Politics

[Kevin S. Assilleekunt 1]

Some people outside of Britain seem to think it's inevitable in such a small country there's going to be the kind of situation we have now with Eton/Oxbridge. How do you like them apples?

 

I took the 11+ and the majority of my schooling was geared towards getting good marks on it at that age. One of the primary goals of education should be to stimulate further interest in the subjects, rather than to train for a set exam imo.

Edited January 27, 2011 by Kevin S. Assilleekunt

[Matt 0]

While an elected body requires a level of intelligence often badly lacking on the benches, it also requires deep understanding of the workings of our society on all levels. That cannot be acheived with a group drawn from such a narrow range of life experiences.

[Christmas Tree 4679]

See the bold bit, CT? Go to the next sentence for a better summary

 

Aye, I see all of that. I was just trying to get out of Renton what his main gripe was after watching the programme.

 

Is it that he doesnt want the brightest running the country?

 

Does he think Thatcher was more caring because she didnt go to Eton?

 

Would he like to see more of Prescotts ilk at it?

 

Probably (just guessing) the biggest percentage of adults never made it to grammar school? Is he saying they should be running it because they are more representative of the majority?

 

Just trying for a one sentence summary. Surely educated people can manage that?

 

OK then, since you have spectacularly missed the point. To summarize in one sentence:

 

'It is highly unlikely that Thatcher (or any of the others listed) would have become PM without the Grammar school system, which has now been virtually abandoned'.

 

Still dont get your point tbh and how its relevant to last nights program.

 

The house of commons is full of MP's who went to comp and on to uni and then from working life into politics. Why cant this continue?

 

It also has a great deal of MP's who probably have never been near a uni yet went the local councillor grass roots route.Why cant this continue?

 

 

Education of MPs elected in 2005 (3 main parties)

 

Lab Con LD

Fee-paying school

63 118 24

18% 60% 39%

University

226 160 49

64% 81% 79%

of which:

Oxford & Cambridge

58 86 19

16% 43% 31%

 

Looks fairly health still from the middle uni route.

 

I dont understand your argument that Thatcher could not have today gone to comp then uni then politics as the vast majority of MPS do.

Edited January 27, 2011 by Christmas Tree

[Renton 21221]

See the bold bit, CT? Go to the next sentence for a better summary

 

Aye, I see all of that. I was just trying to get out of Renton what his main gripe was after watching the programme.

 

Is it that he doesnt want the brightest running the country?

 

Does he think Thatcher was more caring because she didnt go to Eton?

 

Would he like to see more of Prescotts ilk at it?

 

Probably (just guessing) the biggest percentage of adults never made it to grammar school? Is he saying they should be running it because they are more representative of the majority?

 

Just trying for a one sentence summary. Surely educated people can manage that?

 

OK then, since you have spectacularly missed the point. To summarize in one sentence:

 

'It is highly unlikely that Thatcher (or any of the others listed) would have become PM without the Grammar school system, which has now been virtually abandoned'.

 

Still dont get your point tbh and how its relevant to last nights program.

 

The house of commons is full of MP's who went to comp and on to uni and then from working life into politics. Why cant this continue?

 

It also has a great deal of MP's who probably have never been near a uni yet went the local councillor grass roots route.Why cant this continue?

 

It isn't full of these people though CT, and the trend is that it's getting worse. About 70% of MPs went to a private school, but only 7% of children go to private schools. Very MPs are coming through the traditional Trade Union routes now (witness professional politicians like Cameron, Osbourne, Clegg, Blair, Brown, the Millibands etc) and it's almost mandatory to have a degree, and Oxbridge degree (preferably a 'PPE' from Oxford Magdalen college) at that if you want to get into the cabinet or shadow cabinet.

 

This is not only unfair, but it means that parliament is not remotely representative of the people it serves. Even worse, how many potentially brilliant politicians like Thatcher (who I respect as well as hate) have their way to the commons blocked, not based on intrinsic ability, but purely into what family they were born into? Given that 93% of the population have little representation in Parliament, is it any surprise that there is so much apathy?

 

Like I said though, you seem to be content to be ruled by the old boy network, I'm not surprised you can't see a problem here.

[Park Life 71]

Some people outside of Britain seem to think it's inevitable in such a small country there's going to be the kind of situation we have now with Eton/Oxbridge. How do you like them apples?

 

I took the 11+ and the majority of my schooling was geared towards getting good marks on it at that age. One of the primary goals of education should be to stimulate further interest in the subjects, rather than to train for a set exam imo.

 

The main goal of mainstream education is to teach people as little as possible that might actually be of any real use to them.

[Renton 21221]

I dont understand your argument that Thatcher could not have today gone to comp then uni then politics as the vast majority of MPS do.

 

Watch the programme and see what you think. Look at the composition of the front benchers and the trend that is in motion. Why is virtually no-one from a comprehensive background making the breakthrough? Do you think they are intrinsically inferior or are they just massively disadvantaged?

 

Tbf it looks like my figures are exagerated a bit (was going from memory, I apologise), have you got the relevant figures for the front benches? That's what Neil was discussing last night. Labour also seem much more representative than the tories as well, at least on the back benches.

Edited January 27, 2011 by Renton

[Christmas Tree 4679]

See the bold bit, CT? Go to the next sentence for a better summary

 

Aye, I see all of that. I was just trying to get out of Renton what his main gripe was after watching the programme.

 

Is it that he doesnt want the brightest running the country?

 

Does he think Thatcher was more caring because she didnt go to Eton?

 

Would he like to see more of Prescotts ilk at it?

 

Probably (just guessing) the biggest percentage of adults never made it to grammar school? Is he saying they should be running it because they are more representative of the majority?

 

Just trying for a one sentence summary. Surely educated people can manage that?

 

OK then, since you have spectacularly missed the point. To summarize in one sentence:

 

'It is highly unlikely that Thatcher (or any of the others listed) would have become PM without the Grammar school system, which has now been virtually abandoned'.

 

Still dont get your point tbh and how its relevant to last nights program.

 

The house of commons is full of MP's who went to comp and on to uni and then from working life into politics. Why cant this continue?

 

It also has a great deal of MP's who probably have never been near a uni yet went the local councillor grass roots route.Why cant this continue?

 

It isn't full of these people though CT, and the trend is that it's getting worse. About 70% of MPs went to a private school, but only 7% of children go to private schools. Very MPs are coming through the traditional Trade Union routes now (witness professional politicians like Cameron, Osbourne, Clegg, Blair, Brown, the Millibands etc) and it's almost mandatory to have a degree, and Oxbridge degree (preferably a 'PPE' from Oxford Magdalen college) at that if you want to get into the cabinet or shadow cabinet.

 

This is not only unfair, but it means that parliament is not remotely representative of the people it serves. Even worse, how many potentially brilliant politicians like Thatcher (who I respect as well as hate) have their way to the commons blocked, not based on intrinsic ability, but purely into what family they were born into? Given that 93% of the population have little representation in Parliament, is it any surprise that there is so much apathy?

 

Like I said though, you seem to be content to be ruled by the old boy network, I'm not surprised you can't see a problem here.

 

Not according to those parliament figures.

[Guest alex]

See the bold bit, CT? Go to the next sentence for a better summary

 

Aye, I see all of that. I was just trying to get out of Renton what his main gripe was after watching the programme.

 

Is it that he doesnt want the brightest running the country?

 

Does he think Thatcher was more caring because she didnt go to Eton?

 

Would he like to see more of Prescotts ilk at it?

 

Probably (just guessing) the biggest percentage of adults never made it to grammar school? Is he saying they should be running it because they are more representative of the majority?

 

Just trying for a one sentence summary. Surely educated people can manage that?

 

OK then, since you have spectacularly missed the point. To summarize in one sentence:

 

'It is highly unlikely that Thatcher (or any of the others listed) would have become PM without the Grammar school system, which has now been virtually abandoned'.

 

Still dont get your point tbh and how its relevant to last nights program.

 

The house of commons is full of MP's who went to comp and on to uni and then from working life into politics. Why cant this continue?

 

It also has a great deal of MP's who probably have never been near a uni yet went the local councillor grass roots route.Why cant this continue?

 

 

Education of MPs elected in 2005 (3 main parties)

 

Lab Con LD

Fee-paying school

63 118 24

18% 60% 39%

University

226 160 49

64% 81% 79%

of which:

Oxford & Cambridge

58 86 19

16% 43% 31%

 

Looks fairly health still from the middle uni route.

 

I dont understand your argument that Thatcher could not have today gone to comp then uni then politics as the vast majority of MPS do.

Had a quick look and 45% of 2010 elected MPs went to comprehensive schools. Higher than I thought tbh but not the vast majority. You'd expect a lot of MPs to go to comprehensives schools seeing as over 90% of the population do though. I think you make a fair point btw about it not being impossible to climb up the ranks (in theory at least) but it would be interesting to see a further breakdown re: Cabinet positions etc., i.e. who really holds sway.

Sutton Trust figures if anyones interested:

http://www.suttontrust.com/research/the-ed...grounds-of-mps/

Edited January 27, 2011 by alex

[Renton 21221]

See the bold bit, CT? Go to the next sentence for a better summary

 

Aye, I see all of that. I was just trying to get out of Renton what his main gripe was after watching the programme.

 

Is it that he doesnt want the brightest running the country?

 

Does he think Thatcher was more caring because she didnt go to Eton?

 

Would he like to see more of Prescotts ilk at it?

 

Probably (just guessing) the biggest percentage of adults never made it to grammar school? Is he saying they should be running it because they are more representative of the majority?

 

Just trying for a one sentence summary. Surely educated people can manage that?

 

OK then, since you have spectacularly missed the point. To summarize in one sentence:

 

'It is highly unlikely that Thatcher (or any of the others listed) would have become PM without the Grammar school system, which has now been virtually abandoned'.

 

Still dont get your point tbh and how its relevant to last nights program.

 

The house of commons is full of MP's who went to comp and on to uni and then from working life into politics. Why cant this continue?

 

It also has a great deal of MP's who probably have never been near a uni yet went the local councillor grass roots route.Why cant this continue?

 

It isn't full of these people though CT, and the trend is that it's getting worse. About 70% of MPs went to a private school, but only 7% of children go to private schools. Very MPs are coming through the traditional Trade Union routes now (witness professional politicians like Cameron, Osbourne, Clegg, Blair, Brown, the Millibands etc) and it's almost mandatory to have a degree, and Oxbridge degree (preferably a 'PPE' from Oxford Magdalen college) at that if you want to get into the cabinet or shadow cabinet.

 

This is not only unfair, but it means that parliament is not remotely representative of the people it serves. Even worse, how many potentially brilliant politicians like Thatcher (who I respect as well as hate) have their way to the commons blocked, not based on intrinsic ability, but purely into what family they were born into? Given that 93% of the population have little representation in Parliament, is it any surprise that there is so much apathy?

 

Like I said though, you seem to be content to be ruled by the old boy network, I'm not surprised you can't see a problem here.

 

Not according to those parliament figures.

 

Aye, fair enough, I was wrong about that, but given the trend, give it 10 years at most. And the front benches?

 

Edit: just noticed those figures are from 2005 as well CT, got an update?

Edited January 27, 2011 by Renton

[Park Life 71]

It isn't where they go to school it is more important who's ideas they take onboard. The one's who get through the assault course tend to have very similar ideas.

[Kevin S. Assilleekunt 1]

The reptilians tend to do well also

[Park Life 71]

The reptilians tend to do well also

 

I haven' come across many politicians who are capable of original thought or who are that interested in it for that matter. Horses for courses.

[Christmas Tree 4679]

See the bold bit, CT? Go to the next sentence for a better summary

 

Aye, I see all of that. I was just trying to get out of Renton what his main gripe was after watching the programme.

 

Is it that he doesnt want the brightest running the country?

 

Does he think Thatcher was more caring because she didnt go to Eton?

 

Would he like to see more of Prescotts ilk at it?

 

Probably (just guessing) the biggest percentage of adults never made it to grammar school? Is he saying they should be running it because they are more representative of the majority?

 

Just trying for a one sentence summary. Surely educated people can manage that?

 

OK then, since you have spectacularly missed the point. To summarize in one sentence:

 

'It is highly unlikely that Thatcher (or any of the others listed) would have become PM without the Grammar school system, which has now been virtually abandoned'.

 

Still dont get your point tbh and how its relevant to last nights program.

 

The house of commons is full of MP's who went to comp and on to uni and then from working life into politics. Why cant this continue?

 

It also has a great deal of MP's who probably have never been near a uni yet went the local councillor grass roots route.Why cant this continue?

 

It isn't full of these people though CT, and the trend is that it's getting worse. About 70% of MPs went to a private school, but only 7% of children go to private schools. Very MPs are coming through the traditional Trade Union routes now (witness professional politicians like Cameron, Osbourne, Clegg, Blair, Brown, the Millibands etc) and it's almost mandatory to have a degree, and Oxbridge degree (preferably a 'PPE' from Oxford Magdalen college) at that if you want to get into the cabinet or shadow cabinet.

 

This is not only unfair, but it means that parliament is not remotely representative of the people it serves. Even worse, how many potentially brilliant politicians like Thatcher (who I respect as well as hate) have their way to the commons blocked, not based on intrinsic ability, but purely into what family they were born into? Given that 93% of the population have little representation in Parliament, is it any surprise that there is so much apathy?

 

Like I said though, you seem to be content to be ruled by the old boy network, I'm not surprised you can't see a problem here.

 

Not according to those parliament figures.

 

Aye, fair enough, I was wrong about that, but given the trend, give it 10 years at most. And the front benches?

 

Edit: just noticed those figures are from 2005 as well CT, got an update?

 

Just first results that popped up on google. But as those figures cleary show (and its no great shocker), more tories go to private schools than Labour so a change of government from Labour to mainly tory is bound to show an upwards swing, in the same way as Labour getting back in would show a downwards swing.

 

What about the toontastic MP......Private or Comp?

[Park Life 71]

Jesus was born in a stable and was educated by mystics.

[Christmas Tree 4679]

On a more general note ( and not because Im some forelock pulling commoner as you suggest), I am less interested in the education and more interested in the person.

 

As it said in that Programme (watched half), Blair didnt beat brown because he went to private school, he beat him because he understood the people better.

 

Again with Cameron, he didnt beat Davis because of Eton, he beat him because he was the better.

[Matt 0]

Again with Cameron, he didnt beat Davis because of Eton, he beat him because he was the better.

 

The programme argues that the system is such now that comprehensive education is now far less likely to produce someone capable of being better than Cameron, not that there are better people being overlooked due to some upper-crust conspiracy.

[Park Life 71]

On a more general note ( and not because Im some forelock pulling commoner as you suggest), I am less interested in the education and more interested in the person.

 

As it said in that Programme (watched half), Blair didnt beat brown because he went to private school, he beat him because he understood the people better.

 

Again with Cameron, he didnt beat Davis because of Eton, he beat him because he was the better.

 

[AgentAxeman 169]

On a more general note ( and not because Im some forelock pulling commoner as you suggest), I am less interested in the education and more interested in the person.

 

As it said in that Programme (watched half), Blair didnt beat brown because he went to private school, he beat him because he understood the people better.

 

Again with Cameron, he didnt beat Davis because of Eton, he beat him because he was the better.

 

 

 

Double

[Christmas Tree 4679]

Again with Cameron, he didnt beat Davis because of Eton, he beat him because he was the better.

 

The programme argues that the system is such now that comprehensive education is now far less likely to produce someone capable of being better than Cameron, not that there are better people being overlooked due to some upper-crust conspiracy.

 

I dont buy that. As with all life , people buy people, and no amount of education can make a false dullard a leader. You need to have that x factor to get your peers to elect you leader. MP's vote for vote winners to lead them.

 

Now more than ever its personality that makes the difference between a leader like Blair and a dullard like Brown.

[Park Life 71]

Again with Cameron, he didnt beat Davis because of Eton, he beat him because he was the better.

 

The programme argues that the system is such now that comprehensive education is now far less likely to produce someone capable of being better than Cameron, not that there are better people being overlooked due to some upper-crust conspiracy.

 

I dont buy that. As with all life , people buy people, and no amount of education can make a false dullard a leader. You need to have that x factor to get your peers to elect you leader. MP's vote for vote winners to lead them.

 

Now more than ever its personality that makes the difference between a leader like Blair and a dullard like Brown.

 

Think the ability to lie and mislead the general populus is the defining factor of a good leader.

[Renton 21221]

Again with Cameron, he didnt beat Davis because of Eton, he beat him because he was the better.

 

The programme argues that the system is such now that comprehensive education is now far less likely to produce someone capable of being better than Cameron, not that there are better people being overlooked due to some upper-crust conspiracy.

 

I dont buy that. As with all life , people buy people, and no amount of education can make a false dullard a leader. You need to have that x factor to get your peers to elect you leader. MP's vote for vote winners to lead them.

 

Now more than ever its personality that makes the difference between a leader like Blair and a dullard like Brown.

 

So you don't think it was the education that Cameron, Clegg, Osborne, Blair etc received that gave them the advantage over their poorer peers? Do you think they are genetically superior and just happened to go to a £30k private school by coinicidence (this is a common theme amongst private school boys I know)? Or do you just have no problem with inequalities like this and parliament not representing it's population?

 

Like I said, I figured you would have no problem with this. Btw, I wasn't making a party political point over this. I reckon there are thousands of tories from less affluent backgrounds who are aspirational and would disagree strongly with you as well. Thatcher for one, which is acknowledged in the programme.

 

Bridget went to a comp btw but went to Oxford (essential nowadays). but it would have been a hundred times more difficult for her than for your tory chums.

Edited January 27, 2011 by Renton

[Park Life 71]

Again with Cameron, he didnt beat Davis because of Eton, he beat him because he was the better.

 

The programme argues that the system is such now that comprehensive education is now far less likely to produce someone capable of being better than Cameron, not that there are better people being overlooked due to some upper-crust conspiracy.

 

I dont buy that. As with all life , people buy people, and no amount of education can make a false dullard a leader. You need to have that x factor to get your peers to elect you leader. MP's vote for vote winners to lead them.

 

Now more than ever its personality that makes the difference between a leader like Blair and a dullard like Brown.

 

So you don't think it was the education that Cameron, Clegg, Osborne, Blair etc received that gave them the advantage over their poorer peers? Do you think they are genetically superior and just happened to go to a £30k private school by coinicidence (this is a common theme amongst private school boys I know)? Or do you just have no problem with inequalities like this and parliament not representing it's population?

 

Like I said, I figured you would have no problem with this. Btw, I wasn't making a party political point over this. I reckon there are thousands of tories from less affluent backgrounds who are aspirational and would disagree strongly with you as well. Thatcher for one, which is acknowledged in the programme.

 

Bridget went to a comp btw but went to Oxford (essential nowadays). but it would have been a hundred times more difficult for her than for your tory chums.

 

Thatchers husband was a multi-millionaire.

[Renton 21221]

Again with Cameron, he didnt beat Davis because of Eton, he beat him because he was the better.

 

The programme argues that the system is such now that comprehensive education is now far less likely to produce someone capable of being better than Cameron, not that there are better people being overlooked due to some upper-crust conspiracy.

 

I dont buy that. As with all life , people buy people, and no amount of education can make a false dullard a leader. You need to have that x factor to get your peers to elect you leader. MP's vote for vote winners to lead them.

 

Now more than ever its personality that makes the difference between a leader like Blair and a dullard like Brown.

 

So you don't think it was the education that Cameron, Clegg, Osborne, Blair etc received that gave them the advantage over their poorer peers? Do you think they are genetically superior and just happened to go to a £30k private school by coinicidence (this is a common theme amongst private school boys I know)? Or do you just have no problem with inequalities like this and parliament not representing it's population?

 

Like I said, I figured you would have no problem with this. Btw, I wasn't making a party political point over this. I reckon there are thousands of tories from less affluent backgrounds who are aspirational and would disagree strongly with you as well. Thatcher for one, which is acknowledged in the programme.

 

Bridget went to a comp btw but went to Oxford (essential nowadays). but it would have been a hundred times more difficult for her than for your tory chums.

 

Thatchers husband was a multi-millionaire.

 

They met after she became an MP. What's your point?

 

Being well-monied (through birthright) is another trend that you can see in Parliament today. Mind, you have to have loaded parents to go to Eton or Westminster. Thatcher was the daughter of green grocer though.

[Christmas Tree 4679]

Again with Cameron, he didnt beat Davis because of Eton, he beat him because he was the better.

 

The programme argues that the system is such now that comprehensive education is now far less likely to produce someone capable of being better than Cameron, not that there are better people being overlooked due to some upper-crust conspiracy.

 

I dont buy that. As with all life , people buy people, and no amount of education can make a false dullard a leader. You need to have that x factor to get your peers to elect you leader. MP's vote for vote winners to lead them.

 

Now more than ever its personality that makes the difference between a leader like Blair and a dullard like Brown.

 

Think the ability to lie and mislead the general populus is the defining factor of a good leader.

 

Agreed, but they have to convince equally good liars to elect them leader first.

[Christmas Tree 4679]

Again with Cameron, he didnt beat Davis because of Eton, he beat him because he was the better.

 

The programme argues that the system is such now that comprehensive education is now far less likely to produce someone capable of being better than Cameron, not that there are better people being overlooked due to some upper-crust conspiracy.

 

I dont buy that. As with all life , people buy people, and no amount of education can make a false dullard a leader. You need to have that x factor to get your peers to elect you leader. MP's vote for vote winners to lead them.

 

Now more than ever its personality that makes the difference between a leader like Blair and a dullard like Brown.

 

So you don't think it was the education that Cameron, Clegg, Osborne, Blair etc received that gave them the advantage over their poorer peers? Do you think they are genetically superior and just happened to go to a £30k private school by coinicidence (this is a common theme amongst private school boys I know)? Or do you just have no problem with inequalities like this and parliament not representing it's population?

 

Like I said, I figured you would have no problem with this. Btw, I wasn't making a party political point over this. I reckon there are thousands of tories from less affluent backgrounds who are aspirational and would disagree strongly with you as well. Thatcher for one, which is acknowledged in the programme.

 

Bridget went to a comp btw but went to Oxford (essential nowadays). but it would have been a hundred times more difficult for her than for your tory chums.

 

Well your probably better educated than my good self, yet I can hold a discussion without resorting to jibes, something you have trouble with and I can stay composed and discuss the facts, and get them right.

 

The facts are, you mislead us in your opening post. You said 70% of MP's are privately educated when the truth is the figure is around 47%

 

That means the majority of the house of commons is made up from "normal" people that went to comp then uni. (Like Bridget). And just like Maggie would have done were she going through education today.

 

I am just at ease with an Etonian Prime Minister as I am with say an ex Teacher, Plumber or Grocers daughter.

 

The bottom line for me is whether I think they are up to the job and have a vision to move the country forward.

 

The truth is you have watched a sensationalised documentary, then spewed the same sensational story without checking your facts.

 

Your argument is full of holes, mis-information and theories that are plain stupid.

 

You have large chips on your shoulders about people with money, however I guess like Dianne Abbott or Blair, you are one of these that talks a good socialist game, while choosing a nice shiny private education for your own children. (now or future).