Bretonside Vs Brentonside (topics Merged)

What happened to the good old days when the government just plodded along with this sort of thing, IF necessary.

I thought private enterprise was supposed to put a stop to eight men leaning on shovels, staring into a hole. Now it's the same eight men, eight hard hats, a bit of expensive kit, and a corporation to feed, staring blankly at a work schedule that doesn't make sense to anyone but the sales team. And any remedial work can be carried out by the customer, the council, if they get shirty.

You forgot the obligatory roll-up dangling from the mouth, however the latest one appears to be all cramming into the van and staring vacantly at their phones for hours on end.

They're all vaping these days Les. I blame the beards, they're a fire hazard. and yes, gotta get yer fix of the farm.

I was in Waterstones today. Buying books ? .....no, having a cup of tea as is the way these days, and everyone was swiping and texting. Apart from the zimmer gals. One chap was doing a crossword, and he was picked on by the staff for standing out. Probably a closet extremist.

Sir John Hawkins wrote:

What happened to the good old days when the government just plodded along with this sort of thing, IF necessary.

They got thrown out by the public. I suspect the rubbish piles on the streets and the build up of unburied bodies might have had something to do with it.

How very dare they.

dear oh dear.
I always knew you were not the apolitical soul you make out. Naughty Rollo. Nice ankle.

They're all the same. Liars.

I notice you've not denied my post.

Sir John Hawkins wrote:

What happened to the good old days when the government just plodded along with this sort of thing, IF necessary.

I thought private enterprise was supposed to put a stop to eight men leaning on shovels, staring into a hole. Now it's the same eight men, eight hard hats, a bit of expensive kit, and a corporation to feed, staring blankly at a work schedule that doesn't make sense to anyone but the sales team. And any remedial work can be carried out by the customer, the council, if they get shirty.

As long as those 8 men's time sheets reflect their %age travel time, no time on tools and time on tools and they equal the hours someone has estimated the work order for then all is ok !

It all depends on the costing, and who gets what out of the pot. Isn't that how life has always been ?
When unhappy, people withdraw what they have. Some have capital to withdraw, some have labour. In the end, neither can work well without the other.

As to unburied bodies and rubbish, and if you're going to go down the colourful route of debate, I think the post war government organised labour did a far better job than the private sector solution it replaced. Just look at the squalour of private Victorian and early 20th century Britain, and look at the private medical people paying scounderels to body snatch for profit, buried or not. Charming.
By the way, I don't think all politicians are liars. I feel sorry for your cynicism. I'm forever optimistic regarding the human capacity for community endeavour, when private interests have failed. Let's hope the railways are the first to return to sanity here, as they have been for generations in much of Europe. And a far better job they make of it.

Sir John Hawkins wrote:

It all depends on the costing, and who gets what out of the pot. Isn't that how life has always been ?
When unhappy, people withdraw what they have. Some have capital to withdraw, some have labour. In the end, neither can work well without the other.

As to unburied bodies and rubbish, and if you're going to go down the colourful route of debate, I think the post war government organised labour did a far better job than the private sector solution it replaced. Just look at the squalour of private Victorian and early 20th century Britain, and look at the private medical people paying scounderels to body snatch for profit, buried or not. Charming.
By the way, I don't think all politicians are liars. I feel sorry for your cynicism. I'm forever optimistic regarding the human capacity for community endeavour, when private interests have failed. Let's hope the railways are the first to return to sanity here, as they have been for generations in much of Europe. And a far better job they make of it.

Believe me the railways won't return to sanity anytime soon.
"Body Snatching" feck me I'm assuming this is not a response to my post

Sir John Hawkins wrote:

It all depends on the costing, and who gets what out of the pot. Isn't that how life has always been ?
When unhappy, people withdraw what they have. Some have capital to withdraw, some have labour. In the end, neither can work well without the other.

As to unburied bodies and rubbish, and if you're going to go down the colourful route of debate, I think the post war government organised labour did a far better job than the private sector solution it replaced. Just look at the squalour of private Victorian and early 20th century Britain, and look at the private medical people paying scounderels to body snatch for profit, buried or not. Charming.
By the way, I don't think all politicians are liars. I feel sorry for your cynicism. I'm forever optimistic regarding the human capacity for community endeavour, when private interests have failed. Let's hope the railways are the first to return to sanity here, as they have been for generations in much of Europe. And a far better job they make of it.

I think it's great that the Government owns our railways and power. It would be even better if it was our own.

Hugh Watt wrote:

Sir John Hawkins wrote:

It all depends on the costing, and who gets what out of the pot. Isn't that how life has always been ?
When unhappy, people withdraw what they have. Some have capital to withdraw, some have labour. In the end, neither can work well without the other.

As to unburied bodies and rubbish, and if you're going to go down the colourful route of debate, I think the post war government organised labour did a far better job than the private sector solution it replaced. Just look at the squalour of private Victorian and early 20th century Britain, and look at the private medical people paying scounderels to body snatch for profit, buried or not. Charming.
By the way, I don't think all politicians are liars. I feel sorry for your cynicism. I'm forever optimistic regarding the human capacity for community endeavour, when private interests have failed. Let's hope the railways are the first to return to sanity here, as they have been for generations in much of Europe. And a far better job they make of it.

I think it's great that the Government owns our railways and power. It would be even better if it was our own.

There's a wealth of difference between a Nationalised Rail Industry and the effort we now have to contend with

The renationalising of the railways should be next on any governments agenda.

NHS should be mixture of public and private funding and also bring back Grammar schools.

I get both sides of Trident so not sure and also think we should leave the EU.

No party suits me in truth. Love Jacob Rees Mogg and Dennis Skinner.

Admire Corbyn even though he's no leader, and dislike Cameron.

All the major establishments are corrupt in this country and yet I wouldn't choose to live anywhere else.

All lanes in Mutley were open this morning

Rollo Tomasi wrote:

The renationalising of the railways should be next on any governments agenda.

NHS should be mixture of public and private funding and also bring back Grammar schools.

I get both sides of Trident so not sure and also think we should leave the EU.

No party suits me in truth. Love Jacob Rees Mogg and Dennis Skinner.

Admire Corbyn even though he's no leader, and dislike Cameron.

All the major establishments are corrupt in this country and yet I wouldn't choose to live anywhere else.

Your well mixed up with Tory and Labour beliefs....but I do agree with some of your thought.

Grammer schools haven't been totally exterminated....there are some excellent schools near me ...St Olaves (boys)...Newstead Woods (girls)....both high in national league tables...short bus journey Wilmington Grammer....plus 20mins on the train to Tonbridge for the Judd Grammer School and a little further for the Skinners School Tunbridge Wells....some of these have been looked at by one of my grandsons who will need such next year.....(taken there exams and passed them )......Grammer Schools such as these open up good Uni chances.

Railways....are a national asset and should never have been sold off to Tory money men.

Politics in this country is either black or white.....Tory & Labour are past there sale by date and until it changes I shall be voting UKIP.

Trident means you threaten me and I can threaten you with the same mass destruction....so stalemate and never will be used.....no Trident means you can be bullied by the otherside.

Cameron changes with the wind....but they haven't got anyone better.

Corbyn is living in is own little world.....the labour party being wagged by the tail.......UKIP's best asset and the SNP's as well....if he stays in charge too long Labour will split and never be a force again.

NHS is already a mixture of public and private money.....many things I could mention about that......Dental health is already private accept in some small cases....but they only offer very basic treatment.....six monthly check-up costs me £85 for a check and a clean-up.....dental insurance is a must....the smallest fiilling cost over a £100.

Your write their

Quote :

Grammer schools haven't been totally exterminated....there are some excellent schools near me ...St Olaves (boys)...Newstead Woods (girls)....both high in national league tables...short bus journey Wilmington Grammer....plus 20mins on the train to Tonbridge for the Judd Grammer School and a little further for the Skinners School Tunbridge Wells....some of these have been looked at by one of my grandsons who will need such next year.....(taken there exams and passed them )......Grammer Schools such as these open up good Uni chances.

It's "grammar" schools.

That aside there is not, and there never has been, a robust and conclusive study as to which is educationally the most beneficial out of comprehensive and selective education.

What has been robustly and conclusively proven is that there is strong correlation between educational success at an early age (i.e. pre-school) which then follows through all of the stages of pre-HE education (infant, junior, secondary etc). Given that there is an academic selection process ("taken there [sic] exams and passed them") at 11 it is hardly surprising that exam results at 16 and 18 are better ("high in national league tables") than in the comprehensive system. In fact grammar schools would be failing horribly were it not so.

In all likelihood the most able kids would succeed whatever system they were educated under and the primary driving factors are a home background where education is valued (and the very thought of an "educated wanker" mindset is abhorrent) coupled with a comfortable socio-economic status thus enabling various resources (decent food, a room of their own to study in, somewhere they can sleep properly etc) to be readily available.

The relative efficacies of each really is an issue that could be settled quickly and definitively by carrying out statistically robust randomised trials but governments of either politcal persuasion have never done so fearing that their pet ideologies could be proven to be pants.

Whatever the outcome, if there ever is one - and I am not holding my breath, of a comparison between selective and comprehensive education the fundamental difference between the two is the selection process at 11 years of age: it's wonderful to tell 20% of the kids that they have passed and that they are going to be a success but telliing the other 80% that they haven't and that they are a going to be a failure is cruel to the point of being sadistic and in many senses creates a self-fulfillling prophecy.

Rollo Tomasi wrote:

Sir John Hawkins wrote:

What happened to the good old days when the government just plodded along with this sort of thing, IF necessary.

They got thrown out by the public. I suspect the rubbish piles on the streets and the build up of unburied bodies might have had something to do with it.

How very dare they.

I assume you're talking about the so-called "Winter of Discontent" -  the tale of rewritten history that has long since passed into  folklore and which is frequently dredged up as a salutary warning against the effects of lefty politics by an unholy alliance of the Tories, the right-wing media and the contemporary neoliberal wing of the Labour Party?

Don't believe the hype. (A warning - this is going to be very long so if you don't like long posts then look away now and spare me the sarky comments).

The effects and extent of the strikes were wildly exaggerated for cynical political motives by Thatcher's adoring acolytes in the media at the time and ever since . They positively salivated at the prospect of the neoliberal revolution inspired by the likes of Keith Joseph and Nicholas Ridley and the way their determination to smash the post-war consensus would hugely benefit the elite. For example, the infamous gravediggers' strike you mention and which is often dragged up in debates such as this only resulted in bodies temporarily being unburied in TWO places in the entire country -  a part of Liverpool and another part  of London IIRC.

The editor of the Daily Express at the time was a rather odd character - a curiously gollum-like cockney  called Derek Jameson. Those slightly too young to remember his tenure as a Kelvin MacKenzie-esque d*ckhead (I was quite young myself but followed politics from an earlier age than is perhaps normal) might remember his bizarre reinvention as an affable television personality much later on.

Long afer the events of 1977 he spilt the beans about the concerted smear campaign the right-wing press had run in order to get their heroine elected;


"we pulled every dirty trick in the book; we made it look like (the strikes were) general, universal and eternal, when (they were) in reality scattered, here and there, and no great problem".


[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]


They did their job so well that the belief the country was brought to its knees by power-crazed unions who shut the country down, aided by the economic mismanagement of their lefty servants in the Callaghan Labour government has become conventional wisdom.

The irony is that while it had a more powerful left-wing than today (Blair's centralised control of the Labour Party and the effective purges-by-stealth of his centrally controlled candidate selection have seen to that) the idea that Callaghan and the right-winger Healey were guilty of subjecting the country to some kind of failed socialist economic experiment is utterly ludicrous. Ironically what they were really engaged in was an earlier episode of swingeing neoliberal austerity.

The conditions of the IMF loan required massive cuts in public spending - the biggest since the Great Depression. It was the furious response to the damaging effects on their members of these cuts that resulted in the famous industrial unrest we are always being told about. In fact contrary to the prevailing myths the Unions had acted with great responsibility and restraint in the first few years of the Wilson/Callaghan government, agreeing to an incomes policy and other measures in order to help the government tackle the economic crisis and 20% inflation left to it  by the previous Conservative regime. (There has actually been a technical recession of some description under every single Conservative administration since the war bar Churchill's).

Perhaps because this was achieved by honest negotiation, rather than the contemporary model of Unions being told, "it's our way or the highway" and then finding themselves castigated by the media and both major parties as economic saboteurs if they have the temerity to object, the Labour government was remarkably successful at first. However before too long the train of events set in motion by the Tory government came back to bite them.

Under Heath and Chancellor Barber the conservatives had fanned the first flames of the financial deregulation we know so well today with a loosening of credit controls and other measures. This led to a debt-fuelled consumer boom - the "Barber Boom" - and the predictable bust (sound familiar?). Without the investment in domestic industrial capacity to support it the spike in consumer demand caused a huge sucking in of imports, and eventually a balance of payments crisis (something which is in fact looming today, but which nobody ever seems to mention such is the hysteria about a historically unremarkable deficit and debt ratio)

In the longer term  this led to speculative attacks on the pound for the Labour government to deal with, which set in train the series of events that led to the IMF loan - essentially a loan from the US Federal Reserve and the Bundesbank, who imposed the savage conditions I mentioned earlier. Healey once recounted how at a meeting in Washington, he and Callaghan were confronted by the belligerent Fed Chairman of the time who unashamedly described himself - and I quote - as "a neanderthal conservative".

When the Unions found their members at the sharp end of the IMF-inspired austerity programme, with  huge public sector cuts leading to major job losses and so on, after having made voluntary sacrifices in order to support the governments'economic policy they felt betrayed.

It was actually the Labour left  - Benn, Foot and others -  who furiously protested and warned against the Right-Wing's disastrous IMF loan and the idea of a Labour government hammering the working-class and the poor in this way. Ironically before he died Healey admitted that he had been wrong to take the loan and that in hindsight it hadn't been necessary - he claimed that he had been given misleading figures by Treasury officials as to the true prospects for the economy. I suppose this was a genuine error on their part, but when I consider the background of the typical Treasury Mandarin and consider the feverish atmosphere of the times and what we now know about British Army Generals plotting armed coups against the Wilson government and so on, I do sometimes wonder.

Enough of this cover-up: the Wilson plot was our Watergate

On a side note it's strange to think that Thatcher and her friends in the media furiously condemned Labour for allowing unemployment to reach 1 million ("Labour Isn't Working") when you consider that a figure probably more than twice that number - if measured in the same way - was trumpeted as a success only yesterday.

But it isn't a case of "telling 80% of kids they've failed". (I'm sure it was closer to 65% back in the days of Widey/Sutton/Public etc still being around anyway). There should be (and thankfully in Plymouth there still is) a choice for parents to make whether they wish to put their kids forward for the 11+.

My own scenario illustrates the benefits of having the choice. One of mine went to Eggbuckland Comp, which academically and socially was a far better 'fit' for her. She may well have passed the 11+ but as parents we both knew she wouldn't have thrived in the Grammar School environment. The other took the 11+ and went to DHS because the fit, academically, was tailor-made for her.

Being able to make the choice is something that I believe should be available to all parents. Huge swathes of the country don't have that choice.

Now when it comes to educational comparisons, ( and I'm perfectly positioned to judge) the differences are HUGE. The scale of the operation doesn't help at massive Comps. Many kids can and do bumble along year on year under the radar with many of the teachers barely able to remember their names. If you're an outstanding student or a pain in the arse, this is quite often the only marker that gets you flagged up. You're in many ways just a number. At DHS the difference is massive. There are no doubts whatsoever that you are there to study and learn and be the best you can be.

Being constantly pushed to improve simply doesn't work unless there is a willingness to respond positively. That is why there should always be a choice, academically, that parents are able to make wholely dependent on individual circumstances. I'm pleased we had the opportunity to choose.

Sir John Hawkins wrote:

It all depends on the costing, and who gets what out of the pot. Isn't that how life has always been ?
When unhappy, people withdraw what they have. Some have capital to withdraw, some have labour. In the end, neither can work well without the other.

As to unburied bodies and rubbish, and if you're going to go down the colourful route of debate, I think the post war government organised labour did a far better job than the private sector solution it replaced. Just look at the squalour of private Victorian and early 20th century Britain, and look at the private medical people paying scounderels to body snatch for profit, buried or not. Charming.
By the way, I don't think all politicians are liars. I feel sorry for your cynicism. I'm forever optimistic regarding the human capacity for community endeavour, when private interests have failed. Let's hope the railways are the first to return to sanity here, as they have been for generations in much of Europe. And a far better job they make of it.

The idea that the private sector is this huge bastion of efficiency, underpinned by some kind of natural law that everyone wants to get rich quick and so has to make their businesses efficient, because, y'know, that's the only point to life, while the mere fact of being employed by the government leads to three-hour tea breaks is utter b*ll*cks. The whole tired argument is typical of the sort of Ayn Rand Selfishness is Moral/neoliberal voodoo that is taken as gospel by so many people these days.

I've worked in large public and private organisations and the latter had more than its fair share of time-wasting and inefficiency, not to mention the fact that the inevitable duplication that private enterprise produces is often grossly wasteful. A system is hardly efficient when it allocates scarce resources to producing a hundred different kinds of shampoo all doing much the same thing. Neither can it teach anyone about avoiding waste when it leads  to identical infrastructure being built for three or four different mobile communications networks, all duplicating coverage across most of the country, but which all have different blackspots so that no subscriber to a single provider can receive a signal everywhere.

Jabba, I'm not sure using the Guardian to expose a right wing plot carries much weight.

Also you insult the voters intelligence by implying they were hoodwinked.

Thatcher wasn't so much as voted in, more that Labour were voted out.

Interesting read though.

Czarcasm

Quote

My own scenario illustrates the benefits of having the choice. One of mine went to Eggbuckland Comp, which academically and socially was a far better 'fit' for her. She may well have passed the 11+ but as parents we both knew she wouldn't have thrived in the Grammar School environment. The other took the 11+ and went to DHS because the fit, academically, was tailor-made for her.

Both of mine went to Eggbuckland Comp, (my choice) both then went on to uni, gained their BA`s and the younger a MA, The younger now teaches at DHS.

Czarcasm wrote:

But it isn't a case of "telling 80% of kids they've failed". (I'm sure it was closer to 65% back in the days of Widey/Sutton/Public etc still being around anyway). There should be (and thankfully in Plymouth there still is) a choice for parents to make whether they wish to put their kids forward for the 11+.

My own scenario illustrates the benefits of having the choice. One of mine went to Eggbuckland Comp, which academically and socially was a far better 'fit' for her. She may well have passed the 11+ but as parents we both knew she wouldn't have thrived in the Grammar School environment. The other took the 11+ and went to DHS because the fit, academically, was tailor-made for her.

Being able to make the choice is something that I believe should be available to all parents. Huge swathes of the country don't have that choice.

Now when it comes to educational comparisons, ( and I'm perfectly positioned to judge) the differences are HUGE. The scale of the operation doesn't help at massive Comps. Many kids can and do bumble along year on year under the radar with many of the teachers  barely able to remember their names. If you're an outstanding student or a pain in the arse, this is quite often the only marker that gets you flagged up. You're in many ways just a number. At DHS the difference is massive. There are no doubts whatsoever that you are there to study and learn and be the best you can be.

Being constantly pushed to improve simply doesn't work unless there is a willingness to respond positively. That is why there should always be a choice, academically, that parents are able to make wholely dependent on individual circumstances. I'm pleased we had the opportunity to choose.

80% or 65% (my bad) makes little difference (other than to pedants); the substantive point remains.

The experiences of your two kids reinforces what I said rather than refuting it. Selection was made by you as a parent at the age of 11. The one who went to Eggbuckland did so because you selected it; the one who went to DHS went there because you selected it. This is still selection (or "choice" as you prefer to call it) even if it is not imposed by the school. Given the best pupil input DHS gets the best pupil output - it is a self-fulfilling prophecy. It's really isn't rocket science and most certainly does not prove success except in the broadest of brush strokes imaginable.

One major flaw in your Grammar v Comp comparison ("The scale of the operation doesn't help at massive Comps.") just goes to show on how facts are over-looked. Both Eggy (mixed sex) and DHS (boys) have as near as dammit 1500 pupils in attendance. As does the DHS (girls) and P High combo (altjough each of them really is scaled down and P High is particularly small). Schhools like Ivybridge, which is by far the biggest school locally, does very well however you look at it. Coincidentally Ivybridge is probably the closest we have locally to a proper comp with a genuinely representative mixed intake.

The fundamental flaw though is the assertion that Eggy is comprehensive. None of Plymouth's comps truly are because the mere existence of the DHSs and P High removes the top layer of likely-to-achieve kids at source (a huge contributor to the eventual exam results - think of the effect of taking the best 3 players (Reid, McCormick and Carey in Argyle's current inarnatiion) out of any football team - not likely to be as good, is it?). Most of Plymouth's comps are really more like Sec Mods with bells and whi stles than true comprehensives.

But even then in Plymouth they are not all the same. Hele's and Plymstock (both comprehensives) routinely out-perform the others in terms of results and are the two schools within Plymouth closest to the true definition of comprehensive because they are both out in the well-heeled leafy burbs - socio-economic status, see. There it is again.

Besides anecdotal evidence is not real evidence at all. There will always be exceptions. Just because it "never did me no harm" does not mean that something is not harmful. I repeat: there is not and there never has been a single properly robust study to prove that the selective or comprehensive model is the best over-all.

The entire notion that grammar schools are best is entirely founded on right wing dogma and nothing else.

That's you told Czar.....get to the back of the class you silly boy!

Rollo Tomasi wrote:

Jabba, I'm not sure using the Guardian to expose a right wing plot carries much weight.

Also you insult the voters intelligence by implying they were hoodwinked.

Thatcher wasn't so much as voted in, more that Labour were voted out.

Interesting read though.

The fact that Guardian, a moderately left of centre Liberal paper with columists ranging from Owen Jones on one end to Matthew D'Ancona is regarded as a modern day pravda shows how the accepted political spectrum has skewed to the right.

So many similarities with 2010 where the public was hoodwinked into thinking that the nation was on the brink of financial implosion and that severe cuts had to be implemented to repair the economy. Which blatantly didn't work and quietly the spending taps were turned on again mid term. As a result In fact in Osbornes first 5 years in charge of the economy he added more borrowing to the national debt than every Labour government combined!

Yet still the public thinks of the Conservatives as the prudent ones!

However in this new parliament they've been more honest in wanting to shrink the state beyond Thatchers wildest dreams to pre war levels!

I couldn't agree more Hugh. Like it or not, the middle ground has won the argument these last 50 years.

I'm expecting SFD to come along any moment soon to mention the percentage of the vote etc, etc.

By and large though, the difference between all the Prime Ministers have been minimal.

Which is why Corbyn is such a change in policy that it isn't going to happen.

I see the two main parties in France ganged up on the Front National and have squeezed them out (for the time). The status quo must be observed.

There will come a time when the Left and the Right will have their day. Just not yet though.