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

Why do Labour preside over most of the **** holes in Britain? Watch

    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by future_hopeful_uk)
    My general argument is that we should (rightly) use scarce resouces on the best, because our country's future is going to be shaped and determined more so by the best than by the others.
    It isn't really. Given globalisation, workers have been international commodities that move around relatively easily. If anything, our country's future won't be shaped by those who move most straightforwardly - the highly education or independently wealthy - but by the poorest since they will be the ones left behind to make something of the land in which we live in. It is therefore in all our interests to ensure that everyone has the right skills to make something of both their lives and the collective life of our country in the short-time we have available to shape it.

    Somebody isnt 'written off' for failing the 11+, they still sit GCSEs aged 16 but they arent given as much 'government funding' in the form of teaching as someone who is known to be clever.
    They were and they are. There is a great deal of resentment amongst those who did not pass the 11+ and I have opportunities to talk to plenty when I'm engaged in adult education work where I live so this isn't just something I've made up for the sake of the point. Those that I've spoken to felt themselves to be labelled as 'second class' and left in jobs where advancement was minimal and enjoyment even less. Only through adult education - sponsored by the trade union movement in many cases - were they given a second chance.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Adorno)
    They were and they are. There is a great deal of resentment amongst those who did not pass the 11+ ......
    That's called life i'm afraid, we can't all live in the utopia of being 'winners'.

    (Original post by Adorno)
    Those that I've spoken to felt themselves to be labelled as 'second class'
    Well they weren't in the 'first class' were they?

    (Original post by Adorno)
    and left in jobs where advancement was minimal and enjoyment even less. Only through adult education - sponsored by the trade union movement in many cases - were they given a second chance.
    So whats your solution, to make everyone feel like a winner? Tell everyone they are amazing? Isn't that what Labour did as soon as they got into power, ban individual school sports days? Tell everybody they are a winner. Labour banned examination grading from saying 'failed' to 'not passed'......
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by robinson999)
    giving less government your saying your not worth as much to educated than this student, it also make a gap in education, underfunding for some schools, while agreeing with the fact sending everyone to uni is not the goal is understand how to educated someone to a good level and allowing for other training programmes, but every child should have the chance at a great education, plenty of EU countries do ok, Denmark, but than they have some of the highest taxes which people will only moan about

    my case was it should matter about Oxbridge state school admissions, because we shouldn't be testing how well a school is at spending students to a very good uni or any uni at all, again its the factory line comment its planed you do year1-11 pass a test, go on to years 12-13 pass another test than uni pass a test, its good that students from all levels make it there but only a small number of student make it from all backgrounds its not a great way to test

    cos there was no comprehesive, you was either sent to a grammar school and funded like anything, or a secondary modern which where poorly funded, never offered A-level and you never went to uni from one

    comprehensive come from your secondary modern and well comprehensive do alot more better

    there where secondary technical but few in number
    Grammar schools don't receive more funding than comprehensives per pupil, in fact if anything they receive less..... ? The only difference is in the calibre of teachers attracted to the school.....
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by future_hopeful_uk)
    That's called life i'm afraid, we can't all live in the utopia of being 'winners'.
    Nothing to do with utopia. But rather everything to do with a whole host of factors; most of which you wish to ignore in your Daily Mail-isms. Consider whether in the 1960s children from backgrounds that had no books in the house would have had the opportunities that those from richer backgrounds had in preparation to sit the exam that defined the rest of their lives. Most unlikely.

    Well they weren't in the 'first class' were they?
    Why not? Because you agree with the imposition of an elitist, intellectual form of defining first and second class people, you consider those who, at the age of 11, happen to fail an exam which many were never prepared for less people. That's not the only way of sensing a person's capability and it's certainly not the fairest.

    So whats your solution, to make everyone feel like a winner? Tell everyone they are amazing? Isn't that what Labour did as soon as they got into power, ban individual school sports days? Tell everybody they are a winner. Labour banned examination grading from saying 'failed' to 'not passed'......
    No. But guide everyone as fairly as possible and offer them the chances in which to make their own future rather than simply writing 75 - 80% of the population off at age 11 because of a stupid examination. But like I said, Daily Mail-isms.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Adorno)
    Nothing to do with utopia. But rather everything to do with a whole host of factors; most of which you wish to ignore in your Daily Mail-isms. Consider whether in the 1960s children from backgrounds that had no books in the house would have had the opportunities that those from richer backgrounds had in preparation to sit the exam that defined the rest of their lives. Most unlikely.
    The 11+ is made up from maths, verbal reasoning and comprehension. The first two are unrelated to how many 'books in the house'.

    One of the questions on my 11+ comprehension paper asked 'At what time did the titanic sink?', funnilly enough in the text it read 'the titanic sunk at...'

    it's hardly something a tutor can teach you- is it?



    (Original post by Adorno)
    Why not? Because you agree with the imposition of an elitist, intellectual form of defining first and second class people, you consider those who, at the age of 11, happen to fail an exam which many were never prepared for less people. That's not the only way of sensing a person's capability and it's certainly not the fairest.
    If these people failed a test, then in terms of education they are not the best, are they? Therefore in terms of priority of resources they are not the 'first class' ie the most important. Can you accept this?


    (Original post by Adorno)
    No. But guide everyone as fairly as possible and offer them the chances in which to make their own future rather than simply writing 75 - 80% of the population off at age 11 because of a stupid examination. But like I said, Daily Mail-isms.
    I'd call sitting an exam which is open to anybody living in the area (11+) fair, wouldn't you?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by future_hopeful_uk)
    The 11+ is made up from maths, verbal reasoning and comprehension. The first two are unrelated to how many 'books in the house'.
    Oh, no, they're entirely related to how much independent education you have access to. "Books in the house" are not simply about English language learning.

    If these people failed a test, then in terms of education they are not the best, are they? Therefore in terms of priority of resources they are not the 'first class' ie the most important. Can you accept this?
    Nope. Those who are weaker at age 11 should be allocated more resources to ensure that they are brought up to the level of their "first class" peers. Redistribution.

    I'd call sitting an exam which is open to anybody living in the area (11+) fair, wouldn't you?
    No, I wouldn't, as should be patently obvious already. I believe in an education system which does not divide you into two parts at the age of 11. Funnily that since being from Wales, we haven't had that system since the 1970s and society is more equal for it. We suffer from other problems but you still have comprehensively-educated pupils going to Oxford, becoming lawyers, doctors, academics, and so forth.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Adorno)
    Oh, no, they're entirely related to how much independent education you have access to. "Books in the house" are not simply about English language learning.
    Errr no they arent....

    Secondly the 11+ is not marked relative to other students, there is no normal distribution like with A Levels. With this in mind, if you cannot pass the 11+ then you are not bright enough to deserve the better education.


    (Original post by Adorno)
    Nope. Those who are weaker at age 11 should be allocated more resources to ensure that they are brought up to the level of their "first class" peers. Redistribution.
    How can you re-direct resoures to make a dumb person intelligent? :confused:
    Being bright isn't about remembering things...


    (Original post by Adorno)
    No, I wouldn't, as should be patently obvious already. I believe in an education system which does not divide you into two parts at the age of 11.
    Can anybody (who lives in the area) have access to the 11+ test?
    Does the 11+ cost money to sit?

    The 11+ method is fair, you're whining the separation AFTER the 11+ isn't fair, which, if you go down that route you may as well have a paddy that some students go to Oxford and some go to Thames Valley.

    Its funny how you say its wrong to split people by the 11+, but then its ok to select within a school- making your argument even more daft.



    (Original post by Adorno)
    Funnily that since being from Wales, we haven't had that system since the 1970s and society is more equal for it.
    North Korea has an equal education system, its all equally crap....

    (Original post by Adorno)
    We suffer from other problems but you still have comprehensively-educated pupils going to Oxford, becoming lawyers, doctors, academics, and so forth.
    Kent has higher average grades at GCSE (because it has so many Grammar Schools) than the average GCSE grades of counties who don't have Grammar Schools. The Grammar schools raise the average achievement of students.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by future_hopeful_uk)
    How can you re-direct resoures to make a dumb person intelligent? :confused: Being bright isn't about remembering things...
    It's not the case of redistributing to magic a particular form of academic aptitude but rather redistributing resources in order to provide additional support in order that every person in society has an equal chance to make of their lives what they will.

    The 11+ method is fair, you're whining the separation AFTER the 11+ isn't fair, which, if you go down that route you may as well have a paddy that some students go to Oxford and some go to Thames Valley.
    Well no not really, Thames Valley offers different courses and a different form of learning to that provided at Oxford so the two are not the same to compare. Although I haven't ever been to Thames Valley so I can't really pass judgement on its quality. Now, bringing this back to schools, the idea that because a person objects to separating people out at 11 is unfair they must automatically be in favour of a one-size-fits-all approach to Further and Higher education is a typically Daily Mail (and wrong) attitude to take. At age 18, a person is making a choice as to where they wish to take their lives next, they have agency and they have the potential to rectify their mistakes. With the 11+ you have none of that. Fail it and a whole world of opportunity and potential is denied to you - usually for good. As with Oxford and TVU, the two points are not the same.

    Its funny how you say its wrong to split people by the 11+, but then its ok to select within a school- making your argument even more daft.
    I didn't actually say anything of the sort.

    Kent has higher average grades at GCSE (because it has so many Grammar Schools) than the average GCSE grades of counties who don't have Grammar Schools. The Grammar schools raise the average achievement of students.
    Kent has a higher per capita income than, to maintain this example, Wales. I would stake money on Kent having higher average grades at GCSE without the Grammar school system that it currently employs. If all the schools in Kent were comprehensives, the grades would still be higher. Compare Kent's scores with counties that have equivalent per capita average incomes and see how wildly different they are.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by marcusfox)
    Those that hate her are just a minority of northern Communists, stuck in the past, the same as all their industries were after Labour had nationalised them all.
    Load of rubbish.
    edit - thanks for the neg rep btw. Despite that, what you are saying IS a load of rubbish. Many other people hate what Thatcher did, and they are not northern and are not communists.
    People seem to forget that she not only destroyed entire industries (which arguably were starting to fail), but also entire communities. The deprivation and social problems that exist in many places today is pretty much directly linked to Thatcher.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by robinson999)
    thats not evidence, that is more grape vine storytelling, well i once knew a person who knew a person who waited 20 years :rolleyes:

    http://www.rsm.ac.uk/media/downloads...aitinglist.pdf

    yeah i mean these lecturers not as if they are current NHS staff or anything, who take time out of work and travel to give lectures, don't be silly

    depend where you live as the NHS is different in the 4 different countries, and well most get meet within 18 weeks, no more than 6 months, if you have a issue go to your PCT

    :rofl: some how that always gets me about education, you have taken my point out off line, education needs massive reforms that take years to take any affect, exams need to go, what students learn needs to be reformed, removed this whole factory learning you go in at 7, and your ready by 18 cos people are not, people learn at different rates, education is the silver bullet, i bet you got a pretty good education, private or state, the state still has a say in what you learn




    http://www.economicshelp.org/blog/uk...national-debt/

    i would look at data before you start blaming it all onto labour, a few tory governments have had their fair share of the pie, around 2008 you had the bail out which out huge amounts of debt
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datab...borrowing-data
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7733794.stm
    No sweetheart. That is MY experience and I can prove it.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by future_hopeful_uk)
    to hear a Scot say that is completely hillarious.....
    London is always favoured in government spending. When London needs a rail or tube extension, it gets it. Many northern cities can't get their funding for a tram system.

    London government obviously doesn't want any other UK city to compete with it. Personally, i'd rather have three good cities than one epic one.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by meebodied)
    London is always favoured in government spending. When London needs a rail or tube extension, it gets it. Many northern cities can't get their funding for a tram system.

    London government obviously doesn't want any other UK city to compete with it. Personally, i'd rather have three good cities than one epic one.
    on the other hand it coould have something to do with the way that the bulk of the population live in the south east and therefore need a transport system which can move large numbers of people around quickly.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Adorno)
    Kent has a higher per capita income than, to maintain this example, Wales. I would stake money on Kent having higher average grades at GCSE without the Grammar school system that it currently employs. If all the schools in Kent were comprehensives, the grades would still be higher. Compare Kent's scores with counties that have equivalent per capita average incomes and see how wildly different they are.
    So what about N.I then? It's about the poorest and most troubled part of these islands, but thanks to a segregated and tiered education system, produces the best overall results.

    It's **** all to do with money. It's to do with the quality of the education system and how it is set up.

    Now thats not to say the system in N.I is perfect or that what we teach children is even relevant to the world. In many instances it's woeful and inept but you DON'T fix it by using a MORE FLAWED system just because it's perceived to be more equal.

    Fact is not everyone is created equal. Some are naturally more gifted, intelligent and have a better work ethic. Help these kids as they have the most to offer. It's why some end up with qualifications, degrees and aspirations while others invariably resort to welfare, crime and floating through a menial existence. How much money is pumped towards the "poor", the "disadvantaged", those "left behind". A fortune...and guess what - they're still poor, disadvantaged, generally incapable of wholesale improvement and simply keep firing out the next generation of nobodies to suck resources from the teat of the state, paid for by those with a bit of gumption. Squandering resources on losers does nothing to improve our collective lot.

    Lots of flashy new schools for numpties while the gifted continue to succeed in worse settings. What a corruption of how it should be.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Easy question to answer really - in these ****holes the voters don't have the intelligence to make an educated decision. So if they say to someone in their sixties who "Has always voted Labour, just like their parents" (heard that a lot in Glenrothes) that Labour can solve all their problems despite being in power in a local authority for close to 100 years (Glasgow), they are likely to believe them, despite the evidence (Glasgow going down in every measurable scale) showing that Labour is a poor party, which can't deal with the problems it has had every opportunity to deal with.

    In addition, the FPTP system also allows Labour to dominate some English local authorities with less than 50% of the vote. I think the Government should trial PR voting in Labour local authorities, just to give them a kicking.

    Just to say, I have never voted Labour and never will. Labour controlled my local authority for decades, and thankfully that ended 3 years ago. Long may PR keep them out! Anybody who honestly believes Labour will honestly solve all the problems is delusional. I saw them in government, they were crap.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by technik)
    So what about N.I then? It's about the poorest and most troubled part of these islands, but thanks to a segregated and tiered education system, produces the best overall results.

    It's **** all to do with money. It's to do with the quality of the education system and how it is set up.

    Now thats not to say the system in N.I is perfect or that what we teach children is even relevant to the world. In many instances it's woeful and inept but you DON'T fix it by using a MORE FLAWED system just because it's perceived to be more equal.

    Fact is not everyone is created equal. Some are naturally more gifted, intelligent and have a better work ethic. Help these kids as they have the most to offer. It's why some end up with qualifications, degrees and aspirations while others invariably resort to welfare, crime and floating through a menial existence. How much money is pumped towards the "poor", the "disadvantaged", those "left behind". A fortune...and guess what - they're still poor, disadvantaged, generally incapable of wholesale improvement and simply keep firing out the next generation of nobodies to suck resources from the teat of the state, paid for by those with a bit of gumption. Squandering resources on losers does nothing to improve our collective lot.

    Lots of flashy new schools for numpties while the gifted continue to succeed in worse settings. What a corruption of how it should be.
    Completely agree,

    Adorno would have us diverting more and more resources to these people and then aged 15 they'd all be bunking school, getting pregnant and having nothing to show for the resources invested in them as they did not earn it.

    Lets assume Adorno is correct about Kent being more wealthy hence better grades- hes essentially saying that its not school which affects grades, but the environment of the children....... which isn't going to change from spending more money at school!

    Either way Adorno ruins his argument!
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    Because Labour overall, tend to promote development in the **** holes of Britain, along with many social reform policies that benefit those on a lower income. Therefore **** holes vote for them.
 
 
 
  • 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
    What newspaper do you read/prefer?
    Useful resources

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • 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

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