YouGov Poll - 33 Point lead!

I don't think the two are exclusive of each other.

I would imagine that the 'end product' of a kid's education would be very similar in both your minds.
 
It really isn't. How can a kid with limited literacy then expand their knowledge and understanding of even the politics that they have been taught? Sorry, literacy is THE most single important skill set that kids can acquire. I notice that you taught your kids to read and write yet neglected their political understanding yourself...
Again you are ignoring the fact I never, not once said we shouldn't teach our kids to read and write. I assume deliberately.

I didn't teach my kids politics prior to the age 5 no, i do have political discussions with them as they get older, however what has that got to do with the discussion.
 
I don't think the two are exclusive of each other.

I would imagine that the 'end product' of a kid's education would be very similar in both your minds.
I would assume so. most kids aint going to be authors, nor literary critics. they should all be politically engaged.
 
It really isn't. How can a kid with limited literacy then expand their knowledge and understanding of even the politics that they have been taught? Sorry, literacy is THE most single important skill set that kids can acquire. I notice that you taught your kids to read and write yet neglected their political understanding yourself...
Both are clearly important yet ONE gets totally overlooked because Tories would vehemently oppose educating the general public & kids on how policies affect the public and public finances and benefit the rich...their need is to keep everyone in the dark as much as possible.
 
Both are clearly important yet ONE gets totally overlooked because Tories would vehemently oppose educating the general public & kids on how policies affect the public and public finances and benefit the rich...their need is to keep everyone in the dark as much as possible.
There is also the very real possibility that the government of the day try to influence how politics is taught. Eeek
 
I would assume so. most kids aint going to be authors, nor literary critics. they should all be politically engaged.
I do agree with that but there needs to be a minimal level of literacy and numeracy; as I think the mental exercise involved in both lend themselves to political nuance.
 
I do agree with that but there needs to be a minimal level of literacy and numeracy; as I think the mental exercise involved in both lend themselves to political nuance.
Of course. Wasn't there a discussion on here about maths to 18 recently. There is an argument for dropping maths, even at 14 and just having a basic numeracy exam. Not all subjects are for all people. I loved science at school. Most didn't.

If they are great artists, let them concentrate on that, if music is there thing, encourage that. Prepare them for the life they are going to lead.
 
Everyone knows the NHS is in a catastrophe, there are many reasons, 15 years of the Tories (by the time of the next GE), pandemic, post-pandemic, crap economy (which practically guarantees worse funding), inflation etc. There's no going back to the state it was in 2010 (not within decade), when it was running pretty well it seems. You can't go from worst ever to best ever immediately, it's not going to happen. It's a long-term project which will need to see some changes that some won't see as ideal. The changes will be far better than continual decline of Tory rule though, I'll guarantee that.
Attlee nationalised about a quarter of the national economy and created the NHS in one term straight after WW2.

The idea that the current Labour party can't do similar is a politcal decision not an economic one.
 
Left and right wing as a classification is about 20 years out of date

So what would these politics lessons in school class labour as? 🤷🏻‍♂️

Centrism surely has a name, so is it liberalism, neoliberalism or pro capitalism? Are labour no longer a left leaning party?
I don't know I am not an educator, but basic principles might be the difference between the free market and nationalization might be a subject on the curriculum.

It should probably avoid labour stand for A, the tories B and the lib dems for whichever way the wind is blowing!
 
It's not just older people though. There is a tendency for people to digest news in very short order.

How many people would actually read Andy's post above? That's not a criticism as I generally agree with it but the digital age means people don't like to wait for anything.


Most people under 30 wouldn't even bother with this thread; they'd go to the latest poll to see what the 'score' is.
Yeah, people don't like detail, they like snapshots aimed at not covering the point, but suiting a specific narrative and a target audience they can con.

I know most won't read all that, but at least try to back up what I'm saying and why, avoids me having to do 20 posts :LOL:
 
I've read Andys comments and I couldn't disagree more

I've worked in the NHS and it's simple we need more staff training and more clinicians

Private companies not running enough services is not the problem!
You're welcome to disagree, but please explain why?

Labour last won under Blair, who most of the left of labour seem to dislike.

The centre controls who wins, whether you like that or not is irrelevant, it's a fact, a swing voter is worth the most by far, in an effective two-party FPTP system. It's crap, and not fair, but it doesn't mean it's not true, and unfortunately, policy has to chase these voters.

Changes can make things better, it's a fact, but sure they can also make things worse, it depends who is doing the changes, and why, but in either case, if there are constraints (which there are), then it generally means changes are necessary.

Did you work in NHS management? The NHS is one of the most under-managed organisations in the UK, the ratio of workers to managers is massive, which it shouldn't be. It's managers who control and allocate resources, so they can be used most effectively.

Three of my best friends work in A&E, my mums a lifelong nurse, step-mum works in the NHS et, I work on NHS maintenance/ construction contracts, but rarely as what I do is very niche/ specialist etc. Most I speak to say they're under-resourced, but extremely badly managed, not necessarily lower management, more so from above that and top levels.

Staffing is a big problem, as everyone knows, but 10,000 brand new nurses starting tomorrow wouldn't fix the majority of the problems, these problems are baked in from a decade ago, and they likely need to be fixed in an alternate way. Sure, adding more nurses at lower levels will help, and as they grow into older roles this will help the future, if they're retained and if there's good job progression into the management roles which the NHS needs. But that's not a problem solver for now, and it's not quick. It needs to retain experience, as much as it needs new staff, or to get more of it from somewhere (only option I see is from abroad, paying managers more to get them interested in moving from private practice, or paying people more to stay on in the NHS, rather than retiring at first opportunity). They need to be treat better either way, as treating them like crap, as we do now will continue to wreck everything.

I've posted threads by analysts (John Burn Murdoch put a really good one together on Twiter, which was very detailed) which explained what is largely causing the lack of available beds, and one of the main drivers is being able to get people out of the beds, who are fit enough to leave. The problem is they have nowhere to go. Adding more beds would work, but it's not fixing the problem of getting people out of the beds, which is sapping funds and resources. We need more beds as the population gets older, but they've been cut for the last 23 years (other than for covid). Sure, they had too many early 2000's, but Labour got waiting lists down and improved performance metrics even with 30% less beds. The Tories cut beds another 30% though, and never maintained the performance levels, this needs reversing. Then we will need gradually more beds per year, to factor for the older population share, which is going to increase fo the next 40 years or whatever.

We need to educate the public better, an example would be to stop people going to A&E because they can't get a doctor's appointment. People can't get a doctor's appointment as the doctors are over-subscribed and loads of the appointments are taken up by people who could be sorted at a pharmacy, or with a one-minute online consultation. Even if it's just a triage which diverts calls to the GP, the pharmacy, minor injuries unit, x-ray department, or pushed up the chain if more serious etc. The tech is there to direct people to where they need to go, a lot more efficiently.

Who said have private companies run or own more services? I never? Do you mean run or own? I was for nationalising the GP surgeries and integrating them better, rather than effectively being contractors. I also want to have social care integrated with the NHS, rather than ran by councils, and coming from council budgets etc.

I'm not against private aspects running certain sectors though (not owned though), if they can hit higher targets for the same or less cost, and be penalised if they don't. Effectively I want better/ more cost-effective care, everything can be more efficient.
 
"People can't get a doctor's appointment as the doctors are over-subscribed " but surely the numbers have not massively increased since Covid. I know there are probably less doctors but even before Covid it was almost impossible to actually see a doctor. This is one of the things that need sorting. Get doctors sorted and it would bring down the numbers going to A&E.
 
Back
Top