Hilary Benn Sacked From The Shadow Cabinet - wider political debate

[WycombeToffee]

With as much respect as I can muster, I never prospered because of a Conservative Government just so you are clear on that. I and others like me prospered despite a Conservative Government who threw everything in my way to stop me doing so.

People less fortunate than me, have not been able to fight the opposition that exists. We have to remember that you can't value society by how it treats those able to fend for or to advance for themselves, you have to value society (and government) on how it treats those less capable. Until we have a system that provides not only financial assistance but educational and aspirational advances that will always be the case. A Conservative Government will never provide those services for all, ever. We only have to look at the plans for the re-introduction of Grammar Schools to understand that.

The day this nation understands and agrees to the concept of improving life chances for all not just the gifted, the fortunate, the connected, the better off, the landed and the entitled, then we'll begin to make progress as a nation. This concept is not a cost to taxpayers, it's an investment to move the lowest denominator to the next level. By doing so it lifts the metaphorical boat for all and leaves no-one below the high tide mark.

Think rationally. Without Thatcher and the Tories, the unions would still be holding the country to ransom with 3 day weeks, eternal power cuts and riots on the streets. Britain was the "sick man of Europe". No-one prospers in that situation. "Old" Labour propose trickle up mediocrity, where everyone is equally poor, with no money left and no business left to generate income. The Tories have stabilised this country time after time following a previous Labour government. The place would probably be a Venezuela style mess if Labour's socialism had ruled for the last 50 years. Just as we accept that Labour have done many good things for the UK (e.g. the NHS), you should accept that the Tories have done lots of good things for this country which has directly led to our prosperity. If you can't, then you are blinded by your entrenched views (such as on grammar schools, which Pete pointed out).

 

[The Esk]

How can you support educational and aspirational advances for the poor yet knock the reintroduction of the Grammar School. I will bet that both you and I went to one, and prospered as a result. Yet you would deny it to the kids on the very sink estates from which I came. I know you care for others and that your politics looks to the disadvantaged, but how you fail to see the damage that has been done by educational political dogma terrifies me. I want to see most of the kids in Kirkby and the like going to the best schools in Liverpool, but they won't because it's the ones with the big houses next door who will go. I know you have a social mentality but the fact that you are unable to see that it just drags the working class down is criminal........

I want an educational system that allows any child to go to the same school and have the same chances in life, not a system that says private school, grammar school, comprehensive school in that order.

I want a system that provides one standard of excellent schools with streaming within, so that the gifted, the hard working can achieve greater things through their talents or work ethics, and at the same time provide inspiration and aspiration to those "below" them within the same school. That can only happen in a single system of education - there's no justification for the separation of children at the age of 11 based the results of arbitrary examinations.

If all schools offer the same opportunities for children at each level of attainment then the postcode lottery disappears. Standardise the schools not the postcodes - the gifted son of a shelf stacker should be able to go to not only the same school as the gifted daughter of lawyer, but also the less gifted son of a civil servant - and that school should equally accommodate all three (as an example) and provide the best life opportunities for each.

 

[peteblue]

I want an educational system that allows any child to go to the same school and have the same chances in life, not a system that says private school, grammar school, comprehensive school in that order.

I want a system that provides one standard of excellent schools with streaming within, so that the gifted, the hard working can achieve greater things through their talents or work ethics, and at the same time provide inspiration and aspiration to those "below" them within the same school. That can only happen in a single system of education - there's no justification for the separation of children at the age of 11 based the results of arbitrary examinations.

If all schools offer the same opportunities for children at each level of attainment then the postcode lottery disappears. Standardise the schools not the postcodes - the gifted son of a shelf stacker should be able to go to not only the same school as the gifted daughter of lawyer, but also the less gifted son of a civil servant - and that school should equally accommodate all three (as an example) and provide the best life opportunities for each.

Excellent mate. So we've had 50 years, numerous Labour Governments, teachers that have started and retired, half a century to produce what you want....so how is that going......exactly, nowhere. So at what point do you think we should maybe try something else, in another 50 years, 100 years, .........

 

[peteblue]

I want an educational system that allows any child to go to the same school ....

The problem is Esk, that the school that the kids go to in Kirkby is attended by all the other kids in Kirkby. The school in Woolton is attended by all the other kids in Woolton. The teachers would rather go to Woolton to work rather than Kirkby. The kids of Woolton and Kirkby never get to mix and the Kirkby lot don't get to see how the other half live. Can you see where this leads yet. It keeps everyone in their place and allows no one to dream or move. This socialist ideal is doomed because it is stupid and doesn't work. It hasn't worked for 50 years.

 

[The Esk]

Excellent mate. So we've had 50 years, numerous Labour Governments, teachers that have started and retired, half a century to produce what you want....so how is that going......exactly, nowhere. So at what point do you think we should maybe try something else, in another 50 years, 100 years, .........

My point is that we've never had an executive that has executed such a policy. Labour despite its fine words and intentions tried but failed for several reasons, mainly though because Blair got distracted by foreign policy and leadership issues. If I then look at the Conservatives I see no evidence that they wish to execute the policies I espouse. The Tories are great for my kids, and your grand-children because we instill the value of education and we're relatively advantaged. However I see nothing that lifts all kids, not just the gifted, hard working or advantaged under their current plans - I see the opposite, division and what's worse even less opportunity for the non-grammar kids than there were in your and my times.

 

[peteblue]

My point is that we've never had an executive that has executed such a policy. Labour despite its fine words and intentions tried but failed for several reasons, mainly though because Blair got distracted by foreign policy and leadership issues. If I then look at the Conservatives I see no evidence that they wish to execute the policies I espouse. The Tories are great for my kids, and your grand-children because we instill the value of education and we're relatively advantaged. However I see nothing that lifts all kids, not just the gifted, hard working or advantaged under their current plans - I see the opposite, division and what's worse even less opportunity for the non-grammar kids than there were in your and my times.

50 years mate. 3 or 4 generations of kids, all of whom have lost out. So while we wait for some Utopian ideal that no one has been able to deliver in half a century, we should just carry on as before. The definition of Insanity is to do the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. When should we do something different ?......

 

[peteblue]

......the gifted son of a shelf stacker should be able to go to not only the same school as the gifted daughter of lawyer, but also the less gifted son of a civil servant - and that school should equally accommodate all three (as an example) and provide the best life opportunities for each.

This is what was called a Grammar School.......

 

[The Esk]

50 years mate. 3 or 4 generations of kids, all of whom have lost out. So while we wait for some Utopian ideal that no one has been able to deliver in half a century, we should just carry on as before. The definition of Insanity is to do the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. When should we do something different ?......

Step back Pete - we both want similar outcomes, the very best life opportunities for all children regardless of background and ability. But who of us both is suggesting the (failed) status quo?

Not me - I'm suggesting a radically different approach where there is one class of school with a broad enough remit and talent base among staff to meet the needs of all children.

It's just a question of how you slice the cake. The ingredients and resources may be identical, but the finished product is materially different. You believe that by providing different qualities of education in different classes of school you optimise the performance of the best and that benefits society.

I believe you offer the different levels of education to meet the needs of different pupils within the same type of schools, thereby reducing early categorisation and stigmatisation of achievement. By doing so you provide the environment for the gifted to achieve, and you reduce the chances of the less gifted, less willing or motivated to under-achieve.

Beyond education, such a system has material demographic changes also in that it reduces the house price/post code/proximity to "better" schools dilemma that has dogged society for the last 30 years.

 

[peteblue]

Step back Pete - we both want similar outcomes, the very best life opportunities for all children regardless of background and ability. But who of us both is suggesting the (failed) status quo?

Not me - I'm suggesting a radically different approach were there is one class of school with a broad enough remit and talent base among staff to meet the needs of all children.

It's just a question of how you slice the cake. The ingredients and resources may be identical, but the finished product is materially different. You believe that by providing different qualities of education in different classes of school you optimise the performance of the best and that benefits society.

I believe you offer the different levels of education to meet the needs of different pupils within the same type of schools, thereby reducing early categorisation and stigmatisation of achievement. By doing so you provide the environment for the gifted to achieve, and you reduce the chances of the less gifted, less willing or motivated to under-achieve.

Beyond education, such a system has material demographic changes also in that it reduces the house price/post code/proximity to "better" schools dilemma that has dogged society for the last 30 years.

Even if all schools had the finest teachers and the best facilities in the world, the Kirkby kids would still lose out because they would not have seen and mixed with the kids from the moneyed households. They wouldn't have seen the houses or the way these other kids live. The wouldn't have the opportunity to dream or aspire, and the moneyed kids wouldn't have seen or understood that poor kids even exist. The status quo, even with the best facilities, just maintains the status quo....Grammar schools made kids move, physically, all around Liverpool and mix with a whole variety of kids they never would have met, and that for me was just as important as the quality of education......that was real social mobility.....

 

[ToffeeTim]

Even if all schools had the finest teachers and the best facilities in the world, the Kirkby kids would still lose out because they would not have seen and mixed with the kids from the moneyed households. They wouldn't have seen the houses or the way these other kids live. The wouldn't have the opportunity to dream or aspire, and the moneyed kids wouldn't have seen or understood that poor kids even exist. The status quo, even with the best facilities, just maintains the status quo....Grammar schools made kids move, physically, all around Liverpool and mix with a whole variety of kids they never would have met, and that for me was just as important as the quality of education......that was real social mobility.....

Great post.

To see kids prosper and move up the ladder we first off all need to start making them aspire to make something of themselves. But firstly in order to do so, we need to give them exposure to what they could actually achieve. I can't seriously understand the opposition to grammar schools. They are the only thing that helped millions in this country, including myself, truly fulfil our potential. Selection is far preferable to paying obscene money to send your kids to top schools. In fact opposing grammars is stunting mobility.

As someone on low pay, still on a training contract after uni, working 5 day weeks, studying at classes 2 nights a week, and studying most weekends, whilst earning a fairly modest wage, I'm looking for someone who backs low paid work. Minimum wage should mean minimum ie no income tax. And increased personal allowance.

Corbyn offers nothing to me as someone who is trying to work hard to get a good career. He represents an obstacle to hard work, aspiration and business. Redistribution is a key policy for any government. But how can it be your only fiscal interest?

I'm not old by any means (23) but older I get the more disillusioned I get with labour and the antics of the left. There's opportunities for all out there in the UK. You've got to go grasp it sometimes tho and that seems too much for some. We've got to enthuse our youth to reach the huge potential we all have. Not get them in a cycle where all we do is encourage them to lead lives where they are fully reliant on the state.

Which party represents all this I've no idea.

 

[edge]

I certainly can seriously suggest that.

Let's put it this way - if Kirkby had a gap of no more than a thousand voters at the next election, watch how much more attention Kirkby would get from the Labour council, and how much more resources the Tories would throw at the seat to turn it blue - and then hold on to it.

Unfortunately, pigs would fly before that happened, but yes - if the people in Kirkby had any collective sense for their own prosperity whatsoever, they'd vote Conservative. Not because they believe in the Tories, but because Labour have, consistently, failed them utterly for generations, so what is there to lose?

And it'd work the other way too - so yeah, a problem with the system.

said this for year we should vote tory in the local elections for a few years, just to see how they react to the problems in Merseyside, at the moment they have nothing to gain, look at this northern powerhouse scheme may as well be the greater Manchester powerhouse in reality as we are just shunted to the edges of everything.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

Step back Pete - we both want similar outcomes, the very best life opportunities for all children regardless of background and ability. But who of us both is suggesting the (failed) status quo?

Not me - I'm suggesting a radically different approach where there is one class of school with a broad enough remit and talent base among staff to meet the needs of all children.

It's just a question of how you slice the cake. The ingredients and resources may be identical, but the finished product is materially different. You believe that by providing different qualities of education in different classes of school you optimise the performance of the best and that benefits society.

I believe you offer the different levels of education to meet the needs of different pupils within the same type of schools, thereby reducing early categorisation and stigmatisation of achievement. By doing so you provide the environment for the gifted to achieve, and you reduce the chances of the less gifted, less willing or motivated to under-achieve.

Beyond education, such a system has material demographic changes also in that it reduces the house price/post code/proximity to "better" schools dilemma that has dogged society for the last 30 years.

That does inevitably focus on the supply side of the equation though doesn't it? There are plenty of examples of children doing well in apparently poor schools because they have the motivation to do so. Without that motivation (whether that comes from parents, peers, extended family, other role models....), how can any school work? Only yesterday I read a study espousing the importance of parenting to the health of an individual, and it suggested the benefits of good early years parenting can impact the health of that child for several decades. I'm fairly sure the same is true of education.

As an example, I'm adopted, and I've learned recently that my biological father didn't want me, hence why I was given up for adoption. Despite my genetic 'gifts' being identical, I dare say it's almost certain that my life would have been very different had I stayed with my (single) mother versus my adopted parents. That seems inevitable, and yet few governments ever focus on the 'supply' side of the equation.

 

[Tubey]

That does inevitably focus on the supply side of the equation though doesn't it? There are plenty of examples of children doing well in apparently poor schools because they have the motivation to do so. Without that motivation (whether that comes from parents, peers, extended family, other role models....), how can any school work? Only yesterday I read a study espousing the importance of parenting to the health of an individual, and it suggested the benefits of good early years parenting can impact the health of that child for several decades. I'm fairly sure the same is true of education.

As an example, I'm adopted, and I've learned recently that my biological father didn't want me, hence why I was given up for adoption. Despite my genetic 'gifts' being identical, I dare say it's almost certain that my life would have been very different had I stayed with my (single) mother versus my adopted parents. That seems inevitable, and yet few governments ever focus on the 'supply' side of the equation.

This is known as "Early Intervention". It's a standard principle for schools these days.

The problem is, the poorer the school, the poorer the apparatus is to enable this effective early intervention to take place. Schools provide a massive framework for not just the child but the family unit overall, so when you have a bad school, you invariably have bad families.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

This is known as "Early Intervention". It's a standard principle for schools these days.

The problem is, the poorer the school, the poorer the apparatus is to enable this effective early intervention to take place. Schools provide a massive framework for not just the child but the family unit overall, so when you have a bad school, you invariably have bad families.

It goes back to the cradle mate, with differences made long before schools get involved, or even nurseries. It's very hard to overcome bad parenting unfortunately. There has been a £200m cut in the public health budget as it falls outside of the NHS (services are commissioned by the local authority). That's a consequence of certain departments being politicized imo as it means cuts are made to departments based on their political sensitivities rather than on real need and effectiveness.

 

[neil999]

I know a copper from Sunderland who works on May's personal armed protection team at Chequers. They may not like her policies, but they like her as a human being. Apparently she is 10x the person Cameron ever was.

Well there's gonna end differing opinions amongst workforce that size..