Objections to Keir Starmer as PM?

[Tony Edwards]

Its called

conjecture.

 

[Murphy]

Not really, conjecture is an opinion that's based on incomplete information so saying grammar schools won't be scrapped in an upcoming manifesto because it's not been in past manifesto would be conjecture, saying their policy is to remove Grammar schools is not. It's not based on incomplete information, it's based on no information whatsoever.

 

[Bug One]

The underlying ideology of Labour tends towards the abolition of selective schooling.

Unfortunately for the party stalwarts, their recent leaders have been a product of Grammar schools, so that's been temporarily swept under the 'hipocrasy' rug.

 

[Murphy]

I get what you're saying and I'm not one to question what their underlying ideology is on selective schooling as i don't know enough about their underlying ideology (i assume you mean historically?). However when is that underlying ideology no longer relevant? I mean i could be said the underlying ideology of the Conservative party is class privilege and private education.

 

[a1ex2001]

I get what you're saying and I'm not one to question what their underlying ideology is on selective schooling as i don't know enough about their underlying ideology (i assume you mean historically?). However when is that underlying ideology no longer relevant? I mean i could be said the underlying ideology of the Conservative party is class privilege and private education.

The Labour Party had 10 years under Blair to scrap selective schooling and didn’t so the prospect of it happening anytime soon is pretty slim especially when half the front bench will have kids at private school.

 

[Murphy]

That's kind of what I'm getting at, i could understand saying it's a possibility under the leadership of someone from the far left of the party like Corbyn but to imply that they'd do something like that under Starmer seems rather far fetched.

 

[Mr Jack]

The Labour Party had 10 years under Blair to scrap selective schooling and didn’t so the prospect of it happening anytime soon is pretty slim especially when half the front bench will have kids at private school.

It's the kind of policy that it's immensely unlikely Labour will ever do more than tinker at the edges about because the political cost is too high. Parents with children in these schools (or who intend to send their children to these schools) get incensed about it, while the number of people who would swing their vote to Labour because they acted are few, and there'd be the usual clueless and ungrounded cries of "hypocrisy" because some frontbencher or another went to grammar school or private school. This is quite unlike the situation in the late 60s/early 70s where the huge numbers of children having their futures effectively written off at 11 created a large voting block against grammar schools.

 

[efish]

It's the kind of policy that it's immensely unlikely Labour will ever do more than tinker at the edges about because the political cost is too high. /QUOTE]

Sensible policies' v.s. the abhorrent positions of the left. Determined by voting demographic.

Just need to look at the appeal of Corbyn to younger voters. I do not understand it I do not see the appeal, I am old, but if only the young voted he would be P.M

Long running feud within Labour, failure to take a more pragmatic approach and drop the nonsense and pretence that it is all about ideological failure v.s. the sensible political realists.

Its not.

Conservatives playing much the same game. The 'sensible' approach leaves some groups with accesses to power and a country with a systemic inequality issue that just grows.

 

[Mr C]

That's kind of what I'm getting at, i could understand saying it's a possibility under the leadership of someone from the far left of the party like Corbyn but to imply that they'd do something like that under Starmer seems rather far fetched.

Completely agree, Harman and Blair had to make the same "decisions" on what to do with their own children and private school. It is simply purely logical that when possessing enough wealth to maximise the chances of success for your children that you use it (in this case paid for schooling).

Champagne socialist, country manor upbringing, private prep school attendee Jeremy Corbyn probably only hates private education because all he got out of it was two E's at A level.

But i guess you got to really admire the levels of gusto Corbyn put forward in his hatred of paid for tuition:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/1999/may/13/uk.politicalnews2

MP and wife split over school
Leftwinger's conflict over son's education was key element in marriage collapse
Thu 13 May 1999 01.32

Labour MP Jeremy Corbyn confirmed yesterday that he and his wife have separated after a disagreement over whether their son should be educated at one of the country's best grammar schools or at the local inner city comprehensive.

His wife, Claudia Bracchita, admitted that conflicting views on their eldest son's schooling were a key element in the collapse of their 12-year marriage.

She was adamant that Benjamin, 11, should not go to the local comprehensive; her husband, the far left MP for Islington North, who opposes selection in education, insisted his son should not travel out of the borough to a selective grammar school.

In a statement yesterday, Ms Bracchita said she had decided against her husband's wishes to send Benjamin to Queen Elizabeth boys' school in Barnet, north London. She was concerned he would not receive a high standard of education if he took up the place allocated to him at the local comprehensive, Holloway school, which has been on Ofsted's failing list for three years.

'My children's education is my absolute priority, and this situation left me with no alternative but to accept a place at Queen Elizabeth boys' school. The decision was made by myself alone and without the consent of my husband,' she said.

'The difficulties of making decisions under these circumstances have played an important role in bringing about a regrettable marital break-up.'

Her insistence that the decision was taken by her alone has saved Mr Corbyn, a committed supporter of comprehensive education, considerable embarrassment and potential accusations of hypocrisy. But her comments nevertheless contain an implicit criticism of Mr Corbyn. 'I could not compromise my son's future for my husband's career. I regret it is going to be difficult for Jeremy, but it was an impossible decision. Nobody really is a winner.'

I'd like to add that anybody so ideologically opposed to something that they are willing to trash their 12 year marriage and send their kids to a failing school just to justify their political stance is a bit loony.

On reflection, if we have learned anything is that people who were crazy in the 90's are still crazy today, the only difference is now they have bigger and louder soapboxes (thanks social media)!

 

[a1ex2001]

Not sure how this thread is now about private v’s state education and is once again full of talk of the independent MP Corbyn?!?!?

For my 2p I wouldn’t ban private education but I would tax it massively (probably based on distances from the school in question to at least make people stay local!) and strip all the schools of charitable status etc as it is a total nonsense.

 

[Tony Edwards]

Not really, conjecture is an opinion that's based on incomplete information so saying grammar schools won't be scrapped in an upcoming manifesto because it's not been in past manifesto would be conjecture, saying their policy is to remove Grammar schools is not. It's not based on incomplete information, it's based on no information whatsoever.

You have made an error with regards to my post. I was implying that Bug one had used conjecture to come to the conclusion that Labour (Starmer) will get rid of grammar schools despite all the reasons he based the claims on were false.

Not sure how this thread is now about private v’s state education and is once again full of talk of the independent MP Corbyn?!?!?

For my 2p I wouldn’t ban private education but I would tax it massively (probably based on distances from the school in question to at least make people stay local!) and strip all the schools of charitable status etc as it is a total nonsense.

Because despite no evidence of Labour getting rid of grammar schools Bug one used it as an excuse for people not voting Labour.

However, their policy of removing Grammar schools will mean that I'd never vote for them. It's probably why they've never really had much of a chance at winning Kent seats.

 

[g67575]

Just to help clear something up.

Socialist policies would generally emphasize equalising education for all, by focusing on improving state schools solely, and abolishing other types of school, such as grammar schools and private schools.

Is Labour a socialist party under Keir and his shadow cabinet? I'd say not. The only one who could be described as a socialist within the shadow cabinet is Angela Raynor, but she cannot be removed. Nor will she play much of a role in deciding party policy, having been moved to some fairly none specific roles in the last reshuffle.

In fact, the current shadow cabinet was deliberately chosen to avoid the perception of Labour being viewed as a socialist party. Bridget Phillipson is the newly appointed Shadow Secretary of State for Education. She comes across as a moderate MP, who voted for moderate candidates in previous leadership contests. So far, Labour has discussed the importance of child care and early learning.

Here are Labour's main commitments on Education:
https://schoolsweek.co.uk/labour-conference-your-guide-to-the-partys-new-education-policies/

I'd say the standout ones are scrapping the charitable tax status of private schools. Some of the revenue from this policy will go towards hiring more teachers in state schools. Also a pledge to offer extra curricular activities to all children, such as playing a musical instrument. They also plan to prioritize 'Digital Skills' (e.g. IT) in schools, giving this an equal focus in education to core subjects, such as reading, writing and maths.

 

[a1ex2001]

Just to help clear something up.

A socialist policy would be an aspiration to equalise education for all, by focusing on improving state schools solely, and abolishing other types of school, such as grammar schools and private schools.

Is Labour a socialist party under Keir and his shadow cabinet? I'd say not. The only one who could be described as a socialist within the shadow cabinet is Angela Raynor, but she cannot be removed. Nor will she play much of a role in deciding party policy, having been moved to some fairly none specific roles in the last reshuffle.

In fact, the current shadow cabinet was deliberately chosen to avoid the perception of Labour being viewed as a socialist party. Bridget Phillipson is the newly appointed Shadow Secretary of State for Education. She comes across as a moderate MP, who voted for moderate candidates in previous leadership contests. So far, Labour has discussed the importance of child care and early learning.

Here are Labour's main commitments on Education:
https://schoolsweek.co.uk/labour-conference-your-guide-to-the-partys-new-education-policies/

I'd say the standout ones are scrapping the charitable tax status of private schools. Some of the revenue from this policy will go towards hiring more teachers in state schools. Also a pledge to offer extra curricular activities to all children, such as playing a musical instrument. They also plan to prioritize 'Digital Skills' (e.g. IT) in schools, giving this an equal focus in education to key subjects such as reading, writing and maths.

But but but …… ummmm …… something Corbyn! How dare the Labour Party propose that eton shouldn’t be a charity and that more money should be spent on teachers in state education such terrible policies! Now if only they would propose to vilify teachers, slash school funding and wind the curriculum back to the 1950’s i’d be much more likely to vote for them!

 

[Tony Edwards]

Just to help clear something up.

Yes that has cleared everything up. Apart from.

It was the first full conference to take place since Starmer assumed the leadership. The policy pledges come after shadow education secretary Kate Green told Schools Week last year that all previous proposals set out under Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership were under review.

Here’s what we learned.

The party estimates the policy, similar to one pledged under Corbyn in 2019, would raise £1.7 billion a year for the public purse, most of which would fund Labour’s other school commitments.

This will be Labour’s “ambitious school improvement plan”

While few details have emerged, it will focus on improving the prospects of the 4 in 10 young people who leave compulsory education without level 3 qualifications.

No firm plans for how to attract teachers to fill those vacancies have been set out, but Green told Schools Week this would include improving career pathways, continuing professional development and addressing workload issues.

Issues such as the length and frequency of inspections would also be up for discussion, she said.

The citizenship programme within the national curriculum would be reformed to include “practical life skills, such as such as pension planning, understanding credit scores, applying for a mortgage and understanding employment and rental contracts”.

Under the current national curriculum, pupils are already taught about credit and debt, savings and pensions.

So you bring us wishy washy stuff to clear things?

An essay published by Starmer last week revealed his ambition for every child to have opportunities to do things like learn a musical instrument or visit the seaside by the age of 10.

At conference, this pledge was titled “10 by 10”.

Middle class dreams for working class masses.

This is what I dont like about Starmers leadership. Its all so very ******* vague.

 

[Dolph]

Sensible policies' v.s. the abhorrent positions of the left. Determined by voting demographic.

Just need to look at the appeal of Corbyn to younger voters. I do not understand it I do not see the appeal, I am old, but if only the young voted he would be P.M

Long running feud within Labour, failure to take a more pragmatic approach and drop the nonsense and pretence that it is all about ideological failure v.s. the sensible political realists.

Its not.

Conservatives playing much the same game. The 'sensible' approach leaves some groups with accesses to power and a country with a systemic inequality issue that just grows.

Labour has generally been dominated by ideology over outcome thinking over the years (although other parties aren't immune by any means), you can see this in (for example) the attitude to nationalisation, which seems to be 'it doesn't matter what the problem is, nationalisation is the answer', despite the ownership structure often having no bearing on the actual outcome issues identified.

This approach is akin to having a toolbox, but that toolbox only containing a hammer, and wondering why the quality of outcomes is highly variable.

 

[Tony Edwards]

Completely agree, Harman and Blair had to make the same "decisions" on what to do with their own children and private school. It is simply purely logical that when possessing enough wealth to maximise the chances of success for your children that you use it (in this case paid for schooling).

Or you know while being in power you.... So those that cant afford to waste money on their childrens education can also get the best education they can.

 

[g67575]

@Tony Edwards - Still talking about Corbyn era policies? Bridget Phillipson is in charge of Labour's education policy now.

If you want more detail, I'm afraid you'll need wait for Labour's manifesto.

 

[Tony Edwards]

@Tony Edwards - Still talking about Corbyn era policies? Bridget Phillipson is in charge of Labour's education policy now.

If you want more detail, I'm afraid you'll need wait for Labour's manifesto.

No Im not. Stop trying to discredit or quiet people by claiming they are going on about Corbyn. That is Dolphs job and its starting to be Mr Jacks job too.

 

[g67575]

You are free to talk about Corbyn, so can everyone else. It's a period I hope Labour can move on from, rather than dwell on. I don't particularly like arguing with people about it if I'm honest, it seems never ending.

It's not something that fills me with hope or optimism (I thought he was more persuasive in the leadership contest than the others, but I quickly lost interest), only a fear that Labour would keep failing if he somehow managed to become leader again (or someone in the same vein).

I agreed with him that Labour should strongly oppose austerity after the 2008 crash, and seek to build a new consensus (hopefully based on Keynesian economics).

Labour has to give people (genuine) hope above all else.

 

[Tony Edwards]

You are free to talk about Corbyn, so can everyone else. It's a period I hope Labour can move on from, rather than dwell on. I don't particularly like arguing with people about it if I'm honest, it seems never ending.

It's not something that fills me with hope or optimism (I thought he was more persuasive in the leadership contest than the others, but I quickly lost interest), only a fear that Labour would keep failing if he somehow managed to become leader again (or someone in the same vein).

I agreed with him that Labour should strongly oppose austerity after the 2008 crash, and seek to build a new consensus (hopefully based on Keynesian economics).

Labour has to give people (genuine) hope above all else.

????????????????????????????

An essay published by Starmer last week revealed his ambition for every child to have opportunities to do things like learn a musical instrument or visit the seaside by the age of 10.

At conference, this pledge was titled “10 by 10”.

Seriously? That is just wishy washy middle class clap trap.