Politics

[Christmas Tree 4839]

Anyone see 'Posh and Posher' last night, a documentary about class and our political system narrated by Andrew Neil? If not and you've been reading this thread, get it watched on iPlayer, it was a real eye opener (especially you CT). Neil's conclusion was that if we want a more representative political system we need to re-introduce the Grammar school. I found it hard to disagree tbh.

 

Havent seen it yet but not sure if it makes that much difference. Theirs loads of "working class" Labour MP's in the commons already.

 

Did you not see the Gateshead one at PMQ's this week. Could hardly put a sentence together. Do we want his ilk negogiating at the UN.

 

The goal surely is to drag education upwards.

 

Regardless of who is in power, it is only slight pulls from one side of centre to the other, its not as though we have really radical shifts in power.

 

Tories normally get in and look after the middle classes where as Labour look after the so called "working class" and "underclass". Its just one big game.

[Guest alex]

Anyone see 'Posh and Posher' last night, a documentary about class and our political system narrated by Andrew Neil? If not and you've been reading this thread, get it watched on iPlayer, it was a real eye opener (especially you CT). Neil's conclusion was that if we want a more representative political system we need to re-introduce the Grammar school. I found it hard to disagree tbh.

 

Havent seen it yet but not sure if it makes that much difference. Theirs loads of "working class" Labour MP's in the commons already.

 

Did you not see the Gateshead one at PMQ's this week. Could hardly put a sentence together. Do we want his ilk negogiating at the UN.

 

The goal surely is to drag education upwards.

Regardless of who is in power, it is only slight pulls from one side of centre to the other, its not as though we have really radical shifts in power.

 

Tories normally get in and look after the middle classes where as Labour look after the so called "working class" and "underclass". Its just one big game.

Yeah, too late for some though

[Christmas Tree 4839]

Anyone see 'Posh and Posher' last night, a documentary about class and our political system narrated by Andrew Neil? If not and you've been reading this thread, get it watched on iPlayer, it was a real eye opener (especially you CT). Neil's conclusion was that if we want a more representative political system we need to re-introduce the Grammar school. I found it hard to disagree tbh.

 

Havent seen it yet but not sure if it makes that much difference. Theirs loads of "working class" Labour MP's in the commons already.

 

Did you not see the Gateshead one at PMQ's this week. Could hardly put a sentence together. Do we want his ilk negogiating at the UN.

 

The goal surely is to drag education upwards.

Regardless of who is in power, it is only slight pulls from one side of centre to the other, its not as though we have really radical shifts in power.

 

Tories normally get in and look after the middle classes where as Labour look after the so called "working class" and "underclass". Its just one big game.

Yeah, too late for some though

 

[Renton 22004]

Anyone see 'Posh and Posher' last night, a documentary about class and our political system narrated by Andrew Neil? If not and you've been reading this thread, get it watched on iPlayer, it was a real eye opener (especially you CT). Neil's conclusion was that if we want a more representative political system we need to re-introduce the Grammar school. I found it hard to disagree tbh.

 

Havent seen it yet but not sure if it makes that much difference. Theirs loads of "working class" Labour MP's in the commons already.

 

Did you not see the Gateshead one at PMQ's this week. Could hardly put a sentence together. Do we want his ilk negogiating at the UN.

 

The goal surely is to drag education upwards.

 

Regardless of who is in power, it is only slight pulls from one side of centre to the other, its not as though we have really radical shifts in power.

 

Tories normally get in and look after the middle classes where as Labour look after the so called "working class" and "underclass". Its just one big game.

 

Tell me it doesn't matter after you've watched it then we can discuss it. Even if you don't agree with Neil it's worth watching as I said.

 

As for dragging education upwards, I fully agree. Neil's point though was this can't happen when there is a comprehensive system dragging everyone down to the lowest common denominator. At least under Grammar schools we had a meritocratic system which, at the end of the day, worked. As a result, politics was much more meritocratic in the 60s, 70s, 80s, and 90s but now is reverting back to the 1950s and before, which is why so many people are disenfrachised with the whole thing.

 

Tbh though CT, you seem quite the deferential 'know your place' type of guy so your views don't surprise me.

[Billy Castell 0]

The old 11+ system was utterly flawed, and to decide someone's whole life on two hours of intense pressure is madness. I'd have been lucky to even finish the exam without panicing and walking out at that age. IQ tests do not measure intelligence, and you can train yourself to get a good score without being 'clever'.

[Guest alex]

The old 11+ system was utterly flawed, and to decide someone's whole life on two hours of intense pressure is madness. I'd have been lucky to even finish the exam without panicing and walking out at that age. IQ tests do not measure intelligence, and you can train yourself to get a good score without being 'clever'.

I agree but the current system is probably more flawed imo.

[manc-mag 1]

Frank Lampard is in Mensa.

[ewerk 31216]

The old 11+ system was utterly flawed, and to decide someone's whole life on two hours of intense pressure is madness. I'd have been lucky to even finish the exam without panicing and walking out at that age.

 

It doesn't decide their whole life though, there are other opportunities further on to get into a grammar school. However, I do think it would be beneficial to do it a year later.

[Billy Castell 0]

The old 11+ system was utterly flawed, and to decide someone's whole life on two hours of intense pressure is madness. I'd have been lucky to even finish the exam without panicing and walking out at that age.

 

It doesn't decide their whole life though, there are other opportunities further on to get into a grammar school. However, I do think it would be beneficial to do it a year later.

 

Perhaps some on-going sort of thing where it isn't all down to one set of exams would work. There is a danger though that the new 'secondary modern' schools will be educational wildernesses that will not bother teaching the kids anything.

[Guest alex]

Frank Lampard is in Mensa.

I'd heard that too.

[NJS 4411]

As for dragging education upwards, I fully agree. Neil's point though was this can't happen when there is a comprehensive system dragging everyone down to the lowest common denominator. At least under Grammar schools we had a meritocratic system which, at the end of the day, worked. As a result, politics was much more meritocratic in the 60s, 70s, 80s, and 90s but now is reverting back to the 1950s and before, which is why so many people are disenfrachised with the whole thing.

 

I went to a grammar (after passing the 11+) that had just changed to comprehensive and I don't feel they dragged people down in the simplistic way people state. The "lesser" pupils obviously benefitted from the grammar school standard teachers and I never felt held back. I also consider it a good thing that I had to mix with kids from all backgrounds - probably what the programme wanted to suggest but missed (didn't see it).

 

I think we've talked about this before and I said I do support streaming within a comprehensive system as happened where I went - I think that's the best of both worlds but obviously will only work if schools don't hog the best teachers and kids - the latter being the real problem now imo.

Edited January 27, 2011 by NJS

[Renton 22004]

As for dragging education upwards, I fully agree. Neil's point though was this can't happen when there is a comprehensive system dragging everyone down to the lowest common denominator. At least under Grammar schools we had a meritocratic system which, at the end of the day, worked. As a result, politics was much more meritocratic in the 60s, 70s, 80s, and 90s but now is reverting back to the 1950s and before, which is why so many people are disenfrachised with the whole thing.

 

I went to a grammar (after passing the 11+) that had just changed to comprehensive and I don't feel they dragged people down in the simplistic way people state. The "lesser" pupils obviously benefitted from the grammar school standard teachers and I never felt held back. I also consider it a good thing that I had to mix with kids from all backgrounds - probably what the programme wanted to suggest but missed (didn't see it).

 

I think we've talked about this before and I said I do support streaming within a comprehensive system as happened where I went - I think that's the best of both worlds but obviously will only work if schools don't hog the best teachers and kids - the latter being the real problem now imo.

 

You should watch this programme too. Think about the PMs of recent times - Wilson, Heath, Callaghan, Thatcher, and Major were all products of grammar schools, with Major being the last of that cohort. Grammar schools could compete with fee paying schools - comprehensive schools simply can't, which is why we are now seeing a reversal of the meritocracy that spanned the 60s to the 90s. Now we are in the situation where 70% of MPs have been privately educated despite accounting for only 7% of the population. Comprehensives have been proved not to work, because they can't compete with the old boy network of the public schools, and it is increasingly hard for anyone who is not privately educated to get into Oxbridge (apparently Brown is the only non-Oxbridge PM in living memeory). The system's fucked.

[manc-mag 1]

Frank Lampard is in Mensa.

I'd heard that too.

 

I don't think he actually is btw, they just frequently make the point in the media about his IQ being high enough for entry level. Which I bet members of Mensa just love to hear every time it's trotted out.

[Renton 22004]

Frank Lampard is in Mensa.

I'd heard that too.

 

I don't think he actually is btw, they just frequently make the point in the media about his IQ being high enough for entry level. Which I bet members of Mensa just love to hear every time it's trotted out.

 

Did anyone see Clarke Carlyle on question time last week btw?

[NJS 4411]

You should watch this programme too. Think about the PMs of recent times - Wilson, Heath, Callaghan, Thatcher, and Major were all products of grammar schools, with Major being the last of that cohort. Grammar schools could compete with fee paying schools - comprehensive schools simply can't, which is why we are now seeing a reversal of the meritocracy that spanned the 60s to the 90s. Now we are in the situation where 70% of MPs have been privately educated despite accounting for only 7% of the population. Comprehensives have been proved not to work, because they can't compete with the old boy network of the public schools, and it is increasingly hard for anyone who is not privately educated to get into Oxbridge (apparently Brown is the only non-Oxbridge PM in living memeory). The system's fucked.

 

Again admitting not seeing it, I'd argue that its not necessarily a failure of the school system that nepotistic systems exist within government and other walks of life. Obviously getting a few "poor" kids into positions of power would be good but going back to a system which simply wrote off the rest is a bit of a high price imo. I still think intelligent kids can make it within "normal" schools and even get as far as Oxbridge realtively easily but its what happens after that which represents the barrier imo.

[Renton 22004]

You should watch this programme too. Think about the PMs of recent times - Wilson, Heath, Callaghan, Thatcher, and Major were all products of grammar schools, with Major being the last of that cohort. Grammar schools could compete with fee paying schools - comprehensive schools simply can't, which is why we are now seeing a reversal of the meritocracy that spanned the 60s to the 90s. Now we are in the situation where 70% of MPs have been privately educated despite accounting for only 7% of the population. Comprehensives have been proved not to work, because they can't compete with the old boy network of the public schools, and it is increasingly hard for anyone who is not privately educated to get into Oxbridge (apparently Brown is the only non-Oxbridge PM in living memeory). The system's fucked.

 

Again admitting not seeing it, I'd argue that its not necessarily a failure of the school system that nepotistic systems exist within government and other walks of life. Obviously getting a few "poor" kids into positions of power would be good but going back to a system which simply wrote off the rest is a bit of a high price imo. I still think intelligent kids can make it within "normal" schools and even get as far as Oxbridge realtively easily but its what happens after that which represents the barrier imo.

 

Grammar schools gave kids from normal families the chance to have a first-rate education and prosper at the highest levels of society, including becoming the PM (see my examples). Neil argues that it is nigh on impossible for a kid from a comprehensive to this and so far the evidence is he's right. It's not just educational attainment either, it's giving kids confidence and the chance to cultivate the relevant contacts.

 

I agree that it is wrong to right off kids at 11 so I don't know what the solution really is. You and I would love to get rid of private schools altogether but we know that isn't going to happen. The problem is though that now the ruling elite have no competition. Look at the educational backgrounds of virtually all the front benchers and shadow benchers. It's depressing.

[NJS 4411]

Grammar schools gave kids from normal families the chance to have a first-rate education and prosper at the highest levels of society, including becoming the PM (see my examples). Neil argues that it is nigh on impossible for a kid from a comprehensive to this and so far the evidence is he's right. It's not just educational attainment either, it's giving kids confidence and the chance to cultivate the relevant contacts.

 

I agree that it is wrong to right off kids at 11 so I don't know what the solution really is. You and I would love to get rid of private schools altogether but we know that isn't going to happen. The problem is though that now the ruling elite have no competition. Look at the educational backgrounds of virtually all the front benchers and shadow benchers. It's depressing.

 

That suggests that it's more an engendering of a winning "ethos" that Grammar schools somehow have a monoply on when it comes to "normal" kids. I know full well that that it's one of the secrets of private education both in terms of coaching for Oxbridge interviews as an example and instilling the "right" to superiority perfectly illustrated by Cameron and Osborne.

 

Again that sounds like a non strictly educational more "life skill" issue which I think could be distilled and applied to intelligent kids in whatever context.

 

I think the point of generating "contacts" while still at school to help your career may by real world but its still fucking nauseating - you should be concentrating on proper friendships and maybe football.

[Park Life 71]

You should watch this programme too. Think about the PMs of recent times - Wilson, Heath, Callaghan, Thatcher, and Major were all products of grammar schools, with Major being the last of that cohort. Grammar schools could compete with fee paying schools - comprehensive schools simply can't, which is why we are now seeing a reversal of the meritocracy that spanned the 60s to the 90s. Now we are in the situation where 70% of MPs have been privately educated despite accounting for only 7% of the population. Comprehensives have been proved not to work, because they can't compete with the old boy network of the public schools, and it is increasingly hard for anyone who is not privately educated to get into Oxbridge (apparently Brown is the only non-Oxbridge PM in living memeory). The system's fucked.

 

Again admitting not seeing it, I'd argue that its not necessarily a failure of the school system that nepotistic systems exist within government and other walks of life. Obviously getting a few "poor" kids into positions of power would be good but going back to a system which simply wrote off the rest is a bit of a high price imo. I still think intelligent kids can make it within "normal" schools and even get as far as Oxbridge realtively easily but its what happens after that which represents the barrier imo.

 

And if they are gifted they are recruited to the 'other side' and that is that.

 

All those grammar school PM's played the game btw...No different in outcome than if they were from private schools.

 

I believe in Grammar schools however, having being kicked out of one.

[Park Life 71]

You should watch this programme too. Think about the PMs of recent times - Wilson, Heath, Callaghan, Thatcher, and Major were all products of grammar schools, with Major being the last of that cohort. Grammar schools could compete with fee paying schools - comprehensive schools simply can't, which is why we are now seeing a reversal of the meritocracy that spanned the 60s to the 90s. Now we are in the situation where 70% of MPs have been privately educated despite accounting for only 7% of the population. Comprehensives have been proved not to work, because they can't compete with the old boy network of the public schools, and it is increasingly hard for anyone who is not privately educated to get into Oxbridge (apparently Brown is the only non-Oxbridge PM in living memeory). The system's fucked.

 

Again admitting not seeing it, I'd argue that its not necessarily a failure of the school system that nepotistic systems exist within government and other walks of life. Obviously getting a few "poor" kids into positions of power would be good but going back to a system which simply wrote off the rest is a bit of a high price imo. I still think intelligent kids can make it within "normal" schools and even get as far as Oxbridge realtively easily but its what happens after that which represents the barrier imo.

 

Grammar schools gave kids from normal families the chance to have a first-rate education and prosper at the highest levels of society, including becoming the PM (see my examples). Neil argues that it is nigh on impossible for a kid from a comprehensive to this and so far the evidence is he's right. It's not just educational attainment either, it's giving kids confidence and the chance to cultivate the relevant contacts.

 

I agree that it is wrong to right off kids at 11 so I don't know what the solution really is. You and I would love to get rid of private schools altogether but we know that isn't going to happen. The problem is though that now the ruling elite have no competition. Look at the educational backgrounds of virtually all the front benchers and shadow benchers. It's depressing.

 

The real danger to our system now are the think tanks, trusts and special advisors. Non elected and backed by nefarious elite money they have too big a hold on policy. Blair was one of the worst in this case.

[Christmas Tree 4839]

Anyone see 'Posh and Posher' last night, a documentary about class and our political system narrated by Andrew Neil? If not and you've been reading this thread, get it watched on iPlayer, it was a real eye opener (especially you CT). Neil's conclusion was that if we want a more representative political system we need to re-introduce the Grammar school. I found it hard to disagree tbh.

 

Havent seen it yet but not sure if it makes that much difference. Theirs loads of "working class" Labour MP's in the commons already.

 

Did you not see the Gateshead one at PMQ's this week. Could hardly put a sentence together. Do we want his ilk negogiating at the UN.

 

The goal surely is to drag education upwards.

 

Regardless of who is in power, it is only slight pulls from one side of centre to the other, its not as though we have really radical shifts in power.

 

Tories normally get in and look after the middle classes where as Labour look after the so called "working class" and "underclass". Its just one big game.

 

Tell me it doesn't matter after you've watched it then we can discuss it. Even if you don't agree with Neil it's worth watching as I said.

 

As for dragging education upwards, I fully agree. Neil's point though was this can't happen when there is a comprehensive system dragging everyone down to the lowest common denominator. At least under Grammar schools we had a meritocratic system which, at the end of the day, worked. As a result, politics was much more meritocratic in the 60s, 70s, 80s, and 90s but now is reverting back to the 1950s and before, which is why so many people are disenfrachised with the whole thing.

 

Tbh though CT, you seem quite the deferential 'know your place' type of guy so your views don't surprise me.

 

[Christmas Tree 4839]

As for dragging education upwards, I fully agree. Neil's point though was this can't happen when there is a comprehensive system dragging everyone down to the lowest common denominator. At least under Grammar schools we had a meritocratic system which, at the end of the day, worked. As a result, politics was much more meritocratic in the 60s, 70s, 80s, and 90s but now is reverting back to the 1950s and before, which is why so many people are disenfrachised with the whole thing.

 

I went to a grammar (after passing the 11+) that had just changed to comprehensive and I don't feel they dragged people down in the simplistic way people state. The "lesser" pupils obviously benefitted from the grammar school standard teachers and I never felt held back. I also consider it a good thing that I had to mix with kids from all backgrounds - probably what the programme wanted to suggest but missed (didn't see it).

 

I think we've talked about this before and I said I do support streaming within a comprehensive system as happened where I went - I think that's the best of both worlds but obviously will only work if schools don't hog the best teachers and kids - the latter being the real problem now imo.

 

You should watch this programme too. Think about the PMs of recent times - Wilson, Heath, Callaghan, Thatcher, and Major were all products of grammar schools, with Major being the last of that cohort. Grammar schools could compete with fee paying schools - comprehensive schools simply can't, which is why we are now seeing a reversal of the meritocracy that spanned the 60s to the 90s. Now we are in the situation where 70% of MPs have been privately educated despite accounting for only 7% of the population. Comprehensives have been proved not to work, because they can't compete with the old boy network of the public schools, and it is increasingly hard for anyone who is not privately educated to get into Oxbridge (apparently Brown is the only non-Oxbridge PM in living memeory). The system's fucked.

 

So just sum your argument up for me in one sentence. Are you saying that Thatcher was a better PM than Blair because she went to Grammar School.

[Renton 22004]

As for dragging education upwards, I fully agree. Neil's point though was this can't happen when there is a comprehensive system dragging everyone down to the lowest common denominator. At least under Grammar schools we had a meritocratic system which, at the end of the day, worked. As a result, politics was much more meritocratic in the 60s, 70s, 80s, and 90s but now is reverting back to the 1950s and before, which is why so many people are disenfrachised with the whole thing.

 

I went to a grammar (after passing the 11+) that had just changed to comprehensive and I don't feel they dragged people down in the simplistic way people state. The "lesser" pupils obviously benefitted from the grammar school standard teachers and I never felt held back. I also consider it a good thing that I had to mix with kids from all backgrounds - probably what the programme wanted to suggest but missed (didn't see it).

 

I think we've talked about this before and I said I do support streaming within a comprehensive system as happened where I went - I think that's the best of both worlds but obviously will only work if schools don't hog the best teachers and kids - the latter being the real problem now imo.

 

You should watch this programme too. Think about the PMs of recent times - Wilson, Heath, Callaghan, Thatcher, and Major were all products of grammar schools, with Major being the last of that cohort. Grammar schools could compete with fee paying schools - comprehensive schools simply can't, which is why we are now seeing a reversal of the meritocracy that spanned the 60s to the 90s. Now we are in the situation where 70% of MPs have been privately educated despite accounting for only 7% of the population. Comprehensives have been proved not to work, because they can't compete with the old boy network of the public schools, and it is increasingly hard for anyone who is not privately educated to get into Oxbridge (apparently Brown is the only non-Oxbridge PM in living memeory). The system's fucked.

 

So just sum your argument up for me in one sentence. Are you saying that Thatcher was a better PM than Blair because she went to Grammar School.

 

 

No.

[Guest alex]

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

[Christmas Tree 4839]

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?

[Renton 22004]

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'.