THE FOURTH OF JULY

[Spectric]

I think that six months after the election if labour win there will be some very depressed people around once they realise that there is no magic wand, money tree or economic growth juice that can be sprinkled around and that nothing has really changed. The problem is far more deep rooted and no single party will resolve the issues, maybe a state of emergency should be called where no overall winner is declared but a government is formed from all candidates who win a seat so there is no one party in charge of politic's and they all work together to resolve the major issues and once we are back on track then have a normal general election. The best outcome will be either a hung parliament or one where the winner only has a narrow majority so cannot just do anything and one of the first things to address is political reform, lets have a much smaller elected house of Lords and proportional representation, if you have a lot of junk tools or a poor performing process then how are you expected to deliver a good outcome.

 

[Spectric]

We should adopt something else from Australian system: voting plight, i.e. everyone eligible HAS to vote, and it's punishable by fines if you don't.

Fully agree, how can you say that you represent the country when only 30% have actually voted and maybe just 18% for you.

 

[NickVanBeest]

I can't remember where I saw it, but there is also a PR variant where you can select your prefered candidate, and the second preference, and if the preferred candidate doesn't make the cut, your vote is added to the total of the second candidate... will give the preferred candadate a much better view of who actually supports him/her, and it would get rid of tactical voting.

I think?

 

[Thingybob]

Can't help thinking what if Guy Fawkes had been successfully?

 

[Noel]

I can't remember where I saw it, but there is also a PR variant where you can select your prefered candidate, and the second preference, and if the preferred candidate doesn't make the cut, your vote is added to the total of the second candidate... will give the preferred candadate a much better view of who actually supports him/her, and it would get rid of tactical voting.

I think?

STV
Single Transferable Vote.

The STV system is easy for voters to use. Voters choose their preferred candidates by putting numbers beside their names on a ballot paper. They put 1 beside their favourite, 2 beside their second favourite and so on. The first five candidates to get a target number of votes are elected.

 

[carry book]

But where would it stop then? That would just be the tip of the iceberg

what a little gem

 

[picsnbits]

I’d rather have a plan that might work than no plan at all.

 

[Jacob]

National service!
Cleverly said “This is about dealing with what we know to be the case, which is social fragmentation. Too many young people live in a bubble within their own communities. They don’t mix with people of different religions, they don’t mix with different viewpoints.”
Good idea in principle, could be implemented by nationalising the private school system - the single most divisive feature of life in class-ridden and wealth-stratified Britain.

 

[niemeyjt]

National service!
Cleverly said “This is about dealing with what we know to be the case, which is social fragmentation. Too many young people live in a bubble within their own communities. They don’t mix with people of different religions, they don’t mix with different viewpoints.”
Good idea in principle, could be implemented by nationalising the private school system - the single most divisive feature of life in class-ridden and wealth-stratified Britain.

You mean people will no longer be allowed to spend their money in whatever legal way they choose?

 

[Jacob]

You mean people will no longer be allowed to spend their money in whatever legal way they choose?

Education is too important to be left to the market. Free market ideology has been an abject failure, so in principle, yes.
Needs to be a level playing field as far as possible, with a bias towards the underprivileged, who have most to gain and in turn, to contribute.
In so far as we have it already it has been a great success, empowering people for their own sakes and for the benefit of society.
We need to free ourselves from the tyranny of the clique of highly "educated" privileged people who get the best of it and gain positions of power and influence, in spite of being as thick as two short planks, incompetent and completely out of touch with the real world. Johnson? Cameron? You name them - an army of posh id iots running our lives!
First step could be to remove their tax advantages and charitable status.
Another step would be to extend Ofsted to the private sector. This would work both ways and Ofsted might have to improve its act instead of being bully boy against state education.
More importantly to invest much more in the state sector. Preferential higher ed entrance to state educated, positive discrimination, etc etc.

 

[Spectric]

We need to free ourselves from the tyranny of the clique of highly "educated" privileged people who get the best of it and gain positions of power and influence, in spite of being as thick as two short planks, incompetent and completely out of touch with the real world.

The sort of people who have bad people management skills and must take some of the blame for the decline and failure of the UKs industries. They are highly educated but all to often in subjects of no relevance to everyday life and seem to have this addiction for money and more money to the extent enough will never be enough.

For a machine to function then all parts play a role and are as important as each other, this is a lesson that is ignored in the west but valued in the east and guess who has the better economy. To be successful you need the manual skills and not just desk jobs, our whole system now seems to focus on clean jobs and not hand skills which were the very skills that powered our industrial revolution, not people pushing paper. This has always been a UK problem where as an engineer you are someone who works with oily rags and has never been given the same status as someone working in finance yet your contributions are more important.

 

[Terry - Somerset]

In general free market ideology has been an abject failure, so in principle, yes.

Unlike the sunlit socialist uplands found in world leading command economies epitomised by personal freedom and economic success in Russia and North Korea?

We need to free ourselves from the tyranny of the clique of highly "educated" privileged people who get the best of it and gain positions of power and influence, in spite of being as thick as two short planks, incompetent and completely out of touch with the real world. Johnson? Cameron? You name them - an army of posh id iots running our lives!

There no no evidence to justify a claim of their superior intellect, although there is zero evidence they are uniquely thick. What is abundantly clear is that spending more on education materially improves the capability (social and intellectual) of those who benefit.

First step could be to remove their tax advantages and charitable status.
Another step would be to extend Ofsted to the private sector. This would work both ways and Ofsted might have to improve its act instead of being bully boy against state education.

Politics of envy - social and financial benefits of tax and status changes are debatable. Denying those who work hard and/or intelligently the freedom to spend as they desire is fundamentally destructive. It removes any benefit through risk taking and hard work.

That Ofsted needs improvement is reasonable. That it is a "bully boy against state education" is unjustified. State bodies marking their own homework is unacceptable - it needs independent scrutiny unafraid of making difficult judgements.

More importantly to invest much more in the state sector. Preferential higher ed entrance to state educated, positive discrimination, etc etc.

Whether more should be invested in education is a matter of opinion (I may agree). But we need to be very clear about what gives - more taxes or cuts elsewhere.

Positive discrimination is thoroughly inequitable. Selection should be based on ability irrespective of gender, race, religion, parental wealth, education etc.

 

[GuitardoctorW7]

what a little gem

Tabloids would brand those voters Romaine-rs

 

[Jacob]

Unlike the sunlit socialist uplands found in world leading command economies epitomised by personal freedom and economic success in Russia and North Korea?

What have they got to do with it? I was thinking more of the civilised parts of Europe. Finland's education system seems to be a model worth copying.

There no no evidence to justify a claim of their superior intellect, although there is zero evidence they are uniquely thick.

There is plenty of evidence that wealth and privilege allow thickos to rise to levels of power and influence well beyond their ability or intellect

What is abundantly clear is that spending more on education materially improves the capability (social and intellectual) of those who benefit.

Yes.

Politics of envy - social and financial benefits of tax and status changes are debatable. Denying those who work hard and/or intelligently the freedom to spend as they desire is fundamentally destructive. It removes any benefit through risk taking and hard work.

The people who work hardest seem to be the lowest paid and least privileged. The idea that our unequal society is the result of the wealthy working harder is complete nonsense.

That Ofsted needs improvement is reasonable. That it is a "bully boy against state education" is unjustified.

That's why it was set up as it is.

State bodies marking their own homework is unacceptable - it needs independent scrutiny unafraid of making difficult judgements.

The very idea of "marking" is a simplistic dereliction of duty. Schools need scrutinising, support, intervention, of course, just like any other public service, but not the bullying and the one word assessment

Whether more should be invested in education is a matter of opinion (I may agree). But we need to be very clear about what gives - more taxes or cuts elsewhere.

What gives is higher taxes.

Positive discrimination is thoroughly inequitable.

Not as inequitable as gaining power and privilege merely through wealth. It corrects imbalances. In fact University entrance often favours the state educated, I believe.

Selection should be based on ability irrespective of gender, race, religion, parental wealth, education etc.

But you can't compare ability easily if 6.4% of applicants have the benefit of a much more intensive and heavily funded education system. In fact the whole point of the private sector is to buy advantage. That is the whole point. It would collapse if it did not.

 

[selectortone]

Tabloids would brand those voters Romaine-rs

Lettuce pray that's the end of the salad jokes.

 

[Yojevol]

Lettuce pray that's the end of the salad jokes.

Cos we've had enough

 

[Jameshow]

Cos we've had enough

It's just the tip of the iceberg I'm afraid ...!

 

[sploo]

These terrible vegetable puns are making me wilt

 

[John Brown]

It's just the tip of the iceberg I'm afraid ...!

Oh no! That's where it all started! We're going to get stuck in an endless loop...

 

[Phill05]

More "Little Gems" to come.