Prospective MPs' selection
In characteristically unapologetic terms, the Conservative MP Ann Widdecombe not only pitches herself as a potential candidate for Strictly Come Dancing in an interview in Total Politics magazine but she also takes aim at the party's way of choosing its prospective MPs.
She says Mr Cameron's efforts to get more women into parliament threaten to fill the House of Commons with "second class citizens". After gaffes last week by Alan Duncan and Daniel Hannan that threatened to ruin the end of the party leader's holiday, it's not exactly helpful to the Conservative high command. But the Tories aren't alone in having to deal with internal struggles over positive discrimination.
Labour's had its own disputes too, with ructions in some constituencies over the creation of all women shortlists - with some complaints that Harriet Harman is doggedly trying to enforce her preferred policy that women should be fielded in half of all winnable seats in any area.
And rest assured, as we get nearer and nearer the general election, gripes about how prospective MPs will be chosen for seats will get louder. With more MPs expected to announce they are standing down next year, this is a battle that will be fought time and time again.
I'm 
© MMIX~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~49~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
Love Ann Widdecome (no "E"). She is stoic and forthright. Not afraid to speak her views.
She has a wonderful programme this week standing in for looney liberal leftie James O'Brien (who has a lot of growing up to do) and she is infinitely better than he is.
She is allowed to speak her mind and I think there is an awful lot of truth in what she says.
Obama voted in because he is black - women voted in because they are woman.
Just ain't right. I agree.
Complain about this comment
Widdicombe is the Tories' equivalent of Mandelson - she just doesn't care no more - says what she wants to say - quite a liberating feeling, I'd have thought
Complain about this comment
"positive" discrimination for one group is automatically a "negative" discrimination for another... If women are good enough they will be elected. It is an insult to give women special treatment as if they a second class citizens and need help to get on...the same goes for race, colour, sexuality etc, can you imagine the outcry if they had "gay only" or "heterosexual only" shortlists.....
Complain about this comment
well if Anne Whitcomb re enters the political spectrum then you will surly start to get a few home truths As like her or loath her she will give you a good run for your money Its a pity there aren't a few more like her as the truth often hurts and in my opinion shes straight down the middle.
Complain about this comment
Can't believe that I'm agreeing with Anne Widdecombe but the three main political parties really do have to get to grips with this issue, most of the electorate (man or woman) want the best person for the job, not someone from a politically correct list of names on a quota - women like Thatcher, Castle, Widdecombe etc. got were there got/are by being better than their male opponents not because they were at the top of some all female list...
Complain about this comment
It seems as if all the best MP's are jacking it in because of the company they are expected to keep, and they can do better elsewhere.
We will be left with the rossette-sporting rubbish in the next election because they have nowhere else to go.
Complain about this comment
How a party chooses its prospective candidates is of no interest to anyone but members of that particular party, the electorate will choose the MP.
However the electoral system is biased in favour of the established parties (there's a surprise).
We should do away with the deposit system (currently 500 UK pounds) which discriminates against independents and small parties and replace it with a minimum number of signatures of registered constituents to be collected before an election.
A cap on the amount of money that can be spent on campaigning.
Level the playing field for all, not just women.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
'She says Mr Cameron's efforts to get more women into parliament threaten to fill the House of Commons with "second class citizens".'
Heaven forfend! That would never do!
Complain about this comment
In reply too comments by "BobRocket" wrote @ #7:
The last thing this (any) country needs is a Parliament full of independents, One might not like the shade of a particular government (under the existing electoral system) but at least they can make decisions, countries that have large numbers of political parties or independent MPs nearly always have successively weak (coalition) governments were nothing get decided.
Complain about this comment
when a woman gets to the top in politics, she can do one of two things ...
(1) she can turn around and offer a helping hand to her sisters
... like Harriet
or:
(2) she can say "I'm aboard, burn that ladder!"
... like Widders
women tell me they prefer the first approach, and I think they're right
Complain about this comment
No doubt, the quality of MPs is now in direct correlation with the quantity of people who can spell the surname of Miss Widdecombe, correctly.
Democracy? Even those of a lesser education get to have their say! The lowest common denominator, how wonderful. Those who have subregal ideas get to put their own recommendations, to HM, on who should be in Government.
Bring back Henry the Eighth. He'd, happily, rip it all up & start again!
Complain about this comment
Oh Saga, you will never get inside the mind of a woman - bet your wife says that to you too!
Complain about this comment
#2 Saga
Somehow think she will appreciate the analogy more than Mandelson.
I prefer to think of her as a pantomine dame who knows a good line and plays up to her image.
Complain about this comment
#11
How about a third approach?
"I will support whichever candidate for a particular post or position is the best, be it a man or a woman."
Complain about this comment
#10 Boilerplated
The current system of party entrenchment means that the party leaders (a small and elite group) make the policy that the rest of the country has to live with, no matter how many of the electorate (or even members of that party) disagree with a particular policy, reasoned debate is quashed and unsuitable legislation is steam-rollered through. Independents (and independent minded party-members) have no such bind and are free to question the motive and operation of proposals although as Ms Widdecombe would agree, members who don't toe the party line rarely get promoted within the party ranks
Complain about this comment
9. Pop - a few "second class citizens" in the Labour government right now. What about the dreadful "Defence Minister" the Hitler lookalike?
I would desert from the services if I was a soldier under HIS politically driven motivations.
No, Ann (No "E") Widdecombe is a refreshing breath of fresh air and to millions she actually speakes SENSE. COMMON SENSE.
Come on now, Saga, you wouldn't hit a lady with glasses on now would you?
Complain about this comment
Saga your two little alternatives are simplistic and wrong. The first option isn't giving women a helping hand up the ladder it is pushing men off it - there is a difference.
While Ann Widdecombe isn't burning the ladder behind her she is just leaving it as it is giving anyone an equal chance to climb it.
If Harriet Harman was a man then most of the stuff she comes out with would be consider pretty chauvinistic - it really boils down to "Lets give women a hand as they can't win in a fair race". Which is wrong and I know some women who find it offensive.
Remember if you have to lower the bar to let people in then all you end up with less capable candidates.
Complain about this comment
At 10:48am on 21 Aug 2009, sagamix wrote:
when a woman gets to the top in politics, she can do one of two things ...
(1) she can turn around and offer a helping hand to her sisters
... like Harriet
or:
(2) she can say "I'm aboard, burn that ladder!"
... like Widders
women tell me they prefer the first approach, and I think they're right
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Her sisters " ....You do make me giggle sosmix
"Women tell me they prefer Harriets approach " ...... don't believe that for a second
Complain about this comment
Post 9 better some second class citizens than some first class freeloaders and yes men (very few are women Margaret Moran & Hazel Blears excepted obviously) who seem to think that us poor mug punter taxpayers should pay for them to have a luxury lifestyle.
Better some normal people rather than someone who has got on a list by toadying to the party hierarchy.
It would be interesting to see how many current MP's haven't started out like political aides (like Cameron) or Union reps or worked on a QUANGO or other non real world position.
Britain needs more real people with real life experience in Parliament rather that cosseted juniors from the Westminster bubble.
Complain about this comment
12#
So, Harriet has got to "the top", has she??
What a shining example to the meritocracy she is.
All Hail Harriet!
Complain about this comment
I'd rather the House of Commons was filled with second class citizens than the third rate politicians who curently fill the benches (when they're not away doing other jobs).
Complain about this comment
In reply to comments @ #16
What you are describing is a problem with how the two major parties run their ships (and the issue of women-only short lists is part of the problem), not with the electoral system, with the changes you suggest there is a real danger of throwing the baby out with the bathwater...
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
17. fla
It isn't just Labour: David 'Tony Blair' Cameron... Good grief!
Complain about this comment
17#
It would depend on whether she was a privately educated vacuous posh-girl, wouldnt it Saga?
Complain about this comment
There are some strange lefties wound up in political matters - look at Stephanie Flanders (or is it Stephen?) and her sister the lesbian writer in America!!!
Bet they are all onboard Brown's sinking ship.
No, I absolutely and undisputedly think Ann Widdecombe is one strong, sensible and useful woman in politics and after all that is what we need right now and for the next however many years......
Don't just ask me - go out on the streets and ask the public.....
Complain about this comment
MPs don't count. Whoever gets elected will only get whipped into toeing the line drawn by party leaders who take their orders from heaven knows who.
All candidates should stand as independents, accountable directly and only to the electorate. With a bit of luck, 646 genuinely good and hardworking men and women can form a proper decent governemnt between them.
Complain about this comment
You may not like what Anne Widdecombe or Dan Hannan think about a particular issue but at least they can think for themselves and aren't afraid to speak their minds in contrast to the servile careerists who dominate political life. The electorate has always had a liking for eccentrics and mavericks down through the years, think of MP's like Leo Abse, Gwyneth Dunwoody, Frank Field, Cyril Smith, Clement Freud, Nicholas Fairbairn and yes even Enoch Powell. Give me a House of Commons filled with such people any day over one stuffed full of party hacks straight off the SPAD production line!
Complain about this comment
Positive discrimination and quota are both patronising and illogical, they guarantee that you will almost never get the best person for the job.
If political parties are institutionally sexist, racist or any other 'ist' then they need reform form within, but the public desrve better than certain MPs being drafted in purely to make up the numbers and tick the box.
As for Harriet Harperson, real, intellectual feminists such as Germaine Greer must cringe and bury their heads in their hands every time she makes one of her facile 'girls are better thatn boys' comments...
maybe one day harperson will grow up enough to express her personal bugbears in adult terms rather than 'men bad, women good'
Complain about this comment
Please tell what you say are the gaffes made by Daniel Hannan which are apparently so detrimental to David Cameron and the Conservative Party.
I have heard so many people make this broad brush allegation but none have come up with specifics. I searched and found an article attibuted to this MEP but can find none of the imputations laid at his doorstep.
So please come out with you find so objectionable or leave him out of this elongated discussion.
Complain about this comment
Positive discrimination in selection processes would not be important, were it not that the antique and broken election system used in the UK means that three quarters of all seats are safe seats, and so the selection meeting is effectively the election.
First past the post elections certainly result in governments that can get things done, in particular they can force through measures which have little support among voters. This may suit politicians and those that lobby them on behalf of special interests, but means that the interests of ordinary voters are often ignored.
Governments often remind public servants like teachers and health workers that public services should be run in a way which serves the public, not the interests of those that work in them. They should be reminded that government itself is a public service, and should also be run to suit the public not just the politicians who do the governing.
Complain about this comment
#28. At 12:03pm on 21 Aug 2009, puzzling wrote:
"All candidates should stand as independents, accountable directly and only to the electorate. With a bit of luck, 646 genuinely good and hardworking men and women can form a proper decent governemnt between them."
...and with even more luck something might actually get decided once or twice a year, assuming that the coalition hasn't collapsed (again) and new elections been called...
Complain about this comment
31. At 12:20pm on 21 Aug 2009, b-b-jack wrote:
Please tell what you say are the gaffes made by Daniel Hannan which are apparently so detrimental to David Cameron and the Conservative Party.
I have heard so many people make this broad brush allegation but none have come up with specifics. I searched and found an article attibuted to this MEP but can find none of the imputations laid at his doorstep.
So please come out with you find so objectionable or leave him out of this elongated discussion.
===============
Its quite simple - he decided to go on Fox News (whose reporting of the healthcare reforms is increasingly attracting some quite serious criticisms for its blatant untruths and may finally about to be made to answwer for what many see as a downright irresponsible agenda ) in the USA and lay into the NHS - which was condemned by Cameron himself.
Gaffe may not be the correct term for his actions, however, as i'm quite sure he meant every word.
Complain about this comment
24#
Dont get me started on things involving bouyancy.
I seem to have a moderator following me around this board who seems to think that the combination of my username and that particular word that rhymes with "boater" are to be mutually exclusive.
He/She lets other people post such words, but me.... no, no. We appear to have a semi-officially protected poster in our midst....
Complain about this comment
11 sagamix
So you are advocating some sort of female masonic lodge are you? Discrimination is wrong. Be it Harriet's reverse sharia to help rape prosecution by making a woman's word worth twice that of a man or all woman short lists it is wrong.
Both my Grandmother's had good jobs (GP and Teacher) and most of my Great Grandmothers. It's time to grow up. Not all women want to work. Some like the stay at home option. Equality is not achieved by making us all the same. Embrace difference.
Complain about this comment
#11 sagamix
"when a woman gets to the top in politics, she can do one of two things ...
(1) she can turn around and offer a helping hand to her sisters
... like Harriet
or:
(2) she can say "I'm aboard, burn that ladder!"
... like Widders"
Firstly, I don't think Hattie IS helping her sisters. If anything, the Hattie-effect is entirely working in the opposite direction and putting people off.
We can't legislate for who gets finally elected, but at least the selection stage for prospective candidates should be fair. If equal numbers of men and women were applying, one would expect there to be roughly equal numbers of men and women standing for each party when the election comes. To this extent, we would expect there to be more women in Parliament than at present. But under a fair equal-opportunities system, candidates should be selected on the basis of their suitability - NOT simply because they are a woman.
Hattie's earlier suggestion of appointing a woman to a top job simply to make the numbers more 'equal' smacks of discrimination, the very thing she claims to oppose. There is of course no such thing as 'positive discrimination'.
It would be of small comfort to a suitably qualified man to know he was being discriminated against in order to address some earlier perceived 'imbalance' in the system.
If it is wrong to reject someone because they are a woman, it is also wrong to reject someone because they are a man.
If we want attract more women into politics, then they surely need good role-models. I'm sorry to disagree with you on this point, but I feel Ann Widdicombe is by far the more inspiring candidate. She says what she thinks, talks common sense and believes that people should be selected on their merits.
Hattie on the other hand believes it is acceptable to make discriminatory remarks about men, and seek special treatment for women.
We do need more women in Parliament - but these should be women like Ann, not Hattie.
Complain about this comment
#31
The thing about Daniel Hannan is that he's one of 'them'. He's a career politician with no real working experience. Strange that I can dismiss him as a career politician when nobody has ever actually voted for the man.
Complain about this comment
29. JPLotus: Ditto. Amen to that.
Complain about this comment
@ sagamix, port #11
"(1) she can turn around and offer a helping hand to her sisters
... like Harriet
...women tell me they prefer the first approach, and I think they're right"
Well yes, of course they do. No suprise there. I'm sure they DO prefer a scenario in which powerful women are allowed to "help their sisters" by giving them preferential treatment.
I'm sure many men would prefer that powerful men were allowed to "help their brothers" too, by giving them priority in certain jobs and even excluding women altogether.
Trouble is... in the latter case, it would be "sexist" and "an outrage" and "morally reprehensible", etc. etc. etc. ad nauseum.
I think you - and doubtless many others (including Harman) - need to make your mind up, Saga. Either favouring/discriminating against people on grounds of their sex is wrong, or it isn't.
Frankly, i believe it's wrong. Which is why I can't stand Harriet Harman.
Complain about this comment
Every time a 'real' Tory speaks on anything the party machine has to put up David Cameron to reinterpret what has been said. Should this not give the country pause for thought?
Each and every Tory is deeply politically unattractive. They wanted to destroy the NHS at birth (WC 1951) They closed the hospitals down (too many beds) (Mrs MT) They are the ranting fools in the corner of the club, but because the other lot are so incompetent and so much like Tories themselves the Tory party is high in the polls.
Ann W. has a really genuinely repellent personality, much like many politicians, but like Peter M. we would have to invent her if she did not exist! Why is it that so many politicians fall so far short of what the people want?
Complain about this comment
#34 is about time that we had some MP/MEP's whom are prepared to speak there minds, rather than be supine to the leadership. Having quatos' will make them even more indebted to that leadership. As there selection will not be open to the consitiuency party as the list will have there name suddenly removed as they need another type of X on the list instead of them. It actually hand more control back to the centre
It should be seen as a good thing that a party has people that are prepared to speak out force a debate on issues in public . As if democracy does not reign supreme in a party then there is no chance when in office. When you end up with an elected dictorship.
Complain about this comment
Makes me wonder actually, whether Hattie has a view on Lord Minky's prostrate operation... the fact that it is gender related and thereby specifically excludes wimmin should be enough to get her into a bit of a lather.....
Complain about this comment
#35 moderation on this BBC's is less than even handed and many issues consigned to "off-topic" so that they can be removed. Even one calling for independant moderation has been removed.
Complain about this comment
"..women tell me they prefer the first approach..."
Is that 70s dinosaurs or real people?
Pull the other one. How many people really vote on the principle of the candidates reproductive organs...really. Naff all. This is not the Victorian age Saga.
Lady HarHar just uses this kind of rubbish to try and cover up for her being a waste of parliamentary space.
Complain about this comment
#38. At 12:59pm on 21 Aug 2009, Poprishchin wrote:
"Strange that I can dismiss him [Daniel Hannan] as a career politician when nobody has ever actually voted for the man."
Err he was elected by those who bothered to vote in the EU Parliamentary elections in June, in fact many would say (due to the electoral system, used by the EU) he probably has more legitimacy than all those whoo sit in the UK parliament put together!
Complain about this comment
#37 perhaps Hattie would like the number of servicepersonal killed to be made equal ?
Complain about this comment
#41 you are very selective with your revisionist version of history.
beleive that Sir WC 1943 was working a much better solution for a NHS model.
Also Callagan and Co wanted to closed beds etc but the unions opposed them which is why we had massive strikes etc in 1970's and the winter of discontent. Hospitals care is not measured by number of beds but by outcomes. Or for that matter which party is going to out spend the other in a spending arms race. Much better to get the system working first.
Much money is wasted in the NHS via arcane ideas and practices. I have seen 3 in my little dealing with the NHS all costing vastly more than doing the job right in the first place.
Complain about this comment
#46 certainly more legitimancy than the current occupants of NO 10.
Brown or Mendlesum
Complain about this comment
Laura, am I right in thinking that Tony Blair was told that all-women shortlists were illegal? And isn't "positive discrimination" the same thing?
Complain about this comment
50. At 1:36pm on 21 Aug 2009, excellentmad_hatter wrote:
Laura, am I right in thinking that Tony Blair was told that all-women shortlists were illegal? And isn't "positive discrimination" the same thing?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Indeed, so is keeping innocents peoples's DNA .... but do you think ANYONE in the Labour party ever listens
Complain about this comment
#46
'Err he was elected by those who bothered to vote in the EU Parliamentary elections'
Er, you vote for parties in the EU elections.
Complain about this comment
"We will be left with the rossette(sic)-sporting rubbish in the next election because they have nowhere else to go." "second class citizens"
Those descriptions are far to charitable to the "honourable" members who "represent" us in our "democratically - elected" parliament.
With helping hands like Harpersons, who needs a kick in the teeth? 95% of the male population is not part of the "Old Boys Network" either, what gives her the right to talk about me that way? I know the majority of women drivers don't join the motorway at 35mph, don't then spend their entire journey in the overtaking lanes, don't only use their rear view mirrors to check their make-up and don't drive while texting or with their mobiles clamped to their ear. Why is it publically acceptable to make derogatory comments about 'men' which are unqualified, unsubstantiated and unrepresentative of even a sizeable minority? And this from an "Equalities" minister, too.
Another example of New(Lab)speak?
PS. To the Moderator, please reread my post CAREFULLY before you rush to remove it.
Complain about this comment
In reply to comments @ #52
"Er, you vote for parties in the EU elections."
No more than in the UK elections...
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
With the kind of discriminatory rubbish spouted by Harriet Harridan, she is one step away from being suitable for the British National Party. She has the mindless bigotry down pat. Now all she needs to do is spout the same kind of rubbish based around melanin as she does based around testosterone. ^^
Complain about this comment
'"Er, you vote for parties in the EU elections."
No more than in the UK elections...'
Fair enough but when you vote in a British election you have one candidate per party, not half a dozen.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
#11
That's just too sensible :-)
Complain about this comment
Adjustment to my comment #60
I meant to refer to post #15!!
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
positive discrimination
I'm very surprised at the level of opposition to this - it's intended to apply to a lop sided work environment (for example, too few black police or too few women MPs) which is suffering as a result, and it operates as follows ... if there are a number of equally suitable candidates, one gives preference to somebody from the under represented group one is wanting to encourage - it's good from the equality perspective (which is important) but it's even better from the point of view of improving how things are done in this country - you draw people in from a wider base, you will (in time) get a better outcome in terms of quality - all we're doing here is trying to chip away a little bit at the "Old Boys' Club" mentality/system which has let us down so badly - what on Earth is wrong with that? - why can't people see the light?
Harriet Harman
I'm sorry but, to me, she's a tough, principled politician who doesn't deserve all the stick she gets - what can I say?
Complain about this comment
At 2 sagamix wrote:
"Widdicombe is the Tories' equivalent of Mandelson"
NO NO NO!
Unfortunately, despites 3 attempts, the mods will not let me tell you why not.
Complain about this comment
dame @ 61
no, you were right the first time - post 11 - you can't go taking it back, now you've said it!
post 15 is just a Motherhood and Apple Pie statement - a.k.a. a meaningless platitude - this particular debate always triggers quite a few of them, I find
Complain about this comment
#63
re Harriet Harman
Apology accepted! But she certainly does deserve some of the stick she gets!
Complain about this comment
Miss Widdicombe complains about future MPs as being `second-class citizens' and then pitches herself as a potential judge of Strictly Come Dancing. Is that odd or is that odd?
I very much appreciate Miss Widdicombe when she is confronting some guileless child incapable of facing the harsh realities of life. We desperately need people of good intent to disillusion our youth so all power that particular elbow.
However, this leaves me with the one thought that the only thing she brings to the dancing competition is the word `strict'.
With regard to the composition of the House of Commons it would seem that it has not fully dawned on what for want of a better term one has to call the political leadership of this country that it is the choice of the electorate that matters not what the political leaders wish to determine. What we need at the moment are Members of Parliament determined to clean up Parliament, bring the Executive to heel, reform government from top to bottom and get the economy moving again with value added industry. Whether they be male, female or otherwise is of no concern other than their commitment and ability to do what our country so badly needs.
Complain about this comment
#63
Positive discrimination can certainly work provided it is done on a level playing field not purely on a quota basis, otherwise it just breeds resentment when unsuitable candidates are advanced purely because of their race or gender.
Complain about this comment
Why not simply do a 'Totnes' up and down the country, let people stand on their own merits and fight out in the market place. One would do well to reflect that a woman won that exercise in direct democracy and what is more, she did so on her own merits, not by having half of humanity excluded for being men.
Complain about this comment
"sagamix wrote:
positive discrimination
I'm very surprised at the level of opposition to this - it's intended to apply to a lop sided work environment (for example, too few black police or too few women MPs) which is suffering as a result"
It is flawed because it works on the basis that a working environment has to reflect the wider community - it doesn't. And if your statement was correct then it would mean that men would be hired over women in teaching roles (especially primary) as more women tend to fill those roles then men. However by my understanding that would not be the case.
"it's good from the equality perspective (which is important) but it's even better from the point of view of improving how things are done in this country - you draw people in from a wider base"
Firstly it is not good from an equality perspective as it doesn't give equal rights on a person by person basis but on a group basis. If you take two people from identical backgrounds with identical skills and personalities the woman will be hired over the man for no reason apart from she is a woman! At the personal layer equality has been taken away, so your statement only takes up if you ignore the fact that people are individuals (maybe Labour seem to prefer thinking of voters as mindless drones without personality)
"you will (in time) get a better outcome in terms of quality - all we're doing here is trying to chip away a little bit at the "Old Boys' Club" mentality/system which has let us down so badly - what on Earth is wrong with that? - why can't people see the light?"
So you would also argue that Harriet Harman should not be in the House of Commons based on her connections (I imagine that the house has a higher then expected proportion of members from private schools) and she should step down so some urban housewife takes her place?
Perhaps we should all be stripped of personality and the ability to think so that is would make it easier to assign us into groups?
You might be happy to look at things at the abstract level where our lord and masters move us around like pawns on a chess board but I would rather that we were allowed to think for ourselves and pick candidates based on the candidates themselves not quotas set-up by MPs
Complain about this comment
#63 saga
"if there are a number of equally suitable candidates, one gives preference to somebody from the under represented group one is wanting to encourage"
With all-female lists, the choice of comparing 'equally suitable' candidates is not available.
Furthermore, it's very unlikely that any two candidates (for any job application) are ever "equally suitable". That's why there are interviews and selection panels. People on a selection panel may not agree with each other, so they may have to 'vote' for their preferred choice.
How would you ever decide, for certain, that two candidates were 'equally qualified', in order that it would be reasonable for so-called 'positive discrimination' to kick into play?
It's a total fabrication! Discrimination is discrimination is discrimination.
#68 meninwhitecoasts
"Positive discrimination can certainly work provided it is done on a level playing field not purely on a quota basis"
The only purpose of so-called 'positive discrimination' IS to operate on a quota basis, and NOT on a level playing field!
Complain about this comment
@ sagamix, #63;
"...if there are a number of equally suitable candidates, one gives preference to somebody from the under represented group one is wanting to encourage..."
The problem with the whole theory - and the explanation for this "level of opposition" you seem to be having trouble understanding - is that, most often, there ISN'T a number of "equally suitable" candidates. Whilst it might make a good moral example; the chances of there *actually* being two candidates for any one job who have exactly the same skills, experience and abilities, but one happens to be a man and one happens to be a woman, are pretty remote indeed.
Now, I'm more than happy to see the better candidate get the job - man or woman. I don't mind if a woman gets promoted over me; assuming she's actually better at the job. If she wasn't, it would bother me just much as it would an under-qualified man being given the same treatment,
Problem is, most of the current "Equal" Opportunities legislation - and, for that matter, the rhetoric of Ms. Harman - doesn't seem to take into account the possibility that there sometimes *aren't* any suitable candidates from the under-represented group one wishes to encourage. Sometimes, if a company is full of men in top level positions, it's actually because the men are better at their jobs than any of the women who applied; if, indeed, any applied at all.
Equal Opportunities, however, along with the "Harman Doctrine", seem to take the view that if there aren't an equal number of women (or non-whites, homosexuals, whatever) in an organisation, then this must be down to prejudice which needs to be resolved by simply forcing that organisation to take a certain percentage of these various groups, with no consideration given to whether the people getting the jobs are actually better than the Evil Single White Males(!) who would've gotten them otherwise.
The imbalance you seek to address is not always there. And yet, positive discrimination is very often applied regardless. So while it may be "positive" discrimination to give a woman a job over a similarly-qualified man, *for the woman*, it's still NEGATIVE discrimination for the man. Discrimination is discrimination, at the end of the day. Somebody suffers because of it.
In short, then; the reason for this "opposition" you're seeing - that you claim not to understand - is simply because men don't like being discriminated against any more than women do. And because a lot of women actually agree with the men that this is, indeed, unfair.
And until the likes of Harriet Harman - and yourself, for that matter - stop talking about getting "women" into positions of power, and start talking about simply getting the best PEOPLE into positions of power... I'm afraid you can only expect that opposition to grow stronger as time goes on.
Complain about this comment
@ saga again, post #65
Regarding this bit;
"post 15 is just a Motherhood and Apple Pie statement - a.k.a. a meaningless platitude - this particular debate always triggers quite a few of them, I find"
The concept of giving the job to the best person for it, regardless of their gender - exercising real equality - is a "meaningless platitude"???
Thanks. I guess that tells us all we need to know about the TRUE attitude of so many of you who claim to be speaking in the name of "equality".
Complain about this comment
Light blue touchpaper....
I think we should employ more women in senior roles because....they're cheaper!
Retire to safe distance......(White Cliffs now only just visible)
Complain about this comment
#63
"Harriet Harman
I'm sorry but, to me, she's a tough, principled politician who doesn't deserve all the stick she gets - what can I say?"
Sorry?!...
The one thing she is not is principled, in my opinion - sorry.
Complain about this comment
Dear Dame Molestrangler
Are you the Dame Cecilia Molestrangler who was once associated with J. Piecemold Gruntfuttock, late of the BBC Gnome Service? That good lady, along with her friend and associate Lady Violent Dodgem-Carr was central to developing the role of women in British comedy. They put aside the tedious travesty of the mother-in-law so beloved of ill-educated and prejudiced male comics by projecting the moral and intellectual traits of educated, middle class femininity.
Would that Mr Peter Simple were around to entertain us on this topic as I feel that a certain political lady now in a senior cabinet post escaped from his column many years ago with the sole intention of leaving us all contorted with the sheer ecstasy of joy I have long associated with the good Dame Cecilia.
Complain about this comment
#48. IR35_SURVIVOR wrote:
How dare you suggest that my summary of history is in any way revisionist!
WC in 1951 did want to scrap the NHS. WC in 1943 might have had, unimplemented, ideas for a feeble quasi NHS but it was Aneurin Bevan who actually did the deed, and afterwards in 1951 WC wanted to scrap it. The Tories have were against the NHS at it inception and they still are - this is not revisionism it is reality!
The NHS is not well organised, that seems to be true, but I would rather have a party genuinely dedicated to the NHS rather that a half hearted latecomer!
Complain about this comment
khrystalar @ 73
a MAAP statement is one which nobody in their right mind would disagree with - some examples ...
- I believe in equality of opportunity
- I believe in democracy, not dictatorship
- I believe the government should represent ALL the people
- I believe in what's best for the country
- I believe that with rights, come responsibilities
and of course ... I believe in advancement on merit, picking the best candidate for every position regardless of gender, race, age or the rest of it
these are meaningless platitudes because they're not adding anything - for example, this last one ... we ALL agree with it (I certainly do) but it's then a matter of what to DO about it, isn't it? - and positive discrimination is just one tool in the box
listen, I agree with you (and Distant and Mark and many others) that things like rigid quotas and all women shortlists can do more harm than good - but that (to me) is just the tabloid end of this issue
let me give you a couple of scenarios to consider ...
entrance to top universities
we all know there are many thousands more kids who would benefit from a place (and are able enough to hack it) than there are places available, right? - and a big reason for that is that a disproportionate number of places are filled from the private schools - so, why not say that 90 pc of these places MUST go to state school kids? - that's a quota which I think makes a lot of sense - after all, if you're looking at 2 kids, one has AAB from Harrow, the other BBB from a "bog standard comp" - who do you think is probably brighter? - who deserves the place more? - this is about merit, you see, not some sort of brutal top down enforcement of an artificial outcome
black police officers
the alienation of the police from the black community in certain parts of the country is a big problem, agreed? - right, so it follows that to increase the proportion of the force who are black would be a good and worthwhile thing to do - so, let's not do quotas this time (since it would be inappropriate, there might not be sufficient black candidates of sufficient quality - see the difference with the Uni example? - see how flexible I am?) - no, forget quotas for the force - but we CAN do something - we can look at a different (more subtle) type of PD - we can recognise that just by being black a candidate is bringing something to the party which a white candidate cannot do - and that can then count for something, along with all the other qualities needed, in the selection process - this will give the black candidate a natural advantage ... merited too, because it's a much needed attribute in this particular situation ... BUT will not lead to people being hired who shouldn't be, since they need all the other attributes too
what do you say?
Complain about this comment
@74 a bit of a damp squib?
"They should select the best person for the Job"@everywhere
They should but as many of you usually say, they aren't. they are selecting a certain type of person that will fit in to Gentlemens Club mentality. A middle class male or virtual male like Ann iwddecombe and Margaret Thatcher who fitted in so well that the Cons. made her leader.
If tbe commons was all Women their would be exactly the same problem.
Complain about this comment
Politics are sexless....you only need be corrupt. Some perfer to be lied to by a woman other by a man. All owned by corporate interest. Pull up the skirt or pull down the pants and you will find a banker.
Complain about this comment
#71 distant
Agree my wording was poor - level playing field was in context of having a number of equally able applicants as per post 63.
I am against quotas if an unsuitable candidate if advanced at the expense of better suited applicants just for the sake of meeting a target.
Complain about this comment
If it means more sensible anti PC ladies like Widders , yes please. If it means more numpties like Harman, Smith and ginger top , no thanks.
Complain about this comment
#79DH
"virtual male like Ann iwddecombe and Margaret Thatcher who fitted in so well that the Cons. made her leader. "
Good observation which could also apply to Clinton and Merkel but maybe that is their armour to protect themselves against the inevitable accusations of weakness?
Complain about this comment
"None of the above" should be an option in every election. A re-election should be held if 25% or more voted for "None of the above".
Complain about this comment
Good evening every body .Well perhaps well try the evening shift as no body would pick up the gauntlet this after noon or earlier on i am referring two my post at 55 .what is needed now is some mps who would tackle the type of problem like i try-ed to illustrate in Anne Whitcomb some one with a little back bone in taking on these type of problems regarding youth scum beating a poor little defenseless little dog just for kicks.thats the latest pranks they are engaged in as was attacking ambulance crews firemen etc a grumpy-old mans point of view of course Any takers?
Complain about this comment
Picking the best is always difficult. We fail to pick the best men. My impression is that we are even worse at picking not just the best women, but even the half competent ones. I've known several brilliant women, I recall only one who has progressed within her organisation. While able women are often forgotten, many of their totally imcompetent sisters meet no barriers or glass ceilings. I don't know why.
The Italian government claims to be promoting women. Let us hope that our politicians do not navigate into the same difficult waters.
University applicants have been mentioned. How do you select when there are more triple A applicants than places? On a very unrelaible interview where the offspring of the rich will have obvious advantages?
Complain about this comment
#78 saga
Entrance to top universities - I agree it would be good if more young people had access to university. I'm never sure about this description 'top' universities. Oxford and Cambridge are obviously held in very high esteem, but from an academic pointy of view, are their degrees actually any better than those obtained elsewhere? I suspect it's partly about snobbery.
Similarly, looking at 'A' levels, it should be the grade that counts, not the type of school. That said, some schools will have a better track record than others in getting higher grades.
Personally, I think there is probably too much emphasis on just looking at exam results. Studying at school and studying at university are quite different. Someone who did not thrive in a school environment when younger could in fact do much better once they go to university (assuming they can get in). We also forget that young people do change in their outlooks as they grow older!
I would not like to see quotas of different groups of people, or quotas for students from different types of school. Much better to have a holistic admission policy where potential for growth is valued alongside previous exam results
Black police officers - I think Police Forces need to spread the net as wide as possible. If they are not getting as many black applicants, they need to ask why not? Is something putting people off? Entry requirements for joining the police are (rightly) stringent. The standard must be the same for everyone, irrespective of race, religion, gender etc - but consideration does need to be given as to how to attract candidates from across the whole community.
I think it is probably a mistake to pick on any profession and assume there will always be a proportional ethnic mix, or an equal gender ratio. It may be that certain types of job appeal more (or less) to certain sections of the community. For example, I suspect that there are more male plumbers than female. Does this mean women are being discriminated against, or is it just that fewer women want to be plumbers?
Complain about this comment
#81 meninwhitecoats
"level playing field was in context of having a number of equally able applicants"
Yes, I think this is the real issue. We can't just look at an organisation and make a judgement based on the ethnic/gender ratios. We need to broaden the range of people applying in the first place.
Personally I don't like forms that ask you state your gender, religion, ethnicity etc. It's no one's business and I strongly object to being asked. 'Equal opportunities' means having no regard for those issues.
Complain about this comment
At No. 34 goldceasar, it is Fox News who are making alarming reports regarding the NHS, you are saying so youself, not Daniel Hannan.
As I read his comments, he said that if he were to start a health service today, it would be different as times have changed. I do not see that as embarassing David Camerson or the Conservative Party but it may do depending on your political viewpoint.
Complain about this comment
wolfie @ 86
University applicants have been mentioned. How do you select when there are more triple A applicants than places?
this is actually an area where positive discrimination would work very well - what we should do is rank A grades from bad schools higher than those from good schools - we could even call them something different, such as ...
an A from a state school is an A
an A from a private school is a B
an A from a top public school is a C
thus:
ABB from Harrow Comp is ABB
AAB from Harrow Grange is BBC
AAA from Harrow is CCC
... which, as you can see, completely reverses the order of things - before the adjustment, the public school was top and the state school was bottom, but it's quite the opposite after the calibration - this, I think, would start to distinguish quite well between candidates for the good universities ... sort the "wheat from the chaff" as it were
Complain about this comment
Sagamix #86
Ace idea. But, there are so many triple A students, I can imagine that no public school candidates would make it into the 'top universities'.
That might well be a very good thing, but our politicians would never allow it.
If they did, we'd have a more discriminating grading system within a year. And that might be an even bigger improvement.
Complain about this comment
saga 90
Your reflex hatred of anything you perceive to be Tory is starting to eat into the common sense section of your brain. Your comedy A-level re-grading scheme is slightly amusing, but you reveal yourself (yet again) to be a refugee from the '70s by forgetting that most people do four or more A-levels these days.
Just to drag you back to reality, while this year is unusual, as we all know, in general there are some issues about getting onto university courses that you need to understand.
Over-subscription of courses, most importantly, is not evenly distributed across the subjects. In the subjects that really matter, maths, sciences, engineering, modern languages, over-subscription is not a big problem. These courses are hard, demanding and, to a greater extent than you seem to appreciate, self-selecting. Some courses, indeed, have had to close due to under-subscription. Your efforts to lower some student's grades on the basis of their educational background would have very limited effect.
In the whole host of weaker, easier, much less important degree subjects, where there are generally quite limited employment prospects, university simply turns keen, if slightly incompetent, 18-year-olds into jaded, unemployable, broke twenty-one-year-olds. This, of course, is the area where over-subscription is a problem. But let's consider the effect of your cute little measure. The public school pupils fall to the back of the queue, don't get into the courses, and instead compete, probably successfully, against the non-university 18-year-olds for those jobs that are available. On the other hand, the poorer kids get to go to do soft subjects at university and then join the ranks of the graduate unemployed at age 21.
Naturally I exagerate and generalise in order to make my point, but, in fact, your measure actually does a relative favour to the public school pupils, while tending to increase unemployment in two sectors of the relatively under-advantaged young. Good one, Sagamix!
Complain about this comment
JRP @ better late than never ...
you've gone tangential on me again, haven't you?
4 A levels ... fine ... that's not really a transforming point though, is it?
I'm mainly talking, btw, about the "proper" universities - the top tier (there's 4 of them) and the next to top tier (that's another 10) - the others aren't of no importance but they don't frame the picture
and (dig this!) we achieve BOTH of the following:
(1) we get some sanity back into the grading system
(2) we pretty much kill the private opt out, but without banning it
now if that's not a Win/Win, what the devil is?
Complain about this comment
MP's should be selected on skill and experience. selecting them for Gender, race, sexual orientation is absurd and will only mean the country is poorer for it. If all the most talented candidates are ethnic women then parliament should be full of them! but, they should not be there if they dont merit their place. appointing incapable people will only create stereo types and hurt future candidates for change. Positive Racism breeds Racism and resentment!
Go on Annie! Speak your Mind! unless of course your thinking is in tune with alan duncan.. then please dont...
Complain about this comment
saga
Well, I have a horrible feeling we would argue about which universities are in the top four (I have a niggling feeling you would like to know which one I went to, so you could wind me up by eliminating it!).
I'm also amused about how you might try to match up your selective regrading policy to your equality agenda - looks like some will indeed be more equal than others.
Here's my experience. I went to an ordinary public sector school, and then to a very famous college, reading one of the subjects that had made it famous (and still does). (Clue - have you ever seen The Ipcress File?) There were, believe it or not, 190 students in my year. It won't surprise you if I tell you that about half of them were from public schools. So I ended up with a good knowledge of the different styles of school education that were available. One of the things that became clear was that a lot of the public school people had been crammed. They had known enough about their A-level subjects to get very decent grades, but they forgot it all ten minutes after the exams and had no fundamental understanding of what they were studying. By the end of the first year, about forty of them had been weeded out - they had no chance of doing well and it was, in fairness, a cruelty to keep them on the course.
What I didn't appreciate until I became a postgrad at the same college was that this was far from a thing specific to my year. It happened every year, had done for twenty years before I arrived, still happens now. Much the same happens elsewhere too, really almost throughout the respectable end of university education, as I discovered later.
So here's my conclusion.
Public school pupils are frequently crammed.
They get better grades at A-level than otherwise they would - essentially they are flattered by their grades.
The benefits of this, particularly for less able students, are ultimately significantly less than you might think.
If they go to university to do a "hard" subject, they regularly get found out and (often) thrown out - which is actually quite a painful experience.
University departments are well aware of the problem; they effectively expand their first year groups so as to "engineer" the "right" number of students for the second and third years.
The only people who are hurt by this are the crammed students and their parents, both groups being exploited by the public schools. The parents, of course, are exploited financially, often to the very edge of their available means.
And here's something I found out later. There are lots of public schools, but there are rather fewer public school owners. The schools, with some notable exceptions, are run in conglomerates. What's more, even though they are registered charities at the front end, at the owners' end they are remarkably cash-generative and profitable. So, to summarise, public schooling is a largely exploitative business engineered for profit.
So, here's what I would do (because I hate exploitation).
I would bend the A-level examination system back round to the point where it tests understanding as well as knowledge. There are ways to do this but no space here to describe. (My old maths teacher, who is a very wise man, once suggested maths oral exams as a means of addressing this sort of point.) The result would be to reduce any genuine public school bias in the examination system by discriminating against cramming.
As well, I would, very gradually, remove charitable status from the schools and introduce VAT on school fees, with the express purpose of reducing profitability in the education industry.
Taken together, these measures wouldn't finish off the public school system, but they would tend to take out the worst aspects of it.
Complain about this comment
Hi Laura
I am glad that iy is you here, u r a cutie!
Andy, California, ex squaddie, usa
Complain about this comment
Hi, Laura:
In characteristically unapologetic terms, the Conservative MP Ann Widdecombe not only pitches herself as a potential candidate for Strictly Come Dancing in an interview in Total Politics magazine but she also takes aim at the party's way of choosing its prospective MPs.
I am not surprised with the comments of Ann Widdecombe and the commentary that she released....
NB: I am not affiliated and/or associated with any political party in the United Kingdom; and, I am not advocating for a General Election in the United Kingdom....
=Dennis Junior=
Complain about this comment
Good morning laura .Many thanks for allowing my post regarding dog treatment ,But sadly two no avail.A NATION OF ANIMAL LOVERS AND SHOP KEEPERS. Was once the norm?
I would have thought that saga or Susan croft or fairly open might have sprang into the debate regarding the beating of a little defenseless dog
for self satisfaction by a group of mind less individual's but no this incident was allowed to pass quietly like a ship in the night so for any one who might be interested put ugly pet attack into bing sad sad day for animal lovers.everywhere.
Slightly of subject but worth consideration thanks.
Complain about this comment
PS It might be of interest to take the camera out into the street and photograph the graffiti painted shop fronts and then over to uglys owner and ask for her opinion i am sure she would be willing to voice her opinion she just might have something to say regarding the mps in her district.
Complain about this comment
I'm puzzled.
Harriet H seems keen to get more women MPs by "protecting" their access to safe seats.
Meanwhile, several of the broadsheets suggest that her husband, Jack Dromey, is being lined up for a safe seat not too far from their joint home.
So how does that "fit", Harriet?
Of course, Dromey was famously the Treasurer of the Labour Party who didn't know that money in the accounts was based on "loans" not gifts. Maybe he's being lined up for a role in the HMG Treasury team...
Complain about this comment
#89. At 9:28pm on 21 Aug 2009, b-b-jack wrote:
"At No. 34 goldceasar, it is Fox News who are making alarming reports regarding the NHS, you are saying so youself, not Daniel Hannan."
Sorry but the above is simply NOT correct, Daniel Hannan went on FoxNews and made comments about the NHS (the merits of which are outside the details of who said what and when so I won't comment on them) knowing full well the debate that was/is taking place within the US about health care, FoxNews then picked up on those comments and have made domestic hay...
Complain about this comment
Sagamix and jperry:
Re your debate about education:
As a state-educated pupil who went to Oxbridge in the 1970s I did tend to find that the average state-educated student was slightly more capable than the public-school educated. However, many of the best public school students were just as able as anyone else, and so on the grounds of fairness I reject the notion of applying a mechanical formula to guide admissions policy. If what I have said is still true it is capable of being measured by a statistical analysis and admissions policy guided accordingly.
Most debates about private education are not debates about education, they are debates about social class. We know that access to the higher professions has been narrowed since I went to university. It can be widened by extending private education through state-funded assisted places and vouchers, restoring Grammar Schools, increasing streaming in all schools, reforming teacher-training colleges, and weeding out incompetent teachers.
Now that would be my agenda should I apply to be a prospective MP. Might even be popular.
Complain about this comment
#93. At 11:29pm on 21 Aug 2009, sagamix wrote:
"(2) we pretty much kill the private opt out, but without banning it"
Why on earth would 'we' want to do that, remember that those who choose to buy private education for their children not only end up paying twice but if their children were to occupy a place in the state system they would be taking a place that would otherwise be available to less advantaged children - remember, and this is the important point - that those families who have the funds to pay for private education are also those who have (in the main) the funds to live within the catchment areas of the very best state schools thus reducing the possibility of that school taking (the best) children from the state system wider afield.
Scraping/banning private education sound great on the surface but once one actually digs below the socialist rhetoric it all starts failing apart, 'under privileged (in educational terms) kids would actually be worse off these days if the private sector was scrapped/banned!
Sorry but 'JRP' is correct, on this you do sound very much like a refugee from 70's socialism - time and the state schooling sector have moved on...
Complain about this comment
jr @ 95
a disturbingly enlightened few paras - kind of a softly softly, pragmatic way of scoring the outcome I'm looking for - if it wasn't for some of your other nonsense, there would be a CTP badge winging its way Perrywards in this morning's post
haven't seen Ipcress for a while but I have it on DVD, as it happens, so I'll look for clues at some point - but just to prove to you that I mean no harm, I'm happy to publish the big 4 here and now:
Oxford
Cambridge
Imperial
L.S.E.
... but if you went somewhere else, we can include it and talk about a big 5 instead
Complain about this comment
john and boiler ...
I'd say what you two are saying is sensible but second best, I think we can go further - any case, JR and I are not at loggerheads, we pretty much agree on the main points, so it looks like you guys are completely out on a limb on this one - still, fair enough, there's a lot to be said for pushing a minority view ... do it myself from time to time
a couple of things which add grist to my mill on this issue:
(1) no other country has the peculiar (and, IMO, extremely damaging) obsession with private schooling that we do - and I agree, John, it is a lot about class, isn't it? - and not in a good way, either
(2) if the top strata of society, our people in power ... the movers and the shakers ... don't use a service (and, on the whole, they don't) then they won't care about it much, will they? - that, Boiler, being my answer to your suggestion that it would just lead to the wealthy nicking all the places at the good state schools - I think you're looking at the issue in a narrow, mechanistic way instead of holistically - sorry, that sounds very Up Pompeii but you know what I mean, I hope?
Complain about this comment
#105
"I think you're looking at the issue in a narrow, mechanistic way instead of holistically"
I'm looking at the reality of what is and would happen, what human nature causes, am not looking at this through tinted sun-glasses like you seem to be doing - sorry but you are are far from looking at this holistically, more likely, simply with an outdated (education) ideology.
Complain about this comment
To Sagamix and JRPerry
I think most will accept that Cambridge, Oxford and Imperial are our top three Universities. In my opinion, they are vital to the future of the UK. They have suffered, at the international level, from bad governments and underfunding.
Do we have to make their candidate selection process so difficult? Can we not level the playing field, for males and females, rich and poor, by improving state secondary education and introducing a more honest school exam system? We could at least reduce the rivers of blood flowing down Exhibition Road after the annual cull.
Or is our national plan to bring everything and everyone to a uniform, but very low level?
Complain about this comment
#100 fairlyopenmind
You've got me puzzled to! Is there such a thing as a "safe" Labour seat?
Unfortunately Hatties actions don't correlate with her stated intentions, this is a common NuLab trait and one which has set the labour movement back 2 decades or more. After the next election the Torylites may show their true colours and jump on CMDs bandwagon, it's already started in Scotland with McBride. But the damage they've done with their disingenious ramblings and hypocritical actions will take the Labour party many years to heal.
I can't remember the last time the views of the CLP were actually listened to and acted on instead we're told to get on message and stop rocking the boat. Candidates are parachuted in who have little or no local connection and knowledge. That would be fine if they could actually do the job, but they're generally university educated clones who talk the talk.
As a previous poster mentioned, second raters would be an improvement on the current crop.
Complain about this comment
Imv, it should be born in mind that most MPs are now in celebrity/possible presenter mode and anything they say should be taken with a packet of salt.
They are in Paradise Lost waiting for the next gravy train to come in.
Complain about this comment
Continuing the discussion about education, the priority should be increasing the quality and effectiveness of teaching in state schools. Good teachers in disadvantaged areas should be paid more (by results, adjusted for social intake). Poor teachers should be sacked (my daughter's education was set back a year because of one particularly bad teacher).
This is a much more postive agenda than designing schemes to punish private education, pretending that there has not been grade inflation, and pretending that 'A' levels in cake decoration are of equal value to 'A' levels in Physics (as ex-Labour MP Twigg argued). One disturbing tendency in recent years is state schools improving their league table positions by entering pupils in subjects which are easier to pass, but which are not valued by universities and employers. This damages the very pupils the state system is supposed to help.
When I used to recruit graduates I tended to prefer 'hard' subjects over 'soft' ones, and 'good' universities over 'average' ones, though of course other factors were equally if not more important.
Complain about this comment
63. At 3:49pm on 21 Aug 2009, sagamix wrote:
....Harriet Harman
I'm sorry but, to me, she's a tough, principled politician who doesn't deserve all the stick she gets - what can I say?
===
That principled that she sent her son to a selective Grammar school to be educated despite favouring their abolition in favour of comprehensives.
Complain about this comment
95. At 00:53am on 22 Aug 2009, jrperry wrote:
...I went to an ordinary public sector school, and then to a very famous college, reading one of the subjects that had made it famous (and still does). (Clue - have you ever seen The Ipcress File?)
Ummm... Cookery?
...Public school pupils are frequently crammed.
They get better grades at A-level than otherwise they would - essentially they are flattered by their grades..
I went to a public school in the early 1960s. There are public schools and there are public schools. Mine was a 'Minor Public School'. Very minor, actually. It wasn't very academic because it was assumed that everyone would end up in one of the armed services. Lots of cold showers, cross-country runs, rugby and cricket though. There were some very clever boys, some very dim ones and a few average ones such as myself.
There was no 'cramming', but we tended to do a lot of schoolwork out of boredom. I agree that the slightly higher than average pass rates were because of that and not because of our finely-sharpened intellects.
I never went on to university and have never regretted it.
...I would bend the A-level examination system back round to the point where it tests understanding as well as knowledge...
Spot on. So would I. But in what way would abolishing public schools do anything to achieve that aim (unless I missed your point, which is entirely possible)?
Complain about this comment
90. At 9:32pm on 21 Aug 2009, sagamix wrote:
wolfie @ 86
University applicants have been mentioned. How do you select when there are more triple A applicants than places?
this is actually an area where positive discrimination would work very well - what we should do is rank A grades from bad schools higher than those from good schools - we could even call them something different, such as ...
an A from a state school is an A
an A from a private school is a B
an A from a top public school is a C
thus:
ABB from Harrow Comp is ABB
AAB from Harrow Grange is BBC
AAA from Harrow is CCC
... which, as you can see, completely reverses the order of things - before the adjustment, the public school was top and the state school was bottom, but it's quite the opposite after the calibration - this, I think, would start to distinguish quite well between candidates for the good universities ... sort the "wheat from the chaff" as it were
===
That would put HH in the category of chaff, then! Being as she is from a privileged background.
Complain about this comment
Its_an_Outrage 112
"Cookery" - very amusing, but no. See WolfiePeters 107. Not that I have anything against cookery as a vocational discipline, of course.
You were probably fortunate in your education - maybe the greatest good fortune for you was the era in which you were educated. In the modern business of private sector education, the objective is to take more-or-less whatever, in terms of academic ability, the parent is prepared to supply, and then output the same individual a few years later with the best possible GCSE and A-level results that can possibly be squeezed out of him or her (in exchange for more money than it costs to achieve this final product). Schools mainly compete with each other on the basis of the exam results they achieve. On the other hand, they have little more than passing interest in what the pupils can achieve beyond their school education. Accordingly, cramming in its various shapes and forms is a very significant part of the process - simply because it is an effective way of achieving the final product.
The problem is that the crammed pupil, flattered by his exam grades, tends to make a poor university student and is in grave danger of being found out. Decent university departments are very effective at this. The problem is greatest in the harder subjects (which, in terms of broader prosperity, are the only ones that matter). So you have to ask the question - which outcome would have been better? Exam grades matching true underlying ability and a tertiary education consistent with that, or flattering grades followed by failure at university and consequent dramatically reduced employment prospects?
So, I wasn't arguing against public schools per se, but against cramming, which is endemic in the public school industry. I was also arguing against a circumstance where parents, who pay (often with great difficulty) the fees that rack up the profits that lie concealed below the surface of the public education system, are effectively exploited, in the sense that the product that they are actually buying is generally a significantly lesser one than the product that they think they are buying.
My solutions to the problem were designed to force out the most damaging parts of the education process, and to drive out the privileged tax status of what is, after all, merely an industry like any other. The objective was not, of itself, of itself, to close the public school system (though I acknowledge that if what I wrote was adopted, there would be many fewer public schools than there are now).
So yes, in that sense, I think you may indeed have missed at least some of my point.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
saga 115
"...and JR PERRY agrees with me on this..."
jrperry will be monitoring VERY CAREFULLY what he is said to have agreed with!
Complain about this comment
#115
It's nothing what so ever to do with what changes are made or the time scale, as I said in the comment you replied to, I'm looking at what Human nature would cause. This Human nature is also what caused communism to fail, people with power/money will always want better and use their money or power to get it. There will always be better and poorer schools (academically speaking), those in a position to exploit the system and these inequalities will always do so - unless you really are suggesting that all schools should be dumbed down to the lowest common denominator?!
Complain about this comment
AH WELL IF THE CAP FITS WEAR IT AND THEN GET BACK ON TO THE TOPIC.
Complain about this comment
boiler @ 119
no, not talking about "dumbing down" - a common misconception - the idea is that when the people who call the shots in this country rely on a service ... in this case, the state education system ... they will care more about it and (as a consequence and over time, and with one or two other CTP reforms) we'll see an improvement in said service - you're right to say those with power/money will tend to use that to get what they want (inter alia, a better schooling for their kids than that available to most) but that's rather in the SOTBO category, isn't it? - at present, they can do it very easily by buying their way out of the state system - if they were encouraged back in, via a package of sagaperry reforms, then - sure - they'd still seek to gain advantage, but it wouldn't be anything like as straightforward - the trick would be harder to pull off - it's logical what I'm saying, Boiler - your position is, just because it's human nature to do something, there's no point in looking to limit the extent to which it is done even though this "something" (which it's HN to do) is very damaging - makes no sense (does it?) when I put it back to you like that - no, you're clearly of the opinion (as I suggested to you before) that private education is a GOOD THING and should be encouraged - which is okay - absolutely fine for you to take that view, but why not just say so? - why the smokescreen?
look, you can take my Trinary if you like ... if it helps:
so, the private opt out is ...
(A) good thing, should be encouraged?
(B) bad thing but must be tolerated?
(C) bad thing, should be addressed?
(please don't be afraid of A)
Complain about this comment
#121. At 2:27pm on 22 Aug 2009, sagamix wrote:
"no, not talking about "dumbing down" - a common misconception"
Didn't seriously think you were.
"so, the private opt out is ...
(A) good thing, should be encouraged?
(B) bad thing but must be tolerated?
(C) bad thing, should be addressed?
(please don't be afraid of A)"
How about "D", Irrelevant (but highly relevant to those who see it a class injustice, not having access to what they perceive as a better system)...
Complain about this comment
wolfie @ 107
Or is our national plan to bring everything and everyone to a uniform, but very low level?
no way - it's not a levelling down ... not a "levelling" anything, in fact ... it's about liberating people's potential - let's recognise that our system is perverse and DO something about it
yellow @ 111/113
okay, those 2 points ...
(1) I like and admire Harriet, but it's true I'd admire her more if she didn't come from such a privileged background - still, she's a woman too remember (oh yes!) and that's a disadvantage in politics
(2) the fact that people in power (even H, as you say) don't use "normal" schools is exactly my point - we need to change that
jrp @ 116
it shouldn't be about class but, as John66 points out, it often is - I agree that's a sideshow, however, so we shouldn't allow it to crack our united front on this
Complain about this comment
boiler @ 122
okay (d) irrelevant - I like it - the private sector is irrelevant to quality/opportunity in the state sector
fine (and thanks for being a sport)
... but hang on, you said (@ 103) that doing away with the private option would damage the state system - so how can it be (d) irrelevant?
try again?
Complain about this comment
114. jrperry wrote:
Thank you for taking my little joke in the way it was intended!
I agree that I was lucky to be educated when I was and in the way that I was. Privileged only in that my father made the sacrifices that he did (he ran a sub-post office at that time). I think those rather eccentric down-at-heel private schools are mostly gone, and I suppose I'm a long way behind the beat as regards education now - as you say, the modern path of least resistance of aiming for meaningless but measurable high-scores in not-very-useful areas of study is not the road on which to pursue excellence.
Regarding public schools, yes, sorry, I think I did rather miss your point. But surely, giving them such a hard time ('harshing their mellow' seems an appropriate phrase) that there are few of them left means that the survivors will become even more entrenched as educational strongholds of the rich?
Complain about this comment
When I was involved in recruiting and interviewing graduates (into IT departments), the qualification to which we gave as much kudos as an Oxbridge degree was one from the Open University.
Complain about this comment
#124. At 3:16pm on 22 Aug 2009, sagamix wrote:
"... but hang on, you said (@ 103) that doing away with the private option would damage the state system - so how can it be (d) irrelevant?"
Having a private education sector is irrelevant to how well - or bad - the state system preforms [1] the private sector doesn't drain resources from the state sector, on the other hand if one was to scrap the private sector the state system would be damaged due to the fact that there would be a (sudden, in effect) influx of students all competing for the same resources - don't assume that the private schools will incorporate themselves into the state system. Of course if your utopia, of a larger state system, is going to be funded by another 75 to 90% tax rate on the rich (not super-rich) then there might not be such as influx, well not in the UK education system any rate!
[1] I should also point out that I don't rate how well a school/student does by it's test/exam results, most tests/exams only measure very narrowly defined elements, not the whole - someone who leaves school without a single exam result is not necessary a failure.
Complain about this comment
Private or state schools? Snob universities or not?
The answer to the first might be to make the state so good that private cannot compete. Like JRPerry, I was privileged. No one in my area passed the 11 plus. My parents spent a large fraction of their income to send me to a private primary school. I went on to the local grammar, where teaching was still a respected academic activity, and from there to one of those famous universities. I am very lucky to have been born when I was.
Though I've moved up the financial ladder from where my parents were, my education has not brought me great wealth. It has given me an incredibly enjoyable working life and interests that exceed monetary value. And I like to think that, through my work, I've repaid society for those gifts.
There are still young people from modest backgrounds achieving success at Cambridge, Oxford, Imperial... But the system has made more obstacles for them and their parents and the universities. Worse still, those are the young people our society most needs.
Even in the 1970s, we were not all 'toffs' at the best universities, though, returning to topic, in the early 70s, the ratio of male to female was painfully high. Happily, the reality and the image of those universities as male organisations was over by 1980. Is that all that we have improved?
To: It's an outrage. Oxbridge or Open University? To some extent, it depends on what goes on in your IT department. I know some ace people from all sorts of universities. But, the best education for good students is found in the best universities.
To: Boilerplated. How can we rank schools by exam results when the exam system is such that we cannot even rank the good students.
Complain about this comment
Yikes, I called Its_and_outrage JRPerry!
I apologise to you both.
Complain about this comment
Just to put a thought into this education debate before I comment on favouring women in the Candidate Selection Stakes.
I think that the state vs private education debate is irrelevant provide that the state is working to take all state schools (best need not have a single definition)up ot the standards of the best schools in the country (whether state or private) AND (this is the important bit) there is no discrimination based on the type of school attended. Discrimination law has been around long enough to be able to deal with 'on the grounds of type of education'.
As far as women candidates are concerned - I just don't believe in positive discrimination. The idea of quotas is also plain stupid. Anyone who promotes it is saying that discrimination against women is endemic in their organisation and such attitudes cannot be changed. Not something you would want to have a potential governing party admit.
Or would you? Isn't one of the problems with discrimination law is that it has just pushed discrimination underground making it les easy to identify and prove?
Anyway my final point is that if a certain group is favoured in the MP selection process look what happens when you extend that to Cabinet membership. Blair Babes were hardly a resounding success - dire by even this government's standards. I really would like to see a range of types of people in the cabinet, but on merit
Complain about this comment
#128. At 5:57pm on 22 Aug 2009, WolfiePeters wrote:
"To: Boilerplated. How can we rank schools by exam results when the exam system is such that we cannot even rank the good students."
We can't, and never have been able to properly (hence why successive governments have messed around with education), that is the problem! Whilst I accept the need for some form of exam/testing it doesn't mean that I accept that they are anything more than indicative of someone worth/ability.
Complain about this comment
#130
"Anyway my final point is that if a certain group is favoured in the MP selection process look what happens when you extend that to Cabinet membership. Blair Babes were hardly a resounding success - dire by even this government's standards. I really would like to see a range of types of people in the cabinet, but on merit"
Spot on and I couldn't agree more, Blair's "Babes" have been an untold failure (that have done real damage were ever they had influence, especially in field of sex and equality legislation), on the other hand women who got into parliament, government, cabinet and even the dissy heights of party leadership/PM before 1997 did so because they were dammed good at what they did and not because they were female.
Complain about this comment
I think that the state vs private education debate is irrelevant provided that the state is working to take all state schools up to the standards of the best schools in the country
sure Bill (@130) but to take all state schools up to Eton/Harrow standards is not practical - don't think people would wear the necessary doubling of the basic rate, do you? - so I'm afraid the debate IS relevant (that's why we're having it!) - similar point to Wolfie who (@128) says ... the answer might be to make the state so good that private cannot compete ... indeed (I hear this a lot) but not feasible - smacks of avoiding the issue
Complain about this comment
128. At 5:57pm on 22 Aug 2009, WolfiePeters wrote:
Oxbridge or Open University? To some extent, it depends on what goes on in your IT department. I know some ace people from all sorts of universities. But, the best education for good students is found in the best universities.
Yes, of course. From a graduate intake, after high competence in IT skills and basic business awareness, we were looking for young people with a positive attitude, an ability to cope with a steep learning-curve and the potential to grow into IT management. OU graduates tended to fit into that.
More on topic, We didn't experience a very much higher proportion of males over females applying for IT positions. There was certainly no discernable difference in their qualifications except that the very gifted girls tended not to choose IT as a career (they probably had more sense). I went into IT as a trainee programmer in 1979 and in terms of the numbers, ability and ambition of the people I worked with over 25 years in many different environments, I only saw across-the-board equality.
Complain about this comment
JPerry:
I agree entirely with your critical comments on cramming.
However, I'm really not sure whether this is a failing unique to private schools (perhaps it was a few decades ago).
Surely state schools, driven by league tables and Government directives, cram pupils to pass various key stage assessment. If we put the private education question aside for a moment we could discuss the means of improving education, in the widest sense.
Pupils need both knowledge (facts are the ammunition of argument), and understanding (learning to think, debate, and argue). Competence lead to creativity. Schools should also foster both individual fulfilment, and community and civic spirit.
Parental choice should be the motor of educational improvement. The political challenge is to increase parental choice for those unable to pay for private education.
Complain about this comment
plated @ 132
women who got into parliament before 1997 did so because they were damned good at what they did
yes that's fair comment, a prime example being a certain person who broke through in 1982, and "damned good" at her job is exactly what she is (especially when it comes to forward thinking proposals on the main subject of this blog, Positive Discrimination)
... guess you've heard of Harriet Harman?
Complain about this comment
Sagamix,
Bringing state schools up to the level of Eton and Harrow is not mainly an issue of funding.
Good teaching is not adequately rewarded in the state system, and poor teaching is not appropriately punished. Teacher's trade unions see to that.
There is also the fundamental question of educational culture in the home environment (here I put on my 1970s sociological hat). Parents teach children, and some teach more effectively than others. I'm by no means a determinist, but at least to some extent (and leaving aside factors such as parental death, war, etc.) educational achievement can be predicted at the age of 5.
Complain about this comment
here's a thought - mum and dad pay a small fortune for wee Piers or Harriet to attend a posh school. Do you think they will expect a return on their investment?
If they do, won't they take an active interest in how they are doing, meet the teachers, encourage and help with homework, give guidance on which subjects to study and help focus their children's minds on their career options etc?
Is it then such a massive surprise that these schools do well?
I think the main reasons why "top universities" seem to favour students from private schools is because they have the ability to learn and understand, rather than simply pass exams.
I didn't have the chance and had to work really hard to get on in life, but almost without exception, every ex-private school student I've come across seems to be more confident, quicker to grasp concepts and make smart decisions but tend to be rubbish at kicking tin cans around backstreets!
Complain about this comment
Lets get this straight, Harriet Harman has no interest in furthering any womans career other than her own, she is political grandstanding for her own personal political gain, her aim which is to be Gordons successor after the next general election. Having her husband elected in what is considered to be a safe seat just gives her another poodle to pet.
Hopefully the 'Court of public opinion' will tell her to sling her hook.
Complain about this comment
As the debate has moved on from positive discrimination to one about the positives or otherwise of the state/private education system, here's what I think.
State education should be secular, private education can do what it likes.
No state funding (from whatever means) to any school that is not secular.
No charitable status for private education, it is a business like any other.
Complain about this comment
136, sagamix wrote:
"plated @ 132
"women who got into parliament before 1997 did so because they were damned good at what they did"
yes that's fair comment, a prime example being a certain person who broke through in 1982, and "damned good" at her job is exactly what she is (especially when it comes to forward thinking proposals on the main subject of this blog, Positive Discrimination)
... guess you've heard of Harriet Harman?"
Saga,
I've no idea why you worship at the feet of Harriet H. Some sort of fetish?
H.H. was Sec of State for Social Security (whatever that meant) from 1997 till 1998 when she was sacked.
She was made Solicitor General in 2001, and was given an "honorary" QC status - although she couldn't justify such a rank because of any real achievements or qualifications.
I'm very happy if anyone qualified and ambitious enough to fill a role - at whatever level - is selected on merit, regardless of sex, race, creed or whatever. As long as they follow through their public declarations with private actions.
(So I wonder why HH claimed some Roman Catholic links to get her first child into a particular school?)
I haven't checked much beyond Wiki, but it seems that Jack Dromey's children are called by the surname of Harmon. Why that? The UK tradition, with a fairly large international support, is that children assume the surname of their father (if there is one who can be identified). If Dromey does become an MP - as predicted - will he ever be his "own man" or just a home-managed person?
Discrimination against people doesn't win companies business. But it doesn't make better policies, either. Women bring a different perspective. That's known. And a good thing.
Indira Ghandi made a pretty good fist of it. OK. She had some family background. But are you saying that HH had no "easing" of her way through her developmental years?
Suppose that my boy-child had better A-Level grades and graduate results than your girl and similar social skills. Can you really tell me why another girl-child should be selected for a particular role?
Or if my girl-child with similar attributes should "inevitably - for the sake of positive discrimination" be selected over your equally qualified boy-child?
It was a bit of a surprise to me when Maggie T became PM. But I never understood why her university refused to award her an honourary degree. Especially after she took a first degree there (in Chemistry) and then qualified as a lawyer.
Where does discrimination start and stop?
No idea whether your children (if you have any) are named after you or your wife. Don't care really. But I never cared whether someone of any sex or background achieved a job I would have liked, as long as I could just say "Yep. The best person is going to get it". Or at least look back and say, "Well, that worked out pretty well". As long as he or she didn't screw me for being in the race in the first place...
What's wrong with that?
If positive discrimination gets going, how many black/ white/ coloured - which means a lot of us, straight/ gay, UK born/ immigrants, children of rich (maybe temporarily)/ poor, fixed abode/ "travellers", C of E or general Christians/Muslim or other beliefs, etc etc etc should be considered to be the "norm" as "representatives" in Parliament or any other area of public or business life?
It's just silly.
The Taleban suppressed "women's rights" we (quite sensibly) recognise in the West because of their interpretation of the Koran. We don't like that. But if a "Counter-Taleban" decided that "men's rights" would be curtailed in the same way, would your hero be delighted, or vote in favour of - or at least accept and acknowledge on the nod - a military incursion to restore some adjustment in favour of the men?
I have no idea. But I do know it is easy to "modify or adjust" social stuff in a very relaxed society.
I'd be a lot more impressed with your heroine if she took a year or two out and campaigned for "women's rights" in Saudi Arabia. OK. Give her ten years. (One month out protesting, the rest in prison, or licking her lips as a deportee.)
Complain about this comment
Ann Widdecombe has never been afraid to speak her mind whether in Government or opposition. The Tories will have lost a truly patriotic and honest MP. Ann, you should reconsider your decision for the sake of the country.
Complain about this comment
john harris 66 @ 137
that has to be right - we can bop till we drop about other stuff but it's the quality of teaching which counts for more than anything else - way more - and for "teaching" read "teachers" - so let's really upgrade the profession - secondary school teaching, I mean - let's root out and fire the bad ones (agreed) but let's do carrot as well as stick - the job should pay serious money, enough so that people are positively scrambling to get into it - then some dinky adjustments like higher remuneration for maths/science, and for working in schools in deprived areas - yes, I like it, I really do - fact, if we do all that and we also (1) remove the tax break from private schools (a la Perry and now Rocket) and (2) calibrate the exam grades in favour of state schools (a la me) ... then we're pretty much there
Complain about this comment
#55
#85
#98
#99 quietoldinthetooth
Having been offline for a few days,I am belatedly catching up with this blog,and yes quiet,I am as appalled as you at the cruel treatment of this
little dog by the pondlife who took pleasure in torturing the little chap.
In the newspaper where this was reported,Ann Widdecombe writes a weekly
column and features the story of the elephant in Thailand who lost part
of its leg when it stepped onto a landmine.Vets have fitted this noble
creature with a prosthesis.
However,in the same paper theres a report about performing elephants which are part of the "Great British Circus".An undercover video taken
shows great cruelty being meted out regularly to these animals.
A spokesman for the Environment Department said: "Work is under way on
whether the government should regulate the use of wild animals in circuses and is due to be completed later this year".
So,theres no regulation at present! Why? This is happening in this country!
As Ann Widdecombe is indeed leaving parliament at the next election,and is an animal lover,how wonderful it would be if she put her considerable
influence,decency and integrity to work at stamping out this cruelty.
Now,a word about Harriet Harman,it appears that (as usual)her only champion is saga! No surprise there then,as she is truly the most tedious,irritating and silly woman in government.Not one woman of my
acquaintance can stand her,and dismiss her as a tiresome wannabe.
Complain about this comment
Bob Rocket @ 139/140
don't get the chance too often to agree wholeheartedly with something on here, so want to leap on it like a crazy dog - not your anti H tirade (let's ignore that, shall we?) but where you say (1) no tax breaks for private schools (doh!) and (2) no peddling of particular religions in any state school ... or ANY school, rather, since we seem to be reaching a consensus now (please see various posts from various people) that the private sector has no place at the table
Complain about this comment
ricardo @ 138
won't they take an active interest in how they are doing, meet the teachers, encourage and help with homework, give guidance on which subjects to study and help focus their children's minds on their career options etc? Is it then such a massive surprise that these schools do well?
thanks for the thought, it's a good one - and if all the attention/energy (of these influential "can do" people) was to be redirected to the state sector, just imagine the improvement - that is exactly my point - this is all going very well, I must say! - is it a dream?
Complain about this comment
#136. At 8:54pm on 22 Aug 2009, sagamix wrote:
"136. At 8:54pm on 22 Aug 2009, sagamix wrote:
[in reply to my comment @ #132]
... guess you've heard of Harriet Harman?"
Err, but she only got were she got after 1997!
Sorry but she is the typical "Blair Babe", an unmitigated failure, on the other hand (if we want to name some distinguished woman labour politicians try thinking about Dunwoody, Castle and Williams, one might not like the legislation they steered though parliament or introduced but one can't say that it was poorly drafted or enacted as legislation/law. People on a mission like (Harman is), in this case 'woman's rights', form tunnel vision, whilst Castle was all for woman's right and sex and pay equality she never lost sight of the bigger picture...
Complain about this comment
fairly open @ 141
well I feel that Harman has become a kind of cartoon hate figure over whom people like to spew reactionary vomit - she's not a paragon (I know that) but I like a lot of what she says, and I'm happy to be her friend on planet Blog
Complain about this comment
#140. At 01:01am on 23 Aug 2009, BobRocket wrote:
"No charitable status for private education, it is a business like any other."
Actually it is that sort of thinking that has done the most damage to this country, everything (what ever it is) has to be seen in terms of being a business that should be allowed to succeed or fail on that single measure.
Education is more than a business, the bottom line of a profit or loss sheet, it's the countries very future and anything that improves the system should encouraged - not rejected because of some ideology.
Complain about this comment
143. At 09:20am on 23 Aug 2009, sagamix wrote:
...we can bop till we drop about other stuff but it's the quality of teaching which counts for more than anything else - way more - and for "teaching" read "teachers" - so let's really upgrade the profession - secondary school teaching, I mean - let's root out and fire the bad ones (agreed) but let's do carrot as well as stick - the job should pay serious money, enough so that people are positively scrambling to get into it - then some dinky adjustments like higher remuneration for maths/science, and for working in schools in deprived areas...
...if we do all that and we also (1) remove the tax break from private schools (a la Perry and now Rocket) and (2) calibrate the exam grades in favour of state schools...
Sorry, but it isn't just about teachers. It's also very much about the rest of the environment. It's about chemistry labs and electronics labs and field trips and visiting lecturers and all that. If you don't inspire kids at an early age, they are not likely to excel and they aren't going to excel if you start calibrating exam results either. Apart from the desirability of excellence and discovery in itself, our beleagured little country is going nowhere unless we can compete with The Germans, the Indians, the Chinese and the USA. And telling them sorry, we calibrated our exam results in order to 'create a level playing field in recognition of social diversity' is not going to help.
Without success in science and industry (and I don't mean call-centres)we will never be able to be more than mediocre and the bright kids that actually achieve useful degrees will go abroad.
Yes we need very good teachers, but most gifted teachers with an interest in maths and science would rather work in industry than put up with abusive, feral kids in a school with no facilities. No amount of fiddling around with social engineering is going to change that.
Complain about this comment
@ 149
boiler, you're a fish in a barrel
when you bravely took the trinary (@ 122) you turned your nose up at option (a) private schools are a good thing and should be encouraged ... and yet here you are now, arguing for them to get tax breaks on account of their "charity" work !!
why not fess up?
Complain about this comment
137. At 9:10pm on 22 Aug 2009, johnharris66 wrote:
...I'm by no means a determinist, but at least to some extent (and leaving aside factors such as parental death, war, etc.) educational achievement can be predicted at the age of 5.
Sorry John, I really do understand what you are saying about social background, but that sounds more like fatalism than determinism to me.
Complain about this comment
The real issue is that our 'representatives' no longer represent us. Worse, they manipulate us to support them through spin, propaganda, leaks and lies. So in the current Libya situation, for example, we have been hearing stories for weeks that someone in Scotland was deciding whether to show compassion to a terrorist. We were being softened up for the decision when it broke. The decision was made when parliament was in recess and the PM was on holiday. And it was - very explicitly and clearly - made by one Scottish man, in Scotland. All very neat and tidy, with no trails back to the Labour government. But now we are hearing rumours of cozy arrangements between UK and Libyan governments...
We seem to find out more things through leaks these days - even though the information is OURS. So it is even more important that we have agents in the BBC such as Laura "Scoop" Kuensberg. Another great piece of work. Thanks Laura.
Complain about this comment
In reply to comments @ #151
No, sorry, I will not play your class ridden games. The status of private education is irrelevant to how well or badly the state sector preforms. The private education could be banned outright and the same issues would need to be fixed, don't use something as a scape-goat just because it fits an ideology.
Oh and before you suggest it, I'm no "Toff", but saying that I don't actually see any problem if people are Toffs, just as I don't see any problem in someone being a road sweeper (or what ever) - both, and all between, have my equal respect.
Complain about this comment
outrage @ 150
right, thanks - yes, not just the teachers themselves but the tools to do the job - comptuters, labs, sports facilities, money for trips ... all the things you mention ... it would be a rather souless environment otherwise, wouldn't it? - and we can drop the exam calibration, if you feel it's too invasive - perhaps it is - any case, probably not necessary because so long as people look at grades sensibly ... and I guess they do ... then "A" in maths from an inner city comp will (easily) outrank the same from a top public school - no need to actually change the grade
your last comment ...
we need very good teachers, but most gifted teachers with an interest in maths and science would rather work in industry than put up with abusive, feral kids in a school with no facilities. No amount of fiddling around with social engineering is going to change that
... I agree with very strongly - we need the best teachers in the worst schools, and the best way to promote that is NOT social engineering (a very dodgy concept) but with hard financial incentives - show them the money, right? - let's have an inspirational maths teacher in a deprived area state school on 100k p/a - about the same as a GP (piece of cake job) or one third a junior bond trader (falling off a log job)
we really are evolving a consensus around this - I'm excited!
Complain about this comment
boiler @ 154
I'm not playing games, "class ridden" or otherwise, I'm just debating a topic with you! - bringing the class war slur into it (as you just have) is no substitute for logical argument - whether you're the lord of the manor or a cockney barrow boy, I'm interested in what you think - so let's try again, question was (and is) ... if you don't believe that private schools are a good thing and to be encouraged, why do you support their charitable status and consequent tax breaks? ... and if you do believe private schools are a jolly good thing etc, why won't you admit to believing that? - I mean, it's nothing to be ashamed of - no need to get all flustered - not as if you'd be saying something really terrible
Complain about this comment
#143. At 09:20am on 23 Aug 2009, sagamix wrote:
john harris 66 @ 137
"that has to be right... but it's the quality of teaching which counts for more than anything else - way more - and for "teaching" read "teachers" - so let's really upgrade the profession - secondary school teaching, I mean
Couldn't agree more that teaching should be better rewarded and respected.
BUT - I'd concentrate on the Primary Schools.
Far too many young people lack the basic skills. Without those - and an understanding of the discipline needed to learn anything - they find secondary education difficult. That leads to dejection, then rejection of the idea that education's worthwhile for its own sake as well as for "practical" benefit.
Very few children are incapable of acquiring the basics. But far too many need remedial help when they reach secondary level.
"... and we also (1) remove the tax break from private schools (a la Perry and now Rocket) and (2) calibrate the exam grades in favour of state schools (a la me) ... then we're pretty much there"
I still don't get the concern about tax-breaks for educational institutions - as long as they are properly run, focus on genuine education and accept a range of young people within their intake.
But it seems rediculous to modify exam results depending on the school at which they were achieved.
Once you've done that, you need to "modify" degrees depending on the institution at which they are awarded. There would be lots of grads holding bits of paper that are considered fairly worthless in the "real world"...
(What next? "Modify" the football results so that rich clubs have to score twice before one goal is counted?)
Far better to make exams more challenging, so results reflect students' real ability and understanding rather than "exam-coaching" input.
University admissions people aren't completely stupid. They have, over decades, taken note of the results achieved by people from different schools. There are plenty of wallies at private (and state) schools, as well as very bright youngsters. Universities know they'll have drop-outs and take some risks when taking on new students. It's in their own interests to sustain as high a quality of intake as possible, to deliver a respectable output.
Complain about this comment
#155. At 12:00pm on 23 Aug 2009, sagamix wrote:
"... I agree with very strongly - we need the best teachers in the worst schools, and the best way to promote that is NOT social engineering (a very dodgy concept) but with hard financial incentives - show them the money, right? - let's have an inspirational maths teacher in a deprived area state school on 100k p/a - about the same as a GP"
...and just how are you going to achieve that, no amount of money will attract teachers who do not want to waste their time (and quite possibly health) attempting to teach kids that do not want to be taught (as much as some push the idea, money is not everything. Also most GPs would not choose to do the job for the salary the state sector pays, they do the job because they see it as a vocation) - in sort the state system has to change first.
You mention social engineering, you are quite right, unfortunately it's to far to late, there has already been far to much politically correct social engineering in the state education system, now also infesting the private education sector too, over the last 40 odd years, it's been this - 'politically sponcered' - social engineering that has caused the problems we face now.
Complain about this comment
#156. At 12:37pm on 23 Aug 2009, sagamix wrote:
Sorry but you are playing (word) games, how many times do I have to tell you that in my opinion private schools and their funding is irrelevant to the problem that the state education system has, these problems have been caused by the state schools, their staff and the state themselves, no one else - understand?
It's not a case of being in favour or not of a certain sector, to do so just makes "Boogie-men" that can be used to hide inconvenient truths...
Complain about this comment
re the comment @ #159, that should have been in reply to "sagamix", I didn't mean to imply that "sagamix" wrote any of the content within that message - sorry for any miss-understanding.
Complain about this comment
FOM @ 157
calibration of exam results has been dropped (please see 155) in favour of relying on people's good sense to know that a "C" from an inner city comp equates to an "A" from a top public school - so we're fine on that - also, I recognise the wisdom in what you're saying about primary teachers - it's not as skilled a job as secondary teaching ... not quite ... that's what I was thinking, anyway - but (as you point out) it's pretty crucial nevertheless - give me the small child and I'll give you the teenager, that sort of thing - yes, I can see that - so we'll upgrade them too - done! - can't agree with your whole post however (much as I'd like to) because you're being a bit funny about the charity tax break issue - I mean, Eton College - you can argue (like me) that it's a toxic institution which does untold damage to the notion of equal opportunities in this country - or you can maintain (as others do) that it's a symbol of tradition/excellence, a National Treasure almost - opposing points of view - fine - makes the world go around ... but a charity ??
boiler @ 158
sure, wouldn't work for everyone but I'd have thought financial incentives can be quite effective, no? - any case, we don't want everyone, we just want the right number of the right people - I'm not saying people don't have other drivers apart from money in life/work, of course they do! - not following your point, to be honest - are you saying we don't want to encourage the best teachers to go to schools in deprived areas? - or is it more that we DO, but you feel it's doomed to failure because nobody would be up for the challenge, regardless of incentives (monetary or otherwise)?
see, Boiler, I'm STILL interested in what you think even though you've chickened out of the noddy level question at 122 and 151 and 156 - not giving up on you, no fear
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
#161. At 2:02pm on 23 Aug 2009, sagamix wrote:
"see, Boiler, I'm STILL interested in what you think even though you've chickened out of the noddy level question at 122 and 151 and 156 - not giving up on you, no fear"
Making abusive comments because you don't get the answer you want does nothing for your arguments. I have answered your question (more than once), everyone can see that I have done so, I can't help if you don't like the answer you have received but I'm not going to change it just to make you feel better about your discredited, failed, political ideology...
Complain about this comment
What the dickens has private education and Eton and toxicity got to do with Anne Widdecombe and MP's selection criteria???
Complain about this comment
"Also most GPs would not choose to do the job for the salary the state sector pays, they do the job because they see it as a vocation) - in sort the state system has to change first."
Are you kidding? Over a hundred grand a year, no nights, no out of hours?? They bit Bliar's hands off when he inked that deal in 98!
Complain about this comment
mind @ 162
do I have some thoughts ... yes I do!
I like the notion of a lot of people going to uni, and also the principle that it should be free of charge - so, a govt grant to cover both the fees and the "living away from home" costs is what we should be aiming for - not means tested either, thank you very much - why should a young adult from a rich family have to rely on parental handouts? - bad for self esteem, that, especially for someone from a priviliged background - they need to feel they're standing on their own feet - but I'm a pragmatic sort of guy, as you know ... not a hopeless idealist ... and so I also recognise (1) there's an affordability issue, and (2) we risk a proliferation of "silly degrees from silly places" ... so what I'd propose ... the Clear Thinking Progressive way to square the circle ... is as follows:
we make the grant dependent on two factors:
(1) are you from a state school? - YES/NO
(2) are you going to do a proper degree at a proper uni? - YES/NO
only with YES to both, do you get the grant - otherwise, you pay
now (1) is easy peasy - there'll be a list of accredited state schools, and you either went to one (from age 13 to 18) or you didn't - and (2) is also not difficult because we can draw up (with the aid of a Big Computer) all the possible combinations of course/college - really quite straightforward
to give you a flavour, we'd have something like this:
maths or hard science anywhere - GRANT
history at Birmingham - GRANT
drama at Birmingham - NO GRANT
anything at Oxbridge/Imperial/LSE - GRANT
modern languages at Leeds - GRANT
Kurt Cobain studies at Norfolk - NO GRANT
history of art at Slade - GRANT
subterranean forms of abstract expression at Tenby - NO GRANT
detail to be fleshed out, obviously, but you get the idea ...
Complain about this comment
155. At 12:00pm on 23 Aug 2009, sagamix wrote:
outrage @ 150
...so long as people look at grades sensibly ... and I guess they do ... then "A" in maths from an inner city comp will (easily) outrank the same from a top public school - no need to actually change the grade...
Sorry Saga, but if you want to pursue excellence one person's 'A' in maths does not outrank another person's 'A' in maths. They might have had to work harder to achieve it, but that doesn't turn it into a higher qualification or, more to the point, a higher level of skill.
...we need the best teachers in the worst schools, and the best way to promote that is NOT social engineering (a very dodgy concept) but with hard financial incentives - show them the money, right? - let's have an inspirational maths teacher in a deprived area state school on 100k p/a...
Again, I'm sorry but I dont agree with that either. If all you do is offer more money, all you'll get is more people wanting to be teachers for the wrong reasons. The potentially truly talented teachers will only want to become real teachers if they are given the tools to work with and an appropriate level of respect.
And, Some kids are never going to be brilliant. But let's not hold back the ones that could be just because life isn't fair.
Complain about this comment
167#
You might want to add another question to the list saga - namely
3). Are you bright enough academically to have a cat in hells chance of PASSING the course?
And what would you class as a "proper" degree? The state to prescribe what your vocation, your chosen career would be? Sounds like Soviet era Russia.
A list of accredited state schools? Reviewed how often? If your school is always going to get first dibs on uni places, how long do you think before the pushy parent brigade try and manipulate the entrance criteria?
How long before the governors of said school realise "hang on, if we go grant maintained, private or religious, we could make a fortune and keep the oiks out who dont want to be educated"....
Complain about this comment
165. At 3:25pm on 23 Aug 2009, Fubar_Saunders wrote:
What the dickens has private education and Eton and toxicity got to do with Anne Widdecombe and MP's selection criteria???
Nothing it has to be admitted. I think it's called 'topic drift'.
I believe that there's no such thing as positive discrimination. What do you reckon?
Complain about this comment
In reply to comments made @ #166
"Are you kidding? Over a hundred grand a year, no nights, no out of hours?? They bit Bliar's hands off when he inked that deal in 98!"
Of course they did, are you seriously suggesting they should have turned a pay increase down?!
In comparison to what the average medical student could train for, and then earn within either the private or state health servic sectors, the humble GP is very low paid even now.
Complain about this comment
So who don't like a few home truths then ?I will start two hit the panic button and then quite q few of you will be removed as well?
Complain about this comment
boiler @ 164
oh come come now - I make a mild accusation that you're "chickening out" of a simple question (which you are) and you (@ 154) first accuse me of playing "class ridden games" and now of making "abusive" comments !! - good job I'm not a super sensitive soul like you, isn't it? - bizarre - look, Boiler, call me a strange and twisted character but when I'm discussing, say, the merits (or otherwise) of private education, I quite like to know what the person I'm talking to thinks about it - be more of a monologue than a conversation otherwise, wouldn't it? - but okay, if you want to be all sheepish about it - you can ask me questions too you know, and if you do I'll answer them - maybe you're getting irritated because you think I'm trying to bully you into using a form a words which you're not comfortable with - well okay, if that's the case, I apologise - let's forget the a/b/c answers and focus on what you are saying now - so ... you may or may not think private schools are a good thing, but you're not going to let on because, in your opinion, the whole issue of the private education sector (both its existence and its size) is completely irrelevant ... see, I've even bolded it ... to the performance of state schools (where, after all, over 90 pc of children go) and, therefore, to the wider debate about education
how's that, babe? - not too abusive, I hope?
Complain about this comment
In reply to comments @ #167
You're a Tory 'stoog', posting here to discredit anything left of centre and I claim my five quid!
If the Uni course is worthy of being subsidised by the state then it should not matter one jot were the student was educated, if one person has a grant then all have a grant, reverse discrimination is oh so 1070s socialism - oh hang on, it's also very 'Harriet Harman' circa 2009 even though she has and continues to benefit from privilege... :-(
Complain about this comment
In reply to the 'rant' @ #173
Sorry you don't like the answers you are receiving but you being abusive (calling people "Chicken" because you don't like the answer) is not going to make people change their opinions or answers...
Complain about this comment
outrage (@ 168) - nil problemo with the first point - we're not going to mess around with the grades, an A's an A's an A etc - we just leave it to people's judgement - if we have a boy/girl scoring 72 pc in A level maths from an under privileged area comp and a boy/girl scoring same in same from a top public school, my own judgement would be that the former is probably the more talented mathematician - but others may differ, and that's fair enough - your second point, however, I find strange - you say you disagree with using financial incentives to get the best teachers to work in the worst schools because (1) teaching is not about money, the incentives wouldn't work and (2) even if they DID work, "life's not fair" and so it's all pointless - to which I say (1) teaching is certainly not ALL about money, it's not the City or anything, but financal incentives could be effective, and (2) very true, life is not fair ... never has been, never will be ... but that doesn't mean that lessening the unfairness is not a good and worthwhile thing to do ... does it? - and fubar (@ 169) with some good questions on the detail - pls see below:
- yes, being bright enough to handle the course (if you're getting a grant, that is) is very relevant - so fairly stiff offers, I'd have thought, depending on the exact course/uni combo - same as now, really - but if you're doing a silly course/silly uni combo (and hence paying, or more likely parents paying) then whatever - no skin off anyone's nose if they're not up to it, is it? - no loans, btw, it's a full grant or it's no state help at all
- a proper degree? - is one with real academic rigour - I'll do a full list and publish it later this evening - and no, there's nothing Stalinist about this - we're just deciding where best to spend our limited budget - would be nice if we had a bottomless pit of money, but unfortunately we don't - especially with the way the economy is looking!
- the list of state schools would be easy to draw up and maintain (update every time one opens or closes) - it's just ALL state schools - can define that as non fee paying schools - so no reason for pushy parents to do anything except send their kids to a state school - and your thing about the governors wanting to take it private? - well, there'd be no point would there? - counter productive actually since, if they do that, their pupils lose the possibility of the university grant
Complain about this comment
Sosmix
Hey, i wouldn't keep using the word " babe " in reference to other posters ... Harriet really wouldn't approve of such sexist language
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Boiler @ 175
Sorry you don't like the answers you are receiving
well I wouldn't know (would I?) given that none are forthcoming - at least from your good self - anyway, let's keep going for a little while because it looks like you're the only person who won't engage with the issue, and I want to give you another chance - so, did I call you right @ 173 ?? ... you know, where I "ranted" and I "raved" that I think what you may be saying is that private schools are of no relevance to the wider debate on education, and therefore it's appropriate for you to keep your opinion (of whether they're a good thing or not) a secret
Complain about this comment
Blair's babes are a fine example of why there should not be all female shortlists or any shortlists where there is positive discrimination in any form.
Many of them only ask questions when they are allowed to when Harriet Harman is taking PM's questions. The contributions they make even then are feeble and appear prone to manipulation.
They readily go along with the whips and are partially responsible for carrying through many of this government's most questionable policies.
What we want are the best candidates and not those thrust upon us by any party just to make up the gender or race numbers.
There already excellent MP's in these catagories but poor ones too. We need more of the best of them but only on true merit. Only then will they have any credibility.
Complain about this comment
ghost @ 177
Hey, I wouldn't keep using the word " babe " in reference to other posters ... Harriet really wouldn't approve of such sexist language
okay, sorry sweetheart - thought Boiler was a bloke, to be honest, but I stand corrected - any case, won't do it again ... it's the issues I want to focus on, after all
what's your view on positive discrimination? - see any merit in it?
Complain about this comment
So it looks like your biased then mods ? or to quote mac kin row you got to be joking then?
Complain about this comment
#176. At 4:55pm on 23 Aug 2009, sagamix wrote:
"outrage (@ 168) - nil problemo with the first point - we're not going to mess around with the grades, an A's an A's an A etc"
Rubbish, the grade might be the same but the pass mark will not, someone who - by fate of birth, is born into a family with wealth, or a family who are prepared to make the financial sacrifice to send their child(ren) to a private, independent or grant-maintained school - will have to obtain a higher pass mark than someone else - not only that but there will also be a discriminatory glass ceiling that means a number of otherwise exceptional students will never be able to obtain an "A" grade as their 75 to 100% pass mark will get marked down simply because of were they were educated. I though you said that you are against discrimination, or does that only hold true for those you think 'needs a helping hand'?
"if we have a boy/girl scoring 72 pc in A level maths from an under privileged area comp and a boy/girl scoring same in same from a top public school, my own judgement would be that the former is probably the more talented mathematician"
No, it tells us that academically they are equal, nothing else. The exam has not tested someone's ability to learn, just how well they retain what they have learnt - the child from the under privileged area comp could have been spending ever waking hour studying whilst the child from the public school only had to spend an hour a day studying, of course the reverse could be true - "rich daddy" could have sent his 'totally clueless' son to Eaton or where ever and that child could have been the one spending ever waking hour studying...
Complain about this comment
#179. At 5:25pm on 23 Aug 2009, sagamix wrote:
"well I wouldn't know (would I?) given that none are forthcoming
In your opinion of course, the fact that anyone reading this blog can see for themselves that I have answered your question (many times) seems to have escaped you!
Complain about this comment
#180. At 5:28pm on 23 Aug 2009, virtualsilverlady wrote:
"Blair's babes are a fine example of why there should not be all female shortlists or any shortlists where there is positive discrimination in any form."
Sorry to say, if "Blair's Babes" was representative of the quality of women in general not only would it be conclusive proof that woman should not be allowed to be members of parliament but probably that they should not be allowed into the boardroom!
As I said way up, perspective parliamentary candidates have to be chosen on ability not who they are, what gender they are or any other fails criteria that is being use these days to draw up these discredited lists - on all sides of the political spectrum (bar possibly UKIP and the BNP).
Complain about this comment
boiler @ 183
Rubbish, the grade might be the same but the pass mark will not
oh why do I bother? - no, I'm saying we DON'T mess around with the marking and the grades! - so if it's, say, 68 pc for an "A" at one school, it's 68 pc for an "A" at all schools - please reread 155 and 176
No, it tells us that academically they are equal, nothing else
okay, fair enough on that one - all I stated is that in my opinion the deprived background child scoring 72 pc in maths at the inner city comp is probably a more gifted mathematician the child scoring same in same at the top public school - but as I stressed (again in 176 - pls do reread) it's a judgement call and others may differ
Complain about this comment
#161, sagamix wrote:
FOM @ 157
"calibration of exam results has been dropped (please see 155) in favour of relying on people's good sense to know that a "C" from an inner city comp equates to an "A" from a top public school - so we're fine on that"
Saga, you just don't want to get the point.
If you are a brilliant mathematician, it simply doesn't matter which school you go to, your ability will be evident wherever you come from, whatever your background or your parents' abilty to pay! As long as you have teachers bright enough to keep up with you - and possibly getting a bit of external help to be able to "stretch" you intellectually.
(That can happen at both state-funded and private schools.)
I was lucky enough to go to a school that had quite a long history. It was set up as a charitable act way back. (Some "nasty" capitalist who'd made a lot of money and wanted to help educate poorer - as well as richer - people. I have no idea what the legal framework was back then.) If you check, you'll find that an awful lot of education centres were created because somebody gave a lot of money to fund the public benefit of education. I went there because there were grants available to not so well off people. (Actually, I loved the sporting part more than the "educational", at a time when adjacent playing fields were a normal part of school life. But picked up enough clues along the way to make something of a life.)
An earlier post was referred. All I asked was why it should be BAD for people to pay for private education at primary or secondary level - but MANDATORY if you seek a university education.
That's government policy, for goodness sake, so how can a referral be justified?
"... also, I recognise the wisdom in what you're saying about primary teachers - it's not as skilled a job as secondary teaching ... not quite ... that's what I was thinking, anyway - but (as you point out) it's pretty crucial nevertheless - give me the small child and I'll give you the teenager, that sort of thing - yes, I can see that - so we'll upgrade them too - done!"
Saga,
Secondary schools deliver large numbers of bright/able children to the next stage of education with little grasp of the language, arithmetics, geography, etc.
The higher you go in the sphere of education, the more valuable a dissenting/challenging view point becomes. But oif children don't have a grasp of basic aspects, how on earth can they challenge - and hopefully improve - society?
"... can't agree with your whole post however ... because you're being a bit funny about the charity tax break issue - I mean, Eton College - you can argue (like me) that it's a toxic institution which does untold damage to the notion of equal opportunities in this country - or you can maintain (as others do) that it's a symbol of tradition/excellence, a National Treasure almost - opposing points of view - fine - makes the world go around ... but a charity ??"
Why not? It was originally created and endowed as a charitable act to teach poor children. (OK, the sponsor was a King, but the intention was good. The money came from every part of society - including the poor - just like the education structure now!!!)
I've known and worked alongside people from Eton, Harrow, etc., as well as folk who staggered through a secondary education. There are prats everywhere and from every background.
I'd rather that rich folk pay lots of money to segregate their sprogs in a private school - while still paying axes to support state-schools - than have little Johnie or Jessica turn up at the local comp in a Rolls. Why?
Because society is getting daft. Too many children are led to believe that "celebrity" is somehow preferable to "achievement". Education is not supposed to a process that leads to a job. It's supposed to a scheme whereby people learn to understand - so they can carry on learning stuff and enjoying new ideas with personal and public benefit as the outcome.
Complain about this comment
@ 185 ... used these days to draw up these discredited lists - on all sides of the political spectrum, bar possibly UKIP and the BNP
I think you DO need to demonstrate one particular "attribute" to be a BNP candidate, Boiler - they're pretty rigid about it too, I understand
Complain about this comment
171#
Yeah, I know, my apologies. I went back afterwards and read it in the context it was stated and then thought "oops. Went off a bit half-cocked".
So... sorry about that!! :-)
170#
Depends, doesnt it? Positive discrimination is still discrimination. No less discriminatory, in my book anyway, than saga's hated old school tie, old boy club.
When using such tools for filtering/selection/recruiting/whatever, you are still using criteria other than "who is the best candidate in absolute relation to the requirement?". You're making allowances for criteria/faults/things that are lacking in the field of candidates you have to trawl through, so you bring in someone who otherwise would not make the cut.
Thats tokenism and it doesnt work. It stinks.
Whats the point in anyone trying to better themselves to achieve anything if all that is going to happen at the end of it is that some oik is going to get the nod ahead of you, not because they were the better candidate, but purely because they are an oik - who'se vote the politician wants to salve their radical upperclass vacuous conscience - which they probably got during their private education that they are so embarrassed about...
Makes me sick.
Think that about sums it up... :-)
Complain about this comment
FOM @ 187
All I asked was why it should be BAD for people to pay for private education at primary or secondary level - but MANDATORY if you seek a university education
I answered that, Fairly, please refer 167
the rest of this latest post of yours is enjoyable to read (as always) but, again, a bit odd - are you saying that a child from a deprived background, with a bent for maths, has just as much chance of developing their gift at Bog Standard Comp as at Top Public School? - because if you are, we're all wasting our time trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist - which would be excellent news!
Complain about this comment
"....calibration of exam results has been dropped (please see 155) in favour of relying on people's good sense to know that a "C" from an inner city comp equates to an "A" from a top public school - so we're fine on that"
I have been gobsmacked before and expect to be gobsmacked again in the future.... but this takes the biscuit of all biscuits. The biscotti de tutti biscotti, if I may be so bold.
I could try and be smarmy about this, but... I... I'm just staggered. I just cant make sense of it. A "C" from an inner city comp equates to an "A" from a top public school.. I've looked at 155 and still cant make sense of it.
We can all agree on standards, but some standards are perhaps more worthy than others? "Four legs good, two legs bad?"
"Four legs good, two legs better!!"
Complain about this comment
176#
Mate, I just hope youre not on one of Hatties token shortlists for a safe Labour seat - which rules out white, male, middle class, straight, etc - (maybe the constituency that Mr Balls is about to be moved from?) with a view to taking the SofS for Education job when the Golum gives Darling the push and makes Balls Chancellor Of The Exchequer...
Glad I've got no kids, let alone ones in the education system...
Complain about this comment
189. At 7:10pm on 23 Aug 2009, Fubar_Saunders wrote
170#
Depends, doesnt it? Positive discrimination is still discrimination. No less discriminatory, in my book anyway, than saga's hated old school tie, old boy club.
Whats the point in anyone trying to better themselves to achieve anything if all that is going to happen at the end of it is that some oik is going to get the nod ahead of you, not because they were the better candidate, but purely because they are an oik - who'se vote the politician wants to salve their radical upperclass vacuous conscience - which they probably got during their private education that they are so embarrassed about...
Fubar, I completely agree with you - when I said that I think there's no such thing as positive discrimination, I meant that discrimination can never be positive; only negative.
Probably should have explained myself better.
Complain about this comment
FS @ 191
I've looked at 155 and still can't make sense of it
let me help - don't want you all flummoxed, do we Fubar? - the point is, take a couple of kids and look at their score in, say, A level maths - okay so far? - okay now "Peter" is from a deprived background and went to a poor performing inner city comp, whereas "Paul" is from a privileged background and went to a top public school - and they both score 72 pc in the exam - so ... question for you ... in your judgement, whose is the greater achievement? - whose "A" grade carries more weight? - just probably, I mean, not with complete certainty
- is it Peter?
- or is it Paul?
(no Mary, sorry)
oh, and are you cool with my answers (@ 176) to your previous questions? - pls get back if you're not
Complain about this comment
FS @ 192
yes great - but back to mundane matters like the issue, what do you disagree with and why? - please babe, try and focus on what I've said, not on what you think I'm "all about" - it's getting tiresome
for example, at 189 you start banging on about "oiks" - which, if I was giving it the "vacuous poshboy" treatment, would be fair enough ... you know, a bit of frivolous banter and all that ... but we're doing a grown up discussion today, so you're not adding much I'm afraid - fact, given the issue is favouring kids from state schools, it comes over as if you're tagging 93 pc of the population as oiks!
(then again, I suppose we can lighten up, drop the serious stuff and just riff if that's what you want - guess your next post will tell the tale)
Complain about this comment
194#
To be honest mate, I agree with other posters on this question. They are equal, regardless of their background and the education they have had.
The level of expectation of their parents may have been different - but thats down to them. Maybe the fee paying ones expected better than 72%. But, you pays your money, you takes your choice. It either works or it doesnt.
My stepfathers education at a fee paying school in Coventry in the 1950's resulted in him taking 9 O levels and getting a pass in.... one. His father had served 22 years in the navy and thought that as he had come from the Welsh valleys (and had no intention of going back there after WW2 and Korea) that his sons were going to get the education he didnt get.
So, stepfather spends the next 12 months going to nightschool doing retakes, then goes down the HNC/ONC route and spends 30 odd years in industry.
Me? Bog standard Comprehensive, 5 O levels first shot, another 4 over the next 2 years and completed 2 A level courses, but failed the exams. Never been out of work longer than 6 weeks in 25 years.
Who got the better education of the two of us? Who achieved more? Who had a better springboard into life depending on their education?
His parents thought they were intrinsically better than the 2-up, 2-down, council house dwelling, working class, low-lifes that formed the nucleus of my family and virtually until their deaths thought that my stepfather had married beneath himself. Labour through to their very bones, the pair of them.
Go figure.
I am fiercely proud of my time at a bog standard comp and dont think it did me any harm whatsoever. Very good teachers, reasonable facilities, exams that werent dumbed down, proper discipline... If people want to send their kids to private school, on you go, take your chances. Doesnt mean it'll automatically work out. But, if it doesnt, at least you havent disrupted the education of someone going through the state system.
The state system USED TO be perfectly capable of providing a good standard of education and in some places it still does, which is why the good schools are oversubscribed and Knife&Drug infested inner city ratholes arent.
The framework the state education system provides is only part of it. The rest is down to the kids and their families to seize their opportunities when they have them.
WRT to the answers in 176... yeah, I see where you're going, but I dont know to what ends..... (apart from to show those filthy rich, moneyed tories that the day of the revolution is nigh and their places against the wall have been reserved, and the days of their capitalist theft from the proletariat are over.....mwahhhhahhhahhhahha.....) How come it hasnt been done already by another nation? Or has it? I dont know...
Now, as valid as this subject is, I'm really not sure what it has got to do with selection of parliamentary candidates. I know its one of your favourite hobby-horses (Have you got kids in the education system yourself? Did you fail the 11+? Are you Paul Weller, getting beaten up by a bunch of kids from Eton?) but.... we're drifting off the topic, again!
Complain about this comment
195#
Yeah, I think you're right... the next post did I think try and go someway towards answering the questions and also, theres a little bit of riffery going on there as well... you'd probably wonder if it was really me if there wasnt any there.
Complain about this comment
fubar @ 196
we're crossing in the post! - okay thanks, don't know what your 197 is going to say ... may have to catch you some other time ... but I get all that - no, my views aren't based on personal experience - you know I don't operate that way - I float free of all that nonsense - best way, in my opinion, when it comes to this politics stuff - leave that to "Men of the World" like you and Fairly Open Mind and countless others on here - we can't go any further on this (sadly) if you really don't think (in my example) that Peter's achievement is probably greater than Paul's - my whole outlook rests on that, you see - if you don't feel the same way, then we'll have to do the famous "agree to disagree" - which is okay - you do your thing, I'll do mine - sure there's a song there somewhere!
Complain about this comment
#190. At 7:14pm on 23 Aug 2009, sagamix wrote:
FOM @ 187
"All I asked was why it should be BAD for people to pay for private education at primary or secondary level - but MANDATORY if you seek a university education
I answered that, Fairly, please refer 167"
NO you didn't answer. You suggested calibrated fees. And disregarding rediculous stuff that no respectable university would consider worthy of study.
Tony Blair, Gordon Brown and much of this mob - good socialists all - decided that the privilege they received should be withdrawn from the generations that followed.
Didn't notice HH standing up to say that this is simply WRONG.
I've benefited from the tax contributions that my parents made to try and get a realistic opportunity for all children to challange their own perceived limitations. So why do you (HH included) seem to feel that others should not benefit from similar help from others?
Complain about this comment
#186. At 6:49pm on 23 Aug 2009, sagamix wrote:
"boiler @ 183
Rubbish, the grade might be the same but the pass mark will not
oh why do I bother?"
Indeed, why do you bother, your are arguments are being blown out of the water from all sides yet you keep coming back for more! Sorry but you are stuck in the discredited ideology of the 1960/70s, only two political parties support your line of thinking, the SLP and the communists...
"no, I'm saying we DON'T mess around with the marking and the grades!"
Well that means that you don't want to change anything then! Again, sorry but you seem to have tied yourself up in so many knots you seem to have forgotten what your own argument/opinion are.
"please reread 155 and 176"
I have, in fact those are messages that I have replied to...
Complain about this comment
198#
Fair do's Saga. Coming up for 10pm out here in sunny Brussels, so I'm gonna turn in for the night.
Back to action tomorrow, no doubt. A bientot.
Complain about this comment
#188. At 6:58pm on 23 Aug 2009, sagamix wrote:
"I think you DO need to demonstrate one particular "attribute" to be a BNP candidate, Boiler - they're pretty rigid about it too, I understand"
I don't believe that they refuse membership/PPC status simple because of someone's gender/ability though, how ever distasteful one might find their other entry policies are, unlike Labour and now (increasingly, and the original subject under discussion) the Tories do. Makes one think, doesn't it?...
Complain about this comment
I'm coming in to this parliamentary candidate/education debate a little late.
Rather surprisingly, I find myself agreeing with what I think Sagamix's position is (a first time for everything), in that it is grossly unfair that it is still possible in this the 21st century for the rich to buy a better education than is available to the masses. For that matter the same goes for health-care. Where I think that we may differ is that rather than do away with the centres of excellence available to the rich we should endeavour to improve the state offering to the standard of the best, thereby doing away with the need for the public school system.
The education debate, I assume introduced by Saga, is not necessarily off topic because if we can improve the general education of the majority we will have a greater pool of talent of people with the ability to govern us.
By the way, am I the only person who believes that a great education is not necessarily the attainment of good grades at A levels or GCSE's. In my working life I have come across plenty of straight A students who I would not trust to wipe their own noses.
Complain about this comment
#194. At 7:46pm on 23 Aug 2009, sagamix wrote:
"let me help - don't want you all flummoxed, do we Fubar? - the point is, take a couple of kids and look at their score in, say, A level maths - okay so far? - okay now "Peter" is from a deprived background and went to a poor performing inner city comp, whereas "Paul" is from a privileged background and went to a top public school - and they both score 72 pc in the exam - so ... question for you ... in your judgement, whose is the greater achievement? - whose "A" grade carries more weight? - just probably, I mean, not with complete certainty
- is it Peter?
- or is it Paul?"
Sorry but they are both the same, you are asking the wrong question if you want to find out who has had to do the less work to obtain that pass mark, in other words, who found the subject hard and who was a natural - I think I've have already touched on this though @ #183 (second part).
Complain about this comment
#203. At 9:24pm on 23 Aug 2009, oldreactionary wrote:
"Rather surprisingly, I find myself agreeing with what I think Sagamix's position is (a first time for everything), in that it is grossly unfair that it is still possible in this the 21st century for the rich to buy a better education than is available to the masses."
Why, what has it got to do with you or anyone else who they choose to spend their own money (that is extra to what they have already contributed to the state sector, that they will not be using, via their taxes...), not everyone who buys private education are stinking rich, in fact I suspect that many are not, they are just making other sacrifices. I know of one family who have chosen to buy a private secondary school education for their daughter so that she receives the one to one attention she requires (due to her being dyslexic, the help the state sector tried to provide was useless), to do this they are going without expensive holidays, Plasma TV's or a bigger house etc.
If it's right to tell people that they can't spend their money in a certain way (in this case, on a private education for their children) how would those who support such a restriction think if they were told that they don't need to own a car, that they should not be having their two weeks in Benidorm (why can't they go camping in the UK, in fact why do they actually need to stay away, a day trip to Clacton should suffice!), that they should not be wasting their little money on Lottery tickets or visiting betting shops etc.
At the end of the day it comes down to personal choice, personal betterment, be that via education, a wider cultural outlook due to holidays away or even buying the winning Lottery ticket...
Complain about this comment
205 Boiler
Perhaps I have not made my point very well. I have no issue whatsoever in how anyone spends their money so long as it is legally done. I do not wish to see the closure or banning of public schools, merely to make them obsolete by our raising the quality of education available to the masses to the extent that there is no difference between the two. If certain people wish to continue to pay for their children's education that is entirely up to them.
Complain about this comment
167. At 3:35pm on 23 Aug 2009, sagamix wrote:
mind @ 162
do I have some thoughts ... yes I do!
I like the notion of a lot of people going to uni, and also the principle that it should be free of charge - so, a govt grant to cover both the fees and the "living away from home" costs is what we should be aiming for - not means tested either, thank you very much - why should a young adult from a rich family have to rely on parental handouts? - bad for self esteem, that, especially for someone from a priviliged background - they need to feel they're standing on their own feet...
===
A bit hypocritical of you there, saga! Grants for students not to be means tested, and yet you rail against David Cameron taking advantage (all completely within the rules) of the same Additional Costs Allowance as other MPs. Equality for all, eh, except when it applies to your bete noire!
Complain about this comment
FOM @ 199
No you didn't answer. You suggested calibrated fees
that WAS the answer! - and a good one too, even if I say so myself - we want grants back, yes? - but we can't afford to give them to everyone who goes to uni, right? - okay, so my proposal factors in both those points - what do you suggest?
Boiler @ 200
that means that you don't want to change anything then
no, it means just what I said! - that we're not going in for calibrated exam grades - we considered the idea but then (on advice) dropped it - it's all moving a bit fast for you, isn't it Boiler? - look, forget about trying to score points off me (you can't) and let's just summarise for posterity what we ARE changing:
(1) the end of tax breaks for private schools
(2) and replace student loans with grants
(3) but the grants for state school only, and for "proper" degrees
(4) plus a major upgrade of teaching profession
(5) with incentives to get the best teachers at the worst schools
if you don't like any of that, why not tell me what YOU want to see? - I'm all ears
Complain about this comment
old R @ 203
well I don't find it in the least "surprising" that you agree with at least some of what I'm saying! - the aim is pretty much exactly as you put it - raise the quality of state education and allow the private sector to wither on the vine - there's no banning going on in my world - I'm very much a libertarian at heart
yellow B @ 207
gee, you must have struggled a bit to dredge that one up! - but hey, I'm going to answer anyway - my problem with Cameron isn't really that he claimed expenses (which I definitely DON'T think should be means tested, btw) it's more the "pass the sick bag" hypocrisy (if I can bang that word straight back at you) of his then pretending to be absolutely livid about the whole debacle - I honestly used to quite like him, but he's shown us all again and again that he's no more than a shallow opportunist - we can do so much better
Complain about this comment
Boiler @ 205
congratulations on that post - it's nice - and I'm glad to see you can set out clearly what you think when you haven't got me badgering you!
but, just for the record, none of it is relevant to what you and I were batting around because the CTP proposal is NOT to ban private education - after the 5 step programme in 208 ... should we call it "programme 208" for ease of reference, from now on? ... you know, so you don't get confused again? ... yes right so post implementation of P208, people who wish to spend their own hard earned money (or easily earned money, for that matter) on sending their kids to private school will still be perfectly free to do so - you'd be happy to support it now, I would imagine? - can I put you down as a convert to P208? - remember there is more joy in heaven and on earth over one sinner that repenteth than over ...
Complain about this comment
181. At 5:40pm on 23 Aug 2009, sagamix wrote:
ghost @ 177
Hey, I wouldn't keep using the word " babe " in reference to other posters ... Harriet really wouldn't approve of such sexist language
okay, sorry sweetheart - thought Boiler was a bloke, to be honest, but I stand corrected - any case, won't do it again ... it's the issues I want to focus on, after all
what's your view on positive discrimination? - see any merit in it?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, if women ( not that i have met any who have) take offense at being called babe ( alledgedly ) then i would imagine a bloke would take double the offense.
My view is simple Saga, positive discrimination is just discrimination plain and simple, you can't just stick a word like " positive " at the front and pretend it isn't really discrimination
Complain about this comment
205#
Thats exactly it. The only way it'll get rendered obsolete is when the state provided solution is so good you dont need private providers... and that applies to health as well.
But how you get to that point is not necessarily ALL about throwing money at it. That doesnt automatically make things better.
Soon as the state starts telling the populace how to spend their hard earned... you end up going down the route of Castro politics. Which is fine, if you want to live under a semi-benevolent communist dictatorship who thinks they know whats best for you... nice place to visit, but not sure I'd want to live there.
Complain about this comment
"208. At 00:08am on 24 Aug 2009, sagamix wrote:
FOM @ 199
no, it means just what I said! - that we're not going in for calibrated exam grades - we considered the idea but then (on advice) dropped it - it's all moving a bit fast for you, isn't it Boiler? - look, forget about trying to score points off me (you can't) and let's just summarise for posterity what we ARE changing:
(1) the end of tax breaks for private schools
(2) and replace student loans with grants
(3) but the grants for state school only, and for "proper" degrees
(4) plus a major upgrade of teaching profession
(5) with incentives to get the best teachers at the worst schools
if you don't like any of that, why not tell me what YOU want to see? - I'm all ears
Complain about this comment"
sagamix first let me state i dont have kids at private school, but my under standing is that private schools are usually charities, if they have to convert to not for profit companies they will lose the VAT conessision!
Fees are paid by parents out of TAXed income. So the only tax consession is VAT.
So asume 10k a year and the parents pay 40% tax and igonre NI (A LOT DONT!) so they have already paid approx 16.66k ie 6.66K tax
Now add vat the 10k becomes 11.75 (ignoring the 15% temp band) which now means thay need 19.6k of salary to pay the 10k fees.
As in england the state pay approc 6k per child they save the state 6k a year yet the tax saving you want to incure is 1.75k also not that as a VAT registered not for profit company the school will be able/expect to claim nearly all the VAT back thru every day expenditure.
As a charity the school already pays TAXes the only real difference as a NOT for profit company they will ensure they spend every penny of income and reclaim VAT.
AT the very best the state will get a couple of hundred pounds a year per private puple but it will make the schools even more elite as parents will need to earn an extra 3k meaning that the state will be foreced to teach more kids.
As each chiled that moves from the private scools "Costs" 6k and each child that stays earns well under £300 the taxpayer loses out for each and every child that is forced to leave.
Also the education budget comes out of council tax and VAT is paid to centrial goverment. So each child that leaves puts up my councils bills 6k!
Complain about this comment
#206. At 10:26pm on 23 Aug 2009, oldreactionary wrote:
"[..//..] merely to make them obsolete by our raising the quality of education available to the masses to the extent that there is no difference between the two. [Private and state]"
Oh right, so you want utopia, fine if one can get it outside of a controlled state but remember that the state sector can't even deliver your version of utopia within the state sector schools - hence we see people moving (or simple lying about their child's eligibility) to the better state schools catchment areas...
Complain about this comment
Morning All
A thoroughly interesting debate on here about selection and positive discrimination. I think most people want to see equality of opportunity but what positive discrimination attempts to do is force equality of numbers. This is devisive and does not harness the potential that resides in the fact that we are all different.
A "deprived" or "priviledged" background could be regarded as a disadvantage, an excuse or an advantage (motivation). This then questions what is deprived and what is priviledged. How do you draw a line in the sand without disadvantaging some? What are the metrics? Family wealth? Emotional wealth? Number of siblings? IQ?
I cannot see how you can achieve equality of numbers without ensuring that all children are treated the same by the same people as they develop. A truly frightening idea.
There is a debate that to achieve equality of opportunity requires that all children are exposed to the same schooling regime. There is some merit in this approach. However, for the reasons cited above it will not work. Just sending all children through the same system would not "correct" for parental and social influences.
I favour a decent state education system which provides the tools for the motivated students to progress. There should be more interaction between the state and private education. Lets get those motivated and able students working together. We need an aspirational education system where the talent, in whatever field and from whatever background, is nurtured and developed.
Finally a few comments on exams. The examination system is there to test ability. Whether it is the right measure is open to debate but it does not test the effort to attain that ability. Nor should it.
Complain about this comment
#208. At 00:08am on 24 Aug 2009, sagamix wrote:
"no, it means just what I said!"
Sorry, no you haven't said anything, well you have but you have then gone on to contradict everything you said in previously! As I said you have tied yourself up in so many knots trying to wiggle out of your own out of date dogma that you are forgetting what you originally said.
You seem to say that you do NOT want discrimination but then go on to say that those who (by fate of birth or were their parents CHOOSE to spend their money on a private education) are born into a wealthy family should be discriminated against. Never mind you oh so circa USSR idea of telling people were to work.
"sagamix", as I understand it North Korea still seems to hold your ideal, even though of going on a long holiday abroad, just make sure that you keep your return ticket safe though...
Complain about this comment
ghost @ 211
positive discrimination is just discrimination plain and simple, you can't just stick a word like "positive" at the front and pretend it isn't really discrimination
agreed - it is discrimination and it is positive - hence the title! - but I was interested in whether you see any merit in it, rather than a definition of the phrase
let's go into things a little more deeply, shall we? - let's really think about it
consider a couple of scenarios, if you will ..
A: I'm the CEO and sole owner of a business and, at present, my headcount is overwhelmingly male - but I like that - I feel it works well, and my organisation is better as a result - I'm now recruiting someone for an influential position and I don't really want to upset the gender dynamics of the place - I decide that a man would be more suitable for the job and so I steer the selection process accordingly - I'm the sole owner of this company, after all, why shouldn't I? - I end up hiring an excellent chap
B: exactly the same as A except for 2 differences - this time I'm still the sole owner and CEO, but I'm the government and the "business" is a state sector organisation - okay? - and plus, the other difference is I take the opposite view on the gender balance - so in this case, I feel my organisation would benefit substantially from hiring a woman into this senior position I need to fill - so, as before, I steer the process accordingly and I end up going for an excellent woman
... and let's say that the woman in B and the man in A are equally excellent - they are both highly suitable for the job, it's just that men had preferred candidate status in A, whereas in B it was women
so my questions now are ...
(1) is it okay in A what I've done? - YES/NO
(2) is it okay in B? - YES/NO
if you Ghost (or anybody else brave enough) will take this test, I'll be able to analyse and let you know where you stand on this vexed issue of positive discrimination - and please just answer quickly and honestly - don't get all tied up in knots about it (Boiler!) and start second guessing what I'm going to make of your answers - you might be surprised!
come on, it'll be fun - hit me
Complain about this comment
#210. At 00:49am on 24 Aug 2009, sagamix wrote:
"[parents] sending their kids to private school will still be perfectly free to do so"
No they won't as in your suggested reforms they would then be dicriminated against, they would have their exam grades marked down, they would loose their rights to any grants etc. - what you actually want is to ban private education by stelth, you want to use reverse dicrimination (even though you say that discrinination is adhorant to your ownb beliefs) to do it...
Sorry "sagamix" but you sound oh so very "Militant Tendancy" of the late 1970s, early '80s, your 'dogma' is out of date, even 'working class' parents are spending their own money on private education (often assisted by the charitable status of the school or funding they can access) these days, in fact I used to know someone who's father (who was a Dockside worker, and might welll have been a 'Docker', at the time) sent him a private school - and this would have been in the 1950/60s!
Complain about this comment
Sosmix @ 217
Sorry mate, no matter how you try and dress it up... It is simply still discrimination. Discrimination has ONE definition in the dictionary
To me chucking " positive " in front of Discrimination is a good example of an oxymoron
Complain about this comment
thank you Ice Wombat (@ 213) and a couple of points back to you ... (1) no, as charities private schools get a number of tax breaks, it's not just a VAT thing - they're not taxed on interest income, for example - Eton is treated just like the NSPCC - crazy, yes? - (2) removing charity status doesn't mean they'd become special status companies, still getting tax breaks - they'll be treated like any other commercial concern - if they can survive on that basis, and with the other Clear Thinking Progressive reforms in P208, then fine - (3) you stress the point that every child who goes to private school saves you money - it follows, therefore, that you'd like as many kids as possible to do so, would that be right, wombat? - and if it isn't right, why not? - thanks again ... and on, (heavy heart, spirits sinking) to my good friend Boiler (@ 216) with comments about North Korea and the like - getting ever more silly, trivial and off the point - if you can't follow the thread, recommend you take a pause - or (better!) why not change tack and take the PD test @ 217 ??
Complain about this comment
Bolierplated @ 218
Precisely, it is some what outdated to still assume the only parents who send their kids to be privately educated are "rich" parents, that is no longer the case anymore
Complain about this comment
ghost @ 219
if you know really impressive sounding words like oxymoron, why can't you actually think about the issue? ... scared of disturbing the cobwebs or something?
come on babe, engage! - it'll do you good
Complain about this comment
#217 saga
I am brave/mad enough! The question and both scenarios are based on sexism. An organisation does not work because it is all male or all female. The dynamic is due to the blend of personalities working. You hire the person with the best personality to fit the blend not to fit some numbers game. Matters not if it is state or private. Sexism is discrimination based on gender. The only "positive" action is to meet some arbitrary number.
Complain about this comment
222. At 10:03am on 24 Aug 2009, sagamix wrote:
ghost @ 219
if you know really impressive sounding words like oxymoron, why can't you actually think about the issue? ... scared of disturbing the cobwebs or something?
come on babe, engage! - it'll do you good
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Why waffle for ages Saga... When the simple fact is that
Positive Discrimination .... Is discrimination in another form ...what is there to debate
Complain about this comment
Saga, I am not really sure what point you are trying to prove in post 217. I suspect in your usual way you are trying to "spin" the question in such a way that we agree with you about positive discrimination.
In answer to your questions, my answers would be:
(1) Yes, I have no problem with it, the CEO is put in charge of a private company and will be judged on it's success (or lack of). So he should feel free to pick a candidate on whatever merit he feels is best. If the company fails the only losers would be the shareholders who assigned the CEO in the first place. If you reversed the sex of the candidate my comment would remain the same.
(2) Maybe, this is an organisation which is obviously being paid for by taxes and so should be going after the best candidate for the position and hiring shouldn't be limited based on personal preferences of a CEO who will probably be rewarded for another position in another department even if he fails terribly.
However, this is different from state-sponsered positive discrimination which what you are backing.
In other words I believe that private companies should be able to hire employees for any reason they want and the government should not enforce laws to force people to hire based on quotas. If they fail as companies because they don't have the right mix of staff then it is their problem.
Government departments however are not private companies and they should try to hire employees who are the best fit for the role. They shouldn't look down the list over existing employees and throw out the CVs of any candidate who is part of an over-subscribed group.
As a support of positive discrimination would you be happy for primary schools to lower their education standards to hire men (who are out numbered in primary schools) to provide a balance?
Complain about this comment
217#
OK mate, you asked for it... :-)
Unfortunately, the two are very different; one is a sole-owner (so, presumably, small Ltd co for instance... as sole owner, you'd be the only one holding shares in it, therefore you get to decide the make up of the business, the overwhelming majority of the business decisions: And, at some point, you as sole owner and CEO will be personally liable... if things go badly, it'll be YOUR house that could be repossessed, it could be YOU who is barred from being a director for 5 years, it could be YOU personally, who gets declared bankrupt... So, chances are, you are likely to be somewhat more sanguine about what happens to the business and how it is managed and the decision making process about how YOU yourself were recruited and retained will have a significant bearing on how and who you recruit.
the second example is state funded, will have (presuming it is not a quango, you didnt specify) so chances are there will political pressure as well, depending on whether it sits within a ministry, whether it has trading fund status; depends on who your customer base is, whether it is business to business, whether you're dealing overwhelmingly with other government departments and what your overall remit is.. Are you there to provide a service, or to make money?
Example one is about making money. Not many people go into business without having that as a primary aim alongside the chance to do something that not only they are good at but they also love doing as well.
All of these factors will influence your recruitment and retention strategy, dependent on what you want from these people, what you want them to bring to "your business".
Overwhelmingly, you'd want the best person for the job, regardless. Male or Female. Example A and B arent really any different, its just that you appear to be saying quite openly to candidates, sorry, for these positions, I am going to discriminate against men or women, depending on which I want for the job. I am therefore saying that despite everything else you bring to the party, if you're not of what I deem to be the right sex for the job, you're not going to be successful... so you may as well not apply. Regardless of how good you are.
If you've hired an excellent resource regardless of gender, well done. So long as your recruitment process is absolutely transparent that you have recruited on ability, aptitude, attitude and personality fit - not necessarily gender fit - then fine, you'll be OK, your conscience should be clear.
If you have used ANY form of discrimination, then you are very much in the wrong. Its illegal.
plus as you've said.... "my views aren't based on personal experience - you know I don't operate that way - I float free of all that nonsense - best way, in my opinion, when it comes to this politics stuff - leave that to "Men of the World" like you and Fairly Open Mind and countless others on here" - mate, "real world experience" is vital, thats how you learn from everyone elses mistakes and you dont end up making the same mistakes again yourself, thereby destroying peoples livelihoods, costing them their homes, their futures, their education - life and politics are not a theoretical lab based exercise. Real decisions have to be made by real people, based on what is known to work. If it doesnt work, fine, research it, work out what WILL work, then try and change it - but you cant base employment and business and political decisions based on "that SHOULD work, in theory..." that way lies AEW Nimrod, NHSPfIT, Identity Cards, Child Support Agency, Working Tax Credits, the FSA, British Satellite Broadcasting's Squarial, the Sinclair C5, the Poll Tax... all good ideas in themselves, intrinsically, but the execution and/or timing is all wrong.
Sorry, bud. :-)
Complain about this comment
Morning every one wellcome the bigest Oxymoron. To the lord fonteroy and Burlington bertie higher educational, education classes You know the one upmanship Ia'm better than you approach.Toffs soap box.
Complain about this comment
#222. At 10:03am on 24 Aug 2009, sagamix wrote:
"ghost @ 219
if you know really impressive sounding words like oxymoron, why can't you actually think about the issue? ... scared of disturbing the cobwebs or something?"
"sagamix", it's quite simple, if positive discrimination is correct then so to is negative discrimination, if negative discrimination is wrong then so to is positive discrimination - it doesn't matter how one prefixes the word "discrimination" it still discrimination.
As others have said, discrimination is discrimination is discrimination...
Trying to justify one type of discrimination because you don't like the opposite discrimination is where it becomes an oxymoron.
Complain about this comment
227#
Que?
Complain about this comment
227. At 10:51am on 24 Aug 2009, quietoldinthetooth wrote:
Morning every one wellcome the bigest Oxymoron. To the lord fonteroy and Burlington bertie higher educational, education classes You know the one upmanship Ia'm better than you approach.Toffs soap box
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Uhhhhh...What you talking about Willis
Complain about this comment
I notice we have a spanish oxy as well and i only had a secondary modern education and befor you say it IT SHOWS.#229
Complain about this comment
PD TEST @ 217
thank you all - except you, Boiler - flubbed it again, haven't you?
the right combination answer is YES/YES - both scenarios are okay, it's just that A tends to get called "hiring on merit" (cheers and beers!) and B get's tagged as "positive discrimination" (boo, hiss!)
now to your answers ... Fubar Saunders with his excitingly macho Sorry, Bud (@ 226) ... these ex military types, eh? ... has nothing to be sorry about - a well written and good answer - but distilling down a little (which you have to, with my friend fubar!) we find he's answering NO/NO and so, sadly, it's a zero score - Dorset Wurzel on the other hand (@ 223) is more or less spot on (I think) - looks like what we have in DW is a supporter of PD if done in the right way, and in the right circumstances - no rigid quotas or any of that ugly nonsense - that's the CTP (and therefore correct) position - score of 100 pc ... but no badge (yet) because of some residual, rather dodgy views on private education - and Mark WE @ 225 ... well he's in the middle, isn't he? - agrees with private sector discrimination but doesn't like the same in the public sector - that's the majority view, I'd say - there's nothing terrible about it, but it only scores 50 pc - that question (Mark) on too few men as primary school teachers is an interesting one, isn't it? - I think it has a lot to do with the view (which I hate) that men can't be "trusted" around small children, if you know what I mean - and yes, I'd support measures to attract more men into that job - not by "lowering standards" though ... don't know why you assumed that - strange thing to say - who, in their right mind, wants to lower educational standards in primary schools? - certainly not me
Complain about this comment
Boiler @ 228
Trying to justify one type of discrimination because you don't like the opposite discrimination is where it becomes an oxymoron
we DO like that word, don't we? - anyway, thanks for responding (and I apologise for slagging you @ 232 - was jumping the gun - have you ever jumped the gun, Boiler? - bet you have, you old rascal!) - so, translating ... I'm an expert in this now ... I think you're going NO/NO - same as Fubar, so same score - zero pc - but, like I say, thanks for having a bash
Ghost @ 224
well that's thrice now, you've given us your one line definition of the phase "positive discrimination" - just give us a shout if you want to do it again, won't you? - always room for banal repetition on here!
Complain about this comment
With all this babe stuff going on is there a creacy some were that i might park my kid? Hey babe?
Complain about this comment
"sagamix wrote:
the right combination answer is YES/YES - both scenarios are okay, it's just that A tends to get called "hiring on merit" (cheers and beers!) and B get's tagged as "positive discrimination" (boo, hiss!)"
The problem was that you weren't comparing like to like. One was a public role and the other was private. Plus under the laws that Harriet Harman would want to bring in your first scenario would be illegal while the second scenario would be encouraged. Which is hardly progressive.
A private company which simply hires a man because he is worried a pretty woman would distract his existing employees is as foolish as one which hires a pretty woman only because she is pretty. In the end the hiring process will go down to the personality of the candidates. You may be more willing to hire a less skilled candidate because they have the better attitude and personality. You may wish to hire them because their father plays golf with your father or because you like their tie. This doesn't equal positive discrimination. It boils down to you having the facts in front of you and hiring based on the priority which is most important to you and the business.
"education - and Mark WE @ 225 ... well he's in the middle, isn't he? - agrees with private sector discrimination but doesn't like the same in the public sector - that's the majority view, I'd say - there's nothing terrible about it, but it only scores 50 pc"
I personally feel that making the final choice to hire based on race or sex is the wrong one, but with the private company I have the choice to use their business or not, with a public body I have no choice.
I would hope that public officials hire based on the abilities of the candidate, however when you look at who MPs hire it tends to be friends and family so I really don't hold out much hope.
"that question (Mark) on too few men as primary school teachers is an interesting one, isn't it? - I think it has a lot to do with the view (which I hate) that men can't be "trusted" around small children, if you know what I mean - and yes, I'd support measures to attract more men into that job - not by "lowering standards" though ... don't know why you assumed that - strange thing to say - who, in their right mind, wants to lower educational standards in primary schools? - certainly not me"
My sister is a primary school teacher for an inner city school and apparently research has been done that young boys who are other wise missing a male role model actually perform better in schools with more male teaching staff. So by lowering standards of entry to male teachers it MAY result in an overall improvement in primary education.
I am not a fan of Positive Discrimination and do not believe it is a good thing if applied by quota, however there are certain jobs where sometimes hiring based on sex or race etc. is required (blindly enforcing a quota system could result in males providing support for female rape victims, or black police officers doing undercover investigations into racist groups!)
Complain about this comment
233. At 11:34am on 24 Aug 2009, sagamix wrote:
Ghost @ 224
well that's thrice now, you've given us your one line definition of the phase "positive discrimination" - just give us a shout if you want to do it again, won't you? - always room for banal repetition on here!
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
There is no argument/debate Saga ...... just to reiterate " positive" discrimination is discrimination and it is as simple as that .... What is the point of waxing lyrical over endless paragraphs to just come to the same logical conclusion ...... Look up discrimination in the oxford dictionary sosmix
Complain about this comment
Hey Saga, since when has it been a competition, with you as MC? Who died and made you PM?
Eitherway mate, I'm afraid you're going to end up disappointed. The scenarios you envisage aint gonna happen. Not unless Hattie gets the PM's job, in which case, watch out for the stampede for the exit gates at Heathrow.
Complain about this comment
As usual with most debates in Britain, this one is still being dominated by emotional children.
1. It IS undoubtedly desirable to represent the female species fairly in Westminster.
2. BUT you shouldn't do that with idiots. Yes, female idiots exist. As do male ones. A sad fact of life. It's not sexist to say that. Really.
3. Because HOC was a male preserve for centuries, it has grown up to serve men, mostly aging men. It's not designed for women with young children or even teenagers. That needs to change. And that doesn't need women MPs first, it needs percipient women currently there to ensure that change reflects the needs of potential future female MPs. And for the media to deliver the sort of withering attack on arcane dinosaurs who try to stop change......
4. It's undoubtedly easy to attack females who play by the current, arcane, Westminster rules. The fact that men behave the same way is apparently different. It's not. Sycophancy is the way to climb the greasy pole. For men or women. So attack the sycophancy, not the women, if you please. If that is what your issue is.
5. Quite frankly there shouldn't be a problem with female breast feeding in HOC. I'm not sure how easy it is to do your job as an MP with a suckling babe in tow, but if it is possible, then please tell the men in HOC to grow up.
6. I'm not in favour of the Berlusconi route for equal opportunities. Not unless the Deputy PM is a rather delectable female under the age of 45 who wouldn't make male backbenchers throw up at the prospect of rogering-for-advancement. Wouldn't that be wonderful: the self-righteous Daily Mail sending Melanie Phillips to write an op-ed on the disgusting female politico betraying all the heroines of the women's movement, eh? It'd sell millions provided you advertised properly amongst put-upon males in little-England-shire......
Now I suspect we will find that by 2030 HOC will have as many women as men. Whether it's a place worth being in by then is something I guess you should ask the Americans and the European Commission.....
Complain about this comment
@ sagamix, post #78
Good morning, I hope you're well.
"a MAAP statement is one which nobody in their right mind would disagree with..."
Indeed; I know what the technical definition of a meaningless platitude is; I was just suprised that you thought the sentiment 'give the job to the best person regardless of gender' was one. Sure, you might THINK that nobody in their right mind would disagree with that. But it's quite clear that many people do - including yourself. "Regardless of" means, without taking gender into account. Ok, that's not verbatim from the statement you were talking about, but it's the same sentiment. The gender doesn't matter, only the ability.
Whereas you are saying that gender DID ought to be considered; that if two equal or very similar candidates apply and one is a man and one is a woman, that the job ought to be given to the gender that "one wishes to encourage" in the workplace.
Hence, unless YOU are surreptitiously admitting to being 'not in your right mind' - and I don't for a second think that's true - then I'd have to put it to you that the statement was *not* an MAAP. Clearly, people DO disagree with it; or else we wouldn't even be having this discussion.
On, then, to your examples;
"entrance to top universities
...this is about merit, you see, not some sort of brutal top down enforcement of an artificial outcome".
I gotta say; it's gonna be hard carrying on a rational discussion with you, if you keep completely contradicting yourself as you did in the above quote. You're saying that 90% of all university places MUST be given to State School leavers. Begging your pardon, then; but a 'brutal top-down enforcement of an artificial outcome is EXACTLY what that is. In fact, I've read this section of your post several times and I'm afraid I can't see where you've even explained how merit is important *at all*. You're just automatically assuming that somebody who goes to a State School is more deserving of a uni place than somebody who goes to a Private School. Which may well be the case; but it also may NOT be the case. Arbitarily deciding that in 90% of cases it IS the case - without paying any attention to what the students' results were or how hard they worked - is discriminating against kids in Private/Public schools, or even just very good State Schools, who may well have worked very hard to achieve their results.
And your proposed re-grading of the results system, I must point out, is hideously unfair. For a start, under your scheme it would be impossible for anybody who didn't go to a State School to get an A-grade in their exams. I agree, that if some schools are failing their students, and turning out poors exam results, then this is a serious issue that needs to be addressed; but not by simply saying "Oh well, never mind, we'll just pretend you got an A after all".
You're assuming that if somebody at a failing State School got a C, then this was purely and absolutely definitely because of the school itself. Which is quite possible, of course; but how on earth do you know that the student in question simply didn't work very hard? How do you know you're not giving an "A" grade to a student who rightfully deserved a "C"?
Which takes us back to the sentiment I expressed in my previous response to you; the problems, the imbalances you're attempting to address do not ALWAYS exist. Sure, they do sometimes. Other times, there are perfectly valid and fair reasons for the perceived imbalance. And measures such as insisting that 90% of Uni places need to go to students from poor State Schools, or enacting a "positive discrimination" policy of prefering women over men within certain fields, work in defiance of that fact.
On, then;
"black police officers
...we can recognise that just by being black a candidate is bringing something to the party which a white candidate cannot do..."
Well, I guess the example you've highlighted is the one instance in which this MIGHT be true (although, I'm not convinced that the alienation of various communities by the police is solved - or even really helped - by simply recruiting police officers of the same skin colour. People don't even SEE the skin colour; just the uniform. A black copper is still a copper; I've been alienated by the police many times myself, by police officers every bit as white as I am).
But is most cases other than the police, the colour of one's skin has NO bearing whatsoever on one's ability to do the job. In most cases, a black candidate ISN'T bringing anything to the role that a white candidate couldn't do, purely based on their skin colour. Same with the gender argument; most of the time, someone's gender has no bearing on how well they can do their job.
And yet, for the most part, Equal Opportunities and Positive Discrimination is generally applied across the board, like I said earlier. No thought to whether there actually IS any extra benefit in recruiting black people, or women, or whoever; no real thought to whether it's actually needed in any one situation, just a general feeling that if there aren't enough black people in an organisation it's probably because of racism, or that if there aren't enough women in positions of power it's probably because of sexism. Often, it isn't.
Which brings me round full-circle; discrimination which is "positive" for one set of people is pretty-much always negative for another. And vice-versa; keeping women out of jobs in favour of men would be "positive" discrimination in favour of the men; but nobody would say that was "fair" or "equal".
Complain about this comment
tooth @ 234
glad to see you got one through! ... and a spot on post too, if I may say so
ghost @ 236
There is no argument/debate Saga
okay I see that now - I've consulted my dictionary (as directed) and you're absolutely right, the D word is in there - what a waste of time this all was!
fubar @ 237
I'm afraid you're going to end up disappointed
mmm, so what's new?
jaggar @ 238
emotional children
hey, where have YOU been all my life? ... all very well saying wounding but accurate things like that now ...
Complain about this comment
ANYWAY:
Getting back to the original subject, away from "lets see who Saga gives out gold stars to in our blue sky/red dawn thinking" session...
Looking at the Total Politics interview in its entirety, Anne Widdecombe isnt really saying anything that should cause Cameron any sleepless nights - certainly nothing as provocative as Harriet "I Worked Like a pit pony in Number 10 til 3pm then went shopping" Harman; a proverbial jab in the ribs to the leader saying "are you sure about that?" (which after all, wouldnt we expect senior backbenchers to be be able to do that?
What was actually said on the subject in her interview with Ian Dale was:
"We have gone for category rather than ability. We're looking for more women. I'm all for more women, I'm all for more members of the ethnic communities, I'm all for more anythings as long as they get there on merit. I believe, as a woman, that every woman in Parliament should be able to look every man from the Prime Minister downwards in the eye and to think she got there on exactly the same basis that he got there. And if she can't she's a second class citizen. We're going to have a Conservative Party full of second-class citizens."
followed by:
"What was happening was that we were told - and that moment in the selection process stands out in my memory -that we had to have, in the final, two men and two women regardless of the assessments we'd made. Helen Grant, (Conservative PPC for Maidstone and The Weald) was going to go through anyway. And one of our association said to the Central Office agent "are you telling us that we may not select on merit?" And with admirable honesty the Central Office agent said "yes". Now that is lunatic: it is putting cart before horse. First you look at merit, then you look at category. I think we've actually insulted a lot of women who would have got there on their own merit. Instead we've insisted on equal numbers on the shortlist, fast tracking on A-lists. I'm very glad it didn't happen in my day."
Which is by and large what the broad consensus has been on here... dangerous for Cam to be going down the quotas route, in Widdecombe's view... then again, for a man who has been self-touted as the "heir to Blair", what do you expect?
Hardly in the same league as to Darlings reported "I have to talk some sense into that man..."
But, Laura, you do rightly say "its not exactly helpful" and "Labour have their own issues" and observing that this is something that isnt going to go away...
Complain about this comment
240. At 2:51pm on 24 Aug 2009, sagamix wrote:
ghost @ 236
There is no argument/debate Saga
okay I see that now - I've consulted my dictionary (as directed) and you're absolutely right, the D word is in there - what a waste of time this all was!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Not sure if you are being sarcastic or not... Anyway what was/is its definition Sosmix
Complain about this comment
As a labour party member I have seen positive discrimination in action at a city council level and it is somewhat comic.
In our recent candidate selection, the quite blatant decision was made once nominations were closed to name the top X winnable seats as such and then to enforce these as all women shortlists where X just happened to equate to the number of potential female candidates. It was made quite clear by the officers if there had been more female candidates there would have been more all women shortlists.
This state of affairs doesnt benefit the women in that they dont have to defend the platform upon which they are standing and it deprives the party of the talent of its men who can then only stand in seats where they have little chance of winning.
Complain about this comment
khrystalar @ 239
yes, very well thank you! - you have a very nice blogging name, I have to say - guess you know that already - only gripe I have with your comments is where you say I'm "contradicting" myself - I'm not - it's just that (1) I don't mind dropping an idea if I get convinced it's a bad one ... like messing around with A level grades, in this case ... ditched that - not in P208 - please check if you don't believe me (although P208 is more of an "Equal Opportunities in Education" package than about PD per se) ... and (2) I don't (unlike some on here) just say exactly the same thing in exactly the same way all the time - I try to mix things up a bit - maybe I overdo that, if you think I'm chopping and changing - any case, I've quite enjoyed this debate because I feel it's one of the best for bringing out people's attitudes ... you know, their priorities, how they look at the world ... and that is ALWAYS something I find very interesting - most people (like you, actually) come along and you just say recruitment should be on merit, End Of - as if "merit" was something really obvious and easy to see/measure - but it isn't, is it? - stating "on merit" end of story, that's just avoiding the issue - motherhood and apple, as I said - for shirkers - adds nothing - because when you think about it, merit is a shape shifting "eye of the beholder" type concept - I mean, we can't even agree (you and I) on something like whose "A" in a maths exam is better, and that's got a numerical measure! - so we have to push beyond that superficial statement if we want to explore the issue, yes? - next thing we can say is that discrimination (positive, negative, whatever) happens all over, everywhere, all the time - and I'm fine with that - it's part of life - do NOT want to see the cumbersome arm of the law getting involved - quotas, all women short lists, all men are useless? - Bah Humbug! - if, say, a company decides it will operate best with an all male work force then great, go for the all male work force - and likewise if the public sector, which WE own, decides (or rather someone enlightened like Harriet Harman decides on our behalf) that it would be good to get more women, say, into certain positions, then I'm pleased to support that initiative - why not? - what's the big deal? - one thing we CAN say for certain, on this otherwise rather slippery topic, is that since the Year Dot, in this country, discrimination has worked in favour of white, middle class men - they are way way over represented in the top jobs in just about every profession and walk of life you care to mention - and they're not getting there "on merit" are they, Khrystalar? - so in the public sector, let's set an example and start moving away from that - regardless of the foaming mouths and gnashing teeth of the HHH, it's a good and worthwhile thing to do - I'm a fan
Complain about this comment
@ 242 ... no, Ghost, none of that sarcasm stuff from me - it's in the dicko as you say ... "discriminating" ... and the principal definition seems to be "an ability to tell a Merlot from the plonk" - that the one you saw?
Complain about this comment
If there really is this crying need for female MPs, why don't females (who do, after all, outnumber males) simply vote them in?
Same with businesses. Over 50 % of customers are women and there is nothing stopping any woman starting her own business. Do everything needed to create a succesful business and, hey presto.
Complain about this comment
You can't go around putting incompetent people into jobs just because they are black or female. Although I suppose Trevor Phillips and Harriet Harman would disagree with me on that one.
Complain about this comment
245. At 5:21pm on 24 Aug 2009, sagamix wrote:
@ 242 ... no, Ghost, none of that sarcasm stuff from me - it's in the dicko as you say ... "discriminating" ... and the principal definition seems to be "an ability to tell a Merlot from the plonk" - that the one you saw?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh dear.
Report for sosmix
Must try harder
Complain about this comment
mark WE @ 235
yes, I agree with most of what you say there - in particular, I don't feel it's any concern of government who gets hired (or not hired) in the private sector - none of their business - not sure I'd go so far as to repeal the EO legislation ... since it probably does a bit of good ... but I don't think the Law is the right instrument to use - the public sector however, different story - there, we should set an example - go for what we want to see, using some PD if necessary - I have no problem with that whatsoever - think it's a great thing - I also have no concerns it'll lead to a drop in standards - you want to see the sort of "standards" we get from the traditional white, middle class, male dominated enclave? - okay, take a look at the banks - done great, haven't they? - and finally, your particular point about pretty women maybe getting further than their pure ability may justify ... would like to think that's not true but I guess, in certain cases, it DOES happen - in fact, I feel a little treacherous for saying this, but the "looks" thing has maybe helped Harriet to some extent - quite a bit, probably
fubar @ 241
Getting back to the original subject, away from "let's see who Saga gives out gold stars to in our blue sky/red dawn thinking session
okay okay, I understand! ... was only kidding ... you CAN have one
Complain about this comment
249#
Harriet? Looks?? LMAO!
Well, compared to Claire Short, perhaps.....
Complain about this comment
#240 Morning saga Thank you for your prestigious award for excellence Dose that now mean i can remove that conical contraption from my head ?If so can i have another one that H Harman is the best thing since sliced bread.
Complain about this comment
249#
Thing is though mate, this is Toenail's blog (being looked after and run much better in my humble opinion, by Laura), not yours - so you can go dragging us off the subject into subjects that to be honest are better part of the sixth form debating forum than for here... :-))
God knows how many posts there are on the subject of whether private education and its charity status or whether there is a lack of equality etc, compared to what Laura blogged about in the first place... You're very good in leading people off the subject at hand... kind of stops them talking about what is really at the forefront of their minds.. you sure you're not a SPAD? :-)
Complain about this comment
#240 PS And i can allways play devils advocate Can't i?
Complain about this comment
Gordon Brown you have a golden chance, dont miss it.
Come on everyone lets have MPs and Local Councillors following the same line as the Mayor for Doncaster, this would save Millions from the cost of local government, and the people would support this no mater what political party they may or may not support.
Any election on the lines of the Doncaster Mayors endevours would probably get the largest turn out in political history and proove to the world this is the most democratic country, bar none.
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS