Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
dog

Hoist On Their Own Petards

Recommended Posts

The Times

It was the perfect formula for middle class socialists. Vote labour and then buy a house near the 'right type' of school. This would keep the riff raff out and generate a tidy profit on the house into the bargain. They could then tell dinner party guests how they believed in equality and state education. "Oh and by the way darling, did you know our house rose by another £200K last year".

Well it seems that New Labour have bitten the champagne socialists in the nether regions.

In some local authorities, mainly in London, four in ten were not granted their first choice.

Its so unfair darling. I paid £800K for this house so that Tarquin would be guaranteed a place in 'Lord faulteroy's'. Now I have to take him in the Cayenne all the way to West Hampstead. Don't the council care about the carbon footprint this is causing?

What a hoot!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, down with those evil parents who care about their childs education and actively try to give them the best foundation for life. Scum.

I think you'll find its not a desire to have kids in posh schools so much as a desire to have them go to a school where their classmates don't carry knives, speak in gangsta and who victimize any child keen to learn or do well in class. Just how we managed to throw away the Grammar system just because its selection procedure was a little too one-shot is a mystery that will baffle historians.

ANDY

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just how we managed to throw away the Grammar system just because its selection procedure was a little too one-shot is a mystery that will baffle historians.

ANDY

I agree with this. The biggest problem with the old system was the Secondary Moderns but instead of fixing it they got rid of the part that worked fairly well and ended up making almost everyone's education poorer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yeah, down with those evil parents who care about their childs education and actively try to give them the best foundation for life. Scum.

I think you'll find its not a desire to have kids in posh schools so much as a desire to have them go to a school where their classmates don't carry knives, speak in gangsta and who victimize any child keen to learn or do well in class. Just how we managed to throw away the Grammar system just because its selection procedure was a little too one-shot is a mystery that will baffle historians.

ANDY

Well just can the hypocrisy and send them to a fee paying day school. I have no problem with parents who care about their kids education, its the ones who vote Labour and are so smug about how they are "living to their principles" when we all know that middle class pushiness and borrowing ability are getting their little darlings into top notch schools at the taxpayer's expense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well just can the hypocrisy and send them to a fee paying day school. I have no problem with parents who care about their kids education, its the ones who vote Labour and are so smug about how they are "living to their principles" when we all know that middle class pushiness and borrowing ability are getting their little darlings into top notch schools at the taxpayer's expense.

Bulls eye!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Widespread agreement with Andy Jones shocker!

Hmm.........having worked with sparkies and fitters from NI; intelligent people whose lives were ruined by being sent to educational dustbins, I remain convinced that a major reason for the longevity of the troubles, and the continuing simmering sectarianism, in NI is due to a deeply resentful working class that was both denied the opportunity to get on, and the opportunity to learn civil norms from mixing with the middle classes.

Leaving that aside, Sweden has shown that there is a very sensible and straightforward way of harnessing public money to provide high quality education for all.

Sweden basically uses a voucher system. Anybody can set up and run a school including charities or private companies. Any Swede can choose any school, and the government pays a standard amount to the chosen school on a per capita basis.

To maintain equality of opportunity there are two simple rules. Firstly entry is strictly on a first come first served, registration basis. Secondly, parents are not allowed to top up or assist their chosen school - you are either public or private.

In practice neither of these rules particularly matter. The voucher is sufficient to provide a good education, and there are no bad schools, local authorities have either had to up their game or watch their pupils disappear to private schools.

The main result of the new policy, introduced a decade ago, has been new private schools in poor areas with bad local authorities - hardly 'cherry picking'.

The policy was introduced by the Swedish conservatives, however the Social Democrats are now full supporters - because it works very well.

On the face of it this would be a perfect 'third way' policy; high education standards and social equity provided through publicly funded private competition, never mind economical and easy to run.

Unfortunately nulabour are still in thrall to their education trade union and voter base and it will probably need a change of government before anything as bizarrely sensible and easy as this is put into place.

And anyway if you are a Blair or a Harman who can scam through the existing system, why would you need to bother.

The article below is well worth reading:

http://www.spectator.co.uk/the-magazine/fe...evolution.thtml

Fraser Nelson reports on the radical Swedish system of independent state schools, financed by vouchers, that has transformed the country’s education performance and is now inspiring the Conservative party’s dramatic blueprint for British schools: to set them free

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With one dissenting voice from an ex-grammar school boy.

The real answer is - remove parental choice altogether; make the luvvies send their kids to the local comp then watch the standards improve alround.

Then everykid will benefit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
With one dissenting voice from an ex-grammar school boy.

The real answer is - remove parental choice altogether; make the luvvies send their kids to the local comp then watch the standards improve alround.

Then everykid will benefit.

  1. The local comprehensive will depend on the surrounding houses; you will get middle-class ghettos/ Pakistani ghettos/ black African ghettos. Luvvies happy.

  2. You can't remove parental choice altogether unless you abolish private schooling; and that falls foul of Human Rights. Home Schooling also (though banned in Germany, I believe) is difficult to abolish.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
With one dissenting voice from an ex-grammar school boy.

The real answer is - remove parental choice altogether; make the luvvies send their kids to the local comp then watch the standards improve alround.

Then everykid will benefit.

Or - shock, horror - the parents could start spending a little more time with their kids and take a share of the responsibility* for their child's education!

* Note: For this to work the parents must care more about their children than appearances, keeping up with the Joneses (Andy included) and money (excludes 80% of Guardian reading Londoners).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Or - shock, horror - the parents could start spending a little more time with their kids and take a share of the responsibility* for their child's education!

* Note: For this to work the parents must care more about their children than appearances, keeping up with the Joneses (Andy included) and money (excludes 80% of Guardian reading Londoners).

Also for this to work we need lower house prices so it's possible for a mother to spend the first 3 years with her children.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
With one dissenting voice from an ex-grammar school boy.

The real answer is - remove parental choice altogether; make the luvvies send their kids to the local comp then watch the standards improve alround.

Then everykid will benefit.

Sorry, this just doesn't work that way ;(

The luvvies' kids will simply keep to themselves, those groups are established within one week and usually remain stable within the social class, it is a rare exception for outsiders to be accepted, and even if they are, they'll remain 'strange'. This works both ways, and it's not that kids are meanies, just that they make friends with the people they have most in common with.

So, for the kids there is not too much changed, being a success in school has nothing to do with the school itself, but is dependent on the kid and the culture at home. Smart kids do not infect failing kids with intelligence, alas, but failing kids will easily infect smart kids with a bad attitude. So, you'll have a few more luvvie kids that go off the rails and the combo of middle class thinking and working class chuzpah is a bad one in criminals. It's better if gangsters and other assorted asshats only have one competence here :ph34r:

The other side-effect is that this neatly remove the luvvies' kids from the leftie brainwash of the perpetual guilt trip in the 'civilised' schools, because they no longer get hypnotised into being 'nice','generous' etc and if they do, the spell won't last long as their class mates soon 'educate' them back to reality. That's not bad, because they'll be the stuff that good entrepeneurs and capitalists are made of -- they know the people who will work for them and how to handle them, and they are not prisoner to a guilty conscience of privilege.

Be very careful what you wish for...

:P

As for the grammar schools, sorry guys, the Tories hate them because it means that working class boys make the ladder, leaving one less space for one of their sons, and Labour hates them because every kid that goes to a grammar school is less likely to be wanting to remain 'one of them'. Hence, they had to go, too much social mobility occurred... :angry:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The article below is well worth reading:

http://www.spectator.co.uk/the-magazine/fe...evolution.thtml

Erm, have you all got very short memories about the mythical 'education voucher system'?

The Tories dust this policy off & wheel it out every couple of years or so to show that they are "the party who puts education first". This goes back decades - it's the single reason why my old man campaigned/leafletted for Thatcher in 1979. They then had 18 years in power, and still didn't implement this manifesto promise. I last heard the Tories humping this one in the media about 18 months ago. Usual, hollow politico-bullsh!t.

On paper, it looks like a good scheme & always has done. Just don't expect Tory Boy to actually do it if/when he gets into Number 10. A far stronger Tory leader had 11 years during which to do it - and didn't.

And do those sums add up? Would your mythical UK education voucher be enough for a fee-paying school? Would there be anywhere near enough fee-paying places available? Nah, didn't think so.

And what happens to public-sector education, when the private sector provides it all? Won't that lead to the reduction in budget for proper state schools? We'll end up with the classic money-based, two-tier system, so beloved of the Right. Those laudable Swedish ideas on not being able to 'top up' will soon fall by the wayside in the UK - a bit like the Uni fees maniifesto promises bit the dust here.

Anyway, Sweden has a historical high taxation / good public spending programme. In contrast, the UK (when sailing under a blue or pseudo-red flag) has a marginally lower tax burden (that's how Geoffrey, Nigel, & Gordon won all their party's re-elections, remember!), coupled with a generations-old piss-the-whole-lot-down-the-frigging-toilet spending programme. Comparing a Swedish approach with a possible UK one is like comparing apples & oranges.

The Spectator's a partisan rag, anyway...

</RANT>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Also for this to work we need lower house prices so it's possible for a mother to spend the first 3 years with her children.

Yes indeedy. The good news is that part is coming soon to a UK town near you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Erm, have you all got very short memories about the mythical 'education voucher system'?

The Tories dust this policy off & wheel it out every couple of years or so to show that they are "the party who puts education first". This goes back decades - it's the single reason why my old man campaigned/leafletted for Thatcher in 1979. They then had 18 years in power, and still didn't implement this manifesto promise. I last heard the Tories humping this one in the media about 18 months ago. Usual, hollow politico-bullsh!t.

On paper, it looks like a good scheme & always has done. Just don't expect Tory Boy to actually do it if/when he gets into Number 10. A far stronger Tory leader had 11 years during which to do it - and didn't.

And do those sums add up? Would your mythical UK education voucher be enough for a fee-paying school? Would there be anywhere near enough fee-paying places available? Nah, didn't think so.

And what happens to public-sector education, when the private sector provides it all? Won't that lead to the reduction in budget for proper state schools? We'll end up with the classic money-based, two-tier system, so beloved of the Right. Those laudable Swedish ideas on not being able to 'top up' will soon fall by the wayside in the UK - a bit like the Uni fees maniifesto promises bit the dust here.

Anyway, Sweden has a historical high taxation / good public spending programme. In contrast, the UK (when sailing under a blue or pseudo-red flag) has a marginally lower tax burden (that's how Geoffrey, Nigel, & Gordon won all their party's re-elections, remember!), coupled with a generations-old piss-the-whole-lot-down-the-frigging-toilet spending programme. Comparing a Swedish approach with a possible UK one is like comparing apples & oranges.

The Spectator's a partisan rag, anyway...

</RANT>

An articulate rant and some points well made.

The key issue however is that parents are 100 times better at policing school standards than local councils can ever be? Some parents may not be educated but that does not mean that they can't tell the difference between good and bad schools. Vouchers are the only solution to a fairer and better education system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
An articulate rant and some points well made.

The key issue however is that parents are 100 times better at policing school standards than local councils can ever be? Some parents may not be educated but that does not mean that they can't tell the difference between good and bad schools. Vouchers are the only solution to a fairer and better education system.

Correct. Not only that but vouchers can allow for different types of education. At the moment comprehensives train everyone to be bank clerks while kids in reality have a whole range of abilities and learning styles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Also for this to work we need lower house prices so it's possible for a mother to spend the first 3 years with her children.

Ah, very interesting point.

But is this chicken and egg - i.e. do mothers have to work full-time because of high house prices, or are house prices higher because of women working full-time.

I do believe that a fair proportion of the price of houses (and other goods such as cars, holidays etc) have been affected by the fact that with two incomes, a modern couple could simply afford to pay more, so prices were increased in line with this.

And in one of those ironies that life has a habit of throwing up, the emancipation of women has simply turned a lot of them from the "slavery" of being a housewife into the very real wage slavery of modern times.

Many people believe they are better off than their parent's generation, but if you factor in childcare costs, running two cars and of course that fantastic pile of breeze blocks and plaster board that has to be paid for, are most members of either sex really better off than they would've been if they'd adopted a more traditional lifestyle?

Having lived and enjoyed the more traditional way myself, I will of course argue they are not. But I've a feeling that many priced-out and hocked up to the eyeballs modern couples may secretly agree...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As for the grammar schools, sorry guys, the Tories hate them because it means that working class boys make the ladder, leaving one less space for one of their sons, and Labour hates them because every kid that goes to a grammar school is less likely to be wanting to remain 'one of them'. Hence, they had to go, too much social mobility occurred... :angry:

While I agree with your view on Labour, I am somewhat doubtful about your view of the Tories. The Tories introduced the state funded grammar system themselves in the '44 Education Act and rather a lot of Tories went to them, Thatcher included. They were a fundamental part of conservative self help ideology. The reason Cameron backed down on them was, in my view, to appease the metropolitan left in the hope of getting them to vote Tory - basically the equivalent of Labour dropping Clause Four.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sweden is the highes taxed country in the world. It has a huge public sector paying very good wages to produce excellent standards of education, health and high level employment. The voucher system is not seen as a tool to police educational standards by parents but as a democratic enhancement to an already stellar educational system. We've got a long way to go before we get to that level.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ah, very interesting point.

But is this chicken and egg - i.e. do mothers have to work full-time because of high house prices, or are house prices higher because of women working full-time.

I do believe that a fair proportion of the price of houses (and other goods such as cars, holidays etc) have been affected by the fact that with two incomes, a modern couple could simply afford to pay more, so prices were increased in line with this.

And in one of those ironies that life has a habit of throwing up, the emancipation of women has simply turned a lot of them from the "slavery" of being a housewife into the very real wage slavery of modern times.

Many people believe they are better off than their parent's generation, but if you factor in childcare costs, running two cars and of course that fantastic pile of breeze blocks and plaster board that has to be paid for, are most members of either sex really better off than they would've been if they'd adopted a more traditional lifestyle?

Having lived and enjoyed the more traditional way myself, I will of course argue they are not. But I've a feeling that many priced-out and hocked up to the eyeballs modern couples may secretly agree...

Definitely. Two income families definitely pushed the price of houses up. Middle class women working is one of the three coping mechanisms that society has used since the 1970s to fool itself into thinking it is better off, along with longer working hours and easy credit.

When people bang on about how their father bought their 3-bed house in 1976 on one salary, they forget that one salary was the norm, so of course it was possible. Until feminist ideology (womens' lib) pushed women into the workplace, for a married woman to have to work was considered a sign of poverty, something only the working classes did.

Fortunately, there does seem to be an increasing awareness, especially amongst younger women, that to choose to stay at home to bring up children is equally worthwhile. I suspect the women in their 30s and 40s living the Shirley Conran Superwoman dream have become increasingly embittered and disillusioned about what their 'freedom' has brought them. At least today's women have a choice.

Edited by Austin Allegro

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Correct. Not only that but vouchers can allow for different types of education. At the moment comprehensives train everyone to be bank clerks while kids in reality have a whole range of abilities and learning styles.

Fair point, but didn't Secondary Moderns teach just kids to be blue-collar, manual workers? Can you elaborate on the different 'learning styles' available? I know about Steiner schools at primary level, but what about secondary? Not taking the p!ss here, just don't understand why you think it's wrong to teach kids basic business skills (and English & Maths). Are you saying they should learn other subjects, rather than these?

I'm no huge fan of comprehensives - went to one myself . And the lefty in me is slightly uncomfortable cos I genuinely believe mixed-ability teaching (at high-school level) is rubbish in practice. I know that makes me sound like a classic 'streaming' fan, but I can only report back the way it felt going to a (very average) comprehensive in the late 80s. Dipsh!ts who didn't give a monkey's about learning anything holding back & bullying the bright kids who were in the same class. I'm not denigrating the less academically-able here - I'm talking about the proud-to-be-thick types with a chip on their shoulder about anyone who had a brain.

On another tack, if we do get the education voucher system, will public schools still be allowed to retain their fraudulent charitable status (when they're clearly commercial businesses)?

Again, not slagging them off - I went to a private school for a year myself even though Maggie didn't come up with the goods. Let me clarify: family moved to a tiny house, with dad working his knackers off & mum child-minding during the day & working in a chippy at night just so they could pay the fees. It was a brilliant school, no doubt - only about 15-25 kids in each class, and decent budget to spend on arts, sports, high-quality teachers, etc.

A quick check reveals that the same school now charges £1800 - 2800 *per term*. Would the proposed vouchers cover £5400 - £8400 per annum? Again, thought not...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What puzzles me is why there aren't cheap private schools of the kind there were before state grammars made them redundant. Surely there's a gap in the market for affordable private education for the middle classes who don't want their kids to have to go to Catherine Tate Community School. A sort of educational equivalent of BUPA. I have a sneaking suspicion this was tried but various leftist educationalists (excuse the tautology) blocked it on ideological grounds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 295 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.