To think there should be a minimum intelligence cut-off for being allowed to vote?

[FireCanal]

Woman on train has just told her companion that "in my district, the person who gets the most votes will be the local MP, not just the government". She genuinely appears to think there is something unusual about this
She followed it up with "do you think there is a polling station in Liverpool?"

Also, on Google, how many facts are totally wrong and how do you now how to sort it out?

Ok some well educated people can. Some well educated people actually still can't.
But the ones who aren't so well educated and haven't taught how to sort out what is just propaganda and what is closer to the truth? There is no way they can learn how things work on their own from 'Google'

Do you also know that Google gives you the answers that they think you want to know about? So do some search on a recipie with califlower in and read mainly the ones from Jamie Olliver and later on the only recipies that will come will be about his recipies. Nothing else at all.
Now transpose that with political party and politics and ... you google an issue and only come accross the views on the same people again and again.
Somehow I struggle to see how anyone can learn about politics from 'Google'

My daughter has learning difficulties. We sat and had a chat about the election when our postal votes came. She has voted in the local election for 2 friends of ours who are standing. 1 green 1 independent, but wouldn't vote in the general election as she didn't know any of the people. Think however hard you try to explain it it just goes over her head a bit. My FIL however no learning difficulties but sadly racist, sexist, homophobic, refuses to use nhs. Always votes labour because only snobs vote for the Tories. Logic???

nequid by that logic, an awful lot of schooling can be Google-exclusive. So, let's not teach science in school either perhaps?

I for one think that teaching young people how the country works is far more important than some of the material that's on the NC. For one thing, at some point, everyone will need the information. And it's actually quite important that this subject not be left exclusively to parents, who often aren't able to provide non-biased information. Those who don't vote would be telling their children that voting is pointless, left wingers will criticize right wingers and vice versa.

The whole purpose of school has been perverted over the years.

You shouldn't need to go to school to learn anything, really. Except how to learn. School should give pupils the tools to be able to engage with the world, and (hopefully advance it).

Yes, by all means Google it. But you need language, comprehension and analytical skills to actually make any use of it.

So which subject are we replacing with compulsory politics lessons?

Personally I think anyone with an ounce of interest can read a newspaper, watch the news, , discuss the issues with someone informed or do some (dangerously inadequate apparently) googling and make a reasonable job of an informed choice.

If you can't be arsed to do that then you should do everyone a favour and stay at home.

The fool asking 'is it Labour or the Tories who are in now?' wouldn't have been greatly enlightened by politics lessons in school ten years previously.

I learned politics at school... in a fashion.

1980s O-level history had a lot about the rise of the Labour movement - Beatrice Webb, Keir Hardie, General Strike, Ton-y-Pandy and all that Jazz - and the rise of European Fascism - Weimar, Hitler, Franco, Mosley.. throw in the Russian Revolutions, Pankhurst and suffrage, Lloyd-George - 'homes fit for heroes', post-war - Attlee, Morrision - 'cradle to grave'.. it's all quite political really.

Is none of this taught anymore?

Learning politics in school might not be a bad idea.

Definitely not, though I am biased, I have 3 degrees in the stuff.

Schools have citizenship as part of the national curriculum. Citizenship is seen as a soft option, and a bit of a doss lesson. Wasted hours each week. I see no reason why this subject cannot be used to prepare our children with a working knowledge of society, rather than the same dross citizenship curriculums fill their hour with.

I used to really want to be a secondary school teacher - I have considered making the switch from public affairs to teaching many times. My politics, IR and economics degrees would be of great use in a comprehensive society/citizenship curriculum. But as it stands, politics/economics graduates rarely consider teaching citizenship an option.

So which subject are we replacing with compulsory politics lessons?

Not replacing, but I really think adapting the current citizenship curriculum would have great value.

People with learning difficulties have the same right to vote as anyone else.

History wasn't compulsory after the first 2 years while I was in school...I'm 26. The history I was taught wasn't comprehensive and didn't really cover the politics side. There was a class from year 9 onwards where we were split into groups and rotated through subjects (such as RE, sexual health, budgeting etc) that studies of politics/the judicial system/taxation etc, would fit very well into.

shame the oPs way of thinking means she won't be able to vote if this was the rule.

nequid do you have the analytial skills to decifer the newspaper though? Do you think many people have?

Because tbh, I haven't found a lot of people around who actually DO have these skills.
Of course, you could argue that these people, who 'don't make the effort' as you say, should just 'stay at home'. Not that different from what the OP is proposing after all....

Cupidstunt - ah there's a big difference. History for me was a compulsory subject throughout. Basically 1066 to Suez in five years.

To this day my political views have a basis in what I learned way back then. The Labour Movement and Universal Suffrage especially.

I did study politics later at a roughly A-level standard. Was actually a bit shocked it all came down to a view of humanity - Hobbesian brutes or Paine's noble beings..

also remembered O-level geography had all that Ox-Bow lake stuff but also much about the SuperPowers and geo-politics. We had a text book called 'Three Super Powers'.. was US, Soviet Union and China if I remember. What was that Spearman's Rank Correlation about?

See Prole, most of what you just said went completely over my head. I got very good grades in school and came out with 13 GCSEs, so by no means an inattentive student...it's simply that it wasn't covered. In geography, we learned about types of rock. I swear we covered that for half of each of the 2 compulsory years. In history we mainly (and briefly) covered battles and wars and sometimes dipped into the monarchy. It really didn't help that both the teachers were pretty poor I suppose.

OP I used to think as you do - when I was a foolish young man. I'm still a man, I'm no longer young, but I hope I'm not so bloody foolish any more.

YANBU. But in reality, it's the people who don't vote anyway who probably have the lowest IQ (or are poorly educated at any rate), so no need to worry. It's a self selecting group.

That's why they get the roughest deal politically with benefit cuts etc. The Politicians don't care about them because they know certain demographic groups can't be arsed to vote. A much easier group to screw over than affluent pensioners, IQ aside.

has this been posted yet?

#HearMyVoice

Cupidstunt - I got very bad marks and left school at 16. With all debate above about politics teaching in schools, I assumed it came as part of other subjects as in my day. But it seems not to be the case.

I was out marching for CND and the Miners' strike in my teens - my family couldn't give a monkeys so not influenced by them. (My mum voted Tory in 1979 as 'it would be nice to have a women Prime Minister'...)

Am I wrong to now think modern education sticks to 'safer' non-politicised subject matter than the Thatcher era?

Not really, Hobbes was arguing for monarchy. I'd say that's a bit outdated these days. Paine still has a thing to say, though. Rousseau too.

The wealthy and the unionised are always going to seek representation; they're organised. Our commons system also is based around trade. The reason the distributed poor make such easy targets is that they're not at the centre of any group and have no spokespeople. Being poor is a characteristic but it isn't a rallying cause.

DoraGora - Yep Hobbes is not relevant thesedays..was just shocked how badly he viewed humanity. I admit my politics (and all) education is pretty cursory.

Still keen to know why (and if) secondary education is become less-politicised. I marched with my friends but plenty of my contemporaries thought it was all bollocks... maybe it's just me...

I think Hobbes' view of humanity is about right, look at Syria. It's just what he proposes to do about it that I disagree with. The radical left has pretty much vanished. Marxism envisioned that the workers would win. But, the people Cameron is targeting aren't workers. Marxism also said they would take over the means of production. Well, apart from the co op and John Lewis, that hasn't happened. The UK we live in today is largely saying, if you're wealthy, Osborne & Co will look after you, and if you're not, but you're in the middle, you'll get by. If you're at the bottom you're screwed, sorry.

Wasn't the Labour Movement the voice of the poor? Despite what the 'squeezed middle' think, the majority still is the Working Class.. and Labour openly courts Tory voters.. You can see where it went wrong.

That's the thing about democracy op, they even let people you think are dim and Liverpudlian vote, hard as it might be for you to cope with