UK Politics IX

[Thelonious]

So, AV. Anyone care?

[The Iceman of the North]

So, AV. Anyone care?

Villa is crap. End of discussion.

[Thelonious]

At least they haven't been graced with a statue of Michael Jackson

[Maltaran]

So, AV. Anyone care?

Enough to have reposted some Yes campaign stuff on my Facebook and Twitter.

[Thelonious]

It's shite though isn't it

[bottle cap]

its not great but its better than what we have currently (down with 'core constituencies'), it'd be quite a thing if YES! were to win. It is for the better, but I think there is too much of a negative, generally anti-change majority in this country. Sour people who don't really like the way things are, yearn for the Britain they grew up in and thus wont see such a fundamental change to a British institution.

[Pebble thats Stubby]

The biggest problem with the Yes campiagn is a lot of people want something more proportional than AV and will therefore vote NO because its not the system they want (even if it is slightly better than FFtP).

If NO wins there will be no further chance for PR for at least 50 years, If YES wins there is a chance of further reforms latter on espesially if it then means more minoritary parties are elected as a result. Trying to convice the No I don't want AV I want PR voters of this is differcult.

[Maltaran]

It's shite though isn't it

True, but it's better than the current system, and if the No vote wins then there'll be no chance of real PR coming in for at least another 20 years.

[mormont]

I know the flaws of AV as well as anyone, having run small-scale AV elections as part of my work for years now: but Peb is completely right. It's better than we have and it's the best chance for a more proportional system. So I do care. I fear for the referendum's chances, though. Neither Yes nor No campaign has taken off yet, but that suits the Nos better, I think.

Looking forward to the Scottish elections, though. Could be interesting. Could it be Labour's turn for a bit of minority governing? There are actually some serious policy differences, too. Though I'm struck by the Tories' signature policy: let kids leave school at 14. It's not often they're so blatant about trying to turn the clock back eighty years or so.

[A wilding]

I care. Definitely voting Yes for the reasons given above, and have been trying to persuade friends and family.

I think the low key campaign is because politicians are mostly "No", and they know that they are unpopular and that, if stirred up, most people would vote for change. They hope for a low enough turnout that even if "Yes" wins, they will be able to kick reform into the long grass on the grounds that most people didn't bother to vote and so are happy with the status quo.

[Eurytus]

Looking forward to the Scottish elections, though. Could be interesting. Could it be Labour's turn for a bit of minority governing? There are actually some serious policy differences, too. Though I'm struck by the Tories' signature policy: let kids leave school at 14. It's not often they're so blatant about trying to turn the clock back eighty years or so.

So long as it was worked so that they could only leave in exchange for spending the 2 "lost" years in a full time apprenticeship I see no problem at all with that. All the better to combat this biased towards academia and against practical work that the last government had.

[mormont]

So long as it was worked so that they could only leave in exchange for spending the 2 "lost" years in a full time apprenticeship I see no problem at all with that. All the better to combat this biased towards academia and against practical work that the last government had.

Well, let me put it this way; whenever I hear someone suggesting that certain children are just somehow congenitally unsuitable for academia, I automatically fill in the bit they're leaving unsaid. I wonder how many children of lawyers, doctors, university lecturers, or hey, MSPs Ms Goldie expects to take up this offer?

But more to the point, since at present sixteen to eighteen year olds who want to take up practical training can't find any apprenticeships - and I have some personal experience there - where does this notion come from that we should be taking kids of 14, way too young to really know whether they might have academic aspirations or not, out of school to fill these non-existent vacancies? This is a solution in search of a problem, and that's what really lays bare its ideological roots. This is not about the skills base - this is crude social engineering. Actually, it's not even a serious attempt at that, since the Tories stand no chance of getting into power in Scotland and this policy will be chucked the moment the election's over. It's a token chunk of red meat for the right wing base.

But happily, voters have already shown their opinion of it.

The BBC poll asked people to rate 25 issues taken from party manifestos.

The lowest ranking went to the Tory policy of letting 14-year-olds leave school to train for a trade.

[Eurytus]

Well, let me put it this way; whenever I hear someone suggesting that certain children are just somehow congenitally unsuitable for academia, I automatically fill in the bit they're leaving unsaid. I wonder how many children of lawyers, doctors, university lecturers, or hey, MSPs Ms Goldie expects to take up this offer?

But more to the point, since at present sixteen to eighteen year olds who want to take up practical training can't find any apprenticeships - and I have some personal experience there - where does this notion come from that we should be taking kids of 14, way too young to really know whether they might have academic aspirations or not, out of school to fill these non-existent vacancies? This is a solution in search of a problem, and that's what really lays bare its ideological roots. This is not about the skills base - this is crude social engineering. Actually, it's not even a serious attempt at that, since the Tories stand no chance of getting into power in Scotland and this policy will be chucked the moment the election's over. It's a token chunk of red meat for the right wing base.

But happily, voters have already shown their opinion of it.

That we are currently in a low jobs climate does not mean the policy itself is wrong. And really your whole answer speaks to the prejudice that exists against practical work. Rather than argue just why going on an apprenticeship is "worse" than staying in school you start going on about class demographics. Which is not relevant to the issue and merely pandering to the class warfare crowd.

And the survey was assessing priorities I believe. A polarizing issue will always fall foul of that sort of ranking.

Though suffice it to say I am unsurprised to see people wanting to remove choice from people. A bit more of "we know what's best for you" really.

[mormont]

That we are currently in a low jobs climate does not mean the policy itself is wrong.

Timing is crucial to whether a policy is right or wrong. And the point is that to bring forward this policy at this time is a dead giveaway. We could go further into the issue of whether the policy would be wrong at any time, of course - in which case I think it's unarguable that whatever your attitude to practical vs. academic, 14 is too young to ask kids to decide. That's why the school leaving age is now 16, not 14. Progress, you see.

And really your whole answer speaks to the prejudice that exists against practical work.

It speaks of it, certainly. It's clear, as I say, that Ms Goldie and her party view this issue with precisely that prejudice. They don't expect middle-class kids to take this option, regardless of whether those kids might in fact be more suited to practical work.

It makes no sense to try to discuss prejudices against practical work without bringing class into it, by the way. Where do you think those prejudices come from?

As to whether I myself have a prejudice against practical work... well, my stepson would love to find an apprenticeship right now, and I'd love to see him get one.

A bit more of "we know what's best for you" really.

Pretty much an accurate summary of the policy itself. 'We know what's best for you poor kids... go do an apprenticeship, they're just as good as academia, honest. No, I wouldn't let my child do one.'

This policy only makes sense as an attempt to get poor kids out of the school system early, to the benefit of middle class kids. Or perhaps as a silly, impractical bit of nostalgia for a time that never was. Either way it doesn't belong in a serious party manifesto.

[Eurytus]

Timing is crucial to whether a policy is right or wrong. And the point is that to bring forward this policy at this time is a dead giveaway. We could go further into the issue of whether the policy would be wrong at any time, of course - in which case I think it's unarguable that whatever your attitude to practical vs. academic, 14 is too young to ask kids to decide. That's why the school leaving age is now 16, not 14. Progress, you see.

I don't see 16 year olds as being that much more mature than 14 year olds frankly. With either child I'd expect the parent to be a major contributory towards any decision made.

Pretty much an accurate summary of the policy itself. 'We know what's best for you poor kids... go do an apprenticeship, they're just as good as academia, honest. No, I wouldn't let my child do one.'

No, that is NOT what the policy does. The policy does not require, force or encourage a 14 year old to leave school and take up an apprenticeship. It gives them the OPTION to do so.

This policy only makes sense as an attempt to get poor kids out of the school system early, to the benefit of middle class kids. Or perhaps as a silly, impractical bit of nostalgia for a time that never was. Either way it doesn't belong in a serious party manifesto.

Ah you mean giving the public the opportunity to express an opinion on such things isn't desireable?

How is it any worse than giving a completely arbitrary target of "50% of students to go to University"?

[mormont]

I don't see 16 year olds as being that much more mature than 14 year olds frankly.

I'm sure your opinion is based on extensive personal experience and all that, and of course teenagers vary widely in maturity, but all that aside it's not a view that's generally held. In policy and legal terms, in every other area of life, it's quite clear that 16 is regarded as much more mature than 14. So I would suggest that as a justification for this policy, that's a total non-starter.

No, that is NOT what the policy does. The policy does not require, force or encourage a 14 year old to leave school and take up an apprenticeship. It gives them the OPTION to do so.

In effect, yes it does, at least to the last. It's a patronising policy which would be used to 'encourage' a certain sector of the population out of school at an age when they're too young to make such a decision. If you doubt me, answer the point above: how many children of doctors or lawyers do you think will have this presented to them as a career option? How do you think that number will compare to the children of shop workers or car mechanics? We all know the answer.

How is it any worse than giving a completely arbitrary target of "50% of students to go to University"?

50% is an arbitrary number: but anyone who doesn't realise that we need more graduates has their head in the sand. Look at graduation numbers in any of our major economic competitors. Or indeed in countries like South Korea. The notion that as a nation we need more graduates in the long term for economic prosperity is supported by sound economic research, though reasonable people may still disagree with it. The notion that for some reason 16 is too old to begin an apprenticeship is based on... well, can you tell me? I have no idea.

[Hereward]

I imagine that this will be aimed not at the children of doctors, lawyers, car mechanics or shopworkers, but at those who have already, or are in the process of, giving up on academic education. Who will they be the children of? I would guess they would overwhelmingly be the children of those who also gave up on academic education and, subsequently, working. This could be their chance to find something they can be good at, and rewarded for, rather than consigning them to two years non-particiaption in society, which studies show is a very, very hard habit to break.

It's silly to think that this will be targetted at those who, had they just been mature enough to consider it, would have gone on to become graduates.

Tories are not necessarily moustache twirling class warriors, you know. That's just me.

[Eurytus]

I'm sure your opinion is based on extensive personal experience and all that, and of course teenagers vary widely in maturity, but all that aside it's not a view that's generally held. In policy and legal terms, in every other area of life, it's quite clear that 16 is regarded as much more mature than 14. So I would suggest that as a justification for this policy, that's a total non-starter.

And yet we allow them to choose GCSE subjects at that age.

In effect, yes it does, at least to the last. It's a patronising policy which would be used to 'encourage' a certain sector of the population out of school at an age when they're too young to make such a decision. If you doubt me, answer the point above: how many children of doctors or lawyers do you think will have this presented to them as a career option? How do you think that number will compare to the children of shop workers or car mechanics? We all know the answer.

I'm not sure why you think continuing to make that statement proves anything. It proves nothing.

"In effect" it changes nothing other than offering choice. If you find it troubling that choice be offered to the non-academically minded then that's a different discussion.

50% is an arbitrary number: but anyone who doesn't realise that we need more graduates has their head in the sand. Look at graduation numbers in any of our major economic competitors. Or indeed in countries like South Korea. The notion that as a nation we need more graduates in the long term for economic prosperity is supported by sound economic research, though reasonable people may still disagree with it. The notion that for some reason 16 is too old to begin an apprenticeship is based on... well, can you tell me? I have no idea.

I wonder how many media/social studies graduates South Korea produces?

[mormont]

I imagine that this will be aimed not at the children of doctors, lawyers, car mechanics or shopworkers, but at those who have already, or are in the process of, giving up on academic education.

Hate to split hairs, but are you suggesting that shop workers, for example, are not amongst that group? The point being, wherever you draw the divide, this is a policy that will operate along class lines. That's clear.

Who will they be the children of? I would guess they would overwhelmingly be the children of those who also gave up on academic education and, subsequently, working. This could be their chance to find something they can be good at, and rewarded for, rather than consigning them to two years non-particiaption in society, which studies show is a very, very hard habit to break.

Again, bit of a non-starter as an argument. Is the suggestion that being forced to participate in schooling until age 16 really sets the non-academic child up for a lifetime of unemployment, while offering them an apprenticeship at age 16 will be too little, too late? That the only possible intervention is to strip these children out of education while their peers are studying for the most basic level of formal qualifications, and put them into the world of work? That investing in many more apprenticeships for 16-18 year olds would not achieve everything this policy might achieve and more, without the retrograde step of pulling kids out of school before we've even finished teaching them basic literacy and numeracy?

I'd also suggest that the type of child who simply does not participate in school at age 14 isn't likely to 'participate' in an apprenticeship either.

It's silly to think that this will be targetted at those who, had they just been mature enough to consider it, would have gone on to become graduates.

No, I think it's kind of accurate. When the school leaving age was 14, after all, many people were persuaded to leave at that age because their teachers thought they weren't academically minded. I've met a lot of those people in their retirement, when they at last got a chance to study for a degree. They found out late in life that actually, their teachers and their parents were wrong about their aptitudes. They were capable of higher study. But by that time, they couldn't afford it. They had to wait until their kids were grown up, their mortgages paid off, and so on.

The thing is, at age 14 your aptitude tends to be judged on the basis of social expectations to a considerable degree, because you haven't yet had a long enough school career to make a proper judgment. For at least some of these kids, the thing they 'can be good at' might yet be academic in nature. They deserve the chance to find out. At 14, they haven't had that chance. There are a whole range of subjects they haven't even had a chance to try yet. Even in 'practical' subjects like technical studies, their learning experience has been to some degree held back by the necessity to make early secondary classes general enough to include everyone, including the non-technically minded.

But even at this, I'm flogging a dead horse. Voters aren't interested in pushing kids out of school at 14. Employers aren't interested in having 14-year-old kids on their books. Nobody wants this. As I say, the whole exercise is just a token wave to the right wing. A particularly silly one.

I wonder how many media/social studies graduates South Korea produces?

Lots, as it happens.

No offence, but whenever I hear someone disparaging degrees in certain subjects like this, I know that they have a fair bit of catching up to do before they can offer an informed opinion.

[Eurytus]

Again, bit of a non-starter as an argument. Is the suggestion that being forced to participate in schooling until age 16 really sets the non-academic child up for a lifetime of unemployment, while offering them an apprenticeship at age 16 will be too little, too late? That the only possible intervention is to strip these children out of education while their peers are studying for the most basic level of formal qualifications, and put them into the world of work? That investing in many more apprenticeships for 16-18 year olds would not achieve everything this policy might achieve and more, without the retrograde step of pulling kids out of school before we've even finished teaching them basic literacy and numeracy?

Students with degrees often lack basic literary and numeracy. So I don't think removing 2 years of schooling is going to make much difference. If schools aren't capable of giving pupils a basic level of literary and numeracy by the age of 14 then frankly they've already failed.

I'd also suggest that the type of child who simply does not participate in school at age 14 isn't likely to 'participate' in an apprenticeship either.

And yet you presumably think he/she is going to participate from 14 to 16? Because otherwise, why exactly are you arguing for them to be prevented from leaving? Simply to keep them off the dole?