly possible for an 18-year-old to have great potential by attending a decent comprehensive and receiving good support at home (or in the community). They're also likely to gain a broader understanding of the different people who make up our society and feel that they're a member of that society. They're less likely to end up mega-rich or with a top position in business, politics or the law, but could still enjoy a very happy and successful life. That's why I support Labour's effort to make the playing-field a bit more level, so that access to top careers and top society isn't too concentrated on those whose parents were able/willing to pay for a better chance. Again, I'm not without self-interest. We're going through secondary school applications this year and if we were in the catchment area for a sink school, I'd do all that I could to avoid that (use my own education to play the system, move house, whatever). Fortunately, we're in the catchment area of what seems to be a very good comprehensive and within striking distance of a couple of others ( for March). Maybe, in 10 years, if my daughter is on the dole or has poor life chances I'll regret not having been more of a careerist and not having earned more so as to send her to private school, but I doubt it. I'd be more likely to blame our general parenting, as lots of bright, well-rounded young people with good prospects emerge from state schools. No doubt Labour's policy to "encourage" private schools to deploy resources to help state schools will have the knock-on effect of nudging fees up a bit, but not massively. People who don't want their kids' schools to help wider society in this way shouldn't expect state subsidies for a paid activity intended only to benefit their kids. Maybe state schools could buy in that expertise from general taxation instead...but, of course, private school parents would be the first to object to any rise in their income tax or corporation tax. On a tangent, I wish there was still a centre-right party like the Tories were up until the 1970s, one that sought to encourage enterprise and reward success while still believing in promoting opportunities for all and ensuring that we remain "one nation". I wouldn't support it myself, but think of people like my late father-in-law, who was an active Tory for several decades before following the same policies in the SDP and then New Labour. The "wets" like Ken Clarke are a dying breed. The dominant thinking among younger people on the right seems to be that if people are unemployed or on low pay, then either it's their fault because they're lazy or it's an inevitable consequence of the great god Market, which should never be intervened in; likewise, if someone is wealthy, that is because they earned it through their own merit....they never inherited wealth, acquired it through good fortune or dodgy practice....and certainly owe nothing to anyone in society apart from themselves. Where it's all leading, I don't know. The old political parties are creaking at the seams and haemorrhaging voters and members. Maybe there'll be a political realignment, but I'm not sure I'd like the parties that resulted from that. Social polarisation seems to be the way things are going. They do say that we're always 20 years behind the USA, so maybe we're just heading for a British equivalent of nasty polarisation, trailer parks, ill-educated racial ghettos, Tea Party rallies, abandoned cities, Ferguson-style riots etc. Depressing! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MooseBreath Posted 27 November 2014 Share Posted 27 November 2014 I find it hard to believe that you wouldn't send your children to a private school if you could afford to. I imagine like most parents you provide opportunities for your kids right up to the limit of what you can afford, and no less. I like to believe that most tories, at least, do believe in opportunities for all, but you've got to get the fundamentals right first before you can move onto the more nuanced social engineering. While the country is still leaking money and we've still got such a huge welfare bill we should be concentrating on the basics, providing opportunities for jobs, education or training, cutting down on payments to slackers and using that money to provide further opportunities for proactive people who actually want to contribute to society. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James. Posted 27 November 2014 Share Posted 27 November 2014 I find it hard to believe that you wouldn't send your children to a private school if you could afford to. I imagine like most parents you provide opportunities for your kids right up to the limit of what you can afford, and no less. My wife is pregnant and we've both discussed what we'd want to do. Without having done much research I believe we'd be in a position to send our kids to private school but I'm actually pretty determined to send them to a state school. I'll obviously look into it but as long as the state school is not a shambles I believe that it can offer a broader array of people and experiences (going beyond purely academic) than a private school. Maybe it's the working class roots but I did alright by going to a state school and had some fantastic times along the way with friends I remain in touch with years later. I know a few examples of people that went to private school and for various reasons didn't seem to have anywhere near as rich an experience. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hairy Posted 27 November 2014 Share Posted 27 November 2014 I find it hard to believe that you wouldn't send your children to a private school if you could afford to. I imagine like most parents you provide opportunities for your kids right up to the limit of what you can afford, and no less. I went to private school and would send my children there. Here is something for you anti Europe lot to think about Potentially, they would all be sent home Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bovril Posted 27 November 2014 Share Posted 27 November 2014 Potentially, they would all be sent home Probably not, and I think the point is that the entire EU has a bit more space than the the UK. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alf Bentley Posted 27 November 2014 Share Posted 27 November 2014 I find it hard to believe that you wouldn't send your children to a private school if you could afford to. I imagine like most parents you provide opportunities for your kids right up to the limit of what you can afford, and no less. I like to believe that most tories, at least, do believe in opportunities for all, but you've got to get the fundamentals right first before you can move onto the more nuanced social engineering. While the country is still leaking money and we've still got such a huge welfare bill we should be concentrating on the basics, providing opportunities for jobs, education or training, cutting down on payments to slackers and using that money to provide further opportunities for proactive people who actually want to contribute to society. That's interesting if you find my attitude to private schools hard to believe. While there have always been those who sought private education if they could afford it, my attitude used to be quite common. Maybe it's partly a generational thing? Maybe more people now see education purely as a path to social and material success, though some obviously don't? I don't have a rigid, "right on" attitude to all this. We pay for our daughter to go to after-school clubs and almost paid for extra maths tuition (avoided as she's got a better maths teacher this year - one applying more traditional methods encouraged by Gove, funny enough). In a hypothetical situation where we had more cash and faced a choice between a sink school and a private school, I'm sure we'd go private. I just don't see education as being all about striving to get ahead socially or materialistically. I'd like my daughter to end up well enough educated to enjoy a stimulating working life and material comfort, of course, but also with an experience of the rich variety of people and life in Leicester, England and the world, and a love of life that doesn't depend on material or social success (which can't be guaranteed for anyone, including people from private schools and people who work hard). No argument with your second paragraph, though I'd very much see high quality education for all as one of the "fundamentals" - and cutting benefits for disabled people with a spare room and nowhere to go while cutting tax for those earning £150k would certainly qualify as "social engineering". Cut payments to genuine slackers? No problem with that, so long as it doesn't equate to just kicking people who want to work but need help to find it, as they've got depressed, are a bit clueless or whatever. Here are some people who went to state school: Margaret Thatcher, Vince Cable, Ed & David Miliband, William Hague, Sadiq Khan, Alan Sugar, Rebekah Brooks, Evan Davis, Jonathan Ross..... A state education doesn't guarantee failure. Too many top people come from a narrow, privately-educated elite, but hopefully that will change if we have a government committed to high quality state education for all Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnny the fox Posted 27 November 2014 Share Posted 27 November 2014 I went to private school and would send my children there. Here is something for you anti Europe lot to think about Potentially, they would all be sent home I would have no sympathy..if this country is not good enough for em.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kopfkino Posted 27 November 2014 Share Posted 27 November 2014 That's interesting if you find my attitude to private schools hard to believe. While there have always been those who sought private education if they could afford it, my attitude used to be quite common. Maybe it's partly a generational thing? Maybe more people now see education purely as a path to social and material success, though some obviously don't? I don't have a rigid, "right on" attitude to all this. We pay for our daughter to go to after-school clubs and almost paid for extra maths tuition (avoided as she's got a better maths teacher this year - one applying more traditional methods encouraged by Gove, funny enough). In a hypothetical situation where we had more cash and faced a choice between a sink school and a private school, I'm sure we'd go private. I just don't see education as being all about striving to get ahead socially or materialistically. I'd like my daughter to end up well enough educated to enjoy a stimulating working life and material comfort, of course, but also with an experience of the rich variety of people and life in Leicester, England and the world, and a love of life that doesn't depend on material or social success (which can't be guaranteed for anyone, including people from private schools and people who work hard). No argument with your second paragraph, though I'd very much see high quality education for all as one of the "fundamentals" - and cutting benefits for disabled people with a spare room and nowhere to go while cutting tax for those earning £150k would certainly qualify as "social engineering". Cut payments to genuine slackers? No problem with that, so long as it doesn't equate to just kicking people who want to work but need help to find it, as they've got depressed, are a bit clueless or whatever. Here are some people who went to state school: Margaret Thatcher, Vince Cable, Ed & David Miliband, William Hague, Sadiq Khan, Alan Sugar, Rebekah Brooks, Evan Davis, Jonathan Ross..... A state education doesn't guarantee failure. Too many top people come from a narrow, privately-educated elite, but hopefully that will change if we have a government committed to high quality state education for all What a ridiculous thing to say cos nobody said that it does or implied that it does. I don't think anyone on here thinks that you can't go anywhere without a private school education Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ADK Posted 27 November 2014 Share Posted 27 November 2014 I wouldn't send my children (I don't have children but in future) to a private school but wouldn't want to be completely at the mercy of state education either. I have similar feelings on healthcare. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ousefox Posted 27 November 2014 Share Posted 27 November 2014 I wouldn't send my children (I don't have children but in future) to a private school but wouldn't want to be completely at the mercy of state education either. I have similar feelings on healthcare. I'd agree with this with their current state. Definitely disagree with the statement that most people would send their kids to private school if they could. It would be my last choice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alf Bentley Posted 27 November 2014 Share Posted 27 November 2014 What a ridiculous thing to say cos nobody said that it does or implied that it does. I don't think anyone on here thinks that you can't go anywhere without a private school education Ridiculous? A bit of loose rhetoric, maybe..... There seemed to be a slight implication from Moose that I might be limiting my daughter's opportunities if I didn't (hypothetically) send her to private school, but I might have been imagining it. As regards ending up in the cabinet, it would probably be true, anyway, though it wouldn't eliminate any chance - and career success isn't the be-all and end-all of life. Anyway, I'm not going to row with someone who worships the most criminally under-rated footballer at LCFC....unless you're taking the piss out of the great GTF, in which case you can fvck right off! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kopfkino Posted 27 November 2014 Share Posted 27 November 2014 Ridiculous? A bit of loose rhetoric, maybe..... There seemed to be a slight implication from Moose that I might be limiting my daughter's opportunities if I didn't (hypothetically) send her to private school, but I might have been imagining it. As regards ending up in the cabinet, it would probably be true, anyway, though it wouldn't eliminate any chance - and career success isn't the be-all and end-all of life. Anyway, I'm not going to row with someone who worships the most criminally under-rated footballer at LCFC....unless you're taking the piss out of the great GTF, in which case you can fvck right off! I'd like to think that Moose was saying that private school might further enhance her chances rather than state school limiting her opportunities. There's certainly no guarentee anyway that private school would be any more beneficial than state school which I'd hope he realises. Best player we've had since Super Steve, bossed central midfield for 10 minutes against Chelsea Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alf Bentley Posted 27 November 2014 Share Posted 27 November 2014 I'd like to think that Moose was saying that private school might further enhance her chances rather than state school limiting her opportunities. There's certainly no guarentee anyway that private school would be any more beneficial than state school which I'd hope he realises. Best player we've had since Super Steve, bossed central midfield for 10 minutes against Chelsea Fair dos! I did like watching GTF - a clever, technical player and a thorough professional. I hope we see a few more cameos from him yet. Appreciated Super Steve, too, even if he was the slowest player in football - pace isn't everything. I couldn't guarantee you success at Oxford if you write "guarentee" anywhere....but wish you all the best. Remember to fund state education properly when you're PM! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve_Guppy_Left_Foot Posted 27 November 2014 Share Posted 27 November 2014 Ed Miliband could have a hunch back and the face of the elephant man for all I care, never mind being 'put in place' by a thick bint from loose woman or pulling a face while eating a sandwich (when did satire become mainstream?), he's the only party leader with a vision of a truly fair Britain, just a shame nobody takes any notice of that for obvious reasons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Webbo Posted 27 November 2014 Share Posted 27 November 2014 Depends on your definition of fair. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kopfkino Posted 27 November 2014 Share Posted 27 November 2014 Fair dos! I did like watching GTF - a clever, technical player and a thorough professional. I hope we see a few more cameos from him yet. Appreciated Super Steve, too, even if he was the slowest player in football - pace isn't everything. I couldn't guarantee you success at Oxford if you write "guarentee" anywhere....but wish you all the best. Remember to fund state education properly when you're PM! Blame my state education. Let it be a warning and save your daughter before it's too late Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stadt Posted 27 November 2014 Share Posted 27 November 2014 Why is immigration such a big deal for a lot of people, I'm not massively keen on it but I can't understand why so many people feel so strongly about it whilst barely encountering any leeching, scrounging ne'er do wells. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strokes Posted 27 November 2014 Share Posted 27 November 2014 I went to private school and would send my children there. Here is something for you anti Europe lot to think about Potentially, they would all be sent home Good, they can spend their wealth over here then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Webbo Posted 27 November 2014 Share Posted 27 November 2014 We're always being told how you shouldn't vote Ukip because they might send migrants back, If Europe do that to our people how does that make them any better, and why would we want to be ruled by people that would do that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ADK Posted 27 November 2014 Share Posted 27 November 2014 Most of our migrants are professionals and people spending their pensions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bovril Posted 27 November 2014 Share Posted 27 November 2014 We're always being told how you shouldn't vote Ukip because they might send migrants back, If Europe do that to our people how does that make them any better, and why would we want to be ruled by people that would do that? Nobody's going to get sent back anywhere. It's hard enough getting rid of convicted criminals and terrorists let alone working people. That and it's economic suicide. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ousefox Posted 27 November 2014 Share Posted 27 November 2014 Why is immigration such a big deal for a lot of people, I'm not massively keen on it but I can't understand why so many people feel so strongly about it whilst barely encountering any leeching, scrounging ne'er do wells. I found it really strange how UKIP won the local elections in York a few months ago. There are so few immigrants here compared to a lot of the places in the UK, I found it quite bizarre. Obviously it won't be the same in May, but it shows how the media frenzy over immigration even influences places that are barely affected by it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bovril Posted 27 November 2014 Share Posted 27 November 2014 I found it really strange how UKIP won the local elections in York a few months ago. There are so few immigrants here compared to a lot of the places in the UK, I found it quite bizarre. Obviously it won't be the same in May, but it shows how the media frenzy over immigration even influences places that are barely affected by it. Maybe they're not voting UKIP because of immigration? edited to say that's a piss-poorly phrased sentence. Maybe it's not immigration that made them vote UKIP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Webbo Posted 27 November 2014 Share Posted 27 November 2014 Nobody's going to get sent back anywhere. It's hard enough getting rid of convicted criminals and terrorists let alone working people. That and it's economic suicide. I agree, out of all the arguments for not leaving the EU pretending that all UK citizens will be thrown out of Europe is the weakest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.