Dam it .... Who found out about my bell ringing fetish !!!! You know what they say about well ringers !!!!
Nick Clegg is a tool! Private Education damaging our economy? Corrosive to society? Are you off your flippin rocker? Sorry, not very 'moderator' off me, but I really wish he'd stop making stupid statements just to get his name and his party in the press.
For the record my opinion is as follows. What is 'corrosive for our society and damaging to our economy' is an education system dedicated to coaching children to clear hurdles rather than educating them. So no, private education is not “corrosive for our society and damaging to our economy”. Nick Clegg should be entitled, like any other parent, to make an informed decision as to where his children should go to school to the extent of his ability and resources. He should not preach one thing then do the other.
I completely agree . In my opinion the governments of the past and present and have shown themselves to be incapable of running things and so we get what we are given instead of what we pay for and deserve. Perhaps we could all pay a lot less tax and have a lot less government involvement and then choose where we spend OUR money.
As I recall, Tony Blair was criticised by Diane Abbott for sending his sons to a selective (not fee paying) school instead of to a comprehensive. Diane Abbott later sent her own child to a fee-paying school. In my book that makes Diane Abbott a hypocrite, but not Tony Blair. I used to know the son of Roy Jenkins (a Labour cabinet minister of the 1960s), who had been sent to a comprehensive school. It didn't do him any harm.
Who cares, if you can afford it its free choice, if not then its not. Only thing that can be deduced from his statement is, he's an idiot, hypocrit and full of the proverbial, which qualifies him to be ..........................an MP!
Clegg, cameron and milliband all seem intent on making soundbite political statements that don't actually mean anything but give the impression they listen to the electorate, care what people think and would be a good choice as national leader. All in my view trying to be a softer version of Tony Blair in his early years. What they need is a properly charismatic dynamic party leader to come along and show them to be the weak willed platitude spouting two faced hypocritical spineless unethical yes men that they all are. Regrettably British Politics doesn't seem to allow that sort of politician in any longer, you either get the corporate suit types in the Labour / Conservative / Lib Dems or swivel eyed single issue buffoons like UKIP and the Greens. Clegg's predictable hypocrisy on schooling is just another example of his views having to change when faced with reality, it's easy to say "we won't increase tuition fees" when you don't expect for a single moment to be in a position where you will actually need to worry about enacting policy, when you find the two main parties are so inept that neither can actually win an election without the assistance of the nation's geography teachers and Guardian readers and you actually do have an influence on policy it's not quite so simple. School choices for other people's children suddenly become much easier to make than for your own children when they start getting towards secondary school age, in the same position I can't honestly say I'd have made a different choice but I might have had the sense to steer clear of the toxic soundbite in the first place.
Yep, where's Maggie when you need her, bring back conviction politicians and cut these muppets loose.
Well thank goodness it's all the privately educated bafoons that are corroding society and not the subclass that makes a career of living off state benefits, which in turns kicks those poor bastards who have no choice squarely in the nuts. Is the quality of education any different? I'd say that any state school could match those results if they class sizes were just as small and could cherry pick the brightest and most motivated pupils to sit in them. Having said that, there is also the advantage that class and status bring, as I've known some complete donkey brained twats who have been through the charterhouse / rugby school systems but lets face it, they were never not going to fail in life by virtue of their social positions, and indeed one of those is now a filthy banker. I used to know a really nice bloke who had been to said Charterhouse. His dad was a signalman for BR as it was them. Worked his tits off to pay his son's fees, and they were poor because of it. He told his boy, that the bloke sat next to him in class, his dad might work for BR as well. Difference was, he was a signalman, but at Charterhouse the guys old man was probably a director. Now, for the signalman, he believed that was worth paying for. He wanted to give his son the best start he could, not just academically, but socially as well. Clegg- braying to rouse the plebs, knowing full well that if you want to curry favour amongst the masses, use (perceived) privilege as a weapon. I wholly agree with Pete1950. any private system can elect to discard. whereas state schools just have the unfortunate duty to serve all members of the community. He's a politician, he says what he does not for the good of a lesser man, but to ensure his own logevity, as do they all. - and while I'm at it, any chance of having my 20 grand back mr government, as I don't actually remember saying you could have it to bail a bank out. off my mortgage or tax code, ... not fussed.
May I remind everyone that Nick Clegg has not actually sent a child to a private school, and may yet not do so; what he said is hypothetical so far. He said he would never choose a school for his children "for political reasons". "If we can and it works out to send him to a good state we would do so, but like all parents living in London, there's huge competition for places and we don't yet know where and exactly at what school. I never have sought to impose a decision on my wife as well as my son for political reasons. They are educated at the moment in the state sector, both our oldest, and I will let you know as soon as a decision has been arrived at." He said he never wants his children to become a "political football". Doesn't sound like hypocrisy to me.
Describing the influence of private education as "corrosive" is not of itself wrong or hypocritical and if he had gone on to make more of an effort to improve State education across the board I would have less of an issue with him on this one, however from the reports I have read and I freely admit I haven't looked too closely into it, he seems to have been using it as a populist soundbite knocking privilege rather than a rallying call to improve the poor performance from some of the state sector.
Erm...9k a year for degree anyone?! £40k of debt from 3 years study?! In terms of hypocrisy, he's up there with Blair And he has left the door very open for fee paying schools for his own kids in his comments.
University will be cheaper for my son than his schooling. And he will pay for uni himself if he goes. Then again my partners daughter is doing a sports psychcology degree and she has only two lectures a week. Not good value at all and her degree could really be completed in one year in all honesty. Schools are the choice of parents if you have the means. Withouth the means (house buying in good school areas included) you are hamstrung. I wish my schools days where spent at the school my son attends - it's 75% females!
Can someone explain to me how, exactly, fee-paying schools are being corrosive? I really don't understand.
I think the theory is Fee Paying School -> Old School Tie -> Jobs For the Boys Comprehensive School -> Oiks -> Jobs For The Serfs That's a simplified version. Throw in words like privilege, inner-city squalor, two-tier society and you're pretty much there.
Not only is he down wiv da kids, he's also been known to be chillin' wiv da bro's. He's so street, he has winos living in him.
There is the idea that if the children of the 'well off' are sent to 'elite' schools then those who remain in the state system are disadvantaged through a reduced quality experience, and there is a grain of truth to the argument. There are issues around which is more important, the greater good or the freedom of the individual. In an ideal world education and healthcare would be of the same high standard for everybody but this denies the reality which is that those who are more 'successful' have greater access to resources and receive a better standard of education or care because they can pay extra; there is a section of society that thinks this is wrong.
