|
|
Post by jonksy on Feb 4, 2024 10:42:52 GMT
What you on about ? Grammar schools are also technically state schools, free and funded by the government. However, they are ‘selective’, requiring students to take a common entrance exam, also referred to as the 11-plus. Grammar schools are state secondary schools Ashcroft Technology Academy is a state-funded school, independent of local authority control. The Academy is sponsored by Lord Ashcroft, KCMG, who was also the founder sponsor of the former ADT College. Labour want to abolish Grammar schools because they don't want 'common people' becoming eggheads, it's suits their agenda to keep the poor poor, because this is their bread and butter voters, why the hell would they want the working classes getting top notch education so they can go on to be successful and vote Tory ... LOL Rayner wants them closed as they do not do bike shed diplomas mate... |
|
|
|
Post by Fairsociety on Feb 4, 2024 10:47:01 GMT
Labour want to abolish Grammar schools because they don't want 'common people' becoming eggheads, it's suits their agenda to keep the poor poor, because this is their bread and butter voters, why the hell would they want the working classes getting top notch education so they can go on to be successful and vote Tory ... LOL Rayner wants them closed as they do not do bike shed diplomas mate... LOL... |
|
|
|
Post by Totheleft on Feb 4, 2024 13:55:13 GMT
What you on about ? Grammar schools are also technically state schools, free and funded by the government. However, they are ‘selective’, requiring students to take a common entrance exam, also referred to as the 11-plus. Grammar schools are state secondary schools Ashcroft Technology Academy is a state-funded school, independent of local authority control. The Academy is sponsored by Lord Ashcroft, KCMG, who was also the founder sponsor of the former ADT College. Labour want to abolish Grammar schools because they don't want 'common people' becoming eggheads, it's suits their agenda to keep the poor poor, because this is their bread and butter voters, why the hell would they want the working classes getting top notch education so they can go on to be successful and vote Tory ... LOL they don't want 'common people' becoming eggheads, it's suits their agenda to keep the poor poor, because this is their bread and butter voters, If you Mean by Egg heads do you mean educated think you better look at the Breakdown of the last GE and see what percentage of people with higher education voted Labour compared to Conservative. Poor people poor the Tory.are certainly doing that Seeing the wealthy are there bread and butter. Can't understand why right wingers like you Lick multili millionaires but but . |
|
|
|
Post by witchfinder on Feb 4, 2024 15:40:22 GMT
There is no Labour proposal or policy to abolish Grammar Schools
The consensus of opinion amongst the sane majority within the Labour Party is to leave things alone, or to put it another way. let sleeping dogs lie.
Existing Grammar Schools have nothing to worry about, unless of course they are privately run by a company or shareholders and claim "charitable status".
There will of course be no new government sponsored Grammar Schools under Labour, and this is something I agree with. If we are to believe that particularly bright or talented pupils deserve a special school just for them, then it must surely follow that there ought to be special schools for the poorest attainers, and the least bright pupils.
Why cannot a "Comprehensive" School cater for pupils of all abilities ?
|
|
|
|
Post by thomas on Feb 4, 2024 17:24:55 GMT
There is no Labour proposal or policy to abolish Grammar Schools talking of education , what is labour policy on free Scottish tuition? Does starmer want to abolish Scottish free tuition , to bring us into line with England , or does he support ending tuition fees in England , to bring them into line with scotland? |
|
|
|
Post by witchfinder on Feb 4, 2024 17:37:07 GMT
There is no Labour proposal or policy to abolish Grammar Schools talking of education , what is labour policy on free Scottish tuition? Does starmer want to abolish Scottish free tuition , to bring us into line with England , or does he support ending tuition fees in England , to bring them into line with scotland? I have no idea, I am not a dedicated Labour supporter, allthough I do intend to vote Labour due to the fact that in my constituency they are the best option in getting rid of the Conservatives. If I lived in a constituency where the Lib Dems were the second party (after the Conservatives), then they would get my vote. My own opinion on the matter is that all students should pay something, or contribute towards university education |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Feb 4, 2024 18:11:57 GMT
Yes, but acadamies have nothing to do with the tripartite system that wapantake was advocating - they follow the same admissions criteria as every other state school. I'm not sure what Technical Schools he was on about ? Can't remember there being any and I'm 60yrs old and Secondary schools have easy admissions I went to one. Has for Grammar schools there the only one that have exam admissions and there still about. The tripartite education reforms that Attlee's Government introduced after the 1944 Education Act were based on the idea of 11+ exams, that if you passed you were then sent to either a Grammar School (if you were academic) or to a Technical High School if you were of a more practical ability. If you failed the 11+ you went to the Secondary Modern. The problem with the 1944 Act was that it didn't mandate the tripartite system and many Education Authorities simply introduced Grammar and Secondary schools with no Technical component - which lost a large part of the point of the changes. I went to a Technical High which actually was a very good fit with my abilities - so the system could have worked well if everyone had bought into it. It was actually quite close the German and Finland school systems with the split into academic and technical education. |
|
|
|
Post by thomas on Feb 4, 2024 21:02:04 GMT
talking of education , what is labour policy on free Scottish tuition? Does starmer want to abolish Scottish free tuition , to bring us into line with England , or does he support ending tuition fees in England , to bring them into line with scotland? My own opinion on the matter is that all students should pay something, or contribute towards university education I disagree, this is why Scots dont tend to vote labour , the party that originally introduced tuition fees across the uk , until they were subsequently abolished by the snp. The nationalised Scottish water won't be safe in labours hands either. Im sure that will be getting hammered home on Scottish doorsteps on the run up to the election. |
|
|
|
Post by Totheleft on Feb 4, 2024 21:58:24 GMT
My own opinion on the matter is that all students should pay something, or contribute towards university education I disagree, this is why Scots dont tend to vote labour , the party that originally introduced tuition fees across the uk , until they were subsequently abolished by the snp. The nationalised Scottish water won't be safe in labours hands either. Im sure that will be getting hammered home on Scottish doorsteps on the run up to the election. After the last SNP budget having they Cut uni funding by a large amount and some key uni think.they won't be able to function properly. Even one stopping Gaelic Lessons what it's run Since the 15th century. Also some unis see the free funding ending soon . Has for the next labour Government think. There keeping the Fees but doing something about student loan not sure. |
|
|
|
Post by witchfinder on Feb 5, 2024 8:43:43 GMT
My own opinion on the matter is that all students should pay something, or contribute towards university education I disagree, this is why Scots dont tend to vote labour , the party that originally introduced tuition fees across the uk , until they were subsequently abolished by the snp. The nationalised Scottish water won't be safe in labours hands either. Im sure that will be getting hammered home on Scottish doorsteps on the run up to the election. Allthough it is dissapointing that Labour have no plans to take the water industry out of private hands and bring it back under state ownership, I very much doubt that they would actually privatise any water supply currently under state control, it would be highly unpopular amongst both Labour members and MPs. I think under a Labour government, Scottish water would be perfectly safe as it is. |
|
|
|
Post by thomas on Feb 5, 2024 8:48:40 GMT
I disagree, this is why Scots dont tend to vote labour , the party that originally introduced tuition fees across the uk , until they were subsequently abolished by the snp. The nationalised Scottish water won't be safe in labours hands either. Im sure that will be getting hammered home on Scottish doorsteps on the run up to the election. Allthough it is dissapointing that Labour have no plans to take the water industry out of private hands and bring it back under state ownership, I very much doubt that they would actually privatise any water supply currently under state control, it would be highly unpopular amongst both Labour members and MPs. I think under a Labour government, Scottish water would be perfectly safe as it is. Labour tried to privatise Scottish water in 2005 ? So what are you talking about? Non domestic water users in scotland pay privately because of new labour. In 2005, the Labour/LibDem coalition government in Holyrood brought in the ‘Water Services etc. (Scotland) Act 2005’ to open up competition and force the deregulation of non-domestic water customers.
The Labour-led administration also created the Water Services etc. (Scotland) Act 2005 (Consequential Provisions and Modifications) Order 2005 which handed the Competition Commission in London the sole power to investigate and make judgments on proposed licence modifications or Scottish Water price-control decisions in cases where the Water Industry Commission for Scotland and the relevant private provider disagreed.
Although created in 2005, the Act didn’t take effect until April 2008, forcing Scottish Water to set up Business Stream in November 2006 to prepare for the change.
Scottish Water’s own website notes:-
“Under the Water Services Act (Scotland) 2005 Scottish Water had to split its operation into wholesale (Scottish Water) and retail (Business Stream) units. Although remaining a part of the Scottish Water group, Business Stream is a new business working completely independently of its parent company in order to ensure fair and transparent retail practice under the rules of the new deregulated marketplace for business customers.”
In April 2008, the new system went live, effectively privatising the provision of water for any non-domestic users. From that point on, all contracts for water provision in non-domestic instances (public bodies, companies and other private enterprises) have had to source their water via one of the providers available. |
|
|
|
Post by witchfinder on Feb 5, 2024 16:49:32 GMT
After reading and studying about the 2005 Bill, which came into force in 2008, there are several points which are important, firstly that water for domestic use in Scotland is state owned and run. There was never any plans to break up Scottish Water or to privatise it.
Reading the "WICS" ( Water Industry Commission for Scotland ) website, it would seem that allowing the PARTIAL privatisation of water supply to business, non-domestic and large quantity customers has reaped many benefits. The "Retailers" purchase water in large volume from the "Wholesaler" (Scottish Water) and using discounts, can sell it cheaper to business customers, often cheaper than Scottish Water.
One of the big problems of politics in this country ( The UK ) has been the fact that Conservatives always rejected state owned, and Labour always rejected private owned, ying and yang politics.
Some things are better in state hands in the interests of the public, on the other hand there are other things which are better in private ownership in the interests of the public.
|
|
|
|
Post by andrewbrown on Feb 5, 2024 17:25:49 GMT
After reading and studying about the 2005 Bill, which came into force in 2008, there are several points which are important, firstly that water for domestic use in Scotland is state owned and run. There was never any plans to break up Scottish Water or to privatise it. Reading the "WICS" ( Water Industry Commission for Scotland ) website, it would seem that allowing the PARTIAL privatisation of water supply to business, non-domestic and large quantity customers has reaped many benefits. The "Retailers" purchase water in large volume from the "Wholesaler" (Scottish Water) and using discounts, can sell it cheaper to business customers, often cheaper than Scottish Water. One of the big problems of politics in this country ( The UK ) has been the fact that Conservatives always rejected state owned, and Labour always rejected private owned, ying and yang politics. Some things are better in state hands in the interests of the public, on the other hand there are other things which are better in private ownership in the interests of the public. Stop being practical. There's too many idealogues on here. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Feb 5, 2024 18:12:57 GMT
After reading and studying about the 2005 Bill, which came into force in 2008, there are several points which are important, firstly that water for domestic use in Scotland is state owned and run. There was never any plans to break up Scottish Water or to privatise it. Reading the "WICS" ( Water Industry Commission for Scotland ) website, it would seem that allowing the PARTIAL privatisation of water supply to business, non-domestic and large quantity customers has reaped many benefits. The "Retailers" purchase water in large volume from the "Wholesaler" (Scottish Water) and using discounts, can sell it cheaper to business customers, often cheaper than Scottish Water. One of the big problems of politics in this country ( The UK ) has been the fact that Conservatives always rejected state owned, and Labour always rejected private owned, ying and yang politics. Some things are better in state hands in the interests of the public, on the other hand there are other things which are better in private ownership in the interests of the public.
I dont necessarily disagree but the problem comes in deciding what industries are better in public hands or private hands. Take water which you discussed - the UK has 3 different ownership models. State owned and run (scotland) private (england) and not for profit (wales). Out of the 3 systems non perform markedly better than any other and by many measures the English system performs the best. Yet there is a widespread belief among the public that state run would deliver the best outcomes - which is far from being proven. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Feb 6, 2024 8:17:27 GMT
After reading and studying about the 2005 Bill, which came into force in 2008, there are several points which are important, firstly that water for domestic use in Scotland is state owned and run. There was never any plans to break up Scottish Water or to privatise it. Reading the "WICS" ( Water Industry Commission for Scotland ) website, it would seem that allowing the PARTIAL privatisation of water supply to business, non-domestic and large quantity customers has reaped many benefits. The "Retailers" purchase water in large volume from the "Wholesaler" (Scottish Water) and using discounts, can sell it cheaper to business customers, often cheaper than Scottish Water. One of the big problems of politics in this country ( The UK ) has been the fact that Conservatives always rejected state owned, and Labour always rejected private owned, ying and yang politics. Some things are better in state hands in the interests of the public, on the other hand there are other things which are better in private ownership in the interests of the public.
I dont necessarily disagree but the problem comes in deciding what industries are better in public hands or private hands. Take water which you discussed - the UK has 3 different ownership models. State owned and run (scotland) private (england) and not for profit (wales). Out of the 3 systems non perform markedly better than any other and by many measures the English system performs the best. Yet there is a widespread belief among the public that state run would deliver the best outcomes - which is far from being proven. I do not think the issue so much is how it is run it is how it is controlled and regulated. Any model would seem to work if it is effectively regulated. The idea of the profit motive is to encourage efficiencies an excellent idea when it works a bit of a bummer when it does not but then that would apply in all models. Poor delivery implies in some way poor regulation or at least ineffective regulation. |
|
