US Conservatism vs UK - Page 2

HershOstropoler · September 2, 2003, 10:46

Quote:

Originally posted by *End Is Forever*

I disagree. UK Conservatism is inherently far less conservative and right-wing than conservatism in the USA. Organisations such as CPAC (http://www.cpac.org/) are very much part of the mainstream in the States - I believe Cheney addressed their conference this year - whereas their approximate equivalents over here have long since been chucked out of the Conservative Party for their unacceptable views. Right-wing members of Conservative Way Forward (the Thatcherite wing, for whom I have little time) have travelled to CPAC and other US conservative events and been appalled.

There is a very strong core of classical liberalism within the UK Conservative Party that seemingly barely exists within the Republicans. I'm a card-carrying Tory but I'd never vote Republican in the States.

Yup. You might be able to integrate the center-half of the Reps into the Tories as their right wing, but the other half would just be the nutty fringe of the political spectrum.

*End Is Forever* · September 2, 2003, 10:47

You can't just "abolish poverty" with the click of a finger. Social democracy and socialism in practice have never provided tangible benefits for the working class and "underclass" in this country. Free education is there for everyone in this country (though it's of dubious quality in parts); the challenge is to raise the aspirations of those who currently for whatever reason reject the education system. I spend three weeks each summer working with kids from some of the worst schools in Salford and Manchester, and it is worrying that over half of the bright-eyed, eager, intelligent kids I see every year are likely to drop out of school at 16. If kids with deprived backgrounds and poor parents can be encouraged to stay on in education and higher their sights, then we're well on our way. Socialism keeps them "in their place".

MikeH · September 2, 2003, 10:49

It's their parents fault, not the government's. Their parents don't allow them to expect anything better than they already have so they don't.

Oerdin · September 2, 2003, 10:49

EiF: How do you get them to do that? This seems like an exercise in forcing a horse to drink after you've lead them to water.

Solly · September 2, 2003, 10:49

And parenting attitudes and behaviour is one of the last things governments can ever hope to affect.

*End Is Forever* · September 2, 2003, 10:50

Quote:

Eradicating tuition fees is a very interesting Tory policy. You'd think it would help more poor people get to uni - in fact it serves to help the middle classes more.

It's Labour's policy of increasing the number of useless, mediocre "University" courses that is increasing the number of middle class students in University. By cutting out the chaff, we will ensure that it is only the academically suitable that enter University. At the moment, many students at the weaker Universities are there simply because it is the "done thing" for middle-class kids to go to University, regardless of whether it is in their interest to do so...

MikeH · September 2, 2003, 10:52

And at least Socialism tries to give them a chance. Conservatism is all about saying if they want a chance they'll take it themselves, we're not paying for it.

*End Is Forever* · September 2, 2003, 10:52

Quote:

Originally posted by Boddington's
And parenting attitudes and behaviour is one of the last things governments can ever hope to affect.

True, but when the stakes are so high, it's unacceptable not to try.

Oerdin · September 2, 2003, 10:53

The drop out rates from college are pretty high. Something like 1 in 4 don't make it to graduation. Maybe we should drop this idea that everyone needs to go to college; maybe it would be better to send some people to technical school where they can learn a trade.

FrustratedPoet · September 2, 2003, 10:53

Quote:

Originally posted by Boddington's
What is wrong with suggesting a "needs blind" policy - during the selection and admissions process, income of student is hidden from universities. Those who can pay do, those who can't don't (of course on some sort of sliding scale etc).

As long as they're required to provide an address it won't entirely hide their (or their family's) income. How many poor people live in leafy suburbs? How many rich people live on inner-city council estates?

It isn't a fool-proof system of course, but a great deal about somebody's wealth can be guessed at from their post-code alone.

MikeH · September 2, 2003, 10:54

Is that UK drop out rates?

Oerdin · September 2, 2003, 10:55

What's a city council estate?

Oerdin · September 2, 2003, 10:56

Quote:

Originally posted by MikeH
Is that UK drop out rates?

US. UK can't be that much different.

MikeH · September 2, 2003, 10:57

Quote:

Originally posted by Oerdin

US. UK can't be that much different.

It is very different in most things, don't know why this would be a special case.

FrustratedPoet · September 2, 2003, 10:57

Quote:

Originally posted by Oerdin
What's a city council estate?

Large areas of cheap housing built by the local councils for the less-affluent to live. Some of them are perfectly fine whereas some others are like a suburb of Hell. None of them, however, are home to wealthy families.

MikeH · September 2, 2003, 10:59

UK Uni drop out rates:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/2585101.stm

Very variable. Most Uni rates are under 20%. UK average is 10%.

Oerdin · September 2, 2003, 11:02

Quote:

Originally posted by MikeH
UK Uni drop out rates:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/2585101.stm

Very variable. Most Uni rates are under 20%. UK average is 10%.

Those numbers look better then the over all US average. Do you know if some schools have significantly more students then others? I ask because wouldn't a weighted average show the true drop out rate?

Solly · September 2, 2003, 11:04

Quote:

Originally posted by FrustratedPoet

As long as they're required to provide an address it won't entirely hide their (or their family's) income. How many poor people live in leafy suburbs? How many rich people live on inner-city council estates?

It isn't a fool-proof system of course, but a great deal about somebody's wealth can be guessed at from their post-code alone.

Addresses would be hidden *to those making the decision*.

CerberusIV · September 2, 2003, 11:07

Quote:

Originally posted by *End Is Forever*
It's Labour's policy of increasing the number of useless, mediocre "University" courses that is increasing the number of middle class students in University. By cutting out the chaff, we will ensure that it is only the academically suitable that enter University. At the moment, many students at the weaker Universities are there simply because it is the "done thing" for middle-class kids to go to University, regardless of whether it is in their interest to do so...

Your degree wasn't political history was it? I worked in a polytechnic from 1987 to '89. The choice of pointless courses was pretty vast then, let alone now. IIRC deciding to call polytechnics "universities" happened before 1997 as well.

I'm sure you would like to argue that Conservative policy is different now. For me political leopards rarely change their spots.

FWIW you are right that there are too many kids wasting their time in university and justifying the education industry. However the solution lies in offering alternatives - "market forces", not cutting university places. The problem is changing a culture where it is almost expected that job applicants for stacking supermarket shelves have degrees.

MikeH · September 2, 2003, 11:08

Quote:

Originally posted by Oerdin

Those numbers look better then the over all US average. Do you know if some schools have significantly more students then others? I ask because wouldn't a weighted average show the true drop out rate?

The average for the country and regions for all students, are in there, they are the stripes across the table in yellowy brown.

That's where the 10% overall rate came from. It's more expensive here than it used to be but still loads cheaper to go to college here than in the US. Probably explains the lower drop out rates (most drop outs here are for financial reasons).

FrustratedPoet · September 2, 2003, 11:10

The people making the decision need to know what school the pupils attended, though, don't they? That's going to give them some clues too.

Note that I'm not saying you're wrong, just that I don't think it would be entirely effective at disguising income. It couldn't hurt, though, IMHO.

MikeH · September 2, 2003, 11:10

Why do they need to know what school they attended?

Solly · September 2, 2003, 11:59

Yeah, come on FP, why?

Oerdin · September 2, 2003, 12:13

Wouldn't the transcripts have the school name on it?

Worthingtons · September 2, 2003, 12:24

Very interesting thread

I think US Conservatism is more right, and therefore better than UK conservatism. I also believe however, that at this point in time it works better for the US, than it would over here.

Good points from EiF about UK Universities , Labour havent got a clue, the ease of University allows any joe bloggs to go now, and not those with Merit. Labour have messed up Education.

As for council estates, although most of my life i have lived in extremely affluent areas, since moving away from my parents i've discovered these lower-class areas (the better one's that is) are a pleasant place to live. People are friendly, they are genuine, and there are nice traditional elements to society like Butchers and stuff preserved there. The area where i live is mainly private but still lower class, it has improved my opinion on the lower-class a lot.

Drogue · September 2, 2003, 12:54

Quote:

Originally posted by *End Is Forever*
The solution to CAP is to make the issue non-negotiable. That's what we have a veto for.

I think the veto can be used to make thign schange. We could and should have vetoed it at the start, but now we cannot. Indeed, the French could veto any attempt to remove it (unless I'm mistaken?) I think that's one issue we need QMV on.

Quote:

Originally posted by *End Is Forever*
Reform (preferably abolition) of the CAP in favour of genuine free trade has long been Tory policy.

As it is Labour, although it is not possible without French consent (and thus heavy bribes from us) but didn't the Tory's sign it in the first place?

Quote:

Originally posted by Boddington's
What is wrong with suggesting a "needs blind" policy - during the selection and admissions process, income of student is hidden from universities.

Couldn't agree more. However I thought it alkready was? I applied and got my offers before finance was discussed. That only comes about in April, way after application and most offers are given out. Income doesn't come into it in the UK.

Quote:

Originally posted by Boddington's
Those who can pay do, those who can't don't (of course on some sort of sliding scale etc).

I would like to make sure that all can, and those that cannot afford it are given enough help so they can afford it, but those with enough pay. Kind of like the system we have currently, but with better funding and fewer students (it makes me feel so dirty agreeing with a Tory policy without caveats

)

Quote:

Originally posted by *End Is Forever*
It's Labour's policy of increasing the number of useless, mediocre "University" courses that is increasing the number of middle class students in University. By cutting out the chaff, we will ensure that it is only the academically suitable that enter University. At the moment, many students at the weaker Universities are there simply because it is the "done thing" for middle-class kids to go to University, regardless of whether it is in their interest to do so...

Quote:

Originally posted by Oerdin
Maybe we should drop this idea that everyone needs to go to college; maybe it would be better to send some people to technical school where they can learn a trade.

HershOstropoler · September 2, 2003, 13:01

As for CAP:

It's not just the French who have their pork in CAP. The "veto" in CAP is political, and intertwined with budget and treaty reform issues. And you can't veto an existing policy anyway.

Sandman · September 2, 2003, 13:20

I honestly don't about asylum seekers at all. Even at their highest level, the numbers are trivial. Make legal immigration easier and we won't have to fork out for accomodation centres and benefits, whilst they are forbidden to work.

Drogue · September 2, 2003, 13:24

Quote:

Originally posted by HershOstropoler
And you can't veto an existing policy anyway.

You can veto it's removal IIRC. We can't veto it no to get rid of it, but the French could veto us trying to remove it.

Solly · September 2, 2003, 13:33

Quote:

Couldn't agree more. However I thought it alkready was? I applied and got my offers before finance was discussed. That only comes about in April, way after application and most offers are given out. Income doesn't come into it in the UK.

Postcodes do...