What the left thinks of the right

Sir Graphus

Though, as Alan Milburn says, the policies of the Left make it more likely that the Somali boy will fail. What this boy needs is a grammar school.

David Vinter,

Hyman has a limited view of UK education history. My grandfather B 1876 a farm labourer, left his tiny village school aged 10. Yet he raised a family of 5 born from 1904---1924. 3 went to our local grammar school [still active].
The local rural district council provided uniforms for poor children. Hyman should work to get many more such schools today, every child should have the option to be tested, snobbery is in Mr Hymans' mind.

Andy Leeds

Show Peter Hyman doesn't have a clue. You are right the things like school choice would help the child far more. The difference between the Left and Right centres on how you achieve these things. The problem is the Left always seems to slide further into tyranny and oppression - even the so called 'democratic Left'. Look how authoritarian Labour have become. This is classic Left at work.

Hysteria

I think the comment by the left is arrogant and insulting....I am sure other CH folk will have their own expressions.

But how many times do we have to say it? - the right is about equality of opportunity (not outcome)- which would specifically address the concerns the left guy describes.

The socialist thinks the world can be managed and changed by tinkering with the outcomes - the right wing thinker believes that you should focus on the inputs and let the human being use their ability to deliver the best output they can.

Something like that....

Rainer Unsinn

The practical application of left-wing politics (as far as ZaNu Labour are left-wing) is that education is dumbed down to the lowest common denominator and excellence is stifled.

Labour want this very bright child to have the same opportunities as the least intelligent in the school, not the other way around.

John Wilkes

Your comments are spot on. It is the lefts enduring fallacy to think that just because you are on the right and/or conservative that you must be entirely self-centred. Some undoubtedly are but huge numbers of people believe what they do because that is how they believe others will be helped out of their poverty and lack of opportunity. It is equally the case that what can be most irritating from the perspective of the right is how the lefts policies foster a dependency culture which condemns those who want to get out to be trapped by a rigid view of "them and us". Your message should be repeated again and again because otherwise the genuinely progressive thinking on the right is drowned out by constant claims about uncaring Tories.

Alfred T Mahan

It really is an astounding feat of hope over experience that the Left think as they do. All the evidence is that sensible, moderately right wing policies actually succeed better than leftie panaceas involving government intervention when it comes to social mobility and improving the absolute lot of the poor. Yet this childish delusion that only the left have hearts is almost universal.

There is a world waiting for someone who clearly articulates that the right have the answers for the less-well off, not the left.

Malcolm

I have been training youngsters in one of this country's premier youth organisations for more than 36 years. I do what I do for reasons similar to Mr Hyman. I am right of centre. Are my efforts any less effective than his?

I regard this as a completely spurious argument. The left cannnot claim this ground as their own.

Ian C

This is an unbelievably (well, it is because of the source) arrogant presumption on his part.

The right wants all to succeed, but to achieve tha society must stand back and facilitate the best action - not to prescriptively dictate what is best for that or any other child.

It is that arrogance of the left and the pure self-promotive, high ground presumption that is so despicable.

It is both downright dangerous and offensive - offensive because it questions that unless you are 'of the left' that others do not have well-intentioned motivation that it claims it is only possible on their side of the fence.

It is an outrageous piece of arrogance.

Mark C

The difference between the left and the right is that the left think they have a monopoly of compassion and reason whereas the right think they have a monopoly of reason.

Publius

The mistake the Left makes is to think that systems, rather than the cultivation of human virtue, will lead to the good life.

Thus we see the Left's constant attempt, when their systems fail (as they inevitably do) to pile yet more systems on top of the existing failed ones.

The Left's other great mistake, linked to the above, is the belief that they can legislate away human vice, and build, through their systems, the proverbial city on the hill. They think they can rebuild the human soul.

I generalise, of course. There are notable and noble exceptions. But I think this goes to the core of it.

Paul B

It the age old arrogance of the left to think that only they care. Its that arrogance that then leads them (the letf) into policies of thinking the state is better placed to do more for the individual, than the individual can, and because of this to take other people property through taxation, Thin end of wedge, the left is inevitably totalitarian. Orwell had right many years ago

paracelsus

One of the biggest problems with the so-called 'left' is that they seem to assume they are the only ones who can solve such a situation. Their sheer arrogance and narrow mindedness is a major barrier in itself, and precludes any sensible, adult debate about development and opportunities for the poorest in our society.

I think the more we discuss this sort of bias online, the greater the chance for a real, open debate. Naturally, as with most cases, the solutions lie somewhere in the middle.

paracelsus

Yes, bring back grammar schools. None of these ridiculous academies, which have proved such a waste of money. Sheer desire to learn also plays a large part in such a case.

James

The left has always believed that it is so right that it can't be wrong. Another phrase would be 'the end justifies the means'. This has been NuLabs guiding principle for twelve years. They refuse to engage with the right and, when look like losing the argument, resort to lies, smears and name-calling. Only 10 months to go, but who knows how much damage they can do between now and then.

Robert Eve

The left always deludes itself.

Jim

The left has always seen its motives and objectives as morally superior to its opponents. Which is why left wing governments always descend into human rights abuses because when you 'know' you are 'better' than those opposing you, you feel entitled to deal with those opponents in any way you see fit. Because the ultimate goal of 'socialism'or 'communism' is always better than anything they can offer.

cuffleyburgers

"The left is deluding itself" - but that is what the left does.

Socialism fails, has always failed. 13 years of scottish presbyterian moral compass have actually made the position rather worse.

I believe there are people on the left who are genuinely good and well intentioned - your chum in the article is clearly one of them.

But they are also fundamentally stupid in that they fail to make the link between their pinko-grauniadism and the far nastier hypocritical toynbee-ism and the freedom denying stupidity of harmonism and the positively sickening incompetent, malicious and authoritarian Brownism, (which in any non-prime minister would be a clinical condition) which are its inevitable consequences.

Sorry but I have no time for pinkos - they can be good or they can be clever scheming bastards, but they can't be both.

People like the left because they love to be told they can succeed with out trying. And that making an effort is optional.

Evil or stupid.

Rosie

Alan Milburn at least has it partly right in his report - he puts the blame fairly on the poor teaching and aspirations of state schools for the widening of the social gap. It is not the so-called 'elitism' of good universities nor the 'rich' who are to blame; children who fail to get good GCSE's and A levels are failed by their schools if they are bright and able, so lots more good schools are needed.

TrevorsDen

Indeed Hyman is clueless and insulting.

His reasons are not reasons at all - they are just bigotry. It shows how empty the left are.

As someone on the right I want I demand equal opportunity. We have an education system which discriminates against the bright offers only mediocrity to everyone. We have a society after 12 years of left wing social engineering where this boys peers are more likely to assault him due to envy than applaud him.

Nicholas

It is a preposterous piece of fiction that as you note is more about caricaturing the Right than defining the Left. He blatently accuses those on the Right of being racist, class-bound snobs - in other words not just holding different political views but actually being in the moral wrong. There can be no meaningful debate on that basis (q.v. Clive Davis).

The Left's seizure of this moral high ground, when in fact most of the skeletons are in their own closet, is the final political battleground. It is the bogus narrative that has permitted the Left to triumph and inflict its miseries on the world.

sinosimon

i think it comes down to the origins of the left...the new hegelians, with their thesis, antithesis, synthesis, which morphs onto the marxian view of the perfection of society through the historical process( and by society they also mean the humans contained within it). as no-one ( barring the Dear Leader of course!) is perfect, this gives carte blanche to the state as the agent of change to continue to interfere in all all lives, whilst preaching that every measure is for our own good. The right tend to have a less elevated view of humankind, from the hobbesian nasty, brutish and short without state coercion through law........so if you think you are perfect, or likely to become so reasonably soon, vote Left!

Sally Chatterjee

Alan Milburn has just eloquently described how 11 years of Labour has made life harder for our Somali boy.

Still, Labour isn't the left, when it comes to education it's just a rag-tag collection of vested interests, sandwiched between the teaching unions, the LEAs and PFI contractors.

Time for a change perhaps, some fresh ideas?

Alf Tupper C.R.O.F.

"he will not have the networks and contacts, the openings and lucky breaks."

He'll get used to it. We all have.

Travis Bickle

The only way the left is on his side is in their endless attempts to penalise people who have worked hard to be successful, some of whom might once themselves have been in similar circumstances to this boy once, and drag them back down, rather than try and help social mobility for the poorest, aspiration my arse.

For this reason, other than the ermine, I cannot think of a single reason why Alan Sugar should be aligning himself with the party of repression and spite.

Olaf Rye

The left seems to have a rather perverse view of what it means to be on the 'right'. They reflexively refer to snobbery, intolerance, and a disregard for poverty. Many on the right despise this, too. In my case, I am on the right because I believe in the liberty of the individual--the freedom to not have my life governed and managed by social engineers. Moreover, a strong commitment to individual rights and freedoms is also the best defence against red and black fascism, where a mob of people decide all aspects of your life. The Somali lad that is the subject of the quote by Peter Hyman would probably welcome a society that sees him not as a refugee to be supported so that a cocktail party coterie feels good about themselves, but as a free human being that can decide his fate without the interference and tinkering of a groups of people.

Oscar

The Left have been indoctrinated into the conviction that they are the nice guys and the right are the nasty guys. It really is as insulting and stupid as that.

lawrence greek

Someone said 'school choice', someone else said 'a grammar school'. I think what really makes the difference is just a really good school.

The politicisation of our schools by Labour is its single biggest crime. Labour has failed kids like this up and down the country.

Verity

Why should the argument be presented in Hymans' terms, which is education? I refuse to play on his playing field.

One difference is that the left is working towards forcing One Worlderism on capitalistic countries. The right are resisting this surrender of nationality and patrimony. (And so is a large chunk of the left, in the entity of the BNP.)

Tinkering by the Left is always destructive.

Grumpy Old Man

It was not the Right who wanted to close "every Fucking Grammar School" in the country. It was not the Right who did away with assisted places. It was not the Right who did away with free university education. It was not the Right who lowered examination standards for party- political motives.

Wrinklybutnice

People keep saying that grammar schools are an outdated 50's notion that worked then but won't work now. I don't see why not.
Grammar schools, or academies (*real* academies as they were in Scotland), were the ideal vehicle to support clever but poor children. My brother and I were from a respectable but dirt-poor family in the West of Scotland. We both got to the Academy, and went on to University and professional careers. We were not just the first of our families to go to University, we were the first to stay at school beyond 12!
Our local primary school educated the children of the manse and the surgery as well as the children of Irish labourers. Our Academy took 25% of the top ability and as such was much more inclusive than an English grammar school. Our University at Glasgow respected the clever poor every bit as much as the quite clever rich and we all got on famously.
But maybe that's something we've lost in society - actually respecting the ambitions of the clever, never mind the clever poor. I understand from my children that to be a *boffin* even at a grammar school is now consider un-cool. And many parents just want a place at a grammar for social and behavioural reasons.
Grammars and Scottish academies - surely one of the most valuable elements of our culture that seems to have been lost.

luke

I think you need to give Hyman a little more credit here. Set aside the immediate politics of the left-right debate, and put this challenge in historical perspective.

Is it left-wing or progressive ideas (be they socialist or liberal) that have pushed out education to the masses or healthcare to the masses?

Im not saying the right hasnt reached an accomodation with these ideas, but it has never at any stage been a guiding priority of the right to extend educational opportunities.

It's similar to the debates about patriotism. The left is not unpatriotic, and would defend fiercly the suggestion that it was - but it probably hasnt, through the course of history, attached anything like the same priority to national status or national identity as the right has.

So im with Hyman. The right will try hard to show its ideas work for the yound somali boy - and at times it may even be right - but over time it wont be instinctively on the side of the boy, it will be fighting different battles and different causes.

George Laird

Dear All

Let us stop and remember that the people stopping people like the Somali boy are the same people who are stopping the poor working class getting social justice as well.

Rich middle class white folk.

Well done Milburn for highlighting my theme of corrupt Britain.

I have been mentioning this for such an awfully long time.

Yours sincerely

George Laird
The Campaign for Human Rights at Glasgow University

Tom Pride

Here we go again –

the sanctimonious, self-regarding, self-satisfied, self-justified, self-evident inherent moral superiority showing all their unattractive self-righteous intolerance.

Or as James Delingpole put it:

“The most obvious reason for this is that the right has all the arguments. In a straightforward debate, it will always win on facts, because Conservatism is a philosophy which springs from Empiricism and first principles: looking at the world as it is and seeing what works, rather than - as left-liberals do - trying to shape the world as it ought to be, if only we can somehow cram this square peg into this round hole.

This is why left-liberals are so often reduced to ad hominem assaults or plain smearing. Rather than engage with an argument they know they're going to lose, they will instead try to suggest that their right-wing opponents are so morally reprehensible that their every word is tainted and wrong.”

“And the reason so many in New Labour are finding it so difficult to understand why they have done anything wrong is this: at the heart of every left-liberal's political philosophy is his belief that his cause is so morally superior that any means, no matter how low, justifies the end of staying in power and furthering the noble "progressive" agenda.”

[Why Left-liberals make the most vicious smear merchants
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/james_delingpole/blog/2009/04/15/why_leftliberals_make_the_most_vicious_smear_merchants]

You see Collectivism / socialism / statism/ fascism just do not work in practice. Nice idea shame that you end up stamping on the liberties of the individual as you force that square peg into that round hole.

Why can they just not learn from their failures? Because they are mad.

“To Albert Einstein, an insane person was someone who repeated the same course of action over and over again while expecting a different result each time.”

http://www.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/3541216/welfare-reform-rerepeating.thtml

Fergus Pickering

The Left is a religion, like Climate Change and a bloody bad one. It has nothing to do with politics or choice. It is sentimental tosh. All of it. And fat bastards like, say Ed Balls, are the Pardoners and the Elmer Gantries. This guy's nonsense is just that, nonsense. He weeps tears over this Somali boy precisely because he doesn't care. Notice the key words 'gentle'(Jesus meek and mild), 'shy, modest'. In other words he is born to be a sort of teddy bear, not a human being, who might be aggressive, loud, foul-mouthe etc etc, like a lot of Somalis actually and, yes, a lot of low=life Brits. Why are you wasting your time, and ours, on this ridiculous tosh. The REAL difference between left and right, is that the left can't take life as they find it. They have to rewrite and lie. They are BAD PEOPLE!!!

jo joe jim jim III

There have been plenty of examples of free market success, and plenty of examples of socialist failure.

If socialism worked, there wouldn't be any poor children to worry about. But, thanks to the left, there are more than ever.

Laughing Gravy

I was born in 1939, I did not see my father until 1946 and his demob. My mother was effectively a single parent. I lived in a two up two down terraced house with an outside toilet. I went to the local primary school and was taught in a class of at least 50. My father worked at menial jobs all his life - but he worked. My mother did not work. I do not remember anyone of my class who could not read or write. I won a 'scholarship' to the local municipal grammar school. Everyone in my neighbourhood was proud of my success. I eventually became a Professor. After the war, my mother had two more children: one brother is a professional engineer, the other a solicitor. They did not have any help except that of an educational system that allowed them to fulfil their potential, a family that supported them, and a neighbourhood that valued their achievements as achievements of the community. Neighbours did not envy the success of others, they rejoiced in the success of one of their own. I do not think any of us suffered from barriers of snobbery or class. We are white, so race would not have been an issue. My own political journey started on the left - but I have moved to the right. Perhaps that is just a function of age - but I rather think it is a revulsion at the way in which left wing politicians have destroyed an educational system that fostered talent IN ALL and encouraged all to reach for their goal. That has made communities into dependency ghettos. That has devalued families. That has fostered a culture of envy, and that has blamed everyone but themselves for the awful mess that we now have.

MikeF

The left - or much of it - is obsessed with its own perception of itself. Many socialists think that the origins of socialism as a form of utopian thinking mean that they are intrinsically morally superior in everything that they think and do. As such their politics are fundamentally an exercise in narcissism.

But, of course, they also believe themselves to be intellectually superior, that they have some form of insight into and understanding of the reality of the world that is denied to others. Moreover when these two strands are fused together with the third element of their thinking, their belief that they are always acting in defence of under-privileged sections of society, you end up with what you all too often see today - a witches' brew of conceit, intolerance, self-righteousness and dogmatism implemented with stunningly inefficient bureaucratic rigidity.

I dare say this fellow Hyman genuinely wants this young Somali boy to succeed. I hope he wants every child in the school where he teaches to succeed. But given the type of company he keeps in his political life he has no right to presume or affect any sort of superiority over anyone who thinks differently to him.

Colin

I am in the right because, I don't fall into any of the three main constituencies that make up the left - namely, The Thick, The Naive and The Evil.

I'm also on the right because I've seen and experienced first hand, the damage that the left has wrought in the community I grew up in. (SW Scotland). Thanks Foulkes - you horses arse.

Stepney

My old man, born 1930, working class parents, working class neighbourhood, technical school. apprentice, 8 mile round bike ride to night school for 3 years, works hard, studies hard, ends up MD of Engineering company. No networks, no old boy links, no contacts, no lucky breaks. Just a good education grabbed with both hands, a determination to succeed and no problem with hard graft.

No social engineering either.

So what's the problem? The opportunities are there; so use them. Expect no favours apart form those you confer on yourself.

john miller

Socialists may start out like that. But as we have seen from our beloved PM on down(!?)wards, the Machiavellian thing soon rears its ugly head.

Obviously the little Somali boy should grow up and go to university. Hyman thinks this is his mission in life, to promote the Somali to the position he deserves.

So he legislates for it to happen. Given there are only a limited number of university places, someone must give way. Who? Well, obviously not someone from the same disadvantaged position in life. So it must be someone who has a cushy life and gets all they want. But we find that the rich and successful tend to get what they want. (As do MPs. Remember Hoon sitting outside the interviewer's door at his son's Uni?).

So it must be a middle class boy or girl who is excluded.

And Voila! We have Mr Milburn's report...

Real conservatives - as opposed to the cardboard cut-out toffs carried around Nantwich to frighten the hard of thinking - do voluntary work and contribute to charities to create extra resources. Socialists tend to reduce everything to the lowest common denominator.

john miller

Sorry for the double post.

I've just realised that it is the British way to support the underdog. Does that mean we are really all socialists?

Ray

Somali boys can make good: BBC war correspondent Rageh Omaar is living proof.

However, when Rageh came to Britain he was educated at an independent school. So perhaps there's the answer: give the lad a bursary and educate him privately (or at a grammar school, of course).

Christopher Chantrill

The young man is confused. He writes that "at least Thatcher was trying to change things." Then he says he can't understand conservatism and its not wanting to change the status quo. You mean like Thatcher?

Oh, and he's all in favour of literacy. Now I'd say that anyone that's passionate about literacy would say ditch the state school system that has utterly betrayed the poor and disadvantaged.

I'd say that anyone defending state schools was a defeatist afraid to change the status quo.

Jim

He'll probably make a fortune selling drugs to white working class people, ground down paying for Labour's debt crisis.

Andy

I'm definitely not on the left, but I would like this child to succeed, too. What would make him fail, I think, is the lack of opportunity to be stretched by a first class, selective education where excellence is valued and being forced to pay for any further education. Just remind me again - who introduced university top up fees?

steve

The Left will always want to appear to be on the side of the Somali boy but will not provide adequate opportunity.
Their existence as 'an intellectual elite' requires a permanent/imported 'victim class'.

Scary Biscuits

Knowing a few lefties myself, this blog post is spot on. Lefties define left wing like the BBC, meaning nice. Right wing means nasty. Extreme right equals very nasty (e.g. Nazi, BNP, hairy old communists in Russia).

The other good thing from a lefties point of view is that this definition not only flatters themselves but it also saves them from having to think about the issue much less engage in discussion with nasty, right wing people; all they have to be is well meaning and in their own opinion of themselves they're good people.

Moraymint

Hysteria ... nice one.

I was born into a left-leaning, working class family. I went to Grammar School. I was encouraged by my parents and teachers. I was commissioned into the armed forces who paid me to get a (physics) degree.

My politics are right-leaning, in a Gladstonian liberal sort of way. Not because of snobbery or connections: I have neither. The political right is about belief in the power of the individual (over the state); it's about freedom and independence; it's about equality of opportunity, just like Hysteria says.

The political left believes that the perfect society is a levelled society with the state as a panacea. A grim prospect. The left spends a lot of its time - too much time - in a sort of ad hominem mode ... constantly eyeing, envying and/or attacking the right. John Prescott is a prime example: an utterly pointless and useless politician, but does he hate the right, or what?

Thankfully, the current Labour Party has destroyed any chance of a left-wing government being formed for a long time. The British people will be better off for it.

Paul

I fear...he will not have the networks and contacts, the openings and lucky breaks. Over time the pressures may be too great, the poverty too grinding, the setbacks too tough for him to succeed.

Unlike this typical Liberal-Leftie, a Conservative will have confidence that the boy's character can be defined so that he can overcome any setbacks, and can prosper through his own hard work. The Liberal-Leftie will try to fix the wrong end of the problem - in this case his answer is to engineer soceity:

I want there to be no barrier of snobbery, race, or class that stands in the way

In essence, Conservatives trust and believe in the individual. The Liberal-Leftie thinks that he knows what is best for everyone, and will shape things accordingly. You might argue that it is well intentioned, but that way lies totalitarianism. And the real evil is in the conceit. It's no accident that the Mosaic moral code urges us to be humble.

Also, look at the way this Liberal-Leftie mentions that the kid is Somalian. Why do that other than to create some victim/saviour dynamic?

John Moss

I may be naive, but are not all politicians involved in politics to make people's lives better, just disagreeing about how?

richard miles

I think there's a more general point here. many people on the left genuinely believe their motives are unassailably good, and therefore, whatever they do is good. There is a lot of smugness and self-righteousness. Too often, thiose of us on the Right acquiesce in this, retreating into the fact that our solutions are more practical, cheaper...We need to come out fighting and challenge the Left on its motives - which are often far from admirable. The defence of producers' interests over consumers'...desire to control other people's lives...bossiness...snobberyL for example, I'm convinced that for the middle-class left, not wanting the poor to get above themselves is a far more powerful motivator than we acknoweledge. We also give the left a very easy ride on hypocrisy - ege the likes of Diane Abbott who choose private education for their children in defiance of their supposed principles.

Let's go on the offensive.

Verity

Alfred T Mahan - you appear to believe that all this hollowing out of opportunity, education and self-direction was bungling by the Gramscis rather than knowing subjugation.

Ian C writes: "It is an outrageous piece of arrogance." Yes indeedy.

My earlier post - written around 10 hours ago - clearly didn't pass the Speccie Thought Stazi, but I wrote that I didn't care to engage in boundaries set by One-Worlder socialists like Hyman, and that this foreign child is of little interest to me.

What exercises me is that an education system once respected worldwide is now deliberately, with malign social engineering, failing British children whose ancestors formed the laws and traditions of this country. I am exercised by the poverty of education of our native children. I am exercised that some head teacher has said that, in spelling, the "i before e except after c" rule is "too complicated" and doesn't matter. They are deliberately vacuuming thought out of the brains of our children.

I don't like the One Worlder approach here. The tragedy is that hundreds of thousands of British children are being robbed by the socialists of an education that was available to all just 13 years ago. Before the socialists infiltrated their One Worlder garbage.

To give a Somali immigrant as an example when there are tens of thousands with a real claim on state education through nationality and history is typical One Worlder socialism. And was done because anyone who pointed to the poverty of education of hundreds of thousands of our own children over the past 13 years as of more concern could be called "a racist".

Come on, Hyams and James Forsythe, do your worst.

Hysteria

what a truly excellent series of posts........

Conservative Party spin doctor chaps - you listening? No rabid Little Englanders here - but some good indications of lines of attack you/we need to be putting to the British people in the coming weeks and months.

Please?

Verity

Paul, you have allowed yourself to be dragged into the One Worlder diaglog ... you have been beguiled by the left into thinking about this Somali kid who has arrived on our shores, and not about our own hundreds of thousands of children whose families have been here for hundreds, perhaps thousands, of years and who shaped much of the world, who have been wickedly betrayed for 13 years.

My posts are not getting through the net of the lefties on The Speccie.

AH

John Wilkes -

If the Lefties think we on the right are self-centred , they can have no mirrors in their house .

Richard

A pharasaic sanctimony has always been the hallmark of the Left and their preacher-men forebears. It's one of the things that is so profoundly bad about them.

strapworld

But, Hyman is just articulating the reason this government has created the 'benefit class' So that the left can look after these 'shy, modest, gentle people,lacking confidence who will not have the networks and contacts, the openings and lucky breaks! Over time the pressures may be too great, the poverty too grinding, the setbacks too tough for them to succeed.

So, to avoid them being hurt by these pressures. the answer is:- They should not have to work! The rest of society should pay for them and feel sorry for them.

There you have it THE BENEFIT CLASS is here.

Observer

'I want there to be no barrier of snobbery'

It is the snobbery of the left that is the real cause of their blindness.

Richard

...but think of the children.

Is that the best they can do? Useless.

oldtimer

As many have already commented, Hyman`s comments are arrogant. But that comes as no surprise to me.

My first live exposure to a politician was listening to Aneurin Bevan, speaking to an outdoor audience of c5000 off the back of a truck during the 1945 election. He delivered such a torrent of anti-Conservative bile and spite that even I, then a mere 12 year old, was shocked by his intemperance and the obvious mixture of truths, half truths and untruths. It was one seat that Labour failed to win that year even though the big guns (Bevan and Barbara Castle) were being wheeled out to support the Labour candidate - Barbara Castle`s husband no less.

At the time I was in my first year attending a Direct Grant grammar school having won a place, with fees payed by the County Council. These opportunities existed then - pre 1945. I too was an "up by the boot straps" student who later went on to Oxford where very many of my college contemporaries had similar backgounds to my own. We all benefitted from grant support.

This was one route to social mobility. Now it seems to have been lost thanks, in part, to the dogma of the Left.

Wily Trout

The left depends on the right in this country to sort out the mess it makes following its adolescent and poorly thought out ideals. It needs the right like a teenager needs its dad to come along, pay the fine, fix the damage and take the child home to bed. What would happen if there wasn't a Conservative Party to come along and clear up the mess that Labour makes of the economy and society? Everyone is assuming that the Conservative Party is going to get elected, become very unpopular standing the country up again, and then get voted out for the teenagers to party again when the house is in order.

Nicholas

I do agree with Verity here. The idea that our old system did not work and had to be reformed for "progressive" reasons was another Leftist pretence. The grammar school system was the cornerstone of the true social mobility that allowed poor and working class boys and girls in Britain to succeed. My county had a local council sponsored scholarship system for the poor but gifted that sent a dozen each year to local public schools. All such opportunities gone now under "levelling" Labour.

They have just replaced one perceived unfair system with something worse that robs everyone of opportunity and has created dumbed-down Britain. Now, to get on in life, you either have to have lefty credentials or be a member of one of their listed "victim" groups. They have created a staggering number of revolutionary non-jobs in unnecessary created agencies and quangos for their chums and hangers on. They are all about McCarthy in reverse. They might believe in equality but what they practice is reversal, throwing the baby out with the bathwater (metaphorically, don't want their social welfare stasi on our case), replacing 80% good and 20% bad with 100% bad, with loads of unintended consequences which have been bad for Britain, bad for choice and bad for individual freedom and responsibility. Their inept social engineering attempts to liberate one group of victims only to create others. All the result of their prejudice, bigotry and inability to see beyond their own crude propaganda.

The question that needs to be asked is why cannot that Somali boy flourish and find fulfilment in his own country? There lies the root of the problem. No good trying to save all the people in the water if the leaking boat is going to sink with the weight is it?

Victor, NW Kent

Mr Hyman should question why this boy will not get a fair break in life because he goes to "a comprehensive on the outskirts of London?"

Is this because it is London? The outskirts rather than the inner areas? Or because it is comprehensive where soppy lefties such as Mr Hyman are motivated by ideology and not by a desire to teach?

This boy is fortunate to be in our country but now that he is here he is disadvantaged by 50 years of muddled left-liberal thinking on education - a half-century of failure.

Ian Walker

I feel sorry for the people on the "left" (is it even a valid term anymore?) because time and again it has been shown that what happens when socialists get into power is ... they behave like people in power.

Wishing something was better doesn't make it better.

James B

Peter Hyman has got it wrong - the left may be on the Somali boy’s side over Islington dinner party chat, but I don't see how Leftish policies will help him. It will be the Thatcherite, entrepreneurial, can-do British attitude that will allow him to succeed, regardless of his race and background.

I have spoken to a number of immigrants from Somalia, Nigeria and Burma and they think the UK is a land full of opportunities, compared to their homelands. They felt that the UK welfare state stifles people’s aspirations and without it, more Brits would be dynamic about fulfilling their potential.

Chris

Verity - probably picking a fight with the wrong person, but I think it doesn't matter from where the child comes. We have a proud tradition of helping others in need in this country including refugees. It is part of our civility and admirable.

I think your other points have far more merit. An education system where children are taught to a middling template, so as not to exclude anyone, unsurprisingly produces mediocre templates. There are good still good schools, but only available to those who can move into the relevant catchment, or pay fees. How this constitutes social mobility is beyond me.

Assisted places
Streamed schools with ability to move if new talents are identified, and an aim to make the most of all students - why should someone spend years doing GCSEs etc with no motivation, dragging down other students at the same time.
Respect for education - if you go to Germany an engineer is treated with great respect, unsurprisingly this makes learning and professions more attractive. If the only way to success is becoming a celebutard on Big Brother or a footballer are we surprised at what people do. They play football and adopt extreme behaviours.

Mark M

Doesn't the whole left/right thing come down to how you want to help the poor. I'm sure everyone reasonable, left or right, agrees that we should help the poor and lower poverty. thus, the question of left or right becomes "do we make the poor richer by making the rich a) poorer or b) richer?".

Mark, Edinburgh

Scary Biscuits. 9.50pm

That's it. When I was much younger I used to think just like that.

However there was more excuse then. Most of the politicians in power in my youth were Tories and there were no end of dodgy deals going on. So Tories equals crooks was quite an easy leap to make.

I now of course realise the crooks simply go with the party in power.

Stephen Byrne

Mr Hyman's comment reminded me of an answer I once received from a Labour Party member.

I'd asked this person how she could continue to be a paid-up member once it had become clear that Parliament had been misled into supporting the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

She replied: "The government are doing things I disapprove of, but governments come and go. The Labour Party will be here for ever - always fighting for the poor and the vulnerable, and that is where my loyalties lie".

Yes, indeed - I think that the Labour Party has succeeded in deceiving many people into thinking that it alone strives for justice, that it alone wishes to help the poor and the vulnerable.

It's by virtue of this deceit that some - perhaps many - of its members can then feel good about dismissing the views of people who disagree with them. After all, opponents of the Labour Party are somehow "other", precisely because they "don't care" about suffering and poverty.

How self-deceitful and self-serving this can often be: prefering to hold a good and comfortable opinion of oneself (as fighting for justice, being on the side of the vulnerable) rather than taking the undogmatic and sometimes unpopular steps that will actually deal with problems at their root, thereby creating real opportunity in this world.

Minnie Ovens

There was (or is) an old saying in an Officer's mess:
You don't talk about politics, women or religion.
The reason is obvious. No matter how intelligent or educated people are they have different views which no amount of argument will weaken.
So having an argument or discussion about the differences between them is as useful as Ed Balls' opinion on anything!!

Florence Nightingale

Verity;
I agree with you 100%.

Rick, Ealing

Spot on. I have a number of friends who are middle-class left-wing types whose fundamental complaint about Conservatives, like me, is that we don't care as much as they do. I've always strongly objected to this & insisted that the centre-right response to social justice is simply better rooted in reality, and, therefore, is more likely to succeed, than that of the centre-left.

Verity

What a wonderful thread! Too bad all 70 comments landed in a big lump and didn't come through a few at a time, to be savoured.

The socialists are still busy with their One Worlder agenda, which is why Hyman, with the tens of thousands of indigenous British and children from generations of long integrated immigrants are pushed aside in favour of "a Somali boy". I can hear the creaking and grinding of scene-shifting machinery.

Hyman manipulatively, and very mistakenly from my point of view, chose an immigrant child to feature, over the hundreds of thousands of British children who have been robbed of their education patrimony. As though we should feel a special surge of One Worlder sympathy ... whereas frankly, I don't care. His parents got into Britain somehow, let them handle it. I care about our own. Hyman chose the Somali because by so doing he could demonstrate what proper little mahatama he is. Plus, he slipped himself an ace out of the bottom of the pack, which he manufactured for himself: if anyone disagrees with him, he can term them a racist. This is true, manipulative, destructive, vicious One Worlderism, and is a child of the left.

Wrinklybutnice - The Scots have always been much more democratic than the English. No Scot ever touched his forelock, for example. And they always called - and still do call - the local laird by his Christian name.

Verity

PS - If Hyman was so dead set on featuring a black child for his manipulative maundering, why didn't he feature one of our own children of W Indian origin whose families have been here for generations and have a stake in the country, and whose grandfathers fought for Britain in a World War? And whose failure in the leftie education system is disgraceful.

Hyman is a typical self-righteous destructive One Worlder leftie and is dangerous to the health of the nation. His little tapestry didn't work with me.

As noted above, I am indifferent to the fate of this child. It's the destruction of the entire education system, and the damage such has done to hundreds of thousands of futures that engages me.

Troll

I think the interesting part that shines through in reading these comments is how 'the right' views 'the left'.

I don't want to label other CHers in ways they mind offensive, but I think we can all acknowledge that CHers are generally 'right'.

I think it would be very insightful for the Speccie to run the counter piece. Why those on the right, are on the right.

The beginnings of it can be found in the comments above.

Roger Thornhill

AH "If the Lefties think we on the right are self-centred , they can have no mirrors in their house ."

What do you expect from blood-suckers?

Verity

Troll: "I think it would be very insightful for the Speccie to run the counter piece. Why those on the right, are on the right."

You means you weren't able to discern any clues in the preceding 75 comments?

Paul B

Verity at 02.55. Bravo, Bravo!!! Go Girl. Hyman, hung drawn and quartered. Left, Left and centre. Exocet to the heart.

Thank you

David Ossitt

Some superb posts;

Tom Pride.

Fergus Pickering.

Laughing Gravy.

To name but three and as is usual Verity at her very best.

Hysteria

Distill the essence of this thread with chunks of the Thatcher speech and who knows, we may able to actually win an argument at the polling stations.

But only if team DC can inspire, and deal harshly with those within his ranks whe dare to betray the trust placed in them. Of course given the expenses issue we can probably guess how likley is this outcome.

Where is the right-thinking leader that can inspire and lead us back to where we should be?

John Law

Sally Chatterjee
July 22nd, 2009 7:08pm

"Alan Milburn has just eloquently described how 11 years of Labour has made life harder for our Somali boy.

Still, Labour isn't the left, when it comes to education it's just a rag-tag collection of vested interests, sandwiched between the teaching unions, the LEAs and PFI contractors."

Excellent Sally
Someone in the Cameron camp should pick this line up for a Cameron speech. I wish I had said it; it sums NuLav up beautifully for this working class "old boy".The bright Somali boy would prosper well, if like me in 1958( despite being quite poor), he could go to Grammar school.

Paul B

Hysteria, look no further than Daniel Hannan & Douglas Carswell. I would also like to see a tough no nonsense female. I had hopes for Nadine Dorries, but she rather let herself down when she came overly emotional over the expenses scandals

David Ossitt

James; I have been censored; simply because I had the temerity to mentionion in my post the killers of PC. Beshenivsky, piracy as an occupation, and the extremely high rate of benefit claimants.

Please post this.

Verity

Paul B - I see your point, actually.

Men can be swayed. Being hunters and protectors, they are hard-wired to cooperate with other men.

Women are not so shackled.

But we have none such on the horizon. I think, though, that neither William Hague nor John Redwood runs with the pack.

It would be encouraging to have a strong woman on the horizon, but I am fine with Hague or Redwood, both of whom have something of the feline about them.

Felines walk on their lone.

logdon

Verity is absolutely correct. Of all the impoverished schoolchildren in Britain Hayman picks a Somalian?

Are they suddenly the representative sector of the hopelessness of advancement through education?

Hayman is conflating two issues. One of implied racism, the other, the failure of our education system in increasing social mobility because of our class ridden bigotry.

Nice. Two tick boxes in one.

And isn't this precisely the problem?

What will make this boy fail depends on so many factors from Somali traditionalism and lack of integration to the fatalistic attitude that victimology bestows on those who are deemed victims.

To pin it on the ways of the right after 12 years of Labour rule is quite ludicrous but that's what they do, don't they?

Verity

Logdon is right. Hyman picked the unlikely example of a Somali because he couldn't wait to get started dubbing people who called him on it "racists". It was such a clumsy trap that no one fell into it.

Other than a child of a diplomat, the only way a Somali child is going to be going to school in Britain is if his parents are "asylum seekers". The Somalis have no historical connection with Britain and are, indeed, setting up an alternative legal system in some areas of London, which they are administering under shariah law,including their own criminal law. In Somalian, these illegitimate "courts" are called Gars and have been referred to as hazardous to the health of the nation by none other than the wholly admirable Bishop of Rochester. Just as a point of interest.

Jo Jordan

Its the tone, ladies and gentlemen, the tone. A computational linguistics specialist could run the numbers for you.

Compare the ocabulary and the grammatical structures.

Paul B

Men are also frequently peacocks Verity, wishing to preen themselves and seek approval.

The type of woman I am thinking of, is obviously Mrs T, who although she had clear foundations to her beliefs, she was also pragmatic and not dogamtic. She did what she thought was right for the nation and also what was achievable.Mother to the nation if you like. She nurtured and administered tough love, what all good mothers do. She was also jolly careful, choosing when and where she fought her battles, and frequently taking one step at a time, rather than big bang- I`m thinking Tebbits succession of employment laws and privatisation here

Another woman I can think of that fits the mold I am thinking of, is the late Gwyneth Dunwoody in her role of Transport committee chairman. Ideology wise,she was on the other side of the fence from my views, but she was formidable woman and opponent and quite dedicated to Parliament. She dismissed all reforms to allegedly assist in family life. Her belief was that it was privilege to be a MP and that family life should take second place to being a MP as if you did not like it get out the kitchen. Her views on the expenses scandal would have been worth hearing. Which leads me to another example, Kate Hoey, a fine MP and lastly Betty Boothroyd. All those I mention, have one thing in common, all had/have balls for want of a better word, strength, character, principle, drive and steely determination. We need more MPs of either sex like them.

Many men are scared of strong women, thats possibly why Mrs T was/is so hated. She is hated because men were scared of her, intimidated by her superior intellect, courage and femininity. The left were/are sexist towards her, demonstrating again their innate bigotry, whereas the right generally accepted her, demonstrating our good sense and pragmatism.

Ganpat Ram

NOTICE THE FUNDAMENTAL FALLACY HERE OF A SELF-STYLED "LEFTIST" HAYMAN WORRYING WHIMPERINGLY ABOUT THE CHANCES OF SUPER-SUCCESS OF AN OBVIOUSLY BRIGHT KID.

Now, at the risk of being hard-hearted I say I - a leftist- is NOT on the side of the bright boy. He can take his chances, thanks.

The REAL problem is the average or below-average kids from poor homes.

I happen to know because I have to help below-average kids from poor homes who are DESPERATELY sturggling even to master the basics of English grammar in an inner-city area.

At first I was surprised they had a problem with such an easy subject as O Level English - always a fun, joke class back in Uganda where I grew up, where African boys from villages without electricity would quote Shakespeare with huge enjoyment:

"Had you rather Caesar were living, to die all slaves, or that Caesar were dead, to live all free men?" Etc.

Then I familiarised myself with the textbooks of these luckless inner-city kids - progressive text books drawn up by people with the latest, coolest multi-culti postmodern views - and was truly aghast. Even I would have difficulty - I who am a journalist - passing THESE Ordinary level English courses of today.

Instead of focusing on getting the basics of grammar right and teaching kids to enjoy some great English books, the poor kids are plunged into a jungle of nouveau jargon about supposedly teaching them to learn about learning, to analyse imagery, to deal in all kinds of abstractions.....No wonder the poorer ones, without special tutoring, flounder miserably.

So that is why I haven't the smallest respect for this Hayman guy and his snobbish concern o make sure a bright lad attains some snobbish position.

As Orwell knew, the trouble with leftism is leftists who turn human beings into abstractions.

The Left is the right place to be politically - but only if leftists respect decent human values instead of dweloing in a land of abstraction.

Verity

Ganpat says: "The Left is the right place to be politically - but only if leftists respect decent human values" ... which would put them on ... the right.

Hysteria

Nice post Ganpat - but Verity is right - you are actually of the right - just in denial !! But no worries - you'll catch up soon enough!

Verity

Per Hysteria's fine post ... Eh, Ganpat, lad, welcome to the fold!