Search This Blog

Monday, 14 October 2013

Education: It should be the State versus Parents

Education should be an area of conflict between parents and the state. To favour “parent-led education” is to oppose oneself to the state’s legitimate concern for the future.

States rarely aim to dissolve themselves. They aim to stay in business indefinitely. Without a constant supply of new children, they are doomed. Without a constant supply of talented, well-educated and willing new citizens, they are doomed to decline. It is in the state’s interests to provide the best education it can – and with no regard for the origins of the children for whose education it is responsible. The state needs the best, regardless.

Parents have different ideas. In the United Kingdom their most common aspiration is this: to ensure that their children do not end up at a lower position in the Table of Ranks than they themselves. They reckon that faith schools, free schools and private schools can ensure this outcome. No matter how dull or malevolent their children, if only they are kept away from the riff-raff (the Untouchables at the bottom of the Table of Ranks) then their future is secure. There is always going to be somebody who will employ them at the same level of salary and status as their parents enjoy. Eton does it at the top and your local Faith School does it in the middle.

From the point of view of the state, this is a disastrous way of thinking. Worse, it works. Parents – with a lot of collusion from employers, private and public – ensure that there is almost no “social mobility” in the United Kingdom.

And it will probably remain that way because the state is cursed with a representative democracy where political parties are too weak, too intellectually enfeebled, to take on parents and their vested interests in social immobility - in the existing classte system.

Instead of challenging this immobilism, political parties collude with it. They favour school uniform because it distinguishes children who come from nice homes and go to nice schools from the riff-raff, the underclass. They favour parent-led education knowing that only the sharp-elbowed middling classes will lead (though probably guided by some religious quack).

And so it will continue all through the United Kingdom’s next century of decline.

Saturday, 5 October 2013

Waitrose and The Daily Mail: campaigning for the Conservatives

This morning at Waitrose, the check outs are piled with copies of the Daily Mail and the Daily Telegraph. They are running a big Promotion. It seems that Waitrose has fired the opening shots in the next General Election campaign. They want the Conservatives to win.

It used to seem a good idea to shop at Waitrose. As part of the John Lewis Partnership, it does not have shareholders but instead employee “Partners” who share in the profits. So it seemed a progressive organisation. But perhaps all the Partners were all along secret Tories.

They are also ardent Monarchists. A Waitrose bag bears the crests of the Queen and the Heir to the Throne, Prince Charles. I guess they are already working to secure the Crests of our future heads of state, Prince William and Prince George. (Britain is peculiar – we already know who our Heads of State are going to be for the next hundred years.)

I avoid the bags - I’m a Republican -  but it’s a bit harder to avoid the Duchy Originals. 

Buy any of Prince Charles’ products and you are automatically taxed for a contribution to one of his charities, all very worthy but not ones you have chosen. And creating Feelgood for Prince Charles.

I guess I should be shopping at Sainsbury’s (Labour) or Tesco (Tory and Zionist but apart from the Kosher food they don’t ram it down your throat).

I don’t think I can take much more Daily Mail patriotism from Waitrose.