I detest this kind of double standard from those on the Left. They want equality, but when it comes to their own lives they want privilege not open to the poorer members of society denying them the obvious route to aspiration through Grammar School selection.
When I lived in Dagenham my school regularly got at least five or six children per year through the 11+ and on to a grammar school. And the parents of those children were working class Labour voters. In those days social mobility via a grammar school was what many parents opted for, and they didn't have to move house to achieve it.
Fair enough if he was a member of the Conservative Party, but he isn't. He spouts on about equality of opportunity, but immediately chooses to opt for the privilege that is not available to most of his constituents.
People can stand for equality and not be against private schools and hospitals! Where it would be unequal would be if there was only private schools and hospitals and only the rich could afford to their kids educated.
Quite fair. If the opportunity is there he should take it. His wife wants the best for her children and she is not bound by Labour dogma. All parents want the best for their children and sending their children to a good school is a natural ambition.
I'm not Socialist, but have respect for genuine ones such as Jeremy Corbyn whose marriage broke up over where his child went to school.
Well if politicians were forced to send their children to the roughest comprehensive in London, I am sure standards for everyone would improve. If they can just use their wealth to move somewhere better, while promoting local comprehensive education for everyone else, then I doubt standards will improve.
Spot on until more educated parents send their children to state schools and demand imporvements, because they have the clout nothing will improve why should it?
Now if Mr Lammy and his wife had of sent their children to the local comprehensive and become part of the board of governers then,i am sure standards would have improved.
Its because the more affluent opt out that things are like they are.
Spot on until more educated parents send their children to state schools and demand imporvements, because they have the clout nothing will improve why should it?
Now if Mr Lammy and his wife had of sent their children to the local comprehensive and become part of the board of governers then,i am sure standards would have improved.
Its because the more affluent opt out that things are like they are.
Why should they have taken a risk and been part of the hope that things would improve?
I agree with you that better educated and or parents determined that children do well their parental groups do get stuck in to their local comprehensives and work for improvement.
Why should they have taken a risk and been part of the hope that things would improve?
I agree with you that better educated and or parents determined that children do well their parental groups do get stuck in to their local comprehensives and work for improvement.
Its not a hope Lammy has been MP for his constituency for years i wonder if he ever sat on the board of governers like my local MP does, at one of the local comprehensive's, to try and improve education for all.?
Glad you agree with me on the second point my two children had an excellent comprehensive education.
Despite being the product of a grammar school and knowing the benefits that it gave him.
Idiot. Why should his children receive a poorer education just to serve his biases.
Diane Abbott also benefited from a Grammar School education, but she both opposes them and selection, yet she sent her son to the £10,000 a year City of London private school.
Michael Portillo also attended the same Grammar School as Diane Abbot, but he believes there should be more of them because he's not a hypocritical Socialist and she is.
Both Diane Abbott and Michael Portillo achieved their education through merit, however, the former used money in order to secure a private education for her son.
The story about Jeremy Corbyn standing by his Socialist principles and maintaining his integrity is here:
Its not a hope Lammy has been MP for his constituency for years i wonder if he ever sat on the board of governers like my local MP does, at one of the local comprehensive's, to try and improve education for all.?
Glad you agree with me on the second point my two children had an excellent comprehensive education.
Diane Abbott also benefited from a Grammar School education, but she both opposes them and selection, yet she sent her son to the £10,000 a year City of London private school.
Michael Portillo also attended the same Grammar School as Diane Abbot, but he believes there should be more of them because he's not a hypocritical Socialist and she is.
Both Diane Abbott and Michael Portillo achieved their education through merit, however, the former used money in order to secure a private education for her son.
The story about Jeremy Corbyn standing by his Socialist principles and maintaining his integrity is here:
Thank you. A mother's love and ambition for her child won out.
'I could not compromise my son's future for my husband's career. I regret it is going to be difficult for Jeremy, but it was an impossible decision. Nobody really is a winner.'
I have tutored children for City of London and the standard is high. Abbott's son must have been a very bright boy.
The School is generously endowed with Scholarships, offering approximately 30 each year. Further Scholarships given by City Livery Companies or other benefactors are re-awarded when the present holder leaves the School (usually four or five fall vacant each year).Scholarship candidates who do not win an award, but whose performance reaches a sufficient standard, may be offered a full-fee place at the School.
Fees are now £4771 per term but children can get scholarships and bursaries.
Around 65% of the intake is from state primary schools.
People can stand for equality and not be against private schools and hospitals! Where it would be unequal would be if there was only private schools and hospitals and only the rich could afford to their kids educated.
Are you saying that private education and healthcare are equal to state schools and the NHS?
By stating "people can stand for equality and not be against private schools and hospitals" you're advocating a two-tier system for both and that's something that the Left seem to oppose at every turn.
<< I detest this kind of double standard from those on the Left. They want equality, but when it comes to their own lives they want privilege not open to the poorer members of society denying them the obvious route to aspiration through Grammar School selection. >>
I am fairly sure that you would count me as being 'on the left'. I get rather well paid for my job and I try to do the best I can for my family. A poor person could not afford my house or car nor where I live and what I eat and so on.
It is not me that denies people things. I want children to start school at age 7 and get a great education and have a super health system. I also hate the case that we have to help to support disabled soldiers by having a poppy day, I think it should be paid from the Defence budget, and they and their families should be kept well fed and housed for their lives.
It is you right wingers who do things according to your evil prejudices and against the evidence, because what you really want is to be nasty, to poor people, to children, to teenagers, to black people, to Muslims, to just about everybody. You even go round saying how you detest people like me for being decent. Truth is you are envious of Lammy because he is rich and successful and clever.
You are also not very bright, who scrapped grammar schools? Why your darling favourite Mrs Thatcher. You should get your views from your own experience and sense, not some rubbishy aussie's news rag.
Thank you. A mother's love and ambition for her child won out.
'I could not compromise my son's future for my husband's career. I regret it is going to be difficult for Jeremy, but it was an impossible decision. Nobody really is a winner.'
As much as I agree with his wife over the choice of schooling, why did she have the final say? The son is his son as much as her's.
It's because the more affluent opt out that things are like they are.
I don't agree. Affluent parents often take their children out of state education because there are so many parents that don't value education who opt into it, therefore, dragging down standards.
It's wrong to assume that non-affluent parents don't want the best for their children. A good parent is one who also educates them in addition to their school day. Unfortunately, it's a class issue and not necessarily an income level issue. That's why Grammar Schools worked well for the less affluent and gave chances they wouldn't otherwise have had.
As much as I agree with his wife over the choice of schooling, why did she have the final say? The son is his son as much as her's.
She had the final say because he was her son and her husband was a hypocrite.Her husband attended an excellent grammar school but wanted to deny her son the chance. Mothers of sons can be like tigresses when it comes to what they think is best for them. She solved the problem by choosing her son over her husband's fervent socialism.
It is you right wingers who do things according to your evil prejudices and against the evidence, because what you really want is to be nasty, to poor people, to children, to teenagers, to black people, to Muslims, to just about everybody. You even go round saying how you detest people like me for being decent. Truth is you are envious of Lammy because he is rich and successful and clever.
.
Feel better now after getting that rant off your chest?
I am fairly sure that you would count me as being 'on the left'. I get rather well paid for my job and I try to do the best I can for my family. A poor person could not afford my house or car nor where I live and what I eat and so on.
It is not me that denies people things. I want children to start school at age 7 and get a great education and have a super health system. I also hate the case that we have to help to support disabled soldiers by having a poppy day, I think it should be paid from the Defence budget, and they and their families should be kept well fed and housed for their lives.
It is you right wingers who do things according to your evil prejudices and against the evidence, because what you really want is to be nasty, to poor people, to children, to teenagers, to black people, to Muslims, to just about everybody. You even go round saying how you detest people like me for being decent. Truth is you are envious of Lammy because he is rich and successful and clever.
You are also not very bright, who scrapped grammar schools? Why your darling favourite Mrs Thatcher. You should get your views from your own experience and sense, not some rubbishy aussie's news rag.
After that rather childish and immature rant, I have no choice but to respond.
You say, "I want children to start school at age 7 and get a great education and have a super health system." School starting age is a policy issue that any government could implement if it wished to, however, I suspect you're referring to countries such as Finland where children begin school at age 7 and are well ahead of UK pupils by the time they reach the age of 15 despite having had two fewer years in school. If that's what you want then lobby for it. Regarding "a super health system" then who wouldn't want that? A lot of people in the UK regard the NHS as untouchable, however, were they to really look at the outcomes of other social health care systems in Europe they'd learn that the NHS falls well short of most of the others and its the Left's almost religious-like obsession with it that prevents it from becoming a far more efficient system because of its dogmatic and idealistic stance.
You "also hate the case that we have to help to support disabled soldiers by having a poppy day". That's fine for you to hate that, but Poppy Day began in 1921 and is an institution which raises money that is ringfenced for providing to welfare for those in need (both veterans and their dependants). The alternative would be to increase taxes and it's debatable whether the costs of administration would swallow up a lot of the money intended for those veterans.
You really fall of the wagon when you say, "it is you right wingers who do things according to your evil prejudices and against the evidence, because what you really want is to be nasty, to poor people, to children, to teenagers, to black people, to Muslims, to just about everybody." That's some accusation and I think it says more about you than it does about "right wingers". Perhaps there's more than a little psychological projection in that rather excited statement of yours.
And,"You even go round saying how you detest people like me for being decent." I "go around saying"? I merely pointed out the hypocrisy of those who preach something, but practice the opposite and patronisingly imply that they should do as they say and not as they do.
Then you tell me that "the Truth is you are envious of Lammy because he is rich and successful and clever." Really? I'm pleased that David Lammy has been able to better himself and achieve what he has, however, I dislike how he then becomes an MP in a relatively deprived area and, rather than try to improve the lives of his constituents, he feathers his own nest and goes against his principles because he's now realised that he's in the wrong party. You can influence people to change by showing them that hard work usually pays, but it's impossible to change them by feeling sorry for them and patronising them by giving them handouts in order to retain their vote.
You asked me, "who scrapped grammar schools?". Well, that began in the 1950s and there was a general consensus amongst all the parties, until relatively recently, despite the growing evidence that the Comprehensive system wasn't delivering. Yes, you're correct that Margaret Thatcher as Education Secretary in the 1970s closed a lot of Grammar Schools, but so did Education Secretaries of governments pre- and post-1970/74. It was a fervent policy, but from 1979 onwards there has been a muffled acceptance that Comprehensive education has failed.
On that last point I refer you to this link from a well-known Left Wing journalist and author:
"What was the surname of the scientist Marie who won the Nobel Prize for physics for her work on radiation?"
"Antoinette"
"Which variety of blue English cheese traditionally accompanies port?"
"Leicester"
"Who acceded the English throne at the age of 9 after the death of his father Henry VIII?"
"Henry VII"
Hmmm . . . those replies are quite shocking from someone who is supposed have had a good education and has managed to become an MP. Positive discrimination sucks.
This is a crude Daily Mail non-story. If Lammy had sent his child to a fee-paying school then he could justly have been accused of champagne socialist hypocrisy. Furthermore, that Mail article makes suppositions about Lammy's house move which are not backed up by any evidence.
If thicko Lammy had sent his kid to a private school he wouldn't be taking a place of perhaps someone less affluent.
Anyone who wants more grammar schools because of social mobility needs to find a better reason because they did not improve social mobility before and social mobility is not greater in those parts of the country that still have state grammar schools.
Comments
When I lived in Dagenham my school regularly got at least five or six children per year through the 11+ and on to a grammar school. And the parents of those children were working class Labour voters. In those days social mobility via a grammar school was what many parents opted for, and they didn't have to move house to achieve it.
People can stand for equality and not be against private schools and hospitals! Where it would be unequal would be if there was only private schools and hospitals and only the rich could afford to their kids educated.
I'm not Socialist, but have respect for genuine ones such as Jeremy Corbyn whose marriage broke up over where his child went to school.
I don't remember that. What caused the break up? Did he want his children to go to a good grammar school as he had done?
No. His wife wanted a Grammar School education if I remember correctly, while Jeremy wanted a non-selective school.
Spot on until more educated parents send their children to state schools and demand imporvements, because they have the clout nothing will improve why should it?
Now if Mr Lammy and his wife had of sent their children to the local comprehensive and become part of the board of governers then,i am sure standards would have improved.
Its because the more affluent opt out that things are like they are.
Despite being the product of a grammar school and knowing the benefits that it gave him.
Idiot. Why should his children receive a poorer education just to serve his biases.
Why should they have taken a risk and been part of the hope that things would improve?
I agree with you that better educated and or parents determined that children do well their parental groups do get stuck in to their local comprehensives and work for improvement.
Its not a hope Lammy has been MP for his constituency for years i wonder if he ever sat on the board of governers like my local MP does, at one of the local comprehensive's, to try and improve education for all.?
Glad you agree with me on the second point my two children had an excellent comprehensive education.
Diane Abbott also benefited from a Grammar School education, but she both opposes them and selection, yet she sent her son to the £10,000 a year City of London private school.
Michael Portillo also attended the same Grammar School as Diane Abbot, but he believes there should be more of them because he's not a hypocritical Socialist and she is.
Both Diane Abbott and Michael Portillo achieved their education through merit, however, the former used money in order to secure a private education for her son.
The story about Jeremy Corbyn standing by his Socialist principles and maintaining his integrity is here:
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/1999/may/13/uk.politicalnews2
There are some excellent comprehensives around.
Sadly there are also some dreadful ones too.
Thank you. A mother's love and ambition for her child won out.
'I could not compromise my son's future for my husband's career. I regret it is going to be difficult for Jeremy, but it was an impossible decision. Nobody really is a winner.'
I have tutored children for City of London and the standard is high. Abbott's son must have been a very bright boy.
The School is generously endowed with Scholarships, offering approximately 30 each year. Further Scholarships given by City Livery Companies or other benefactors are re-awarded when the present holder leaves the School (usually four or five fall vacant each year).Scholarship candidates who do not win an award, but whose performance reaches a sufficient standard, may be offered a full-fee place at the School.
Fees are now £4771 per term but children can get scholarships and bursaries.
Around 65% of the intake is from state primary schools.
Are you saying that private education and healthcare are equal to state schools and the NHS?
By stating "people can stand for equality and not be against private schools and hospitals" you're advocating a two-tier system for both and that's something that the Left seem to oppose at every turn.
I am fairly sure that you would count me as being 'on the left'. I get rather well paid for my job and I try to do the best I can for my family. A poor person could not afford my house or car nor where I live and what I eat and so on.
It is not me that denies people things. I want children to start school at age 7 and get a great education and have a super health system. I also hate the case that we have to help to support disabled soldiers by having a poppy day, I think it should be paid from the Defence budget, and they and their families should be kept well fed and housed for their lives.
It is you right wingers who do things according to your evil prejudices and against the evidence, because what you really want is to be nasty, to poor people, to children, to teenagers, to black people, to Muslims, to just about everybody. You even go round saying how you detest people like me for being decent. Truth is you are envious of Lammy because he is rich and successful and clever.
You are also not very bright, who scrapped grammar schools? Why your darling favourite Mrs Thatcher. You should get your views from your own experience and sense, not some rubbishy aussie's news rag.
As much as I agree with his wife over the choice of schooling, why did she have the final say? The son is his son as much as her's.
I don't agree. Affluent parents often take their children out of state education because there are so many parents that don't value education who opt into it, therefore, dragging down standards.
It's wrong to assume that non-affluent parents don't want the best for their children. A good parent is one who also educates them in addition to their school day. Unfortunately, it's a class issue and not necessarily an income level issue. That's why Grammar Schools worked well for the less affluent and gave chances they wouldn't otherwise have had.
She had the final say because he was her son and her husband was a hypocrite.Her husband attended an excellent grammar school but wanted to deny her son the chance. Mothers of sons can be like tigresses when it comes to what they think is best for them. She solved the problem by choosing her son over her husband's fervent socialism.
Feel better now after getting that rant off your chest?
Oh God.
"What was the surname of the scientist Marie who won the Nobel Prize for physics for her work on radiation?"
"Antoinette"
"Which variety of blue English cheese traditionally accompanies port?"
"Leicester"
"Who acceded the English throne at the age of 9 after the death of his father Henry VIII?"
"Henry VII"
After that rather childish and immature rant, I have no choice but to respond.
You say, "I want children to start school at age 7 and get a great education and have a super health system." School starting age is a policy issue that any government could implement if it wished to, however, I suspect you're referring to countries such as Finland where children begin school at age 7 and are well ahead of UK pupils by the time they reach the age of 15 despite having had two fewer years in school. If that's what you want then lobby for it. Regarding "a super health system" then who wouldn't want that? A lot of people in the UK regard the NHS as untouchable, however, were they to really look at the outcomes of other social health care systems in Europe they'd learn that the NHS falls well short of most of the others and its the Left's almost religious-like obsession with it that prevents it from becoming a far more efficient system because of its dogmatic and idealistic stance.
You "also hate the case that we have to help to support disabled soldiers by having a poppy day". That's fine for you to hate that, but Poppy Day began in 1921 and is an institution which raises money that is ringfenced for providing to welfare for those in need (both veterans and their dependants). The alternative would be to increase taxes and it's debatable whether the costs of administration would swallow up a lot of the money intended for those veterans.
You really fall of the wagon when you say, "it is you right wingers who do things according to your evil prejudices and against the evidence, because what you really want is to be nasty, to poor people, to children, to teenagers, to black people, to Muslims, to just about everybody." That's some accusation and I think it says more about you than it does about "right wingers". Perhaps there's more than a little psychological projection in that rather excited statement of yours.
And, "You even go round saying how you detest people like me for being decent." I "go around saying"? I merely pointed out the hypocrisy of those who preach something, but practice the opposite and patronisingly imply that they should do as they say and not as they do.
Then you tell me that "the Truth is you are envious of Lammy because he is rich and successful and clever." Really? I'm pleased that David Lammy has been able to better himself and achieve what he has, however, I dislike how he then becomes an MP in a relatively deprived area and, rather than try to improve the lives of his constituents, he feathers his own nest and goes against his principles because he's now realised that he's in the wrong party. You can influence people to change by showing them that hard work usually pays, but it's impossible to change them by feeling sorry for them and patronising them by giving them handouts in order to retain their vote.
You asked me, "who scrapped grammar schools?". Well, that began in the 1950s and there was a general consensus amongst all the parties, until relatively recently, despite the growing evidence that the Comprehensive system wasn't delivering. Yes, you're correct that Margaret Thatcher as Education Secretary in the 1970s closed a lot of Grammar Schools, but so did Education Secretaries of governments pre- and post-1970/74. It was a fervent policy, but from 1979 onwards there has been a muffled acceptance that Comprehensive education has failed.
On that last point I refer you to this link from a well-known Left Wing journalist and author:
http://www.gq-magazine.co.uk/comment/articles/2010-10/11/gq-comment-tony-parsons-state-private-grammar-schools-education
And another, which includes a category of person you seem to have left out of your third paragraph:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/secondaryeducation/10914773/A-comprehensive-failure-in-state-education.html
Hmmm . . . those replies are quite shocking from someone who is supposed have had a good education and has managed to become an MP. Positive discrimination sucks.
The Labour party, it's the true Conservative party of the United Kingdom.
There can be no betrayal of principles here, it's a true-blue party nowadays.
If thicko Lammy had sent his kid to a private school he wouldn't be taking a place of perhaps someone less affluent.
Good point about his wife also being involved in the decision. The children of politicians should not be used to make political points.