Newsnight fawning over Tories

...whilst pissing all over Labour's manifesto.

i thought they were supposed to be impartial?

:grr:

Well, it's not like Labour don't deserve it.

They might have come across a bit better if they hadn't sent Iain Gray on to defend it. The man acts like a zombie's eaten half his brain.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GhostofBolivar

Well, it's not like Labour don't deserve it.

They might have come across a bit better if they hadn't sent Iain Gray on to defend it. The man acts like a zombie's eaten half his brain.

---

maybe, but newsnight seemed to really go on the offensive against them, then put the tories's manifesto under eff all scrutiny whatsoever, just said "sounds good!"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AgentDaleCooper

maybe, but newsnight seemed to really go on the offensive against them, then put the tories's manifesto under eff all scrutiny whatsoever, just said "sounds good!"

---

The Tory manifesto isn't launched until Tuesday.

I'd expect them to get grilled on tomorrow night's programme.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GhostofBolivar

The Tory manifesto isn't launched until Tuesday.

I'd expect them to get grilled on tomorrow night's programme.

---

true, forgot about that :doh:

never the less, they seemed to really attack labour rather than try to establish an understanding of the manifesto, barraging the interviewees with loaded question after loaded question. i will be pleasantly surprised if the tories get the same treatment.

Newsnight will try and rip all the parties manifesto's apart, as the have a duty to the license fee payers to remain impartial :wink:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AgentDaleCooper

...whilst pissing all over Labour's manifesto.

i thought they were supposed to be impartial?

:grr:

---

Unjustified paranoia alert.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beefster

Unjustified paranoia alert.

---

:agree: The last place you are going to find a bias against Labour is on the BBC.

I fully expect them to rip through everyone elses as well. It was just Labour's turn last night. In the next few days, they should all get the same scrutiny.

Except for viewers in Scotland, where Glenn Campbell presents a special hour long broadcast on The Great Leader and 20 reasons to vote Labour in the next election.

I saw it a bit differently. I think Newsnight acknowledged that Labour's manifesto had more substance, and as such was more worthy of analysis. At the time of last night's broadcast the Tories hadn't published their manifesto, and all they could do was talk about the briefings the Conservatives had given.

Merely showing the patronising "come and be a secret agent" style cover of their manifesto, was enough to convince me that Dave and his chums are still playing at politics.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Filled Rolls

I saw it a bit differently. I think Newsnight acknowledged that Labour's manifesto had more substance, and as such was more worthy of analysis. At the time of last night's broadcast the Tories hadn't published their manifesto, and all they could do was talk about the briefings the Conservatives had given.

Merely showing the patronising "come and be a secret agent" style cover of their manifesto, was enough to convince me that Dave and his chums are still playing at politics.

---

Spot on. Unless there's a colourful picture on the front of each of the most important manifestos in a generation, I won't be voting at all.

I certainly don't care about the actual words inside.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beefster

Spot on. Unless there's a colourful picture on the front of each of the most important manifestos in a generation, I won't be voting at all.

I certainly don't care about the actual words inside.

---

I didn't show the pictures, I'm merely commenting on my reaction to them. If you want someone to read what's in a book, an engaging cover is a big help.

Presumably Dave thought his book would appeal to people by making them think they are part of the government. It's actually a lie though, because they aren't.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Filled Rolls

I didn't show the pictures, I'm merely commenting on my reaction to them. If you want someone to read what's in a book, an engaging cover is a big help.

Presumably Dave thought his book would appeal to people by making them think they are part of the government. It's actually a lie though, because they aren't.

---

The cover will be designed, for all the manifestos, by people infinitely more qualified and skilled at doing such things than politicians.

I think only an idiot would think they were actually going to be a part of the government. It's fairly evident, in my opinion of course, that the Tories are actually talking about communities taking more control of the things that affect them rather than being dictated to by central government.

Whether you think that's a good thing or not comes down to personal ideology. I think the chance for communities to manage poorly-run schools (although not in Scotland), have referendums on local issues and recall an under-performing MP will go down quite well with a lot of people though.

Don't know if anyone noticed Jackie Bird resplendent in bright red presiding over a longish news item regarding the launch of the Labour manifesto, whilst almost ignoring the fact that the SNP manifesto was also launched on the same day.

And is it just me,or is thre very little in the Scottish Labour manifesto which actually relates to the Westminster election, it appears to be all about schools hospital waiting lists etc which are devolved matters, are Murhphy and Grey telling us that if Labour get power in both parliaments then Scotland will get exactly the same legislation as England?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beefster

The cover will be designed, for all the manifestos, by people infinitely more qualified and skilled at doing such things than politicians.

I think only an idiot would think they were actually going to be a part of the government. It's fairly evident, in my opinion of course, that the Tories are actually talking about communities taking more control of the things that affect them rather than being dictated to by central government.

Whether you think that's a good thing or not comes down to personal ideology. I think the chance for communities to manage poorly-run schools (although not in Scotland), have referendums on local issues and recall an under-performing MP will go down quite well with a lot of people though.

---

So do you think communities are infinitely more skilled at running schools and hospitals rather than people who work in those areas. What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander - Cameron was dismissive of Brown for saying that he knew better than businessmen how to kickstart the economy.

Now Dave is wanting to hand over control of our health and well being to the unqualified. Why not take it further and let anybody who fancies a shot be a surgeon for a day or so?

I agree with you on one thing. Only an idiot would think that they would form part of the government. At least Dave knows his target demographic then.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ginger_rice

Don't know if anyone noticed Jackie Bird resplendent in bright red presiding over a longish news item regarding the launch of the Labour manifesto, whilst almost ignoring the fact that the SNP manifesto was also launched on the same day.

And is it just me,or is thre very little in the Scottish Labour manifesto which actually relates to the Westminster election, it appears to be all about schools hospital waiting lists etc which are devolved matters, are Murhphy and Grey telling us that if Labour get power in both parliaments then Scotland will get exactly the same legislation as England?

---

Funny you saying that on the article on Reporting Scotland about the proposed Labour candidate that was booted out for slagging off every man and his dog on Twitter they made some random comment such as 'however some SNP members have been caught doing the same sort of thing though they werent actually standing for parliament' which seemed very out of order IMO.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Filled Rolls

So do you think communities are infinitely more skilled at running schools and hospitals rather than people who work in those areas. What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander - Cameron was dismissive of Brown for saying that he knew better than businessmen how to kickstart the economy.

Now Dave is wanting to hand over control of our health and well being to the unqualified. Why not take it further and let anybody who fancies a shot be a surgeon for a day or so?

I agree with you on one thing. Only an idiot would think that they would form part of the government. At least Dave knows his target demographic then.

---

Ignoring your melodramatic fiction on what's being proposed, I was going to try and give a serious answer on the merits of parent-managed schools and how it has been proven to improve failing schools but as I'm evidently an idiot, I'll leave it be.

I will say though, if you seriously think that anyone is suggesting that headteachers, surgeons or, in fact, any professional is replaced by someone who isn't suitably qualified, we might have to revise who the idiot is.

If you're that way inclined, have a read of all the manifestos. It won't change your mind but you might learn a few things all the same.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beefster

The cover will be designed, for all the manifestos, by people infinitely more qualified and skilled at doing such things than politicians.

I think only an idiot would think they were actually going to be a part of the government. It's fairly evident, in my opinion of course, that the Tories are actually talking about communities taking more control of the things that affect them rather than being dictated to by central government.

Whether you think that's a good thing or not comes down to personal ideology. I think the chance for communities to manage poorly-run schools (although not in Scotland), have referendums on local issues and recall an under-performing MP will go down quite well with a lot of people though.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beefster

Ignoring your melodramatic fiction on what's being proposed, I was going to try and give a serious answer on the merits of parent-managed schools and how it has been proven to improve failing schools but as I'm evidently an idiot, I'll leave it be.

I will say though, if you seriously think that anyone is suggesting that headteachers, surgeons or, in fact, any professional is replaced by someone who isn't suitably qualified, we might have to revise who the idiot is.

If you're that way inclined, have a read of all the manifestos. It won't change your mind but you might learn a few things all the same.

---

Settle petal, you were the one that used the "I" word first. You aren't an idiot, I was making a wee joke that's all.

I would genuinely be interested in how parent management of schools has helped improve their performance. Would there not be conflicts between local interests and national objectives. Also, are the proposals different from the school boards we have at the moment.

It's hard to compare like with like of course, as Scotland has a different system.

I do think it is hypocritical of the Tories to accuse Brown of not having a scooby about the economy, and that businessmen know better how to generate jobs, and then turn round and say lay people would know what was best for a massive subject like education.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beefster

I will say though, if you seriously think that anyone is suggesting that headteachers, surgeons or, in fact, any professional is replaced by someone who isn't suitably qualified.

---

The problem is that, and this is already happening in England, that you will get people involved who will have a particular axe to grind, or are of a certain political persuasion, this might not be beneficial to the kids or patients needs.

there's already evidence from some english schools where the kids are involved in recruitment of teachers, one I'm aware of is the candidates were asked to sing a Michael Jackson song for a job as a science teacher, the best candidate didn't get the job, another didn't get the job as the pupils involved didn't like her red shoes!!

Thankfully none of the applies in Scotland.

I honestly don't think it makes a hoot of difference what anyone does or says on radio or TV about the Election. Most people who think seriously about the issues will have made their minds up anyway. It's all just hot air from now on in.

What depresses me is the sheer ignorance of much of the British public. I've heard otherwise intelligent folk discussing the merits of the respective party leaders' wives as though it was a factor in how they will vote.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ginger_rice

The problem is that, and this is already happening in England, that you will get people involved who will have a particular axe to grind, or are of a certain political persuasion, this might not be beneficial to the kids or patients needs.

there's already evidence from some english schools where the kids are involved in recruitment of teachers, one I'm aware of is the candidates were asked to sing a Michael Jackson song for a job as a science teacher, the best candidate didn't get the job, another didn't get the job as the pupils involved didn't like her red shoes!!

Thankfully none of the applies in Scotland.

---

Those stories, in particular, are ludicrous.

Nothing to do with parent or non-governmental management though. These examples were purely as a result to a Labour initiative to give students more 'power' as far as I know.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beefster

Those stories, in particular, are ludicrous.

Nothing to do with parent or non-governmental management though. These examples were purely as a result to a Labour initiative to give students more 'power' as far as I know.

---

So how do the new proposals work?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ginger_rice

The problem is that, and this is already happening in England, that you will get people involved who will have a particular axe to grind, or are of a certain political persuasion, this might not be beneficial to the kids or patients needs.

there's already evidence from some english schools where the kids are involved in recruitment of teachers, one I'm aware of is the candidates were asked to sing a Michael Jackson song for a job as a science teacher, the best candidate didn't get the job, another didn't get the job as the pupils involved didn't like her red shoes!!

Thankfully none of the applies in Scotland.

---

It is happening now.

My wife recently applied for a job where part of the interview process was to be asked questions from children. It wasn't even a teaching position :confused:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Filled Rolls

So how do the new proposals work?

---

My understanding is that a community will manage the school (as a Board of Governors would) directly, rather than the generic rules being handed down from the Dept of Education. They'd hire Head Teachers and have a say (with the professionals) in the curriculum, school policies, where to concentrate their resources and so on.

Like any manifesto pledge though (from any of the parties), the full details presumably won't be available until the proposed legislation is drafted.

I'm a believer in people being able to influence their own lives and not for everything to be dictated to by the State so this appeals to me, despite it not actually affecting Scotland. I can see why folk who think that the State knows best wouldn't like it though.

Obviously, this is all my interpretation and could be wrong.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BroxburnHibee

It is happening now.

My wife recently applied for a job where part of the interview process was to be asked questions from children. It wasn't even a teaching position :confused:

---

It's the worst of the stakeholder society that Blair trumpeted.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beefster

My understanding is that a community will manage the school (as a Board of Governors would) directly, rather than the generic rules being handed down from the Dept of Education. They'd hire Head Teachers and have a say (with the professionals) in the curriculum, school policies, where to concentrate their resources and so on.

Like any manifesto pledge though (from any of the parties), the full details presumably won't be available until the proposed legislation is drafted.

I'm a believer in people being able to influence their own lives and not for everything to be dictated to by the State so this appeals to me, despite it not actually affecting Scotland. I can see why folk who think that the State knows best wouldn't like it though.

Obviously, this is all my interpretation and could be wrong.

---

The biggest problem with all this is that communities don't really exist these days. Local schools struggle to get people on to PTA and School Board Committees, our local residents association AGM had 9 people turn up from 350 households. People in the main aren't interested in community work.

You will get certain people involved, but they'll most likely have a certain axe to grind and be pursuing their own agenda.

How much of a hand to parents get in curriculum decisions? I would hate to go into teaching as it stands just now. Teachers are already patronised and told how to teach/what to teach by people that have often never taught!
Now we let parents tell them how best to do their jobs too?

This plan stinks. Cameron goes on about more "choice" for parents in picking a school for their kids. Nonsense. What happens when the good schools are full up? Do kids then just have to cope in a poor school. Where is the choice for them?

Send kids to their local schools, and place the emphasis on making every school a good school. Give teachers more time to teach, and go back to basics (3 R's etc) to improve the state of education.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GlesgaeHibby

The biggest problem with all this is that communities don't really exist these days. Local schools struggle to get people on to PTA and School Board Committees, our local residents association AGM had 9 people turn up from 350 households. People in the main aren't interested in community work.

You will get certain people involved, but they'll most likely have a certain axe to grind and be pursuing their own agenda.

How much of a hand to parents get in curriculum decisions? I would hate to go into teaching as it stands just now. Teachers are already patronised and told how to teach/what to teach by people that have often never taught!
Now we let parents tell them how best to do their jobs too?

This plan stinks. Cameron goes on about more "choice" for parents in picking a school for their kids. Nonsense. What happens when the good schools are full up? Do kids then just have to cope in a poor school. Where is the choice for them?

Send kids to their local schools, and place the emphasis on making every school a good school. Give teachers more time to teach, and go back to basics (3 R's etc) to improve the state of education.

---

If a community can't even raise people for a PTA, what makes you think they'd even think about running their own school? It's not going to work or be considered everywhere. If parents aren't even remotely interested in helping to improve their kid's education, they either don't give a **** or expect the state to do everything for them.

The 'parent-run' schools idea is an attempt to improve poor schools. I doubt it's aimed at good schools and I'd doubt that any party is suggesting that parents tell teachers how to teach.

Let's be honest though, most of a kid's enthusiasm (or otherwise) for education is fostered at home by the parents. A kid at any school whose parents encourage him/her will likely do better than the kid whose parents don't give a toss.

As for the bit in bold, that's exactly what is going on now. Here's a guy pulling Brown up about that very issue. There's nothing in the Tory manifesto giving parents more rights to choose their child's school - all it talks about it giving everyone a right to a good school by improving the under-performing schools.

YouTube - Gordon Brown heckled by angry dad over schools

Anyway, I'm starting to feel like the Hibs.net Tory spokesman which isn't a role I want to take on!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beefster

I

The 'parent-run' schools idea is an attempt to improve poor schools. I doubt it's aimed at good schools and I'd doubt that any party is suggesting that parents tell teachers how to teach.

Let's be honest though, most of a kid's enthusiasm (or otherwise) for education is fostered at home by the parents. A kid at any school whose parents encourage him/her will likely do better than the kid whose parents don't give a toss.

---

TBH the way to improve the so called "failing" schools is to start to resource and fund appropriate subjects.

Why do we put such an emphasis on science and computing and business studies for example, why are we not spending more on practical subjects or vocational skills.

Why do head teachers still feel the need to focus on league tables?

Why are those kids who are less academically inclined expected to gain the same level of qualification as those who are, we surely shouldn't be expecting every single pupil to get 5 highers and go on to university?

Schools are seen to be failing if they don't get the required level of Higher results (or possibly more appropriate to this election A levels), or the requisite percentage moving on to higher education, or a high level of exclusions owing to poor behaviour.

And yes I agree that attitude to school is fostered at home, if you have parents who see the value in education then that normally although not always rubs off on the child, if you have parents who see no benefit (and benefit could be the correct word) in education and do not support their childs school this then has a detrimental effect, place a school in an area where that attitude prevails and what chance does a school have.

I'm convinced that more parental involvement will simply widen the gap between the "good" and "failing" schools.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GlesgaeHibby

Send kids to their local schools, and place the emphasis on making every school a good school. Give teachers more time to teach, and go back to basics (3 R's etc) to improve the state of education.

---

:agree::agree:

But there's a fourth R Relevence why do we teach kids Byron or Milton etc for instance, yes let them study clasical poetry if they are interested, this is one area where Curriculum for Excellence might just might get it right.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beefster

Anyway, I'm starting to feel like the Hibs.net Tory spokesman which isn't a role I want to take on!

---

It's a large cross to bear. CorrieGreens did it with admirably thick skin until he defected to Labour, though he may wish a right to reply on that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ginger_rice

Why do we put such an emphasis on science and computing and business studies for example, why are we not spending more on practical subjects or vocational skills.

---

We don't put nearly enough emphasis on science in this country.

I do agree that we need more emphasis on practical and vocational skills, but at the same time we need to do more to get kids interested in science.