[Closed] Boris Johnson

When he talks of Thatcher rescuing the UK from a pretty deep shambles one can't disagree that something was needed and that something was MT. For those who bark loudly about her evils and that of the Conservative party what exactly was the rest of political Britain going to do about it back then? strike? That worked well didn't it.

fallacy #2: the only alternative to Thatcherism at the time was striking.

fallacy #1: something needed to be done, Thatcherism was something, therefore Thatcherism needed to be done.

Really? Quoting the BBC.

But like so many stereotypes, the cliches of the grim 1970s have more than a grain of truth. These were desperately difficult years for Britain, both politically and economically.

In many ways they marked a reckoning for a country that had been too complacent for too long, basking in the sunshine of post-war affluence, and indifferent to the fact that our foreign competitors had not only caught up with us - they were leaving us behind.

Sailor Ted, however, soon ran aground, his ship scuppered by the lethal combination of an energy crisis, a financial crash and a second miners' strike in two years.

And though Labour's Harold Wilson got the country back to work, it came at the price of inflation at almost 30% and a humiliating bailout from the IMF.

Perhaps never before had the political establishment seemed so impotent and irrelevant - little wonder, then, that for the first time in years, emigrants actually outnumbered immigrants.

Sounds just dandy...

In a time of very similar politicians, largely speaking the same language from almost the same side of the fence I find Boris a bit refreshing.

Yes he'd make such a refreshing change from the public-school educated elite currently running the country. 🙄

I will be very upset if Ed Miliband ever gets in. IMO Labour still have at least another five years of apologising to do. What was it? "We've abolished Boom and Bust" Ha, you had no idea what you were doing you bloody loonies...

Not this old chestnut. 🙄

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/ramesh-patel/growth-cameron-austerity_b_2007552.html

Boris = Politician with ambition = Morally bereft tosser.

If, just for a moment, the political sides would stop lobbing historical rocks at one another, in a blame game that no one will ever win, they could look at where we are at the moment and seek to develop a future which does not entail sacrificing one or more generations of the country's inhabitants or destroying it's brilliantly inventive and entrepreneurial spirit.

Sadly, I cannot ever see this happening because the vacuous idiots who are immersed in their own myopic ideologies will never develop a social conscience that will enable them to look beyond their own political ambitions.

Politicians, burn them all.

Yes he'd make such a refreshing change from the public-school educated elite currently running the country.

I'm no Tory boy but as it happens I was public school educated, as was one of my sisters from GCSE through A Levels, my other sister was state educated. We all did OK, nothing exceptional, but you'd not know now which of us went to which school. What exactly what is your issue with public school education? The elite bit I can understand but you make it (public school) sound like a dirty thing? Weird.

What was it? "We've abolished Boom and Bust" Ha, you had no idea what you were doing you bloody loonies...

This was not an attack at Labour although it was GB who uttered the words, more an attack on politicians in general, it is my considered opinion that they ride what ever wave they can find and claim to be responsible for it and, when it all goes tits up, spend the next five years blaming everyone else.

If, just for a moment, the political sides would stop lobbing historical rocks at one another, in a blame game that no one will ever win, they could look at where we are at the moment and seek to develop a future which does not entail sacrificing one or more generations of the country's inhabitants or destroying it's brilliantly inventive and entrepreneurial spirit.

Sadly, I cannot ever see this happening because the vacuous idiots who are immersed in their own myopic ideologies will never develop a social conscience that will enable them to look beyond their own political ambitions.

I'm with Rogerthecat, stop mucking about, stand up and be counted, say something different, do something different or stop pretending you know what you're doing. Can't see it happening as every time someone says something really useful but politically sensitive they get flamed. The 'whip'? Now there's democracy in action 🙄

I'm no Tory boy but as it happens I was public school educated, as was one of my sisters from GCSE through A Levels, my other sister was state educated. We all did OK, nothing exceptional, but you'd not know now which of us went to which school. What exactly what is your issue with public school education? The elite bit I can understand but you make it (public school) sound like a dirty thing? Weird.

You suggested that Boris Johnson would be a refreshing change - I was suggesting he is anything but a refreshing change (apart from being mildly amusing). Pretty obvious really. 😕

In a time of very similar politicians, largely speaking the same language from almost the same side of the fence I find Boris a bit refreshing.

The point about public school is that the vast majority of politicians in positions of responsibility now come from privileged backgrounds - hardly a broad representation of society.

(Although personally I think public schools (and religious schools) should be abolished anyway - they simply entrench privilege).

it is my considered opinion that they ride what ever wave they can find and claim to be responsible for it and, when it all goes tits up, spend the next five years blaming everyone else.

I'm with you there.

Can't see it happening as every time someone says something really useful but politically sensitive they get flamed.

I'm interested to know what you think is an example of this.

(Although personally I think public schools (and religious schools) should be abolished anyway - they simply entrench privilege).

Not sure how religious schools entrench privilege but if there is a common theme between the two types of schools it is that they typically do good jobs at educating children. Seems very odd, if not surprising, that anyone would want excellence to be abolished. What next, get rid of Oxford and Cambridge and the Russell Group Unis?

Religious schools entrench social division (never mind indoctrination of children) more than privilege admittedly.

Seems very odd, if not surprising, that anyone would want excellence to be abolished.

The Finnish school system constantly ranks much higher than ours, and there are no grammar schools, private schools, religious schools or academies.

It places a great emphasis on equality - something you don't seem too bothered about.

Ah, the system that was highlighted in yesterday's broadsheets as suffering from an "accelerated decline in maths standards." hmmm, how odd to see Grum and Gove defending the same thing (a little awkwardly perhaps given the stats!). You choose "great" things to attack and defend!

Something[i] I know [/i]you are not too bothered about

Really?!?!

Ah, the system that was highlighted in yesterday's broadsheets as suffering from an "accelerated decline in maths standards."

And yes still doing better than us, despite not having any excellent private/religious schools.

Despite the clear downturn, Finnish students remain one of the best performers among the OECD countries. Finland came in sixth place among the OECD countries in mathematics, third in literacy and second in science. Finland remains the best in literacy and science among the European countries.

How do they do it?

Really?!?!

Your regular staunch defence of public schools certainly suggests so. Why are you against greater equality in education?

I have no idea what Gove said BTW - link?

teamhurtmore - Member

(Although personally I think public schools (and religious schools) should be abolished anyway - they simply entrench privilege).

Not sure how religious schools entrench privilege but if there is a common theme between the two types of schools it is that they typically do good jobs at educating children.

Religious schools can be very selective over the students they pick. So is it because they are better educators, or because they can pick the better students?

IMO Labour still have at least another five years of apologising to do. What was it? "We've abolished Boom and Bust" Ha, you had no idea what you were doing you bloody loonies...

Yes, it was clearly all LAbour's fault that there was a [b][i][u]GLOBAL[/u][/i][/b] financial crisis 🙄

A crisis perpetuated by what? A deregulated financial sector?

Now then, remind me which side of the political fence most proponents of 'light touch' regulation sit.

ask1974 "can't disagree that something was needed and that something was MT"

I'd like to pint out that though I did manage to work (redundancies and Punk rock aside) through some of the 70@s it would be wrong to say I was needed.

Yes, it was clearly all LAbour's fault that there was a GLOBAL financial crisis

A crisis perpetuated by what? A deregulated financial sector?

Now then, remind me which side of the political fence most proponents of 'light touch' regulation sit.

Indeed. It would appear we've all miraculously forgotten how in the mid-noughties the tories were screaming that we should regulate the banks more tightly and raise taxes to build a surplus for the impending crash. They must have adulterated the water with some sort of mind altering substance. The tragic thing is that a lot of otherwise sensible people actually believe this fiction.

Can we dispose of the incorrect statement that Finland has no private schools? It's not true. There are.

Really? Quoting the BBC.

Can we dispose of the incorrect statement that Finland has no private schools? It's not true. There are.

AFAIK there are a few independent schools but they are publicly funded and aren't allowed to charge fees.

Seems very odd, if not surprising, that anyone would want excellence to be abolished.

they are also selective [ as are private schools] so it is not surprising that they get better results.

Any selective school can achieve better than average results, and Church and other faith schools are selective: They usually take a less than representative sample of deprived children and more than their share of the children of ambitious and wealthier parents. This covert selection goes a long way towards explaining their apparent academic success. “Selection, even on religious grounds, is likely to attract well-behaved children from stable backgrounds,” said a spokesperson for Ofsted in the Times Educational Supplement, 16/2/01.

Of course the 'religious schools' discussion is interesting

Bearing in mind that about 25% of all primary and middle schools are owned and run by the Church of England

So Grum, why do so many foreign students come to the UK rather than Finland to be educated? Are they mad or simply mis-informed?

So Grum, why do so many foreign students come to the UK rather than Finland to be educated? Are they mad or simply mis-informed?

They come to the UK to be educated at school (what this offshoot of discussion is about), or to university (totally irrelevant straw man in the context of this discussion)? If the former, lets have some numbers...

Yes, but why Zokes?. Why spend money to come to the UK when we are apparently so poor. And god forbid, some of our schools are even exporting education, setting up schools in fast growing economies to satsify the increasing demand. And these are establishments that folk want to abolish. Can't see the logic personally. But may be, as suggested above, all our Asian friends are simply too stupid (?) to realise and are all being duped by their agents. Looking at those in front of me, I find that hard to believe.

Answer the question. Are they coming for school (relevant to this conversation), or university (irrelevant to this conversation) education?

If the former, please also provide figures to back this up. If the latter, quit changing the subject and defend your argument.

Are they mad or simply mis-informed?

Are these really the only two answers you can come up with?

Every time you "answer" your own question its some little obvious dig, slur or misrepresentation.
A Skoda may be a better car than a BMW but the BMW still has the prestige.
Perhaps its just that and the fact they can speak English?
Easy to think of hundreds of reasons tbh

when we are apparently so poor

Yes, but why Zokes?. Why spend money to come to the UK when we are apparently so poor.

Because they want the prestige/historical reputation, English language skills, and the networking connections of going to a school for the privileged probably.

Do you really have to keep putting trolly little comments like this into all your posts?

Are they mad or simply mis-informed?

Again, why do you have a problem with equal educational opportunities for everyone?

Zokes, actually neither are relevant to this thread actually since its about BJ and his main thrust re-education included IQ and actually attacking Mrs T for closing more grammar schools than Tony Crossland. But leaving that (the subject of the thread) aside they are coming for both. I don't have the nationwide statistics at the secondary level, but this is an issue "highlighted" at recent headmasters' conferences and not necessarily in a good way. I am sure the stats are available, I will have a look. Anecdotally, in my younger son's case he has had and Asian, and Italian, a Dane and a Jamaican join in his house alone for the sixth form. So out of 15 in his year,there is a Russian, Asian, Dane, Jamaican, Italian and even a Scot! The orchestras are dominated by highly talented Asian musicians (all well beyond grade 8 and diploma standards). And in recent chats in the common room, there were strong debates about whether the fact that places can easily be filled from overseas students was a good thing or not this year. Not sufficient data for PhDs or peer reviews, I grant you.

But yes, they are coming to the UK for secondary and tertiary education - i have been asked to house some of them! They are neither mad nor misinformed - simply making good choices.

They are neither mad nor misinformed

Lucky no-one has suggested they are mad or misinformed then, or that private schools here don't (generally) provide a good standard of education, Captain Strawman.

The point you seem to fail to grasp is that Finnish schools offer a similarly good standard of education without entrenching privilege.

simply making good choices.

Good choices that are (pretty much) only available to the wealthy.

Again, why do you have a problem with equal educational opportunities for everyone?

I do not have a problem about equal education opportunities for everyone (which is why I am involved). But I do not see abolishing certain tyoes of schools as the answer. Different thing altogether.

I do not have a problem about equal education opportunities for everyone (which is why I am involved). But I do not see abolishing certain tyoes of schools as the answer. Different thing altogether.

So should everyone get to go to public school? Otherwise how do you suggest we establish equal opportunities for all (which is what Boris has subsequently claimed his speech was all about)?

Interestingly this is Boris's Great grandfather: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ali_Kemal_Bey

But I do not see abolishing certain tyoes of schools as the answer.

Are you really going to claim they dont entrench privilege or deliver better results for their pupils?
How are they part of the solution?

FWIW i have no problem with grammar or selective schools but they should be based on ability not the wealth of your parents

Education should educate each individual to the fullest of their potential. That may be grammar school for some , comprehensive for others or technical college for others

I dont see how fee paying improves equality - could you explain?

actually neither are relevant to this thread

Yes, we get that.

But you seemed to want to make a point about secondary education. I'm just asking you to defend your viewpoint, with reliable figures, not anecdotes. Otherwise your viewpoint is just that: your viewpoint, and not fact, which is what you seem to be making it out to be.

You don't seem to like this, and are now trying (unsuccessfully) to evade a line of questioning seem to have brought upon yourself, but cannot defend.

grum - Member
Lucky no-one has suggested they are mad or misinformed then

Admittedly the correct thread not this one, but I obviously misread this among arguments why Asian parents send their kids to UK secondary education yesterday

Several things:

1. Their parents still consider UK one of the best place for education - [b]largely duped by agents[/b] or they are old fashion etc, old news, old impression etc.

2. Their parents have been [b]heavily influenced [/b]by the advertisements or agents.

I should have asked if they were duped and influenced, shouldn't I? Tut, my standards are falling. So sorry.

Are you quoting chewkw there? I don't read his posts, he's completely loopy.

+1 for not reading chewk - th eonly poster on here that I never ever read. even for here its ranty gibberish
zokes at least he has not flounced with you

Careful now or he will insult you ever time you ask him a question or challenge him , claim you do the insulting then flounce away insulting you again whilst being unable to ever respond to anything you post ever again as he lacks the self control to respond without insults
You are free to decide if that is a good thing or a bad thing 😉

zokes - Member 
Answer the question. Are they coming for school (relevant to this conversation), or university (irrelevant to this conversation) education?

zokes - Member 
actually neither are relevant to this thread

Well which is it, relevant or not, it's confusing enough working out why these Asians (and others) come to the UK, or don't (if you say so) without having you change you mind so quickly.

You don't seem to like this, and are now trying (unsuccessfully) to evade a line of questioning seem to have brought upon yourself, but cannot defend.

Not evading anything. I simply do not have exact stats to answer the question re numbers in secondary education to hand. Do you? Perhaps you could help us both.

See even goading draws a blank 8)

Seriously THM thats pretty lame that you cannot engage without insults and need to withdraw whilst blaiming me

I dont have any real issue with you though we seldom agree.

Indeed Grum, it was chewkw and I had forgotten originally that it was on the other thread. I cannot comment on whether [b]he[/b] is loopy or not. Seems rather unkind that. But his ideas in his case, do appear so. Different thing altogether. 😉

Banning fee paying schools is the ultimate spiteful move.
How about improving state education instead?

By opting to use a fee paying school parents are taking some of the burden away from the state, surely this is a good thing?.... If everybody relied on the state for everything we'd be bankrupt very quickly, people should have the freedom to choose in every aspect of their lives.... if this means some people get the benefit of a private education then so be it.
Surely the problem is underachieving state schools and not fee paying schools?

What's next, banning home/extra tuition as it may give an unfair advantage?.... When fee paying schools have been closed do we look to ban any after school clubs where the 'rich' people's kids may be networking and establishing unfair advantages early in life?!.... the envy and resentment in this thread is shameful, rather than raise state school standards to those set by fee paying schools the idea is instead to lower standards in line with inferior schools?!.... Ah I get it now, obviously too hard to correct the failings of the state system so instead we'll wreck the private school system!

Those nasty men in top hats must be stopped...i know let's ban people from buying nice cars too, is unfair that not everybody can afford one... and houses too, we must all live in the same functional crapbox as it's unfair that not everybody had a nice house!

I didn't think people still thought like this... What horrible bitter individuals.

Quick stats check Zokes and international students rose again last year in the UK as they did the previous years despite rising fees (secondary level). Plus number of foreign students being educated in overseas schools established by UK schools has risen sharply and is closing on the number of students who come here.

So stats show that not only do we attract foreign students we also export our educational excellence. Off for a quick ride now but may post the links later. The stats are indeed interesting as you would expect. Can't see where or how they contradict my earlier points, but feel free to tell me. As you know I rarely debate on the basis of fact!!!!

What's next, banning home/extra tuition as it may give an unfair advantage?.... When fee paying schools have been closed do we look to ban any after school clubs where the 'rich' people's kids may be networking and establishing unfair advantages early in life?!.... the envy and resentment in this thread is shameful, rather than raise state school standards to those set by fee paying schools the idea is instead to lower standards in line with inferior schools?!.... Ah I get it now, obviously too hard to correct the failings of the state system so instead we'll wreck the private school system!

There are so many logical fallacies in your post so it's hard to know where to start.

The key point you seem to be missing though, is that I am advocating a more egalitarian system which retains excellent standards for all, such as the Finnish system. I'm not talking about wrecking anything.

Don't let me stand in the way of your silly rant though.

Banning fee paying schools is the ultimate spiteful move.
How about improving state education instead?

The two go hand in hand IMO.

I didn't think people still thought like this... What horrible bitter individuals.

What a twisted world view you have that you think people who want a fairer system are 'horrible bitter individuals'.

By opting to use a fee paying school parents are taking some of the burden away from the state, surely this is a good thing?....

if this means some people get the benefit of a private education then so be it.

Its about giving ALL children an equal start not ensuring the wealthy get a better start. Given they have wealth even in state schools socio economic factors predict outcomes anyway so they would still thrive as a quick glance of the stats would demonstrate

I have no issue with the brightest getting a great education i do have if it is only the richest.

the envy and resentment in this thread is shameful,

I didn't think people still thought like this...

What horrible bitter individuals.

You like to pick your facts THM that support your view andignore those that contradict it [ we all do to some degree to be fair] More are coming here but internationally our standards are less than world leading. Whatever the reason it is that they come here it is not that our education is world class [ unless they are very poor with stats]. It may well be the perception that it is world class so perhaps its our spin/marketing that is world leading rather than our education.

Junky, why not go for a ride or something instead, old chap?

Actually, same applies to all sorts of folks here who seem to get waaaay too involved sometimes!

Junkyard - lazarus

By opting to use a fee paying school parents are taking some of the burden away from the state, surely this is a good thing?....

Yes they are doing this to benefit us not to benefit their own children. Its clearly philanthropic in nature thanks for lettign us all know the real reason

Its about giving ALL children an equal start not ensuring the wealthy get a better start.

Junkyard you know full well i didnt say that people put their children through private school to free up the state system in a show of altruism, i simply stated that less strain on the state system is a pleasant consequence of having more children in the private system.....likewise if more people took out private health care it would ease some of the pressure on the NHS, i'm sure not many people think like this while taking out their policy but again its a happy consequence of taking yourself out of the state system and taking more responsibility for yourself.

With regard to the 'equal start' you keep banging on about, is that not what the national curriculum is for?
Forgive me but whether a pupil attends the local comprehensive or Eton he/she still follows the national curriculum and will sit the same GCSEs and A-levels regardless of the school they attend.

The state system really does need to take a look at how much better things are done elsewhere and make class sizes smaller and offer after school prep/homework time like their private counterparts.

I just favour a live and let live attitude to life, some have money and will want to pay to get things done quicker, have their child educated in smaller classes, have elective surgery instead of spending months on waiting lists etc etc, the important thing is that i dont want a country where choice is taken away, there should always be the choice to have state supplied whatever or to find the equivalent in the private sector.

There will always be have and have-nots, nobody has as yet managed to eradicate that, to be honest i'm not sure its even possible as some are more motivated in life than others and are justly rewarded for it.

Cut it down a little... private schooling does create a 2-tier system which is not desirable, but it doesn't impair the performance of state schools at all. Disbanding them today would move towards equality, but the worst sort of equality.

And yes, private schools do take away a little pressure from state schools- and the resourcing that goes to them (ie parents paying fees) wouldn't go to state schools otherwise, so it's not a direct competition for those funds.

In an ideal world, you remove the 2-tier system by equalising them. Failing that, you just do your damnedest to close the gap. But the gap itself isn't the problem. Yes it's unfair but unfair doesn't matter, what matters is the quality of education. Fair and worse isn't an upgrade on unfair and better.

There will always be have and have-nots, nobody has as yet managed to eradicate that, to be honest i'm not sure its even possible as some are more motivated in life than others and are justly rewarded for it.

That's extremely unimaginative. Do some research, there have been plenty of examples throughout history where collective well-being has been prioritised over individual wealth. In the long run they didn't survive, but that was mostly because they were crushed by outside forces rather than because they were inherently unworkable.