Mailwatch(ed) Forum

Reaction here seems a bit over the top. Not sure "Independent schools are great, they've got kids who were in care in them" is going to bring the posh parents in. You can't really argue, as I'm sure this writer does, that private school kids have a big advantage and then say "why could that be better than a state school?" To be clear, I'm not clear this is the right use of money, but you don't have to be very rightwing to think it's an interesting idea.

Wait till he hears about Tony Benn and sundry Kipper Tories.

No, no, no and no. It isn't 'interesting' it's patronising and often cruel.

It's been tried and it damaged the kids further by putting them in an environment where they were out of place, ignored or patronised, 'different' again. Some of them even had the gall to be black...

Spend money on decent provision in state schools where those kids can be supported within their own milieu and not used as an example of noblesse oblige.

This makes me very angry.

From yesterday, and doubtless why the article was published today.

https://www.nottingham.ac.uk/news/child ... arch-finds

New research, commissioned by Royal National Children’s SpringBoard Foundation (RNCSF), led by Professor David Murphy, found that children in and on the ‘edge of’ care who have the opportunity to attend state boarding or independent schools enjoy greater stability and secure significantly improved educational outcomes.

The researchers from the School of Education developed a control group of children in care who shared the same, or similar, grades, care profiles, ethnic backgrounds and gender to those who were supported by the charity over a ten-year period.

This may or may not be a good study, I don't know. But doesn't seem like a particularly bad thing for to be interested in, for a Labour candidate or anyone else.

And I wouldn't think this is "noblesse oblige". The state would be paying, as I understand it. State boarding schools are mentioned- these are not that expensive.

Just when you’re wondering why the Lib Dems are still struggling to achieve double digit poll ratings, up pops David Laws to remind us.

He's also apologised for leaking Liam Byrne's note. What a guy. That was about all he got to do before he had to resign.

Bewilderingly brought back by Clegg- can the bench have been that weak?

Tubby Isaacs wrote: ↑Wed Jul 26, 2023 9:13 pm And I wouldn't think this is "noblesse oblige".

Of course it is. You don't get into those hallowed halls without expecting to be grateful. 'Privileged' to be included.

I've dealt with this at the official level. Take the money (and the piss) and run sums it up.

Tubby Isaacs wrote: ↑Wed Jul 26, 2023 9:13 pm . State boarding schools are mentioned- these are not that expensive.

Minor public schools (and there's a reason they bunk Ofsted) aren't going to take on the sorts of kids who end up at state boarding schools.

It sounds like the state is paying. Could it not do pay for more places? As I say, not saying the study is solid or that this is the best use of money. But would that be possible, in theory?

I don't know what schools the study is talking about, but isn't the argument that the structure of boarding is beneficial for these kids (hence state boarding schools being mentioned)? There certainly used to be boarding schools run by social services for children with less than ideal home lives in the eighties and nineties. Are these still about?

No. It doesn't work.

It's just an excuse to give state subsidy to failing private schools.

Labour abolished this plan in 2000. The money went to help underachieving kids in cities through the Excellence in Cities programme. The Tories reinstated it in 2010, taking that money to improve inner-city education away.

It's a hideous scheme.

Tubby Isaacs wrote: ↑Wed Jul 26, 2023 9:37 pm isn't the argument that the structure of boarding is beneficial for these kids (hence state boarding schools being mentioned)?

Boarding schools are not good for anybody. Certainly not kids who have been abused or raised in poor conditions.

A fair enough take on recent local election adventures I think.



The brief mention of Ed did interest me mind. I remember, gods help me, the interminable whining that sountracked his leadership, but I could never quite work out what - besides not being his brother - he was doing so terribly wrong.

Tubby Isaacs wrote: ↑Wed Jul 26, 2023 9:37 pm It sounds like the state is paying. Could it not do pay for more places? As I say, not saying the study is solid or that this is the best use of money. But would that be possible, in theory?

I don't know what schools the study is talking about, but isn't the argument that the structure of boarding is beneficial for these kids (hence state boarding schools being mentioned)? There certainly used to be boarding schools run by social services for children with less than ideal home lives in the eighties and nineties. Are these still about?

I dunno, I didn’t mind him doing 5 Live today, most of the media seems obsessed with the silly thing over Farage so only on the fringes does anything else take any resonance, also a very easy question on mortgages that the government could in force, after all it seems keen on banking reform, just reform that effects about 3 people.

Philip Marlow wrote: ↑Thu Jul 27, 2023 12:16 am
The brief mention of Ed did interest me mind. I remember, gods help me, the interminable whining that sountracked his leadership, but I could never quite work out what - besides not being his brother - he was doing so terribly wrong.

Not sure he did much wrong, but the public never took to him. Had the voting intention polls been accurate, he might have resigned before the election.

One thing I do think was wrong and important was putting Balls as Shadow Chancellor. "Ed Balls brought down the banks" was bollocks (you could equally say he'd saved the country a fortune in interest payments by making the Bank independent), but the Tories must have laughed their arses off at him having the top finance job. Cooper would have been a better choice for the job.

But I think anyone was going to lose that election, especially with the guarantee of a Brexit referendum.

There was a hell of a lot of survivor bias after the 2008 crash. Drastic things were done to stop the system collapsing entirely, then one things calmed down the idiots said "Well, it didn't all fall apart, so were those measures really necessary?".

Unfortunately, some people who got it completely wrong more than survived as politicians.

https://www.ft.com/content/9ba3c422-dd6 ... 00779fd2ac

George Osborne, the shadow chancellor, said: “We will not back nationalisation. We will not help Gordon Brown take this country back to the 1970s.”

Philip Marlow wrote: ↑Thu Jul 27, 2023 12:16 am A fair enough take on recent local election adventures I think.

The brief mention of Ed did interest me mind. I remember, gods help me, the interminable whining that sountracked his leadership, but I could never quite work out what - besides not being his brother - he was doing so terribly wrong.

As some other posters have pointed out, the Tories can fuck up as much as they as like as it’s tomorrow’s fish and chip paper. Labour only has to forget to dot the ‘I’s and cross the ‘T’s and it’s a full scale pile on by the media.

Andy McDandy wrote: ↑Thu Jul 27, 2023 4:52 pm There was a hell of a lot of survivor bias after the 2008 crash. Drastic things were done to stop the system collapsing entirely, then one things calmed down the idiots said "Well, it didn't all fall apart, so were those measures really necessary?".

See also: Covid. "Nobody died, we didn't need lockdown and masks".

It's what they always do: AWOL when the shit's flying, and Monday night quarterback / Captain Hindsight afterwards.

These denialists with their lack of respect for people who know stuff, they learnt their craft with the Millennium Bug, right?

Apparently Bryan Gould was the best leader never had

https://labourlist.org/2023/08/best-lab ... yan-gould/

In 1992, John Smith was elected Labour Party leader with 91% of the tripartite electoral college of MPs, Constituency Labour Parties (CLPs), and affiliates. The result flattered Smith because CLPs’ votes were cast as a bloc: 55% support for Smith at a CLP nominating meeting would equate to 100% of that CLP’s vote for Smith at the conference. Nevertheless, Peter Jenkins wrote that Smith could have been elected leader under any electoral system “with the possible exception of the one to select the Dalai Lama, in which Tibetan monks wander the hills searching for a child to be their priestly king”.

Perhaps if this alternative system had been used, then a better candidate would have been chosen. Smith’s only opponent in 1992 was Bryan Gould, a New Zealander who arrived in Britain on a Rhodes scholarship 30 years earlier and had distinguished himself as an Oxford law academic, television journalist, MP for Southampton Test (1974-79) and for Dagenham (1983-94), and member of the Labour Shadow Cabinet.

Gould possessed several important virtues. He was intelligent, had strong principles, and came across as reasonable and relaxed in television interviews. In 1987, he was appointed by Neil Kinnock to co-ordinate Labour’s campaign and, although the result was disappointing, Gould was credited with a seamless operation that contrasted favourably to the chaos of 1983.

Neil Kinnock was poised to make Gould his Shadow Chancellor after the 1987 election, but the move was blocked by the incumbent Roy Hattersley who manoeuvred instead for John Smith. Gould’s appointment was blocked for two reasons. First, he was on the (soft) left of the party. Second, and not unrelatedly, he was a Eurosceptic, whereas Hattersley and Smith were Europhiles.