With God on our side?

[Thorpe Groyney]

Just out of interest, how many people have you met that are associated with Ed Miliband, and how similar are their views to his? It seems, from an outsider's viewpoint, that the contrary is the case, as not even his own brother thinks the same way he does.

 

[canveyshrimper]

Do you want a pint on it or loser pays a fiver to SZ? :unsure:
While Ed is a problem Labour are doing well in the polls and they should do even better as the cuts(and protests)start to kick in.

Yes, I'll take that although I prefer a pint going down my neck, and SZ won't benefit for nearly 4 years. Labour may well be doing well in the polls, but they didn't do well in the recent local elections.

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

Yes, I'll take that although I prefer a pint going down my neck, and SZ won't benefit for nearly 4 years. Labour may well be doing well in the polls, but they didn't do well in the recent local elections.

I'm sure Shrimpero will stump up over the weekend.Say hello to him(and Mrs S)from me.(If Easyjet had been up and running I'd have quite fancied coming over for the Leigh Folk Festival).:cheers:

 

[canveyshrimper]

I'm sure Shrimpero will stump up over the weekend.Say hello to him(and Mrs S)from me.(If Easyjet had been up and running I'd have quite fancied coming over for the Leigh Folk Festival).:cheers:

I'm ever hopeful of that. Will be meeting up tomorrow afternoon.

 

[milhouse]

Labour will win the next General election.You heard it here first.:thumbsup:

Hmmm, the way it looks now, I doubt it, so disagree, But four years is a hell of a long time so who can tell. Anyone who thinks that they can tell a general election four years in advance is wrong (aside from random chance) is clearly not wrong. Nobody can foretell the vagary of politics to that degree any more than anyone can predict the likely weather in May 2015 (although an overall majority to the Lib Dems is unlikely then, just like snow storms and drifting are also unlikely).

Agree with Neil F though where he refers to a 'core vote' strategy. Always doomed to failure much like William Hague in 2002.

 

[osymandus]

I have a friend from university whose politics are somewhat different to mine. It would be fair to say that I am his only friend that doesn't think the same way he does.

He also thinks that Labour will win the next election because there will be public outrage caused by the economic programme and public service reform. The problem with his analysis is that he is confusing "the public" with people he knows and associates with.

The Conservatives (and to a lesser extent the Lib Dems) clearly sign posted their economic agenda in the general election. The Conservative manifesto included the reforming agendas on school and welfare (worked on by Gove and IDS respectively for three years before the election). None of this was a secret and these are the three major planks of the government's agenda.

If people were so viscerally opposed then how did the Conservativeshave become the largest part in the Commons?

Yes, union members will mobilise hundreds of thousands on the streets, but so what? These people always vote Labour (it is in their financial interest to do so) but they are on the wrong side of the argument. Protesting against sensible pension changes when the public sector already have a pay premium and a pension system vastly out of step with the private sector isn't going to garner any support outside of their narrow interest group.

If the coalition government deliver sustained growth and eliminate the budget deficit by 2015 as well as improving schools (for parents and pupils, not teachers) and reducing welfare dependency then the Conservatives will probably win, especially given boundary changes. This becomes more likely if the Labour leadership continues its vapid strategy of "do, nothing, say nothing."

I suspect that Ed Miliband also thinks that he can win on the strength of the government's unpopularity, but then, like my friend from university, he has only every associated with people that think the same way as he does.

Surprisingly I agree with most of these points ... except the bold . It's funny people should feel they know how education should be run , yet don;t make the same arguments for garages , hospitals or pharmaceutics firm's .

The issues of education over the years have been caused by implication of political agenda to the national curriculum , not always what is best for students. Very few educators while have recognised what you have said there.

 

[Neil_F]

It's funny people should feel they know how education should be run , yet don;t make the same arguments for garages , hospitals or pharmaceutics firm's .

This is a caricature of the shockingly named and communicated "Big Society". I am not suggesting that parents should takeover the management of the education system, just as I don't believe that patients should discover their own drug treatments. I'm talking about orientating public services such that they are run for the benefit of users not producers.

Let's use the analogy of a garage. My car needs servicing so I research the best garage to take it to. Perhaps I'll consult friends, compare price etc. Would I be happy to to be told I had to take my car to a certain garage, even if everyone knew they ripped you off and didn't fix your car? That is what currently happens in our education system. I'm merely proposing the extending the choice we have in garages to schools.

 

[osymandus]

This is a caricature of the shockingly named and communicated "Big Society". I am not suggesting that parents should takeover the management of the education system, just as I don't believe that patients should discover their own drug treatments. I'm talking about orientating public services such that they are run for the benefit of users not producers.

Let's use the analogy of a garage. My car needs servicing so I research the best garage to take it to. Perhaps I'll consult friends, compare price etc. Would I be happy to to be told I had to take my car to a certain garage, even if everyone knew they ripped you off and didn't fix your car? That is what currently happens in our education system. I'm merely proposing the extending the choice we have in garages to schools.

Phew ;) . However I would say i feel that s the problem , that phrase belongs to a customer facing service group . Educational systems are not and should never be categorised or run as such . They need to be removed from that mentality and be funded to educate the individuals involved.

I would disagree with that analogy as they only reason this less service has come about is the idea that education is better (im am being simplistic ) they more you pay for it , when it is very much down to both the ability of teachers and the capacity of individual students . A concept that does not fit very well with the simplistic for money concept . Primarly your analogy is about a binary concept (engineered products can be like that ) , humans simply are not logical or manufactured in that way.

How many of us here worked and prospered under one type of student yet had friends that did not ? Does they fact they produced maybe 1 or 2 excellent students degrade their work ?

 

[Neil_F]

Your argument supports a move to a diverse provision of educational services rather than the comprehensive model i.e. a choice.

I didn't mention funding at any point (I used the exaple of cost competition for the garage because that may be a differentiating factor in that sector. The differentiator in education won't be price because the user isn't directly meeting the cost, but quality).

I think we've tested to destruction the theory that more money equals better schools. The continual plummet down the international league tables and declining skills as measured by employers is evidence enough. What is required is greater competition in the system and the ability to take bad schools out of the system

 

[osymandus]

Your argument supports a move to a diverse provision of educational services rather than the comprehensive model i.e. a choice.

I didn't mention funding at any point (I used the exaple of cost competition for the garage because that may be a differentiating factor in that sector. The differentiator in education won't be price because the user isn't directly meeting the cost, but quality).

I think we've tested to destruction the theory that more money equals better schools. The continual plummet down the international league tables and declining skills as measured by employers is evidence enough. What is required is greater competition in the system and the ability to take bad schools out of the system

No it doesn't it goes toward an educational system based on the individual's Assessment then gives people the (or parents ) to take this choice or go else where . It looks like that under the current model but as IMHO it is inherently flawed for the provision of education as education is an on-going system , not a one off purchase that can be decide by a short term view.

Well you have to talk about funding in education , but no the money doesn't show that it equates with better educational standards as the recent example of Anglia university being compared to Dutch Universities on the global university ranking (even before the price rises over here ) showed it was a better educated by the current standard).

Also a University lectrer friend of mine points out its not what their taught but how , the buisness feed back they receive (which universities do receive on a yearly basis) is they want more individuals with their own thoughts and ideas , not the mass produced unquestioning brigade they currently recieve (which has little to do with funding and more the ideology of the current countries politics on education)

We take our own Gove believes totally in the 3 R's . However the high instances in Dyslexia would precluded certain intellegent students from progressing as the system is biased against them (as an example if Churchill or Branson were at school with those ideas they also would be penalised (yes historical they were privately educated )).

 

[Neil_F]

No it doesn't it goes toward an educational system based on the individual's Assessment then gives people the (or parents ) to take this choice or go else where . It looks like that under the current model but as IMHO it is inherently flawed for the provision of education as education is an on-going system , not a one off purchase that can be decide by a short term view.

So what are you advocating exactly if you don't want any elements or competition or choice in the system?

Also a University lectrer friend of mine points out its not what their taught but how , the buisness feed back they receive (which universities do receive on a yearly basis) is they want more individuals with their own thoughts and ideas

I agree with this point, but I was more focussed on secondary education. In my previous job I was responsible for a lot of new joiners straight from school. These were people with three A-Levels (all C grade and above) but didn't go on to university (most of them informed me it was out of choice rather than not getting a place).

They came into a multi-national firm to learn a technical discipline (tax accounting) and gain a professional qualification. Over two years I managed 13 of them. 11 of them couldn't construct a basic paragraph and 10 of them didn't have basic mathematical skills. I spent a lot of time correcting reports and emails before they could be sent anywhere and even had to run some maths classes to get them up to speed.

To this day I just don't understand it. English was their first language and they all had 3 A-Levels at C or above. Is anyone able to explain it to me?

 

[osymandus]

So what are you advocating exactly if you don't want any elements or competition or choice in the system?



I agree with this point, but I was more focussed on secondary education. In my previous job I was responsible for a lot of new joiners straight from school. These were people with three A-Levels (all C grade and above) but didn't go on to university (most of them informed me it was out of choice rather than not getting a place).

They came into a multi-national firm to learn a technical discipline (tax accounting) and gain a professional qualification. Over two years I managed 13 of them. 11 of them couldn't construct a basic paragraph and 10 of them didn't have basic mathematical skills. I spent a lot of time correcting reports and emails before they could be sent anywhere and even had to run some maths classes to get them up to speed.

To this day I just don't understand it. English was there first language and they all had 3 A-Levels at C or above. Is anyone able to explain it to me?

Im not advocating no choice , what i am advocating is that the current commercial style of competition would be ridiculous . It's about selling more items then your competitors , problem is the stock of education is ... Children. You refine and market your product . You really want that ?

My friend replies the very same thing , by University time its nigh impossible to alter this . However to do so in secondary education you would have to look at children again on an individual level reduce class sizes , and possible have children of all social strater and teachers from any background to do so . I.e not run it as a normal business model.

Yes the system they passed through most likely failed, however what were their individual criteria ? Did some of them posses learning difficulties (you taught them so they found the right teacher), were their examination boards at fault or the colleges or 6th form . There arnt simple answers to this and i fear if we decided that what looks logical and ordered will again be only have the solution.

 

[Yorkshire Blue]

So what are you advocating exactly if you don't want any elements or competition or choice in the system?



I agree with this point, but I was more focussed on secondary education. In my previous job I was responsible for a lot of new joiners straight from school. These were people with three A-Levels (all C grade and above) but didn't go on to university (most of them informed me it was out of choice rather than not getting a place).

They came into a multi-national firm to learn a technical discipline (tax accounting) and gain a professional qualification. Over two years I managed 13 of them. 11 of them couldn't construct a basic paragraph and 10 of them didn't have basic mathematical skills. I spent a lot of time correcting reports and emails before they could be sent anywhere and even had to run some maths classes to get them up to speed.

To this day I just don't understand it. English was there first language and they all had 3 A-Levels at C or above. Is anyone able to explain it to me?

Maybe it is contagious?:winking:

You have my symapthy though as I know that feeling all too well.

 

[Neil_F]

I knew I would do that - edited to avoid further shame!

 

[Gremlin]

Maybe it is contagious?:winking:

You have my symapthy though as I know that feeling all too well.

Very good.