Yep, but it's inevitably more difficult when places are cut and grades rise further owing to lack of supply.Originally Posted by Kikó
Poor (er) people get good grades as well.
Theresa May's Conservatives
Jeremy Corbyn's Labour
Tim Farron's Liberal Democrats
Paul Nuttall's UKIP
2 people's Greens
Nicholas Durgeon's Scottish Nationalists
Satan's Sinn Fein
Dr Ian Paisley's DUP
Some other bunch of nonces
I'm foreign, but I wish I were an Englishman
Yep, but it's inevitably more difficult when places are cut and grades rise further owing to lack of supply.Poor (er) people get good grades as well.
Less often, with less help to do so.Poor (er) people get good grades as well.
People with poor grades have no business at university, and if it's the rich who are getting top grades (which it isn't, at least not exclusively) then that's a seperate issue to be tackled, which isn't solved by having people study David Beckham or pie eating with philosophy.
I sort of get where Henry's coming from though. But then you're probably entering the realm of privatising education so that companies can train their future employees in box filling.
Although, places like Toyota believe it's all about education and bring people through their firm with years and years of on the job education and development so there probably is a balance.
The fact remains that people from poorer backgrounds that do well, do so in spite of terrible schools. Children from Rich backgrounds have smaller classes, better teachers and better facilities. How does your model address this?
It doesn't, since you don't address shit primary and secondary level education at the third level. How do you suggest those things are fixed?
You could start be using the £11bn you want to spend on scraping tuition fees on early primary education, before the ability between rich and poor kids becomes pronounced. You do literally nothing for disadvantaged students by scrapping fees.
It would, however, not be as electorally advantageous.
By investing in them, rather than leaving them as a shower of shite and making higher education unobtainable.
I didn't advocate leaving them as they were, we just weren't talking about them. The government can do more than one thing at a time you know.
Only if you pay no attention whatsoever to how you pay for it.
I brought up the difference in education standards in my first post on the subject, and several since.
Not that I can see.
Anyway, I'm interested in how we can reform the existing system without just throwing money at it too. Are rich people simply paying for better primary education, or is there some rebalancing the state can do there?
The best options I can see are:
1) Stop organising schools by postcode. I have no idea how you work it, but each school should have classes of varied backgrounds.
2) Do away with private schools (I don't like this option).
Both of those options involve some sort of Soviet-style figure going around dragging rich children from their homes screaming NO YOU WILL SIT WITH THE POOR CHILDREN AND YOU WILL LIKE IT.
I also don't like private schools, particularly the degree of leeway they have in putting religious shite on their curriculums.
The BBC politics chief has left to go and work for Theresa May. But the BBC definitely wasn't biased.
Pinko BBC to pinko Downing Street seems an obvious career path.
You'd have to be a moron to think that someone can't produce impartial broadcasting whilst having their own political view.
I don't think that. I think the BBC was biased during this campaign and therefore this news is no surprise. Kudos for going a handful of posts without starting one off with 'you'd have to be a moron/idiot', though.
The BBC attracts such bile from both loony right and loony left for being biased that the only conclusion is that is simply is not biased.
In what way were the BBC biased in this campaign?
If your point revolves around Wor Jez, Question Time, and the IRA then don't bother.
It clearly does lean towards a particular middle class wanker outlook as a result of only employing people with that outlook.
Some of its output has a slant, but then the RULES are such that they can't get away with anything overly pronounced and certainly not the sort of shite that Peston posts on Twitter.
I don't watch Newsnight, admittedly, but its campaign coverage on Marr, Daily/Sunday Politics, the Brillo interviews and the QT Specials all seemed perfectly fair and reasonable.
To be quite blunt, the Corbyn Cult element are just seething that the BBC had the temerity to, you know, report the attempted coups against him. They're demanding apologies - apologies, for fuck sake - for saying the Dear Leader isn't very good and then asking for statements of loyalty that nobody would believe. It's the sort of thing that Stalin would have had you do before you were taken to the gulag.
The reactions to any Question Time panel are always a good example.
Anyone seen any polls this evening?
Polls are shit mate.
We won't need polls once the reds establish the one party state they're after.
This public sector pay 'row' really is starting to grind the gears.
I'm rapidly coming to the conclusion that we shouldn't be leaving the EU.
Hypothetically we still absolutely should be, but our government is clearly incapable of delivering the exit properly.
I've never been convinced anyone in government really wanted it.
We won't get any sort of 'deal' (a word which the crank in me thinks is used to sound deliberately shifty and Trump-like) out of them other than something on our respective migrant populations, so my Rhodesia Option looks more attractive by the day. Clean, easy. Cut their fucking legs off.
I don't disagree they're making a massive fuck up of the whole thing. We have absolutely terrible politicians these days - lightweight in the extreme. If this was May 1940, we'd be required to surrender to the Nazis simply because they'd be too incapable of putting together a plan to carry on.
That said, there's no way we should be doing anything other than getting out as quickly as we possibly can. Fuck them. I was all for the balls out option of simply repealing the legislation and leaving immediately, and telling them to go and fuck themselves over the 'so-called' exit bill.
A student loan question.
I reckon we won't leave.
JRM is probably the best media performer the Tories have currently, which should send a shudder through various people's hearts.
I was convinced as such after the vote, but wobbled when Article 50 was triggered.
Are there odds available on us not?
We'll leave. The only danger would be another election before 2022, but as it stands the Tories need the parliament to run to 2022 and the Eurosceptic wing aren't having anything that doesn't involve fully leaving by the end of the parliament.
I reckon we'll have a transition period from 2019 to 2021 or 2022, and then be out. If it goes on longer than that, then we'll end up staying in because "why are we in the single market but we have no say in the rules!". Total bollocks, of course, but this Soft and Hard Brexit nonsense is basically a ruse to implement the former as a staging post to reversing the result. They just don't have the intellectual honesty to admit that's what it's about.
At least some Lincolnshire farmer will Timothy McVeigh the Financial Times when their sausages get spited out of protected status.
You can get tidy odds somewhere on us not leaving before 2022.
The EU wins either way. You can't leave easily because public and political appetite isn't there. They don't have to make it hard for us because we're making it hard for ourselves.
We need to get out of the largest trading block in the world asap.
I think you lads lost that argument last year.
Frankly it's the freedom I'm looking forward to the most.
I'm tired of winning already.
lol
As if the Germans are 65% pro-Macron. That's the sort of rubbish Bismarck used to dupe Napoleon III with.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-poli...am-gala-speech
Glad I skipped it. It's just a brass band, a load of union banners and some youngsters on cheap drugs in a field.
Not a cult.
She probably wanted to question him on his IRA support.
Or whether "kindler, gentler politics" is all a bit of a ruse to mask the forthcoming revolution.
I look forward to not reading it.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote