Lord Prescott

[AndyNorthernSaints]

Shall we start a 'rent-a-quote' thread.

 

Churchill was referring to Socialism, although of course he adopted bits of it during WW2.

 

New Labour isn't Socialism. Jeez I even say it in my sleep now, I've said it to you so many times

 

you are wasting your time trying to debate with the thick Stanley. I'm amazed some other posters actually think the same as the deluded racist.

[Wes Tender]

See Dune - this is where you get it so very wrong.

 

Socialists aren't against people being rich / enjoying the trappings of wealth.

 

They just want EVERYBODY to fulfil their potential and if that leads to wealth then great.

 

It's not about dragging people down but rather raising people up.

 

It's not equality that Socialists want but equality of opportunity and that's a very different thing to what you, in your ignorance, perceive to be Socialism.

 

Do yourself a favour, love. Read some proper books.

 

Socialists aren't against people being rich, as they then become a target for high taxation based on envy, malice and spite. Socialists like Prescott enjoy the trappings of wealth, ignoring the fact that they are therefore hypocrites, often railing against private education and health care, but not in the case of them or their families. If people achieve wealth under a socialist regime, they then find ways of avoiding the crippling taxation, thus deriving the State of any benefit that might have accrued from revenue from their taxes.

 

They want everybody to fulfil their potential by levelling everybody downwards, so they bring in Comprehensive Education for example, so that the gifted pupils are held back by the dunces. They decimated the Grammar schools, deeming them to be elitist, but there was equality of opportunity to enter them provided that the child was bright enough. The same applies to Universities, where in the pursuit of equality of opportunity the value of a degree has been devalued, because it is easier to obtain one than ever before.

 

The trouble about reading books, is distinguishing which ones have real merit because they are impartial and objective. I supect that your reading matter is written by authors whose opinions you would like to hear justifying your own beliefs. Please define "proper" books.

 

Rather than reading about these political doctrines, it is far better to judge them on the basis of one's own personal experiences, although I accept that requires one to be of a certain age. Failing that, then the only way to be objective and balanced is to read books from both sides of the political spectrum and form one's own opinion as to the merits of each.

 

I certainly have experience of Socialism under the Wilson regime which proved that nationalism of the utilities did not work, really high taxation of the wealthy was counter-productive and that education standards have fallen because of the abolition of so many Grammar Schools.

[Wes Tender]

you are wasting your time trying to debate with the thick Stanley. I'm amazed some other posters actually think the same as the deluded racist.

 

I don't see much in the way of debate coming from you. It's a simple let off to state that the those who hold opinions that you don't agree with are thick, rather than arguing against them, isn't it?

 

It's also a ploy to make oneself look clever, deriding others as thick for not holding the same views as you, but it doesn't wash I'm afraid.

[bungle]

I don't see much in the way of debate coming from you. It's a simple let off to state that the those who hold opinions that you don't agree with are thick, rather than arguing against them, isn't it?

 

It's also a ploy to make oneself look clever, deriding others as thick for not holding the same views as you, but it doesn't wash I'm afraid.

 

Defending the racist again I see.

[Wes Tender]

Defending the racist again I see.

 

Did I defend his racist views? Sorry, I don't see where I did that? Will you kindly point it out to me? Although you might disagree with his views, presumably you defend his right to hold those views, or are you bigotted against freedom of speech?

 

You obviously have such a closed mind that you cannot countenance the possibility that because a person's views on one matter are disagreeable to you, that his views on another matter might be sound.

 

Where we are discussing matters political, then presumably on the basis of an extension of this argument, you like every single policy of the party you support, do you?

[Wade Garrett]

Socialists aren't against people being rich, as they then become a target for high taxation based on envy, malice and spite. Socialists like Prescott enjoy the trappings of wealth, ignoring the fact that they are therefore hypocrites, often railing against private education and health care, but not in the case of them or their families. If people achieve wealth under a socialist regime, they then find ways of avoiding the crippling taxation, thus deriving the State of any benefit that might have accrued from revenue from their taxes.

 

They want everybody to fulfil their potential by levelling everybody downwards, so they bring in Comprehensive Education for example, so that the gifted pupils are held back by the dunces. They decimated the Grammar schools, deeming them to be elitist, but there was equality of opportunity to enter them provided that the child was bright enough. The same applies to Universities, where in the pursuit of equality of opportunity the value of a degree has been devalued, because it is easier to obtain one than ever before.

 

The trouble about reading books, is distinguishing which ones have real merit because they are impartial and objective. I supect that your reading matter is written by authors whose opinions you would like to hear justifying your own beliefs. Please define "proper" books.

 

Rather than reading about these political doctrines, it is far better to judge them on the basis of one's own personal experiences, although I accept that requires one to be of a certain age. Failing that, then the only way to be objective and balanced is to read books from both sides of the political spectrum and form one's own opinion as to the merits of each.

 

I certainly have experience of Socialism under the Wilson regime which proved that nationalism of the utilities did not work, really high taxation of the wealthy was counter-productive and that education standards have fallen because of the abolition of so many Grammar Schools.

 

I went to a Comprehensive and I wasn't held back by the less academic pupils (or dunces as you put it). We were streamed according to ability and I did very well thank you. In fact I did a lot better than the people I knew that went to King Edwards.

 

I have lived under successive governments that prove that privatisation and deregulation of utilities do not work.

 

You will get no argument from me about Prescott being a hypocrite though.

[AndyNorthernSaints]

I don't see much in the way of debate coming from you. It's a simple let off to state that the those who hold opinions that you don't agree with are thick, rather than arguing against them, isn't it?

 

It's also a ploy to make oneself look clever, deriding others as thick for not holding the same views as you, but it doesn't wash I'm afraid.

 

So you don't think Dune/Stanley/Mole/Sword of Honour etc is a bit thick when repeating his Labour government = Socialist and now comparing them with fascists!!!! posts? how on earth can you debate with someone as deluded as that? i think it's sad that openly racist posters are allowed to post on here and even sadder that other Saints fans defend them and condone it.

[Wes Tender]

So you don't think Dune/Stanley/Mole/Sword of Honour etc is a bit thick when repeating his Labour government = Socialist and now comparing them with fascists!!!! posts? how on earth can you debate with someone as deluded as that? i think it's sad that openly racist posters are allowed to post on here and even sadder that other Saints fans defend them and condone it.

 

As I said before; where did I defend or condone his racist views?

[Wes Tender]

I went to a Comprehensive and I wasn't held back by the less academic pupils (or dunces as you put it). We were streamed according to ability and I did very well thank you. In fact I did a lot better than the people I knew that went to King Edwards.

 

I have lived under successive governments that prove that privatisation and deregulation of utilities do not work.

 

You will get no argument from me about Prescott being a hypocrite though.

 

I'm pleased that you thrived under the Comprehensive system, but it is difficult to generalise, as I'm sure you would agree. There are certainly some Comprehensives in parts of the country where despite streaming, the standards are very poor and where had there remained a Grammar School, those brighter pupils would have had better chances of doing well. The best results overall in Hamphire come from the private sector, many of whose pupils might otherwise have gone to those Grammar schools had they not been abolished. There are pupils in private schools who do not do well, as there are also pupils in some failing state schools who do well regardless.

 

Which privatised utilities and industries are not better than when they were nationalised in your opinion? Some have taken longer than others to adapt back to the private sector, like the railways, but they worked pretty well before privatisation, were awful when nationalised and seem to be heading in the right direction now. Nationalisation of what became British Telecom was a disaster that has thrived since privatisation. Another similar example was British Leyland then arguably producing the worst cars in British motoring history. Things like the steel industry or shipbuilding could no longer justify the pouring of public money into the bottomless pit they had become when faced with competition from overseas.

[Saintandy666]

I went to a Comprehensive and I wasn't held back by the less academic pupils (or dunces as you put it). We were streamed according to ability and I did very well thank you. In fact I did a lot better than the people I knew that went to King Edwards.

 

I have lived under successive governments that prove that privatisation and deregulation of utilities do not work.

 

You will get no argument from me about Prescott being a hypocrite though.

 

I just want to second this, I went to a local state school, and why it wasn't necessarily a 'good' school, often getting very poor results and even being in the local newspaper because of how bad some aspects of the school were, I never felt like I was held back because like Wade Garrett said, we are setted.

 

I came out with good GCSE results, and many better than private school kids I have since met.

 

One criticism I have of the current system however is the emphasis on school league tables results only based... (school league tables were a Thatcher idea) Because of this, too much emphasis is placed on pupils getting 5 C's(sometimes quite artificially) rather than teaching to make every child fulfil their potential.

 

This is why I like the CVA scores of measuring schools as opposed to results, because CVA measures improvement based on several factors rather than just 33% GOT 5A* - C grades etc etc

 

Basically, I don't think a school Kensington should be in competition with a school in a more deprived area. Oh, and stop faith based schools.

[Lord Duckhunter]

Two years ago John Prescott said "I don't want to be a member of the House of Lords. I will not accept it."

Whatever political opinion anyone has, surely we can all agree that saying one thing then doing another is hypocrisy.

[Wes Tender]

I just want to second this, I went to a local state school, and why it wasn't necessarily a 'good' school, often getting very poor results and even being in the local newspaper because of how bad some aspects of the school were, I never felt like I was held back because like Wade Garrett said, we are setted.

 

I came out with good GCSE results, and many better than private school kids I have since met.

 

One criticism I have of the current system however is the emphasis on school league tables results only based... (school league tables were a Thatcher idea) Because of this, too much emphasis is placed on pupils getting 5 C's(sometimes quite artificially) rather than teaching to make every child fulfil their potential.

 

This is why I like the CVA scores of measuring schools as opposed to results, because CVA measures improvement based on several factors rather than just 33% GOT 5A* - C grades etc etc

 

Basically, I don't think a school Kensington should be in competition with a school in a more deprived area. Oh, and stop faith based schools.

 

I immediately warm to the idea of school league tables as it was introduced by Thatcher who knew what parents wanted for their children's education; a clear and easy measure of a school's performance. These CVAs are the result of typically woolly thinking of the left, a fudge to obscure the real picture, so that poor performances can be excused because of those several factors that you mention above. I hope that now that there is the change of Government, that this experiment with the CVAs will be dropped, no doubt allowing for substantial cuts in the bureaucracy that is employed to administer it. Perhaps some of the money saved by the cuts in the number of pen-pushers can go towards the employment of more and better teachers in those deprived areas, allowing smaller class sizes.

[Wade Garrett]

Two years ago John Prescott said "I don't want to be a member of the House of Lords. I will not accept it."

Whatever political opinion anyone has, surely we can all agree that saying one thing then doing another is hypocrisy.

 

I think that most people, on either side of the political divide, agree that Prescott is a c*nt of the highest order.

[Wade Garrett]

I immediately warm to the idea of school league tables as it was introduced by Thatcher who knew what parents wanted for their children's education; a clear and easy measure of a school's performance. These CVAs are the result of typically woolly thinking of the left, a fudge to obscure the real picture, so that poor performances can be excused because of those several factors that you mention above. I hope that now that there is the change of Government, that this experiment with the CVAs will be dropped, no doubt allowing for substantial cuts in the bureaucracy that is employed to administer it. Perhaps some of the money saved by the cuts in the number of pen-pushers can go towards the employment of more and better teachers in those deprived areas, allowing smaller class sizes.

 

I used to think you were a reasonable person Wes, but you're turning into a poor man's Stanley.

 

The Government don't agree with league tables and results for hospitals, so why would they agree with the same principle for schools?

[Saintandy666]

I immediately warm to the idea of school league tables as it was introduced by Thatcher who knew what parents wanted for their children's education; a clear and easy measure of a school's performance. These CVAs are the result of typically woolly thinking of the left, a fudge to obscure the real picture, so that poor performances can be excused because of those several factors that you mention above. I hope that now that there is the change of Government, that this experiment with the CVAs will be dropped, no doubt allowing for substantial cuts in the bureaucracy that is employed to administer it. Perhaps some of the money saved by the cuts in the number of pen-pushers can go towards the employment of more and better teachers in those deprived areas, allowing smaller class sizes.

 

This is why CVA type scores are a better measure...

 

Lets pretend that how good a student can be measured on a scale of 100...

 

In School A the average pupil enters with a level of 50 and ends up at 70. An improvement of 20.

 

In School B the average pupil enters with a level of 20, but leaves at a level of 60. An improvement of 40.

 

Under straight GCSE results league tables, school A would come out on top and be the 'best school', but does it really deserve that considering school B excellent record in making pupils achieve more?

 

Very simplistic to be honest, but what I'm saying is, you can't measure how good a school is simply on tests taken at the end of 5 years of enrolment. My point shows one factor, and there are several others which would need to be taken into account for a fairer picture to be drawn.

[Wes Tender]

I used to think you were a reasonable person Wes, but you're turning into a poor man's Stanley.

 

The Government don't agree with league tables and results for hospitals, so why would they agree with the same principle for schools?

 

Which government are we talking about here? The one that's just been kicked out, or the coalition one that's just come in?

 

But anyway, there's a vast difference between the education system and the health system, which renders comparison between the two of them useless. Attainment of a certain level of education is something measurable and comparable. What would the hospital league tables be based on exactly? Amount of time to treatment? I thought that there was already a target waiting time. Number of patients cured v killed?

 

So where was I being unreasonable in my assessment of the CVAs?

 

Saintandy further expounds on his admiration of the CVA system of measuring a school's progress as an alternative to straight exam pass rates, but it seems all pie in the sky. How is the pupil measured initially in order that an objective assessment can be made of his starting point? Presumably because he has taken some sort of exam. How is his improvement to be measured after a certain time has passed other than by taking another exam?

 

Andy goes on to say that a true assessment of a school's progress can only be measured once several other factors have been taken into account. Presumably he is talking about such things as the social factors surrounding the areas where the schools are located, such as income levels, employment levels, i.e. social deprivation, language difficulties in some high immigration areas, all sorts of factors dreamed up as reasons why schools in some areas might be expected to do better than those in others.

 

Ultimately, it is all a futile exercise designed to provide excuses for the poor teachers and education authorities to hide behind. Complicate it all until it is nigh impossible to assess clearly and provide a range of excuses to cover up incompetance. The most accurate and straightforward barometer by which further education is measured is on the number of exam passes at certain grades. That is also how many employers narrow down a short list of applicants too. It therefore makes most sense for the education system to aim towards assuring that pupils are primed towards that end and that is what caring parents also want their taxes paid towards too.

[Saintandy666]

Tests are clearly one way of measuring how good a school is, I am not denying that. I'm just saying they shouldn't be the only way as more often than not they do not paint the full picture. Managing to get a C Grade student to an A* is better than getting an A* student to A* to use my example I used earlier again.

 

And improvement can be based one many factors, some are tests yes like cat tests in year 7 or sats in year 6. But other ways can be used as well in conjunction with this, for example teacher based assessment.

 

Also, I don't think people should be taught to the test to simply just regurgitate the facts and not understand or pick up any life skills.

[Seaford Saint]

Socialists aren't against people being rich, as they then become a target for high taxation based on envy, malice and spite. Socialists like Prescott enjoy the trappings of wealth, ignoring the fact that they are therefore hypocrites, often railing against private education and health care, but not in the case of them or their families. If people achieve wealth under a socialist regime, they then find ways of avoiding the crippling taxation, thus deriving the State of any benefit that might have accrued from revenue from their taxes.

 

They want everybody to fulfil their potential by levelling everybody downwards, so they bring in Comprehensive Education for example, so that the gifted pupils are held back by the dunces. They decimated the Grammar schools, deeming them to be elitist, but there was equality of opportunity to enter them provided that the child was bright enough. The same applies to Universities, where in the pursuit of equality of opportunity the value of a degree has been devalued, because it is easier to obtain one than ever before.

 

The trouble about reading books, is distinguishing which ones have real merit because they are impartial and objective. I supect that your reading matter is written by authors whose opinions you would like to hear justifying your own beliefs. Please define "proper" books.

 

Rather than reading about these political doctrines, it is far better to judge them on the basis of one's own personal experiences, although I accept that requires one to be of a certain age. Failing that, then the only way to be objective and balanced is to read books from both sides of the political spectrum and form one's own opinion as to the merits of each.

 

I certainly have experience of Socialism under the Wilson regime which proved that nationalism of the utilities did not work, really high taxation of the wealthy was counter-productive and that education standards have fallen because of the abolition of so many Grammar Schools.

 

Your last paragraph (apart from taxing the very richest which I concede was a nasty policy)) is a joke right? Education standards have fallen? For everybody? The Utilities are better now than they were back then? Tosh, complete tosh, IMHO

[Wes Tender]

Your last paragraph (apart from taxing the very richest which I concede was a nasty policy)) is a joke right? Education standards have fallen? For everybody? The Utilities are better now than they were back then? Tosh, complete tosh, IMHO

 

So I presume that you lived through that era yourself, but that your recollection of it differs from mine. You might think that I was joking, but if you don't believe what I say, then I am equally capable of expressing an opinion that it is you who speak in jest.

 

I didn't say that education standards had fallen for everybody, as a generalisation seldom covers 100%. You might argue that more pupils than ever before have achieved exam results (or passes which include course work to be precise) than ever before. I will counter argue and state that the exams are easier to pass than before.

 

And instead of just dismissing my assertion that the utilities are better now than when they were nationalised, I make the assumption that you were actually old enough to have experienced it all first hand. If so, kindly tell me which ones you consider to have been better as a nationalised industry. I've already highlighted some that I believe to have been examples of failures. How about you debating my choices with some counter arguments instead of just taking the easy option and saying that it is tosh?

[benjii]

See Dune - this is where you get it so very wrong.

 

Socialists aren't against people being rich / enjoying the trappings of wealth.

 

They just want EVERYBODY to fulfil their potential and if that leads to wealth then great.

 

It's not about dragging people down but rather raising people up.

It's not equality that Socialists want but equality of opportunity and that's a very different thing to what you, in your ignorance, perceive to be Socialism.

 

Do yourself a favour, love. Read some proper books.

 

The reality is something rather different.

[Johnny Bognor]

.

 

Socialism is a simple concept. Give everyone a decent education and healthcare and encourage them to reach their potential. If they choose not to - OK - they possibly won't get far in life. If they use the support of health and education to achieve their potential then they may well amass wealth which is to everyone's advantage.

 

Socialism is not about a decent education and healthcare. Socialism is about economic organisation and the means of production being owned by the state (or the people, if you believe the rhetorik). People won't amass any wealth (if you ignore the socialist political leaders who end up controlling the wealth) as all the means of creating the wealth is owned by the state.

 

You could argue that capitalism requires good education and helathcare in order to maximise and sustain wealth creation.

[TopGun]

Socialism is not about a decent education and healthcare. Socialism is about economic organisation and the means of production being owned by the state (or the people, if you believe the rhetorik). People won't amass any wealth (if you ignore the socialist political leaders who end up controlling the wealth) as all the means of creating the wealth is owned by the state.

 

You could argue that capitalism requires good education and helathcare in order to maximise and sustain wealth creation.

 

Clearly you can't quote Marxist dogma as JB does above to relate principles of socialism to a modern a day society. It's moved on. If Marx was around today his comments would be different.

 

There has to be a mix and match in pretty much everything. The State can't survive healthily without private sector initiative (which Labour encouraged) and the private sector needs regulation and incentives from the State.

[TopGun]

Two years ago John Prescott said "I don't want to be a member of the House of Lords. I will not accept it."

Whatever political opinion anyone has, surely we can all agree that saying one thing then doing another is hypocrisy.

 

Right, never seen changes in opinion before Duck?

 

With direct reference to Prescott he could have remained an MP anyway. He's vigourous enough at 70 ish. If he wants to be a Lord before it is abolished and if he helps vote out or sound down the remaining hereditary peers, no problem. Prescott is a breath of old fresh air to both main parties as is Tebbit for example.

Edited 5 June, 2010 by TopGun

[Wes Tender]

Right, never seen changes in opinion before Duck?

 

With direct reference to Prescott he could have remained an MP anyway. He's vigourous enough at 70 ish. If he wants to be a Lord before it is abolished and if he helps vote out or sound down the remaining hereditary peers, no problem. Prescott is a breath of old fresh air to both main parties as is Tebbit for example.

 

There are changes of opinion and then there are complete about turns on matters of deep routed principle. I'm inclined to believe that the old class warrior took the second route. It reminds me of the satirical slant on the party's anthem "I've got the Foreman's job at last, so stuff the Red Flag up your arse".

 

Granted that Tebbitt and Prescott are opposite sides of the coin party wise, but otherwise similar types of old guard politicians. But whereas Tebbitt brings a breath of fresh air to the Lords, Prescott will bring the stale whiff of hypocrisy.