Brexit: The Naked Truth

This Forum is the main messageboard to discuss all things Claret and Blue and beyond
# 1
TheFamilyCat
Posts: 4863
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 8:56 pm
Been Liked: 2603 times
Has Liked: 73 times

Re: Brexit: The Naked Truth

Postby TheFamilyCat » Tue Sep 17, 2019 8:57 am

AndyClaret wrote:And it's you who sides with a foreign government every time my friend.


You traitor Lancs. You should have your blue passport confiscated.

# 2
dsr
Posts: 8483
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 12:47 pm
Been Liked: 2569 times
Has Liked: 1097 times

Re: Brexit: The Naked Truth

Postby dsr » Tue Sep 17, 2019 9:04 am

AndrewJB wrote:Rightwing media bingo. It’s not tax, it’s “taking my money” Corbyn wants to tax higher earners more. That is progressive. That is more sensible than trying to tax poorer people more. That is in the best interests of ordinary working people.

More rightwing bingo - closing schools. They want to end selection in schools, and hopefully get rid of private education altogether. Democratising education is good for ordinary working people, because opportunities become open to all. And this runs through a comparison of manifestos - Labour’s being far more in line with the common good rather than benefitting the rich.

I don’t know the details of Corbyn’s education, but know that Johnson’s was exclusively private. He probably spent his early years without meeting and ordinary working people whatsoever. If he had a real interest in them he wouldnt have joined the Tory Party.

Of course tax is "taking my money". What would you call it? When you earn money, do you believe that it belongs to the State and they are giving you a bit back?

Corbyn wants to take lots of money, not just of individuals, but off people that employ those individuals as well. He expects to take an extra £20bn per year of companies and thinks that their profitability will not be affected. That's economic illiteracy. I do not want to trust my finances to someone who has good intentions but isn't competent.

If you want to convert selective schools to make them just like all the others, then that isn't going to help "ordinary working people". You don't help Mr Smith by making Mr Jones worse off. Far better to look at the good school and make the bad ones better; not to look at the bad schools and make the good ones worse.

What is an "ordinary working person"?

# 3
martin_p
Posts: 4796
Joined: Mon Jan 25, 2016 3:40 pm
Been Liked: 1647 times
Has Liked: 405 times

Re: Brexit: The Naked Truth

Postby martin_p » Tue Sep 17, 2019 9:14 am

Devils_Advocate wrote:Yes but you've (either deliberately or stupidly) misrepresented what the word actual was referring to. Its plain to see that the word actual was used as saying the thing being talked about actually exists. You manage to write enormously long winded posts and like to construct a detailed argument so although this kind of practice is completely expected from posters like DSR I wouldn't have thought you needed to misrepresent the meaning of a word to drive your argument.

If you honestly didn't understand what the phrasing meant in that sentence then fair enough but I had you down as someone with a little more intelligence even if you do hold and support somewhat dubious ideas


I was going to write a response to your last post Paul Waine, but DA has done it for me. So..... this!

# 4
Lancasterclaret
Posts: 15356
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 2:09 pm
Been Liked: 4964 times
Has Liked: 2813 times
Location: Riding the galactic winds in my X-wing

Re: Brexit: The Naked Truth

Postby Lancasterclaret » Tue Sep 17, 2019 9:25 am

AndyClaret wrote:And it's you who sides with a foreign government every time my friend.


Traitor!

# 5
AndrewJB
Posts: 2010
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 7:20 pm
Been Liked: 795 times
Has Liked: 518 times

Re: Brexit: The Naked Truth

Postby AndrewJB » Tue Sep 17, 2019 10:39 am

dsr wrote:Of course tax is "taking my money". What would you call it? When you earn money, do you believe that it belongs to the State and they are giving you a bit back?

Corbyn wants to take lots of money, not just of individuals, but off people that employ those individuals as well. He expects to take an extra £20bn per year of companies and thinks that their profitability will not be affected. That's economic illiteracy. I do not want to trust my finances to someone who has good intentions but isn't competent.

If you want to convert selective schools to make them just like all the others, then that isn't going to help "ordinary working people". You don't help Mr Smith by making Mr Jones worse off. Far better to look at the good school and make the bad ones better; not to look at the bad schools and make the good ones worse.

What is an "ordinary working person"?

Tax is no more "taking your money" than the shopkeeper "took my money" for the milk I bought this morning, or the utilities companies "take our money" for supplying water or electricity. Tax is your subscription for society, and it's been many centuries since private tax collectors came to your house making up their own arbitrary rules.

For you to attack Corbyn on the subject of tax and government spending when Johnson has just invoked Magic Money Tree II - big spending increases, and tax giveaways - goes to show how deep rightwing propaganda runs. All Corbyn wants to do is return tax rates to what they were in 2010. Taxing those with the deepest pockets, who have enjoyed considerable tax favours since then (that have had no appreciable affect on the economy for everyone else). If you want real economic illiteracy, that is cutting government spending for people who need it the most, and handing out the savings to the richest. For capitalism to work well, money needs to be spread around, and as many people as possible need to be active consumers.

On schools, areas that have grammar schools have lower educational attainment overall than those areas (like mine) that don't have them. Schools in my borough have streams so that all students are challenged according to their abilities. Furthermore students can move between streams, or be in different streams according to their different abilities (stronger in some areas but not in others). Segregating students from age eleven on is medieval in comparison. Private schooling is even worse. Only seven percent of students come from private schools, yet are hugely over represented in the top universities and top jobs. Given that entrance to a private school is due to a parent's ability to pay, what private schools do is promote mediocrity while being an obstacle to the huge pool of talent within the remaining ninety-three percent of the population. This is why we've had two uninspiring PMs from the same schools within the last five years. We improve things for ordinary people by widening opportunity.

# 6
Paul Waine
Posts: 5001
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 2:28 pm
Been Liked: 1208 times
Has Liked: 1439 times

Re: Brexit: The Naked Truth

Postby Paul Waine » Tue Sep 17, 2019 10:57 am

Hi DA, martin and Lancs, I'm waiting on a station waiting for a train to work (I'm not req'd to get there by 9:00 these days) and listening to announcements about track-side fires and the usual "we are sorry that your journey will take longer than planned" messages

So, we've got time to speak about scenarios and planning.

I think we all know that scenarios are used in planning/modelling an event or events that you need to consider/plan for. It is common to define a base case. It is common to "flex" the base case to explore possible variations from the base case. It is reasonable to test "what if this is bigger/faster/higher or lower" and often you'd use per cent variations: 10% 20% and maybe more, if these variations are reasonable and meaningful.

I'm speaking very generally, the variations will always depend on what is being modelled. Of course, in this case we are talking of exploring and then planning responses to "no deal Brexit" and, I'd expect, modelling it on 31 October. (I think we can all agree the time of year is relevant for agricultural seasons, holiday plans, flu season and numerous other things).

So, you flex and probably "stress" these variables in your model.

But, you don't do this "ad infinitum" because it adds no value to planning your responses. You will always be working with a limited number of variations from the base case you've defined.

What names you give to your variations to your base case scenario should be meaningful, so that you can communicate the nature of the variations and, therefore, impacts and responses required to mitigate (or avoid) those impacts.

It's not meaningful to have a number of "worst" cases and, include an "actual worst case" - if that is what Lancs means and we are still speaking of planning for possible future events.

Similarly, the "realities" will only become real when the UK has left the EU - however, and whenever this happens.

Let's not get ourselves into the situation of the chicken who was warning that "the sky is falling." That was just a story used, back in the day, when we were learning to read.

It's been good to pass my journey time. My train is now arriving at my mainline central London station.

Enjoy the day everyone. Let's not worry about things we can effect. The sun is shining. Life is good!

# 7
brexit
Posts: 490
Joined: Tue Sep 27, 2016 12:20 am
Been Liked: 94 times
Has Liked: 27 times
Location: on the gravy train in strasbourg

Our next MP

Postby brexit » Tue Sep 17, 2019 10:57 am

We will probably have a general election before xmas.
I would like to solicit options on which party our next MP will be from with hopefully some reasoned argument. I think Burnley is a very interesting constituency we have returned a lib dem in the past, there is a hard core of labour voters but we helped return brexit MEP's

I know at some point this will descend into trolling but I genuinely believe there are some members of this message board who have valid insights.

Yes I know my handle is inflammatory but I am a libertarian and my sole reason for supporting brexit is I believe in a minimalist state.

# 8
Paul Waine
Posts: 5001
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 2:28 pm
Been Liked: 1208 times
Has Liked: 1439 times

Re: Brexit: The Naked Truth

Postby Paul Waine » Tue Sep 17, 2019 11:02 am

AndrewJB wrote:Tax is no more "taking your money" than the shopkeeper "took my money" for the milk I bought this morning, or the utilities companies "take our money" for supplying water or electricity. Tax is your subscription for society, and it's been many centuries since private tax collectors came to your house making up their own arbitrary rules.

For you to attack Corbyn on the subject of tax and government spending when Johnson has just invoked Magic Money Tree II - big spending increases, and tax giveaways - goes to show how deep rightwing propaganda runs. All Corbyn wants to do is return tax rates to what they were in 2010. Taxing those with the deepest pockets, who have enjoyed considerable tax favours since then (that have had no appreciable affect on the economy for everyone else). If you want real economic illiteracy, that is cutting government spending for people who need it the most, and handing out the savings to the richest. For capitalism to work well, money needs to be spread around, and as many people as possible need to be active consumers.

On schools, areas that have grammar schools have lower educational attainment overall than those areas (like mine) that don't have them. Schools in my borough have streams so that all students are challenged according to their abilities. Furthermore students can move between streams, or be in different streams according to their different abilities (stronger in some areas but not in others). Segregating students from age eleven on is medieval in comparison. Private schooling is even worse. Only seven percent of students come from private schools, yet are hugely over represented in the top universities and top jobs. Given that entrance to a private school is due to a parent's ability to pay, what private schools do is promote mediocrity while being an obstacle to the huge pool of talent within the remaining ninety-three percent of the population. This is why we've had two uninspiring PMs from the same schools within the last five years. We improve things for ordinary people by widening opportunity.


Bold statement, Andrew, but, also so wrong. Taxation is taking money from people. We all know JC and his marxists friend, JMc, will always tell us otherwise. But, however quietly and avuncularly the message is expressed, it is still taking money from people.

PS: for clarity, I've only read those first few words.

# 9
Goobs
Posts: 2913
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 8:43 am
Been Liked: 989 times
Has Liked: 674 times
Location: Burnley

Re: Our next MP

Postby Goobs » Tue Sep 17, 2019 11:02 am

Won't be LD in my opinion and would be amazed if Tories won, so it would likely be a shoot out between Labour and the Brexit party. If Brexit and Tory both stand then Labour likely to win by default IMO.

# 10
TheFamilyCat
Posts: 4863
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 8:56 pm
Been Liked: 2603 times
Has Liked: 73 times

Re: Our next MP

Postby TheFamilyCat » Tue Sep 17, 2019 11:07 am

The danger is that the GE becomes a single-issue vote. Surely nobody in their right mind would vote for the Brexit Party for any other reason than Brexit.

# 11
Quickenthetempo
Posts: 8567
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 10:35 am
Been Liked: 1883 times
Has Liked: 1081 times

Re: Our next MP

Postby Quickenthetempo » Tue Sep 17, 2019 11:16 am

Depends on the turn out.

Most normal people believe their vote counts for little and of course they would be right, especially in these times of Brexit fiasco.

The Tories will never get in, so no point entering.

Labour have a historical support and the Asian community to rely on. Cooper is not very popular though.

Lib Dems will take a few votes away from Labour, especially if Gordon B runs.

Brexit party will romp home if the town turns out.

# 12
martin_p
Posts: 4796
Joined: Mon Jan 25, 2016 3:40 pm
Been Liked: 1647 times
Has Liked: 405 times

Re: Brexit: The Naked Truth

Postby martin_p » Tue Sep 17, 2019 11:24 am

Paul Waine wrote:Hi DA, martin and Lancs, I'm waiting on a station waiting for a train to work (I'm not req'd to get there by 9:00 these days) and listening to announcements about track-side fires and the usual "we are sorry that your journey will take longer than planned" messages

So, we've got time to speak about scenarios and planning.

I think we all know that scenarios are used in planning/modelling an event or events that you need to consider/plan for. It is common to define a base case. It is common to "flex" the base case to explore possible variations from the base case. It is reasonable to test "what if this is bigger/faster/higher or lower" and often you'd use per cent variations: 10% 20% and maybe more, if these variations are reasonable and meaningful.

I'm speaking very generally, the variations will always depend on what is being modelled. Of course, in this case we are talking of exploring and then planning responses to "no deal Brexit" and, I'd expect, modelling it on 31 October. (I think we can all agree the time of year is relevant for agricultural seasons, holiday plans, flu season and numerous other things).

So, you flex and probably "stress" these variables in your model.

But, you don't do this "ad infinitum" because it adds no value to planning your responses. You will always be working with a limited number of variations from the base case you've defined.

What names you give to your variations to your base case scenario should be meaningful, so that you can communicate the nature of the variations and, therefore, impacts and responses required to mitigate (or avoid) those impacts.

It's not meaningful to have a number of "worst" cases and, include an "actual worst case" - if that is what Lancs means and we are still speaking of planning for possible future events.

Similarly, the "realities" will only become real when the UK has left the EU - however, and whenever this happens.

Let's not get ourselves into the situation of the chicken who was warning that "the sky is falling." That was just a story used, back in the day, when we were learning to read.

It's been good to pass my journey time. My train is now arriving at my mainline central London station.

Enjoy the day everyone. Let's not worry about things we can effect. The sun is shining. Life is good!


You’re missing the point so spectacularly that you can only be trolling now. But just in case you aren’t I’ll summarise the point Lancaster made that you seem to be struggling with.

The Yellowhammer document released by the government was labelled ‘worse case scenario’. The very same document had been leaked to the press and sent to the Scottish government with the label ‘base case scenario’. The worry Lancaster was expressing is that the document released is in fact the base case scenario and that the document that actually represents a worse case scenario is still being kept from us. In summary, the government may be expecting the ‘worse case’ to be a lot worse than they are admitting.

# 13
Spijed
Posts: 9909
Joined: Mon Jan 18, 2016 12:33 pm
Been Liked: 1773 times
Has Liked: 776 times

Re: Our next MP

Postby Spijed » Tue Sep 17, 2019 11:38 am

Quickenthetempo wrote:Brexit party will romp home if the town turns out.


But surely that will only apply if we haven't left on/before 31st October.

If Boris somehow manages to fiddle a no-deal scenario then it'll revert back to Labour.

# 14
Devils_Advocate
Posts: 4286
Joined: Sun Oct 30, 2016 2:43 pm
Been Liked: 1471 times
Has Liked: 285 times

Re: Our next MP

Postby Devils_Advocate » Tue Sep 17, 2019 11:39 am

brexit wrote:We will probably have a general election before xmas.
I would like to solicit options on which party our next MP will be from with hopefully some reasoned argument. I think Burnley is a very interesting constituency we have returned a lib dem in the past, there is a hard core of labour voters but we helped return brexit MEP's

I know at some point this will descend into trolling but I genuinely believe there are some members of this message board who have valid insights.

Yes I know my handle is inflammatory but I am a libertarian and my sole reason for supporting brexit is I believe in a minimalist state.

Thought this was a good little topic and if kept sensible could have been really interesting. Now its been merged in here its got no chance which is a real shame

# 15
Quickenthetempo
Posts: 8567
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 10:35 am
Been Liked: 1883 times
Has Liked: 1081 times

Re: Our next MP

Postby Quickenthetempo » Tue Sep 17, 2019 11:43 am

Spijed wrote:But surely that will only apply if we haven't left on/before 31st October.

If Boris somehow manages to fiddle a no-deal scenario then it'll revert back to Labour.

That's a whole different scenario and i'm not sure if there will be a GE if Brexit gets done?

If we leave the EU and Labour get shut of Cooper I might go back to voting Labour, until then no chance.

# 16
dsr
Posts: 8483
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 12:47 pm
Been Liked: 2569 times
Has Liked: 1097 times

Re: Brexit: The Naked Truth

Postby dsr » Tue Sep 17, 2019 11:45 am

AndrewJB wrote:Tax is no more "taking your money" than the shopkeeper "took my money" for the milk I bought this morning, or the utilities companies "take our money" for supplying water or electricity. Tax is your subscription for society, and it's been many centuries since private tax collectors came to your house making up their own arbitrary rules.

For you to attack Corbyn on the subject of tax and government spending when Johnson has just invoked Magic Money Tree II - big spending increases, and tax giveaways - goes to show how deep rightwing propaganda runs. All Corbyn wants to do is return tax rates to what they were in 2010. Taxing those with the deepest pockets, who have enjoyed considerable tax favours since then (that have had no appreciable affect on the economy for everyone else). If you want real economic illiteracy, that is cutting government spending for people who need it the most, and handing out the savings to the richest. For capitalism to work well, money needs to be spread around, and as many people as possible need to be active consumers.

On schools, areas that have grammar schools have lower educational attainment overall than those areas (like mine) that don't have them. Schools in my borough have streams so that all students are challenged according to their abilities. Furthermore students can move between streams, or be in different streams according to their different abilities (stronger in some areas but not in others). Segregating students from age eleven on is medieval in comparison. Private schooling is even worse. Only seven percent of students come from private schools, yet are hugely over represented in the top universities and top jobs. Given that entrance to a private school is due to a parent's ability to pay, what private schools do is promote mediocrity while being an obstacle to the huge pool of talent within the remaining ninety-three percent of the population. This is why we've had two uninspiring PMs from the same schools within the last five years. We improve things for ordinary people by widening opportunity.

And if the milk seller took large amounts of extra money and gave me no more in return, I would object to that as well. Like I said, I have no objection to Corbyn's ideals, what I object to is that they will not work. Which brings me to your ideal of state education as it is today.

How is it logical to say that private education is promoting mediocrity while at the same time saying that people who are privately educated are hugely successful? The mediocre appears to be coming out of the state system. No general election has ever been won by a leader from a comprehensive school. Gordon Brown was the only PM from a comprehensive, and that was one with a highly selective "fast stream" for the brighter children. Grammar schools have plenty of PMs, comprehensives don't. It's a big risk to get rid of all the schools that are providing a good education for their pupils in the hopes that the other 93% will miraculously improve as if by osmosis.

Link for the "grammar school areas have lower educational attainment" claim? And even more interesting, I would like to see a link that provides evidence that in your borough "all students are challenged according to their abilities". One of the big knocks against modern-day education is that there is so little expectation in so many modern schools.

# 17
aggi
Posts: 4502
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 11:31 am
Been Liked: 1096 times

Re: Brexit: The Naked Truth

Postby aggi » Tue Sep 17, 2019 12:01 pm

RingoMcCartney wrote:Still waiting for a straight forward answer.

You, yourself in the above post admit that "Low income groups will be disproportionately affected by any price rises in food and fuel."

And I asked that, while we've been in the Common Market/ European Union , have the rising costs of food , fuel and goods , disproportionately affected low income groups?

Yes


Or


No?


I must have missed this earlier.

I'd say Yes. But that doesn't really seem a justification in my eyes for making it even worse.

I guess if your view is "these people are already suffering, we'll make it much worse" then that's fair enough but it's not one I agree with.

Whilst we're bringing up unanswered points, here's a few you've refused to answer:

Please explain why RBS, Lloyds, HBOS and various other had to divest themselves of various business groups, spin off into separate companies and set up a fund for their smaller competitors. You need to do this without mentioning the EU (as you claimed the EU said the bailout was fine so it can't be anything to do with them).

Please explain why me wanting us to leave the EU on something akin to May's deal whereas you stamped your foot and said no makes me the one who is refusing to respect the referendum and leave the EU (bear in mind that the referendum only referred to leaving the EU, not what the deal was, so vague comments about not really leaving are meaningless, we're talking facts here).

In the Dame Laura Cox inquiry please show where the QC responsible for the inquiry concluded, "The fish always rots from the head down"?

# 18
aggi
Posts: 4502
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 11:31 am
Been Liked: 1096 times

Re: Brexit: The Naked Truth

Postby aggi » Tue Sep 17, 2019 12:07 pm

RingoMcCartney wrote:Ok so just point me to which labour or Tory MP became an elected representative based on a 2017 manifesto pledge that stated they would stop the PM from being able to walk away from a bad deal and force him to request an extension?

Name one labour or Tory who was given an electoral mandate saying he/she were going to do that.


I'd say the Manifesto that said:
We will reject ‘no deal’ as a viable option and if needs be negotiate transitional arrangements to avoid a cliff-edge for the economy. definitely suggests that a lot of those MPs are against a no-deal exit.

Further to that though MPs, for better or worse, are elected as individuals as our representatives. On the surface you may be voting for a party, manifesto, a PM, etc but ultimately what you're voting for is someone to represent you as best as they see fit. That is where the mandate comes from.

# 19
aggi
Posts: 4502
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 11:31 am
Been Liked: 1096 times

Re: Brexit: The Naked Truth

Postby aggi » Tue Sep 17, 2019 12:08 pm

Paul Waine wrote:Hi aggi, I don't recall being the first to reference a murder - I believe I was only referring to the act of prorogation - and the English High Court's view on Miller #2 with respect to prorogation.


I've fallen into the trap of crap Brexit analogies. Next I'll be trying to liken Brexit to a football match or buying a car.

# 20
Clarets4me
Posts: 2632
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2016 9:31 pm
Been Liked: 1302 times
Has Liked: 536 times
Location: Ightenhill,Burnley

Re: Brexit: The Naked Truth

Postby Clarets4me » Tue Sep 17, 2019 12:11 pm

The post on the likely outcome of the Burnley Parliamentary seat is lost in this vast thread, and needs to go back to it's own thread ..

# 21
If it be your will
Posts: 1834
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2016 10:12 am
Been Liked: 446 times
Has Liked: 489 times

Re: Our next MP

Postby If it be your will » Tue Sep 17, 2019 12:22 pm

brexit wrote:We will probably have a general election before xmas.
I would like to solicit options on which party our next MP will be from with hopefully some reasoned argument. I think Burnley is a very interesting constituency we have returned a lib dem in the past, there is a hard core of labour voters but we helped return brexit MEP's

I know at some point this will descend into trolling but I genuinely believe there are some members of this message board who have valid insights.

Yes I know my handle is inflammatory but I am a libertarian and my sole reason for supporting brexit is I believe in a minimalist state.

I've been vaguely tempted to vote Brexit Party in the next GE, because I want to leave the EU, and because we've already voted to leave the EU. I don't like its rules. I'm a socialist.

Now it's difficult to know how many socialists would be willing to switch from Labour to Brexit Party for this reason - it's quite a leap for a left-winger. What I do know is talk of 'minimalist state' and the like will remind us exactly what we're dealing with when it comes to the Brexit Party: that they are basically extremist economic fruitcakes. My personal advice - if indeed you even want the socialist 'leave' vote - would be to leave all this sort of thing at home, and concentrate on the 'enacting democracy' message.
Last edited by If it be your will on Tue Sep 17, 2019 12:23 pm, edited 1 time in total.

# 22
aggi
Posts: 4502
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 11:31 am
Been Liked: 1096 times

Re: Brexit: The Naked Truth

Postby aggi » Tue Sep 17, 2019 12:22 pm

dsr wrote:And if the milk seller took large amounts of extra money and gave me no more in return, I would object to that as well. Like I said, I have no objection to Corbyn's ideals, what I object to is that they will not work. Which brings me to your ideal of state education as it is today.

How is it logical to say that private education is promoting mediocrity while at the same time saying that people who are privately educated are hugely successful? The mediocre appears to be coming out of the state system. No general election has ever been won by a leader from a comprehensive school. Gordon Brown was the only PM from a comprehensive, and that was one with a highly selective "fast stream" for the brighter children. Grammar schools have plenty of PMs, comprehensives don't. It's a big risk to get rid of all the schools that are providing a good education for their pupils in the hopes that the other 93% will miraculously improve as if by osmosis.

Link for the "grammar school areas have lower educational attainment" claim? And even more interesting, I would like to see a link that provides evidence that in your borough "all students are challenged according to their abilities". One of the big knocks against modern-day education is that there is so little expectation in so many modern schools.


I imagine this is the study
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10 ... 18.1443432

I would like to see a link that provides evidence that in your borough "all students are challenged according to their abilities". One of the big knocks against modern-day education is that there is so little expectation in so many modern schools.
I'd say it's up to you to provide a link to show this isn't true. From the teachers I know (at state schools) a large amount of work goes into ensuring bright pupils are challenged and, at least as KS2 level, this is reflected in pupils being pushed to achieve "greater depth" in the SATs.

It's a big risk to get rid of all the schools that are providing a good education for their pupils in the hopes that the other 93% will miraculously improve as if by osmosis.
I'd say the bigger question from the above would be why are only 7% of schools providing a good education.

# 23
dsr
Posts: 8483
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 12:47 pm
Been Liked: 2569 times
Has Liked: 1097 times

Re: Brexit: The Naked Truth

Postby dsr » Tue Sep 17, 2019 1:03 pm

aggi wrote:I imagine this is the study
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10 ... 18.1443432

I would like to see a link that provides evidence that in your borough "all students are challenged according to their abilities". One of the big knocks against modern-day education is that there is so little expectation in so many modern schools.
I'd say it's up to you to provide a link to show this isn't true. From the teachers I know (at state schools) a large amount of work goes into ensuring bright pupils are challenged and, at least as KS2 level, this is reflected in pupils being pushed to achieve "greater depth" in the SATs.

It's a big risk to get rid of all the schools that are providing a good education for their pupils in the hopes that the other 93% will miraculously improve as if by osmosis.
I'd say the bigger question from the above would be why are only 7% of schools providing a good education.

That's a very big question at the end. That study you link suggests that it's not the selective nature of grammar schools that makes them so successful and popular. So if it's something else, then what?

One thing the element of selection does is make the school have to be good. If it's a bad school, it will shut down for lack of pupils. That doesn't apply to comprehensives, and let's not deny that while there are very good comprehensives, there are also very bad ones. Perhaps if there was a greater element of competition for places, the bad schools would close automatically. Maybe there should be more schools, privately funded or otherwise, and let the bad ones go to the wall. Maybe if there was more parental choice, the schools would educate the children in the way the parents want and not the way the educational theorists want, and the fee paying schools would close for lack of support.

I certainly don't deny that teachers work very hard, though I'm sure that a lot of that work is pointless form filling and box ticking brought about by successive bad governments of all hues. But are they getting results? It seems to be accepted that the high potential children at fee paying or selective schools are doing vastly better than their peers at comprehensive schools. Why is that?

# 24
AndrewJB
Posts: 2010
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 7:20 pm
Been Liked: 795 times
Has Liked: 518 times

Re: Brexit: The Naked Truth

Postby AndrewJB » Tue Sep 17, 2019 1:31 pm

dsr wrote:And if the milk seller took large amounts of extra money and gave me no more in return, I would object to that as well. Like I said, I have no objection to Corbyn's ideals, what I object to is that they will not work. Which brings me to your ideal of state education as it is today.

How is it logical to say that private education is promoting mediocrity while at the same time saying that people who are privately educated are hugely successful? The mediocre appears to be coming out of the state system. No general election has ever been won by a leader from a comprehensive school. Gordon Brown was the only PM from a comprehensive, and that was one with a highly selective "fast stream" for the brighter children. Grammar schools have plenty of PMs, comprehensives don't. It's a big risk to get rid of all the schools that are providing a good education for their pupils in the hopes that the other 93% will miraculously improve as if by osmosis.

Link for the "grammar school areas have lower educational attainment" claim? And even more interesting, I would like to see a link that provides evidence that in your borough "all students are challenged according to their abilities". One of the big knocks against modern-day education is that there is so little expectation in so many modern schools.

You have no objection to Corbyn's ideals, but you don't think they can work? That's a conversation worth having right away.

I'm not saying that private schools provide low quality education. I've seen quite a few, and know a lot of people, including my partner and other close friends who have been through them (both here and in North America). Private schools have smaller class sizes (typically half the size of state schools), more intensive pastoral care, hugely more resourced in every area, and are almost always aesthetically pleasing. Private education promotes mediocrity by taking only seven percent of the population based on the ability of their parents to pay. So out of a hundred children, private schools don't even consider ninety-three - and if just three or four out of these ninety-three students are in the top seven of all one hundred academically, then about half the seven who go to private school are receiving an elite education that - if we were truly meritocratic - should go to someone else. Now I would bet that actually a lot more than just three or four children from the 93 who don't go to private school would get in were they to have their fees paid. So you see my problem is with the quality that goes in, coupled with the fact that once through, those people are given a massive leg up in our society. We know that intelligence and talent exist all across our society, from rich to poor, so why would we fish from such a shallow pond for people to step into our establishment and elite? Cameron and Johnson prove my point. Not only did they go to private school, but they went to the same one. When people talk about our establishment and politicians being out of touch, this is why. Those who are rich have a fast track conveyor belt straight to the top regardless of the fact they might not actually be smart enough, and despite not having any experience of life as lived by ordinary people.

The Attlee government did a brilliant job of creating a better Britain (or perhaps I should say making good ideology work), but in my opinion they fell short by not abolishing private education, and private healthcare.

For all educational comparatives look at the Fischer Family Trust website: https://fft.org.uk/ This is where I was shown comparisons of areas that have selective secondary and non selective secondary education.

# 25
dsr
Posts: 8483
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 12:47 pm
Been Liked: 2569 times
Has Liked: 1097 times

Re: Brexit: The Naked Truth

Postby dsr » Tue Sep 17, 2019 1:48 pm

AndrewJB wrote:You have no objection to Corbyn's ideals, but you don't think they can work? That's a conversation worth having right away.

I'm not saying that private schools provide low quality education. I've seen quite a few, and know a lot of people, including my partner and other close friends who have been through them (both here and in North America). Private schools have smaller class sizes (typically half the size of state schools), more intensive pastoral care, hugely more resourced in every area, and are almost always aesthetically pleasing. Private education promotes mediocrity by taking only seven percent of the population based on the ability of their parents to pay. So out of a hundred children, private schools don't even consider ninety-three - and if just three or four out of these ninety-three students are in the top seven of all one hundred academically, then about half the seven who go to private school are receiving an elite education that - if we were truly meritocratic - should go to someone else. Now I would bet that actually a lot more than just three or four children from the 93 who don't go to private school would get in were they to have their fees paid. So you see my problem is with the quality that goes in, coupled with the fact that once through, those people are given a massive leg up in our society. We know that intelligence and talent exist all across our society, from rich to poor, so why would we fish from such a shallow pond for people to step into our establishment and elite? Cameron and Johnson prove my point. Not only did they go to private school, but they went to the same one. When people talk about our establishment and politicians being out of touch, this is why. Those who are rich have a fast track conveyor belt straight to the top regardless of the fact they might not actually be smart enough, and despite not having any experience of life as lived by ordinary people.

The Attlee government did a brilliant job of creating a better Britain (or perhaps I should say making good ideology work), but in my opinion they fell short by not abolishing private education, and private healthcare.

For all educational comparatives look at the Fischer Family Trust website: https://fft.org.uk/ This is where I was shown comparisons of areas that have selective secondary and non selective secondary education.

So rather than close the fast track to the top, why not expand it? Make more schools like the school Corbyn went too, but free schools, not fee paying.

My particular school (QEGS) didn't have smaller class sizes than state schools, and pastoral care was negligible (parents' job to provide that). The staff probably had fewer forms to fill in and more time for extra-curricular activities, I dare say. Aesthetically pleasing is probably a red herring - perhaps there is evidence among state schools about whether the school being shiny and new (or old and elegantly weathered) makes it a better school?

Is it fair that some parents have more money than others? No. Would it be a good thing to prevent some parents having more money than others? No. There are worse things than unfairness. I am very much in favour of children getting the best education possible, but if some children aren't getting the best education possible, I don't think that withdrawing that education from the rest so they all get an equally bad (or mediocre) education will help either the rich child, or the poor child, or the country.

# 26
Devils_Advocate
Posts: 4286
Joined: Sun Oct 30, 2016 2:43 pm
Been Liked: 1471 times
Has Liked: 285 times

Re: Brexit: The Naked Truth

Postby Devils_Advocate » Tue Sep 17, 2019 1:57 pm

dsr wrote:So rather than close the fast track to the top, why not expand it?


The more you post DSR the more you remind me of this guy

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0fH9E4TfZLM

# 27
bobinho
Posts: 4184
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 7:48 pm
Been Liked: 1742 times
Has Liked: 2554 times
Location: Burnley

Re: Brexit: The Naked Truth

Postby bobinho » Tue Sep 17, 2019 2:12 pm

In response to the now merged MP thread, I don’t know who it will be....

But I hope the 66-67% of the town who voted for brexit remember that their current MP has done everything she can to scupper it and follow her own agenda. She’s an absolute disgrace, and I hope people remember that she’s put herself before her constituents come the GE. I know I will.

# 28
martin_p
Posts: 4796
Joined: Mon Jan 25, 2016 3:40 pm
Been Liked: 1647 times
Has Liked: 405 times

Re: Brexit: The Naked Truth

Postby martin_p » Tue Sep 17, 2019 2:17 pm

bobinho wrote:In response to the now merged MP thread, I don’t know who it will be....

But I hope the 66-67% of the town who voted for brexit remember that their current MP has done everything she can to scupper it and follow her own agenda. She’s an absolute disgrace, and I hope people remember that she’s put herself before her constituents come the GE. I know I will.


I hope people remember she’s voted consistently according to the Labour manifesto she was elected on.

# 29
bobinho
Posts: 4184
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 7:48 pm
Been Liked: 1742 times
Has Liked: 2554 times
Location: Burnley

Re: Brexit: The Naked Truth

Postby bobinho » Tue Sep 17, 2019 2:31 pm

Do you think that she was elected in Burnley because people read and understood the Labour Party manifesto?

# 30
TheFamilyCat
Posts: 4863
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 8:56 pm
Been Liked: 2603 times
Has Liked: 73 times

Re: Brexit: The Naked Truth

Postby TheFamilyCat » Tue Sep 17, 2019 2:39 pm

bobinho wrote:Do you think that she was elected in Burnley because people read and understood the Labour Party manifesto?


Sadly, probably not. Too many people vote for the party they think they should vote for rather than the one which will serve them best. Although, in this case trying to stop Brexit is in the best interest of her constituents.

# 31
bobinho
Posts: 4184
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 7:48 pm
Been Liked: 1742 times
Has Liked: 2554 times
Location: Burnley

Re: Brexit: The Naked Truth

Postby bobinho » Tue Sep 17, 2019 2:44 pm

On your first point, I agree. I have carried out my own straw poll and my labour voting mates voted for her because “well, she’s labour isn’t she and it’s the party of the working class”.

None of them had read any part of the manifesto. I suspect they aren’t in the minority.

Your last point, conjecture. We still don’t know, no-one does.

# 32
taio
Posts: 4951
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 9:17 am
Been Liked: 1462 times
Has Liked: 135 times

Re: Brexit: The Naked Truth

Postby taio » Tue Sep 17, 2019 2:49 pm

Cooper clearly hasn't represented her constituents on Brexit. Also on local matters I can't think of a single positive thing she's done for the town.

# 33
martin_p
Posts: 4796
Joined: Mon Jan 25, 2016 3:40 pm
Been Liked: 1647 times
Has Liked: 405 times

Re: Brexit: The Naked Truth

Postby martin_p » Tue Sep 17, 2019 2:54 pm

taio wrote:Cooper clearly hasn't represented her constituents on Brexit. Also on local matters I can't think of a single positive thing she's done for the town.


Is there a majority for a no deal Brexit in Burnley?

# 34
taio
Posts: 4951
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 9:17 am
Been Liked: 1462 times
Has Liked: 135 times

Re: Brexit: The Naked Truth

Postby taio » Tue Sep 17, 2019 3:05 pm

martin_p wrote:Is there a majority for a no deal Brexit in Burnley?


Don't know do you?

# 35
martin_p
Posts: 4796
Joined: Mon Jan 25, 2016 3:40 pm
Been Liked: 1647 times
Has Liked: 405 times

Re: Brexit: The Naked Truth

Postby martin_p » Tue Sep 17, 2019 3:08 pm

taio wrote:Don't know do you?


Nope, but I’m not the one claiming she hasn’t represented her constituents on Brexit. She’s followed the Labour whip in rejecting no deal, how do you know that’s not what the people of Burnley want?

# 36
taio
Posts: 4951
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 9:17 am
Been Liked: 1462 times
Has Liked: 135 times

Re: Brexit: The Naked Truth

Postby taio » Tue Sep 17, 2019 3:16 pm

martin_p wrote:Nope, but I’m not the one claiming she hasn’t represented her constituents on Brexit. She’s followed the Labour whip in rejecting no deal, how do you know that’s not what the people of Burnley want?


If she represented her constituents her decision making would have and will going forward reflect that a big majority want to leave the EU. Do you honestly believe that has happened or will happen? Can you also highlight a single positive thing she's done for the town as MP?

# 37
martin_p
Posts: 4796
Joined: Mon Jan 25, 2016 3:40 pm
Been Liked: 1647 times
Has Liked: 405 times

Re: Brexit: The Naked Truth

Postby martin_p » Tue Sep 17, 2019 3:22 pm

taio wrote:If she represented her constituents her decision making would have and will going forward reflect that a big majority want to leave the EU. Do you honestly believe that has happened or will happen? Can you also highlight a single positive thing she's done for the town as MP?


Helped to stop a no deal Brexit.

# 38
taio
Posts: 4951
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 9:17 am
Been Liked: 1462 times
Has Liked: 135 times

Re: Brexit: The Naked Truth

Postby taio » Tue Sep 17, 2019 3:22 pm

martin_p wrote:Helped to stop a no deal Brexit.


:lol:

# 39
Elizabeth
Posts: 422
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 12:13 am
Been Liked: 141 times
Has Liked: 106 times

Re: Brexit: The Naked Truth

Postby Elizabeth » Tue Sep 17, 2019 3:30 pm

How can someone have helped to stop something that could still happen.

I think you mean she has helped weaken the PMs hand in negotiations with the EU.

# 40
Lancasterclaret
Posts: 15356
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 2:09 pm
Been Liked: 4964 times
Has Liked: 2813 times
Location: Riding the galactic winds in my X-wing

Re: Our next MP

Postby Lancasterclaret » Tue Sep 17, 2019 4:00 pm

If it be your will wrote:I've been vaguely tempted to vote Brexit Party in the next GE, because I want to leave the EU, and because we've already voted to leave the EU. I don't like its rules. I'm a socialist.

Now it's difficult to know how many socialists would be willing to switch from Labour to Brexit Party for this reason - it's quite a leap for a left-winger. What I do know is talk of 'minimalist state' and the like will remind us exactly what we're dealing with when it comes to the Brexit Party: that they are basically extremist economic fruitcakes. My personal advice - if indeed you even want the socialist 'leave' vote - would be to leave all this sort of thing at home, and concentrate on the 'enacting democracy' message.


I hope after his post that would stop any socialist voting for the Brexit Party
This user liked this post: longsidepies

# 41
summitclaret
Posts: 2360
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 12:39 pm
Been Liked: 446 times
Has Liked: 709 times
Location: burnley

Re: Brexit: The Naked Truth

Postby summitclaret » Tue Sep 17, 2019 4:24 pm

bobinho wrote:In response to the now merged MP thread, I don’t know who it will be....

But I hope the 66-67% of the town who voted for brexit remember that their current MP has done everything she can to scupper it and follow her own agenda. She’s an absolute disgrace, and I hope people remember that she’s put herself before her constituents come the GE. I know I will.


She was on Sunday politics last week arguing for a deal. So its about time she voted for one. If there is a credible one and she bottles it then she is toast. Anyway if you want to leave its has to be a brexit party vote in burnley. Can see the tories and lib dems ( they are neither) losing their deposits.

# 42
AndrewJB
Posts: 2010
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 7:20 pm
Been Liked: 795 times
Has Liked: 518 times

Re: Brexit: The Naked Truth

Postby AndrewJB » Tue Sep 17, 2019 4:36 pm

taio wrote:If she represented her constituents her decision making would have and will going forward reflect that a big majority want to leave the EU. Do you honestly believe that has happened or will happen? Can you also highlight a single positive thing she's done for the town as MP?

Why do you blame her that brexit hasn't happened yet, when the blame lies squarely with the government?
This user liked this post: longsidepies

# 43
aggi
Posts: 4502
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 11:31 am
Been Liked: 1096 times

Re: Brexit: The Naked Truth

Postby aggi » Tue Sep 17, 2019 4:43 pm

I guess this is better than your average Brexit analogy.

Image

(Please also note that it's not a milkshake that is thrown so no need for people to worry.)

# 44
aggi
Posts: 4502
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 11:31 am
Been Liked: 1096 times

Re: Brexit: The Naked Truth

Postby aggi » Tue Sep 17, 2019 5:01 pm

dsr wrote:That's a very big question at the end. That study you link suggests that it's not the selective nature of grammar schools that makes them so successful and popular. So if it's something else, then what?

One thing the element of selection does is make the school have to be good. If it's a bad school, it will shut down for lack of pupils. That doesn't apply to comprehensives, and let's not deny that while there are very good comprehensives, there are also very bad ones. Perhaps if there was a greater element of competition for places, the bad schools would close automatically. Maybe there should be more schools, privately funded or otherwise, and let the bad ones go to the wall. Maybe if there was more parental choice, the schools would educate the children in the way the parents want and not the way the educational theorists want, and the fee paying schools would close for lack of support.

I certainly don't deny that teachers work very hard, though I'm sure that a lot of that work is pointless form filling and box ticking brought about by successive bad governments of all hues. But are they getting results? It seems to be accepted that the high potential children at fee paying or selective schools are doing vastly better than their peers at comprehensive schools. Why is that?


Well I haven't read it in detail but it's initial point seemed to be that that it was, in part, the selective nature. If you take the highest achieving pupils and take an under-representative proportion of those with SENs, from disadvantaged backgrounds, with English as a second language, etc then the school, in total, will perform better than those with a mix of abilities. However, the high achieving pupils as individuals don't perform better in the grammar school compared to the non-selective.

Perhaps if there was a greater element of competition for places, the bad schools would close automatically. I'm assuming you don't have children that have recently gone to secondary school. There are plenty of children who don't get into any of the five (I think it's five) schools they apply for. If the bad schools closed where would these pupils go? It's not like there are a load of under-subscribed good schools out there? Do we really want the situation where public schools are shutting down to be replaced by fee paying schools?

But are they getting results? Well, as I said above it's much easier to get results when you are starting with a good cohort of pupils. Added to that is the huge difference in resources. I walked past a private school the other day that, as part of its extensive sports facilities, had 8 Eton Fives courts. Not far from there is a school that has to have its breaks in two shifts and the kids aren't allowed to run in the yard because it's too small.

# 45
Lowbankclaret
Posts: 1989
Joined: Sun Jan 03, 2016 4:42 pm
Been Liked: 382 times
Has Liked: 29 times

Re: Brexit: The Naked Truth

Postby Lowbankclaret » Tue Sep 17, 2019 5:07 pm

Cooper gets pelters on social media every time anything she appears in an article.

Last two elections I voted for her due to the Labour Party saying they would support the will of the people.

I like many who know who voted for her will never again.
Predicting who might is so difficult.

Party
Labour
Julie Cooper Votes18,832 header_vote_share46.7 Net percentage change in seats+9.1
Party
Conservative
Paul White Votes12,479 header_vote_share31.0 Net percentage change in seats+17.5
Party
Liberal Democrat
Gordon Birtwistle Votes6,046 header_vote_share15.0 Net percentage change in seats-14.4
Party
UKIP
Tom Commis Votes2,472 header_vote_share6.1 Net percentage change in seats-11.1


Brexit Party would need to take 35-40% of both Labours vote and the Tories and most of the UKIP vote to prevail.

The hope would be to attract the Labour leave vote and hope some Tories vote tactically.

Will not be easy at all.

# 46
aggi
Posts: 4502
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 11:31 am
Been Liked: 1096 times

Re: Brexit: The Naked Truth

Postby aggi » Tue Sep 17, 2019 5:15 pm

I quoted it for Ringo above but given some of the posts above re: Julie Cooper it's probably worth reiterating the Labour policy on Brexit in 2017:

We will reject ‘no deal’ as a viable option and if needs be negotiate transitional arrangements to avoid a cliff-edge for the economy.

Anyone complaining that she didn't vote for a no-deal Brexit really only has themself to blame if they voted for her. This wasn't a secret, it was a public document that was covered in all of the major news outlets.

# 47
dsr
Posts: 8483
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 12:47 pm
Been Liked: 2569 times
Has Liked: 1097 times

Re: Brexit: The Naked Truth

Postby dsr » Tue Sep 17, 2019 5:35 pm

aggi wrote:Well I haven't read it in detail but it's initial point seemed to be that that it was, in part, the selective nature. If you take the highest achieving pupils and take an under-representative proportion of those with SENs, from disadvantaged backgrounds, with English as a second language, etc then the school, in total, will perform better than those with a mix of abilities. However, the high achieving pupils as individuals don't perform better in the grammar school compared to the non-selective.

Perhaps if there was a greater element of competition for places, the bad schools would close automatically. I'm assuming you don't have children that have recently gone to secondary school. There are plenty of children who don't get into any of the five (I think it's five) schools they apply for. If the bad schools closed where would these pupils go? It's not like there are a load of under-subscribed good schools out there? Do we really want the situation where public schools are shutting down to be replaced by fee paying schools?

But are they getting results? Well, as I said above it's much easier to get results when you are starting with a good cohort of pupils. Added to that is the huge difference in resources. I walked past a private school the other day that, as part of its extensive sports facilities, had 8 Eton Fives courts. Not far from there is a school that has to have its breaks in two shifts and the kids aren't allowed to run in the yard because it's too small.

I believe that it costs about £6k per child per year to run a state school. So make it easier to run schools. Let private individuals, companies, charities, run schools much more easily, and let the government pay the fees by way of vouchers. An average class of 20 could raise £100k per annum, enough to pay a full time teacher and have a fair bit of cash for other expenses. Let the facilities take second place to a work ethos, to discipline, to tolerance, to a smaller school perhaps where everyone knows everyone (especially - all the teachers know all the pupils) rather than the ginormous sausage factories that are currently in vogue. A school of 200 pupils, two classes of 20 per year, say 14 full time teachers plus a head, income £1m per year. Commercial? Possibly. Look at this sort of thing. Look at big schools, small schools, parent-run schools. Above all, look at keeping the Education Authorities out of them and let the parents be the ultimate arbiters. If schools are popular with parents, let them fly. The more involved the parents are, the better.

And if the vastly rich FA could be persuaded to spend say 10% of its annual income, which means more than £200m per year, on school playing fields and other school infrastructure (to replace the playing fields that have been scandalously sold by governments of all colours), so much the better.

# 48
Quickenthetempo
Posts: 8567
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 10:35 am
Been Liked: 1883 times
Has Liked: 1081 times

Re: Brexit: The Naked Truth

Postby Quickenthetempo » Tue Sep 17, 2019 5:38 pm

Lowbankclaret wrote:Cooper gets pelters on social media every time anything she appears in an article.

Last two elections I voted for her due to the Labour Party saying they would support the will of the people.

I like many who know who voted for her will never again.
Predicting who might is so difficult.

Party
Labour
Julie Cooper Votes18,832 header_vote_share46.7 Net percentage change in seats+9.1
Party
Conservative
Paul White Votes12,479 header_vote_share31.0 Net percentage change in seats+17.5
Party
Liberal Democrat
Gordon Birtwistle Votes6,046 header_vote_share15.0 Net percentage change in seats-14.4
Party
UKIP
Tom Commis Votes2,472 header_vote_share6.1 Net percentage change in seats-11.1


Brexit Party would need to take 35-40% of both Labours vote and the Tories and most of the UKIP vote to prevail.

The hope would be to attract the Labour leave vote and hope some Tories vote tactically.

Will not be easy at all.

All UKIP councillors in the area have moved over to the Brexit party.

# 49
Clarets4me
Posts: 2632
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2016 9:31 pm
Been Liked: 1302 times
Has Liked: 536 times
Location: Ightenhill,Burnley

Re: Brexit: The Naked Truth

Postby Clarets4me » Tue Sep 17, 2019 5:40 pm

Here's my thoughts ...

The Labour party will probably still win, with a much reduced majority. Their core Asian heritage vote will hold up, but they will lose votes from strong Remainers, due to their obfuscation over Brexit. These will go to the Lib Dems, with some other voters plumping for the Greens, especially from Trinity ward, where they have two good local Councillors who campaign well.

If we've not left the EU, the Conservatives will lose large numbers of votes ( from 2017 ) to the Brexit party, and would probably finish 4th behind the Lib-Dems & the Brexit party. There are still a substantial number of people in Burnley who wouldn't vote Tory as long as they had a hole in their bottom, even if a cross between Mother Theresa and Jimmy McIlroy were the Conservative candidate.

The Lib-Dems would finish third with Gordon Birtwistle standing, attracting strong Remainers from Labour as above. However, his election in 2010, was down to some tactical voting from Conservatives, and a strong number of " anybody but Labour " votes. This second group now has other options, Greens, Brexit party and the Burnley & Padiham Independents ( If they do stand, as they say they will ).

The Brexit party would finish 2nd, attracting most if not all of the UKIP vote ( busted flush ), Tory leavers, Leavers who voted L/D in 2010 and some of the socially-conservative ex Labour voters and most ex-servicemen amongst others ..

So ... Labour, Brexit Party, Lib Dems, Conservative, Green, BPIP, UKIP in that order ..

However, if we have formally left the EU by the time of the next general election, then who knows ? :? :?

# 50
AndrewJB
Posts: 2010
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 7:20 pm
Been Liked: 795 times
Has Liked: 518 times

Re: Brexit: The Naked Truth

Postby AndrewJB » Tue Sep 17, 2019 6:09 pm

dsr wrote:So rather than close the fast track to the top, why not expand it? Make more schools like the school Corbyn went too, but free schools, not fee paying.

My particular school (QEGS) didn't have smaller class sizes than state schools, and pastoral care was negligible (parents' job to provide that). The staff probably had fewer forms to fill in and more time for extra-curricular activities, I dare say. Aesthetically pleasing is probably a red herring - perhaps there is evidence among state schools about whether the school being shiny and new (or old and elegantly weathered) makes it a better school?

Is it fair that some parents have more money than others? No. Would it be a good thing to prevent some parents having more money than others? No. There are worse things than unfairness. I am very much in favour of children getting the best education possible, but if some children aren't getting the best education possible, I don't think that withdrawing that education from the rest so they all get an equally bad (or mediocre) education will help either the rich child, or the poor child, or the country.

You're missing my point in quite a big way. Firstly, what is private education for? It is so people with money can guarantee conferring a massive advantage onto their children. This goes well beyond fairness to actual quality. A country's elite - the top judges, the captains of industry, the top civil servants, and so on - is going to best serve the country when it is diverse, and made up of people from all kinds of backgrounds. An elite that predominates from the richest echelon of society will only be able to see life through the narrow prism of its own experience. We should have an elite that broadly mirrors the society it comes from - because that range of experience brings greater balance to the direction the elite take as a whole.

People who are snobs, and those who believe people should "know and stay in their place" won't like this, but if we want a democratic society, that diversity is a noble goal. As an example, the reason the Royal Navy was so much more effective than the army back a few hundred years ago, is because in the army you could buy a commission, whereas with the navy you had to earn your promotions.

And it's not about having some sort of lowest common denominator school everyone goes to. If there were no private schools anymore, state schools would find themselves being funded more. If you wanted to keep some sort of elite school like Eton - why not make entry to it based on a broad range of criteria, open to everyone and free at point of use? That would soon bring the snobs out of the woodwork, because for more than a few of them sending their children to private school also means keeping them away from ordinary children.


Return to “The Bee Hole End”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Barry_Chuckle, CleggHall, conyoviejo, dsr, Mala591, MSN [Bot], nuttersuclan, PJMOZ, Quickenthetempo, Stan Tastic and 111 guests