Labour U Turns Part 164

[belton rover]

Anecdotal evidence is useless.

That said, I'll give you my anecdote. My sister won a scholarship to a fee paying school in Herts. She won a scholarship for tennis, still it cost my dad a pretty penny.

I did better than her at uni but she went to the USA because of her tennis. She won a few things.

My experience of private education is that it is a million miles ahead of state school. But the biggest difference, is the attitude of the teachers. It's a different world.

So much more supportive. So much more focussed.

I’ve never worked in a private school, but rather than it being the attitude of the teachers that’s better, I suspect it’s more that there is more support for teachers to allow them to be more compassionate and supportive.
No teacher worth their salt doesn’t want to be compassionate and supportive, and focussed on the child.

[SydneyRover]

Finland isn't a perfect society but they appear to be quite happy with their lot. Most of those interested in education would already have read this or something similar, but it's worth reading again. It could lead to solving some of the questions that other current 'off topic' threads are posing.

''''The country’s achievements in education have other nations, especially the United States, doing their homework''

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/innovation/why-are-finlands-schools-successful-49859555/

[River Don]

Anecdotal evidence is useless.

That said, I'll give you my anecdote. My sister won a scholarship to a fee paying school in Herts. She won a scholarship for tennis, still it cost my dad a pretty penny.

I did better than her at uni but she went to the USA because of her tennis. She won a few things.

My experience of private education is that it is a million miles ahead of state school. But the biggest difference, is the attitude of the teachers. It's a different world.

So much more supportive. So much more focussed.

I’ve never worked in a private school, but rather than it being the attitude of the teachers that’s better, I suspect it’s more that there is more support for teachers to allow them to be more compassionate and supportive.
No teacher worth their salt doesn’t want to be compassionate and supportive, and focussed on the child.

True

[River Don]

In private schools there's a respect for the kids that doesn't exist in state schools. This may not be the big difference but it is a difference.

[SydneyRover]

So it comes down to the school being in a position to offer staff more support, then it comes right back to the government budgeting for this to happen? or the government funding the local authority to do this?

Or of course the will of a government to want it to happen.

[River Don]

BTW I think smaller classes makes a huge difference too.

[BillyStubbsTears]

BTW I think smaller classes makes a huge difference too.

That's a key thing that you pay for at a private school. That and better facilities all round.

Tommy noted a friend saying that all schools should have the facilities that his kids' private school has.

I entirely agree. But that requires people to vote to pay more tax and have it spent on state schools. Whereas for the past decade and a bit, they've voted for Governments that have cut the real terms funding per pupil at state schools.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Tommy

Interestingly it's also true that anyone aspiring to Oxbridge has far better prospects of being accepted if they apply from the state sector than they do from the private sector. The latter is actually a millstone in the Oxbridge applications process.

I'm not sure what evidence you are basing that on, but it is flatly contradicted by Oxford's own data.

https://www.ox.ac.uk/about/facts-and-figures/admissions-statistics/undergraduate-students/current/school-type

Currently, about 6.5% of kids go to private schools.

Last year 24.5% of all applications to Oxford came from private schools.

31.9% of UK new starters at Oxford came from private schools.

So clearly, the proportion of private school kids who get Oxford places after applying is higher than the proportion of state school kids who do. 20.4% against 16.9%.

So in the case of Oxford at least, your claim is demonstrably wrong.

And here's the really damning point.

Of all the Oxford applicants who get AAA or better at A-Level (the traditional requirement) 79.1% come from state schools, whereas 20.9% come from private schools. BUT, of the new intake last year, 68.1% came from state schools and 31.9% from private schools.

So, not only are you more likely to perform better at a private school, because of the resources. If you come from a private school and get the same A level results as a kid who went to a state school, with worse resources, you are much, much more likely to get into Oxford.

Whether that is an old school tie thing, or an assessment by Oxford that a private school prepares the person overall better to succeed at Oxford I couldn't say. But it is a demonstrable fact in Oxford's own data.

Pay for a private education by all means. But don't try to play down the huge advantage that gives your kids. It's there in the data.

[SydneyRover]

''There are however a minority of parents like myself and my wife who both work our b*llocks off to be able to send her there. Drop her off earliest and last to pick her up because we're both working to send her there. Its people like us (which cumulatively adds up to quite a lot of people across the country) who will suffer''

Sounds like you need a union Tommy C.

[TommyC]

Tommy

Interestingly it's also true that anyone aspiring to Oxbridge has far better prospects of being accepted if they apply from the state sector than they do from the private sector. The latter is actually a millstone in the Oxbridge applications process.

I'm not sure what evidence you are basing that on, but it is flatly contradicted by Oxford's own data.

https://www.ox.ac.uk/about/facts-and-figures/admissions-statistics/undergraduate-students/current/school-type

Currently, about 6.5% of kids go to private schools.

Last year 24.5% of all applications to Oxford came from private schools.

31.9% of UK new starters at Oxford came from private schools.

So clearly, the proportion of private school kids who get Oxford places after applying is higher than the proportion of state school kids who do. 20.4% against 16.9%.

So in the case of Oxford at least, your claim is demonstrably wrong.

And here's the really damning point.

Of all the Oxford applicants who get AAA or better at A-Level (the traditional requirement) 79.1% come from state schools, whereas 20.9% come from private schools. BUT, of the new intake last year, 68.1% came from state schools and 31.9% from private schools.

So, not only are you more likely to perform better at a private school, because of the resources. If you come from a private school and get the same A level results as a kid who went to a state school, with worse resources, you are much, much more likely to get into Oxford.

Whether that is an old school tie thing, or an assessment by Oxford that a private school prepares the person overall better to succeed at Oxford I couldn't say. But it is a demonstrable fact in Oxford's own data.

Pay for a private education by all means. But don't try to play down the huge advantage that gives your kids. It's there in the data.

Billy, you've read the same article as I've read in The Guardian and quoted from it. I've also read The Spectators twist on it too. You can spin this either way depending on the argument you're trying to make.

Yes, there is still a disproportionately high number of pupils from private school getting into Oxbridge. But that is because it has historically always been so. That trend reversal we're starting to see is a direct result of privately educated pupils being actively discriminated against compared to their state educated peers. I quote the Head of Cambridge admissions...

"We have to keep making it very, very clear we are intending to reduce over time the number of people who are coming from independent school backgrounds into places like Oxford or Cambridge."

They cannot achieve that without a programme of active discrimination based background, not results. Ergo, you're now at an advantage is you go to a state school. You'll have read about the examples of parents pulling their kids out of private schools and sending them to a state sixth form. Why do you suppose they're doing that?

They are now actively discriminating based on background, not ability and that is demonstrably true. They've admitted it. What your seing in the stats is the start of that but it's a process they intend to continue with and accelerate.

[TommyC]

''There are however a minority of parents like myself and my wife who both work our b*llocks off to be able to send her there. Drop her off earliest and last to pick her up because we're both working to send her there. Its people like us (which cumulatively adds up to quite a lot of people across the country) who will suffer''

Sounds like you need a union Tommy C.

Interesting suggestion.

Whilst obviously I know you're just being your usual snide and snarky self, you'll be no doubt delighted to hear that no matter how bad things get, I don't and never will want or need a union in any aspect of my life whatsoever.

[SydneyRover]

Maybe just a sense of humour then, your hard luck story certainly needs one

[TommyC]

Maybe just a sense of humour then, your hard luck story certainly needs one

As I said, snide as always. With nothing substantive to say.

[SydneyRover]

Introduction

''There has never been a proper explanation of why today 1,300 private schools, patronised almost exclusively by a selection of the wealthiest 6% in society, enjoy tax-free charitable status. Charity, in most people’s understanding, is supposed to be what the wealthy give to the poor, rather than what society in general gives to the wealthy.

To understand how schools for the poor, many with medieval and Tudor origins, seamlessly transformed into schools for the rich, while retaining their charitable status, requires some careful investigation into nineteenth-century parliamentary history. As I have recently shown, 200 years after Elizabeth I’s founding statute, the 1601 Charitable Uses Act, parliament found that many charities, including those supposed to be running schools for the poor, had become grossly corrupt. At this point it was the obdurate refusal of the Anglican Church to surrender its control of secondary education which first delayed reform and then forced a compromise, with extraordinary long-term implications for British society today and the elite institutions reproducing its hierarchical class structure. This compromise resulted in the major public schools of the mid-Victorian era remaining outside the control of the 1853 Charity Commission. These decisions taken in the mid-nineteenth century continue to resonate, allowing today many elite, fee-paying private schools to continue to operate as registered charities, gaining significant financial support from the state – and therefore from the vast majority of citizens, in a reverse Robin Hood process''

https://www.historyandpolicy.org/policy-papers/papers/the-charitable-status-of-elite-schools-the-origins-of-a-national-scandal

[Bristol Red Rover]

Anecdotal evidence is useless.

That said, I'll give you my anecdote. My sister won a scholarship to a fee paying school in Herts. She won a scholarship for tennis, still it cost my dad a pretty penny.

I did better than her at uni but she went to the USA because of her tennis. She won a few things.

My experience of private education is that it is a million miles ahead of state school. But the biggest difference, is the attitude of the teachers. It's a different world.

So much more supportive. So much more focussed.

There are two differences, first and by far the main difference in most average private schools is that the vibe amongst the pupils is more conducive to better working and performance. That's just for the kids, then there is far far less energy spent by the schools teachers and admin on dealing with the social control side including disruption from sometimes just a handful of individuals.

In the elite schools, the Etons and a great many others, there is the whole elite brainwashing and reinforcement. Some obsequious types think this is a good thing. It isn't. It feeds divisiveness in society, and the rest that is all bleedin obvious.

These elite schools should be target number one, but they won't be because erm.... the elites don't want that, and they do decide (democracy  ). The original policy would target the lower class private schools. It was a sham, but at least it was something towards getting rid of this criminal inequality of opportunity. Of course not criminal if inequality of opportunity is celebrated.

[Bristol Red Rover]

Billy, you've read the same article as I've read in The Guardian and quoted from it. I've also read The Spectators twist on it too. You can spin this either way depending on the argument you're trying to make.

Yes, there is still a disproportionately high number of pupils from private school getting into Oxbridge. But that is because it has historically always been so. That trend reversal we're starting to see is a direct result of privately educated pupils being actively discriminated against compared to their state educated peers. I quote the Head of Cambridge admissions...

"We have to keep making it very, very clear we are intending to reduce over time the number of people who are coming from independent school backgrounds into places like Oxford or Cambridge."

They cannot achieve that without a programme of active discrimination based background, not results. Ergo, you're now at an advantage is you go to a state school. You'll have read about the examples of parents pulling their kids out of private schools and sending them to a state sixth form. Why do you suppose they're doing that?

They are now actively discriminating based on background, not ability and that is demonstrably true. They've admitted it. What your seing in the stats is the start of that but it's a process they intend to continue with and accelerate.

Tokenism, and you fell for it.

The proportions of inequality are SO stark they are compelled to do something. But with these adjustments there is still the inequality of opportunity despite the misuse, abuse, of stats in this that makes you think state school kids are more likely to get into Oxbridge. They are not, just count the proportion of  kids that go to private schools out of the UK population, and similarly the proportion of them in Oxbridge.

<added> I'll do it for you.

The proportion of kids in private education is 5.9%
https://www.isc.co.uk/research/

The proportion of privately educated kids in Oxbridge (2021) is 33%
https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/sn00616/

And to add to this, in 2019, some other privately educated proportions:
29% MPs
57% House of Lords
39% of the cabinet
9% of shadow cabinet
43% FTSE 350 CEOs
57% of the Rich List
44% newspaper columnists
59% Civil service permanent secretaries
52% Foreign Office diplomats
45% Public Body Chairs
39% Civil Service
66% Senior Judges
49% armed forces highest ranks
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/811045/Elitist_Britain_2019.pdf

It is deliberate and EVIL.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Tommy

Interestingly it's also true that anyone aspiring to Oxbridge has far better prospects of being accepted if they apply from the state sector than they do from the private sector. The latter is actually a millstone in the Oxbridge applications process.

I'm not sure what evidence you are basing that on, but it is flatly contradicted by Oxford's own data.

https://www.ox.ac.uk/about/facts-and-figures/admissions-statistics/undergraduate-students/current/school-type

Currently, about 6.5% of kids go to private schools.

Last year 24.5% of all applications to Oxford came from private schools.

31.9% of UK new starters at Oxford came from private schools.

So clearly, the proportion of private school kids who get Oxford places after applying is higher than the proportion of state school kids who do. 20.4% against 16.9%.

So in the case of Oxford at least, your claim is demonstrably wrong.

And here's the really damning point.

Of all the Oxford applicants who get AAA or better at A-Level (the traditional requirement) 79.1% come from state schools, whereas 20.9% come from private schools. BUT, of the new intake last year, 68.1% came from state schools and 31.9% from private schools.

So, not only are you more likely to perform better at a private school, because of the resources. If you come from a private school and get the same A level results as a kid who went to a state school, with worse resources, you are much, much more likely to get into Oxford.

Whether that is an old school tie thing, or an assessment by Oxford that a private school prepares the person overall better to succeed at Oxford I couldn't say. But it is a demonstrable fact in Oxford's own data.

Pay for a private education by all means. But don't try to play down the huge advantage that gives your kids. It's there in the data.

Billy, you've read the same article as I've read in The Guardian and quoted from it. I've also read The Spectators twist on it too. You can spin this either way depending on the argument you're trying to make.

Yes, there is still a disproportionately high number of pupils from private school getting into Oxbridge. But that is because it has historically always been so. That trend reversal we're starting to see is a direct result of privately educated pupils being actively discriminated against compared to their state educated peers. I quote the Head of Cambridge admissions...

&quot;We have to keep making it very, very clear we are intending to reduce over time the number of people who are coming from independent school backgrounds into places like Oxford or Cambridge.&quot;

They cannot achieve that without a programme of active discrimination based background, not results. Ergo, you're now at an advantage is you go to a state school. You'll have read about the examples of parents pulling their kids out of private schools and sending them to a state sixth form. Why do you suppose they're doing that?

They are now actively discriminating based on background, not ability and that is demonstrably true. They've admitted it. What your seing in the stats is the start of that but it's a process they intend to continue with and accelerate.

Tommy

I'm looking at the raw numbers. I have absolutely no interest in having a journalist of any shade tell me what to think when the data is out there for me to look at.

I'm assuming, from your response about the Cambridge line that you haven't looked at the numbers and understood the context that comment is made in.

If Cambridge is anything like Oxford, it's an established fact that they have, and still do, discriminate against state students, vis-a-vis privately educated students with the same A-Level results. It's there in the data that Oxford themselves publish. There's no arguing that. It is a fact.

In light of that, I'm assuming that what the Cambridge quote means is that they finally accept that in the mid-20th century, this sort of positive discrimination AGAINST state educated kids is no longer acceptable, and they have to level the playing field.

Personally, I would go much further. To me it is self evident that a kid who gets AAA at Mexborough School is fundamentally a better scholar than one who gets AAA at a £30k a year private school. I cannot see any possible argument against that. So, yes, I would apply positive discrimination in favour of high performing state school kids. Because if we truly do want the best in our society to rise to the top, for the benefit of the country as a whole, that is clearly a way to aid that process.

[danumdon]

Tommy

Interestingly it's also true that anyone aspiring to Oxbridge has far better prospects of being accepted if they apply from the state sector than they do from the private sector. The latter is actually a millstone in the Oxbridge applications process.

I'm not sure what evidence you are basing that on, but it is flatly contradicted by Oxford's own data.

https://www.ox.ac.uk/about/facts-and-figures/admissions-statistics/undergraduate-students/current/school-type

Currently, about 6.5% of kids go to private schools.

Last year 24.5% of all applications to Oxford came from private schools.

31.9% of UK new starters at Oxford came from private schools.

So clearly, the proportion of private school kids who get Oxford places after applying is higher than the proportion of state school kids who do. 20.4% against 16.9%.

So in the case of Oxford at least, your claim is demonstrably wrong.

And here's the really damning point.

Of all the Oxford applicants who get AAA or better at A-Level (the traditional requirement) 79.1% come from state schools, whereas 20.9% come from private schools. BUT, of the new intake last year, 68.1% came from state schools and 31.9% from private schools.

So, not only are you more likely to perform better at a private school, because of the resources. If you come from a private school and get the same A level results as a kid who went to a state school, with worse resources, you are much, much more likely to get into Oxford.

Whether that is an old school tie thing, or an assessment by Oxford that a private school prepares the person overall better to succeed at Oxford I couldn't say. But it is a demonstrable fact in Oxford's own data.

Pay for a private education by all means. But don't try to play down the huge advantage that gives your kids. It's there in the data.

Billy, you've read the same article as I've read in The Guardian and quoted from it. I've also read The Spectators twist on it too. You can spin this either way depending on the argument you're trying to make.

Yes, there is still a disproportionately high number of pupils from private school getting into Oxbridge. But that is because it has historically always been so. That trend reversal we're starting to see is a direct result of privately educated pupils being actively discriminated against compared to their state educated peers. I quote the Head of Cambridge admissions...

&amp;quot;We have to keep making it very, very clear we are intending to reduce over time the number of people who are coming from independent school backgrounds into places like Oxford or Cambridge.&amp;quot;

They cannot achieve that without a programme of active discrimination based background, not results. Ergo, you're now at an advantage is you go to a state school. You'll have read about the examples of parents pulling their kids out of private schools and sending them to a state sixth form. Why do you suppose they're doing that?

They are now actively discriminating based on background, not ability and that is demonstrably true. They've admitted it. What your seing in the stats is the start of that but it's a process they intend to continue with and accelerate.

Tommy

I'm looking at the raw numbers. I have absolutely no interest in having a journalist of any shade tell me what to think when the data is out there for me to look at.

I'm assuming, from your response about the Cambridge line that you haven't looked at the numbers and understood the context that comment is made in.

If Cambridge is anything like Oxford, it's an established fact that they have, and still do, discriminate against state students, vis-a-vis privately educated students with the same A-Level results. It's there in the data that Oxford themselves publish. There's no arguing that. It is a fact.

In light of that, I'm assuming that what the Cambridge quote means is that they finally accept that in the mid-20th century, this sort of positive discrimination AGAINST state educated kids is no longer acceptable, and they have to level the playing field.

Personally, I would go much further. To me it is self evident that a kid who gets AAA at Mexborough School is fundamentally a better scholar than one who gets AAA at a £30k a year private school. I cannot see any possible argument against that. So, yes, I would apply positive discrimination in favour of high performing state school kids. Because if we truly do want the best in our society to rise to the top, for the benefit of the country as a whole, that is clearly a way to aid that process.

[/b]

Fully agree with your statement there, in this case positive discrimination towards the bright state school kids is the right way to go.

What about the bright kid from Mexborough who happens to win  a scholarship to a public school, or the parents that have moved heaven and earth to raise the funds to get them into a school that matches their level, are their chances going to be enhanced by this Labour policy to progress towards a top uni position?

Most people would struggle to justify this backwards policy from Starmer, in doing so he's totally misread the aspirations of the voters that he's desperately hoping to gain at the next election, do these people speak to anyone who actually lives in the real world?

[tyke1962]

Tommy

Interestingly it's also true that anyone aspiring to Oxbridge has far better prospects of being accepted if they apply from the state sector than they do from the private sector. The latter is actually a millstone in the Oxbridge applications process.

I'm not sure what evidence you are basing that on, but it is flatly contradicted by Oxford's own data.

https://www.ox.ac.uk/about/facts-and-figures/admissions-statistics/undergraduate-students/current/school-type

Currently, about 6.5% of kids go to private schools.

Last year 24.5% of all applications to Oxford came from private schools.

31.9% of UK new starters at Oxford came from private schools.

So clearly, the proportion of private school kids who get Oxford places after applying is higher than the proportion of state school kids who do. 20.4% against 16.9%.

So in the case of Oxford at least, your claim is demonstrably wrong.

And here's the really damning point.

Of all the Oxford applicants who get AAA or better at A-Level (the traditional requirement) 79.1% come from state schools, whereas 20.9% come from private schools. BUT, of the new intake last year, 68.1% came from state schools and 31.9% from private schools.

So, not only are you more likely to perform better at a private school, because of the resources. If you come from a private school and get the same A level results as a kid who went to a state school, with worse resources, you are much, much more likely to get into Oxford.

Whether that is an old school tie thing, or an assessment by Oxford that a private school prepares the person overall better to succeed at Oxford I couldn't say. But it is a demonstrable fact in Oxford's own data.

Pay for a private education by all means. But don't try to play down the huge advantage that gives your kids. It's there in the data.

Billy, you've read the same article as I've read in The Guardian and quoted from it. I've also read The Spectators twist on it too. You can spin this either way depending on the argument you're trying to make.

Yes, there is still a disproportionately high number of pupils from private school getting into Oxbridge. But that is because it has historically always been so. That trend reversal we're starting to see is a direct result of privately educated pupils being actively discriminated against compared to their state educated peers. I quote the Head of Cambridge admissions...

&quot;We have to keep making it very, very clear we are intending to reduce over time the number of people who are coming from independent school backgrounds into places like Oxford or Cambridge.&quot;

They cannot achieve that without a programme of active discrimination based background, not results. Ergo, you're now at an advantage is you go to a state school. You'll have read about the examples of parents pulling their kids out of private schools and sending them to a state sixth form. Why do you suppose they're doing that?

They are now actively discriminating based on background, not ability and that is demonstrably true. They've admitted it. What your seing in the stats is the start of that but it's a process they intend to continue with and accelerate.

Tommy

I'm looking at the raw numbers. I have absolutely no interest in having a journalist of any shade tell me what to think when the data is out there for me to look at.

I'm assuming, from your response about the Cambridge line that you haven't looked at the numbers and understood the context that comment is made in.

If Cambridge is anything like Oxford, it's an established fact that they have, and still do, discriminate against state students, vis-a-vis privately educated students with the same A-Level results. It's there in the data that Oxford themselves publish. There's no arguing that. It is a fact.

In light of that, I'm assuming that what the Cambridge quote means is that they finally accept that in the mid-20th century, this sort of positive discrimination AGAINST state educated kids is no longer acceptable, and they have to level the playing field.

Personally, I would go much further. To me it is self evident that a kid who gets AAA at Mexborough School is fundamentally a better scholar than one who gets AAA at a £30k a year private school. I cannot see any possible argument against that. So, yes, I would apply positive discrimination in favour of high performing state school kids. Because if we truly do want the best in our society to rise to the top, for the benefit of the country as a whole, that is clearly a way to aid that process.

Isn't there a case for the return of Grammar Schools Billy ?

[ravenrover]

So nobody in our very extended family or their children went to Uni. I went to high school my wife to Secondary Modern. My 2 children attended a local Comp both had very good teachers in the subjects they were particularly interested in but additionally they had teachers in their weaker subjects who pushed them to the extent that they got excellent results in those subjects as well
 I was in hospital when my son got his O level results, he rang me to tell me his results and finally Maths his worst subject but a brilliant teacher, A☆.
Both went on to Uni, the 1st in our families, to do so.
The key thing is that it was good teachers who recognised ability and pushed them to achieve far better grades than they expected
My daughter has made a good career in local  Government.
My son has had 5 books published and is now an Editor with a military history publisher.
All due to ability but assisted by good teachers.
I would also add my son had an interview for Oxford but following a good morning interview failed to tell the afternoon panel that he had been mugged during the lunch break in the local park and was in no condition to undertake the afternoon interview, not surprisingly he was unsuccesfull

[BillyStubbsTears]

My eldest son had very serious problems over the last year while he was studying for GCSEs. The teachers at his (state) school were quite superb, going way beyond the job description to help him through. I cannot thank them enough. They played a massive role in pulling a young lad's life round.

And once again they get a shite, sub-inflation pay offer from this Govt.

[albie]

Another pledge/mission/promise for the bonfire;
https://nitter.net/AdamBienkov/status/1713430142683406441#m

House of Lords this time....what next, eh?

[SydneyRover]

Another pledge/mission/promise for the bonfire;
https://nitter.net/AdamBienkov/status/1713430142683406441#m

House of Lords this time....what next, eh?

Filo nailed it before and didn't get an answer

Starmer or Risky?

try not to squib Albie

[albie]

It has been answered many times before, Syd.

It depends where you are (by constituency), and what your core beliefs are.

The reason for voting for change is to see a new policy prospectus.
As Labour and the Tories are offering similar neo liberal economic packages, you are choosing new managers for a discredited system.

That might be good enough for some, but not for others.

[SydneyRover]

It has been answered many times before, Syd.

It depends where you are (by constituency), and what your core beliefs are.

The reason for voting for change is to see a new policy prospectus.
As Labour and the Tories are offering similar neo liberal economic packages, you are choosing new managers for a discredited system.

That might be good enough for some, but not for others.

The thing is the labour party can be changed but one has to have influence to do that, just as those had that changed it away from your preferences (and a lot of mine too) and one has to be realistic, labour can win with the centre and some of the left and far left but labour can't win with the far left and some of the left and some pf the centre. Labour needs a big slice of the centre wherever that is at any point in time.

[Sprotyrover]

Who’s calling the Golden shot?
Hello Sproty you’re on !

“Left a bit…Stop! Left a bit More!…fire…. Syds Eye!!!

[Sprotyrover]

So nobody in our very extended family or their children went to Uni. I went to high school my wife to Secondary Modern. My 2 children attended a local Comp both had very good teachers in the subjects they were particularly interested in but additionally they had teachers in their weaker subjects who pushed them to the extent that they got excellent results in those subjects as well
 I was in hospital when my son got his O level results, he rang me to tell me his results and finally Maths his worst subject but a brilliant teacher, A☆.
Both went on to Uni, the 1st in our families, to do so.
The key thing is that it was good teachers who recognised ability and pushed them to achieve far better grades than they expected
My daughter has made a good career in local  Government.
My son has had 5 books published and is now an Editor with a military history publisher.
All due to ability but assisted by good teachers.
I would also add my son had an interview for Oxford but following a good morning interview failed to tell the afternoon panel that he had been mugged during the lunch break in the local park and was in no condition to undertake the afternoon interview, not surprisingly he was unsuccesfull

Pm me the book titles, I love history!

[ravenrover]

https://www.google.com/search?gs_ssp=eJzj4tFP1zfMSKtKzjUpSDZg9OJLzEspSi1XSErMTcsvSgEAlqYKMQ&q=andrew+bamford&oq=andrew+bamford&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUqBwgBEC4YgAQyCggAEAAY4wIYgAQyBwgBEC4YgAQyBwgCEAAYgAQyBwgDEAAYgAQyBwgEEAAYgAQyCAgFEAAYFhgeMggIBhAAGBYYHjIICAcQABgWGB4yCAgIEAAYFhgeMggICRAAGBYYHjIKCAoQABiGAxiKBdIBCDkwODRqMGo3qAIAsAIA&client=ms-android-samsung-ss&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8

[albie]

Disability rights now on the bonfire of pledges from Keith;
https://www.disabilitynewsservice.com/labour-admits-dropping-disability-rights-pledge-from-policy-plan/

What next?

[Bristol Red Rover]

It has been answered many times before, Syd.

It depends where you are (by constituency), and what your core beliefs are.

The reason for voting for change is to see a new policy prospectus.
As Labour and the Tories are offering similar neo liberal economic packages, you are choosing new managers for a discredited system.

That might be good enough for some, but not for others.

The thing is the labour party can be changed but one has to have influence to do that, just as those had that changed it away from your preferences (and a lot of mine too) and one has to be realistic, labour can win with the centre and some of the left and far left but labour can't win with the far left and some of the left and some pf the centre. Labour needs a big slice of the centre wherever that is at any point in time.

The right of the Labour Party fought against the party over the Corbyn years, we know that. They played so dark and dirty,  feeding the msm with all they needed. And Israel played its part. I'm guessing that may be partly why the left found it difficult?

The right wing neo libs will ensure no left wing people get powerful again in the party,  as will the msm and power elites of the country. A vote for Starmer is a vote for the status quo. He is far worse than Blair. Not a choice many honest people will take.