NationStates Jolt Archive

Given the seemingly bizarre interpretations of the socialism that have been floated around here recently, I thought I would do a quick unscientific survey: is the UK a socialist country?

More so than some would care to assume.

More so than some would care to assume.

Now that is a non-answer if ever there was one: in order for it to be useful you must tell me what these people assume and whether they are credible.

No.
NO.
NO.NO.NO.NO.NO

And neither is sweden!

It depends. It's a social democratic country, definately. For one, we are ruled by a bunch of bafoons called the "Labour Party". Anyway, let us examine the evidence:

- Tax rate pushing 50%.
- Government pensions.
- NHS.
- Free Education for all.
- State is largest single employer.
- Massive increases in public spending and public sector employment.
- Low unemployment rate.
- Regulated pricing for rail travel.
- If you criticise the concept of having a welfare state people look at you funny.
- So-called "Conservative Party" leader said the Tories had a duty to "stand up to big business when it is in the interests of Britain and the world".
- There is a general bias towards left-wing views without actually examining the argument fully.
- All branches of government riddled with "political correctness".
- Oil companies have special taxes which are increased when oil prices rise (what the hell was Brown thinking?)

No.
NO.
NO.NO.NO.NO.NO

I think this experiment would be more interesting if we also knew the country of origin of posters: you're not in the US, while TBC is, IIRC?

No. It's quasi-crypto-fascist. And will continue to be until the glorious leader and his lackeys are removed from office.

Still, people only have themselves to blame. The Telegraph clearly warned everybody about this man before he was elected.

I think this experiment would be more interesting if we also knew the country of origin of posters: you're not in the US, while TBC is, IIRC?
I live in Britain.

Remember, Britain- the country still waging imperialist wars, still allowing corporations within its borders, still allowing people to own private property, still controlled by the bouregoisie. Remember?

No. It's quasi-crypto-fascist. And will continue to be until the glorious leader and his lackeys are removed from office.

Still, people only have themselves to blame. The Telegraph clearly warned everybody about this man before he was elected.
Does this (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/01/02/ncam02.xml) not scare you? Cameron is acting like a full-blown Social Democrat!

Given the seemingly bizarre interpretations of the socialism that have been floated around here recently, I thought I would do a quick unscientific survey: is the UK a socialist country?
No, of course not. It has a vibrant free market economy.

Does this (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/01/02/ncam02.xml) not scare you? Cameron is acting like a full-blown Social Democrat!

What, a political party not following its principles and instead bending its positions to suit public opinion??!?!?

I thought I'd never see the day

- So-called "Conservative Party" leader said the Tories had a duty to "stand up to big business when it is in the interests of Britain and the world".

That's not socialism, that's just right sensible thinking! If big business is harming Britain unopposed by the government then Britain's government isn't doing its job.

Does this (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/01/02/ncam02.xml) not scare you? Cameron is acting like a full-blown Social Democrat!

Simply appaling. :(

No. It's quasi-crypto-fascist.

Been watching Reggie Perrin again, have we?

It depends. It's a social democratic country, definately. For one, we are ruled by a bunch of bafoons called the "Labour Party". Anyway, let us examine the evidence:

- Tax rate pushing 50%.
- Government pensions.
- NHS.
- Free Education for all.
- State is largest single employer.
- Massive increases in public spending and public sector employment.
- Low unemployment rate.
- Regulated pricing for rail travel.
- If you criticise the concept of having a welfare state people look at you funny.
- So-called "Conservative Party" leader said the Tories had a duty to "stand up to big business when it is in the interests of Britain and the world".
- There is a general bias towards left-wing views without actually examining the argument fully.
- All branches of government riddled with "political correctness".
- Oil companies have special taxes which are increased when oil prices rise (what the hell was Brown thinking?)

An admirable summary of a thoroughly depressing state of affairs.

An admirable summary of a thoroughly depressing state of affairs.

So, to you a high unemployment rate and no free education would be good thigns?

That's not socialism, that's just right sensible thinking! If big business is harming Britain unopposed by the government then Britain's government isn't doing its job.
The point isnt the statement itself, but the assumptions it's based on. He assumes (well rather panders to other peoples' assumptions, I dont honestly believe that these are his own views) that business harms Britain rather than what it actually does which is create and maintain our dwindling position in the world, and he is pandering to the left wing view that big business is bad, which it isn't.

So, to you a high unemployment rate and no free education would be good thigns?

No, not entirely. Unemployment for those unwilling to hold a job is admirable, and frankly, the free "education" one recieves at a comprehensive "school" is risable.

It's left-wing i'll give you that, it's become such a sorry state of affairs i've had to swith from the "Conservatives" to labour because although they're still left wing, they're more centrist than the tories.

It truly is a sad day for the centre-right. we won't even have the US to fall back on in 3 years the way it's going.

The point isnt the statement itself, but the assumptions it's based on. He assumes (well rather panders to other peoples' assumptions, I dont honestly believe that these are his own views) that business harms Britain rather than what it actually does which is create and maintain our dwindling position in the world, and he is pandering to the left wing view that big business is bad, which it isn't.
He didn't say anything about big business always working against the interests of Britain. He just implied that it sometimes does so.

In fact if anything in his statement implied left-wing views it is the pasrt about the "interests of the world."

Of course tis not a socialist state. Its a capatalist state, clearly represented by....well.....it's capatalism. If i am near correct, Socialism is the rise of the workers againsed the higher classes, this, im sad to say, i have not yet seen in theis country.
Here in the UK we are no longer the backbone of the world, we are simply not an important country in the great sceme of things, we follow in Americas shadow (wich is capatalist). This fact of unimportance does not, however make us a non greedy, material and capatalist country, wich we are, just like nearly everyone elce. We are a country full of classes, the lower ones the clear have-nots in society, the higher the lucky ones.

No,UK isn't a socialist country....

I quit. I just quit. No. Just . . . no.

I would agree with this

It depends. It's a social democratic country, definately. For one, we are ruled by a bunch of bafoons called the "Labour Party". Anyway, let us examine the evidence:

- Tax rate pushing 50%.
- Government pensions.
- NHS.
- Free Education for all.
- State is largest single employer.
- Massive increases in public spending and public sector employment.
- Low unemployment rate.
- Regulated pricing for rail travel.
- If you criticise the concept of having a welfare state people look at you funny.
- So-called "Conservative Party" leader said the Tories had a duty to "stand up to big business when it is in the interests of Britain and the world".
- There is a general bias towards left-wing views without actually examining the argument fully.
- All branches of government riddled with "political correctness".
- Oil companies have special taxes which are increased when oil prices rise (what the hell was Brown thinking?)

It isn't socialist at all. It may have a socialist party, but then again, so does the United states. It isn't socialist in the least.

Well if in the Uk it's anything like the US the socialists know better than to come out and admit that they're Socialists. Wait till election time and none of the Socialists on these forums (we've got plenty enough here) will support any socialist candidate. They want to win and admitting that you're a socialist is'nt a winning stretegy.......

is the UK a socialist country?
No. It has a welfare state, and it's perhaps a mixed economy based on how you define it, but it is not socialism. The means of production are privately owned.

*feels a rant coming on*
I find it annoying how some people on the right and the left seem to want to use the same terms as the other person does, redefine them into something totally different, and then argue against those. It makes arguments really unproductive sometimes. Such as the whole "everything with any economic control is socialism" argument. No, it isn't. It could quite certainly be a command economy of some sort, but unless the means of production are publically owned, it isn't a socialist one.
Arguing would make so much more sense if we would agree to use the others' definitions of their positions.

- Tax rate pushing 50%.
- Government pensions.
- Free Education for all.
- State is largest single employer.
- Massive increases in public spending and public sector employment.
- Low unemployment rate.
- Regulated pricing for rail travel.
- If you criticise the concept of having a welfare state people look at you funny.
-- There is a general bias towards left-wing views without actually examining the argument fully.
- All branches of government riddled with "political correctness".


The US has got all of these things as well...and we're not socialist, so Britain definitely isn't despite the existence of a few extra "socialist" (in a sense of state management rather than private) ideas like the NHS.

I live in Scotland (UK).

I don't believe the UK is socialist. As others have suggested you cannot have a socialist country as long as corporations exist, this isn't to say bussiness at some level cannot exist, but corporations cannot. Most importantly common social sevices are controlled, like transport and even partly the health service.

No, not entirely. Unemployment for those unwilling to hold a job is admirable, and frankly, the free "education" one recieves at a comprehensive "school" is risable.
Not all of the UK has a comprehensive system.

Northern Ireland doesn't, and we have one of the best and most respected education systems in Europe.


And...last time I checked we were, despite the opposition of some political parties, in the UK.


Anyhow, no, the UK is not socialist. Social democratic, maybe.

The UK a socialist state? I can only assume that was supposed to be funny. Although if you read the Daily Mail you'd belive that we were on the verge of anarchy thanks to that 'dangerous Lefty' Blair.

What, a political party not following its principles and instead bending its positions to suit public opinion??!?!?

I thought I'd never see the day


Well I was always under the impression Cameron was just taking the Tories back to how they were Pre-Thatcher.

And on the original post I think Britain is left leaning more than anything, even if the Liberal Democrats would have looked like Commies to the Americans in the not to distant past.

The US has got all of these things as well...and we're not socialist, so Britain definitely isn't despite the existence of a few extra "socialist" (in a sense of state management rather than private) ideas like the NHS.
We agree! It was bound to happen eventually.

Not all of the UK has a comprehensive system.

Northern Ireland doesn't, and we have one of the best and most respected education systems in Europe.
Dont worry, Labour is destroying that too now. Soon all of your children can enjoy being taught Labour doublethink community welfare nice happiness.

Oh, and it's not free, it costs us tens of billions of pounds per year, you just dont have any choice about paying for it. Personally I think that's worse than having to pay "at point of delivery".

The point, for me at least, is that it's universal. Or it damn well ought to be.

Of course we are a socialist state! Look at all our nationalised industries. Those nasty lefist commie bastards taking away market competition.



No wait, thats right we only have the post office now.

Well New Labour definatly has socialist principles like the community and collectivism at its heart.

Still Neo-revisionist and I'd call that a form of socialism.

No wait, thats right we only have the post office now.

Um...not even the post office anymore. As of the now, Royal Mail will have "competition".

*shrugs*

No, I don't know who from.

Um...not even the post office anymore. As of the now, Royal Mail will have "competition".

*shrugs*

No, I don't know who from.

TNT are one of them.

Though apparently the only way that it will effect the average person is an increase in 1st and 2nd class stamps.

Um...not even the post office anymore.

Okay, then there's still... urh... hmmm... Translink (who run the buses and trains in Northern Ireland) then.

The U.K. is not socialist or capitalist. It's a mixed economy.

Um...not even the post office anymore. As of the now, Royal Mail will have "competition".

*shrugs*

No, I don't know who from.
Oh no! It's T-t-t-t-t...
*gets killed by black-masked assassins*

Given the seemingly bizarre interpretations of the socialism that have been floated around here recently, I thought I would do a quick unscientific survey: is the UK a socialist country?

more than the US is that's for sure but less than China

Oh no! It's T-t-t-t-t...
*gets killed by black-masked assassins*

We Await Silent Tristero's Empire

Um...not even the post office anymore. As of the now, Royal Mail will have "competition".

*shrugs*

No, I don't know who from.

if the package is under a certain weight, the royal mail has the monopoly as far as i know

if the package is under a certain weight, the royal mail has the monopoly as far as i know
Nope. As of yesterday (3 Jan), the whole mail business is open to competition.

if the package is under a certain weight, the royal mail has the monopoly as far as i know

Only effectively, since it is not economic for other companies to handle regular mail.

Nope. As of yesterday (3 Jan), the whole mail business is open to competition.

yup fair do's

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4569908.stm

No, not entirely. Unemployment for those unwilling to hold a job is admirable, and frankly, the free "education" one recieves at a comprehensive "school" is risable.


"unemployment for those unwilling to hold a job is admirable"

What?

In any case, I think it can safely be presumed that the vast majority of people do want to work and that therefore a low unemployment rate is a good thing. I mean, what ideology thinks unemployment is good???

And I'm quite happy with the free 'education' I recieved at a comprehensive school. As a student at a law school with a high percentage of private school pupils, I don't think it has put me at any disadvantage.

And you also think that free healthcare is a bad thing? Lets just leave the ill but poor to die on the streets, eh? Natural selection and all that.

"unemployment for those unwilling to hold a job is admirable"

What?

I think it might mean that TBC is against slavery.

In any case, I think it can safely be presumed that the vast majority of people do want to work and that therefore a low unemployment rate is a good thing. I mean, what ideology thinks unemployment is good.

It can be good, because full employment would do nothing but create hyperinflation as the demand for workers greatly outstrips supply, resulting in too-large wage hikes to attract workers. That in turn means production shortages, higher prices, and inefficencies as industries and services are crippled by labor shortages.

A modest buffer of unemployment balances solid wage growth without it translating in to higher prices, and provides the liquidity in the labor market necessary to keeping it as efficent as possible. 4-5% tends to be the optimum range, with inflationary pressure building as you go below 4%.

No. just... no. it is *not* socialist.... it is *not* social-democratic.

Just look up the definition. You can say "welfare state", because that's a pretty wide statement. "Mixed economy" is right too, but has nothing to do with socialist or social-democratic.
The Skandinavian countries are social-democratic.
I can't think of any "real" socialist state.

I'd say it's light socialism or "regulated capitalism"

As far as i know it's a Democratic Monarchy, which is a contradiction isn't it? I mean A monarchy= government headed by king or queen by divine right, Democracy= A government headed by a "elected" official. I say "elected" for this reason:
Florida vote counter: Well it dosn't look like your brother won this state.
Jeb Bush: Well you better count 'em again, and make sure them numbers lean tords George ya hear?

Florida vote counter: Well it dosn't look like your brother won this state.
Jeb Bush: Well you better count 'em again, and make sure them numbers lean tords George ya hear?

God, somebody had to drag this one up. Bush won, and he won no matter what. :p

IMHO, the UK had a party at one time with a socialist ideal in its heart - the Labour Party. But over time (ever since the last major wave of strikes - late 70s, early 80s, the electorate in the UK seems loathe to vote for such things anymore, and the Labour Party is Labour in name only - they seem about as charming as Republicans in the US.

As an indication, I actually like Tony Blair, and believe he's a very intelligent man.

There may be some social programs, or government control of some vital services, but I have the feeling those days are numbered.

Given the seemingly bizarre interpretations of the socialism that have been floated around here recently, I thought I would do a quick unscientific survey: is the UK a socialist country?

According to Marxist theory it is. But I prefer to classify it as a mixed economy, on a scale of command---Mixed---Market. Every economy in the world is mixed. Especially in the first world. A few command economies(communism) exist not including china BTW. And maybe a few true market economies exist, possibly in Somalia(disputable), and in some societies too small to be noticed by states, or in countries with states so incompetent that can't exercise any control over some areas of their country(as in somalia presently), although in such cases local states often arise. Britain is very solidly mixed. The state controlls many industries, but by no means a majority, and taxes heavily.

- So-called "Conservative Party" leader said the Tories had a duty to "stand up to big business when it is in the interests of Britain and the world".


What the fuck? Would you prefer big business not to be opposed even when it's in the interests of the entire fucking country?

Now that's being blinded by an ideology.

Isn't the UK a constitutional monarchy or something like that?

Isn't the UK a constitutional monarchy or something like that?

Socalism is an economic system. You've described a political one.

Not sure how a country in which all the major parties are right-wing or right-of-centre can be described as "socialist", especially when the economy is left to the market and not in the least state-run...

If you compare it to the US, then it has some socially-oriented principles at least. But the US is hardly an accurate point of comparison; it's more right-wing (in every sense of the word) than any other Western nation.

As far as i know it's a Democratic Monarchy, which is a contradiction isn't it? I mean A monarchy= government headed by king or queen by divine right, Democracy= A government headed by a "elected" official.

Nope, no contradiction. The UK government is headed by an elected official, the Prime Minister. The monarch is a mere symbolic figure head. She's not part of the government.

The Uk is not Socialist but its getting pretty dam close to it...

But considering that both Scotland and Wales are seeking independance :|

Not sure how a country in which all the major parties are right-wing or right-of-centre can be described as "socialist", especially when the economy is left to the market and not in the least state-run...

If you compare it to the US, then it has some socially-oriented principles at least. But the US is hardly an accurate point of comparison; it's more right-wing (in every sense of the word) than any other Western nation.



Nope, no contradiction. The UK government is headed by an elected official, the Prime Minister. The monarch is a mere symbolic figure head. She's not part of the government.

Also it should be known that our system is called a Constitutional Monarchy

No, not entirely. Unemployment for those unwilling to hold a job is admirable, and frankly, the free "education" one recieves at a comprehensive "school" is risable.
Huh? Do you mean in Britain or in general? (free education)

According to Marxist theory it is. .


Huh? In what way?

Oh, and it's not free, it costs us tens of billions of pounds per year, you just dont have any choice about paying for it. Personally I think that's worse than having to pay "at point of delivery".


No, you see, the point of education being 'free at the point of delivery' is that a lot of people couldn't afford education so the community pays them for it. A sort of 'robin hood' ideal if you will.

Free Education and Health Care can even be justified by Capitalist Rationale -

Education.

A capitalist society is supposed to be a 'meritocracy' The only way that you can get everyone in your economy to achieve their maximum potential is to educate them to the maximum standard they can achieve. If they cannot afford this, then you must do it for them. A well educated workforce is a skilled workforce; in the modern, industrialised economy a country thrives on a skilled workforce. If you do not provide free education, then vast intellects may go uncovered and your country could miss out on revolutionary genius.

Healthcare.

A healthy workforce is more efficient. It is in the interests of the country in general to keep its workforce in good health. A patch work private system is inherently more inefficient at this than a comprehensive system.

For example, one company may keep its employees in good health by providing health insurance and another may not, but if the employees of the companies mix, then the employees with medical insurance will be in contact with the higher rate of infectious diseases amongst the uninsured, and thus are more likely to contract the diseases. (Also the diseases will have more chance to adapt to immunity than if everyone was immunised).

It can be good, because full employment would do nothing but create hyperinflation as the demand for workers greatly outstrips supply, resulting in too-large wage hikes to attract workers. That in turn means production shortages, higher prices, and inefficencies as industries and services are crippled by labor shortages.

A modest buffer of unemployment balances solid wage growth without it translating in to higher prices, and provides the liquidity in the labor market necessary to keeping it as efficent as possible. 4-5% tends to be the optimum range, with inflationary pressure building as you go below 4%.


I didn't say full employment. I said low unemployment. Low unemployment is better that high unemployment.

In any case inflationary pressure would only build if the economy was in a non-equilibrium state (which is the problem with the current system, in that it always demands growth so equilibrium is virtually never reached - this is unsustainable in the long run). Also, the equilibrium unemployment level varies country to country, so 4-5% may be the rate for the US, but it is not necessarily the same everywhere (basically because the inflationary pressure will be less the lower the growth rate of the economy is and will be more the greater the growth rate of the economy.

According to Marxist theory it is.


Trust me, as a Marxist, it really isn't.

If you live in a country where you still have a boss then you don't live in a socialist country. Pretty simple, eh?

Trust me, as a Marxist, it really isn't.

If you live in a country where you still have a boss then you don't live in a socialist country. Pretty simple, eh?

Ummm.... technically, if there's a Party, someone has to be in charge. And if we all work at a factory owned by the State, technically, there have to be people in charge.

That would make them bosses IMHO.

Any time you organize more than a few people to do something (say, over 100 people to do something) you're going to need an executive (even if it's a small number of people who comprise the executive).

Or are we all going to become telepathic on a mass level and cooperate as a single mind?

Ummm.... technically, if there's a Party, someone has to be in charge. And if we all work at a factory owned by the State, technically, there have to be people in charge.

That would make them bosses IMHO.

Any time you organize more than a few people to do something (say, over 100 people to do something) you're going to need an executive (even if it's a small number of people who comprise the executive).

Or are we all going to become telepathic on a mass level and cooperate as a single mind?

I meant a boss in the sense that your boss owns the company, is unelected and takes managerial decisions without worker involvement.

I meant a boss in the sense that your boss owns the company, is unelected and takes managerial decisions without worker involvement.

Most people in management positions don't own the company, at least here in the US. Companies are owned by shareholders - many of whom may be employees (I own a lot of stock in the company I work for, as an example).

Major decisions by the company have to be approved by the shareholders, and we vote to appoint a board of directors (who in turn appoint the CEO).

What happens if everyone who works for a company owns stock, and is thereby vested as a part owner in the company (as well as being an employee)?

What happens if everyone who works for a company owns stock, and is thereby vested as a part owner in the company (as well as being an employee)?

It would still be capitalist...

Or at the very most (and I don't think there are any companies like this), if there were no other shareholders and every employee owned the exact same number of shares and was therefore paid an equal share of the net profit (rather than a wage) then it would technically be operating a quazi-socialist system. It would be operating a socialist ideal in a capitalist system.

I meant a boss in the sense that your boss owns the company, is unelected and takes managerial decisions without worker involvement.
This is a silly, outdated view of business. Almost all big businesses are Plcs and shares in these companies can be bought and sold freely. The shareholders "own" the company, and the "boss" (actually a board of directors) only takes executive decisions on behalf of and can be replaced by the shareholders. I would much rather work for a business run by people with managerial acumen appointed by people with a serious financial interest in the business than by a load of random employees who may or may not actually have a clue what the hell they're doing.

Look, I can't be arsed with getting into the details now but all I'm saying is that the fact that we live in a country where a company is owned by a single person or group of people and have managers that you didn't choose shows that it isn't a socialist society.

The Uk is not Socialist but its getting pretty dam close to it...
No. It's getting less socialist.

But considering that both Scotland and Wales are seeking independance :|
And this is relevant how, exactly?

No, Britain is missing a few obvious aspects of socialism, namely the ownership and management of the means of production by the working class.

No. It's getting less socialist.
Public spending is increasing, civil liberties are decreasing... nope, it's getting more Socialist.

Public spending is increasing, civil liberties are decreasing... nope, it's getting more Socialist.
Getting less scoialists, privitisation of rail companys for example. 'Foundation' hospitals, 'Acadimy schools'. (Big buisness schools...well...thats a good idea isn't it. NOT!) britian is unfortuntly getting less and less socalist. Soon we'll have no NHS, if it was up to me I'd takes us abck to where we where in the 60's.

All of that stuff is still completely state funded and ultimately state controlled. Personally, I would much rather be taught a curriculum set by big business than one set by the Labour Party. At least the big business one might have something vaguely to do with gaining useful skills, rather than the Labour one which teaches geology and plate tectonics in Chemistry, when neither of those have anything to do with chemistry, and with 20% of the marks on the science exams coming from pointing out the environmental implications of technology. In my opinion, it would be much more efficient and fair to privatise the NHS, lawer taxes drastically and then just give the poor free health insurance (good health insurance, not crap "medicare" like the yanks do). Meh.

Increasing public spending =/= socialism. Decreasing civil liberties =/= socialism. As for learning the curriculum from big business... words fail me. Let me know if you ever get any political power and I'll do my utmost to make sure you lose it.

Increasing public spending =/= socialism. Decreasing civil liberties =/= socialism. As for learning the curriculum from big business... words fail me. Let me know if you ever get any political power and I'll do my utmost to make sure you lose it.
Thats actually happening in britian right now!

And how come Decreasing civil libertys=socalism?

yeeeh a decrease in civil liberties is Totalitarian or Conservative. I think that the UK is Socialist Minded (the people are mainly socialist) and the government is Liberal. Which is like socialism, except the rich get richer.
What are we to learn from this? DONT VOTE LABOUR

good portrayal and i agree with your points. the UK is not a socialist country, nor a democratic socialist, but a social democrat, fine lines, but still defined. i think being part of the EU can also be seen as proof that it is as it ia.

It depends. It's a social democratic country, definately. For one, we are ruled by a bunch of bafoons called the "Labour Party". Anyway, let us examine the evidence:

- Tax rate pushing 50%.
- Government pensions.
- NHS.
- Free Education for all.
- State is largest single employer.
- Massive increases in public spending and public sector employment.
- Low unemployment rate.
- Regulated pricing for rail travel.
- If you criticise the concept of having a welfare state people look at you funny.
- So-called "Conservative Party" leader said the Tories had a duty to "stand up to big business when it is in the interests of Britain and the world".
- There is a general bias towards left-wing views without actually examining the argument fully.
- All branches of government riddled with "political correctness".
- Oil companies have special taxes which are increased when oil prices rise (what the hell was Brown thinking?)

Increasing public spending =/= socialism. Decreasing civil liberties =/= socialism. As for learning the curriculum from big business... words fail me. Let me know if you ever get any political power and I'll do my utmost to make sure you lose it.
Well personally I would like to see the curriculum set by an independent group of well respected people from each field, rather than by the government or big business. All Im saying is that as someone with immediate experience of the British education system, I would rather have my curriculum set by a group of people with a vested interest in teaching me skills required to come and work for them rather than a group of people with a vested interest in subtly teaching me a political viewpoint.

Less civil liberties doesnt necessarily mean socialism, but socialism required a less free market, and usually less free people. As you can see, people like Stalin are authoritarian left wingers - http://www.digitalronin.f2s.com/politicalcompass/analysis2.php - if you cant admit that taxing people for owning property and attempting to decrease peoples' ability to freely make businesses is illiberal then you are just in denial.

rather than the Labour one which teaches geology and plate tectonics in Chemistry, when neither of those have anything to do with chemistry, and with 20% of the marks on the science exams coming from pointing out the environmental implications of technology.

What syllabus teaches that?

And what is wrong with being taught the environmental implications of technology?

Well personally I would like to see the curriculum set by an independent group of well respected people from each, rather than by the government or big business. All Im saying is that as someone with immediate experience of the British education system, I would rather have my curriculum set by a group of people with a vested interest in teaching me skills required to come and work for them rather than a group of people with a vested interest in subtly teaching me a political viewpoint.



The QCA (Qualification and Curriculum Authority) set the curriculum, not the Government but the Government does pay for it.

What syllabus teaches that?
The British national curriculum.

And what is wrong with being taught the environmental implications of technology?
Because many that havent be proved to occur are presented as fact, and because they dont deserve proportion of the marks they have been allocated. Science should be about science, not why we shouldnt pursue science.

The QCA (Qualification and Curriculum Authority) set the curriculum, not the Government but the Government does pay for it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/QCA

Calling this organisation independent is absurd.

The British national curriculum.

Err, which one.

In England there are AQA, EDEXCEL and OCR. In Scotland WJEC. Wales, SQA.

There are also different syllabuses (syllabi?) one can do within each of the above.

Because many that havent be proved to occur are presented as fact,

Such as?

and because they dont deserve proportion of the marks they have been allocated.

Why do you think that?

Science should be about science, not why we shouldnt pursue science.

Do you not think it would be benefitial for pupils to be encouraged to think about why science should be studied, rather then to simply be taught by rote?

Well personally I would like to see the curriculum set by an independent group of well respected people from each field, rather than by the government or big business. All Im saying is that as someone with immediate experience of the British education system, I would rather have my curriculum set by a group of people with a vested interest in teaching me skills required to come and work for them rather than a group of people with a vested interest in subtly teaching me a political viewpoint.

Less civil liberties doesnt necessarily mean socialism, but socialism required a less free market, and usually less free people. As you can see, people like Stalin are authoritarian left wingers - http://www.digitalronin.f2s.com/politicalcompass/analysis2.php - if you cant admit that taxing people for owning property and attempting to decrease peoples' ability to freely make businesses is illiberal then you are just in denial.
Education isn't and shouldn't be about skills for employment (though this is regrettably changing). That's why we still study history, philosophy and English literature.

The political compass is simple-minded nonsense. And "less free market" is not the same as (or =/=, though some people don't seem to know of this notation) "less free people". I know you wrote "usually less free people", but the implication is there that an overall reduction in civil freedoms follows a reduction economic freedoms. You only have to look at nations like Sweden to see that this doesn't hold water.

Now, full-blown state-driven attempts to implement socialism do almost universally result in a clampdown on civil liberties. But let's put this in a British context: until the last couple of years, when has the Conservative party - i.e. the party of the right - [b]ever[/i] stood for greater civil liberties than its political rivals? Answer: never. It has always been the left that has defended civil liberties in this country, which makes New Labour's actions all the more sickening.

Err, which one.

In England there are AQA, EDEXCEL and OCR. In Scotland WJEC. Wales, SQA.

There are also different syllabuses (syllabi?) one can do within each of the above.
Ah yes, I forgot about that. It would be the English one then. And the individual exam boards can only operate within the bounds of the QCA, which is not an independent organisation.

Such as?
Errr... global warming?

Why do you think that?
Because the exam is on science, not environmentalism. Questions like "What environmental impact do plastic-based products have?" with answer like: "Birds become easily trapped in some plastic objects and they require desposal in landfill sites which are eyesores" have little to do with science, in my opinion, and much better questions which are much more useful could be asked in their place.

Do you not think it would be benefitial for pupils to be encouraged to think about why science should be studied, rather then to simply be taught by rote?
False dilemma fallacy. You can be taught scientific method and you can be taught how conclusions are reached so that you are taught conceptually rather than by rote, but questions like "How should as 21st century students view the work fo Fritz Haber in developing explosives?" is nothing to do with science, it is to do with ideology and morality.

Err, which one.

In England there are AQA, EDEXCEL and OCR. In Scotland WJEC. Wales, SQA.

And then another entirely different system in NI.

Good grief. Global warming is fact. Even the business community and the US government now acknowledge this.

Ah yes, I forgot about that. It would be the English one then. And the individual exam boards can only operate within the bounds of the QCA, which is not an independent organisation.

There are four.

And the bounds of the QCA aren't that tight. And there are also various syllabuses within the exam boards.

Errr... global warming?

Is there a huge debate on that. Or is it like evolution and ID?

(honestly I don't know, I don't recall ever being taught about global warming)


False dilemma fallacy. You can be taught scientific method and you can be taught how conclusions are reached so that you are taught conceptually rather than by rote, but questions like "How should as 21st century students view the work fo Fritz Haber in developing explosives?" is nothing to do with science, it is to do with ideology and morality.

Did you actually get that question?

(Though yeah, nothing to do with science, as far as I can see)

And then another entirely different system in NI.

Yeah, I thought as much, but had no idea what it was called.

Education isn't and shouldn't be about skills for employment (though this is regrettably changing). That's why we still study history, philosophy and English literature.
I quite agree, but as I said, given the choice of options that are available[/i I would choose the business one.

The political compass is simple-minded nonsense. And "less free market" is not the same as (or =/=, though some people don't seem to know of this notation) "less free people".
Yes it is. How can you have the same level of freedom if massive amounts of your income are taken, or if you arent allowed to set up a business?

I know you wrote "[i]usually less free people", but the implication is there that an overall reduction in civil freedoms follows a reduction economic freedoms. You only have to look at nations like Sweden to see that this doesn't hold water.
In Sweden the majority of small companies have no employees because it's so expensive to employ anyone and once you have paid taxes you have practically no disposable income left. Im not saying that socialist state always = less free than capitalist state, but all else being equal, it almost always does.

Now, full-blown state-driven attempts to implement socialism do almost universally result in a clampdown on civil liberties. But let's put this in a British context: until the last couple of years, when has the Conservative party - i.e. the party of the right - ever stood for greater civil liberties than its political rivals? Answer: never. It has always been the left that has defended civil liberties in this country, which makes New Labour's actions all the more sickening.
I dont accept that. The Conservatives rejected ID card proposals, they didnt introduce ASBOs (ie. now anything can be made illegal on the spot by a judge and carry a prison sentence), imprisonment without trial, smoking bans, Etc. The Conservative Party as it is now and under Margret Thatcher is far more liberal than Labour. Nanny-state socialists generally are inclined to do these things, as we have seen.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/QCA

Calling this organisation independent is absurd.

How so?

The Qualifications and Curriculum Authority (QCA) is a non-departmental public body of the Department for Education and Skills in the United Kingdom.

I other words, they cannot impose any decision on them. Michael Howard got into serious trouble when he threatened to fire the head of the prison service when he was home secretary

There are four.

And the bounds of the QCA aren't that tight. And there are also various syllabuses within the exam boards.
THe differences between exam boards is tiny and they all act in the way I have described. The bit about adding geology to the chemistry sylabus was actually a Labour directive, according to my chemistry teacher at least.

Is there a huge debate on that. Or is it like evolution and ID?

(honestly I don't know, I don't recall ever being taught about global warming)
There is a debate, but all the anti-global warming studies are being attack as being funded by big business, which is generally true, but you never hear anyone attack a study as being biased because it was made by Greenpeace. The only thing that has been demonstrated is a vague correlation between CO2 and temperature. Many of the previously accepted predictions have now been debunked (ie. Hockey Stick graph).

Did you actually get that question?

(Though yeah, nothing to do with science, as far as I can see)
I paraphrased, but that question is in the OCR GCSE Chemistry textbook. Admittedly, it is the worst I have seen.

fat fucking chance it is

How so?

I other words, they cannot impose any decision on them. Michael Howard got into serious trouble when he threatened to fire the head of the prison service when he was home secretary
It means that the Government can disband them whenever they want. Also this:

QCA works closely with its main strategic partners, including the Department for Education and Skills (DfES), the Office for Standards in Education (Ofsted), the Adult Learning Inspectorate (ALI) , employers' organisations, the Teacher Training Agency (TTA), the Learning and Skills Council (LSC), the General Teaching Council for England (GTCE) and the Sector Skills Councils (SSC).
Means that the Government advises everything they do. In reality, the Government has a greatd eal of influence over them.

I dont accept that. The Conservatives rejected ID card proposals,

Didn't Mickey H. propose something similar when he was home secretary.

imprisonment without trial,

Internment?

smoking bans,

Bah, petty populism.

Not anything to do with being either socialist[-lite] or conservative.

Etc. The Conservative Party as it is now and under Margret Thatcher is far more liberal than Labour.

Err... Yeah...

Nanny-state socialists generally are inclined to do these things, as we have seen.

I take it by "Nanny state socialists" you mean "New Labour," which is laughable.


To try and claim any of the parties are the party of liberalism and civil liberties is absurd today.

I dont accept that. The Conservatives rejected ID card proposals, they didnt introduce ASBOs (ie. now anything can be made illegal on the spot by a judge and carry a prison sentence), imprisonment without trial, smoking bans, Etc. The Conservative Party as it is now and under Margret Thatcher is far more liberal than Labour. Nanny-state socialists generally are inclined to do these things, as we have seen.
I've left the other points as I can see we're not getting anywhere. I don't think your opinion's invalid; I just don't agree. It's perhaps more of a matter of perception than anything else.

Now, regarding the point I've quoted above... The Tories rejected Labour's ID card proposals, etc, but that's not to say that they opposed them on principle. But, regardless, I was talking about traditional positions on liberties. The Tories have only in the last few years come round to social liberalism. This is a new (and significant) change in British politics. Thatcherite Conservatism was certainly not socially or politically liberal. Indeed, Labour's disgusting position on imprisonment without trial reads like a traditional Tory's wet dream.

And rest assured, I oppose all of the measures you describe.

By the way - where else should we teach geology? The earlier it gets in the education system, the better, in my view.

It means that the Government can disband them whenever they want.
With a valid reason yes


Means that the Government advises everything they do. In reality, the Government has a great deal of influence over them.

I'm sorry but what do you expect? Anyone who thinks their education system has no influence by their government is clearly got their head in the clouds. The fact that it isn't directly controlled by the Government is as good as its going to get. You think that any Government that bankrolls something they don't expect any influence? Come on

Didn't Mickey H. propose something similar when he was home secretary.
It was considered, but voted down.

Internment?
True, but internment was a new idea for combating terrorism then and it only lasted 4 years. Labour has gone that long already and doesnt seem to be changing its mind.

Bah, petty populism.
I would like to think so, but most of them seem to believe in it.

Not anything to do with being either socialist[-lite] or conservative.
Conservative isnt the opposite of Socialist. I assumed you meant the Conservative Party.

Err... Yeah...
I'll give you internment, but they didnt do ID Cards, they didnt try to abolish jury trials, they didnt try to ban smoking, they introduce anything like ASBOs, Etc. Etc.

I take it by "Nanny state socialists" you mean "New Labour," which is laughable.
Meh. They come worse than New Labour, but New Labour have tendancies towards nanny-statism.

To try and claim any of the parties are the party of liberalism and civil liberties is absurd today.
Probably. Im not trying to defend the Tories, Im trying to attack Labour. They are different. *shrug*

Because the exam is on science, not environmentalism. Questions like "What environmental impact do plastic-based products have?" with answer like: "Birds become easily trapped in some plastic objects and they require desposal in landfill sites which are eyesores" have little to do with science, in my opinion, and much better questions which are much more useful could be asked in their place.



err, there's actually a science called environmental science which deals with such things.

With a valid reason yes
No? For whatever reason it wants.

I'm sorry but what do you expect? Anyone who thinks their education system has no influence by their government is clearly got their head in the clouds. The fact that it isn't directly controlled by the Government is as good as its going to get. You think that any Government that bankrolls something they don't expect any influence? Come on
I dont understand the point of this paragraph. I never expressed any disbelief at Government control of education as you are now trying to ridicule, I said that I wanted an independent organisation to decide the curriculum, and then everyone (including you) started to attack me. Should I take it from your last post that you actually agree with me?

err, there's actually a science called environmental science which deals with such things.
If I wanted to learn "environmental science" (which I dont, quite honestly) I wouldnt take courses entitled "Biology", "Chemistry" and "Physics".

I don't know if Britian is a socialist country, and god help us iof it is. We have the monarchy so that could mean that we are constitutional monarchy, but then again the royal family don't do a lot so i suppose we are a libral democracy, but i personally want britian to be a bit more "violent" shall we say insted of nodding allong and agreeing with everyone.

If I wanted to learn "environmental science" (which I dont, quite honestly) I wouldnt take courses entitled "Biology", "Chemistry" and "Physics".

I don't know about you but when I was picking my GCSEs I could choose single, double or triple science, all of them included biology, chemistry and physics, you can't choose separate sciences until you get to AS level.

No? For whatever reason it wants.


On paper yes, in the real world no. You think there might be a little interest if suddenly the QCA was abolished? The Tories would have a field day, not to mention the press, its just not practical

I don't know about you but when I was picking my GCSEs I could choose single, double or triple science, all of them included biology, chemistry and physics, you can't choose separate sciences until you get to AS level.

Back around the dawn of time, circa 1986 or thereabouts, we were able to chose Physics, Chemistry and Biology individually as GCSEs (Northern Ireland, by the way). It shows how long ago this was that I needed to count on my fingers exactly how many GCSE's (and two O'Levels) I did, and then reconstruct exactly what subjects I studied against that tally. Things might well have changed since then.

If I wanted to learn "environmental science" (which I dont, quite honestly) I wouldnt take courses entitled "Biology", "Chemistry" and "Physics".

The same could be said for "electronics", yet it is taught as part of physics...

The same could be said for "electronics", yet it is taught as part of physics...
Quite.

Youy can take sperate sciences, but many schools prefer to do double award science to cut down of the workload on students. As for plate techtonics being taught in chemistry, I completely agree that it is wrong for it to be taught in chemistry, hwoever it has to be taught somewhere!

No, we're a constitutional monarchy with a relatively ok level of democracy.