Thread: What stops you from joining the Green Party? Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.


To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=025987

---

Posted by Orb (# 3256) on :
 
Just curious.

Be brutally honest.
 

---

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :
 
The one reason that I didn't join the green party yet is because I have lived outside of the country where I was born for a long time (but maybe I still could?)
 

---

Posted by Bostonman (# 17108) on :
 
In the United States, at least, a vote for the Green Party is in effect a vote for the GOP, or at least equivalent to not voting. Your vote will not count and your candidate has no chance of winning. Nader voters were the reason for GWB's election.

So even though I agree with almost the entire Green platform -- no thanks.
 

---

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :
 
I agree that green issues are probably among the most important of this day. The thing is that the Dutch green party is a bit daft sometimes. Well, a lot of times actually.

For one thing, they are EU-enthousiasts in a way that is almost exagerrated. They seem to see the EU as the way to solve all our environmental problems. I don't share their enthousiasm.

They've also been taking some weird positions about unemployment benefits, the invasion of Iraq... This is why I'm still hesitant about them.

In the national elections, I've voted for them most of the times. But TBH, I wouldn't know whom I'd vote for right now. At times I even caught myself seriously considering the Party for the Animals
 

---

Posted by Arabella Purity Winterbottom (# 3434) on :
 
Greens are doing OK in NZ (8 MPs, biggest ever Green representation), but I am worried about their tendency to cuddle up to the social conservatives in order to continue having power.

NZ is coming up to local body elections. For the last four years we've had a Green mayor, elected because we were desperate to get rid of the previous incumbent (voting for her was basically voting for her property developer husband's interests). Unfortunately, our Green mayor has been largely ineffectual, and has backtracked on some of her campaigning platform. It hasn't helped that she's had a council largely against her. I'm currently in the situation of not having a clue who to vote for - I may well vote for her again, but mainly because her main rival is a nasty backstabber.

Greens need to be Greens, and not dilute their ideals by sucking up to the people in power.
 

---

Posted by Jason Zarri (# 15248) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bostonman:
In the United States, at least, a vote for the Green Party is in effect a vote for the GOP, or at least equivalent to not voting. Your vote will not count and your candidate has no chance of winning. Nader voters were the reason for GWB's election.

So even though I agree with almost the entire Green platform -- no thanks.

---

quote:

---

Arabella Purity Winterbottom: Greens need to be Greens, and not dilute their ideals by sucking up to the people in power.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jason Zarri:
This reminds me of a quote from "The Daily Show's America: The Book":

"Ralph Nader was second only to Al gore in costing Al Gore the election."

So I respectfully disagree. No one owes anyone their vote; if Gore didn't win, it's primarily his fault for not being a more appealing candidate.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bostonman:
Would at least 85,500 of Nader's voters either stayed home or voted Republican? That seems unlikely. If a generic Green candidate had taken 4000-5000 in Florida, a generous result, Gore would have been president.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bostonman:
In the United States, at least, a vote for the Green Party is in effect a vote for the GOP, or at least equivalent to not voting. Your vote will not count and your candidate has no chance of winning. Nader voters were the reason for GWB's election.

So even though I agree with almost the entire Green platform -- no thanks.

---

quote:

---

Greens are doing OK in NZ (8 MPs, biggest ever Green representation), but I am worried about their tendency to cuddle up to the social conservatives in order to continue having power.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Orb:
Um, patently not single issue, at least if you're in the UK: http://policy.greenparty.org.uk/

What is "dark green environmentalism"?

I guess the Labour Party never thought it would have power in 1900 when they had two MPs.

---

It is single-issue - it focuses on environmentalism. That focus might lead to a particular view on other issues, but the party is based around environmentalism. Why else would it be the Green Party?

Dark, light, and bright green environmentalism.

Sorry, are you trying to use this thread to recruit for the Greens? What's the point of this thread?
 

---

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
I used to vote Green or Lib Dem depending on my mood/the local candidates.

Since the Lib Dems sold out to the Tories I have voted Green.

I won't join the party as I have no time to commit to it.


 

---

Posted by Taliesin (# 14017) on :
 
Similar to what Boogie said. Except that I always vote Green when there is a Green candidate, which was only twice in the last 15 years.

Having said that, I acknowledge that I might think more carefully if there was a chance of a Green parliament. It's so obviously a protest vote I don't have to think about it.
 

---

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
Because I'm not a socialist, and once you look past the environmentalism they're further to the left than any other mainstream party.
 

---

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 
I've voted Green when ever I've had the chance. I've recently been pondering whether to join the Scottish Greens. My only issue with the Greens has been the slightly aggressive secularism. And the support for homeopathy, but that seems to be a bizarre disease that affects most parties.
 

---

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
I despair for those of you who live in places that don't have some kind of preferential or proportional voting system.
 

---

Posted by anoesis (# 14189) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:
It is single-issue - it focuses on environmentalism.

---

quote:

---

What stops you from joining the Green Party?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglican't:

quote:

---

What stops you from joining the Green Party?

---

My aversion to zealous authoritarian socialists who will wreck society given half the chance, mainly. That and the fact that many of them don't seem to dress properly.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
Where to begin, should I start with the fascism that lies just beneath the surface, the anti-science sentiments, the communist inspired economic policies, oh I could go on and on and on and on and on and on... you get the idea.

I have to agree with Jade on the Greens in England and Wales (I know little of what the Green Party in NI does, and apart from a stupid position in siding with Alex Salmon I know little of the Scottish Greens) being a 'single-issue party' with some rather immature views on other issues as well...

Which leads me to say, that despite having control of Brighton Council, the Greens have no coherent policy (a bit like Labour in Wales really) or standard line on issues with Greens actively joining strike action against their own party (although having taken the decision to farm the decision to Council Officers, so I guess they can claim they didn't make the decision, which is possibly even worse as an action/defence.)

Caroline Lucas, MP, showed no proper decorum or mature abilities in her Page 3 ridiculousness recently in Westminster Hall Committee and the party as a whole on Brighton & Hove mistreated Christina Summers over a free vote.

And whilst I find it amusing that a lefty (Jade) is laying into the greens for being Guardianista's she has a very valid point, the BBC, Labour Party and Greens share the same narrow, Guardian inspired and filtered view of the world and very little else matters from the patronising, middle-class pov that they have.

---

One of the reasons I have an issue with the Guardian is that it's not truly left-wing, but liberal (in the true political sense). I totally agree with you regarding the patronising middle-class POV that organisations like the Greens, the Guardian etc often have - but I am a working-class socialist. We do exist, I promise!
 

---

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 
Because they seem to want us all to live in villages and ride horses again.

- I mean, that's the ridiculous end point of their environmental war against technology and travel. No emissions (no vehicles) No importing stuff from overseas, therefore everything must be locally grown.

I do not trust ecological ideologies. I accept there is a bit of climate alteration but nowhere near the rubbish that has been spouted for 10 years and I do not believe any of it is man made!

I don't like eco-warriors who protest at every turn about this new road, that new housing estate, that new powerstation.

Plus they wear a lot of brown clothes and are vegans and call their children names like Summer and River or Leaf.

Those are my uninformed prejudices and I like them

[ 10. August 2013, 07:50: Message edited by: Mudfrog ]
 

---

Posted by Taliesin (# 14017) on :
 
Ok, I've read the definitions and the policies, thank you Jade and Orb.
It looks like UK greens are dark green, as I imagined. They claim to be willing to stop tuition fees which seems unlikely.
I notice that in Brighton, policies are tough and successful. Parking restrictions have gone thru the roof, so I go in by train.
ETA I misread the question. I wouldn't join a political party. I thought it was asking why not vote for it.

[ 10. August 2013, 07:52: Message edited by: Taliesin ]
 

---

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglican't:

quote:

---

What stops you from joining the Green Party?

---

My aversion to zealous authoritarian socialists who will wreck society given half the chance, mainly. That and the fact that many of them don't seem to dress properly.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Because they seem to want us all to live in villages and ride horses again.

- I mean, that's the ridiculous end point of their environmental war against technology and travel. No emissions (no vehicles) No importing stuff from overseas, therefore everything must be locally grown.

I do not trust ecological ideologies. I accept there is a bit of climate alteration but nowhere near the rubbish that has been spouted for 10 years and I do not believe any of it is man made!

I don't like eco-warriors who protest at every turn about this new road, that new housing estate, that new powerstation.

Plus they wear a lot of brown clothes and are vegans and call their children names like Summer and River or Leaf.

Those are my uninformed prejudices and I like them

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I do not trust ecological ideologies. I accept there is a bit of climate alteration but nowhere near the rubbish that has been spouted for 10 years and I do not believe any of it is man made!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Really? There are socialists in the Green Party? I think you'll find that most of them are firmly liberal, not socialist. Also given how many Green Party members campaign for electoral reform including proportional representation, I don't think being authoritarian is what they want.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Because they seem to want us all to live in villages and ride horses again.

- I mean, that's the ridiculous end point of their environmental war against technology and travel. No emissions (no vehicles) No importing stuff from overseas, therefore everything must be locally grown.

I do not trust ecological ideologies. I accept there is a bit of climate alteration but nowhere near the rubbish that has been spouted for 10 years and I do not believe any of it is man made!

I don't like eco-warriors who protest at every turn about this new road, that new housing estate, that new powerstation.

Plus they wear a lot of brown clothes and are vegans and call their children names like Summer and River or Leaf.

Those are my uninformed prejudices and I like them

---

So you think God is responsible for climate change? I mean, if humans aren't responsible...

That's what it boils down to, from a Christian point of view. Either we are stewards of the Earth God has given us, and have failed to steward it properly and must repent of that sin, or God is behind climate change (which has devastated countries, especially developing countries) and as a result is a bit of a bastard and I would question wanting to worship that God.

I'm surprised by your attitude considering the great things Salvationists do in caring for the needy. Part of caring for people is caring for the environment, particularly those who rely on it for their living - and especially those in developing countries. Of course farmers etc in the UK rely on the environment and shouldn't be ignored, absolutely not, but Farmer Fred in Gloucestershire can always retrain and go into IT (for example). A subsistence farmer in Bangladesh won't have the option to just go and do something else - the environment is life and death to him or her.

So while I do not vote for the Greens and would not join them, I do think that environmental issues should be very, very important to Christians.

---

quote:

---

originally posted by Jade Constable

So you think God is responsible for climate change? I mean, if humans aren't responsible...

That's what it boils down to, from a Christian point of view. Either we are stewards of the Earth God has given us, and have failed to steward it properly and must repent of that sin, or God is behind climate change (which has devastated countries, especially developing countries) and as a result is a bit of a bastard and I would question wanting to worship that God.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
I love how we've got a load of people accusing the Green Party of being anti-science when Mudfrog is sat in the middle of it denying the ongoing findings of one of the largest scientific investigations in human history.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ricardus:
I have voted Green in local elections, mostly as a protest vote because the entirety of the campaign literature we received was on the level of "Vote Labour because the Lib Dem candidate smells!" and "Vote Lib Dem because the Labour candidate has silly hair!"

My reservations about the party:

- I am not really sure what they stand for. Round here they seem to be positioning themselves as an anti-cuts alternative to Labour. They used to be in favour of zero growth but that's not very prominent in their campaign literature.

- They don't seem to have much in the way of economic credentials. I mean I have zero respect for the economic nous of George Osbourne and Ed Balls, but Labour and the Tories do at least have economic policy advisors and think tanks. And the Lib Dems have Vince Cable, whom I do respect.

FWIW I agree with Marvin's assessment that they are socialists, at least in theory, but more in the line of William Morris than Karl Marx.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Re the Greens and socialism - I take your point about William Morris and that particular type of socialism. I don't think that most of their supporters or even most of their members are socialists, though. Probably the point at which socialism and liberalism intersect.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:
It is single-issue - it focuses on environmentalism. That focus might lead to a particular view on other issues, but the party is based around environmentalism. Why else would it be the Green Party?

---

quote:

---

Sorry, are you trying to use this thread to recruit for the Greens? What's the point of this thread?

---

quote:

---

So while I do not vote for the Greens and would not join them, I do think that environmental issues should be very, very important to Christians.

---

quote:

---

They only support PR because it would give them more seats in parliament. Make no mistake, if they ever got to a position where FPTP worked for them they'd drop their "principled stance" in a second.

---

quote:

---

From Marvin the Martian: And of course they'd be authoritarian in power.

---

quote:

---

From guinness girl: I don't vote Green because, although I applaud their stance on many issues, their policies with regard to scientific issues are batshit mental. Their policy on animal testing is utterly unrealistic and would have a grave and incalculable human cost.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Re the Greens and socialism - I take your point about William Morris and that particular type of socialism. I don't think that most of their supporters or even most of their members are socialists, though. Probably the point at which socialism and liberalism intersect.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
Orb have you read this report and understood what it says and the implications of them?

Further the green party continues to ratchet up the crisis talk, consistently, to the point that anyone who dares to express any doubt over research, or present alternative research, to the current line on man-made climate change is not deemed a sceptic, but labelled outright as a crazy denialist whether they deny climate change or not. To restrict the freedom of discussion and debate (as seems to happen a lot in this world - I take for example Richard Dawkins recent comments on Islam and a lack of scientific ability, how a valid presentation of facts has led to spurious charges of racism (how can a religion be a race?) and hate mongering - which of course raises the question where were all the people decrying his comments when he lays into Christianity? Hey? Double standards much...? Anyhow off-topic!- which only seeks to demonise proper debate and discussion rather than protect anyone) is not the sign of a truly liberal political agenda, but is one of the trademarks of fascism, and other totalitarian ideologies, namely persecution of dissent.

Further, hand-in-hand with fascism, the Greens believe that most things are the responsibility of the state, whether they relate to national, local or even personal matters (in a similar way to how Plaid's Leanne Wood's report several years back called for dissemination of power to the people, not by actually giving them power but by more centralisation and government control - the report was a contradiction in terms) and when tied into the sort of language that Lucas uses about environmental controls, which is overly centralist and imposed rather than relying on free-markets and freedom of thought or action, we have the predominant hallmarks of the fascist ideology.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ricardus:
IME Green supporters tend to be disaffected Old Labour types who go on demonstrations and get involved in community action programmes.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Orb:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
Orb have you read this report and understood what it says and the implications of them?

Further the green party continues to ratchet up the crisis talk, consistently, to the point that anyone who dares to express any doubt over research, or present alternative research, to the current line on man-made climate change is not deemed a sceptic, but labelled outright as a crazy denialist whether they deny climate change or not. To restrict the freedom of discussion and debate (as seems to happen a lot in this world - I take for example Richard Dawkins recent comments on Islam and a lack of scientific ability, how a valid presentation of facts has led to spurious charges of racism (how can a religion be a race?) and hate mongering - which of course raises the question where were all the people decrying his comments when he lays into Christianity? Hey? Double standards much...? Anyhow off-topic!- which only seeks to demonise proper debate and discussion rather than protect anyone) is not the sign of a truly liberal political agenda, but is one of the trademarks of fascism, and other totalitarian ideologies, namely persecution of dissent.

Further, hand-in-hand with fascism, the Greens believe that most things are the responsibility of the state, whether they relate to national, local or even personal matters (in a similar way to how Plaid's Leanne Wood's report several years back called for dissemination of power to the people, not by actually giving them power but by more centralisation and government control - the report was a contradiction in terms) and when tied into the sort of language that Lucas uses about environmental controls, which is overly centralist and imposed rather than relying on free-markets and freedom of thought or action, we have the predominant hallmarks of the fascist ideology.

---

Haha! You're funny. REALLY funny.

If you met Caroline, or indeed anyone in the Green Party, you wouldn't accuse us of being fascist. Come for a pint if you live near Brighton - we'll all be there at Conference on the weekend of the 13/14/15/16 September. Easy to spot - we'll be the ones with the Swastika armbands.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:
The Greens would never get in where I live and I see no point in wasting my vote on a candidate who wouldn't get in, even if I would agree with them on some policies.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
I needn't pop round for a pint, although heading to Brighton would be a good chance to catch up with some old friends, all I need to rely on is what is written, published and spoken by official representatives of the Green Party. It is possible for those on the inside to kid themselves that they are not the people they are, but when the ideology litters the reports and speeches, it seems rather obvious that you are...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
The last couple of days I've also been hearing yet more horrors about what our processed foods are doing to an increasing percentage of the world's population, pumping us all full of sugar and creating an obesity and diabetes epidemic. That's what the 'free' market delivers - they want to sell you yummy, tasty, SHITTY food and externalise the costs of dealing with the consequences. Because the market is all about making a buck, not about considering the long term consequences of making a buck.

So yeah, call me a centralist. Today is one of those days where I think we desperately need the nanny state to keep us from killing ourselves with 'pleasure'.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
anyone who dares to express any doubt over research, or present alternative research, to the current line on man-made climate change is not deemed a sceptic, but labelled outright as a crazy denialist whether they deny climate change or not. [...] one of the trademarks of fascism, and other totalitarian ideologies, namely persecution of dissent.

---

quote:

---

when tied into the sort of language that Lucas uses about environmental controls, which is overly centralist and imposed rather than relying on free-markets and freedom of thought or action, we have the predominant hallmarks of the fascist ideology.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Orb:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
I needn't pop round for a pint, although heading to Brighton would be a good chance to catch up with some old friends, all I need to rely on is what is written, published and spoken by official representatives of the Green Party. It is possible for those on the inside to kid themselves that they are not the people they are, but when the ideology litters the reports and speeches, it seems rather obvious that you are...

---

I honestly don't understand how you can think that. It's not kidding myself. It's just not my lived experience of what Greens are like. (If I went to Tory Party conference, I would expect to get on well with many of them - I do, mostly, on the local council!)

---

Don't get me wrong, on a personal level I get on very well with people who hold opposing political views to myself (hell Mr S-M is about as opposite to me on the political scale I'm surprised we do get on sometimes - however his slow political movement to the right is heart warming and nice to see, just taking too long!) but that does not mean that I cannot see, or prove, the ideology which they hold for what it truly is (in some respects they occasionally see too!)

You are continuing to try and shut down a proper discussion on the 'dark' side of the Green party ideology by questioning my, I have no idea what you are questioning actually, or by claiming that your experience overrides what your official spokespeople and representatives have actually written and said... If you officially proclaim something that is what you officially believe even if it runs counter to your 'experience' - although of course that raises the question, are any of the greens that you know actually greens or just disaffected labour/Lib. Dem/NSDAP ( ) members/voters looking for a group to belong to and have pint with.

Alternatively another flaw in the Green Party is revealed, an inability for constituent parts to actually talk to ach other before producing policy and announcements, in which case I'm not sure they could be trusted with organising a piss-up in a brewery if internal communication is so lacking, let alone with national government (well local government has shown this as well, I refer you back to the discord between the Council Party, local party association and national level party...)
 

---

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
Someone up-thread mentioned fresh water etc... sorry but that is a none starter of an argument and really does not merit any sort of response since it should be evident just how flimsy an argument it is...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Orb:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:
The Greens would never get in where I live and I see no point in wasting my vote on a candidate who wouldn't get in, even if I would agree with them on some policies.

---

I've moved past this. Vote for what you WANT. If that's no one, then spoil your ballot. If everyone stopped being scared/voting for the lesser of two evils, we'd get somewhere.

---

quote:

---

In answer to the question about sucking up: NZ is currently in the grip of a libertarian, monetarist government. When this government was formed, it did not have quite enough seats to have a clear majority for some of its planned programme of legislation. The Greens initially cosied up and agreed to support them for confidence and supply issues in return for backing some of the Greens' pet projects. Those of us who voted for the Greens threw up our hands in horror, since it was very obvious that the government had no intention of following through.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Orb:
Just curious.

Be brutally honest.

---

What stops me from joining the Green Party is that it exists.
 

---

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 
Green Party Philosophy
 

---

Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :
 
In the United States our political system does not really encourage third parties. However when a third party does start to get legs, it seems the main parties (which some claim are just two wings of the Federalist party) will adapt.

An example: back in the 70's George Wallace from Alabama lead a very conservative Southern Democrat reactionary faction--they did not like how the National Democratic party was becoming more ethnically diverse. The Republicans saw an opportunity and developed their "southern strategy" which appealed to these people.

Likewise, the Democratic party has taken on some green issues in the past two elections: encouraging sustainable practices and conservation issues.

The Republican party is also adapting libertarian issues in the hopes of appealing to a younger group, but in reality I am thinking the Republican party is fast becoming a permanent minority party. It can still lock up the House of Representatives, but in the 2016 election cycle you will see some formally strong Red (republican) states becoming blue states because of large Hispanic populations and the decreasing white populations.
 

---

Posted by A Sojourner (# 17776) on :
 
The Scottish Green Party stops me from considering them at all due to their pro-independence stance. As a left-winger I may sympathise with some of their other policies, but ultimately their view on the central issue of Scottish politics prevents me from even investigating them as a potential choice.

I say this as a fully-paid member of the Labour Party who likes some of the aspects of the Green Party but ultimately would rather vote Tory* as while they (in my opinion) would hurt my country (as they have been doing in power), the Scottish Greens in power would work to destroy my country the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

'Tis be the realities of Scottish Politics at the moment.

*If given only the choice between Tory and Scottish Green.

[ 10. August 2013, 19:14: Message edited by: A Sojourner ]
 

---

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 
Surely the solution is to vote Green then vote no in any referendum on independence? That's how plenty of SNP voters handle it.
 

---

Posted by Plique-à-jour (# 17717) on :
 
I vote Green whenever I get the opportunity, ie. whenever they're on the ballot. I can't remember if this has happened twice or only once. Certainly it was MEP elections.

I wouldn't join the party because I haven't the time or money to participate in an entire calendar of political activity and have a life as well. Or rather, let's say that I don't think I would be of much help to them, beyond the membership fee.

[ 10. August 2013, 19:53: Message edited by: Plique-à-jour ]
 

---

Posted by A Sojourner (# 17776) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
Surely the solution is to vote Green then vote no in any referendum on independence? That's how plenty of SNP voters handle it.

---

Why would I vote for a Party that I disagree with one of their most fundemental policies? I agree many non-indy supports vote SNP but I don't want to vote like that. The problem is that the Greens policies have to be seen through the lens of independence... I like their localism, but not if it means Independent Scotland, as that does not mean anything close to localism for anyone who lives north of the Forth(as an example)...

In other words, I am pretty loyal Labour but with some Green and Liberal tendencies...
 

---

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :
 
We don't vote Green because our brain cells are still functioning pretty effectively. We are solidly of the left, and vote for the Labour party.

The Greens here have 2 main strands. The first is the very public, soft and fluffy image of tree huggers, with fundraisers dressed as koalas. While that was the faction of the previous leader, it is the smaller within the party of the 2, but the one which attracts the majority of the vote.

The larger organisational strand is an odd collection of remnants of the various Communist parties which existed here in the 70s and early 80s, along with a Trotskyite element. This strand is dominant in the Green parliamentarians in this State. The views of this group receive very little publicity.

A real peculiarity of the Green Party is that while it proclaims the virtues of open government and open political dealing, it is the only party to hold its meetings behind closed doors and concealing internal debate. The line used to support this is that to do otherwise would be to give ammunition to opponents, a line we have great difficulty following.
 

---

Posted by Orb (# 3256) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by A Sojourner:
Why would I vote for a Party that I disagree with one of their most fundemental policies?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gee D:
We are solidly of the left, and vote for the Labour party.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Plique-à-jour:
Perhaps because they're poor and the real outcome of an election will have an perceptible effect on their lives?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gee D:
The UK Labor party is rather different to the Federal ALP here. I can't imagine voting to support a Blair/Brown led party, and don't know for whom we would have voted.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gee D:
The refugee policies of both major parties are un-Christian, racist and appalling. Their policies concerning normal migration are quite OK.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gee D:
In other words, almost all of those who arrive by boat are found to be genuine in their claims of oppression in their original country. They are people to whom we have, by entering into the treaty, undertaken obligations of care and protection. Instead, they are demonised by the present opposition and elements of the press.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gee D:
It's very encouraging that in his initial statement, the newly elected Anglican Archbishop of Sydney drew particular attention to the plight of asylum seekers.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gee D:
The only change I'd suggest to your post is to alter "largely" to something more like "very heavily". Almost no new immigrants arrived by plane until well into the 1970s.

---

I take your point. Populate or perish wasn't it

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gee D:
Not so sure about your second comment, though. ++Harry Goodhew was a traditional low church Anglican, of the Church of Ireland type, but he was content with a range of Anglican expression. He is still extremely popular when he attends a church outside his normal parish, particularly one of the stole churches.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Yam-pk:
Given that Australia has been largely populated by *boat-people* since the 1700s, such a attitude towards a few refugee vessels seems a tad, well, hypocritical and ungenerous to say the least. The Greens are right about this, but then, so are most decent people.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gee D:
The refugee policies of both major parties are un-Christian, racist and appalling.

---

quote:

---

The Greens in Australia seem to be a very disorganised rabble without a coherent national strategy on any one issue, they seem to be a loose grouping of champagne socialists nominally united under a common banner for the purposes of being more electable than they would be as independents.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the giant cheeseburger:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Yam-pk:
Given that Australia has been largely populated by *boat-people* since the 1700s, such a attitude towards a few refugee vessels seems a tad, well, hypocritical and ungenerous to say the least. The Greens are right about this, but then, so are most decent people.

---

Given that they'll never be called to account for their policies by putting them into action in the real world, of course they can afford to be idealistic instead of making a genuine contribution to the work of finding a realistic solution.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
I have been tempted to vote Green - I did once for the European elections but it meant that one of the Labour candidates failed to get a seat.

In this city, I'd be tempted to vote Green if they opposed the elected mayor - who acts like an elected dictator who takes no notice of the people, who treats elected councillors with extreme condescension and is seeking to cut down the number of councillors.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gee D:
The UK Labor party is rather different to the Federal ALP here. I can't imagine voting to support a Blair/Brown led party, and don't know for whom we would have voted.

---

I'd vote for UK Labour any day over the racism of Australian Labour and its immigration policies.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
In this city, I'd be tempted to vote Green if they opposed the elected mayor - who acts like an elected dictator who takes no notice of the people, who treats elected councillors with extreme condescension and is seeking to cut down the number of councillors.

---

Good to see someone's following closely

I will have a word with the other three councillors on "opposing the Mayor" - think it's a bit inflexible myself when we have to work with him to get the best for the city. Of course, we have opposed him and will continue to oppose him when he breaks his promises, as he did over BRT2.

My next week is taken up with writing a position paper for our stance on the boundary review. We want to see the same level of representation maintained, and the inner city better represented.
 

---

Posted by Mother Julian (# 11978) on :
 
I did join the Green Party, after the last election. The big issue is environmental protection, just about everything else is negotiable. I believed , perhaps still believe, that the Green Party is the best vehicle for changing environmental issues for the better in the UK. I'm not a very active member, at least here in Liverpool we've a couple of rather good councillors and an active party that is doing good work.

However, the strong anti-religious policies of the party I find increasing difficult to to accept. A recent survey, reported in the party magazine, recorded 60% of members as having no religion, so the anti-religious policies aren't goin to change any time soon.

And I hope that Orb could clarify what's happening in Bristol affecting my beloved Bristol Rovers Football Club. Following much discussion, BRFC are to build a new stadium and the old ground will become the site of a Sainsbury's supermarket. It's (development of the old ground) been through the full planning process, with lots of consultation and environmental improvements from the original proposals. At the last minute, a tenants and residents association is considering launching a Judicial Review of the way the planning process was handled by the City council. It appears from Twitter entries by a Green activist in Bristol that this is being supported by Bristol Greens. There is no serious cause for review of the planning decision, the FUD caused by this will only add to delays in building our new stadium, but won't prevent it. Bristol Greens are looking very petty being involved in this. I am so angry about this unnecesary delay to our plans that at the moment I can't see how I can remain a member of a party that behaves like this. In the small things, big things can be learnt.
 

---

Posted by Orb (# 3256) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mother Julian:
However, the strong anti-religious policies of the party I find increasing difficult to to accept. A recent survey, reported in the party magazine, recorded 60% of members as having no religion, so the anti-religious policies aren't goin to change any time soon.

---

I don't see these as anti-religious policies at all. If you want to lessen the 60% of the party who are non-religious, I would suggest asking your green-minded religious friends to join!

Education:
ED173 We will seek to cater for these rights and needs through ensuring that children and young people can practise their faith in schools, for example by providing prayer space for those who need or wish to practise their religion regularly.

ED174 At the same time we will abolish the requirement for a compulsory daily act of worship. Schools which choose to continue to hold acts of worship will provide an alternative activity for learners who choose not to take part. Pupils who do not participate in worship will not suffer any form of discrimination.

ED175 Religious instruction, as distinct from religious education in understanding different religions may only take place outside of school curriculum time.

ED176 No publicly-funded school shall be run by a religious organisation. Schools may teach about religions, comparing examples which originated in each continent, but are prohibited from delivering religious instruction in any form or encouraging adherence to any particular religious belief.

ED177 Privately-funded schools run by religious organisations must reflect the inclusive nature of British society and become part of the Local authority admissions system. This non-discriminatory approach will be extended to staff who must not be discriminated against in faith schools due to their own faith either in seeking employment or during employment.

ED178 Opt-outs from equality and diversity legislation will not be allowed for faith schools and they will not be permitted to promote homophobia or transphobia on the grounds of religion.

Equal marriage:
RR507 The Green Party also supports an end to the ban on civil partnerships being conducted in places of worship whilst recognising it is up to religious bodies to make this decision and not for the state to dictate to them prohibitions on civil partnerships.

Taken from here: http://policy.greenparty.org.uk/

quote:

---

At the last minute, a tenants and residents association is considering launching a Judicial Review of the way the planning process was handled by the City council.

---

quote:

---

It appears from Twitter entries by a Green activist in Bristol that this is being supported by Bristol Greens.

---

quote:

---

Bristol Greens are looking very petty being involved in this.

---

quote:

---

I am so angry about this unnecesary delay to our plans that at the moment I can't see how I can remain a member of a party that behaves like this.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Yam-pk:
[/qb]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
Why won't I join the Greens? Because Elizabeth May, their leader, is a Tory in Disguise and their party is really Brian Mulroney's Progressive Conservative Party of the 1980's, that's why. It's where all the Tories who can't stand going over to the Liberals seem to hang out.

I'm also a New Democratic Party member, so I get to believe everything Greens do and more besides, and my caucus has 103 MP's instead of Ms. May in the back row on the Opposition side of the Commons next to the Sergeant-at-Arms near the door.

Oh, and since the Green Party is not officially recognized in the House of Commons, Ms. May is addressed as the "Honourable Member for Gulf-Saanich Islands" to which she responds "And the Green Party votes...." Pathetic.

---

quote:

---

Daniella Radice ‏@GreenDaniella

On t

Reply
Retweet
Favourite

11:00 AM - 2 Aug 13

Jools Pirog ‏@JoolsPirog 5h

@GreenDaniella how shameful you cannot be open about your attempt to block the redevelopment of the memorial ground. Poor show & cowardly

---

quote:

---

TRASH

Trash is continuing to pursue the option of a Judicial Review, and has taken the case through a solicitor to Counsel. If we get the green light for this then we will need to raise money.

---

quote:

---

Some people believe football is a matter of life and death, I am very disappointed with that attitude. I can assure you it is much, much more important than that

---

quote:

---

Sorry to all the rest of the SoF that my first posting for a couple of years should be on a matter of such limited local interest

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mother Julian:
And, pace Orb "I like football, but it's just football" NO IT'S NOT, in the immortal words of the saintly Bill Shankly, sometime manager of Liverpool Football Club:

quote:

---

Some people believe football is a matter of life and death, I am very disappointed with that attitude. I can assure you it is much, much more important than that

---

.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Timothy the Obscure:
In the US system, voting for the person can override voting for the party.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Orb:
but not at the price of more supermarkets, particularly one so close to Gloucester Road, one of the last great high streets left in the UK.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
Because the smaller shops can't compete with a supermarket that takes 90 days credit as part of their deals with suppliers. That means the supermarket has at least 60 days interest on their takings before having to pay the suppliers. Makes the profit margins look very different.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
Because the smaller shops can't compete with a supermarket that takes 90 days credit as part of their deals with suppliers. That means the supermarket has at least 60 days interest on their takings before having to pay the suppliers. Makes the profit margins look very different.

---

I'm sure it does, but that doesn't change the fact that it results in cheaper goods for the shoppers and therefore is better for them.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:
...until the Greens change their spots a little at least on the religion issue, that will remain a massive hindrance to the likes of me having anything serious to do with them.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
Because the smaller shops can't compete with a supermarket that takes 90 days credit as part of their deals with suppliers. That means the supermarket has at least 60 days interest on their takings before having to pay the suppliers. Makes the profit margins look very different.

---

I'm sure it does, but that doesn't change the fact that it results in cheaper goods for the shoppers and therefore is better for them.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bostonman:
In the United States, at least, a vote for the Green Party is in effect a vote for the GOP, or at least equivalent to not voting. Your vote will not count and your candidate has no chance of winning. Nader voters were the reason for GWB's election.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Orb:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:
...until the Greens change their spots a little at least on the religion issue, that will remain a massive hindrance to the likes of me having anything serious to do with them.

---

I've never encountered anyone in the Green Party being anti-religion, so this puzzles me. Maybe it's...<shudder>...changed?

---

quote:

---

Fr Weber: And of course, the "Nader spoiled it" theory assumes that all those votes would have gone to Gore.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Orb:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:
...until the Greens change their spots a little at least on the religion issue, that will remain a massive hindrance to the likes of me having anything serious to do with them.

---

I've never encountered anyone in the Green Party being anti-religion, so this puzzles me. Maybe it's...<shudder>...changed?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Orb:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:
...until the Greens change their spots a little at least on the religion issue, that will remain a massive hindrance to the likes of me having anything serious to do with them.

---

I've never encountered anyone in the Green Party being anti-religion, so this puzzles me. Maybe it's...<shudder>...changed?

---

Not if eg: the ED177 quoted by you above still stands.

---

quote:

---

This non-discriminatory approach will be extended to staff who must not be discriminated against in faith schools due to their own faith either in seeking employment or during employment.

---

quote:

---

It seemed to have a quite anti-Christian and pro-New Age and neo-pagan (Wicca etc) bias back then with at least one party conference being opened with some kind of weird New Age ritual. That really put me off joining at the time and, if Mother Julian's comments are accurate (as they seem to be borne out by Orb's post above), not a vast amount has changed now.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stetson:
Matt Black wrote:

quote:

---

It seemed to have a quite anti-Christian and pro-New Age and neo-pagan (Wicca etc) bias back then with at least one party conference being opened with some kind of weird New Age ritual. That really put me off joining at the time and, if Mother Julian's comments are accurate (as they seem to be borne out by Orb's post above), not a vast amount has changed now.

---

That sorta thing is not just confined to the Greens. It permeates the environmental movement these days, even those sections of it that are identified with the old-line political left.

I don't know if I would neccessarily call it anti-Christian, though it does give a prominence to certain types of spirituality that would certainly never be given to Christianity in the same venues. I'd be curious to know what positive impact, if any, it has had in making enviromentalism popular outside of its already established niche.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
Orb have you read this report and understood what it says and the implications of them?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by moonlitdoor:
Everyone will have good housing, a well paid job, and there will be brilliant public services which will all be free, as if doing it were as easy as thinking of it.

I can't imagine voting for any party which didn't admit to the difficulty of government.

---

quote:

---

I've been involved in environmental politics, and I have a lot of friends who are neo-pagans. I've not seen a lot of overlap.

The most active Green activists I've seen (both in a general political sense and the party itself) were a Methodist minister and a lay Catholic with close Jesuit ties.

Maybe 20-30 years ago the Green movement owed more to sentiment than anything else but now the biggest issues are grounded in hard science.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sioni Sais:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
Because the smaller shops can't compete with a supermarket that takes 90 days credit as part of their deals with suppliers. That means the supermarket has at least 60 days interest on their takings before having to pay the suppliers. Makes the profit margins look very different.

---

I'm sure it does, but that doesn't change the fact that it results in cheaper goods for the shoppers and therefore is better for them.

---

If you're a shopper without a car it's not better at all. Buses, where they exist, run to town centres which are fine if you want bulding societies, banks, estate agents, charity shops and Poundland. Things may be better in big cities but in most towns all the real shops are out of town these days, surrounded by giant car parks.

---

quote:

---

the power to fine supermarkets if they abuse their suppliers by forcing down wholesale prices to below-cost levels [which came] after supermarkets have been accused of behaving unreasonably when setting prices – and changing the terms of agreements once they have been struck.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Orb:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Orb:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:
...until the Greens change their spots a little at least on the religion issue, that will remain a massive hindrance to the likes of me having anything serious to do with them.

---

I've never encountered anyone in the Green Party being anti-religion, so this puzzles me. Maybe it's...<shudder>...changed?

---

Not if eg: the ED177 quoted by you above still stands.

---

"Privately-funded schools run by religious organisations must reflect the inclusive nature of British society and become part of the Local authority admissions system."

How is bringing faith schools under local authority control anti-religion?!

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

This non-discriminatory approach will be extended to staff who must not be discriminated against in faith schools due to their own faith either in seeking employment or during employment.

---

Faith schools should be subject to employment law...no? If not, why not?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:
Because I would be concerned that they would be subjected to the LA's secular humanist agenda. I wouldn't want my kids' Catholic school subject to the diktat of the LA for that reason; it would over time destroy its unique Catholic ethos. Why do you want it subject to LA control?

---

quote:

---

It was the admissions policy aspect that disturbed me the most: whilst we do take non-Catholics, our local Catholic school exists primarily for the benefit of the local Catholic community. Same I would guess with most if not all Muslim faith schools.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Orb:
I don't think LAs should have ANY agenda, beyond putting the needs of children first. I want private schools (faith or otherwise) under LA control because I want our school system to be less tiered and more equitable.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cod:
I am sure Matt and his children's school also have the single agend of putting children's needs first. Why then, not just leave it to them?

---

quote:

---

Also, what is the difference between anti religious seperatism and anti-religion?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglican't:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Orb:
I don't think LAs should have ANY agenda, beyond putting the needs of children first. I want private schools (faith or otherwise) under LA control because I want our school system to be less tiered and more equitable.

---

Isn't the desire for an 'equitable' school system an, erm, agenda?

---

quote:

---

Your party threatens that and until they drop that threat they won't get my vote.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gee D:
It was in fact one which had been going its own little way for quite a few hundred years without the need for any regulation.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Orb:
[QB] []For the reason I gave - I think that we need to connect schools with one another to share what they're doing.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Orb:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cod:
I am sure Matt and his children's school also have the single agend of putting children's needs first. Why then, not just leave it to them?

---

For the reason I gave - I think that we need to connect schools with one another to share what they're doing.

---

quote:

---

Also, what is the difference between anti religious seperatism and anti-religion?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Orb:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gee D:
It was in fact one which had been going its own little way for quite a few hundred years without the need for any regulation.

---

So it must have been doing something right then? So it might want to share that best practice with other schools, to help them improve?

Some here sound like they are in favour of a school being an island unto itself.

---

I was not talking about a school, but a particular self-contained sector of the body politic that had been pottering along quite happily.
 

---

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
Our school follows the National Curriculum. It is also part of a 'cluster' of other schools in southern Hampshire, so I'm not sure whence Orb is getting this idea of 'splendid isolation'.
 

---

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Orb:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:
Because I would be concerned that they would be subjected to the LA's secular humanist agenda. I wouldn't want my kids' Catholic school subject to the diktat of the LA for that reason; it would over time destroy its unique Catholic ethos. Why do you want it subject to LA control?

---

I don't think LAs should have ANY agenda, beyond putting the needs of children first. I want private schools (faith or otherwise) under LA control because I want our school system to be less tiered and more equitable. Provision and practice can be shared much easier if all schools are governed under one overarching body.

quote:

---

It was the admissions policy aspect that disturbed me the most: whilst we do take non-Catholics, our local Catholic school exists primarily for the benefit of the local Catholic community. Same I would guess with most if not all Muslim faith schools.

---

I still do not see how this is "anti-religion". It's "anti-religious separatism", which I happen to be too. We need to move beyond this sectionalism which educates children according to tribes, classes and/or income levels.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Orb:
We need to move beyond this sectionalism which educates children according to tribes, classes and/or income levels.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
No. I'd make that illegal.

Children do not 'belong' to their parents.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
No. I'd make that illegal.

Children do not 'belong' to their parents.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
No. I'd make that illegal.

Children do not 'belong' to their parents.

---

So basically, every child should be taught only what you want them to be taught

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
No. I'd make that illegal.

Children do not 'belong' to their parents.

---

So basically, every child should be taught only what you want them to be taught

---

Well, what specialist, graduate teachers want to teach them rather than an ignorant secretary of state like the current one.

What we currently have is indoctrination by a capitalist government.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
No. I'd make that illegal.

Children do not 'belong' to their parents.

---

So basically, every child should be taught only what you want them to be taught

---

Well, what specialist, graduate teachers want to teach them rather than an ignorant secretary of state like the current one.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by PeteC:
Why I don't vote Green, as a rule?*

In Canada, that would be like voting for the Conservative party without actually voting for the Conservative Party. It's a weasel-out option.

*That being said, I once voted for Greens, provincially, because the NDP candidate was a total flake, and the thought of voting for him made me sick. Voting for a Liberal or a Tory (both centre-right parties) would make me vomit copiously. Even now, I still feel queasy about that Green vote, but the candidate was a sane, well-known man locally.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
I agree with all this. I'd abolish 'faith' schools and fee-paying schools and have all schools back under LA control because it's democratic.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ricardus:
I think what we need to acknowledge that there is no obvious single 'right' way to educate children, and so ISTM we need a system that allows different philosophies and approaches to coexist.

Centralising control in the hands of the LEA is not going to achieve that.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Angloid:
Comprehensive education, like socialism and Christianity, isn't so much an experiment that's failed, it's one that has never -universally - been tried.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
Not mine.

Teachers'.

Like it was before 1988 and the national curriculum, kicked off by Jim Callaghan's 'secret garden of the curriculum' speech.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LQ:

...

A friend in England voted Green the last time round, if I'm not mistaken despite their republicanism. I can't really fault him for realpolitik, since I'll probably vote for Québec solidaire in the next election. [/QB]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglican't:
I don't think this is the place to rehearse what was wrong with Attlee's government. I'm just a little surprised that anyone would look back on a period of wartime deprivation and hardship (some of it necessary, yes, but tough nonetheless) and think 'let's use this as a model'. The fact that the Greens, apparently, do suggests to me that they should be kept away from power.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
I describe QS as the modern-day Waffle in French.

---

quote:

---

The NDP has plans to relaunch a Quebec provincial party and there is constitutional provision in the National Party Constitution for a Québec wing competing for the National Assembly.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
Not mine.

Teachers'.

Like it was before 1988 and the national curriculum, kicked off by Jim Callaghan's 'secret garden of the curriculum' speech.

---

Again, thanks, but no. Mrs Cniht and I spend most of their waking hours in the company of our children. In elementary school, a schoolteacher has about 30 children in her class for maybe 6 hours a day - or a maximum of 12 minutes per day per child. Who do you think knows them best?

If the local school works for my kids, that's great. If it doesn't, I'll find alternative provision for them (and in fact I do - mine are homeschooled at the moment). I refuse to allow your opinion, or even your collective opinion, to override mine, where my children are concerned. They are my responsibility, and I will discharge that responsibility to the best of my ability, which includes if necessary protecting them from what you think is best for them.

And yes, it's nasty statist shit like this that completely exclude the UK green party from my consideration.

---

 

---

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by L'organist:

If LEAs throughout the UK had (a) supplied the THREE tiers of schools - grammar, technical high and secondary modern - and then (b) made sure that transfers between the schools took place when required then the old system could have worked well.

---

If! I wonder why that never happened....

In any case, that system implies 'three types' of children. There are far more than academic, technical and practical. What about artistic, for example?
 

---

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
No. I'd make that illegal.

Children do not 'belong' to their parents.

---

So basically, every child should be taught only what you want them to be taught

---

Well, what specialist, graduate teachers want to teach them rather than an ignorant secretary of state like the current one.

---

And suppose the "specialist, graduate teachers" wanted to teach what Gove wants them to teach: you'd be okay with that, right? Because it's not what you want - it's what the experts want that counts, yeah? It's just that the "experts" du jour just so happen to agree with you and not Gove. No personal agenda. And the experts won't have an agenda or particular political slant themselves, so they naturally have more right to determine what's going to be taught to kids than the govenment or the parents do.

That about the sum of it?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Angloid:
Comprehensive education, like socialism and Christianity, isn't so much an experiment that's failed, it's one that has never -universally - been tried.

---

If by "comprehensive education being universally tried" you mean the state completely controlling all child education in the country by imposing a prescribed model and/or pattern of state schools from which no child can be opted out, I can think of a good reason why it has never been universally tried. It would be horribly in violation of some pretty basic parental rights, and therefore politically disastrous. IMHO.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
And suppose the "specialist, graduate teachers" wanted to teach what Gove wants them to teach: you'd be okay with that, right? Because it's not what you want - it's what the experts want that counts, yeah? It's just that the "experts" du jour just so happen to agree with you and not Gove. No personal agenda. And the experts won't have an agenda or particular political slant themselves, so they naturally have more right to determine what's going to be taught to kids than the govenment or the parents do.

That about the sum of it?

---

Very few specialists agree with Gove and very few would want to teach his pub quiz curriculum.

Any more than surgeons want advice from politicians about how to do brain surgery.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Angloid:
Comprehensive education, like socialism and Christianity, isn't so much an experiment that's failed, it's one that has never -universally - been tried.

---

If by "comprehensive education being universally tried" you mean the state completely controlling all child education in the country by imposing a prescribed model and/or pattern of state schools from which no child can be opted out, I can think of a good reason why it has never been universally tried. It would be horribly in violation of some pretty basic parental rights, and therefore politically disastrous. IMHO.

---

Why should parents have the right to indoctrinate and clone their children?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
Why should parents have the right to indoctrinate and clone their children?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Angloid:
Comprehensive education, like socialism and Christianity, isn't so much an experiment that's failed, it's one that has never -universally - been tried.

---

If by "comprehensive education being universally tried" you mean the state completely controlling all child education in the country by imposing a prescribed model and/or pattern of state schools from which no child can be opted out, I can think of a good reason why it has never been universally tried. It would be horribly in violation of some pretty basic parental rights, and therefore politically disastrous. IMHO.

---

Why should parents have the right to indoctrinate and clone their children?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Angloid:
Comprehensive education, like socialism and Christianity, isn't so much an experiment that's failed, it's one that has never -universally - been tried.

---

If by "comprehensive education being universally tried" you mean the state completely controlling all child education in the country by imposing a prescribed model and/or pattern of state schools from which no child can be opted out, I can think of a good reason why it has never been universally tried. It would be horribly in violation of some pretty basic parental rights, and therefore politically disastrous. IMHO.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
GeeD, I don't disagree with your substantive point that the Government or parents are probably where the decisions for education should lie, but the current UK Government is a coalition. The Conservative party did not win the last election with enough of a majority to govern so formed a coalition with the Liberal Democrats. It is a bit moot as to whether the Conservative Secretary of State for Education, Michael Gove does actually have an elected mandate for his ideological changes.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gee D:
Leo, if parents don't have such a right does anyone, and if so, who and why? If no-one does, who has the right to set a curriculum? If it's the community at large, is this not the function Gove is exercising as Secretary of State for Education? After all, dislike the result though you and many others may, you would have to agree that the present UK Govt was formed by those who obtained a majority both of the votes and of the seats at the last election. Some hard but basic questions.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Angloid:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Angloid:
Comprehensive education, like socialism and Christianity, isn't so much an experiment that's failed, it's one that has never -universally - been tried.

---

If by "comprehensive education being universally tried" you mean the state completely controlling all child education in the country by imposing a prescribed model and/or pattern of state schools from which no child can be opted out, I can think of a good reason why it has never been universally tried. It would be horribly in violation of some pretty basic parental rights, and therefore politically disastrous. IMHO.

---

There are many countries where comprehensive state education is the norm and few people 'opt out' of it. Not because of dictatorial government policy but because it works, and people see that.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
And suppose the "specialist, graduate teachers" wanted to teach what Gove wants them to teach: you'd be okay with that, right? Because it's not what you want - it's what the experts want that counts, yeah? It's just that the "experts" du jour just so happen to agree with you and not Gove. No personal agenda. And the experts won't have an agenda or particular political slant themselves, so they naturally have more right to determine what's going to be taught to kids than the govenment or the parents do.

That about the sum of it?

---

Very few specialists agree with Gove and very few would want to teach his pub quiz curriculum.

Any more than surgeons want advice from politicians about how to do brain surgery.

---

I'm sure. And now try answering my questions.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
Much better is the SACRE model where four parties decide the syllabus - teachers, elected councillors, religious people.

Charles Clarke, former sec. of state for ed. reckoned this would be a good model to extent to all subjects.

---

quote:

---

are you saying that parents ought or ought not to be free to make alternative provision for their children's education to the one the state prescribes? Is this a fundamental right of parents or not?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Angloid:
Comprehensive education, like socialism and Christianity, isn't so much an experiment that's failed, it's one that has never -universally - been tried.

---

If by "comprehensive education being universally tried" you mean the state completely controlling all child education in the country by imposing a prescribed model and/or pattern of state schools from which no child can be opted out, I can think of a good reason why it has never been universally tried. It would be horribly in violation of some pretty basic parental rights, and therefore politically disastrous. IMHO.

---

Why should parents have the right to indoctrinate and clone their children?

---

So it's the educational "experts" who have the exclusive right to "indoctrinate and clone" children?

Or perhaps - instead - it's because "the family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State" and because "parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Angloid:
in reply to Chesterbelloc:

quote:

---

are you saying that parents ought or ought not to be free to make alternative provision for their children's education to the one the state prescribes? Is this a fundamental right of parents or not?

---

Parents have the right, and the duty, to see that their children are educated to certain standards. I don't think they have a right to settle for less, because the children's rights trump their own. Nor do I think it is right or just that people should buy positions of power, for themselves or their children, which is what private education amounts to.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
Finland is one that keeps being discussed because it is so high up the international league tables.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
Education is about giving the students the capability to make up their own minds and to resist indoctrination.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
You show little trust in professionals.

Who do you trust?

As for family - I do not think it is fundamental

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglican't:

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
Education is about giving the students the capability to make up their own minds and to resist indoctrination.

---

But I would suggest that on your model indoctrination is exactly what would occur. Self-selecting 'teaching professionals', drawn from a highly-Unionised workforce, would create learning materials that fit their own leftist worldview and feed that to children. Any parent who objects would either have to accept the indoctrination of his children or face imprisonment for not sending his child to a state-run school.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gee D:
IIRC, the parties forming the present UK govt together obtained a majority of votes overall

---

quote:

---

The final area of interest is influence. Coalition government is contingent on the idea that whilst working in tandem on common aims, parties nevertheless gain individually from their participation. Yet amongst people who voted Liberal Democrat in 2010 but have since abandoned the party, 74 per cent believe that the party has little or no influence on decisions made in government. Similarly, just 1/3 voters agree that by entering the coalition the Liberal Democrats have managed to get real liberal policies put into action. Even amongst Liberal Democrat party members polling found that just 49 per cent felt they were achieving influence.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
You show little trust in professionals.

Who do you trust?

As for family - I do not think it is fundamental

---

Leaving your contentious exegesis of Our Lord's teaching out of it for the moment (a tangent oo far, I think), it's less important to ask whom to "trust" (trust to do what? be "impartial"? to "know best"?) that to ask who has what rights.

My two quoted passages - "the family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State" and "parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children" - are from here. Not a bad starting point in an argument about educational rights.

I'm at work at the moment but I'll return later.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
As for family - I do not think it is fundamental

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
As for family - I do not think it is fundamental

---

Spoken like a true socialist. .... We are not individuals ....
No wonder you want all children to be taught exactly the same things in exactly the same ways.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Not for Higher Education, they aren't. Finland has exactly one university in the top 200 of the Times Higher Education World Rankings. The UK has 31.

And it's not even like the UK does badly in the global rankings you're talking about. Sure, Finland came top, but we were sixth - hardly a failing system!

That last report, incidentally, also highlights a far more relevant difference between the other top-ranking countries and the UK - in the others there is a cultural emphasis on the importance of education. Any educational system would produce good results in such a culture, but it must take a really good system to produce good results in ours!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
There are so few socialists around now

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
I don't disagree - I almost added a rider to my comment that Finland is a very different society with very little differential between rich and poor and a culture of respect for education - which is why educational surveys of the countries with results that look better than the UK come away sucking their teeth and reckoning any lessons learned there are not transferrable.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglican't:
Which countries are these?

---

quote:

---

No wonder you want all children to be taught exactly the same things in exactly the same ways. Can't have them learning any nasty individualistic ideas that might not serve the collective, can we? Far better to teach them from the earliest possible age that serving the State is the only thing that matters. And you have the gall to say that such an approach would be saving them from indoctrination? Ye Gods.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LQ:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
I describe QS as the modern-day Waffle in French.

---

Right up my alley!

quote:

---

The NDP has plans to relaunch a Quebec provincial party and there is constitutional provision in the National Party Constitution for a Québec wing competing for the National Assembly.

---

Good luck to them. The field is already overcrowded, with both the Greens and the new Union Citoyenne positioning themselves as the progressive federalist alternative to QS.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Angloid:
I gather that there is a big pond difference about the reasons for home schooling. 'Religious' home schoolers are a tiny minority (of a fairly insignificant minority anyway) here in the UK.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Angloid:
in reply to Chesterbelloc:

quote:

---

are you saying that parents ought or ought not to be free to make alternative provision for their children's education to the one the state prescribes? Is this a fundamental right of parents or not?

---

Parents have the right, and the duty, to see that their children are educated to certain standards. I don't think they have a right to settle for less, because the children's rights trump their own. Nor do I think it is right or just that people should buy positions of power, for themselves or their children, which is what private education amounts to.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
Leaving your contentious exegesis of Our Lord's teaching out of it for the moment (a tangent too far, I think)

---

Contentious? So how do you interpret , or you wishing to avoid the plain teaching of scripture by rendering it 'tangential'?

---

Tangential to this thread, leo: this digression on who has the right to determine how kids are schooled is already quite enough off-topic as it is. As I'm sure you're perfectly aware. By all means start a new thread on that and I'll be sure to join you there.

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
And isn't it odd that right-wingers seek to avoid European and universal human rights unless it suits them?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
Tangential to this thread, leo: this digression on who has the right to determine how kids are schooled is already quite enough off-topic as it is. As I'm sure you're perfectly aware. By all means start a new thread on that and I'll be sure to join you there.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Angloid:
The fallacy of saying 'one size doesn't fit all' is that a variety of types of school is not guaranteed to match the needs of children in the locality. Even on the much simpler 'eleven-plus' system, with only two types of (secondary) school, the lack of available places often meant that children who would have benefited from a grammar school education were denied it. It's all very well having a school 'for sporting excellence' in town A , and a 'science specialist' school in town B? Maybe OK if they are only 5 miles apart but if they're at opposite ends of the county it's not much use.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
Much better is the SACRE model where four parties decide the syllabus - teachers, elected councillors, religious people.

Charles Clarke, former sec. of state for ed. reckoned this would be a good model to extent to all subjects.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglican't:
Self-selecting 'teaching professionals', drawn from a highly-Unionised workforce,

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ricardus:
I'm not so much talking about tailoring education to students' needs but allowing different educational philosophies to co-exist. In other words, different philosophies that might disagree on what the students' needs actually are.

On Marvin's list, I understand Japan and South Korea get high grades at the expense of putting pupils under massive pressure. It seems to me it is ultimately up to the parents to decide whether that pressure is worth it.

In Ricardus-land there would be space for St Paul's-style academic hothouses and ultra-liberal Summerhill-type establishments. This already happens, but only in the private sector.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
Councillors. being elected, represent parents.

...

So teachers, as subject experts, have checks and balances from grass roots rather than government politicians with axes to grind.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
I've met far too many utterly incompetent and ignorant parents (and not met plenty of others who are too feckless even to turn up to discuss their child's education) to have any faith in parents' abilities to know what is best for their child.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ricardus:

In Ricardus-land there would be space for St Paul's-style academic hothouses and ultra-liberal Summerhill-type establishments. This already happens, but only in the private sector.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
I've met far too many utterly incompetent and ignorant parents (and not met plenty of others who are too feckless even to turn up to discuss their child's education) to have any faith in parents' abilities to know what is best for their child.

---

And so therefore they have no natural rights to try to determine and pursue it? And you've never encountered any feckless, incompetent and ignorant policy-makers or educationalists? Do you believe that parents have no rights to dress, feed and discipline their children at home either?

In sum: this is a rights issue, not a "who knows best" contest.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Angloid:
Quite. It must be said again and again, parents have rights but they are subordinate to the rights of the child. And somebody must arbitrate when the rights of one group (rich people who can buy a 'superior' education) interfere with the rights of another (those who depend on public provision which is depleted thanks to the alumni of the former deciding on priorities).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
I've met far too many utterly incompetent and ignorant parents (and not met plenty of others who are too feckless even to turn up to discuss their child's education) to have any faith in parents' abilities to know what is best for their child.

---

And so therefore they have no natural rights to try to determine and pursue it? And you've never encountered any feckless, incompetent and ignorant policy-makers or educationalists? Do you believe that parents have no rights to dress, feed and discipline their children at home either?

In sum: this is a rights issue, not a "who knows best" contest.

---

The child has a right to a decent education. If their parents are intent on denying them that then, if all else fails, the state must intervene on the child's behalf. You can argue about what sort of education is sufficient but clearly no parents has the right to deny their child an education.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Angloid:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ricardus:

In Ricardus-land there would be space for St Paul's-style academic hothouses and ultra-liberal Summerhill-type establishments. This already happens, but only in the private sector.

---

But what use would this be if you lived in a small country town which could only support one school? What would it be, an academic hothouse or a liberal free-for-all? And what would happen to all the kids who that wouldn't suit? There has to be compromise, even if it's called 'one size fits all'.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Angloid:
Quite. It must be said again and again, parents have rights but they are subordinate to the rights of the child. And somebody must arbitrate when the rights of one group (rich people who can buy a 'superior' education) interfere with the rights of another (those who depend on public provision which is depleted thanks to the alumni of the former deciding on priorities).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stetson:

quote:

---

Originally posted by LQ:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
I describe QS as the modern-day Waffle in French.

---

Right up my alley!

quote:

---

The NDP has plans to relaunch a Quebec provincial party and there is constitutional provision in the National Party Constitution for a Québec wing competing for the National Assembly.

---

Good luck to them. The field is already overcrowded, with both the Greens and the new Union Citoyenne positioning themselves as the progressive federalist alternative to QS.

---

I gather there is some theory afoot that the last federal election proves the existence of a substantial voting bloc in Quebec that is both a) federalist and b) left-wing, and thus not currently served by either the PQ or the Liberals.

But in Canadian politics, you should always be hesitant about extrapolating provincial trends from federal ones, and vice versa. In the beau risque era, for example, the federal Tories got a lot of votes from presumbaly social democratic pequistes in Quebec, most of whom were likely quite content to continue voting PQ provincially.

Further examples abound. The city of Edmonton, for example, routinely sends Liberals and New Democrats to the provincial legislature, but the corresponding federal ridings almost always go Conservative.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglican't:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Angloid:
Quite. It must be said again and again, parents have rights but they are subordinate to the rights of the child. And somebody must arbitrate when the rights of one group (rich people who can buy a 'superior' education) interfere with the rights of another (those who depend on public provision which is depleted thanks to the alumni of the former deciding on priorities).

---

What is there to arbitrate?

---

quote:

---

Maybe. But the NDP is a movement party and the movement doesn't like to confine itself to just federal or provincial politics, we always do both.

There is no such thing as federal and provincial membership in the NDP; there is only one membership with sections at the federal and provincial level. And without a Quebec section at the provincial level, there is a gap what remains unfilled.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the giant cheeseburger:
The best approach would be to increase the standard of public education to the point that it competes against the private education sector and wins.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cod:
we have Whitehall / LEAs / OFSTED attempting to straightjacket teachers into whichever of the five answers they happen to like that week.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Angloid:

quote:

---

Originally posted by the giant cheeseburger:
The best approach would be to increase the standard of public education to the point that it competes against the private education sector and wins.

---

Of course it would be. But you forget that those responsible for this are by and large beneficiaries of the private system, and either think the solution is to replicate cut-price versions of the public schools, or have really no interest in the quality of education dished out to the oiks. They have to preserve their privilege some how.

---

quote:

---

There's a "gap", of whatever size, of there not being a social-democratic party that is federalist and promises never, ever to talk about separation during its term in office.

---

quote:

---

The PQ has not been assimilationist, it has been outright racist both in the far and recent past, (witness Mme. Marois' dreadful comments on turbans). It has generally been contemptuous of minority rights too.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Angloid:
But you forget that those responsible for this are by and large beneficiaries of the private system, and either think the solution is to replicate cut-price versions of the public schools, or have really no interest in the quality of education dished out to the oiks. They have to preserve their privilege some how.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Angloid:
'Free' schools under the control of Fuerher Gove, employing unqualified teachers - I ask you!

---

quote:

---

"parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children."

---

quote:

---

are you saying that parents ought or ought not to be free to make alternative provision for their children's education to the one the state prescribes? Is this a fundamental right of parents or not?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Angloid:

I think those of us concerned about present educational policy just want all our children to have the chance of a decent education, not to be experimented on.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
Whilst we're attributing dictatorship to our political masters, can I just ask you one more time if you agree with the UN declaration that: [QUOTE] "parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children."

---

quote:

---

And, to repeat myself from earlier, (sorry to be tedious: are you saying that parents ought or ought not to be free to make alternative provision for their children's education to the one the state prescribes? Is this a fundamental right of parents or not? A lot hangs on this, it seems to me.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Angloid:

I think those of us concerned about present educational policy just want all our children to have the chance of a decent education, not to be experimented on.

---

Agreed. And we want to be able to choose the best place to do that - whether that be at school (free, private, public or LEA) or at home - without being experimented on.

---

Unfortunately, when your local school is turned into an 'academy' overnight, in the face of parental and staff protests, that is exactly what happens.
 

---

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
Our parents and staff voted overwhelmingly in favour of our kids' school becoming an academy.
 

---

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :
 
Well, if it works for you, fine. But there are many examples of academy status being forced on schools, by power-crazed head teachers or wealthy backers or the Secretary of State. And not much the poor punters can do about it, especially as the LEAs have been virtually disbanded.
 

---

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
Councillors. being elected, represent parents.

...

So teachers, as subject experts, have checks and balances from grass roots rather than government politicians with axes to grind.

---

In what way are Councillors more representative than government politicians, who are also elected?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Angloid:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
Whilst we're attributing dictatorship to our political masters, can I just ask you one more time if you agree with the UN declaration that: [QUOTE] "parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children."

---

If that means that parents have the right to substitute their own educational ideas (possibly including creationism - though not a great danger in the UK I think - or other forms of indoctrination) I would think the right of the children to a proper education would trump that. But other things being equal, yes.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Angloid:

quote:

---

And, to repeat myself from earlier, (sorry to be tedious: are you saying that parents ought or ought not to be free to make alternative provision for their children's education to the one the state prescribes? Is this a fundamental right of parents or not? A lot hangs on this, it seems to me.

---

With the caveat above, yes, they should be free.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Angloid:

If that means that parents have the right to substitute their own educational ideas (possibly including creationism - though not a great danger in the UK I think - or other forms of indoctrination) I would think the right of the children to a proper education would trump that. But other things being equal, yes.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
But here's the rub: what constitutes a "proper" education? Is there any view-from-nowhere neutral account that would help is determine that?

Also, it still doesn't get us away from the right to be wrong. Neither of us - I think - would agree that an YECism approach is correct. But don't parents have a natural right to teach their children this if they themselves really believe it? As a Catholic, I don't want the state telling me I can't bring my children up to believe that sex outside marriage is wrong, for example. I don't think I have to prove I'm "right" about that or to ensure the state's compliance with it to retain and exercise my right to teach it to my children. Surely I have the right to be wrong about this. I don't see how else the natural rights of perents to bring their children as they see fit - within reason - can be protected.
[QUOTE]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Angloid:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
Whilst we're attributing dictatorship to our political masters, can I just ask you one more time if you agree with the UN declaration that: [QUOTE] "parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children."

---

If that means that parents have the right to substitute their own educational ideas (possibly including creationism - though not a great danger in the UK I think - or other forms of indoctrination) I would think the right of the children to a proper education would trump that. But other things being equal, yes.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglican't:
I thought Michael Gove (pbuh) had specifically banned the teaching of creationism in school, or am I wrong?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Angloid:
How can [parents] have the right to inflict on them an inferior or defective education? At some stage the state, or other authority, must step in and decide that the parents' treatment amounts to abuse.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Angloid:
How can [parents] have the right to inflict on them an inferior or defective education? At some stage the state, or other authority, must step in and decide that the parents' treatment amounts to abuse.

---

But who has the right to decide what constitutes a "harmful" education? Government? Then what happens if the Dawkins Atheist People's Party gets into power and decrees that teaching children religion is "harmful" and "abusive"? Or if the Fundigelical Christian Alliance wins an election and bans everyone from teaching evolution? Or when the Green Party gets in and takes any kids who aren't taught to recycle everything into care?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglican't:
I was thinking about the trade union rallies and anti-cuts protests that I've seen in London. Often parent protestors bring their children along to make it a day out. Presumably this could be said to be 'harmful' and ought to be banned?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Angloid:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglican't:
I thought Michael Gove (pbuh) had specifically banned the teaching of creationism in school, or am I wrong?

---

I can't keep track with all Gove's inconsistencies and changes of policy. I believe he has said something on those lines, but [a] he has allowed academies and free schools to opt out of the national curriculum, and [b] I don't know if he can dictate what home-schoolers teach or don't teach their children. But creationism is not a major issue in Britain so it probably doesn't matter very much.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
As a Catholic, I don't want the state telling me I can't bring my children up to believe that sex outside marriage is wrong, for example.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
Leo, your trust in "experts" is, um, incredible and perhaps even touching.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Angloid:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglican't:
I thought Michael Gove (pbuh) had specifically banned the teaching of creationism in school, or am I wrong?

---

I can't keep track with all Gove's inconsistencies and changes of policy. I believe he has said something on those lines, but [a] he has allowed academies and free schools to opt out of the national curriculum, and [b] I don't know if he can dictate what home-schoolers teach or don't teach their children. But creationism is not a major issue in Britain so it probably doesn't matter very much.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
Leo, your trust in "experts" is, um, incredible and perhaps even touching.

---

So, presumably, you don't trust your doctor nor your priest. Not believe the Holy Father to be infallible.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
As a Catholic, I don't want the state telling me I can't bring my children up to believe that sex outside marriage is wrong, for example.

---

PSHME teachers (I dabbled in this for most of my 35 years in teaching) don't teach 'wrong' or 'right' but introduce students to a range of views.

Education is not indoctrination nor even instruction.

It is about giving students the tools to think for themselves.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglican't:
Teaching a class of children and performing brain surgery aren't really comparable, are they?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Angloid:
Unless you believe in the infallibility of whatever government happens to be in power, the only answer to the dilemma is democracy.

---

quote:

---

It's interesting that most of the people complaining on this thread about state power don't seem to object to the diktats of the present government.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
Leo, your trust in "experts" is, um, incredible and perhaps even touching.

---

So, presumably, you don't trust your doctor nor your priest. Not believe the Holy Father to be infallible.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Angloid:
There are many horrific examples of parents who have treated their children cruelly. How can they have the right to inflict on them an inferior or defective education? At some stage the state, or other authority, must step in and decide that the parents' treatment amounts to abuse.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
So, presumably, you don't trust your doctor nor your priest. Not believe the Holy Father to be infallible.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
So, presumably, you don't trust your doctor nor your priest. Not believe the Holy Father to be infallible.

---

Without presuming to speak for Chesterbelloc, I certainly don't trust my doctor unquestioningly. I am inclined to believe him, but if he says something that doesn't sound right to me, I'll ask him to justify his opinion, and if he can't, I don't see a particular reason to believe him.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Plique-à-jour:
The idea that parents become competent to make decisions about education by virtue of having had children seems to me to fall into the same category as the old patriarchal assumption that any man, no matter how patently thick, becomes the fount of all wisdom as soon as he becomes the 'head' of a 'household'.

---

quote:

---

In some cases, the fact of their having had children is, in itself, an indication of poor decision-making. Then you have the vast swathes of people who resent anyone with an education, and will encourage their children to give teachers a hard time. People trapped by circumstances who had children in order to exert the same authority once exerted upon them. People who deny their children the chance to become thinking adults. These people are better qualified to make decisions about education than anyone? Sure.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ricardus:
In the matter of education, I would have said they are qualified by virtue of having gone through the system themselves.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ricardus:
AIUI, the strong public pressure against the tripartite system that eventually led to its abandonment arose because too many voting adults felt they'd been let down by the system as children, even though those at the top thought it was marvellous.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Plique-à-jour:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ricardus:
In the matter of education, I would have said they are qualified by virtue of having gone through the system themselves.

---

I'm afraid I don't understand what you mean by this.

---

quote:

---

It [the Tripartite system] was destroyed by a perfect combination of Establishment unease and thick people's resentment.

---

• an academic stream that aims at something like 14 GCSEs in academic subjects including triple science;
• a less academic stream with fewer GCSEs (10?) and options for some vocational subjects;
• a vocational stream with core GCSEs and options for a number of vocational courses (often at the local further education college)
• some years a large enough cohort had such severe learning difficulties a curriculum was put together for this group to provide them with the best education possible - core subjects (English, maths, IT, science) and life skills. (We had 15 students identified as this academically weak one year and geared up for the next year with an additional stream in place to find that we only had 4 or 5 who needed that level of support and a separate group wasn't required. That also points up how difficult it is to assess in advance from primary school information and how students cope with the changes to secondary schools.);
• a small cohort with behaviour difficulties, who were provided with core subjects in school alongside work experience and a college course (like bricklaying or motor vehicles)

quote:

---

Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
Having worked in comprehensive schools, including one that had an overall rating of outstanding at its last Ofsted inspection, it's obvious that most people on this thread have not seen good comprehensive education in action.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Angloid:
That's clearly the case. It's a long time since I worked as a teacher in a comprehensive, but my experience chimes with Curiosity killed..'s. [..] But at their best they encourage and stretch far more children than the unimaginative sec moderns or spoon-feeding conformist grammar schools of the 1950s.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Angloid:
Yes and no. The temptation for a school with a selective intake to 'coast' must be very strong indeed.

---

quote:

---

I suggest that teachers' expertise is in how to teach children. What should be taught is another matter entirely.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cod:
Of couse the teaching profession should be consulted on curriculum material. Teachers are better placed than anyone else to say that proposed curriculum material simply won't work, or alternatively, to say how it could be made to work. The Gove curriculum was actually an example of that in process, leastways in a very badly-handled fashion.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cod:
I often wonder why the UK (a long way down the list) doesn't ever copy its Commonwealth brethren, considering how culturally similar they are.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cod:
I often wonder why the UK (a long way down the list) doesn't ever copy its Commonwealth brethren, considering how culturally similar they are.

---

"A long way down the list"? We're ranked sixth in the world.

As for our Commonwealth brethren, New Zealand is eighth, Canada tenth and Australia thirteenth. So maybe they should be thinking about copying us...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Sorry, but what has all this got to do with not joining the Green party?

---

© Ship of Fools 2016


UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0