The game is on.

[Deep Sea Isopod]

Thanks XC.

Floppit, as XC said.

The rest. I wasn't really argueing against you, merely pointing out after 13 years under Labour things aren't really much better.
Where things have improved, something else has got worse to counter-act their glory.

And yes. I remember what the Tories done, but if we're not carefull we could have another 4-5 years of Gormless Brown and his cronies.
It's time for a BIG change, but we just aint gonna get it.

[floppit]

1980 was 14 years before the Labour party got into power and 2000 only 6 years after. Even if your measure was in all respects empirical (not trying to say it wasn't) such a comparison could hardly be laid solely at this government's door. Secondly if a 18 yr old school leaver goes to university, even if it was easier to get there, they still have a higher chance of an increased education than by leaving school at 16 - where I came from that was the expected norm. As it happens, I got quite an easy ticket to uni thanks to this governments Access scheme, there was no way after almost a decade on a low wage I could have afforded A-Levels; it still gave me the chance and I have most certainly achieved HE standards, in fact I got distinctions PG. Without that leg up I wouldn't have known about Peer Review, I wouldn't have the foggiest what science was (beyond white coats and test tubes), I sincerely doubt I would be posting here. I come across some smart teens and I want those chances for more people. I'm not supporting dumbing down but I am arguing that it doesn't nullify the success of doubling the numbers of people going to university - certainly not enough to support DSI's sweeping statement that 'kids' are not reaching HE levels.

[floppit]

DSI - you sound very pro Tory, that's fine but if the above is what it's based on I may still go to the effort of producing evidence.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

1980 was 4 years before the Labour party got into power and 2000 only 6 years after. Even if your measure was in all respects empirical (not trying to say it wasn't) such a comparison could hardly be laid solely at this government's door. Secondly if a 18 yr old school leaver goes to university, even if it was easier to get there, they still have a higher chance of an increased education than by leaving school at 16 - where I came from that was the expected norm. As it happens, I got quite an easy ticket to uni thanks to this governments Access scheme, there was no way after almost a decade on a low wage I could have afforded A-Levels; it still gave me the chance and I have most certainly achieved HE standards, in fact I got distinctions PG. Without that leg up I wouldn't have known about Peer Review, I wouldn't have the foggiest what science was (beyond white coats and test tubes), I sincerely doubt I would be posting here. I come across some smart teens and I want those chances for more people. I'm not supporting dumbing down but I am arguing that it doesn't nullify the success of doubling the numbers of people going to university - certainly not enough to support DSI's sweeping statement that 'kids' are not reaching HE levels.

Labour did NOT get into power in 1984! The tories were in from 1979 until 1997! Check your dates.

I was not blaming Labour, or the tories. I was just stating a fact. Government interference in education has had a negative effect right across the board for decades!

If you go back to the 1950s, the A level papers were even harder - a lot of the questions were of a standard that would be beyond first-year degree level nowadays. (I am still talking about maths here, although I would be surprised indeed if this was not mirrored in all other subjects.)

Teachers know best how to teach - not fucking politicians - they only know how to make their fuck-ups look like huge successes - the LAST thing needed in schools!

And, pray do tell, what is the point of sending every kid in the country into HE when there are the same percentage of jobs for graduates as there always was? It just means that all those with a 3rd in Media Studies end up in McDonalds after all!

[floppit]

It was a typo! (Although I admit I also had a brain fart and was thinking 94 rather than 97!)

And, pray do tell, what is the point of sending every kid in the country into HE when there are the same percentage of jobs for graduates as there always was? It just means that all those with a 3rd in Media Studies end up in McDonalds after all!

WOAH! I've obviously really pissed you off by saying lowered A level standards doesn't support 'Kids' being unable to reach HE standards? Bear in mind my post was a retort to whether or not kids now are able to reach a certain educational level, not whether it's useful for them to do so. However, I do think it benefits society as a whole, from the chances rationality has to succeed to the understanding of where information comes from. All that aside though, education, just the chance to learn has worth in it's own right - I have never in my life not worked, I would readily work in a factory and still never regret knowing Google Scholar exists or the chance to debate, or even to read a book by Grayling. Of all the things worth investment, in human terms, in productivity, and sod it, just because it's priceless, education is alongside health (I'd take less years on this planet better educated than more but dumb of all the things it gave me). Perhaps because my sort didn't expect it, those of us who got it bloody know it's worth.

[Deep Sea Isopod]

DSI - you sound very pro Tory, that's fine but if the above is what it's based on I may still go to the effort of producing evidence.

I'm not pro-Tory, but anti-Labour.

[floppit]

So which wins?

I ask because a lot of what you posted from beliefs about how immigrants get treated to what ails the NHS is somewhat right wing bread and butter.

[Rum]

So which wins?

I ask because a lot of what you posted from beliefs about how immigrants get treated to what ails the NHS is somewhat right wing bread and butter.

I thought that too and held back from responding. The post ranted at everything and blamed it on the lazy, immigrants, the feckless and anyone who appears to be associated (summarising!). I was kind f reminded of the 'four Yorkshireman sketch from Monty Python tbh!

It is very easy to forget how much better in many ways life is now compared to even thirty or forty years ago..and even easier going back a few more.

I think we have however 'peaked' and seen the best of what we might call 'standards of living' in the old consumerist sense of the phrase. Our politics is not currently keeping up with the changes however.

[floppit]

I think we have however 'peaked' and seen the best of what we might call 'standards of living' in the old consumerist sense of the phrase

I think there's a lot of truth in that. In a funny sort of way I don't mind, I get so bloody bored with thinking in terms of streams of new things - and TV's now are just too BIG!

Joking aside, I care we don't see people go hungry and that we keep our NHS, I care that we look after our old and those who just cannot keep up, I also want us to take our share in the world, that includes our share of refugees. I care somewhat less whether it means I never get a detached house, or even a kitchen big enough for a table (dreams....). I don't think I'm alone in any of that either, I HEAR people worry more about lost community than having an old car, it's just hard to let go of the fear of having less stuff.

[Deep Sea Isopod]

Yes, I'm "right wing". Maybe a bit further right than Tories, but not as far right as the BNP.

[Rum]

Yes, I'm "right wing". Maybe a bit further right than Tories, but not as far right as the BNP.

Well in that case you can fuck right off!

Well except you are, much more importantly, a Ratz!

[Deep Sea Isopod]

Yes, I'm "right wing". Maybe a bit further right than Tories, but not as far right as the BNP.

Well in that case you can fuck right off!

Well except you are, much more importantly, a Ratz!

Well, I thought my comment in support of UKIP last year would've been a big give away. And being right wing doesn't make me a fascist!

Mind you, being a Ratz and reading some of the Ratz shit on here has pulled me slightly to the left of UKIP. Does that mean I'm becoming rationolised?

[Xamonas Chegwé]

Yes, I'm "right wing". Maybe a bit further right than Tories, but not as far right as the BNP.

Well in that case you can fuck right off!

Well except you are, much more importantly, a Ratz!

Well, I thought my comment in support of UKIP last year would've been a big give away. And being right wing doesn't make me a fascist!

Mind you, being a Ratz and reading some of the Ratz shit on here has pulled me slightly to the left of UKIP. Does that mean I'm becoming rationolised?

We prefer to think of it as 'deprogrammed'.

My politics tend to be firmly centrist with a leftist tinge in some areas and a rightist tinge in others.

There is a lot wrong with almost every aspect of the way that this country (and every other country) is run but that is not going to be fixed by any single, populist policy, such as leaving the EU, kicking out the wogs, nationalising the banks, bringing back national service or adopting Rick Ghastly's Never Gonna Give You Up as the national anthem. I think that any extreme solutions to any problems are a bad idea because: (i) the transition tends to cause far more misery than any problem it solves, (ii) radical change of any kind is by definition untested and never works as it is supposed to, (iii) any moderately naff system can be propped up from within and worked with by most people once they get used to it, whereas some new, untried 'solution' will benefit only carpetbaggers and criminals, and (iv) meet the new boss, same as the old boss!

[floppit]

There is a lot wrong with almost every aspect of the way that this country (and every other country) is run but that is not going to be fixed by any single, populist policy, such as leaving the EU, kicking out the wogs, nationalising the banks, bringing back national service or adopting Rick Ghastly's Never Gonna Give You Up as the national anthem. I think that any extreme solutions to any problems are a bad idea because: (i) the transition tends to cause far more misery than any problem it solves, (ii) radical change of any kind is by definition untested and never works as it is supposed to, (iii) any moderately naff system can be propped up from within and worked with by most people once they get used to it, whereas some new, untried 'solution' will benefit only carpetbaggers and criminals, and (iv) meet the new boss, same as the old boss!

I pretty much agree with all of this and it's another reason why I think voting a government out in anger doesn't achieve the desired results - to shape a government perhaps has more legs in terms of seeing real returns. I think there is one exception though and that's the electoral reform, as it stands we are left with only 2 alternatives that have a plausible chance of success, perhaps this is unavoidable, perhaps not but it is something I'd like to see real work done on.

DSI - I said I would answer some of your other points and I'll honour that, but I think it would just derail this topic if the subjects are done justice. I suggest, if you agree, that as immigration played a central role in your previous thread we begin it as a separate thread. Does that seem reasonable to you?

[Deep Sea Isopod]

sure, why not.

I started one here....
http://www.rationalia.com/forum/viewtop ... =22&t=8739





Note to self.... Methinks I is gonna get a right kicking here.