Cameron is a prat

[longfingernails]

The idea that the Tory treasurer is hawking Cameron around like Blair is just disgusting.

What are they thinking? They have the opportunity to destroy the last vestiges of socialism in this country, and thereby open up opportunities for millions - and instead, they get involved in the age-old pathetic donations circus.

This is just too depressing.

ttosca Of course there are always going to be various definitions of these buzz words like 'fair' or 'progressive'. That's true of all words, though. At some point you have to draw the line. I agree with you. Now draw that line!

I've stated elsewhere on this site that my family and I are net contributors to the public purse to the tune of around £12k per year - That is to say that we pay our own share of tax PLUS an additional £12k for those that don't / can't / won't pay. My wife and I, between us, earn in the region of £60-£65k before tax so our 'overpayment' amounts to about 1 in every 5 pounds that my wife and I earn. So is that fair? I would imagine that the answer very much depends upon where one sits on the income scale. A couple earning half of our income would probably think that as we are wealthier, so we should contribute more and if it is 1 pound in 5 then so be it. Perhaps they may want us to pay more and thus lower their burden. Alternatively, someone earning double our income may want us to pay more so that they may lower their contributions and thus keep more of their earned income. So who is being fair? The answer is that unless you define what fair is, the word is meaningless.

BTW, you misunderstand about flat taxes. In essence, a flat tax is an income tax whereby everyone pays tax at the same rate - there are no low, mid or high rate tax bands. Such a system is popular amongst the former communist EU member states.

BTW, BTW, Don't play with claig, you don't know where he's been!

'You read it all the time. It's that misogynistic, sexist, racist, reactionary, little-Englander, mendacious, Nazi-supporting, trashy 'newspaper' which goes by the title the 'Daily Mail'.'

I'm sorry, I had no idea you were referring to the 'Newspaper of the Year' - the Daily Mail. The paper that swept the board at the recent prestigious Press Awards and which was voted 'Newspaper of the Year' by the eminent Society of Editors.

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2118517/In-print-online-Mail-triumphs-journalism-Oscars.html

dear mimimathsmouse,

I do believe you are wrong about education - many more children are entering uni and not just from private or selective schools, standards in my experience are rising but for those in poverty. Research was undertaken I believe to see how to bridge the gap and it was deemed too expensive - so much input is needed to nurture the under privilged. A tragedy.

RE: News and Cameron.

My take on it is the right wing dictator Murdoch is telling Cameron off with under cover journalists - something like "so you want to dare to call us immoral? Huh!" Interesting interview on BBC last night suggested one of those dinner guests was a very generous property developer and policy for relaxation on planning laws could be attributed to his concerns as well as growth strategies. In America, big business has always bought the republican leader - did we think it was so different here?

I'm not sure Cameron is a prat, he wants to be a survivor to push his ideals. I disagree with most of them (C's policies) but the system of party funding makes all leaders vulnerable.

'True socialism would hand power to the working class'
Ooh, not sure about that - true socialism would result from the working class taking power. Socialism isn't a disembodied entity; it is the actualisation of working class self-realisation. Not meant to be pedantic; I do think it's an important political point. Nobody's going to do it for us.

Good point, Julia.

Absolutely JuliaScurr, I didn't word it well. Pushed for time! and whilst it depends on working class education and consciousness if you dare to say it depends on the workers "seizing" power the usual response is that you must be a subversive and dangerous revolutionary. You know how it is.

andisa, Do you remember the name of the paper you read? I concur, the easy bit for labour was instituting quotas for uni ed because many higher attaining kids from modest backgrounds could with little support make the grade to get in.

The hardest to help are children from poor backgrounds where the parents are less engaged and have never worked etc,,, but it is the duty of the state to provide "a full time and efficient education suited to the needs and abilities of the child" The law doesn't specify that children should be removed from place of residence for 6 hrs a day, supervised and fed, it specifically says education in the act, so to my way of thinking they have a legal duty to ensure these children are educated irrespective of their background and barriers to learning. If you choose to home ed the law is very clear about your responsibilities.

Personally I would vote for and hug the leader of any party happy to tackle the inequalities in education, first step should be the abolishment of elite establishments I'd be more than happy to raise Eton to the ground!

mini oh, sht - I thought revolutionaries were meant* to be subversive and dangerous - do you mean to say we've been doing it wrong?

minimathsmouse Personally I would vote for... the leader of any party happy to tackle the inequalities in education, first step should be the abolishment of elite establishments I'd be more than happy to raise Eton to the ground!

How very typical of a socialist. Rather than even attempt to raise standards for all, your first instinct is to tear down the areas of excellence. Answer this, how in the name of God does abolishing the good education of a rich kid help a poor kid in a failing school on the wrong side of town? It was exactly this sheep-like one-size-fits-all mentality, and a zealous enthusiasm for destroying anything innovative, new or advanced, that did for the Soviet Union and its satellite states over twenty years ago. Fine. Fight the same battles, make the same arguments, chant the same mantra and expect the same results.

As ever, Churchill made his case clearer, and far more eloquently, than I ever could when he said "Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery."

Churchill was a very clever man.

How very typical of a socialist. Rather than even attempt to raise standards for all, your first instinct is to tear down the areas of excellence. Answer this, how in the name of God does abolishing the good education of a rich kid help a poor kid in a failing school on the wrong side of town

It can be easily understood. The elite and the wealthy will not, do not and would not accept second rate education, we know that because they pay huge sums of money to escape the failing system. A system they see fit to inflict upon others, or at the very least fail to legislate and change for the better of others. It suits their desire to maintain the hierarchical society to which they find themselves in the prime position to rule.

If you provide one standard education for all children, you will find that the so called "middle class" children supported by parents will help to push up standards, rather than causing a situation where they flee some schools. You will also find that children will prosper according to ability and application only.

I do not want to prevent any child from having an excellent Eton ed, I think that same standard should be available to all.

You are aware that Eton is a charity set up to educate paupers? As such, pays minimal tax. Try taxing and collecting appropriate amount and open up facilities to state schools; bit of left reformism won't kill them. Think they'll appreciate that levelling up thing?

Mini, in principle I fully agree with you. I want every child to achieve the best that they can achieve and be the top of the international education tables.

But back in the real world and there are problems. Firstly rich people have choices. They have the luxury to make choices which others don't. It may not be right or fair but is a sad reality of the real world.

If I can compare this to a supermarket shop. Your rich person has choices. He could choose the Tesco value sausages. Or he could buy Tesco finest. He doesn't mind paying extra because quite simply...he can afford it. And that's after all the taxes he's paid.

Your poor person doesn't get that choice. He/she has to buy the value sausages.

The problem with socialism is they want to stop Tesco's from selling the finest sausages and force the rich person to pay so much tax that the poor person can now have the middle range sausages and the rich person cannot (even if they can still afford it) buy the finest.

To be honest socialism to me sounds like marketing spin for communism.

Socialism sounds far more friendly than communism! does it not.

I don't agree with you niceguy, sausages are sausages, some have 80% pork and some are even made with chicken. So flaming what. If every child had the same access to an excellent education, all children would have the same chance of gaining an excellent post 16 education, allotted according to ability.

BUT this is where I know others will have a problem, the bright kid's grow up to have good jobs. Should bright people have more choice in sausages than dim people? No, of course not. But if we all have equal opportunities & more equal wealth we can decide which sausages we should like to purchase. Sausages will not ultimately make anyone rich, poor, hungry, or fat unless some over indulge themselves too much Gideon Osborne is a prime example, you can tell, he has piggy cheeks.

Should bright people have more choice in sausages than dim people? Again....in principle of course not.......in practice the bright will always get the better jobs because of that fact.

How do you legislate against human intelligence?

When it comes to pay & conditions I often here the phrase that xyz should not be a race to the bottom.

This is exactly the same. Whilst in principle every child should get the best education possible, the answer is not to dismantle academically excellent schools and embark on a race to the bottom just so little Tarquin has the 'same opportunities' as little wayne.

Quite frankly the fact that the rich kid will have loads of money at home and therefore the opportunities and experiences which the poor won't will be probably more a decisive issue than the type of school they go to.

Again....in principle of course not.......in practice the bright will always get the better jobs because of that fact I agree but for one thing, under the socio/economic model under which we live we create not just choice but huge inequalities of resources, deprivation of stable family, support and opportunities outside of school, deprivation of material resources and leave some children at the mercy of quite abysmal conditions.

I agree, some families support their children to attain and would do so in any school, these children we know, do far better academically and socially.

But suppose we level the playing field, over many generations, with the will, the resources and a lot of hard work, these families will be transformed so that they too have hope and can see that helping their children in their schooling is not just for the rich but for everyone. Education can change a child's life not just because of his experience but through the attainment and attitude of his parents.

So 1) if equality of education is the be all and end all, why do comprehensives (such as the one I went to) produce the worst results when compared to pretty much any other method of schooling?

2. How do you propose to ensure a level playing field for all kids or do you plan on abolishing pushy parents too?

3. With reference to point 2, how can you have equal opportunities when you have no way of equalising the capabilities of all kids at each point throughout their school career?

"If you provide one standard education for all children, you will find that the so called "middle class" children supported by parents will help to push up standards" Why do you believe this and not "If you provide one standard education for all children, you will find that the so called "disruptive, unteachable and thick" children abandoned by their equally disruptive, unteachable and thick parents will help to drag down standards for everyone"

Finally, on your response to my post you wrote "I do not want to prevent any child from having an excellent Eton ed" whereas on your post immediately prior to this one you wrote "I'd be more than happy to raise Eton to the ground!" Which is it?

I would advise anyone who is interested in 'fairness' to read the Blank Slate by Stephen Pinker. This book, a science book albeit, shows how genetic predisposition drives much of our behaviour (i.e. our talents and capabilities). It is in line with many of the discoveries that are being made almost daily about how our genetic predisposition regulates all sorts of things.

To me this relates to this debate, because it spells out what we all (should) know inherently, i.e. that you can never achieve equality of outcome whatever you do. That to me is why the socialist argument in education policy fails (manifested in the comprehensive ideal) and ultimately brings everyone down to the lowest common denominator.

IMO there is nothing wrong with having elite educational institutions provided the access to them is based solely on academic criteria. I think that this is what Blair tried to articulate when he talked about equality of opportunity - however we still have someway to go to achieve this.

@Mini

But your idea of 'levelling the playing field' is in essence scrapping successful schools and sending kids to a worse school. Then somehow expect standards to rise and that this is somehow fair.

Fair is a relative concept. When you say 'fair'. Who do you mean? Certainly it's not fair to the rich child who would have gone to Eton and got a world class education. Not to the parents who pay £100k a year in taxes, paying for other people's children to be educated whilst then were willing to fork out again for a private education for his own child.

So what you mean is that it's fair as far as the poor child/family is concerned that the rich shouldn't be allowed to pay for a better education when they cannot afford it themselves.

It is the proverbial race to the bottom by social engineering. Is that what socialism is about?

I think the education arguments on this board have become a little extreme. Raising standards for impoverished children could happen in our democratic society - it will take generations probably but improvements year on year could be made. The real world as quoted is not going to give up its Etons but the inequity which has spiralled in the last years could be slowed down and more taxes could target impoverished kids. We are rich enough to enhance all people's quality of life. Big bonuses should be directed to improving standards for all.

Is Cameron a prat? Not convinced he wants to help that percentage of population who receive inadequate provision in schooling.

I have worked in state & private (maths, no surprise there!) could ramble all day but won't. I can't re-shape the education system but we all know that certain establishments give social and economic advantage as well as excellent teaching. Those standards and access to the best resources and teaching needs to be available to all, not the few.

It is the proverbial race to the bottom by social engineering. Is that what socialism is about and is conservativism about maintaining a hierarchy and maintaining institutions? yes but only the institutions that benefit their own class. As we have seen they are also not immune from the temptation of making huge changes to institutions that they do not require such as the NHS.

If you are interested in finding out about socialism, you-tube, David Harvey lectures, brilliant intro on economic theory, also another american economist, easy to follow and understand would be Richard D Wolfe. Two great places to start I can't convince you, I don't mind being the token leftie loon.

Back to the OP, yes Cameron is a prat, a spoilt and naive prat who through accident of birth and circs is where he is.

Dear Mini,
Watched a snippet of David Harvey as recommended, will return to it, a good listen!

Thank you

I saw the thread title and merely thought: "Hold the front fucking page"

It's a shame Cameron isn't a sprat, instead - he would do much less harm that way and might taste nice, too.

ps the problem with raising the standard of living and education of the poorest is that the richest feel obliged to have something bigger and better than everyone else, so all that attempting to raise the life chances of the poorest and those in the middle does is cause the very richest to become even more extreme in their pursuit of being better than everyone else. It's not as if Eton 100 years ago had the ridiculously excessive level of facilities and opportunities it offers, now. Now, it has to cater for the spoilt children of Russian oligarchs and the like, and they don't believe in the hardships that were thought to be good for the children of the aristocracy of the past. The result is more and more of the world's resources wasted on human beings wanting to make themselves look and feel better than everyone else around them.

Absolutely rabbit, which is why it is even more important to offer the same excellent standard to all children, with no opt out. If the Russians object they can always go home. Lets face it, the silly sums of money they have, they could be used to improve standards in their own country. They won't though because as you so rightly point out, they are not paying for education, they are paying for elite privilege and perks.

Andisa, I'm glad, he is very interesting and engaging to listen to, he doesn't put forward enough ideas about how change could happen but he leaves you in no doubt about what is wrong now.