NationStates

HMS Vanguard wrote:

Communist Xomaniax wrote:What are grammar schools, and why were they banned?

Grammar schools are state-funded schools that are segregated by ability. They were banned to make it expensive for intelligent people to have children.

Lol no they fucking weren't.

Olivaero wrote:

HMS Vanguard wrote:Grammar schools are state-funded schools that are segregated by ability. They were banned to make it expensive for intelligent people to have children.

Lol no they fucking weren't.

Some people are able to say shit like this without hallucinogens. I envy them sometimes.

Irona wrote:

Ostroeuropa wrote:
I never called people stupid. Just pointed out that the Labour Party tends to revolve it's election campaigns around a conspiracy theory.
It's also not a conspiracy theory to say something is more likely to explain a situation compared to other explanations.

I'm sorry but arguing that the Labour Party deliberately and knowingly tricks voters into following a conspiracy theory IS a conspiracy theory.

I'm pretty sure most of the ones pushing it believe it too for some reason. Like when republicans talk about obama taking their guns.

Olivaero wrote:

HMS Vanguard wrote:Grammar schools are state-funded schools that are segregated by ability. They were banned to make it expensive for intelligent people to have children.

Lol no they fucking weren't.

I agree, they were abolished because the labour party elite keeps going through hysteric periods of hating any type of diversity of outcomes while pretending to be for the masses.

First they hated income diversity and were dragged kicking and screaming into admitting at least some is good for society, and finally admitting their attempts to be hardcore socialists and communists greatly fucked up the sectors of the economy it was tried in.

Then they hated diversity of education and kept talking about how a single state-decided standard was needed, and have finally admitted their attempts to deal with education greatly fucked up the education of the country and worsened social mobility, especially after this view conflicted with their rad-prog successor viewpoint of "actually education should be tailored to individuals."

Now that's gone out of fashion and they have a hate-boner for ideological diversity and anyone who isn't a radical progressive feminist.
Place your bets on whether it takes them three decades to learn their lesson again, and on which parts of society they manage to fuck up in the meantime. Economy, education, and now demographic relations, freedom of speech, and culture.

I honestly have no idea how anyone finds them appealing, except through their fear of the opposition. Everything they touch turns to shit. Literally the only decent accomplishment they've managed that comes to mind is the NHS, and sure, it's a good one, but it's pretty hard to ignore that while both parties in the UK are shit, we're lookint at Nick Frost pretending to be equal to Simon Pegg in a wacky adventure.
It's just not true. One of them is more competent.

Each of Labours fucked up crusades stems from an ideological need, a communistic impulse, to deliver an equal society and a refusal to engage with the idea that maybe people just aren't supposed to have equal outcomes.

I don't think they care about people, they care about proving their ideology right. It's why they just shout down any criticism or opposition to their ideas with labels and abuse, and have pretty much always done.
That's not labour voters, but the way the party elite and their academic backers act? Yeh.

Ostroeuropa wrote:

Olivaero wrote:Lol no they fucking weren't.

I agree, they were abolished because the labour party elite keeps going through hysteric periods of hating any type of diversity of outcomes while pretending to be for the masses.

First they hated income diversity and were dragged kicking and screaming into admitting at least some is good for society, and finally admitting their attempts to be hardcore socialists and communists greatly fucked up the sectors of the economy it was tried in.

Then they hated diversity of education and kept talking about how a single state-decided standard was needed, and have finally admitted their attempts to deal with education greatly fucked up the education of the country and worsened social mobility.

Now that's gone out of fashion and they have a hate-boner for ideological diversity and anyone who isn't a radical progressive feminist.
Place your bets on whether it takes them three decades to learn their lesson again, and on which parts of society they manage to fuck up in the meantime. Economy, education, and now demographic relations, freedom of speech, and culture.

I honestly have no idea how anyone finds them appealing, except through their fear of the opposition. Everything they touch turns to shit. Literally the only decent accomplishment they've managed that comes to mind is the NHS, and sure, it's a good one, but it's pretty hard to ignore that white both parties in the UK are shit, we're lookint at Nick Frost pretending to be equal to Simon Pegg in a wacky adventure.
It's just not true. One of them is more competent.

Each of Labours fucked up crusades stems from an ideological need, a communistic impulse, to deliver an equal society and a refusal to engage with the idea that maybe people just aren't supposed to have equal outcomes.

Lamadia confirmed...
You talk about the Labour party elite, and then you describe them as communists. Another deluded Tory who dismisses anything red as commie propaganda.

Grammar schools were abolished because without grammar schools there exists an implicit education tax on the upper middle class: the money that would have been spent on the state school education of their children but can instead be spent on other government objectives because those children are being privately educated.

The only reason to raise a surtax on the upper middle class having children is to make it more expensive for them to have children, as if the goal is simply revenue you would rather increase the general top rate of income tax.

Grammar schools aren't good because they improve social mobility. They probably do, although not much. They are good because they make it easier and cheaper for the best people to have children.

Rufford wrote:

Ostroeuropa wrote:
I agree, they were abolished because the labour party elite keeps going through hysteric periods of hating any type of diversity of outcomes while pretending to be for the masses.

First they hated income diversity and were dragged kicking and screaming into admitting at least some is good for society, and finally admitting their attempts to be hardcore socialists and communists greatly fucked up the sectors of the economy it was tried in.

Then they hated diversity of education and kept talking about how a single state-decided standard was needed, and have finally admitted their attempts to deal with education greatly fucked up the education of the country and worsened social mobility.

Now that's gone out of fashion and they have a hate-boner for ideological diversity and anyone who isn't a radical progressive feminist.
Place your bets on whether it takes them three decades to learn their lesson again, and on which parts of society they manage to fuck up in the meantime. Economy, education, and now demographic relations, freedom of speech, and culture.

I honestly have no idea how anyone finds them appealing, except through their fear of the opposition. Everything they touch turns to shit. Literally the only decent accomplishment they've managed that comes to mind is the NHS, and sure, it's a good one, but it's pretty hard to ignore that white both parties in the UK are shit, we're lookint at Nick Frost pretending to be equal to Simon Pegg in a wacky adventure.
It's just not true. One of them is more competent.

Each of Labours fucked up crusades stems from an ideological need, a communistic impulse, to deliver an equal society and a refusal to engage with the idea that maybe people just aren't supposed to have equal outcomes.

Lamadia confirmed...
You talk about the Labour party elite, and then you describe them as communists. Another deluded Tory who dismisses anything red as commie propaganda.

I don't think they are communists. But I'd say they typically have a communistic impulse driving whatever current drive for equality they tend to be undergoing. The belief that rather than the government treating people equally being a goal, the goal of the government should be to deliver equality in some sector.

HMS Vanguard wrote:Grammar schools were abolished because without grammar schools there exists an implicit education tax on the upper middle class: the money that would have been spent on the state school education of their children but can instead be spent on other government objectives because those children are being privately educated.

The only reason to raise a surtax on the upper middle class having children is to make it more expensive for them to have children, as if the goal is simply revenue you would rather increase the general top rate of income tax.

Grammar schools aren't good because they improve social mobility. They probably do, although not much. They are good because they make it easier and cheaper for the best people to have children.

The cost of having a child is higher than ever and is rising regardless. It will continue to rise.

Rufford wrote:

HMS Vanguard wrote:Grammar schools were abolished because without grammar schools there exists an implicit education tax on the upper middle class: the money that would have been spent on the state school education of their children but can instead be spent on other government objectives because those children are being privately educated.

The only reason to raise a surtax on the upper middle class having children is to make it more expensive for them to have children, as if the goal is simply revenue you would rather increase the general top rate of income tax.

Grammar schools aren't good because they improve social mobility. They probably do, although not much. They are good because they make it easier and cheaper for the best people to have children.

The cost of having a child is higher than ever and is rising regardless. It will continue to rise.

Huh?

HMS Vanguard wrote:Grammar schools were abolished because without grammar schools there exists an implicit education tax on the upper middle class: the money that would have been spent on the state school education of their children but can instead be spent on other government objectives because those children are being privately educated.

The only reason to raise a surtax on the upper middle class having children is to make it more expensive for them to have children, as if the goal is simply revenue you would rather increase the general top rate of income tax.

Grammar schools aren't good because they improve social mobility. They probably do, although not much. They are good because they make it easier and cheaper for the best people to have children.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-30483031

They improved social mobility significantly.

Ostroeuropa wrote:

Rufford wrote:Lamadia confirmed...
You talk about the Labour party elite, and then you describe them as communists. Another deluded Tory who dismisses anything red as commie propaganda.

I don't think they are communists. But I'd say they typically have a communistic impulse driving whatever current drive for equality they tend to be undergoing. The belief that rather than the government treating people equally being a goal, the goal of the government should be to deliver equality in some sector.

Your implying that you think that they are a liberal (in communist terms) communist party.

HMS Vanguard wrote:Grammar schools were abolished because without grammar schools there exists an implicit education tax on the upper middle class: the money that would have been spent on the state school education of their children but can instead be spent on other government objectives because those children are being privately educated.

The only reason to raise a surtax on the upper middle class having children is to make it more expensive for them to have children, as if the goal is simply revenue you would rather increase the general top rate of income tax.

Grammar schools aren't good because they improve social mobility. They probably do, although not much. They are good because they make it easier and cheaper for the best people to have children.

The report on the previous page suggested that it had negative effects for social mobility (yet to read it myself)

Ostroeuropa wrote:

Olivaero wrote:Lol no they fucking weren't.

I agree, they were abolished because the labour party elite keeps going through hysteric periods of hating any type of diversity of outcomes while pretending to be for the masses.

First they hated income diversity and were dragged kicking and screaming into admitting at least some is good for society, and finally admitting their attempts to be hardcore socialists and communists greatly fucked up the sectors of the economy it was tried in.

Then they hated diversity of education and kept talking about how a single state-decided standard was needed, and have finally admitted their attempts to deal with education greatly fucked up the education of the country and worsened social mobility.

Now that's gone out of fashion and they have a hate-boner for ideological diversity and anyone who isn't a radical progressive feminist.
Place your bets on whether it takes them three decades to learn their lesson again, and on which parts of society they manage to fuck up in the meantime. Economy, education, and now demographic relations, freedom of speech, and culture.

I honestly have no idea how anyone finds them appealing, except through their fear of the opposition. Everything they touch turns to shit. Literally the only decent accomplishment they've managed that comes to mind is the NHS, and sure, it's a good one, but it's pretty hard to ignore that white both parties in the UK are shit, we're lookint at Nick Frost pretending to be equal to Simon Pegg in a wacky adventure.
It's just not true. One of them is more competent.

Each of Labours fucked up crusades stems from an ideological need, a communistic impulse, to deliver an equal society and a refusal to engage with the idea that maybe people just aren't supposed to have equal outcomes.

You know the narratives we make up for the way the world works are very rarely as correct as we think they are, esepecially when we try to make them up about our rivals. My schooling wasn't fucked up by the non existence of grammar schools, In fact I did pretty shitty on my second round of SATS because I was a kid who didn't fully appreciate exams. There are plenty of none radical progressive feminists in the party, although I hesitate to say that because I have no idea what you consider a radical progressive anymore. And as for society being feing fucked up, well there have been 6 years of tory rule so far, I don't see that it's getting any better, do you?

HMS Vanguard wrote:Grammar schools were abolished because without grammar schools there exists an implicit education tax on the upper middle class: the money that would have been spent on the state school education of their children but can instead be spent on other government objectives because those children are being privately educated.

The only reason to raise a surtax on the upper middle class having children is to make it more expensive for them to have children, as if the goal is simply revenue you would rather increase the general top rate of income tax.

Grammar schools aren't good because they improve social mobility. They probably do, although not much. They are good because they make it easier and cheaper for the best people to have children.

Cheaper, yes. Not that much easier, given that having children is quite possibly the main barrier to career progression for women.

HMS Vanguard wrote:

Rufford wrote:The cost of having a child is higher than ever and is rising regardless. It will continue to rise.

Huh?

My point is that weather you have them or not, its going to have very little affect on the cost of having a child because of the current price of having a child and the rate the price is rising at.

Schools don't make much difference to peoples' lives or their value as workers. That is mostly determined by genetic traits.

But we should not supertax people with the best genetic traits.

Rufford wrote:

HMS Vanguard wrote:Huh?

My point is that weather you have them or not, its going to have very little affect on the cost of having a child because of the current price of having a child and the rate the price is rising at.

You seem to be saying that reducing the cost of having a child will not reduce the cost of having a child.

I respectfully decline to respond to this statement.

Olivaero wrote:

Ostroeuropa wrote:
I agree, they were abolished because the labour party elite keeps going through hysteric periods of hating any type of diversity of outcomes while pretending to be for the masses.

First they hated income diversity and were dragged kicking and screaming into admitting at least some is good for society, and finally admitting their attempts to be hardcore socialists and communists greatly fucked up the sectors of the economy it was tried in.

Then they hated diversity of education and kept talking about how a single state-decided standard was needed, and have finally admitted their attempts to deal with education greatly fucked up the education of the country and worsened social mobility.

Now that's gone out of fashion and they have a hate-boner for ideological diversity and anyone who isn't a radical progressive feminist.
Place your bets on whether it takes them three decades to learn their lesson again, and on which parts of society they manage to fuck up in the meantime. Economy, education, and now demographic relations, freedom of speech, and culture.

I honestly have no idea how anyone finds them appealing, except through their fear of the opposition. Everything they touch turns to shit. Literally the only decent accomplishment they've managed that comes to mind is the NHS, and sure, it's a good one, but it's pretty hard to ignore that white both parties in the UK are shit, we're lookint at Nick Frost pretending to be equal to Simon Pegg in a wacky adventure.
It's just not true. One of them is more competent.

Each of Labours fucked up crusades stems from an ideological need, a communistic impulse, to deliver an equal society and a refusal to engage with the idea that maybe people just aren't supposed to have equal outcomes.

You know the narratives we make up for the way the world works are very rarely as correct as we think they are, esepecially when we try to make them up about our rivals. My schooling wasn't fucked up by the non existence of grammar schools, In fact I did pretty shitty on my second round of SATS because I was a kid who didn't fully appreciate exams. There are plenty of none radical progressive feminists in the party, although I hesitate to say that because I have no idea what you consider a radical progressive anymore. And as for society being feing fucked up, well there have been 6 years of tory rule so far, I don't see that it's getting any better, do you?

Maybe i'm too caught up in a narrative, you're right, but it seems to explain a lot.
That's an argument for grammar school reform rather than abolition. They should have had multiple periods where it was possible to gain entry.
Ofcourse there are plenty of non-radicals in labour, but how many drive policy decisions?

It's not getting much better, I agree. But they haven't managed to completely implode an institution in the meantime.

HMS Vanguard wrote:Schools don't make much difference to peoples' lives or their value as workers. That is mostly determined by genetic traits.

But we should not supertax people with the best genetic traits.

Right, employers routinely give applicants DNA tests to determine if they have the right genetic traits. They totally don't look at the education listed on the CV at all.

HMS Vanguard wrote:

Rufford wrote:My point is that weather you have them or not, its going to have very little affect on the cost of having a child because of the current price of having a child and the rate the price is rising at.

You seem to be saying that reducing the cost of having a child will not reduce the cost of having a child.

I respectfully decline to respond to this statement.

The amount it would reduce it would make very little difference.

HMS Vanguard wrote:Schools don't make much difference to peoples' lives or their value as workers. That is mostly determined by genetic traits.

But we should not supertax people with the best genetic traits.

Oh wow, do you actually believe that? That just makes me sad.

Vassenor wrote:

HMS Vanguard wrote:Schools don't make much difference to peoples' lives or their value as workers. That is mostly determined by genetic traits.

But we should not supertax people with the best genetic traits.

Right, employers routinely give applicants DNA tests to determine if they have the right genetic traits. They totally don't look at the education listed on the CV at all.

They use the CV as a DNA test, because we can't currently measure IQ and discipline by DNA tests.

If you have the wrong DNA, you're not going to get in to Oxford.

HMS Vanguard wrote:

Vassenor wrote:
Right, employers routinely give applicants DNA tests to determine if they have the right genetic traits. They totally don't look at the education listed on the CV at all.

They use the CV as a DNA test, because we can't currently measure IQ and discipline by DNA tests.

If you have the wrong DNA, you're not going to get in to Oxford.

HMS Vanguard wrote:

Vassenor wrote:
Right, employers routinely give applicants DNA tests to determine if they have the right genetic traits. They totally don't look at the education listed on the CV at all.

They use the CV as a DNA test, because we can't currently measure IQ and discipline by DNA tests.

If you have the wrong DNA, you're not going to get in to Oxford.

And you thought my response about the price of raising a child was stupid.

Rufford wrote:

HMS Vanguard wrote:They use the CV as a DNA test, because we can't currently measure IQ and discipline by DNA tests.

If you have the wrong DNA, you're not going to get in to Oxford.

And you thought my response about the price of raising a child was stupid.

My observations are ahead of their time, while yours are nonsensical.