On Tue, 08 Nov 2005 20:11:03 +0000 (GMT), John Cartmell
wrote:

In article ,
Andy Hall wrote:
There are also a wide range of fees in the private sector, so with the
contribution that would be obtained by a voucher equivalent to the
cost of education in a state school today, plus tax relief on fees,
far more choice would be available to far more people.

Which would leave public-sector schools coping with the kids of parents who
didn't care.

That happens already.

What all schools need are parents with clout who will ensure that
resources and teaching are kept up to standard.

Of course, and there is no better way to have clout than for parents
to be empowered with vouchers for education that can be spent at a
school in either the state or private sector.

Increase or disappearance of income is an excellent way to focus the
minds of suppliers of any product or service.


--

..andy

On Tue, 08 Nov 2005 20:09:15 +0000 (GMT), John Cartmell
wrote:

In article ,
Derek ^ wrote:
It's a symptom, it's not the disease. The disease is the British
attitude to the people that do the actual, tangible, productive work.

Agreed. [and almost back to relevance for the group!]
As a Technology teacher I had many arguments with people who thought that the
subject was there to let less capable kids shine after all the clever ones had
been creamed off to do academic stuff. My attitude was that the cream were the
ones capable of combining skills and knowledge across the curriculum.


Almost. The cream are those able to adapt to whatever the curriculum
becomes rather than what it is at any point in time.




--

..andy

On Tue, 08 Nov 2005 20:13:54 +0000 (GMT), John Cartmell
wrote:

In article ,
Derek ^ wrote:
Tonight's Yorkshire Evening Post, front page story:

I've no knowledge of the individuals or their circumstances but have found
that, if you reverse the 'facts' in any local paper 'story' you might get
close to the truth. ;-(

If you can reverse the "facts" about my deceased father in law and his
treatment you could earn a pretty penny.

They changed the law ( crown immunity) after the Pinderfields food
poisoning outbreak.

You believe what you will, it won't change any facts.

DG

On Mon, 07 Nov 2005 23:15:03 GMT, "The3rd Earl Of Derby"
wrote:

Andy Hall wrote:
[snip]

A better solution would be to make it people's responsibility and if
they choose not to behave responsibly to levy a fine.

And how do you propose to fine the right person when you find half of their
kitchen lying against your backyard wall?

The council pays a hobby bobby and targets him to find (& fine) say 20
(?) per day.

DG

We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember "Alan" saying
something like:

Are you saying that I and my (now deceased) uncle are lying?

I'd ask you to either prove us wrong or retract that statement.

Here; want your rattle back?
--

Dave

In article , John Cartmell
wrote:

To put this anomaly
right it was suggested that the government add a 'per head' element into the
rates. Thatcher was then persuaded to make it entirely 'per head' as this
would go down well with the Tory faithful. When everyone realised that ths
would be even more unfair

How can it be unfair to pay for what you receive? Why should the dross of
society have a free ride on the rest of us, because they don't have a
mortgage? The community charge was by far the fairest way of all, but was
scuppered by the riots of the army of "Great unwashed" who didn't see why
their free ride should come to an end.

--
AJL

In article , Andy Luckman (AJL
Electronics) wrote:
In article , John Cartmell
wrote:

To put this anomaly right it was suggested that the government add a 'per
head' element into the rates. Thatcher was then persuaded to make it
entirely 'per head' as this would go down well with the Tory faithful.
When everyone realised that ths would be even more unfair

How can it be unfair to pay for what you receive? Why should the dross of
society have a free ride on the rest of us, because they don't have a
mortgage? The community charge was by far the fairest way of all, but was
scuppered by the riots of the army of "Great unwashed" who didn't see why
their free ride should come to an end.

Do think through the consequencies of your ideas. When you're incapable of
earning your own wherewithall can we take delight into dumping you into the
gutter?

Our would you prefer to belong to a society that cared raher than hated?

--
John Cartmell john@ followed by finnybank.com 0845 006 8822
Qercus magazine FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527 www.finnybank.com
Qercus - the best guide to RISC OS computing

In article , Chris Bacon
wrote:


However, in your continual attacks on the "Poll Tax", you
ignore the discounts and exemptions that were given to
people - why?

Because it doesn't suit a socialist's cause to have to face the truth. I
have a great deal of respect for John normally, but after today's blind spew
of leftie rhetoric, I am tempted to put him in my "drivel" file.

--
AJL

Andy Luckman (AJL Electronics) wrote:
John Cartmell wrote:


To put this anomaly
right it was suggested that the government add a 'per head' element into the
rates. Thatcher was then persuaded to make it entirely 'per head' as this
would go down well with the Tory faithful. When everyone realised that ths
would be even more unfair

How can it be unfair to pay for what you receive?

Absolutely.


Why should the dross of
society have a free ride on the rest of us, because they don't have a
mortgage?

People on low incomes got *discounts*. I wouldn't class them as
"the dross of society"; however...


The community charge was by far the fairest way of all, but was
scuppered by the riots of the army of "Great unwashed" who didn't see why
their free ride should come to an end.

Yes, there were lots of "activists", and many arses involved
there. It would have been a *great* opportunity to round them
up, put them in a field and bomb the *******s.

In article ,
Chris Bacon wrote:
Yes, there were lots of "activists", and many arses involved
there. It would have been a *great* opportunity to round them
up, put them in a field and bomb the *******s.

That's more or less how I felt about Thatcher and her repeated illegal use of
our money.

--
John Cartmell john@ followed by finnybank.com 0845 006 8822
Qercus magazine FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527 www.finnybank.com
Qercus - the best guide to RISC OS computing

John Cartmell wrote:
Chris Bacon wrote:
Yes, there were lots of "activists", and many arses involved
there. It would have been a *great* opportunity to round them
up, put them in a field and bomb the *******s.

That's more or less how I felt about Thatcher and her repeated
illegal use of our money.

As far as I know, the *Government* use of money was quite
legitimate - I don't think Mrs. Thatcher personally spent
it...

However, in your continual attacks on the "Poll Tax", you
ignore the discounts and exemptions that were given to
people - why?

John Cartmell wrote:
Chris Bacon wrote:
However, in your continual attacks on the "Poll Tax", you
ignore the discounts and exemptions that were given to
people - why?

You've ignored that again in your off-target rant. Why?

In article , Andy Luckman (AJL
Electronics) wrote:
In article , Chris Bacon
wrote:


However, in your continual attacks on the "Poll Tax", you ignore the
discounts and exemptions that were given to people - why?

Because it doesn't suit a socialist's cause to have to face the truth. I
have a great deal of respect for John normally, but after today's blind
spew of leftie rhetoric, I am tempted to put him in my "drivel" file.

Do check what I've said about the Poll Tax. My main criticism of it is that it
cannot now be used because Thatcher's attempt to impose it against all
reasoned advice by her own 'inner circle' and civil servants was ignored.
I would like to see local taxation made up of a mix of old-style rates - with
regular updating of rateable values - plus a form of poll tax plus (maybe) a
form of local income tax. The three together would mitigate the unfairness of
any one - and it was the first two that were originally recommended to
Thatcher.

Now if you regard a balanced compromise as 'a spew of left-wing rhetoric' then
I'm proud to spew left-wing rhetoric. I just want what will produce a working
society that is educated, compassionate, healthy, and fair.

--
John Cartmell john@ followed by finnybank.com 0845 006 8822
Qercus magazine FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527 www.finnybank.com
Qercus - the best guide to RISC OS computing

John Cartmell wrote:
In article , Joe
wrote:

John Cartmell wrote:


You're not concerned that there was meant to be three types of school -
grammar, technical grammar, and secondary modern - but most authorities
never bothered about the second or hardly developed the idea - and there
was no attempt to select for those fitted for such an education?


You seem fairly knowledgable he how many multilaterals were there? I
have only ever been aware of the one I attended and its sister girls'
school. Why was the Comprehensive system used instead?


can you explain what you mean by multi-lateral?

Basically a streamed comprehensive. Six-form intake, two grammar, two
technical and two secondary modern in the first year. Promotions and
relegations throughout the time there, though most in the first year.
It was possible to arrive in the lower s-m stream and do A-levels
(someone in my year did). Only about three forms left by the fifth year
(it was possible to leave before 16 in those days).

In article ,
Joe wrote:
John Cartmell wrote:
In article , Joe
wrote:

John Cartmell wrote:

You're not concerned that there was meant to be three types of school -
grammar, technical grammar, and secondary modern - but most authorities
never bothered about the second or hardly developed the idea - and there
was no attempt to select for those fitted for such an education?

You seem fairly knowledgable he how many multilaterals were there? I
have only ever been aware of the one I attended and its sister girls'
school. Why was the Comprehensive system used instead?

can you explain what you mean by multi-lateral?

Basically a streamed comprehensive. Six-form intake, two grammar, two
technical and two secondary modern in the first year. Promotions and
relegations throughout the time there, though most in the first year.
It was possible to arrive in the lower s-m stream and do A-levels
(someone in my year did). Only about three forms left by the fifth year
(it was possible to leave before 16 in those days).

My only real criticism of such is the size of such institutions in practice.

--
John Cartmell john@ followed by finnybank.com 0845 006 8822
Qercus magazine FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527 www.finnybank.com
Qercus - the best guide to RISC OS computing

In article ,
Chris Bacon wrote:
John Cartmell wrote:
Chris Bacon wrote:
However, in your continual attacks on the "Poll Tax", you
ignore the discounts and exemptions that were given to
people - why?

You've ignored that again in your off-target rant. Why?

As you're not quoting the 'rant' I don't know what you're talking about. I
haven't ranted on the subject at all - but something seems to be bothering
you. What?

--
John Cartmell john@ followed by finnybank.com 0845 006 8822
Qercus magazine FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527 www.finnybank.com
Qercus - the best guide to RISC OS computing

On Wed, 09 Nov 2005 12:27:26 +0000 (GMT), John Cartmell
wrote:


Now if you regard a balanced compromise as 'a spew of left-wing rhetoric' then
I'm proud to spew left-wing rhetoric. I just want what will produce a working
society that is educated, compassionate, healthy, and fair.

Economically successful is important as well, and a pre-requisite for
the nice-to-haves that you list.

Unfortunately, in order to achieve economic success, it is necessary
to have inequality and unfairness in a multitude of areas

--

..andy

John Cartmell wrote:
Chris Bacon wrote:
John Cartmell wrote:
Chris Bacon wrote:
However, in your continual attacks on the "Poll Tax", you
ignore the discounts and exemptions that were given to
people - why?

You've ignored that again in your off-target rant. Why?

As you're not quoting the 'rant' I don't know what you're talking about. I
haven't ranted on the subject at all - but something seems to be bothering
you. What?

The fact that in your previous attacks on the "unfair poll
tax" you have ignored the discounts and exemptions that were
given to people, as in my paragraph included above (again).
Why do you, in your attacks on the "poll tax", ignore these
discounts and exemptions?

"John Cartmell" wrote in message
...
In article , Andy Luckman
(AJL
Electronics) wrote:
In article , Chris Bacon
wrote:


However, in your continual attacks on the "Poll Tax", you ignore the
discounts and exemptions that were given to people - why?

Because it doesn't suit a socialist's cause to have to face the truth. I
have a great deal of respect for John normally, but after today's blind
spew of leftie rhetoric, I am tempted to put him in my "drivel" file.

Do check what I've said about the Poll Tax. My main criticism of it is
that it
cannot now be used because Thatcher's attempt to impose it against all
reasoned advice by her own 'inner circle' and civil servants was ignored.
I would like to see local taxation made up of a mix of old-style rates -
with
regular updating of rateable values - plus a form of poll tax plus (maybe)
a
form of local income tax. The three together would mitigate the unfairness
of
any one - and it was the first two that were originally recommended to
Thatcher.

I'd like to see an entirely _Local_ tax for _Local Services_.
The current mish-mash were central government dictates
level of services then disburse 'Spending Assessment's to local authorities
who have to make up the balance with Rates/Poll-Tax (whatever)
gives far too much opportunity for politicians of all levels to blame
each other level. 'Those **** in Westminster have cut our grant ...!'
'It's the local level that can't control costs'.
IMHO. cease central government funding and allow councils to
provide the services their local electorate are willing to pay for.
BTW 'Local Income Tax' is shorthand for 'PAYE scheme taxation'.
Those not on PAYE will find ways to shunt 'income' from fiscal year
to fiscal year and/or claim 'allowances' reducing their liability to
pay a local income tax. Also, my employer has employees from
about seven(?) local authorities - how many clerks will be required
to extract PAYE deductions and send off to the different authorities?
How will the worker(s) living in Borough X but working in County Y
be identified .... unless it's another reason for insisting that Britons
must carry the ID card.

--

Brian

"John Cartmell" wrote in message
...

snip

Then there was the illegal use of the police and government liaison with
illegal party propaganda organisations.


John; I learn today of reports implying that 'Downing Street' has
been organising 'Senior Police Officers' to telephone members of
the Parliamentary Labour Party suggesting that they should support
Tone's ninety-days imprisonment without trail. [You know it makes
sense!]

I presume that , if true, you deprecate this illegal use of
the police and government liaison with party propaganda
organisations.

--

Brian

"Joe" wrote in message
...
John Cartmell wrote:
In article , Joe

wrote:

John Cartmell wrote:


You're not concerned that there was meant to be three types of school -
grammar, technical grammar, and secondary modern - but most authorities
never bothered about the second or hardly developed the idea - and there
was no attempt to select for those fitted for such an education?


You seem fairly knowledgable he how many multilaterals were there? I
have only ever been aware of the one I attended and its sister girls'
school. Why was the Comprehensive system used instead?


can you explain what you mean by multi-lateral?

Basically a streamed comprehensive. Six-form intake, two grammar, two
technical and two secondary modern in the first year. Promotions and
relegations throughout the time there, though most in the first year.
It was possible to arrive in the lower s-m stream and do A-levels
(someone in my year did). Only about three forms left by the fifth year
(it was possible to leave before 16 in those days).

In my day ... the Liverpool Education Service operated four
'streams' of schools; Grammar; Technical; Commercial and
Secondary Modern. All of the schools seemed to be
two-form entry. Selection occurred via the 11+ examination after
which one was assigned to the different streams. [There was also
a second exam at 13+ . I recall some boys joining the school I
was sent to at age 11 when they were 13+ in the Third Form.]
This seems to be 'multi-lateral' albeit it multi-campus .... as the
educationalist would say now.

--

Brian

In article , Andy Hall
wrote:
On Wed, 09 Nov 2005 12:27:26 +0000 (GMT), John Cartmell
wrote:
Do check what I've said about the Poll Tax. My main criticism of it is
that it cannot now be used because Thatcher's attempt to impose it
against all reasoned advice by her own 'inner circle' and civil servants
was ignored. I would like to see local taxation made up of a mix of
old-style rates - with regular updating of rateable values - plus a form
of poll tax plus (maybe) a form of local income tax. The three together
would mitigate the unfairness of any one - and it was the first two that
were originally recommended to Thatcher.

Now if you regard a balanced compromise as 'a spew of left-wing rhetoric'
then I'm proud to spew left-wing rhetoric. I just want what will produce a
working society that is educated, compassionate, healthy, and fair.

Economically successful is important as well, and a pre-requisite for the
nice-to-haves that you list.

Unfortunately, in order to achieve economic success, it is necessary to
have inequality and unfairness in a multitude of areas

Why?

I understand that for one person or company to get to the top they may believe
that they have to damage the competition. I know of no reason why the whole of
society cannot be economically successful without equality and fairness. I do
know that a society (as opposed to individuals) *cannot* become economically
successful where inequalities are too large.

--
John Cartmell john@ followed by finnybank.com 0845 006 8822
Qercus magazine FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527 www.finnybank.com
Qercus - the best guide to RISC OS computing

In article ,
Brian Sharrock wrote:

"John Cartmell" wrote in message
...

snip

Then there was the illegal use of the police and government liaison with
illegal party propaganda organisations.


John; I learn today of reports implying that 'Downing Street' has
been organising 'Senior Police Officers' to telephone members of
the Parliamentary Labour Party suggesting that they should support
Tone's ninety-days imprisonment without trail. [You know it makes
sense!]

I presume that , if true, you deprecate this illegal use of
the police and government liaison with party propaganda
organisations.

Yes.

--
John Cartmell john@ followed by finnybank.com 0845 006 8822
Qercus magazine FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527 www.finnybank.com
Qercus - the best guide to RISC OS computing

John Cartmell wrote:
So please explain

Not my job, matey - yours, which you've avoided. Ne'r mind.

On Tue, 08 Nov 2005 17:13:04 +0000, Andy Hall
wrote:

On Tue, 08 Nov 2005 14:22:03 +0000, Mark wrote:

On Tue, 08 Nov 2005 11:29:43 +0000, Andy Hall
wrote:


The question is about the delivery model and the choice.

There should be a range of options available, operated by the state
sector and the private sector, and people should have the freedom to
choose. It should be possible to take a sum of money or voucher
(which is the same for everybody) and spend it at any facility with
the option of topping it up if the individual wishes to do so.

If there was a voucher system like you suggest I don't know how state
schools could survive. If you (and others) choose to use your
vouchers, for example, at a private school that would mean less
resources for the state school (unless the gov't put more money
overall into such a system and I doubt this would happen).


I think that most state schools would survive and some would not.
People would have their choices, but simply on a broader basis than
today.

I doubt it would be most. My local state primary school (which is a
very good one) does not have any spare money and could not survive a
budget cut without severe problems. It would be forced to make
teachers redundant and the education of the children would suffer
accordingly. Some parents may remove their children and the school
budget would be reduced even further. This could then lead to the
closure of the school. I doubt most other schools would be any
different.

Mark.

On Wed, 09 Nov 2005 14:20:50 +0000, Mark wrote:

On Tue, 08 Nov 2005 17:13:04 +0000, Andy Hall
wrote:

On Tue, 08 Nov 2005 14:22:03 +0000, Mark wrote:

On Tue, 08 Nov 2005 11:29:43 +0000, Andy Hall
wrote:


The question is about the delivery model and the choice.

There should be a range of options available, operated by the state
sector and the private sector, and people should have the freedom to
choose. It should be possible to take a sum of money or voucher
(which is the same for everybody) and spend it at any facility with
the option of topping it up if the individual wishes to do so.

If there was a voucher system like you suggest I don't know how state
schools could survive. If you (and others) choose to use your
vouchers, for example, at a private school that would mean less
resources for the state school (unless the gov't put more money
overall into such a system and I doubt this would happen).


I think that most state schools would survive and some would not.
People would have their choices, but simply on a broader basis than
today.

I doubt it would be most. My local state primary school (which is a
very good one) does not have any spare money and could not survive a
budget cut without severe problems.

Who said anything about a budget cut? If it's as good as you say,
then the opposite would happen and parents would be attracted to send
their children to it.


--

..andy

On Tue, 08 Nov 2005 17:40:54 +0000, Andy Hall
wrote:

On Tue, 08 Nov 2005 14:35:00 +0000, Mark wrote:

On Tue, 08 Nov 2005 12:28:09 +0000, Andy Hall
wrote:



The benefits of small classes are apparent from the outset in terms of
the attention that each pupil gets and the accelerated speed of
learning. Again, unless you have been involved in and seen the
results personally, it is not easy to appreciate the benefits.

If private schools do offer such benefits then shouldn't these be open
to all children and not just to those with wealthy enough parents?

There are also a wide range of fees in the private sector, so with the
contribution that would be obtained by a voucher equivalent to the
cost of education in a state school today, plus tax relief on fees,
far more choice would be available to far more people.

Maybe more choice for the richer, less for the poorer. My choice is
to send my children to my local state school. Your scheme could
easily deny me that.

There are then various other mechanisms that can be used to supplement
the cost of particular forms of education that are more suited to a
given child. I don't see a fundamental need to say that the same
should be spent on each child.

The current system of attempting to impose a bland uniformity
regardless of ability in given areas doesn't serve the needs of the
child or the economy.

I have seen little evidence of that in the state schools my children
have attended. They have all coped well with ranges of abilities.

The vast majority of parents that I know or have known that have put
their children through private school are far from wealthy and have
made very substantial sacrifices to pay for education for their
children. So it is far from being a preserve of the rich.

"Wealthy" and "Rich" are relative terms. You might not consider
people who put children through private education wealthy but many
would. Lots of people make "substational sacrifices" already to pay
for basic essentials and have nothing left to pay extra for education.

Mark.

On Wed, 09 Nov 2005 14:01:34 +0000 (GMT), John Cartmell
wrote:

In article , Andy Hall
wrote:
On Wed, 09 Nov 2005 12:27:26 +0000 (GMT), John Cartmell
wrote:
Do check what I've said about the Poll Tax. My main criticism of it is
that it cannot now be used because Thatcher's attempt to impose it
against all reasoned advice by her own 'inner circle' and civil servants
was ignored. I would like to see local taxation made up of a mix of
old-style rates - with regular updating of rateable values - plus a form
of poll tax plus (maybe) a form of local income tax. The three together
would mitigate the unfairness of any one - and it was the first two that
were originally recommended to Thatcher.

Now if you regard a balanced compromise as 'a spew of left-wing rhetoric'
then I'm proud to spew left-wing rhetoric. I just want what will produce a
working society that is educated, compassionate, healthy, and fair.

Economically successful is important as well, and a pre-requisite for the
nice-to-haves that you list.

Unfortunately, in order to achieve economic success, it is necessary to
have inequality and unfairness in a multitude of areas

Why?

I understand that for one person or company to get to the top they may believe
that they have to damage the competition.

You may understand that. I don't.

It's perfectly possible to be successful without damaging the
competition. The important point is that those with the ability and
desire to be successful should not be held back through the
unnecessary meddling of government in education and many other areas.

I know of no reason why the whole of
society cannot be economically successful without equality and fairness.

Because life isn't like that. We don't all have the same abilities,
nor the same motivations or indeed the same ambitions.

It simply isn't realistic or productive for the state to attempt to
impose "fairness" all the way down the line. It demotivates the
achievers so that they either don't bother to achieve any more or
leave, and is cruel for those without the ability to achieve in some
areas but with ability in others.


I do
know that a society (as opposed to individuals) *cannot* become economically
successful where inequalities are too large.

I know that a "society" (whatever that is) or a civilisation is not
successful economically or culturally unless there are inequalities
and a hierarchy.

One only has to look at the history books or the animal kingdom to
figure that one out.

--

..andy

John Cartmell wrote:
In article ,
Joe wrote:


Basically a streamed comprehensive. Six-form intake, two grammar, two
technical and two secondary modern in the first year. Promotions and
relegations throughout the time there, though most in the first year.
It was possible to arrive in the lower s-m stream and do A-levels
(someone in my year did). Only about three forms left by the fifth year
(it was possible to leave before 16 in those days).


My only real criticism of such is the size of such institutions in practice.


Around 850 during the years I was there, including the sixth form. Not
large as comprehensives go today. Class size around 35.

In article ,
Andy Luckman (AJL Electronics) wrote:
However, in your continual attacks on the "Poll Tax", you
ignore the discounts and exemptions that were given to
people - why?

Because it doesn't suit a socialist's cause to have to face the truth.

If you read my earlier post you'll find that my widowed mother living on
the OAP actually paid more with the poll tax than rates.

It was a typical Tory idea of cutting taxes for the *very* well off, but
fooling middle England it would be a good idea for them.

--
*Why doesn't glue stick to the inside of the bottle?

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

The message
from "Brian Sharrock" contains these words:

BTW 'Local Income Tax' is shorthand for 'PAYE scheme taxation'.
Those not on PAYE will find ways to shunt 'income' from fiscal year
to fiscal year and/or claim 'allowances' reducing their liability to
pay a local income tax.

So what's new? The self employed have always had a more sympathetic tax
regime and much more scope for both legal and and illegal fiddling. ISTR
that MPs are treated as self employed for tax purposes.

Also, my employer has employees from
about seven(?) local authorities - how many clerks will be required
to extract PAYE deductions and send off to the different authorities?
How will the worker(s) living in Borough X but working in County Y
be identified .... unless it's another reason for insisting that Britons
must carry the ID card.

Given the mountain the Government have built on the basically simple
notion of identity cards that might well be the way B.Liar & Co would
work it, particularly if fatty 2 Jags had a hand in it, but it is not
necessary to to burden employers in that way. The Inland Revenue could
account for local income tax in the same way as they accounted for
national insurance contributions. Depending on the mechanics of the
scheme all that might be required of the employer would be to apply an
individual tax rate to each employees income.

--
Roger Chapman

On Wed, 09 Nov 2005 15:21:15 +0000 (GMT), John Cartmell
wrote:

In article ,
Andy Hall wrote:
I doubt it would be most. My local state primary school (which is a
very good one) does not have any spare money and could not survive a
budget cut without severe problems.

Who said anything about a budget cut? If it's as good as you say,
then the opposite would happen and parents would be attracted to send
their children to it.

Wasn't it you?

Nope.

I thought you supported the diversion of public resources into supporting
private schools? Or were you suggesting that that be done through increased
taxation?

There is nothing wrong with the concept of public funds going to
either state run or privately run schools at the choice of the
parents. It isn't an issue of supporting one type of school versus
another - purely one of excellence.

Parents should be able to choose between them and spend their
education vouchers where their child will get the most suitable
education.

One important point is the separation between collection and
distribution of funds and the delivery of services.
A second is autonomy for schools, whether they be nominally state
owned or privately owned.


--

..andy

In article , Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
It was a typical Tory idea of cutting taxes for the *very* well off,
but fooling middle England it would be a good idea for them.

It's also a political reality that when you move some of the tax burden
from one group to another the losers hate you and the winners show next to
no gratitude.

--
Tony Bryer SDA UK 'Software to build on' http://www.sda.co.uk
Free SEDBUK boiler database browser http://www.sda.co.uk/qsedbuk.htm
[Latest version QSEDBUK 1.10 released 4 April 2005]

On Wed, 09 Nov 2005 14:44:46 +0000, Mark wrote:

On Tue, 08 Nov 2005 17:40:54 +0000, Andy Hall
wrote:



There are also a wide range of fees in the private sector, so with the
contribution that would be obtained by a voucher equivalent to the
cost of education in a state school today, plus tax relief on fees,
far more choice would be available to far more people.

Maybe more choice for the richer, less for the poorer. My choice is
to send my children to my local state school. Your scheme could
easily deny me that.

No reason why it would. The funding would simply come as a result of
your children's attendance at the school along with that of others. As
I said, if the school really is good, then it would be attractive to
more parents and be able to scale in terms of facilities and staff.


There are then various other mechanisms that can be used to supplement
the cost of particular forms of education that are more suited to a
given child. I don't see a fundamental need to say that the same
should be spent on each child.

The current system of attempting to impose a bland uniformity
regardless of ability in given areas doesn't serve the needs of the
child or the economy.

I have seen little evidence of that in the state schools my children
have attended. They have all coped well with ranges of abilities.

Sadly this does not appear to be the norm as is evidenced by the
declining standards produced.



The vast majority of parents that I know or have known that have put
their children through private school are far from wealthy and have
made very substantial sacrifices to pay for education for their
children. So it is far from being a preserve of the rich.

"Wealthy" and "Rich" are relative terms. You might not consider
people who put children through private education wealthy but many
would. Lots of people make "substational sacrifices" already to pay
for basic essentials and have nothing left to pay extra for education.

There are always choices. I know of people who have gone for
remortgaging and other forms of longer than normal term debt to the
point of impoverishing themselves in order to fund their childrens'
education.



--

..andy

On Wed, 09 Nov 2005 15:19:39 +0000 (GMT), John Cartmell
wrote:


Unfortunately, in order to achieve economic success, it is necessary to
have inequality and unfairness in a multitude of areas

Why?

I understand that for one person or company to get to the top they may
believe that they have to damage the competition.

You may understand that. I don't.

That's what you appeared to be suggesting.

Certainly not. That's simply your preconceived notion that in order
for somebody to succeed they have to trample the "competition".

I don't subscribe to that notion.




It's perfectly possible to be successful without damaging the competition.
The important point is that those with the ability and desire to be
successful should not be held back through the unnecessary meddling of
government in education and many other areas.

I'd agree as long as you don't count stopping anti-social activities as
'meddling'.

Of course stopping anti-social activities (as long as the populace as
a whole rather than the government thinks that they are anti-social)
is reasonable.





I know of no reason why the whole of society cannot be economically
successful without equality and fairness.

Because life isn't like that. We don't all have the same abilities, nor
the same motivations or indeed the same ambitions.

You are reading the words in an entirely different way than their true
meaning. No one is suggesting capping abilities.

It's the inevitable outcome of state sponsored "fairness".



It simply isn't realistic or productive for the state to attempt to impose
"fairness" all the way down the line. It demotivates the achievers so
that they either don't bother to achieve any more or leave, and is cruel
for those without the ability to achieve in some areas but with ability in
others.

The only people who usually complain in this way are those intent on nefarious
activities and object to the state making reasonable laws to stop them.

That's a very jaundiced view which really doesn't stand scrutiny.

Some
people were demotivated when they were stopped from adding floor sweepings to
floor, returning beer spillage to the barrel, selling drugs, operating pyramid
scams, &c. Good. I like to see such people demotivated.

So do I.

You won't see me supporting demotivation of potential achievers where their
projects will be of benefit to society (as well as themslves). I've spent much
of my life finding ways to encourage motivation and success.

I'm pleased. Generally the best way in which the government can help
is by staying out of people's affairs.


I do know that a society (as opposed to individuals) *cannot* become
economically successful where inequalities are too large.

I know that a "society" (whatever that is) or a civilisation is not
successful economically or culturally unless there are inequalities and a
hierarchy.

One only has to look at the history books or the animal kingdom to figure
that one out.

If you are selective in your reading you are quite correct. You are obviously
selective. You are also selective in your understanding of what you read
because cooperation for a group is by far the fundamental way societies
develop. You appear to have been quite thoroughly brainwashed.

Hardly. Society is a nebulous term. The great advances in
economics and in civilisation have been through the innovation and
work of individuals, not through collectivism.

Think in terms of what the great philosophers, scientists and
inventors achieved. Then look at the results of collectivism in the
soviet union, former eastern Europe....


--

..andy

In article ,
Tony Bryer wrote:
In article , Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
It was a typical Tory idea of cutting taxes for the *very* well off,
but fooling middle England it would be a good idea for them.

It's also a political reality that when you move some of the tax burden
from one group to another the losers hate you and the winners show next to
no gratitude.

Which is why the traditional rates were best when re-rating wasn't left to
produce large difference and big changes.

--
John Cartmell john@ followed by finnybank.com 0845 006 8822
Qercus magazine FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527 www.finnybank.com
Qercus - the best guide to RISC OS computing

In article ,
Andy Hall wrote:
On Wed, 09 Nov 2005 15:21:15 +0000 (GMT), John Cartmell
wrote:

In article ,
Andy Hall wrote:
I doubt it would be most. My local state primary school (which is a
very good one) does not have any spare money and could not survive a
budget cut without severe problems.

Who said anything about a budget cut? If it's as good as you say,
then the opposite would happen and parents would be attracted to send
their children to it.

Wasn't it you?

Nope.

I thought you supported the diversion of public resources into supporting
private schools? Or were you suggesting that that be done through increased
taxation?

[Snip]

Parents should be able to choose between them and spend their
education vouchers where their child will get the most suitable
education.

[Snip]

So it was you!

You're tryng to opt out of responsibility for the bad effects of what you
support. I'm sure you would also like more state support for other things
alongside cuts in income tax and VAT. ;-)

--
John Cartmell john@ followed by finnybank.com 0845 006 8822
Qercus magazine FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527 www.finnybank.com
Qercus - the best guide to RISC OS computing

In article ,
Andy Hall wrote:
I have seen little evidence of that in the state schools my children
have attended. They have all coped well with ranges of abilities.

Sadly this does not appear to be the norm as is evidenced by the
declining standards produced.

If you have noticed declining standards then you're looking at the wrong
figures.

--
John Cartmell john@ followed by finnybank.com 0845 006 8822
Qercus magazine FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527 www.finnybank.com
Qercus - the best guide to RISC OS computing

In article , Andy Hall
wrote:
On Wed, 09 Nov 2005 15:19:39 +0000 (GMT), John Cartmell
wrote:


Unfortunately, in order to achieve economic success, it is necessary
to have inequality and unfairness in a multitude of areas

Why?

I understand that for one person or company to get to the top they may
believe that they have to damage the competition.

You may understand that. I don't.

That's what you appeared to be suggesting.

Certainly not. That's simply your preconceived notion that in order for
somebody to succeed they have to trample the "competition".

Please do try to read what I wrote. Read it. Read it again please and continue
reading it until such time as you actually manage to read what I wrote. I did
**not** write anything like your contrived idea.

I don't subscribe to that notion.

Good. Neither do I.

It's perfectly possible to be successful without damaging the
competition. The important point is that those with the ability and
desire to be successful should not be held back through the unnecessary
meddling of government in education and many other areas.

I'd agree as long as you don't count stopping anti-social activities as
'meddling'.

Of course stopping anti-social activities (as long as the populace as a
whole rather than the government thinks that they are anti-social) is
reasonable.

We have an elected government. If they fail badly to do what we want then they
are out.

I know of no reason why the whole of society cannot be economically
successful without equality and fairness.

Because life isn't like that. We don't all have the same abilities, nor
the same motivations or indeed the same ambitions.

You are reading the words in an entirely different way than their true
meaning. No one is suggesting capping abilities.

It's the inevitable outcome of state sponsored "fairness".

Your Daily Mailness is coming out again. What we collectively want to do is
done mainly through local and national government action. What you are
supporting is criticism designed to destroy that collective will - usually
because it conflicts with the pecuniary interests of rich parasites.

It simply isn't realistic or productive for the state to attempt to
impose "fairness" all the way down the line. It demotivates the
achievers so that they either don't bother to achieve any more or leave,
and is cruel for those without the ability to achieve in some areas but
with ability in others.

The only people who usually complain in this way are those intent on
nefarious activities and object to the state making reasonable laws to
stop them.

That's a very jaundiced view which really doesn't stand scrutiny.

So gives some examples - real ones that you encounter or described by an
objective source. The only time I see those examples described as typical
rather than exceptional is in - well you know which tabloids produce the
reactionary fiction.

Some people were demotivated when they were stopped from adding floor
sweepings to floor, returning beer spillage to the barrel, selling drugs,
operating pyramid scams, &c. Good. I like to see such people demotivated.

So do I.

You won't see me supporting demotivation of potential achievers where
their projects will be of benefit to society (as well as themslves). I've
spent much of my life finding ways to encourage motivation and success.

I'm pleased. Generally the best way in which the government can help is by
staying out of people's affairs.

Oh dear! If only the government would stay out those nice people from Tescos,
Microsoft, Sky would buy out or kill off their troublesome competitors and
really look after us with their wonderful monopolies ...

... wouldn't they?

I do know that a society (as opposed to individuals) *cannot* become
economically successful where inequalities are too large.

I know that a "society" (whatever that is) or a civilisation is not
successful economically or culturally unless there are inequalities and
a hierarchy.

One only has to look at the history books or the animal kingdom to
figure that one out.

If you are selective in your reading you are quite correct. You are
obviously selective. You are also selective in your understanding of what
you read because cooperation for a group is by far the fundamental way
societies develop. You appear to have been quite thoroughly brainwashed.

Hardly. Society is a nebulous term. The great advances in economics and
in civilisation have been through the innovation and work of individuals,
not through collectivism.

You got very close to calling me a communist there. The ideas may come from
individuals. The advances happen when individuals agree to make changes for
the whole of their society.

Think in terms of what the great philosophers, scientists and inventors
achieved. Then look at the results of collectivism in the soviet union,
former eastern Europe....

You managed it in the end. Very nicely put and it couldn't have been bettered
by the master himself. Has nobody told you that McCarthyism is a distinctly
nasty little idea to follow?

When Ghandi was asked what he thought of Western Civilisation is said "It
would be a good idea". Communism would be a good idea - but it doesn't exist
and has never existed. In the meantime social democracy is a whole lot better
than dictatorships and being able to vote out those who organise the framework
of your life is a damned good idea - as long as the elecorate are sufficiently
educated to appreciate that unfettered capitalism is just another means of
putting unelected dictators in control of our lives and just as unhealthy as
Stalin & co.

--
John Cartmell john@ followed by finnybank.com 0845 006 8822
Qercus magazine FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527 www.finnybank.com
Qercus - the best guide to RISC OS computing

On Wed, 09 Nov 2005 18:07:23 +0000 (GMT), John Cartmell
wrote:

In article ,
Andy Hall wrote:
On Wed, 09 Nov 2005 15:21:15 +0000 (GMT), John Cartmell
wrote:

In article ,
Andy Hall wrote:
I doubt it would be most. My local state primary school (which is a
very good one) does not have any spare money and could not survive a
budget cut without severe problems.

Who said anything about a budget cut? If it's as good as you say,
then the opposite would happen and parents would be attracted to send
their children to it.

Wasn't it you?

Nope.

I thought you supported the diversion of public resources into supporting
private schools? Or were you suggesting that that be done through increased
taxation?

[Snip]

Parents should be able to choose between them and spend their
education vouchers where their child will get the most suitable
education.

[Snip]

So it was you!

No, you're suffering from tunnel thinking by assuming that funding and
delivery have to be done by the state as one entity.

The point is that they can be separated into two components.

I have not said that the total amount of money spent from the state
purse on education should be reduced. A voucher equivalent to the
sum of money spent in state education establishments would be made
available to parents for education. They would have the choice of
spending them in state run schools or private schools. Over time,
schools and educational institutions could migrate to some kind of
trust status outside of government ownership altogether. That would
be better still.

The difference is that the state schools would have the autonomy to
pursue excellence in education that they don't have today because of
government interference. A high quality educational outcome does not
depend on a micromanaged one-size fits all curriculum.



You're tryng to opt out of responsibility for the bad effects of what you
support.

Not at all. You just haven't understood it.

I'm sure you would also like more state support for other things
alongside cuts in income tax and VAT. ;-)

That would flow naturally from the disengagement by the state from
areas that it doesn't need to be involved in such as provision (not
funding) of education and healthcare and especially by the elimination
of the bureaucracy unnecessarily used to operate them.



--

..andy