On 11 May 2017 at 9:52am Sensible also wrote:
Lib Dem leader Tim Farron has said his party would ensure the UK takes in 50,000 Syrian refugees.
It would cost £4.3bn to be paid back over time.
On 11 May 2017 at 10:24am Deja Vu wrote:
£86,000 per refuge?
Seems cheap compared to Brexit.
On 11 May 2017 at 11:13am Phfellow2004 wrote:
Quite frankly, the spending commitments which both the LibDems and Labour are making are quite scary.
On 11 May 2017 at 11:34am Deja Vu wrote:
Quite frankly Conservative not promising to patch the holes in the NHS, schools, police and life in general is the scary part.
Conservatives will spend just as much, but the spending will be more targeted, academies, grammar schools, tax cuts for the rich, HS2, HS3.
Meanwhile NI and Tax will rise for the masses.
But what amazes me most is that people believe the same BS time and time again, isn't this the third GE that conservatives have promised migration in 10's of thousands, and people still believe them...
On 11 May 2017 at 11:52am schools wrote:
Grammar schools were once championed by Labour members why? Because it gave working class kids the best education and the best chances - the only reason Tories and New labour were against them as it was the only thing that challenged the hegemony of private schools - just shows how backwards the Blairites and new left have become.
Why promote selection by wealth i.e private schools and high house prices near good state schools over selection by ability?
On 11 May 2017 at 11:58am Clifford wrote:
Schools, do you really think it was only New Labour that was against grammar schools? Have you never heard of Circular 10/65 (Labour government, 1965)?
On 11 May 2017 at 12:13pm Newms wrote:
The disruption to local education wrought by some pointless and divisive ideological symbol ( Grammars ) is of more concern, rightly or wrongly , to Lewes Parents I meet than almost anything else.
Fox Hunting , Grammars ...these are clearly aimed at the membership to get them on board for a the horrific journey of the next few years.
May has in fact moved left signalling tax rises and state incursion into markets . This Ed Stone stuff is only to get the Brexit job done.
The second it has been accomplished , in fiscal and political terms as well as actual , then the "Bonfire of regulations" will begin.
It is vital that a viable opposition starts to form and we can do something about it .
Vote to dissent from the May One Party State and the "Will of the people ", help Kelly-Marie give Lewes a voice !!!
On 11 May 2017 at 12:15pm Johnny wrote:
Labour's John McDonnell said last week that their message wasn't getting through. Has he not considered that the message is getting through but the people don't actually like it?
On 11 May 2017 at 12:28pm Who is more irritating............ wrote:
Newms or pedr0?
On 11 May 2017 at 12:47pm schools wrote:
That's why I said members not government Clifford. I am aware of Anthony Crosland, privately educated and proto blairite. His stupidity and destructive policies in this regard were only matched by Thatcher who carried on the destruction neatly capped off by New Labour who made it illegal to create any new ones.
On 11 May 2017 at 1:31pm Ruby wrote:
Cliford, the Greek, newms and the small guy... All equally annoying and very dull. Bet they all discuss their cleverness in private.
On 11 May 2017 at 1:50pm Cocktail sausage wrote:
@ruby. Love it.The small one.mwhaha. i shall call him that from now on....
On 11 May 2017 at 1:52pm bobobob wrote:
Grammar schools also favour children of wealthy families.
If they are at local state schools they can afford tuition to help pass the entrance exams. If they are a local private schools they get a similar benefit.
There is no plan for taking into account wealth when admitting students to grammar schools. Ministers have been asked to demonstrate what they will do to ensure wealth isn't a key factor in student admissions but haven't been able to do so.
On 11 May 2017 at 2:08pm Schools wrote:
No, they don't favour the wealthy bobobob. Our current system absolutely does though and it selects by wealth through the points I raised.
That doesn't mean that properly reintroduced system could tackle the issues you mentioned by using quotas or subsidised tuition help for low income families.
When we still had a national grammar system, 64 per cent of its pupils came from the working class. They began to go to Oxford and Cambridge and the upper echelons of industry, politics and society in unprecedented numbers. The story today is disastrous compared to what could of been.
On 11 May 2017 at 2:29pm Fairmeadow wrote:
Back in the days when we had Grammar Schools we also had factories and real apprenticeships, and the working class was a lot bigger, and a lot more skilled, than it is today. Middle class parents have always been more successful in getting their children into Grammar Schools, just as they are today in those counties and boroughs that still have them. One could debate the reasons - nature v nurture v being willing and able to afford parental or private coaching - but the facts are clear.
It is also sadly true that those working class kids who make it into Grammar Schools do less well there, statistically, than their middle class peers. The same is true at university. Again, you can debate the reasons, but the data are clear.
On 11 May 2017 at 3:50pm Newms wrote:
If you took the top 20% most able out of Priory school say, it would make the environment much more difficult for those left behind and the teaching staff would have to sink or swim. Last time we had a shakeup it was disastrous for the experimental years .
There is no reason not to use setting or streaming in the existing system if it is felt to be useful (personally I think it is) Why could this practical change of emphasis have been put forward as a guideline, with the input and support of the dedicated people who will have to deliver it , ie the teachers .
Answer - Because that’s not what the back to the 50s Tory membership want,. This is playing politics with our children .
Grammars are not the issue secondary moderns are and not one of those who favour Grammars will have them tried out on their little achievers ,.Oh no no no…its for other people .
On 11 May 2017 at 4:11pm Priory alumnus wrote:
Well said Fairmeadow. It was sink or swim back in the 60's @ Mountfield Road Grammar. Myself and quite a few I knew, sank . But the Tech across the road saved me and I got a proper apprenticeship. So yes the Grammar was some use but I feel my place would have been better suited to someone more academic.
On 11 May 2017 at 4:11pm Schools wrote:
Newms is clearly against Grammars as he is too thick to get into one. Why would anyone listen to someone who doesn't even know how to use basic punctuation.
On 11 May 2017 at 4:11pm Headmaster wrote:
Because most teachers are a bunch of socialist loonies who don't think their standard of teaching should be rated or judged by anyone.
On 11 May 2017 at 4:30pm bobobob wrote:
@schools - You couldn't be more wrong and dismissive.
Got any explanation or just a 'No'. It's a well established fact backed up by decades of research and you're just going to dismiss it?
Obviously if you can afford to spend money on private tuition to help you pass an entrance exam you are at an advantage.
A quick google will bring up all sorts of evidence.
On 11 May 2017 at 5:36pm Phfellow2004 wrote:
I certainly recognise the passion expressed about education and schools. However, following my post 6 hours ago, I am surprised that there seems to have been no further and wider comment about the scary financial commitments by the LibDems and Labour ahead of the General Election..
On 11 May 2017 at 6:27pm Not a loony wrote:
That is because this forum is full of liberal lefty, pot smoking, organic banana loonies
On 12 May 2017 at 12:06pm bobobob wrote:
Looks like Labour and Lib dems would put money towards their priorities that tories have earmarked for tax cuts, HS2/3/4 etc. I'd be more scared about missing out on opportunites of Brexit because we have a poorly educated and unhealthy work force caused by cuts.
That could put the country on the back foot for a generation.