Tracer Tong wrote:And, of course, those from less privileged backgrounds are given more leeway should their interview not go terribly well. Interviewers are looking for potential, not pedigree, as I know from personal experience.

Yes, allowances are certainly made, although it's a shame they're necessary.

CarlPierce wrote:Diane abbott is at it again and wants to employ three more police officers for a cost of £700 million and 64p in order double the number of officers on the beat or is it 18 million new officers for £3.65. I was really hoping she had gone to Oxford.

The other place has the privilege.

Whatever else you can say about Abbott, she's not exactly a toff from a privileged background. Besides, she read history, not mathematics.

Back when I applied in the 80s, it was definitely easier for a comprehensive student to get into Cambridge rather than Oxford. You didn't have to study extra material for the entrance exam - you just took the STEP based on the same syllabus as your A levels - and you'd almost certainly get an offer if you were studying a STEM subject, even if it was AAAA11. Once there, it was pretty much down to how talented and prepared to work you were; the faculty didn't show any favoritism to those from public schools, so far as I could tell.

Nowadays, they've both opened up a bit more, even if there's still more to do. You can just apply via UCAS without having to submit a separate form. Oxford now also uses entrance tests that don't require extra study. Cambridge still seems to have the better reputation for access though; with more former comprehensive students having studied there they've at least got a slightly more diverse alumni network, I suppose. If anything, the biggest barrier is that a lot of talented students tend to count themselves out; there are a lot less applications per place for Cambridge and Oxford than many other universities because they don't even put one in.

I'm a Labour member and I find Dianne Abbott an embarrassment. I'm certainly not alone in that.

I didn't see the car crash interview and I'm not particularly fussed about one mistake. But I've always thought she's just not very strong at handling questions, expressing a coherent view of Labour policies etc. She gets caught out and "loses" arguments all the time, basically allowing her opponent's view to stand and reducing the Labour one voiced by her to an emotional appeal in defiance of the facts.

She may be a very capable person in some areas and as a trailblazing black woman MP she's obviously an important figure, but as a professional politician having to do what politicians have to do, she's really not up to it. Labour need to understand that one of the main things the electorate require from them is a perception of competence, and not keep pushing them to vote for a front bench team containing people who clearly don't have it.

Beatsong wrote:I'm a Labour member and I find Dianne Abbott an embarrassment. I'm certainly not alone in that.

I didn't see the car crash interview and I'm not particularly fussed about one mistake. But I've always thought she's just not very strong at handling questions, expressing a coherent view of Labour policies etc. She gets caught out and "loses" arguments all the time, basically allowing her opponent's view to stand and reducing the Labour one voiced by her to an emotional appeal in defiance of the facts.

She may be a very capable person in some areas and as a trailblazing black woman MP she's obviously an important figure, but as a professional politician having to do what politicians have to do, she's really not up to it. Labour need to understand that one of the main things the electorate require from them is a perception of competence, and not keep pushing them to vote for a front bench team containing people who clearly don't have it.

She's more comfortable in the back bench This Week regular guest slot alongside Portillo than a front bencher, for sure. But she has to put up with shit others do not, and I respect her, always have. That she isn't cut out for a towing the line cabinet minister, or even well briefed shadow cabinet member, doesn't really bother me.

In the David Davis sleeze and incompetence rankings, she's not even on the list. Lots of Tories, and a big fat fuck libdem, they are ... Carl ...

Beatsong wrote:I'm a Labour member and I find Dianne Abbott an embarrassment. I'm certainly not alone in that.

I didn't see the car crash interview and I'm not particularly fussed about one mistake. But I've always thought she's just not very strong at handling questions, expressing a coherent view of Labour policies etc. She gets caught out and "loses" arguments all the time, basically allowing her opponent's view to stand and reducing the Labour one voiced by her to an emotional appeal in defiance of the facts.

She may be a very capable person in some areas and as a trailblazing black woman MP she's obviously an important figure, but as a professional politician having to do what politicians have to do, she's really not up to it. Labour need to understand that one of the main things the electorate require from them is a perception of competence, and not keep pushing them to vote for a front bench team containing people who clearly don't have it.

She's also a hypocrite for sending her child to private school IIRC.

How does that make her a hypocrite?

Tracer Tong wrote:How does that make her a hypocrite?

Because she's supposedly against private schools?

Are the levels of public schools that low?

chairman bill wrote:

Tracer Tong wrote:How does that make her a hypocrite?

Because she's supposedly against private schools?

Yeah, she'd previously had a bit of a rant against them...and then sent her kid to one.

Abbott had a brief relationship with current Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn when he was a councillor in north London in the late 1970s

Labour leadership contender Diane Abbott defied her critics today as she declared that sending her son to private school was "the making of him".

Ms Abbott, who once attacked Tony Blair and Harriet Harman for sending their children to selective state schools, has repeatedly come under fire from Labour colleagues and activists over the issue.

And now her kid has left she wants to slap VAT on private fees.

This takes real class.

Scot Dutchy wrote:Are the levels of public schools that low?

Depends where you live and on a whole bunch of factors affecting which one you get into. But the best private schools will always have things (small class sizes, amazing facilities, sport and arts opportunities etc.) that are way beyond state schools. It just comes down to money. A lot of parents when the reach the income level that makes private school fees comfortably affordable, will just think "why not?"

Given that all Abbott really has going for her is left wing credentials - it's not like she has the media skill of Blair or the intellect of Brown - there's not much left of her after taking away points for the hypocrisy here.

Corbyn, to his credit, always supported state schools in deed as well as word and it was even the cause of his divorce, as his ex-wife wanted to send the kids to private school and he wouldn't have it.

I can't blame Abbott for wanting the best for her son, and don't know if I find Corbyn's ideological purity over his kids' schooling any more appealing. Especially when, like Abbot, he benefited from a grammar education.

Given their own experiences, I'm less forgiving of the refusal of either to reexamine their opposition to any kind of selection by ability,* especially when the real world alternative's selection by wealth and (often pretended) religion.

* Not the 11+, but something like Germany's system, where around half of children benefit from selective education, with plenty opportunity to move if they develop later.

I thought the comprehensives were meant to do that with their multi-streaming.

Beatsong wrote:Labour need to understand that one of the main things the electorate require from them is a perception of competence, and not keep pushing them to vote for a front bench team containing people who clearly don't have it.

Absolutely not. Because the "perception" of competence is in most cases pure manipulation by the media. If Labour were to get rid of every politician that the tabloids jeered at the mistakes of, they'd have none left, which is precisely what those papers want. Why the fuck is it a news story when a black left-wing female politician forgets a number, but not when a white male right-wing politician does? It's a fucking disgrace to journalism for that small stumble to be making the news rather than the serious government failures that were being highlighted. It's no good playing the game when the game is rigged.

Scot Dutchy wrote:I thought the comprehensives were meant to do that with their multi-streaming.

They were -- and that was over much opposition from advocates of mixed-ability classes, who accused streaming of betraying the comprehensive ideal -- but a comp. with streams can't replicate the culture of a selective school. If it did, the private sector would be withering on the vine as it was before grammars were abolished.

The entirely justified rebuttal of "What about those who fail the 11+?" would be a lot easier to meet if there was no 11+, enough selective schools for roughly half of students, with selection agreed between teachers and parents, and lots of high-quality trade and technical schools as an alternative.

minininja wrote:[...] Why the fuck is it a news story when a black left-wing female politician forgets a number, but not when a white male right-wing politician does? [...]

They've done the same to Corbyn, but yes, with the current government, the double-standard isn't even trying to hide itself.

It also has to be said that BoJo has had so many car crash interviews that they've simply stopped being newsworthy. That said, the media do tend to soft pedal a bit whenever May or Hammond makes a gaffe.

Byron wrote:

Scot Dutchy wrote:I thought the comprehensives were meant to do that with their multi-streaming.

They were -- and that was over much opposition from advocates of mixed-ability classes, who accused streaming of betraying the comprehensive ideal -- but a comp. with streams can't replicate the culture of a selective school. If it did, the private sector would be withering on the vine as it was before grammars were abolished.

The entirely justified rebuttal of "What about those who fail the 11+?" would be a lot easier to meet if there was no 11+, enough selective schools for roughly half of students, with selection agreed between teachers and parents, and lots of high-quality trade and technical schools as an alternative.

That is what we have. it is called the third stream. Here is a vid that gives an overview.



It works pretty well and allows plenty of flexibility. There are no failures. Primary education is a very laid back affair with no homework. Independence is important.

There's no homework in primary schools here either.

Fallible wrote:There's no homework in primary schools here either.

Since when?