A very insightful view, thank you for sharing this, to be honest im a bit lost about which way to go, if any at all, for the first time ever i see myself as lumped in with "They are all as bad as each other" whats the point do i just spoil the ballot brigade. The points you made about the labour candidate about looking out for their ward and people they cover is valid, but shouldn't that be a given for all politicians or elected people, if this is something to consider when making a vote then we are in a bad situation, that should go without saying the elected person should work hard for the people they represent, if this is all we got to go on, i dont know.............i think thats the problem overall.
Thank you too for sharing your thoughts. I agree that representing local interests should be the first and central role of any local representative. But there is, like in any time when you re selecting candidates for a job, a difference in how that can be done. Individuals have talents, it's our decisions as to which set of talents and skills get the job. I get the feelings about spoiling the ballot. I have done that myself in the past. But I would suggest that, ignoring all of the national ramifications, we all have the part in selecting an individual for a role that will come with a cost to us of between 500K and 1M over the next 5 years. So my thinking is that we should vote, if there is a candidate that you think warrants your support.
@@WaterOrtonSteve Thank you Steve, yes i totally agree spoiling is very much a last resort...and perhaps looking at the smaller picture in this case might be the way to go rather than looking at it on a national level, i think a lot of people are just fed up of the bickering and name calling you see on tv and social media, seems all they do is attack each other rather than the problems at hand, i shall have a good think and get to the booth ready, thank you for your help and keep up the good work.
I'm not sure where you think you're going via comments from about 4-5 mins. There's something not quite right about it; in my understanding. A patriotic mind applied to education is £100bn per year for our collective business, of education, without teaching our children to hate their own country. That's the line. I would have said that it must be a good thing to teach our children about the history of our country in comparison to other countries so they can know and realise the reality, what a good place it is, with a legacy second to none. Teaching anything other than that from the history department, is surely a corruption. Otherwise a patriotic maths, physics, chemistry, French etc is not overly relevant given half a chance. ReformUK is not a hollow anything.
Thanks for the comment and feedback. I can only speak from my own experience as chair of governors of the local primary but I don't know where this idea of being taught to hate your own country comes from. It's just not a thing. There is, in the national curriculum, the teaching of British Values. I think that there is a massive dogwhistle going on. Focussing on an issue that doesn't really exist. When I have just £16 per pupil per day (compare that to the cost of childcare generally) to spend on all aspects of a pupils education - including staff - the thought of shelling out a raft of cash on an unnecessary addition at the expense of music, enrichment activities, art, sport is just ridiculous. Especially as there is no mention of extra funding coming in.
@@WaterOrtonSteve So you deny there is any kind of misrepresentation of British history and values in our schools, broadly, to some extent! And then claim lack of funding as a related issue.... You might think I ought to be disappointed with that kind of reaction/engagement. I mean how would you like it Mr Stuart? With 190 school days at £16/day that adds up to about £3000 per pupil per year. In a class of 30, that's £90,000 each year, and 6 classes of 30 pupils per year is £540,000. Teachers at £30,000+ per year. Other costs. Our collective business.
@@richarddelanet I am not going to pretend I know the situation in every single school in the country. I'm not that arrogant. But there is nothing like you mention in any school I have an involvement in or have visited. There wasn't any specific teaching of British Values when I went to school. To have that addition now I think would be something that you would welcome rather than it being seen as a backwards step. I'm not sure about what misrepresentation of British History you refer to. Personally I feel there should be much more social history taught rather than kings and queens. I see the talk in some quarters which are concerned about teaching about the links between empire and slave trade, but when, where and for how long are these matters taught in comparison to the whole breadth of education. Even if it were the case - sledgehammer to crack a nut springs to mind. Don't you also think that history is also about the evaluation of myriad sources. If there wasn't more than one interpretation of history how many history books would there be. I think that we should be concentrating on teaching children on how to think rather than what to think. But, I will concede this point, that this is an area which could be used inappropriately. But no more inappropriately that the converse being put into place. The point about funding is simply to detail that unless any changes to curriculum come with funding attached it means that there will be a loss of other areas of delivery to kids. This will effect different kids to different levels.
Have you actually read the National Curriculum History syllabus.?
A very insightful view, thank you for sharing this, to be honest im a bit lost about which way to go, if any at all, for the first time ever i see myself as lumped in with "They are all as bad as each other" whats the point do i just spoil the ballot brigade. The points you made about the labour candidate about looking out for their ward and people they cover is valid, but shouldn't that be a given for all politicians or elected people, if this is something to consider when making a vote then we are in a bad situation, that should go without saying the elected person should work hard for the people they represent, if this is all we got to go on, i dont know.............i think thats the problem overall.
Thank you too for sharing your thoughts.
I agree that representing local interests should be the first and central role of any local representative. But there is, like in any time when you re selecting candidates for a job, a difference in how that can be done. Individuals have talents, it's our decisions as to which set of talents and skills get the job.
I get the feelings about spoiling the ballot. I have done that myself in the past. But I would suggest that, ignoring all of the national ramifications, we all have the part in selecting an individual for a role that will come with a cost to us of between 500K and 1M over the next 5 years. So my thinking is that we should vote, if there is a candidate that you think warrants your support.
@@WaterOrtonSteve Thank you Steve, yes i totally agree spoiling is very much a last resort...and perhaps looking at the smaller picture in this case might be the way to go rather than looking at it on a national level, i think a lot of people are just fed up of the bickering and name calling you see on tv and social media, seems all they do is attack each other rather than the problems at hand, i shall have a good think and get to the booth ready, thank you for your help and keep up the good work.
I am 67 years of age, have never voted in an election, and never will. I am totally opposed to democracy.
I'm not sure where you think you're going via comments from about 4-5 mins. There's something not quite right about it; in my understanding. A patriotic mind applied to education is £100bn per year for our collective business, of education, without teaching our children to hate their own country. That's the line. I would have said that it must be a good thing to teach our children about the history of our country in comparison to other countries so they can know and realise the reality, what a good place it is, with a legacy second to none. Teaching anything other than that from the history department, is surely a corruption. Otherwise a patriotic maths, physics, chemistry, French etc is not overly relevant given half a chance. ReformUK is not a hollow anything.
Thanks for the comment and feedback.
I can only speak from my own experience as chair of governors of the local primary but I don't know where this idea of being taught to hate your own country comes from. It's just not a thing. There is, in the national curriculum, the teaching of British Values.
I think that there is a massive dogwhistle going on. Focussing on an issue that doesn't really exist.
When I have just £16 per pupil per day (compare that to the cost of childcare generally) to spend on all aspects of a pupils education - including staff - the thought of shelling out a raft of cash on an unnecessary addition at the expense of music, enrichment activities, art, sport is just ridiculous. Especially as there is no mention of extra funding coming in.
@@WaterOrtonSteve So you deny there is any kind of misrepresentation of British history and values in our schools, broadly, to some extent! And then claim lack of funding as a related issue.... You might think I ought to be disappointed with that kind of reaction/engagement. I mean how would you like it Mr Stuart?
With 190 school days at £16/day that adds up to about £3000 per pupil per year. In a class of 30, that's £90,000 each year, and 6 classes of 30 pupils per year is £540,000. Teachers at £30,000+ per year. Other costs. Our collective business.
@@richarddelanet
I am not going to pretend I know the situation in every single school in the country. I'm not that arrogant. But there is nothing like you mention in any school I have an involvement in or have visited.
There wasn't any specific teaching of British Values when I went to school. To have that addition now I think would be something that you would welcome rather than it being seen as a backwards step.
I'm not sure about what misrepresentation of British History you refer to. Personally I feel there should be much more social history taught rather than kings and queens.
I see the talk in some quarters which are concerned about teaching about the links between empire and slave trade, but when, where and for how long are these matters taught in comparison to the whole breadth of education. Even if it were the case - sledgehammer to crack a nut springs to mind.
Don't you also think that history is also about the evaluation of myriad sources. If there wasn't more than one interpretation of history how many history books would there be.
I think that we should be concentrating on teaching children on how to think rather than what to think. But, I will concede this point, that this is an area which could be used inappropriately. But no more inappropriately that the converse being put into place.
The point about funding is simply to detail that unless any changes to curriculum come with funding attached it means that there will be a loss of other areas of delivery to kids. This will effect different kids to different levels.