In 2020 the 3 party leaders

BoroMart said:
Unhinged? he's actually speaking a lot of facts, it would be unhinged to deny it. There should be more representation of the country as a whole and it's better than it was even 50 years ago, but they will fight tooth and nail to keep the oxbridge, etonion elite in positions of power
Click to expand...

Ok, which of the three are you accusing of “ losing evidence relating to a high profile peadophile ring” [sic] ???
 
Primus84 said:
Ok you’re going to need to explain why you think that and expand upon your statement. Otherwise you’re just name calling.
Click to expand...
Maybe have a read back at the posts, see where the name calling is coming from (it's you) and maybe think why you need folks to explain every single post? Do you honestly believe that it's 'utterly ridiculous' and 'absolute nonsense' to suggest that representation in parliament is not as diverse as it perhaps should be? FYI I don't conciser mentally deranged, uncontrolled or unreasonable in anyway to be concerned and question the involvement of our parliamentarians in several high profile controversies. There are lots of external forces that effect the decisions that are made in this country and how that directly effects the our quality of life. Folks who stand to benefit directly or indirectly from the privatisation of the NHS or any other publicly owned asset should not be involved passing legislation that would make that happen.

I could understand if you were a member of parliament yourself and you stood to gain financially for all of this, but arguing redundant points such as - 'democracy shouldn't be fair' or 'corruption should be ignored and or encouraged' it's a little confusing. I guess that's what the internet/facebook/message boards are for tho right?
 
Primus84 said:
Ok you’re going to need to explain why you think that and expand upon your statement. Otherwise you’re just name calling.
Click to expand...
Sure

Primus84 said:
If we consider that we want our representatives to be the best and brightest of us then attending a top university is hardly a bad thing.
Click to expand...
The argument that this shower are the best and brightest that this country has to offer is at odds with their performances in their roles. Deeply flawed strategy and delivery of policies, that have unquestionably failed on a global stage.

The difficulty in many good people getting into those top universities has long been a bone of contention, with entrance interviews designed to weed out the 'wrong sorts'. The recent Tory policy of A level results aimed at quashing peoples potential based on their socio-economic group is a vile reminder of how the public school elite wields its power without little to no nod to meritocracy. Those in power now came through prior to any reforms of the last 25 years where public school enrolment at Oxford has been reduced, less so at Cambridge.

Yes some of the people coming through top unis are the best and brightest, however many of them are there through other means. Many smarter people ended up at other universities because opportunities were stolen from them or were not able to finance uni at all.

Ultimately though University is a breeding ground and preparation for future endeavours, not a result in itself. The best and brightest minds are identified through achievements in the real world, moreso than which university one attended, if at all. Your assertion is naive or a simplification. The idea that the vast majority of MPs got there on merit as some brainiac doesn't really hold any water, most of them got there through friendships, subservience, and favours, not intellectual exceptionalism.
 
newyddion said:
Maybe have a read back at the posts, see where the name calling is coming from (it's you) and maybe think why you need folks to explain every single post? Do you honestly believe that it's 'utterly ridiculous' and 'absolute nonsense' to suggest that representation in parliament is not as diverse as it perhaps should be? FYI I don't conciser mentally deranged, uncontrolled or unreasonable in anyway to be concerned and question the involvement of our parliamentarians in several high profile controversies. There are lots of external forces that effect the decisions that are made in this country and how that directly effects the our quality of life. Folks who stand to benefit directly or indirectly from the privatisation of the NHS or any other publicly owned asset should not be involved passing legislation that would make that happen.

I could understand if you were a member of parliament yourself and you stood to gain financially for all of this, but arguing redundant points such as - 'democracy shouldn't be fair' or 'corruption should be ignored and or encouraged' it's a little confusing. I guess that's what the internet/facebook/message boards are for tho right?
Click to expand...

You are surely aware that my comment regarding your post was because you were throwing around wild defamatory statements relating to one of the 3 people covering up for child abuse? Statements that have no merit or evidence and are defamatory?
 
I do wonder how the know your place policies of Blair have impacted upon the attendance of poorer students at university.
Certainly social mobility is at a real low thanks to various issues, in particular housing and education. Even the likes of David Willets recognise it.
 
BoroMart said:
Sure


The argument that this shower are the best and brightest that this country has to offer is at odds with their performances in their roles. Deeply flawed strategy and delivery of policies, that have unquestionably failed on a global stage.

The difficulty in many good people getting into those top universities has long been a bone of contention, with entrance interviews designed to weed out the 'wrong sorts'. The recent Tory policy of A level results aimed at quashing peoples potential based on their socio-economic group is a vile reminder of how the public school elite wields its power without little to no nod to meritocracy. Those in power now came through prior to any reforms of the last 25 years where public school enrolment at Oxford has been reduced, less so at Cambridge.

Yes some of the people coming through top unis are the best and brightest, however many of them are there through other means. Many smarter people ended up at other universities because opportunities were stolen from them or were not able to finance uni at all.

Ultimately though University is a breeding ground and preparation for future endeavours, not a result in itself. The best and brightest minds are identified through achievements in the real world, moreso than which university one attended, if at all. Your assertion is naive or a simplification. The idea that the vast majority of MPs got there on merit as some brainiac doesn't really hold any water, most of them got there through friendships, subservience, and favours, not intellectual exceptionalism.
Click to expand...

I am not arguing that the current crop of politicians are any good or even the best and the brightest. My argument was that picking on characteristics like their education reduces a very complex picture down to something that doesn't really mean an awful lot. I would completely agree that we need greater variety in the representatives we have in Parliament but it's a very complex picture and all of the people referenced in the OP have been directly elected so they must have some level of appeal to their constituents.
 
Sheriff_John_Bunnell_ret said:
I do wonder how the know your place policies of Blair have impacted upon the attendance of poorer students at university.
Certainly social mobility is at a real low thanks to various issues, in particular housing and education. Even the likes of David Willets recognise it.
Click to expand...

On the contrary I think social mobility peaked under Labour - the tuition fees obviously were less than ideal but by current standards they were relatively cheap and at least people had a chance of paying them off. The years of austerity and funding cuts to services have had a huge impact on social mobility but they're all post-Blair.
 
newyddion said:
Maybe have a read back at the posts, see where the name calling is coming from (it's you) and maybe think why you need folks to explain every single post? Do you honestly believe that it's 'utterly ridiculous' and 'absolute nonsense' to suggest that representation in parliament is not as diverse as it perhaps should be? FYI I don't conciser mentally deranged, uncontrolled or unreasonable in anyway to be concerned and question the involvement of our parliamentarians in several high profile controversies. There are lots of external forces that effect the decisions that are made in this country and how that directly effects the our quality of life. Folks who stand to benefit directly or indirectly from the privatisation of the NHS or any other publicly owned asset should not be involved passing legislation that would make that happen.

I could understand if you were a member of parliament yourself and you stood to gain financially for all of this, but arguing redundant points such as - 'democracy shouldn't be fair' or 'corruption should be ignored and or encouraged' it's a little confusing. I guess that's what the internet/facebook/message boards are for tho right?
Click to expand...

Did I ever argue democracy shouldn't be fair or corruption should be ignored?!
 
Primus84 said:
On the contrary I think social mobility peaked under Labour - the tuition fees obviously were less than ideal but by current standards they were relatively cheap and at least people had a chance of paying them off. The years of austerity and funding cuts to services have had a huge impact on social mobility but they're all post-Blair.
Click to expand...

I think you are looking at things far too narrowly and with party political head on.
 
Sheriff_John_Bunnell_ret said:
I think you are looking at things far too narrowly and with party political head on.
Click to expand...

It’s my view. Obviously you might disagree. I don’t agree I’m looking at things far too narrowly but on a political discussion it’s odd how you referenced Blair but now say I’m being too party political in my response.
 
Primus84 said:
I am not arguing that the current crop of politicians are any good or even the best and the brightest. My argument was that picking on characteristics like their education reduces a very complex picture down to something that doesn't really mean an awful lot. I would completely agree that we need greater variety in the representatives we have in Parliament but it's a very complex picture and all of the people referenced in the OP have been directly elected so they must have some level of appeal to their constituents.
Click to expand...
there education factors in that they are part of a clique of people, at a clique of a college, part of clique clubs, that form clique governments. If you are telling me that the brightest minds in the country happened to all be at Oxford at the same time and members of the same old boys club, then that is simply a falsehood. If someone were toe tell me that distinctly average intellect people, were at the same Uni, around the same time, and socialised and fraternised, and formed pacts to work together for mutual benefit, in spite of their limited ability, then that is more akin to the truth
 
BoroMart said:
there education factors in that they are part of a clique of people, at a clique of a college, part of clique clubs, that form clique governments. If you are telling me that the brightest minds in the country happened to all be at Oxford at the same time and members of the same old boys club, then that is simply a falsehood. If someone were toe tell me that distinctly average intellect people, were at the same Uni, around the same time, and socialised and fraternised, and formed pacts to work together for mutual benefit, in spite of their limited ability, then that is more akin to the truth
Click to expand...

Oxford is ranked as one of the best universities in the world and one of the top universities in the UK. Why would it be a stretch to believe that it recruits only very capable students? Of the 3 people referenced in the OP only one is from money.
 
Primus84 said:
Oxford is ranked as one of the best universities in the world and one of the top universities in the UK. Why would it be a stretch to believe that it recruits only very capable students? Of the 3 people referenced in the OP only one is from money.
Click to expand...
it doesn't just take in th best, sometimes the best are rejected for the well connected
 
Primus84 said:
Oxford is ranked as one of the best universities in the world and one of the top universities in the UK. Why would it be a stretch to believe that it recruits only very capable students? Of the 3 people referenced in the OP only one is from money.
Click to expand...

Oxford and Cambridge are not meritocracies.
Nepotism plays a part in those institutions - if you are connected enough and want someone to get it you will do so.
 
BoroMart said:
it doesn't just take in th best, sometimes the best are rejected for the well connected
Click to expand...

So of the 3 people mentioned in the original post one obtained a King’s Scholarship for Eton which is on the basis of academic ability and then went from there to Oxford - nothing remarkable about that.

The second is from a working class family who worked hard and won their place on the strength of nothing more than A Level results.

The third lost both parents before 16, attended a private day school and obtained a place at Oxford off the back of good A Level results.

Which of these 3 are you suggesting didn’t deserve their Oxford place?
 
1finny said:
Oxford and Cambridge are not meritocracies.
Nepotism plays a part in those institutions - if you are connected enough and want someone to get it you will do so.
Click to expand...

Yes every organisation is susceptible to such but once again which of the 3 in the original post would you say required those connections to get in?

It’s also worth noting that admissions to Oxford this year saw nigh on 70% from state schools.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top