|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: The future of socialism in the UK
|
alienfromzog
Ship's Alien
# 5327
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by alienfromzog:
... This government won on the basis of a stunning propaganda victory which worries and saddens me. What worries me even more is that they seem to believe their own propaganda. ... [/URL]
Nonsense.
This government managed to get an overall majority on the basis of an unconvincing 37% of the poll. There's nothing stunning about that. ⅔ of those that voted, voted for someone else. Nor is there anything about that which gives them a legitimate mandate to implement Conservative policies rather than just steer the ship.
However, a lot more of that ⅔ voted for someone else than voted Labour. It was 37% Conservative, 30& Labour and 33% somebody else.
Notwithstanding your point about how our electoral system skews the popular vote, the Tories still won.
And this was only achieved because people believe in their 'economic competence.' That is supported by multiple opinion polls of who people trust and by consistent long term data that economics is a big driver of voting. If you look at the data, there is no doubt (happy to provide links) that they have seriously and consistently mismanaged the economy. Seriously the idea that Osborne is economic competent is astounding and laughable. In real terms our economy is in a much worse state than in 2010. (Martin Wolf makes that point in the link I provided above, and he could hardly be called a socialist). Therefore my point stands, they won because of an astounding propaganda achievement.
AFZ
--------------------
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.
[Sen. D.P.Moynihan]
An Alien's View of Earth - my blog (or vanity exercise...)
Posts: 2150 | From: Zog, obviously! Straight past Alpha Centauri, 2nd planet on the left... | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
lowlands_boy
Shipmate
# 12497
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by alienfromzog:
<snip>
Moreover it is a complete lie that to make business thrive, government needs to get out of its way. If you look properly, many of the great sucesses of big business have benefited hugely from basic research funded by the state sector. Not to mention having a safe, healthy and well educated populus to recruit a work-force from. Another interesting tale is that of Rolls Royce aero engines. In the late 1960s they developed the fan-jet engine - specifically the RB211. This subsequently was superceded by the Trent series which powers just about every type of big airliner flying today. Turbofans are the industry standard for jetliners and were a big step forward in jet technology. Unfortunately, developing the RB211 bankrupted Rolls Royce. The government rescued them in 1971 by nationalising the company. It was privatised in 1987. The point being that Rolls Royce is a world leader in aero-engines and a big employer and a big tax-payer in the form of corporation tax. None of which would be true if it hadn't been saved by the government. But of course, all government intervention is bad.
If you have the time, I would very much recommend this symposium: The economic possibilities for the new government. Saïd Business School, University of Oxford It's really informative and interesting. Sir David Hendry is especially worth listening to.
AFZ [/QB]
Of course, the neo-liberal purist would just say that it should have been allowed to fail, backers should have sucked up losses, and someone else would have come along to hoover up the good bits and the engines would have been developed anyway.
There are certainly lots of people of all political/economic persuasions wondering why the government bailed out lots of banks aren't there?
My recollection of the Rolls Royce type bail out is that it's more political in nature, rather than economic - the prospect of lost jobs, "world leading company" etc etc. That doesn't make it wrong by any means, but it's not based purely on economics.
Are those sort of bailouts legal under "state aid" legislation nowadays anyway? What do you think the government would do if (for example) Dyson announced they were bust today?
Anyway, with the ballot closed, the most up to date bookmakers odds have Corbyn nailed on. But I'm a Methodist, so of course I've only looked at them ;-)
--------------------
I thought I should update my signature line....
Posts: 836 | From: North West UK | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
alienfromzog
Ship's Alien
# 5327
|
Posted
True and counterfactual are always problematic.
I would say that without the state aid aircraft engines would only be made in America. I think it difficult to convincingly argue that the state intervention was a bad think unless you're a purist. And I've not seen any evidence to support that purism.
AFZ
--------------------
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.
[Sen. D.P.Moynihan]
An Alien's View of Earth - my blog (or vanity exercise...)
Posts: 2150 | From: Zog, obviously! Straight past Alpha Centauri, 2nd planet on the left... | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
lowlands_boy
Shipmate
# 12497
|
Posted
I agree, and in the real world politics and economics are inseparable anyway. Labour, Conservatives etc etc might as well be called "Economic Parties" rather than "Politial Parties"
--------------------
I thought I should update my signature line....
Posts: 836 | From: North West UK | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lowlands_boy:
Labour, Conservatives etc etc might as well be called "Economic Parties" rather than "Politial Parties"
Given that they rarely have differing solutions, perhaps they should just be collectively called 'The Economic Party'.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by alienfromzog:
Notwithstanding your point about how our electoral system skews the popular vote, the Tories still won.
I'm not disputing that. It's the word 'stunning' that I'm disagreeing with.
Nor can anyone argue that they achieved this so called 'stunning' victory because of the amazing quality of their propaganda. If it had been that good, they would have won a proper victory. The more rational conclusion is that more of the public were not-very-convinced by what they knew than by what Labour was saying.
It's a non sequitur to say that because one snake oil salesman tells you that another one's product is rubbish, then his own snake oil must be fantastic.
[ 10. September 2015, 14:50: Message edited by: Enoch ]
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bibliophile
Shipmate
# 18418
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
This government managed to get an overall majority on the basis of an unconvincing 37% of the poll. There's nothing stunning about that. ⅔ of those that voted, voted for someone else. Nor is there anything about that which gives them a legitimate mandate to implement Conservative policies rather than just steer the ship.
I would point out that the combined total of the Conservative, UKIP, DUP and UUP vote was 50.5%. That the first time in a very long time that parties of the right and centre right have gained a majority of the UK vote between them. Of course Nick Clegg was on the centre right side of the Lib Dem vote and if you add in the Lib Dem vote you get to 58.4%. In England alone this goes up to 63.3%. None of that sounds like a ringing endorsement of the left.
Given that Cameron himself is governing from the centre right, indeed his position is not too far from that of the Labour Blairites, given that all the signals are that his response to a Corbyn victory will be to move further towards a Blairite position and further away from the right of his party I don't think you need have too much fear that he will implement conservative policies rather than just 'steer the ship'.
Posts: 635 | Registered: Jun 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bibliophile
Shipmate
# 18418
|
Posted
Another little example here of how the Conservative Party is not very conservative. From an article by the chairman of the conservative think tank the Bow Group
quote:
I recently sat in on a string of intern interviews where two consistent questions were asked of every candidate: “why are you a conservative?”, and “Who do you want to be the next President of the United States?” Half of the candidates described their long-term commitment to conservatism, before expressing their support for Hillary Clinton.
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2015/09/10/the-last-of-the-conservatives-why-peter-hitchens-shouldnt-give-up-the-fight-just-y et/
[ 10. September 2015, 15:22: Message edited by: Bibliophile ]
Posts: 635 | Registered: Jun 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
Another little example here of how the Conservative Party is not very conservative. From an article by the chairman of the conservative think tank the Bow Group
quote:
I recently sat in on a string of intern interviews where two consistent questions were asked of every candidate: “why are you a conservative?”, and “Who do you want to be the next President of the United States?” Half of the candidates described their long-term commitment to conservatism, before expressing their support for Hillary Clinton.
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2015/09/10/the-last-of-the-conservatives-why-peter-hitchens-shouldnt-give-up-the-fight-just-y et/
That sounds like another version of 'no true Scotsman'.
Is that organisation a credible and respected news site? Or is it a nest of loonies? I've never heard of it before.
An alternative view is that as the Conservative Party has called itself by that name for over 150 years, it now defines the word, rather than vice versa.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
betjemaniac
Shipmate
# 17618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
Another little example here of how the Conservative Party is not very conservative. From an article by the chairman of the conservative think tank the Bow Group
quote:
I recently sat in on a string of intern interviews where two consistent questions were asked of every candidate: “why are you a conservative?”, and “Who do you want to be the next President of the United States?” Half of the candidates described their long-term commitment to conservatism, before expressing their support for Hillary Clinton.
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2015/09/10/the-last-of-the-conservatives-why-peter-hitchens-shouldnt-give-up-the-fight-just-y et/
That sounds like another version of 'no true Scotsman'.
Is that organisation a credible and respected news site? Or is it a nest of loonies? I've never heard of it before.
An alternative view is that as the Conservative Party has called itself by that name for over 150 years, it now defines the word, rather than vice versa.
Breitbart? For someone that's never heard of it "nest of loonies" is remarkably appropriate - well done that man! It is reasonably a real thing, however, in terms of presence and reach.
Incidentally, the Bow Group is also a nest of loonies - in Tory circles it's the Thatcherite true believers - sort of the Tory equivalent of Progress.
At least you know where you stand with Cornerstone, or the TRG - or the Fabians for that matter.
--------------------
And is it true? For if it is....
Posts: 1481 | From: behind the dreaming spires | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
lowlands_boy
Shipmate
# 12497
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
Another little example here of how the Conservative Party is not very conservative. From an article by the chairman of the conservative think tank the Bow Group
quote:
I recently sat in on a string of intern interviews where two consistent questions were asked of every candidate: “why are you a conservative?”, and “Who do you want to be the next President of the United States?” Half of the candidates described their long-term commitment to conservatism, before expressing their support for Hillary Clinton.
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2015/09/10/the-last-of-the-conservatives-why-peter-hitchens-shouldnt-give-up-the-fight-just-y et/
Or they might have concluded that since the Democrats and the Republicans are both considerably to the right of the UK right of centre, either party is fine by their standards, and so they'd better just choose the one less likely to yield Donald Trump or Sarah Pailin as president.
A bit like how lots of people might have thought there wasn't much between Labour and Conservatives, and thought Cameron would be the better bet.
--------------------
I thought I should update my signature line....
Posts: 836 | From: North West UK | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
betjemaniac
Shipmate
# 17618
|
Posted
Actually it strikes me even today that "Conservative" is just a convenient banner to rally around, in much the same way as others adopt "socialist."
Within the Conservative Party (as indeed within Labour or any other party of mass appeal) there are a number of mutually antagonistic tribes who one gets the impression have narrowly passed a majority vote to co-operate for the day...
Cornerstone - paleo-c/Conservative faith, flag and family types
Bow Group - dry, economic hangout for dessicated calculating machines; Bentham lives. Slightly surpirsingly, they did somehow invent World Refugee Year once.
No Turning Back - having reconsidered my post above, these are the red in tooth and claw Thatcherites
Tory Reform Group - Heath was right, corporatist, borderline 19th century municipal socialists really
Then there are your non-aligned wets, dries, shire Tories, libertarians, National Liberals (who still exist in temperament if not name), Liberal Unionists (ditto), One Nationers, Red Tories (who were a thing long before Blue Labour, incidentally), etc
all jumbled up nicely behind the same blue rosette.
No wonder they don't get on occasionally.
--------------------
And is it true? For if it is....
Posts: 1481 | From: behind the dreaming spires | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
betjemaniac
Shipmate
# 17618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lowlands_boy:
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
Another little example here of how the Conservative Party is not very conservative. From an article by the chairman of the conservative think tank the Bow Group
quote:
I recently sat in on a string of intern interviews where two consistent questions were asked of every candidate: “why are you a conservative?”, and “Who do you want to be the next President of the United States?” Half of the candidates described their long-term commitment to conservatism, before expressing their support for Hillary Clinton.
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2015/09/10/the-last-of-the-conservatives-why-peter-hitchens-shouldnt-give-up-the-fight-just-y et/
Or they might have concluded that since the Democrats and the Republicans are both considerably to the right of the UK right of centre, either party is fine by their standards, and so they'd better just choose the one less likely to yield Donald Trump or Sarah Pailin as president.
A bit like how lots of people might have thought there wasn't much between Labour and Conservatives, and thought Cameron would be the better bet.
In fairness, many Tories of my acquaintance support Hillary precisely because she is the less right wing of the two, rather than there just being no need to differentiate. The entire British political spectrum is somewhere to the left of the US one, such that even some of our headbanging righties are nearly dangerous socialists in the eyes of some.
--------------------
And is it true? For if it is....
Posts: 1481 | From: behind the dreaming spires | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
alienfromzog
Ship's Alien
# 5327
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
Given that Cameron himself is governing from the centre right, indeed his position is not too far from that of the Labour Blairites, given that all the signals are that his response to a Corbyn victory will be to move further towards a Blairite position and further away from the right of his party I don't think you need have too much fear that he will implement conservative policies rather than just 'steer the ship'.
The idea that this government is centre-anything is ridiculous and obscene actually.
Economic policy
Social Security
Home Office policy
NHS
to name but four areas that are of vital importance to the nation and being run from a radical-right agenda. (I'm back up my assertions when you back up yours)
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by alienfromzog:
Notwithstanding your point about how our electoral system skews the popular vote, the Tories still won.
I'm not disputing that. It's the word 'stunning' that I'm disagreeing with.
Nor can anyone argue that they achieved this so called 'stunning' victory because of the amazing quality of their propaganda. If it had been that good, they would have won a proper victory. The more rational conclusion is that more of the public were not-very-convinced by what they knew than by what Labour was saying.
It's a non sequitur to say that because one snake oil salesman tells you that another one's product is rubbish, then his own snake oil must be fantastic.
I stand by my choice of adjective.
If you agree Martin Wolf (or Simon Wren-Lewis, or Joseph Stiglitz or Paul Krugman... etc.) that this government has totally mismanaged the economy then to win (whatever the mathematics) is astounding. Logic would suggest that such a level of incompetence would equal electoral wipe-out.
So, yeah, stunning is, I think, the right word.
AFZ
--------------------
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.
[Sen. D.P.Moynihan]
An Alien's View of Earth - my blog (or vanity exercise...)
Posts: 2150 | From: Zog, obviously! Straight past Alpha Centauri, 2nd planet on the left... | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bibliophile
Shipmate
# 18418
|
Posted
alienfromzog
To give one example of an area where the government has a centrist Blairite agenda rather than anything right wing, Education policy. This government has continued to encourage Academy schools, introduced by Blair's Labour government. They've also introduced the rather Blairite project of Free schools. However have they had any schools policy that could be described as genuinely right wing e.g. supporting grammar schools, private schools or home schooling. Have they lifted the ban on new grammar schools? No, quite the reverse, all Free schools are required to be comprehensives. Have they done anything to encourage homeschooling? No. Have they even talked about introducing school vouchers? No, they haven't even reintroduced the Assisted Places scheme from private schools abolished by Blair. And on top of that you have the continued pushing of political correctness by the odious Nicky Morgan.
Its true that they haven't adopted any of the hard left policies of banning grammar schools, private schools, homeschooling or indeed Free schools. however not having any of those hard left policies doesn't make them right wing, it just makes them centrist.
Posts: 635 | Registered: Jun 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
alienfromzog
Ship's Alien
# 5327
|
Posted
Education? Really?
Firstly, whilst I am not one to declare Blair to be a secret Tory, the policy of academies is not one I'm a big fan of anyway. But there are some subtle but important differences between the policies:
To quote the BBC:
quote:
Are academies all about improving failing schools?
Not any more. The policy, which originated under Labour, aimed to improve struggling schools, primarily in deprived areas.
And this continues under the sponsored-academy model, where failing schools are taken over and run by an academy trust, usually under a new principal and governing body.
But this has been changed radically and accelerated by the Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition.
Now all schools - primary as well as secondary - have been invited to convert to academy status, but priority has being given to those deemed by education watchdog Ofsted to be "outstanding" or "performing well".
Acadamisation (yes, apparently that is the word) is all about undermining local education authorities and setting up schools as independent entities. Or effectively private businesses.
This coupled with a misty-eyed nostalgia about what 1950's curriculum which is desperately unsuited to the 21st century is not particular centrist.
C- Must try harder.
AFZ
--------------------
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.
[Sen. D.P.Moynihan]
An Alien's View of Earth - my blog (or vanity exercise...)
Posts: 2150 | From: Zog, obviously! Straight past Alpha Centauri, 2nd planet on the left... | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bibliophile
Shipmate
# 18418
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by alienfromzog:
Education? Really?
Firstly, whilst I am not one to declare Blair to be a secret Tory, the policy of academies is not one I'm a big fan of anyway. But there are some subtle but important differences between the policies:
To quote the BBC:
quote:
Are academies all about improving failing schools?
Not any more. The policy, which originated under Labour, aimed to improve struggling schools, primarily in deprived areas.
And this continues under the sponsored-academy model, where failing schools are taken over and run by an academy trust, usually under a new principal and governing body.
But this has been changed radically and accelerated by the Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition.
Now all schools - primary as well as secondary - have been invited to convert to academy status, but priority has being given to those deemed by education watchdog Ofsted to be "outstanding" or "performing well".
Acadamisation (yes, apparently that is the word) is all about undermining local education authorities and setting up schools as independent entities. Or effectively private businesses.
This coupled with a misty-eyed nostalgia about what 1950's curriculum which is desperately unsuited to the 21st century is not particular centrist.
C- Must try harder.
AFZ
I'm not sure what exactly you think is right wing about any of that? Also if that's the right wing position and the left wing position is compulsory comprehensive schools for everyone (I think we can agree that is the left wing position unless you can think of anything further to the left of that) then I'm not sure where you think the centre ground is? what would you consider to be a centrist policy?
If the government's schools policy is right wing why have they not lifted the ban on new grammar schools?
If the government's schools policy is right wing why have they not reintroduced the assisted places scheme to support private schools?
It the government's school's policy is right wing why have they done nothing to support home schooling?
And finally if their policy is right wing why do people like Nicky Morgan continue to push political correctness in schools?
[ 10. September 2015, 19:20: Message edited by: Bibliophile ]
Posts: 635 | Registered: Jun 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
And finally if their policy is right wing why do people like Nicky Morgan continue to push political correctness in schools?
Probably because if any government in this country re-introduced the right of teachers and pupils to discriminate against gays, women and blacks, it'd be overturned very rapidly in the courts, and the education secretary at the time would have to resign.
YMMV.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Penny S
Shipmate
# 14768
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
And finally if their policy is right wing why do people like Nicky Morgan continue to push political correctness in schools?
Probably because if any government in this country re-introduced the right of teachers and pupils to discriminate against gays, women and blacks, it'd be overturned very rapidly in the courts, and the education secretary at the time would have to resign.
YMMV.
Not to mention that "political correctness" actually means "being nice to other people", and (I believe this was put in the mouth of Granny Weatherwax) "not treating other people like things". why on earth would anyone suggest resiling from doing those things?
Posts: 5833 | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
I'm not sure what exactly you think is right wing about any of that?
I think that having lost some of their ability to shore up priviledge using the instruments of the state (grammar schools) they have instead hit on the policy the gradual privatisation of school provision via free schools.
The vast majority of free schools are opened in areas in which there is already a surplus of school places - and generally they have been found to be less 'comprehensive' than similar schools in the same area if you start to measure things like numbers of children receiving free school meals, speaking English as a second language, having special needs etc.
At the same time, this is modern Britain, so the idealogical element has run in parallel to that of the spiv - with a lot of chains being run as leveraged property companies, or captive markets for the services provided by other companies in their owners 'portfolio'.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Penny S
Shipmate
# 14768
|
Posted
Academisation also means transferring publicly owned land to private owners, who can then do with it what they will. Build houses on it. Sell it to other concerns. Whatever. That is definitely not left wing, and I don't think it is centrist, either.
Posts: 5833 | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bibliophile
Shipmate
# 18418
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
I'm not sure what exactly you think is right wing about any of that?
I think that having lost some of their ability to shore up priviledge using the instruments of the state (grammar schools) they have instead hit on the policy the gradual privatisation of school provision via free schools.
But if they were really right wing why wouldn't they encourage the opening of new grammar schools. They haven't lost the ability to do that, they have a Parliamentary majority. They don't do it because they don't want to, just like they don't want to, just like they don't want to reintroduce the assisted places scheme or support homeschooling.
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
The vast majority of free schools are opened in areas in which there is already a surplus of school places - and generally they have been found to be less 'comprehensive' than similar schools in the same area if you start to measure things like numbers of children receiving free school meals, speaking English as a second language, having special needs etc.
So as a result of the government's policies there are now more comprehensives in Britain not less. Doesn't sound very right wing to me. You make the case that these new comprehensives are a bit less comprehensive but that would make the policy centre right at most.
Posts: 635 | Registered: Jun 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
Touchstone
Shipmate
# 3560
|
Posted
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
But if they were really right wing why wouldn't they encourage the opening of new grammar schools. They haven't lost the ability to do that, they have a Parliamentary majority. They don't do it because they don't want to, just like they don't want to, just like they don't want to reintroduce the assisted places scheme or support homeschooling.
I suspect that Dave 'n' Gideon don't want Grammar Schools or assisted places back as they encourage the hoi polloi to get above their station.
--------------------
Jez we did hand the next election to the Tories on a plate!
Posts: 163 | From: Somewhere west of Bristol | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
They are right wing not stupid, the research underpining grammar schools has been fairly comprehensively debunked / discredited.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
So as a result of the government's policies there are now more comprehensives in Britain not less. Doesn't sound very right wing to me. You make the case that these new comprehensives are a bit less comprehensive but that would make the policy centre right at most.
Not really, enriching themselves and their chums takes precedence. I believe Peter Oborne (who is more of a true conservative than Hitchens) has written on the subject quite extensively.
And make no mistake - these are comprehensives in name only - the idea is to skim off the children that are easiest (read cheapest) to teach.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
I'm not sure what exactly you think is right wing about any of that?
I think that having lost some of their ability to shore up priviledge using the instruments of the state (grammar schools) they have instead hit on the policy the gradual privatisation of school provision via free schools.
As well as giving more power to parents, these reforms presumably cut out Local Education Authorities that were often seen by central government as a block on reform?
___
Sadiq Khan's victory in the London Mayoral contest today suggests that Corbyn's got it in the bag.
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
But if they were really right wing why wouldn't they encourage the opening of new grammar schools.
Because there is nothing particularly right-wing about grammar schools except in a vague 'everything was better in the 1950s' sense?
Some of the Warsaw Pact countries had grammar schools - and in some ways grammar schools make more sense if you have a planned economy. In a planned economy it's reasonable to earmark a set number of children for the 'academic' track - you know approximately how many professionals you'll need in the future because it says so, right here, in Comrade Honecker's five-year plan. But in the UK we are supposed to have rejected top-down centralised economic planning in favour of flexibility.
The wider point is that trying to place every single question on a scale between right wing and left wing is hopelessly simplistic. It implies that the entirety of public life can be reduced to one of those abstract statements (much beloved of HR professionals) to which we must say if we 'strongly agree', 'slightly agree', 'strongly disagree' etc.
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Penny S
Shipmate
# 14768
|
Posted
I thought after posting about being nice that a better reference than Granny Weatherwax might have been Bill's and Ted's "Be excellent to each other" which has echoes in a number of places, including, I seem to recall, the Bible.
But I see from your links that what you are calling political correctness in this case is ensuring that children are aware of other communities than their own and are prepared to accept the differences between them, and between religions. Or it might be, teaching the children not to be racist. And that the respect they expect to be paid to their own faith should be paid to others, since it is faith schools you are concerned about.
Tricky one - we had a Christian member of staff who refused to accompany a class to the local Sikh gurdwara because it was a house full of demons. (She put me in a very difficult position once when it transpired that she had been teaching her class that anyone who did not accept Christ as their saviour would go to hell. In a secular school. This came up in a lesson when we had three classes together watching a programme about Ancient Greeks, and one of the children asked whether they would go to hell, since they couldn't know about Jesus. She smiled sweetly at me, since I was the one who was supposed to be answering. I had to be professional, so I couldn't say what I thought about her teaching, but took refuge in Paul and people being judged by whether they had lived up to the standards they believed were right, and she nodded. And I felt bad, because I would have liked to have relieved their 8 year old minds of the fear.)
Someone at the local sec mod had got a child who hid in the cloakroom in tears because they had told them directly, in RE, that they and their parents would be going to hell for being atheists. It took another member of staff ages to talk them out of it. It takes some unravelling, that. As an atheist, an adult would be able to tell them not to be so silly, but a pupil to be told that by someone in authority over them, who should look as though they have the good of the pupil at heart, is bad.
Not doing this sort of thing in schools paid for and overseen by the state - what happens in church and private faith schools is another case - is definitely correct. I don't really get how the word correct, even if modified by political, gets to be a means of trivialising serious issues.
Do not do to anyone that which you would not like done to you. Was Hillel being politically correct there, teaching a gentile about the Jewish Law?
Too often now, politically correct gets to mean "stopping me doing something I want to do" while ignoring that the thing is something which will harm others wellbeing. Which is the important part of the idea.
[ 11. September 2015, 21:23: Message edited by: Penny S ]
Posts: 5833 | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
lowlands_boy
Shipmate
# 12497
|
Posted
So, the new Labour leader is left winger Jeremy Corbyn, by a huge margin that didn't even need a second round of votes to decide it.
Tom Watson is deputy, which is very interesting too as he is extremely able and was a real rottweiler in the investigation into the media in the last year or two
--------------------
I thought I should update my signature line....
Posts: 836 | From: North West UK | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
YES!!!! And I'd have had a black-ops job done on him twenty five years ago.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
alienfromzog
Ship's Alien
# 5327
|
Posted
Lowlands, My thoughts exactly.
I get the impression that Corbyn will be very forthright too...
Cameron: So, Labour is more than ever in the pockets of their union pay-masters
Corbyn: I am proud of our connection with the unions. And remember the unions have 30 times the membership of the Conservative party. Now who's pocket are you in Prime Minister?
Just wondering.
I am still unsure about Jeremy because being right is not enough. We need to win. But it's gonna be interesting!
AFZ
P.s. big fan of Tom Watson.
[ 12. September 2015, 11:38: Message edited by: alienfromzog ]
--------------------
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.
[Sen. D.P.Moynihan]
An Alien's View of Earth - my blog (or vanity exercise...)
Posts: 2150 | From: Zog, obviously! Straight past Alpha Centauri, 2nd planet on the left... | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Well, after the leadership elections, the Labour party now has an idealistic socialist heading up the party. So I guess we are going to see just how broad the appeal of socialism, as articulated by Jeremy Corbyn, is going to be.
I think what has happened is that the idealists in the Labour party, clearly the majority, have comprehensively rejected "New Labour" pragmatism on the grounds that it did indeed lead to a Labour government, but that government turned out to me a lot more "tory" than they thought it would. So a vote for Corbyn was seen as a vote for a return to the core values and ideals of socialism. My guess at present is that it will energise the majority of the party faithful, but keep Labour in opposition. Until the wheel turns again.
I'm really hoping that it will not be the case that "those who cannot learn from history are condemned to repeat it". I really don't want to see "Michael Foot and Militant Tendency" part 2 - or anything like that. But I've got some concerns that something like that will happen.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
No it won't. Jeremy is inclusive. There is no future AT ALL, in politics, like religion, that isn't inclusive of its 'enemies'.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lowlands_boy
Shipmate
# 12497
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
No it won't. Jeremy is inclusive. There is no future AT ALL, in politics, like religion, that isn't inclusive of its 'enemies'.
Yes-but who will WANT to be included? There was plenty of talk of plots before his election to get rid of him ASAP, but he has won by a large margin, and across all three categories of voter.
So MPs are going to be stuck with him, some who really want nothing to do with his ideas.
--------------------
I thought I should update my signature line....
Posts: 836 | From: North West UK | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Touchstone
Shipmate
# 3560
|
Posted
I wish Jeremy Corbyn well, but I'm not optimistic about how the next few years will pan out after the honeymoon period is over (if indeed he gets one).
I'm afraid that the inevitable compromises that go with being leader of Her Majesty's loyal opposition, let alone being in government, may cause disillusionment among many of Corbyn's supporters.
--------------------
Jez we did hand the next election to the Tories on a plate!
Posts: 163 | From: Somewhere west of Bristol | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Martin, there is a real problem with this claim for inclusiveness. Jeremy Corbyn voted his conscience on many occasions in the House, regardless of party leadership's efforts to unite the party on policies. That happens through having policies voted on in Cabinet, in meetings of MPs and at party conferences. His track record is one of a man who believes that in the end individual conscience is more important than the hard work of working together, seeking to unite disparate views behind common policies. That's a principled view, but it is not an inclusive one.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lowlands_boy:
So, the new Labour leader is left winger Jeremy Corbyn, by a huge margin that didn't even need a second round of votes to decide it.
Such a clear margin has to be a good thing for the Labour Party - there's no question about the legitimacy of the election, and the party can now knuckle down and be an opposition. Whether Jeremy Corbyn can translate his popularity with Labour supporters into popularity with the wider public, we shall see.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ariel
Shipmate
# 58
|
Posted
There are plenty of questions about the legitimacy of the election, unless you know something I don't. Which is entirely possible. My understanding is that some genuine Labour supporters didn't get votes, some genuine non-Labour supporters who'd paid £3 purely to create mischief did, some genuine Labour supporters were told their votes were invalid and de-registered.
I still think it's absurd inviting anyone and everyone to pay £3 to come and vote. It's hopelessly naive. It ought to have been restricted to paid-up members of the Labour party. Personally I think they should declare the election invalid. It may be that Corbyn won by a genuine majority but as far as I'm concerned there will always be a question mark over the results.
Still five years is five years and hopefully he'll be out, or well and truly curbed by then.
Posts: 25445 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
There are plenty of questions about the legitimacy of the election, unless you know something I don't. Which is entirely possible. My understanding is that some genuine Labour supporters didn't get votes, some genuine non-Labour supporters who'd paid £3 purely to create mischief did, some genuine Labour supporters were told their votes were invalid and de-registered.
All of that is true, but there aren't nearly enough of them to make a difference.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ariel
Shipmate
# 58
|
Posted
What proportion of the votes were £3 votes as opposed to people who were already members of the Labour party?
Posts: 25445 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
47% of paid up members votes, 57% of affiliates and over 80% of the £3 supporters. He'd have won even without that constituency. Those percentages are on the first rounf of voting.
The margins are just too large for small numbers of ballot papers not getting to supporters, to make any material difference. The electorate of the members and union affliates together is in the order of 200,000. (In my experience of being involved in union ballots, the most likely reason some didn't get ballot papers will have been that their details were not up to date in the party records. The bollot was overseen by an independent body - who, as far as we know, have raised no concerns over the condcut of the election.)
[ 12. September 2015, 13:52: Message edited by: Doublethink. ]
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
Have done maths, if you drop out the registered supporters the total number of votes cast (inc spoiled ballots, which were I think about 200) is: 317066.
Votes by candidate:
Andy Burnham 74,302
Yvette Cooper 63,513
Jeremy Corbyn 162,968
Liz Kendall 16,283
Which gives Jeremy Corbyn 51.3% of the total vote.
[ 12. September 2015, 14:09: Message edited by: Doublethink. ]
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jack o' the Green
Shipmate
# 11091
|
Posted
The maths is impressive, and clearly gives Jeremy C. a mandate. However, a leader must have people willing to follow. Regarding the current crop of M.P.s, he could find himself in a similar situation to Lady Thatcher and John Major in their latter leadership years.
Posts: 3121 | From: Lancashire, England | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
If the lib dems had done well, I think some of the right wing of the party might have jumped ship. But that is highly unlikely in the current cicumstances.
Some will want to moderate the left wing influence and they can't do that effectively if they disengage. I could see them arguing for things like, a pledge on rail nationalisation that staggers the process over a longer period of time related to franchise periods and performance. Perhaps initially using public subsidy - that is paid anyway - to purchase the rolling stock and lease back to the companies at a symbolic cost. Thereby spreading the cost of renationalisation over a longer time period.
A pledge to put policy on NATO to conference, and only after the european referendum.
Possibly an argument for turning energy companies into social enterprise or mutual comapnies on the John Lewis model rather than direct state control.
That sort of compromise.
[ 12. September 2015, 14:24: Message edited by: Doublethink. ]
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bibliophile
Shipmate
# 18418
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
But if they were really right wing why wouldn't they encourage the opening of new grammar schools.
Because there is nothing particularly right-wing about grammar schools except in a vague 'everything was better in the 1950s' sense?
Some of the Warsaw Pact countries had grammar schools - and in some ways grammar schools make more sense if you have a planned economy. In a planned economy it's reasonable to earmark a set number of children for the 'academic' track - you know approximately how many professionals you'll need in the future because it says so, right here, in Comrade Honecker's five-year plan. But in the UK we are supposed to have rejected top-down centralised economic planning in favour of flexibility.
If support for the comprehensive system is not particularly left wing why is it that the strongest opposition to other types of schooling (e.g. grammar schools, private schools, homeschooling) and the strongest support for the comprehensive system comes from leftists.
You point about State planning could be said about any form of state run education, certainly including comprehensive schools.
Posts: 635 | Registered: Jun 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bibliophile
Shipmate
# 18418
|
Posted
Penny S
I am well aware of he various arguments that are made in favour of left wing policies. None of that stops them from being left wing.
Posts: 635 | Registered: Jun 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
If support for the comprehensive system is not particularly left wing why is it that the strongest opposition to other types of schooling (e.g. grammar schools, private schools, homeschooling) and the strongest support for the comprehensive system comes from leftists.
Leftists support comprehensive schools. Yes, indeed. It does not follow, however, that rightists must support grammar schools. It is entirely possible, and reasonable, for both leftists and rightists to oppose the creation of new grammar schools (probably for different reasons).
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bibliophile
Shipmate
# 18418
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
Just in case my memory is dodgy, here are the official results:
http://www.labour.org.uk/blog/entry/results-of-the-labour-leadership-and-deputy-leadership-election
What is really striking is just how badly the Blairites have done. Liz Kendall coming a very bad fourth in the leadership election. In the deputy leadership you had Caroline Flint in third place and Ben Bradshaw in fifth. In the London mayoral candidate election longtime favourite Tessa Jowell was defeatd by Sadiq Khan.
Lets just remember how this contest started. Journalists were writing about the contest and suggesting that the major issue would be 'should Labour apologise for overspending in the last Labour government?', there was much talk about who the Blairite standard bearer would be Chuka Umanna or perhaps Tristram Hunt. When Kendall became the Blairite candidate there was even speculation about whether she could beat favourite Andy Burnham to the leadership.
Blairism may be thriving in the Conservative Party under 'heir to Blair' David Cameron but it seems to be on its last legs inside the Labour Party.
Posts: 635 | Registered: Jun 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
