Nice article..... interesting.
Goji Goji fructe goji

I'm truly appalled by the suggestion that more of our children should be trained to kill people when ordered to do so by their superiors. I'd much rather they were taught about the life of Gandhi and the philosophy of non-violent resistance. And about the humanity of people who aren't from our tribe.
I was already worried before reading this about the way the Labour party seems to be heading. I keep getting e-mails from Jim Murphy MP telling me to be nice to our armed forces. Why should I when they have volunteered to invade other countries, countries which have not attacked us, and when I utterly disagree with what they have done?
(Incidentally someone asks whether those who think like me have ever talked to a member of the armed forces or been in the CCF. I had a father and two grandfathers who served in the two great wars and my husband was in the CCF, and all agree with me).

It’s typical New Labour triangulation, occupying some imaginary space between what Lammy describes as the ‘liberal-left’ (PS what does that make him then?) and hang ‘em and flog ‘em militarists.

That’s an entirely false dichotomy.

“Parts of the liberal-left seem to be at their happiest when bemoaning the success of the polished, confident and articulate products of private education, whilst simultaneously blocking opportunities for poorer children to access the activities that foster those attributes”.

Which parts?

This statement is unrecognisable from reality. It is also 100%, pure, triple-filtered and unadulterated bollocks.

First of all, 'bemoan the success of private education'?

It stands to reason that investment, smaller class sizes and middle class parents who give a monkeys will = successful educational outcomes.

I 'bemoan the fact' that private education perpetuates class division, is made up of closed, inaccessible bastions of privilege who sytematically evade tax and social repsonsibilities.

As for ‘blocking opportunities for poorer children’, I don’t know one single progressive, not one, who isn’t in favour of kids having smaller classes and good facilities.

Depressing waffle David, get back to basics.

It’s typical New Labour triangulation, occupying some imaginary space between what Lammy describes as the ‘liberal-left’ (PS what does that make him then?) and hang ‘em and flog ‘em militarists.

That’s an entirely false dichotomy.

“Parts of the liberal-left seem to be at their happiest when bemoaning the success of the polished, confident and articulate products of private education, whilst simultaneously blocking opportunities for poorer children to access the activities that foster those attributes”.

Which parts?

This statement is unrecognisable from reality. It is also 100%, pure, triple-filtered and unadulterated bollocks.

First of all, 'bemoan the success of private education'?

It stands to reason that investment, smaller class sizes and middle class parents who give a monkeys will = successful educational outcomes.

I 'bemoan the fact' that private education perpetuates class division, is made up of closed, inaccessible bastions of privilege who sytematically evade tax and social repsonsibilities.

As for ‘blocking opportunities for poorer children’, I don’t know one single progressive, not one, who isn’t in favour of kids having smaller classes and good facilities.

Depressing waffle David, get back to basics.

It’s typical New Labour triangulation, occupying some imaginary space between what Lammy describes as the ‘liberal-left’ (PS what does that make him then?) and hang ‘em and flog ‘em militarists.

That’s an entirely false dichotomy.

“Parts of the liberal-left seem to be at their happiest when bemoaning the success of the polished, confident and articulate products of private education, whilst simultaneously blocking opportunities for poorer children to access the activities that foster those attributes”.

Which parts?

This statement is unrecognisable from reality. It is also 100%, pure, triple-filtered and unadulterated bollocks.

First of all, 'bemoan the success of private education'?

It stands to reason that investment, smaller class sizes and middle class parents who give a monkeys will = successful educational outcomes.

I 'bemoan the fact' that private education perpetuates class division, is made up of closed, inaccessible bastions of privilege who sytematically evade tax and social repsonsibilities.

As for ‘blocking opportunities for poorer children’, I don’t know one single progressive, not one, who isn’t in favour of kids having smaller classes and good facilities.

Depressing waffle David, get back to basics.

'most respected public sector institutions' - isn't it the only public sector that is associated with the rape and murder of civilians, and torture?

Call me cynical, but just because people blindly give to 'Support Our Troops' (perhaps because this much respected public sector is flawed and poorly managed) does not mean that the army has universal respect, or even support.
If anything it just shows that confirmation bias works even when some of the worst excesses of war crimes are committed.

David you are soooooooooo New Labour.
Who exactly votes for you?

David

Do you believe in leveling down? --- Of course I'm being retorical.

In the UK half of adults leave the Labour designed state school system without maths and english GCSE. Most of these people dont go to school in deprived areas or come from deprived backgrounds so we can eliminate that as an excuse. They are failed by the disasterous UK education system.

So why my initial question? When you were central to education policy in the government, the headmasters of several of the top state schools carried out a secret experiement. They skipped the 13 year old year so that kids went straight onto GCSE training. The impact was immaterial on grades but the kids gained typically 2 extra GCSEs better preparing them for a levels & higher education or jobs - the extra cost to the state was nothing.

So why did headmasters keep it secret from you personally and others in the Labour cohort? Because of the entrenched Labour philosphy that people should be equal and no one should get ahead at the states cost. The 13 year old year in the UK education system is a holding year to slow down the top third of ordinary kids so that the lower performers can catch up. It costs nothing to let cleverer kid excel but in your world that is forbidden.

So go back to kids in deprived backgrounds and keep up the Labour way - bringing down everyone to the lowest common denominator.

.

Insofar as these programmes exist in private schools (this euphemistic business of "independent" or "public" schools really needs to to be stamped out), and confer benefits, they should be available to deprived kids also - but only if those benefits in terms of teaching "hard graft", "leadership skills" and "the importance of working in a team for a common goal" really cannot be conferred in any other way. What the hell's wrong with the Scouts? Or, for that matter, serious sports training? Militarising children in order to teach them certain values seems unnecessary, unless you think that Britain needs to constantly train up each new generation to defend its borders, i.e. you are a rabid and paranoid nationalist.

The underlying assumption is that military values are in themselves unique, superior and good. There are plenty of reasons - identified above in comments - why this latter, especially, is not true. Lammy deals with this in paragraph 2 by setting up straw men of opposition and then simply dismissing them as "nonsense – and offensive nonsense at that". I'd love to hear in detail - in fairness to him, I imagine he didn't have the space here - why condemning the glorification of violence and the cult of blood sacrifice is "nonsense".

Of course not many servicemen and women are "killers" (other than in a, er, literal sense), but the psychological damage of conflict is very real. Armed service and the use of force should be portrayed as an inherently immoral last resort, not some sort of ideal.

Anybody who thought the Labour party was being redeemed and reconstructed from the Nu£abour debacle only has to read this execrable article. Blair lives.

Wonderful.

Share a website with you ,

( http://www.chic-goods.us/ )

Believe you will love it.

We accept any form of payment including credit card.

Incidentally, I don't know why the Combined Cadet Force qualifies as a national institution. The CCF at my school was a rather pathethic farce - schoolboys half-heartedly playing at soldiers. It made Dad's Army look like professionals.

Why does the World have armies? "Imagine there"s no countries , it isn"t hard to do, nothing to kill or die for, and no religionh too."

I have the utmost respect for our Armed Forces. In fact I'd go further - as Labour members go, I'm a hawk rather than a dove. I supported, and still support Tony Blair's stance on Iraq, for instance.

I also personally know people who have transformed their lives by enlisting in the armed forces - people who would probably have lapsed into petty criminality had they not done, but have led distinguished careers - including active service - in the military.

When it comes to running schools though, I'd rather have school teachers than soldiers.

A key skill in the job of a soldier is to obey orders unquestioningly from one's superiors. I want my children to grow up questioning everything that someone who claims to be their asuperior trys to coerce them into doing Not out of disrepect, or defiance, but out of a critically analytical stance towards their fellow citizens - so that they can learn to respect themselves and others because they understand that it makes sense and they want to - not because they are bullied into blind unquestioning obedience under the guise of "discipline".

I think this has shown up the hideous elitism hidden away in some parts of the left. The parts of the left which disdain the military and sees servicemen and women as uneducated brutes.

It's frankly disgusting. Many of the people criticising this policy will have never even spoken to a man or woman in the forces, yet alone attended a cadet force themselves during their youth. The left are always complaining that the right destroyed manufacturing and yet when the military ( a massive percentage of which is made up of TRADESMEN and women) are put forward as a potential solution, the left recoil and sling insults and strawmen.

I went to a cadet force, we lived in a very poor area. The kids there all went on to do good things ( the majority DIDN'T joint the forces! They went into the trades - y'know those thing we will need if your precious manufacturing and working class is to come back?)

Disgusting elitist nonsense from the privets of the middle class left.

This is not the ideology of the left. This is the need of whoever is in power to align themselves with the military. So that politics and power are alligned with the military. It's as though we have become afraid of giving children the right to express themselves through non violent means, derived from the ability to communicate. Inner city london kids get blamed for knife crime and violence. Studies show that many lack education and the tools to communicate, such as education and reading skills. Sport and physical wellbeing are fantastic, as is self discipline. However, this sort of discipline can be found in the scouts or girl guides or through sport.

Why is it, that educating the mind to free and rational thinking through education is never used as a way to help children? Lazy politics it seems. Everybody wants to create an army or community these days for their own ends, never allowing the individual to think for themselves and gain peace of mind through rational thought.

This is a right wing idea, i'd expect to see in korea or africa under despotic regimes, not for the western philosophical and enlightened ideological thinking associated with the uk and europe.

I passed high school by the skin of my teeth. I was only accepted into my local university because they took anybody who could pay the fee. After completely bombing out of education, I joined the Navy.

Without my time with the Navy, there is no way I would have had the discipline or opportunity to go on to graduate from SOAS (a year behind David. He had great hair back in the day ;-) and the LSE and to qualify at the Bar.

The scheme is brilliant. It allows young people to see if they're cut out for military life - and to learn and achieve along the way.

It's also brilliant because it gives veterans the chance to come home to a community, to give and to receive, and to be part of a new mission.

Someone told me they were against the proposal because "kids learning brutality" isn't a solution to inner-city depravation.

I didn't learn depravity during my service. I learned self-confidence, discipline, respect for myself and others - and a work ethic that has stood me in good stead.

"where respect can be won by the glint of a knife and where self esteem can purchased (or looted) at your local Foot Locker, why should we deprive teenagers of an institution that might make them value something different?"

LIKE ACTUAL GUNS?

Can't agree with you more David, excellent stuff.