Westministenders: I can't believe it's not butter

[RedToothBrush]

Nigel Farage @ Nigel_Farage
Cannot believe we're seeing Nazi salutes in 21st century America.

Yeah, that's what we said on 16th June 2016, when some dickhead stood in front of a poster.

The thing is, what Farage says with faux surprise isn't unusual or isolated to him. It's widespread. It's perhaps the norm rather than the exception in many circles.

It's represents a total lack of self awareness. It represents the disconnect that what comes out of your mouth tends to have an effect on the people around you, whether intentioned that way or not when you talk about 'others' or 'not belonging'.

It's a direct effect of nationalism.

Patriotism seems to be something that people have totally lost the plot with and don't understand. It's used as a defence for nationalism. It is the last defence of the scoundrel. Patriotism and being pro-EU or not being a racist dick are not mutually exclusive, though you'd be forgiven for thinking differently these days.

I think a lot of people will sit and go, "Look at America, that is awful. I'm glad we are not like that".

Except we are far more than we realise. Grenfell says much about that.

There's an phrase and Southern Wolves and Northern Wolves when it comes to racism in America. The UK is like the Northern Wolf. Sly and silver tongued to justify and hide racism because 'Look they are worse than us. We are the good guys'.

A bit like saying, you talked to an EU citizen and they were just as racist as me, so Brexit is ok.

It's the twisted desperation to justify the othering rather than take responsibility for enabling and emboldening racism. Then dressing it up as some legitimate political cause which actually you have zero understanding or comprehension of the consequences of.

Brexit has some deep roots in Nazi type fantasies. You can not separate the idea that Britain is superior and Brits are better than Europeans from too much Brexit logic. The Empire was not a pretty thing for much of the world. It's worrying.

Not to mention we've had a right wing attack on a group of people outside a mosque in this fashion before the US had that attack yesterday.

Let's not think that because we haven't had blokes with tiki torches providing a photographic opportunity and theatre for the TV producer that we are somehow 'better'. Or not as bad as America.

The only real difference between them and us is the brash openness about it and the fact they have a bunch of guns.

This was predictable. Indeed I expected and I expect more. There will be more and it will get far, far worse in the US. Yesterday was just the start. Trump wants it. He will fuel it. He will capitalise from it. Yes your mate Donald loves a bit of bigotry, Nig.

There no guarantees it won't happen here for various reasons. It just is characterised in a slightly different way because we are British and don't really do brash in anything as it's not our way.

It's too easy for Farage. Or Johnson. Or May. Or whoever to just walk away and innocently say they are shocked and bear no responsibility because they don't wave Nazi flags about.

You don't have to do that, to share the same values or believe the same thing. Salutes and flags are just branding. A repackaged version for the 21st century is even more dangerous.

We won't forget who Farage hangs out with or courts for publicity and attention. Farage only says and does what he thinks he can get away with. That's part of the ugly truth.

We still have not even started to confront the relationship between racism and Brexit. Indeed, much seems to be happening to suggest that after blaming EU, that there are a Brexit opportunities for scapegoating opening up.

For me yesterday was depressing not because it happened, but because we saw it coming and because our country is in denial about being the same.

Farage is the very personification of it.

Talking about challenging the legality of government decisions: it appears that one of the things hidden in the Not Great Repeal Bill will be the ability to sue the government for damages if what they are doing is wrong. It explicitly revokes the Francovich decision . Even though they government says that they'll put something in its place, why would we believe them?

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/brexit-bill-uk-citizens-right-government-break-law-sue-high-court-eu-human-a7887506.html

Even though they government says that they'll put something in its place, why would we believe them?

And how can we challenge them if they don't?

And how can we challenge them if they don't

This includes an interesting list of ideas:
www.nonviolent-conflict.org/the-anti-apartheid-struggle-in-south-africa-1912-1992/

What would be really nice, though would be if there was a grown up defence of separation of powers from our elected reps, though, instead.

This arguement annoys me as it could easily be used for anything free at the point of delivery. Take universal free healthcare, clearly a bung to the middle classes right?

Not true of healthcare. We don't spend more on healthcare for rich people than for poor people; in fact, the reverse is true, since healthcare spending is disproportionately directed towards older people with chronic illnesses (and the poorer you are, the more likely you are to suffer from chronic ill health) and towards women and young children (maternity and paediatric care). Young middle class educated people consume little healthcare - indeed, that's one of the Remain arguments about why EU immigrants are not a drain on the health service!

Look at a private healthcare system like the US and ask who loses out when healthcare is not free: the old, the chronically sick, women, children.

In contrast, higher education spending (and this is especially true in systems where HE is free or heavily subsidised, like in France, or in the UK when I was a student back in the 1980s) is disproportionately focussed on already-privileged students who gain further privilege as a result of their education.

That doesn't mean I support the UK student loans system of course - I don't.

In contrast, higher education spending (and this is especially true in systems where HE is free or heavily subsidised, like in France, or in the UK when I was a student back in the 1980s) is disproportionately focussed on already-privileged students who gain further privilege as a result of their education.

I don't think that this is a problem that is caused by free education and can only be solved by charging students for their education. It is about providing proper maintenance grants and the right support at schools to support working classes into further education. It is about getting universities to adjust entrance criteria so that they are not biased towards the middle classes during selection.

Higher income tax for the wealthy would mean that the middle classes and those that earn most would be paying more tax, so would indirectly pay towards the education of those who do not end up earning so much (such as nurses and social workers for instance) without leaving them with a debt hanging over their heads.

I see education as a right. We already provide free education to children up to the age of 18 payed for through the tax system. Why not continue that past 18?

I can't imagine any of the above happening in Germany (mass deportation of students, the home office policies, fascist murder of politician, tolerance of EDL marches, etc).

No, but Germany learnt the hard way.

I don't think that this is a problem that is caused by free education and can only be solved by charging students for their education. It is about providing proper maintenance grants and the right support at schools to support working classes into further education. It is about getting universities to adjust entrance criteria so that they are not biased towards the middle classes during selection.

I agree with most of this. But the reality is that, right now, access to high quality higher education is much better for middle class students from naice homes and schools than for less privileged students. So if you offer free higher education, then as things stand you are by definition disproportionately favouring more privileged students.

I am not in favour of student loans in their present form, but in addition to general taxation, it might be worth considering some sort of graduate tax. In fact the current student loan system functions in some respects like a graduate tax, since loans are only paid off by students who earn enough - unfortunately, the system seems to be designed primarily to make the student loans company rich ...

The problems that I have with the "middle class bung" apology for tuition fees are manifold.

First, it fails to define what is fair. The fact that the middle income group would benefit disproportionately from an abolition of fees implies that this very same group was most affected when they were introduced. So the argument implicitly defines the current state of affairs as the fair one, rather than by appealing to some independent criterion.

Second, it ignores the question of what education is for. Again, implicit in this view, it assumes that the main beneficiary is the recipient of the education. The reason for investing as a society in education is that it benefits society. And yes, some of that will be a luxury, but government policy currently says that it is essential in the modern world for 50% of the population to be university educated but at the same time this has luxury status with the costs to be shouldered by the individual. I am deeply troubled from a moral perspective of shouldering kids with £40k of debt before their lives really get started.

Finally, and most importantly of all, the argument acknowledges the inequality that exists in accesssing education from different socioeconomic groups, but does nothing to address it. In fact doesn't it amount to acknowledging that nothing can be done, and giving in?

biglybadgers another way of looking at it is the opportunity cost of abolishing student loans ... If your aim was to improve educational opportunity for less privileged students, how would that £100bn best be spent? Is a blanket removal of uni fees really the best way to achieve that - as opposed to, say, increased spending on early years, or on high schools in poor areas? Colour me deeply sceptical. It blatantly is a bung to a group that are disproportionately likely to vote (if they vote at all - perhaps a £100bn carrot will work) for Corbyn's Labour.

Once again Bigly has made most of the same points while I was tapping that out...

The reason for investing as a society in education is that it benefits society.

Education benefits both society AND individuals AND private sector businesses. So the difficult thing is to determine what part of the cost of education should fairly be met by the state, what by the individual, and what by the private sector.

I don't have a fixed view on the answer to this, but it's not a simple question.

So if you offer free higher education, then as things stand you are by definition disproportionately favouring more privileged students.

Then we should change things as they stand, and offering free education is the first step to doing this in my view. I am sorry but no working class person ever said 'oh no, university is free, I can't possibly go' nor do they now say 'thank heaven for the fact university isn't free, now I can go knowing I will be fully supported'. The greater take up from working classes since the student loans came in isn't because of the fees. There is no reason why we can't keep and improve the things that support students from working classes while also removing fees for everyone.

By the way, I just saw a report from the nursing times saying that student nursing places are down 8% since loans came in this year, so changing to fees is not working out so well there.

I am also not convinced by a graduate tax as university education benefits the whole economy not just those that gain the degree and so it is reasonable for it to be funded by everyone who earns a high wage and is therefore gaining for the university system. Though I do think it is a better option than the loan. The issue with the loan is that even if you don't earn enough to pay it off it is still there. It hangs over you and is a psychological burden people on low wages could really do without.

I wonder whether this series will follow the same trajectory as Eden did recently!

www.theguardian.com/politics/lostinshowbiz/2017/aug/17/bad-boys-brexit-farage-film-trump

offering free education is the first step to doing this in my view

So why is there so much inequality in parts of state education where no fees are charged?

Why would you spend £100bn on a group of disproportionately privileged students rather than spending that money on raising attainment and opportunities among the least privileged school students?

Ah, we have cross posted while I was typing all that out.

If we are getting into the funding and priorities side of it rather then just hypothetically whether or not student fees are supposedly good for the working classes than that's a whole different question. I am of a high tax (individual and corporate) and greater spending on public services mindset (did I mention I am really lefty). I would actually like to see labour go further in increasing taxes and priorising spending on education, health and social care across all age groups. But in the current climate where the base level of politics is so far right I appreciate why they can only go so far on this.

So why is there so much inequality in parts of state education where no fees are charged?

You are really suggesting that if we had a fee paying education system this would be more equal? That the reason for inequality across the education system is not because of inbuilt class bias and prejudice but because it is free?

I know we are getting off topic a bit here but this is crazy. The reasons for inequality across the education system are complex and manifold. It is because of systematic underfunding of poorer areas, it is because of admissions criteria in universities that are biased towards the middle classes, it is because the well off can take their money and pay for private education with smaller classes and better paid teachers, it is because social care services lack the funding to tackle difficult home lives that leave children unable to concentrate on their studies, it is because working class kids are told they are not good enough, because top universities are rife with institutional racism and classism, it is because university funding is being cut more than fees are being increased meaning the universities don't have the funds to properly tackle these issues even when the will is there, I could go on and on. It is not because free education somehow makes it harder for people without money.

You are really suggesting that if we had a fee paying education system this would be more equal?

That's a bit of a dishonest reading of my posts :(

Going to stop now. We are obviously not doing nuanced thinking on this thread any more.

I am involved with a mentoring charity and our biggest challenge is not institutional racism and classism in universities or middle class bias in the admissions criteria. In fact universities are offering the means for the pupils we mentor to access the courses, they practically fall over each other to welcome them in, access workshops, contextual offers etc.

The two biggest challenges are giving them the cultural capital that middle class students have, and the attitudes in schools and homes. The cultural capital is in areas like aspiration and knowledge, about which courses and where will give them the best opportunities. Mentors who have been successful in careers in business and the arts open their eyes to the opportunities and the realities of how to achieve them (and big business and the professional bodies fall over themselves to provide the exposure that will enable them to make infornpmed decisions too, and even if they decide not to go into business the sessions give them confidence and presentational and teamworking skills ) On courses so many of the pupils have been directed to for instance medicine and not advised that there are many more careers in Science and tech and courses that are less competitive, a particular message that Oxbridge focus on.

So many of the pupils have frankly been directed to poor decisions on subject courses and universities in schools, and some of that is frankly ideologically driven, as well as with an eye on school league tables (many of the brighter pupils for instance are directed to take crazy numbers of GCSEs and A levels that are a disadvantage to them when they could do better focusing on 10 GCSEs and 3 /4 A levels instead of 15 and 6 or 7 ) . One of the pupils who has been helped by the charity was on yesterday's BBC Morning show, in care most of his limped he is off to Cambridge, and he spoke eloquently about how schools fail pupils like him.

In fact if I were a politician trying to influence improvement in education then the first thing I would do is sack myself, and put it back in the hands of the professionals. Ask any teacher about the impact government has had on schools since the Blair years, you will struggle to find any that say it has been positive. The London challenge which bought about significant improvement to schools and the achievement of the most disadvantaged students showed what the profession can achieve if it is given a chance but Gove decided it did not need extending to other cities and most of the Consultants who were involved are now back in post with their expertise corralled in one school. The Conservatives are diverting funding from the improved schools in disadvantaged areas to more affluent ones so all that was achieved is at risk.

Life not limped (iPhone autocorrect strikes again)

misti or as it's Friday. I got you at least.

That's a bit of a dishonest reading of my posts

I am not sure how I can read the sentence I referenced there in any other way.

That's a really interesting post Ron. I do think the reasons for working class people not getting into uni are complex and need a complete rethink of the entire education process and, dare I say it, even the purpose of going to uni. I can see what you are saying about the problems in schools being the issue rather than the admissions in the universities, that does make sense. I pretty much agree with everything you say. My view is the issues around why people from poor background do or do not go to university are not removed because we have fees and removing fees would take away at least something that puts off potential students even if it does not solve all of the problems on its own.

Anyway, back into brexit....

League tables also don't help because the reaction from every sector (as seen in Mid Staffs) is how to game the league tables, not deal with the underlying issues the league tables are meant to offer.

My friend's daughter is at a middling comprehensive and is very bright - particularly good at maths. At the moment she'd like to do forensic science when she's older and the school have told her to have any chance of doing it she needs to do law and forensic science GCSEs. This is just barmy.

Schools that do this sort of thing may get better figures for their league tables than if the pupils do Chemistry/Biology etc but will make it unnecessarily more difficult for her if she decides that she actually wants to do something else, or indeed wants to read a science at University rather than Forensic Science. It is especially difficult for families where they are not familiar with the system and they are not used to challenging the school's advice, or don't understand why it matters, and this seems to me to be particularly where class and family background comes into it - it is not a deliberate exclusion (by any means actually) but too many excellent students are ruled out by out of date or useless advice from their schools.

The issue for me with fees and universities is that I don't believe that market principles should apply to further education. The country needs to decide what it needs in terms of the skills it wants the next generation to have, which may well mean more funding for vocational education and a rationalisation of academia. The current situation where the top universities like UCL and Nottingham are expanding numbers and piling students into lecture theatres with the result they get reduced contact and a poorer education whilst other universities are struggling to fill courses that might actually be better in terms of the academic development of the student is not the correct basis for rationalising our university system. I suspect the Tory ideologues think that it is institutions like London Met (which actually may be offering a good academic education to students in contrast to the typical Tory voters perceptions) that will fall by the wayside, and do not realise it is the less prestigious end of the Russell Group and comparable universities (who did not just happen to attend a meeting on lobbying in the Russel Square hotel), that are in trouble. Students are students not customers. Funding and fees should be led by a coherent education strategy, not market forces.

So....in the spirit of moving on.... What has happened to James Chapman today? Is it something nefarious or has his wife just insisted on an actual holiday for the day?