Jeremy Corbyn's time is up

[Idris2002]

Is there an answer to that question (i.e. the 'if you don't like private schools why do you sedn your kids to one')? I mean other than not appointing people who send their kids to private schools to these jobs in the first place.

 

[mauvais]

It's still early and my sarcasm meter may not be working yet, but are you seriously suggesting that right-wing Labour MPs in marginal seats will vote for an early GE in the expectation that they will lose their seats, on the basis that they hope that a new "moderate" Labour leader will emerge from the wreckage and they themselves may win back their seats (assuming they're still even the candidate) five years further down the line?

Given the talent they've shown - or not - for tactical self-preservation so far, anything seems possible.

Labour do have a problem with rejecting the fantasy not-so-snap election though. It would explicitly legitimise May's government, not just in this term but for the next. All those Brown-like 'unelected' attacks are dead in the water. Plus it implicitly legitimises Corbyn, not only in that he doesn't lose but in that they withheld his opportunity to fight. Then finally, what would the message to the electorate be from it? That they're the party of maybe-later? I suppose that's only relevant if there's a functioning whip/command, but still.

 

[bemused]

Is there an answer to that question (i.e. the 'if you don't like private schools why do you sedn your kids to one')? I mean other than not appointing people who send their kids to private schools to these jobs in the first place.

If you have the money to send your kids to private school good luck to you. However, the position that she forwarded which was that selection scared people emotionally whilst sending her kid to one of the most expensive private selective schools in the country is hypocrisy plain and simple.

It is disingenuous because if she disliked selective schools she wouldn't have sent her son to one; you can only assume she doesn't mind them.

Both Corbyn and McDonald went to grammar schools, Dianne Abbott famously sent her son private after saying she was scared he'd join a gang if he went to a local school - it is going to be a car crash.

 

[butchersapron]

Considering Corbyn divorced his wife when she expressed the wish to send their kid to a grammar school i can't see how he's allowed this nonsense to happen.

 

[Sue]

If you have the money to send your kids to private school good luck to you.

No. And especially not if you purport to believe in equality and fairness as this lot claim to.

 

[bemused]

No. And especially not if you purport to believe in equality and fairness as this lot claim to.

That is the rub isn't it? You can't say you loathe selective education but use if for your own kids because you have the cash,

 

[Monkeygrinder's Organ]

Both Corbyn and McDonald went to grammar schools, Dianne Abbott famously sent her son private after saying she was scared he'd join a gang if he went to a local school - it is going to be a car crash.

There's no contradiction at all between having been to a grammar school and not being in favour of them. They might try throwing that one about but it won't stick.

Having sent your own kids to a private school is a bit different though.

 

[cantsin]

Is there an answer to that question (i.e. the 'if you don't like private schools why do you sedn your kids to one')? I mean other than not appointing people who send their kids to private schools to these jobs in the first place.

can't be really, not if you're trying to sell political integrity / consistency / opposition to rotten self serving hypocrisy as your core strength in the face of never ending questions re; electability

 

[mauvais]

Both Corbyn and McDonald went to grammar schools, Dianne Abbott famously sent her son private after saying she was scared he'd join a gang if he went to a local school - it is going to be a car crash.

It's not inherently hypocritical, although it's a fairly good fit.

You could argue that you are doing what's best for your child right now within the current mess of a system whilst campaigning for improvements to that system. Paying the ransom doesn't mean you're in favour of being taken hostage. There's also some legitimacy to be claimed in not using your children as pawns in that process - not that the opposite is true either, see below.

Obviously you can only do that if you're willing to advance two positions: the obvious one being that state schools are currently not comparatively up to scratch, and the second that poor schools are not in part a product of the mix of children sent there, a self-perpetuating cycle which parents hold some responsibility for.

Both those things are false and should be attacked, I think.

 

[DownwardDog]

Is there an answer to that question (i.e. the 'if you don't like private schools why do you sedn your kids to one')? I mean other than not appointing people who send their kids to private schools to these jobs in the first place.

According to Alan Partridge the answer was "You can't mess about when it comes to your own kids."

 

[Sue]

That is the rub isn't it? You can't say you loathe selective education but use if for your own kids because you have the cash,

You said good luck to people who can afford to and do send their kids to a private school. I think they're scum tbh.

 

[Idris2002]

According to Alan Partridge the answer was "You can't mess about when it comes to your own kids."

Truly wisdom for the ages.

 

[bemused]

It's not inherently hypocritical, although it's a fairly good fit.

I think May will make it stick. Once Abbot, Corbyn and McDonald are lined up on the front bench she'll point out that she went to a grammar school as did Corbyn and McDonald and that some of his own front bench send their kids private - and then paint them as wanting to deny the system that gave them advantages to other 'ordinary hard working people'

I personally don't have a problem with selective schools, but, my concern would be that selective schools become better funded and access to higher education shouldn't be discriminated based on if the applications went to grammar or comprehensive schools.

 

[bemused]

You said good luck to people who can afford to and do send their kids to a private school. I think they're scum tbh.

Why?

 

[mauvais]

Yep, it's effective political ammunition for sure.

 

[Santino]

I personally don't have a problem with selective schools, but, my concern would be that selective schools become better funded and access to higher education shouldn't be discriminated based on if the applications went to grammar or comprehensive schools.

What's the point of a selective school if it doesn't give its pupils an advantage over non-selective schools?

 

[bemused]

What's the point of a selective school if it doesn't give its pupils an advantage over non-selective schools?

They get an advantage in the education but they shouldn't have an advantage if someone goes to a comprehensive and gets the same results.

I use to interview people and get quite annoyed when other interviewers brushed off Open University degrees - those folks really worked hard for it.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

They get an advantage in the education but they shouldn't have an advantage if someone goes to a comprehensive and gets the same results..

Access to higher education is mostly based on grades, though, not what school you went to. In fact Bristol University attempted to do the opposite of what you suggest and discriminate in favour of comprehensive school candidates over private school candidates after recognising that the higher grades produced by private schools are a poor predictor of performance at higher education.

The thing the people sending their kids to selective schools will be looking for, as those who send their kids private do, is higher grades.

 

[Fozzie Bear]

They get an advantage in the education but they shouldn't have an advantage if someone goes to a comprehensive and gets the same results.

This is precisely what happens though and is one of the reasons why selective schools appeal to people. It's the education (including soft skills like being an over-confident wanker), plus hanging around with kids of other rich people, plus the old school tie.

 

[krtek a houby]

This is precisely what happens though and is one of the reasons why selective schools appeal to people. It's the education (including soft skills like being an over-confident wanker), plus hanging around with kids of other rich people, plus the old school tie.

Are all those who attended such schools actually like that?

 

[Santino]

They get an advantage in the education but they shouldn't have an advantage if someone goes to a comprehensive and gets the same results.

I use to interview people and get quite annoyed when other interviewers brushed off Open University degrees - those folks really worked hard for it.

So one sort of advantage is ok, but another isn't.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

This is precisely what happens though and is one of the reasons why selective schools appeal to people. It's the education (including soft skills like being an over-confident wanker), plus hanging around with kids of other rich people, plus the old school tie.

Dunno about state selective schools, but the evidence is that private ones are in general poor at giving kids soft skills, such as a questioning mind and the initiative to thrive in a higher education setting. Hence Bristol Uni's finding - a kid from a comp with three Cs at A level will do as well on average at uni as a kid from a private school with three Bs.

 

[Idris2002]

Are all those who attended such schools actually like that?

In the Irish case, I would say, yes, pretty much. I've only met one who wasn't a wanker, and his excuse for going to a fee-paying private school was that his parents were aid workers in some impossibly remote part of Ethiopia, where there were no schools that do the Leaving Cert.

 

[Fozzie Bear]

Are all those who attended such schools actually like that?

I'm sure there are a handful who manage to overcome these obstacles.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

In the Irish case, I would say, yes, pretty much. I've only met one who wasn't a wanker, and his excuse for going to a fee-paying private school was that his parents were aid workers in some impossibly remote part of Ethiopia, where there were no schools that do the Leaving Cert.

tbf the excuse most kids have for going to a fee-paying private school is that they're kids and it wasn't their decision.

 

[ViolentPanda]

There is a mechanism...

...which involves 67% of the Commons supporting a motion. That's something that's vanishingly-unlikely to happen, even if the Tories were unanimously behind the motion - and they're not.

 

[Sue]

Why?

They're actively supporting/promoting something that perpetuates inequality and unfairness. To my mind that makes them scum.

 

[Mr Moose]

They're actively supporting/promoting something that perpetuates inequality and unfairness. To my mind that makes them scum.

Hard realities for Jeremy when he promoted Diane and Shami. At least it was the wife's fault when his kids went to Grammar.

 

[krtek a houby]

In the Irish case, I would say, yes, pretty much. I've only met one who wasn't a wanker, and his excuse for going to a fee-paying private school was that his parents were aid workers in some impossibly remote part of Ethiopia, where there were no schools that do the Leaving Cert.

Only one. Wow.

 

[krtek a houby]

They're actively supporting/promoting something that perpetuates inequality and unfairness. To my mind that makes them scum.

And what if they misguidedly wanted "the very best" for their child?