The Labour government hates English middle class children
The BBC reports "Ofsted chief Christine Gilbert says schools must tackle social divide" - but fails to point out that Christine Gilbert is the wife of Tony McNulty a Labour Government minister (Cronyism anyone ?). By the way what do you think the McNulty house hold combined income is - when you consider Mrs McNulty's Christine Gilbert salary, pension and Mr McNulty's ministerial salary expenses, free mortgage payments for second homes and the most insanely generous pension system know to humanity is taken into account - oh its good to be in power ....
The BBC goes on to report:"Despite a series of government initiatives to tackle social inequality in schools, the report from Ofsted concludes that "the relationship between poverty and outcomes for young people is stark".
What that means is the government is wasting large amounts of tax payers money on things that don't work - not that the BBC would think of that interpretation.
But of course what hides beneath all this is the question are wealth and ability some how linked ? Might it be that the children of people with successful attributes often ( more often than by chance) have similar attributes ?
This is important because if they are confusing cause and effect - and it wouldn't be the first time - then the solutions that the government Ofsted may suggest will need to cover up these natural processes. How ? By in effect discriminating against middle class children.
The government already discriminates against middle class people in the South of England by starving the NHS of money to spend in the constituencies of Labour ministers and MPs in their Celtic and Northern homelands.
Expect the schools to follow soon ... ( if they haven't already ).
Labour = stealth class war against your children.
Don't get me wrong the failures that Ofsted identify are real and important. But the problem is the type of education on offer at secondary schools, not social divisions. If the government could get itself away from the monumentally stupid idea of sending 50% of the population to University - most of them to waste their time and perhaps pick up a little political indoctrination on the way and see to helping create satisfying training and opportunities then perhaps we wouldn't need so many polish plumbers, builders, nannies, bus drivers, taxi drivers, farm workers etc etc ... who put all our unemployable young people to such shame.
2 comments:
"Oh for the days when the lower classes knew their place" I presume you meant?
Not really.
My point is that because cause and effect are confused, treating the effect must lead to injustice.
The only way for the government to succeed in its aims, or at least the easiest, will be to damage the education of those who are succeeding, rather than improve those who don't.
Its is also worth remembering that the future of young non-academic children was brighter years ago and is still in other countries. What do we get wrong - its the one size fits all mentality of socialist planning.
Or let me put it another way:
Lenin, Stalin and Brezhnev were travelling on the Moscow underground when the train shuddered, creaked and stopped.
Lenin said - the driver must be re-educated to become a new man - then the train will move. So of he went to try - but the train stayed still.
Stalin said - the driver is a traitor to socialism and a counter revolutionary, he must be shot - and off Stalin went to shot the driver, but still the train didn't move.
Brezhnev said - I'll paint the windows of the train black - and tell people the train is moving !
This is what I fear the Labour government will do - fix the system so you can't tell its not working. To do that you must undermine standards ( done already) and politicise admission to University (doing that - what did you Father & Mother do type questions - Gordon Brown phoning up Universities to bully them into changing their corporate structure and to ensure the admit pupils who fit the correct socialist political profile .)
And then we will not be able to compete in the global markets, our companies will suffer, new jobs will go to immigrants ( well that happens in over 65% of cases already ) and the people who will suffer most will be those at the bottom of society.
There is an inherent conflict between equality of opportunity and that of equality of outcome. Socialism believes in the latter and it has been shown to be inefficient, cruel and soul destroying and well as economic suicide. Thats why I oppose it.
Post a Comment