Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

TSR MHoC General Election March 2013 Watch

  • View Poll Results: TSR MHoC General election. Cast your vote:
    TSR Conservative and Unionist Party
    110
    18.09%
    TSR Green Party
    77
    12.66%
    TSR Labour Party
    131
    21.55%
    TSR Liberal Party
    53
    8.72%
    TSR Libertarian Party
    46
    7.57%
    TSR Socialist Party
    69
    11.35%
    tehFrance
    36
    5.92%
    TSR UKIP
    69
    11.35%
    Spoilt Ballot
    17
    2.80%

    Offline

    15
    (Original post by Endless Blue)
    What are your views, then, on the NHS treating people with smoking related illnesses?
    Considering the taxes that smokers pay on cigarettes and tobacco, I'd say no one can complain as they have more than paid for their treatment and they die sooner thus the NHS and government profit from smokers rather than loses money, it is those darn healthy people that get ill and drag it out for as long as they can before dying that put strain on the NHS not smokers such as myself.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Incest - Support it remaining illegal whether it harms anybody or not however as a non-violent crime were i to design a sentencing system myself it would be in the class of crimes like fraud that would be downgraded to a comparatively light punishment (say 1 year in prison and a fine of half the total of their assets) with another year of community service.

    This is not official policy, just my personal opinion.

    Secret courts - Not an area that interests me heavily since on civil liberties i range from taking a libertarian position to socially conservative opinion and i'm not too aghast at what the RL government has done socially. If you want my support on a repeal you better have a dam good notes section explaining what there for and why you think its wrong in that particular instance.

    Treating people with smoking related illness - The NHS must treat everybody equally so i support it however i also support continuing to raise taxes on them. It's unfortunate that prohibition of drugs and the like is unsuccessful.

    Grammar schools - All for them (we may have had a government motion on them actually, they were certainly discussed), my only niggle is that i think say a 2 year rolling average involving exams and coursework would be a better bet with a January and June exam in year 9 to get rid of any stragglers and bring up any later bloomers.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by obi_adorno_kenobi)
    Then why would we trust you with education policies? It's a simple one: how are you going to implement this rejuvenation of grammar schools? Is it, as was partly the case for their abolition (an attempt by Thatcher to kill comprehensives), that local education authorities will choose to adopt them; or, as seems to be the implication of your posts, is it the case that you have decreed the necessity of grammar schools and will implement the policy from on high?

    It's, as I say, a simple question: do you trust schools, teachers and LEAs to know what's best for children or do you think you know better?
    We haven't written legislation yet, but I'd imagine it would be along the lines of allowing every LEA to have one, maybe two selective schools. Schools in the area could then compete to be that school. I trust teachers to know what's best for children, but I don't trust unionised teachers, as the teachers' unions have only ever been interested in their members' interests (not a problem, that's what they're made for). There will naturally be opposition from the unions, as teaching in a grammar school involves more work, so I'd rather trust headteachers to decide.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Endless Blue)
    I agree (if that is indeed your implication) that it is a rather odd position to take for someone supposed to be aligned to the left, so to speak.




    What are your views, then, on the NHS treating people with smoking related illnesses?
    Not that it will be a surprise, but given that we seem insistent on keeping the NHS as a provider of healthcare, I support refusing treatment to any smoker who doesn't give up while on the waiting list for surgery, or during their cancer treatment (basically, it'd be like drinking while on the list for a liver transplant)
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chrisawhitmore)
    Not that it will be a surprise, but given that we seem insistent on keeping the NHS as a provider of healthcare, I support refusing treatment to any smoker who doesn't give up while on the waiting list for surgery, or during their cancer treatment (basically, it'd be like drinking while on the list for a liver transplant)
    You can't really police it though.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Mad Dog)
    Last time I checked "me" wasn't shorthand for the health service. So if you could refrain from strawmanning me.
    It was hardly a strawman.

    I am merely asking you a question which holds exactly the same principle. The key point of your last post was "well, we told you so, so don't come to me for help now". The question I asked you is in exactly the same vein, so can we get an answer?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Go TSR Liberal Party.
    Good
    luck
    to
    everyone
    else too
    I suppose.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tufc)
    We haven't written legislation yet, but I'd imagine it would be along the lines of allowing every LEA to have one, maybe two selective schools. Schools in the area could then compete to be that school. I trust teachers to know what's best for children, but I don't trust unionised teachers, as the teachers' unions have only ever been interested in their members' interests (not a problem, that's what they're made for). There will naturally be opposition from the unions, as teaching in a grammar school involves more work, so I'd rather trust headteachers to decide.
    Yeesh. So you want to close out the unions from schools and want to throw children into "competition" in such a thing as precious as their education? Where's my sick bucket?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    You can't really police it though.
    We could at least police it while people are in hospital. Likewise we could amend the ridiculously outdated regulations on patient weight loss in hospitals and have obese and overweight patients put on restricted diets while in hospital (current regulations dating from the 1950s say that a patient may not lose weight while in hospital, a hangover from when patients starving from neglect was a big issue).
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chrisawhitmore)
    We could at least police it while people are in hospital. Likewise we could amend the ridiculously outdated regulations on patient weight loss in hospitals and have obese and overweight patients put on restricted diets while in hospital (current regulations dating from the 1950s say that a patient may not lose weight while in hospital, a hangover from when patients starving from neglect was a big issue).
    Agree with amending the regulation.
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    (Original post by Birchington)
    QFA
    Lib Dems, are you opposed to all private trials, or just those intended to prevent the dissemination of sensitive information from the national security services?

    Since Sweden reformed their criminal justice laws to prevent rape victims from facing unreasonable exposure for pursuing their attackers in court, reports of rape have risen dramatically. Swedish victims are more likely to see justice done as a result of judges being able to shield them from the publicity that conventional trials attract. All people have a right to justice; having public trials for rapist hinders their victims from exercising this right, as they are forced to undergoe the punishment of disclosing deeply personal information to the press and public. Do you oppose holding private trials for sex offenders?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by obi_adorno_kenobi)
    Yeesh. So you want to close out the unions from schools and want to throw children into "competition" in such a thing as precious as their education? Where's my sick bucket?

    Competition between schools could work if it was managed properly, current system isn't. But the thing that annoys me about the education system is the way that children are pigeonholed and judged within the schools from a young age. They're put into specific ability sets which its ridiculously difficult to get out of, and the lower sets are often neglected by headteachers as they pursue results, choosing what they will and wont enter these supposed lower ability children for. Children develop at different rates and people have different talents, the problem of the current system is that it fails to recognise this and it focuses entirely on academic achievement
    Offline

    15
    (Original post by Moleman1996)
    The problem of the current system is that it fails to recognise this and it focuses entirely on academic achievement
    The current system actually celebrates stupidity and mediocrity over intelligence. It is a huge problem as it spreads to everything, the olympics for example, everyone celebrated Bronze as if it were Gold, Tom Daley for example, sure it did decently but to then go and rush and say bravo, bravo, lets all jump in the pool over Bronze, I would of been ashamed and returned the Bronze medal.

    I believe someone cried over getting less than Gold and said she let the country down, she did and she knew it yet the country were like no, no, it is fine etc, it is embarrassing. Mediocrity will lead this country to ruin.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Endless Blue)
    It was hardly a strawman.
    Yes, it is because I never said we shouldn't treat them in the Health Service.

    I am merely asking you a question which holds exactly the same principle. The key point of your last post was "well, we told you so, so don't come to me for help now". The question I asked you is in exactly the same vein, so can we get an answer?
    We should treat anyone on the health service regardless of their reason for being there. As a social liberal, I feel it wrong for the state to tell anyone what they can do. If two consenting adults want to get jiggy then why shouldn't they be allowed to, however I also think that you're a bit of an ******** if you going to risk your child having a greatly increased risk of congenital disorders, death and disability because you want your sister/brother to be the parent as well is completely unfair on the child, but I'm not going to stop the health service from treating that child. Although, at the same time I'm not going to cry my heart out if your forced to pay for it as the parent.

    The same goes for smoking and doing drugs but I'm not going to deny those suffering from the affects of smoking and doing drugs treatment because they were stupid either. My argument was don't come to me personally as I'm likely to be one of the least sympathetic people you'd come across to your situation.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by obi_adorno_kenobi)
    Yeesh. So you want to close out the unions from schools and want to throw children into "competition" in such a thing as precious as their education? Where's my sick bucket?
    All the unions have been responsible for in schools is dumbing down of the curriculum to make work easier for their members. If children are going to be competing for jobs after they leave school, why not introduce them to the idea of competition beforehand? It never hurt me. You're just relying on emotive language to paint it black. Guess what? The world's a competitive place; mollycoddling children will only serve to prevent them from being prepared for life after education. It's not like those who fail the 11+ would be cast out forever; they'd still have education in a school. They'd also have the chance to get into a grammar school every year until the end of their education. This is all about ensuring that the most academically capable children can learn together; the less academically capable children don't have some God-given right to try and tap off the intelligence of the academically capable children. My dad failed the 11+, but worked his socks off for his O-levels, and got into the grammar school for his A-levels. It's your kind of left-wing-tripe emotive rhetoric that has spoiled the debate on education for decades, and has ruined our education system.
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    PS Reviewer
    Thanks for the replies to the people who gave them
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    (Original post by tufc)
    It's not about demonising them, and I'd never advocate a return to the old system of 'fail at 11 and you're a failure at life'. I'd like to reintroduce selective education so that in each area, there is a top-notch state school that can rival the best private school in the area. There would be the opportunity for those who failed the 11+ to apply again each year, so if they didn't get in in year 7, they could get in in year 8. I'd also like to fix our broken system of the 'one size fits all' approach to education: it's ridiculous that we force children who are non-academic to continue academic educations, when they could be taught vocational subjects. My mum teaches in an SEN school, and because the kids are often exempted from doing the basic GCSEs, many leave school at 16 and go into well-paid jobs, because they've been learning car maintenance, plumbing etc for several years. Children are talented in different ways, and it's time we recognised that. I consider myself to be reasonably talented in arts subjects - history, English etc. - but I'd never see myself as at all superior to those who are talented at manual jobs such as car maintenance, as we all have a place in the economy.
    Where to start with this...

    First things first: the eleven-plus. Has the exam, in your opinion, ever been a fair and unbiased measure of a pupil's natural talent? The attitudes and knowledge needed to succeed in the test, also known as 'cultural capital', are far more likely to be found in the children of affluent and educated parents, as those parents provide their offspring with an upbringing conducive to performing well in the test, often quite unintentionally. Middle/upper-class children are far more likely to have been read to as children, to have visited galleries, to have a greater apprehension of literature, and of course a wider vocabulary - curtesy of their parents. Then there's the role played by money. Wealthy families are able to buy their children an advantage by purchasing private tuition for their children, or sending them off to independent prep schools - working-class students have no access to these massive sources of assistance. The distortionate effect of both money and 'cultural capital' explains why, under the tripartite system, working class kids were overwhelmingly more likely to be sent to secondary moderns, and upper/middle-class children were massively more likely to pass the eleven-plus. If we are to naively assume that the test is actually meritocratic, then we are making the offensively snobbish assertion that children from poorer families are naturally dumber than their richer counterparts; is this your view? If not, how do you explain the trends in school admissions during the period of selective education?

    The more the education system 'selects', the less students are able to select for themselves the route that their education (and thus their lives) will take. We should treat pupils equally until they are of an age where they can decide for themselves what subjects they want to specialise in; this decision should not be taken for them at eleven, on the basis of a test biased in favour of pupils from affluent backgrounds. And, if, like you say, you value vocational education on a par with the academic route, then why should one branch be exclusively reserved for the "brightest" students?
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    PS Reviewer
    (Original post by JPKC)
    Where to start with this...

    First things first: the eleven-plus. Has the exam, in your opinion, ever been a fair and unbiased measure of a pupil's natural talent? The attitudes and knowledge needed to succeed in the test, also known as 'cultural capital', are far more likely to be found in the children of affluent and educated parents, as those parents provide their offspring with an upbringing conducive to performing well in the test, often quite unintentionally. Middle/upper-class children are far more likely to have been read to as children, to have visited galleries, to have a greater apprehension of literature, and of course a wider vocabulary - curtesy of their parents. Then there's the role played by money. Wealthy families are able to buy their children an advantage by purchasing private tuition for their children, or sending them off to independent prep schools - working-class students have no access to these massive sources of assistance. The distortionate effect of both money and 'cultural capital' explains why, under the tripartite system, working class kids were overwhelmingly more likely to be sent to secondary moderns, and upper/middle-class children were massively more likely to pass the eleven-plus. If we are to naively assume that the test is actually meritocratic, then we are making the offensively snobbish assertion that children from poorer families are naturally dumber than their richer counterparts; is this your view? If not, how do you explain the trends in school admissions during the period of selective education?

    The more the education system 'selects', the less students are able to select for themselves the route that their education (and thus their lives) will take. We should treat pupils equally until they are of an age where they can decide for themselves what subjects they want to specialise in; this decision should not be taken for them at eleven, on the basis of a test biased in favour of pupils from affluent backgrounds. And, if, like you say, you value vocational education on a par with the academic route, then why should one branch be exclusively reserved for the "brightest" students?
    Couldn't agree more.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    dang, won't let me rep you JPKC! but that post is superb. :yy:
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JPKC)
    Where to start with this...

    First things first: the eleven-plus. Has the exam, in your opinion, ever been a fair and unbiased measure of a pupil's natural talent? The attitudes and knowledge needed to succeed in the test, also known as 'cultural capital', are far more likely to be found in the children of affluent and educated parents, as those parents provide their offspring with an upbringing conducive to performing well in the test, often quite unintentionally. Middle/upper-class children are far more likely to have been read to as children, to have visited galleries, to have a greater apprehension of literature, and of course a wider vocabulary - curtesy of their parents. Then there's the role played by money. Wealthy families are able to buy their children an advantage by purchasing private tuition for their children, or sending them off to independent prep schools - working-class students have no access to these massive sources of assistance. The distortionate effect of both money and 'cultural capital' explains why, under the tripartite system, working class kids were overwhelmingly more likely to be sent to secondary moderns, and upper/middle-class children were massively more likely to pass the eleven-plus. If we are to naively assume that the test is actually meritocratic, then we are making the offensively snobbish assertion that children from poorer families are naturally dumber than their richer counterparts; is this your view? If not, how do you explain the trends in school admissions during the period of selective education?

    The more the education system 'selects', the less students are able to select for themselves the route that their education (and thus their lives) will take. We should treat pupils equally until they are of an age where they can decide for themselves what subjects they want to specialise in; this decision should not be taken for them at eleven, on the basis of a test biased in favour of pupils from affluent backgrounds. And, if, like you say, you value vocational education on a par with the academic route, then why should one branch be exclusively reserved for the "brightest" students?
    Agree with some of what you say here, the problem with the system is that it values manual skills such as becoming an electrician far below that of a university graduate. It's drilled into kids that academic achievement is the only kind holding any worth, its half the reason we arguably have too many people in university and its backfiring because its potentially devaluing degrees. Need to stop judging and pigeonholing children from a ridiculously young age :/
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Has a teacher ever helped you cheat?
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Write a reply...
    Reply
    Hide
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.