What would be the ONE policy would you vote for?

The system is corrupting in cutting people's benefits unfairly 1 million of people got a benefit sanction in just over a year, not thousands-the poor are being killed by the Tories the Tories think that these people don't seem to be worth much to them in their attempts to give money to the rich so what point is in giving them any money?The Tories just think of people by their economic value, they can't just take away benefits as there would be lots of riots but just make it them really really hard to claim.

I don't think we are the most 'vulnerable' I mentioned absolute poverty on this thread and my family are not in that-fortunately my mam has worked hard to keep her benefits, whilst her friends and people she knew got their JSA stolen from them.

Even if thousands of people are on benefits who shouldn't be its better that than not help the millions who need the systems support, scrounging is clearly in the minority and also helps those who want jobs to get jobs(scrounging is only a problem when there is a lack of workers to fill job places)-I would rather pay 10 scroungers if that meant that 1 person who really needed it got the money.

The majority of people are scrounging. As I've said before, you see the benefits system from the customers side whereas I see it from the inside.

Regarding your mother's friends and their JSA: did they actually look for a job, or did they just move over to another type of benefits?

Those who do not contribute to society are worthless and do not deserve government payouts. They deserve to live on the streets because they were too lazy to say to themselves "I have a disability but I am still determined to work." I know many people who suffer from severe depression, are wheelchair bound, amongst other disabilities: all of them work.

Restoration of Grammar Schools to every local authority so that bright poor kids would have some reasonable chance of social mobility like they used to years ago, as opposed to the current system where their potential is so often wasted in mediocre or dire comprehensives which are ill equipped to help them fulfill their potential.

rubbish

if you are intelligent, you will do well regardless

Grammar schools only took in a low percentage of pupils so as to restrict access to education.

The vast majority of pupils went to secondary modern schools and left school at 15 with no qualifications.

The system particularly discriminated against girls - many grammar schools were single sex but girls did much better than boys at 11+. Consequently many girls who had passed higher than boys in Grammar schools, went to Secondary Mods.

The whole idea of inbuilt 'intelligence' which you could test for, was based on falsified 'research'. The idea that you could pick out a small number of children at 10-11 was ludicrous. It blighted a whole generation.

It was only when parents campaigned for opening up education and Secondary Modern Schools went ahead with entering their pupils for the Grammar School exams viz O levels, that the system was abolished.

Comprehensive Schools, for all their problems, ( lack of money), have been a huge success and brought vast numbers of pupils through secondary schools into Higher Education.

Major reform of the Welfare State: benefits for 6 months, then you must go into education/apprenticeship/work schemes or you get no benefits.

30% was generally the level in most areas, with some LEA's having even higher figures actually. That is not a low percentage.



Another falsehood appealing to the old myth that attending a secondary modern was equivalent to being put on the scrap heap. Not that it actually matters, the exam and qualification system has changed so substantially that comparison is pretty meaningless now.



This isn't an argument against selection, simply an argument for a different allocation of places historically. I note that this has not been raised as a significant issue in any of the counties that still retain selection today, so if it was indeed an issue I don't see the relevance now. I attended a mixed school and girls probably made up 60% of the students- no girls lost out because of their gender, but the make up reflected the pass rate. In other LEA's there are mixed schools with male majorities because that reflects the demographics of those passing.



A lazy generalised comment. You've said nothing other than a dramatic comment about a generation being "blighted". It's weird how genuine social mobility is seen as a blight by some nowadays. More working class kids got to Oxford in 1955 than they do today- 40 years of Comprehensive education and we still aren't even back to how we were. What a resounding success.

Regarding testing at 10-11, I personally support the approach of some LEA's in having a 12+ and 13+, as well as reserving a significant number of their 6th form places for applicants from non-selective schools. It's possible to reflect the fact that what may be right for a child at one moment may not be down the line.




The system has not been abolished, it remains in a number of areas across England and Northern Ireland. You seem too focused on historic controversies that have absolutely no relevance or application today. Nobody is advocating a return to the O Level/CSE system; that is not necessary for a selective system. All the counties retaining grammar schools have secondary moderns that enter kids for exactly the same exams.



Lack of money? They receive massively more funding per pupil than selective schools, yet consistently perform far worse in getting gifted children into the most competitive universities and professions. That is not a success.

You have fallen into the New Labour trap of "oh kids have gone to a university.... they are therefore successful and our education system works". Wrong. The reality is the majority of people going to university today are going to ex-polytechnics to study pointless degrees which will not actually aid their life prospects in any way, mostly at the expense of the taxpayer. If you look at the top universities you find a remarkable picture where the number of working class kids securing places has declined since the abolition of selection in many areas, to the point where Oxbridge is actually less representative than it was in the 1950's. All the comprehensive system has done is save private schools from extinction and give those with money the opportunity to buy their way into the best schools be it private schools or through buying expensive housing in desirable areas.

Forgive me if I don't see the continued failing of ordinary bright children in favour of those with money as a success to be proud of. You might think them going to a polytechnic is a success, I have more aspiration for them personally.

Restoration of Grammar Schools to every local authority so that bright poor kids would have some reasonable chance of social mobility like they used to years ago, as opposed to the current system where their potential is so often wasted in mediocre or dire comprehensives which are ill equipped to help them fulfill their potential.

The abolition of the welfare state.

God I hope you don't ever lose your job or become disabled and can't work or can't work for any other reason.

I am disabled according to the government and I work my arse off to earn. I have never claimed a penny whereas more able people than myself are perfectly fine at taking the pee and claiming as they're just lazy scumbags.

Fine, I said 'disabled and can't work'. You obviously can and that's great. But just because you work (as do most other people in the country) doesn't mean that welfare should be abolished. There are people who actually need it and rely on it, through no fault of their own. Yes it needs to be reformed and tightened, but not abolished completely.

*******s. The UK is full of lazy white chavs who are nothing but a drain on the economy. These pillocks then cry when immigrants take jobs they're too ****ing lazy to do. Why aren't they out in fields picking fruit? I tell you why. Its because they think such jobs are beneath them and they're workshy boneidle leeches. A job is a job. Anyone who works regardless of what its doing or where to it is should take pride in that. I'm sorry but many Brits are generally just lazy as **** and a lot of these white chavs have illnesses that only exist in their lazy uneducated minds. You know why they're uneducated? Cause they had the same lazy attitude in school.

It is not more aspiration to arbitrarily restrict access to quality education.

Even by your figures, 70% of pupils went to Secondary Modern Schools. In some areas as little as 12% went to Grammar Schools and of those a sizeable number left at 16 (mainly working class children).

Having a competitive exam at 10-11 leads to a warping of education. Streaming from as early as 7, large amounts of money being spent on private tuition to cram for the exam,.

restriction of the curriculum to exam areas

discrimination against children born later on in then academic year

restriction of highly qualified teachers to Grammar Schools etc.

So, between 70-80% of the population had left school by 16 compared with approaching 50% going to post 18 education now. I repeat, this is a huge success.

I'd agree with this, but I think that the entry tests need to be changed. It's far too easy for parents to pay up to £5000 for tutors to teach their children how to pass the 11 Plus exam. I'd opt for essays and maths exams, alongside interviews and more importance placed on references.