Guess what proportion of MPs privately educated in each party. Go on, guess!

[nearlytoolate]

And no cheating if you have read it in the papers already!

"grammars are excellent state schools."

Actually, they may or may not be excellent. They are state schools that take excellent students and no others!

ahundredtimes, they are worse than hypocrites. They allow the rich to get on with it sending their children to Eton and other private schools, but they want to prevent the poor and middle classes having access to excellent state grammars, while sending their own children to the best schools. It's almost as if they are in cahoots with the rich and against the majority of the working and middle class people.

gawd, claig

you said the cabinet were hypocrites because they sent their dc's to grammar and private schools, whilst telling everyone else not to.

I wasn't aware they told people not to. That's what I was asking about tbh

Dumpyoldwoman, I listened to that programme and will listen to it again. It was fascinating. It is also interesting about the timing of the programme. Democracy across the world is under attack, I think the programme was called "Democracy On Trial", next week Portillo will talk about Plato etc. which will be really interesting. They also implied that capitalism is in charge and capitalism uses the cloak of democracy, because people will not give up their lives for capitalism, but they will give up their lives for freedom and democracy. The word democracy is bandied about to fool people and serve capitalism's interests. How much of a democracy is it really when our vote doesn't even really count?

It does. Definitely Riven. A massive leg up.

As I said further up, I think it's getting harder if you didn't go to a private (or at least high ranking Grammar) school. Also, the expectation for graduate schemes (for the internships in policitical circles, the training for the lawyers and accountants who go on to become politicians) is more and more focused on all the extra curricular 'treking in Belize' stuff that only the wealthy can afford.

I would really like to see all parties' stats for their newly elected MPs (or, say, all MPs under 40). I think Labour's number will be creeping up too.

ahundredtimes, I mean that they argue against grammar schools, they think they are a bad idea, they don't want to create any more. Most primary state school children don't get any help to pass the 11+, whilst those who can afford it at prep school and working busily away trying to get into grammars. I want more good grammar schools and more good comprehensive schools for those who cannot afford to educate their children privately.

Oxbridge is not elitist.

Anyone with the grades can apply to Oxbridge. Oxbridge take more pupils from state schools than the proportion of applications they can get from pupils from state schools. They actively encourage state school applications through programmes such as Target Schools.

They cannot accept people who dont apply.

If anything, the problem lies with state schools and their anti-Oxbridge attitudes."Ooh- everyone there will be posh and they'll look down at you."

I was lucky to go to a state school that was pro-Oxbridge and applied weas accepted and went, and I loved it, and never once was I ever looked down on by anyone there because I hadnt been to a private school.I'm actually ashamed to say that any snobbery I witnessed was inverted snobbery.

Despite my own positive experience, I would avoid state schools for my children due to their championing of mediocrity - see other thread on a child who was not allowed to read a certain book because it was a Year 8 book and she was year 7. That would simply not happen in a private school.

Does it really matter?

It is a form of snobbery this - picking on the privately educated. Ridiculous really.

My dts go to a really good state school, however had it not been the case I would have looked at the availability of scholarships to the independent schools.

Jeez, don't berate them for having parents who cared or had money.

Riven, it was this one
www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00s936s/Democracy_on_Trial_Episode_1/

it was brilliant and very important to listen to. I'm sure I would love your bookshelf. Always love to hear about any great authors that I may have neglected or don't know about.

Riven - it was Democracy On Trial, and it was on R4 at 9 am. I only caught part of it, and will listen to the whole thing later. It was actually Portillo - he's so much better now he's out of gvt!

Have you read Spirit Level?

I don't think that there is anything wrong with private schools. Hell, I would look into one (if I had the money) for DD given the dire state of some of our nearest state schools.

BUT

I still think that there is an issue with the government being disproportionately made up by people with that type of background. It gives you a slanted view. You mainly see and socialise within a certain level of privilege, and that does affect your world view.

Also, the valuing of all those things smallwhitecat lists above in interviews for entry level positions does privilege the wealthy and privileged. That is going to leech through into our politicians more and more, as it affects people who get into the typical 'feeder professions' for today's policitician (how many start out as a trade union rep these days? Not many I wouldn't think). I've seen it in recruitment at places I've worked - oooh, we don't care about background they say, but they do care how many extra curricular activities you've crammed into the summer, and are far less impressed with a job in Tesco.

TheBride, I agree with you, it is about mediocrity. I know many will diagree with me but I think that the Tories are not for mediocrity, they believe in excellence and grammars etc. Labour have dumbed down and allowed mediocrity. I think that is why they insist on comprehensives while people like Diane Abbott, whom I like, send their own kids to other schools.

smallwhitecat, you are right, no private education can make up for lack of intelligence. Some people, such as Mandelson are very intelligent, and in my opinion far more so than Clegg, who went to Westminster, one of the top schools in the country.

no I haven't heard of Spirit Level. Will look it up now.

i am not particularly in favour of selective schools in the state sector - (including faith schools - a sure-fire way to select kids from wealthier families) - the grammar (in name only) over the hill provides an excellent standard by setting the intake it gets...(so by ability throughout school, not once and for all at 11/12 yo)

...side issue really - i think private intake probably is brighter to begin with, (think about it, some are selective, and if you earn 50k+ yourself, you are unlikely to be a dunce, therefore your kids will be more intelligent than average...) Certainly the private educated peopl i have met would undoubtedly have done well in the state sector too.

just not quite as well. good teaching has an affect.

graduate schemes...i got onto one! but it was the wrong one unfortuanately...by that time i did have'trekking in belize' style stuff on my Cv (though would have had 'packing soap in factory' things on before university...agree that with grade inflation, these things are increasingly used to differentiate candidates as academic record alone isn't enough....)

if we want MPs to be our brightest and best..we're going to get a disporportionate amount of the academic elite - which means state selective /private/oxbridge people.

I found the proportion of labour MPs very interesting - do you think this is because labou have historically recruited MPs and members in a differnt way? (ie not the Professional politican route..)

wow 'the Silent Takeover' sounds right up my street. Also never heard of that one. I will look that up now. Sounds fantastic, yes this PFI thing is very important and I don't understand much about it

Edgar - Yes, I think you're right. Historically a lot of Labour MPs came through the Unions. I just don't feel that's the case today, so I think it's going to get more levelled out over time. I would like to be proved wrong...

I agree with you about intelligence. I just worry that an intellgient person who doesn't get all the lovely CV bumping stuff would get nowhere these days. I'm not sure that I would have got into my graduate recruitment scheme today on grades alone (everything else I had was part time cleaning/temping jobs and the like).

I think you also have to be a bit careful about Labour MPs who went to state school.

A lot went to very nice 'comprehensive' schools that were far far better than the second rate private school my parents desperatley scraped money together to send me to.

A better comparison would be how many went to Oxford or Cambridge. I think you will find that number is much more comparable.

I am amazed by the Diane Abbott and Michael Portillo factoid about them going to the same school. They are nearly the same age. He would have bene in the year above Diane Abott admittedly at the boys grammar and her at the girls grammar but even so. Both born of immigrant parent(s) too.

They do seem to get on incredibly well on the Daily Politics show. I like them both.

EdgarAllen- I've often heard that point as an argument against faith schools but I'm not sure I understand it. Could you clarify- are rich people just more likely to be religious (hey- maybe God does exist after all?) or is the argument that faith schools use religious faith as a way of interviewing and checking out the parents and choosing the Merc drivers.