It says plenty about the BBC values when even a Labour Minister in the shape of John Hutton, Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform, comes across as an economic libertarian! We’re talking John Humphrys again folks, and an interview he conducted with Hutton this morning on the “Today” programme. It started off on the topic of the planned strike at the Grangemouth refinery but then it moved on to discuss a favoured BBC topic – the need for government to take action to punish “the rich.”
The Archdhimmi of Canterbury Rowan Williams has been using the Today programme to waffle on about the growing gap between “the rich and the poor” in the UK and clearly Humphrys has much sympathy with this view – all good socialists together and all that. He kept trying to get Hutton to accept that those who make large amounts of money using other people’s money needed their actions further regulated, if not their incomes capped. Hutton, to his credit, pointed out that it was not the role of government to dictate how private companies rewarded their employees, to Humphrys obvious chagrin. I found Humphrys obvious disdain for those who work in the City amusing, given that last time I checked the BBC itself was in receipt of £££billions extracted under threat from the UK TV owning population. Maybe it’s the BBC fatcats such as dear John that need their incomes capped, and their activities further controlled?
Why, is he an authority on anything else? He has proved himself to be extremely woolly of thinking, full stop. It’s a mystery how he gained his doctorate.
Dunno. When I was at school I didn’t know my left from my right, politically. I was much more interested in playing soccer, doing OK in exams and trying to pluck up the courage to ask the girls to dance at functions, not necessarily in that order.
I could have been taught by rabid members of the KKK or robotic communist ideologues with Castro T-shirts and I wouldn’t have known the difference.
At university I first became aware of the pernicious influence of politics on education. And there is no doubt whatsoever that the lecturers were paralysed by a left wing consensus. One of them failed a history assignment I wrote because I challenged the lefty assumption evident in the way the topic was phrased. The fact that I backed my argument up with historical fact evidently did not work in my favour. I still recall the comment the lecturer thought appropriate to scribble in the margin next to the offending passage: “Not at all.” No explanation, no counter-argument, just dismissal.
I dropped out of the history course since I didn’t think education should consist of pandering to lecturers’ lefty assumptions and bolstering their insecurity by feeding their propaganda back to them. Come to think of it, I should have demanded my money back.
That was in South Africa. The other courses were also riddled with left wing assumptions, though the lecturers were not that extreme. In Israel, the situation is so bad in some institutions that students cannot graduate unless they parrot lefty doctrine back at their lecturers.
In fact, there’s ample evidence that the rot has set in throughout the Western world and beyond. Your average BBC hack is a fine example of the products of such ‘education’.
Well, OK, I guess you are right, but isn’t that a self-selecting subset? Political science/history university lecturers? The original claim was about teachers across all subjects and all age-groups.
I’m not sure why that has to be the case. A history teacher can’t occupy the central ground politically? That’s precisely where he or she is best placed to teach the subject. The English dept was also chock-a-block full of PC lefties. Anthropology likewise.
But yes, I take your point about teachers across all subjects and all age-groups.
As far as University goes, my theory is that lecturers get paid peanuts so need to write books to supplement their income. Right wing economic / social/ geopolitical theory is essentially survival of the fittest and the benefits obtained from striving to be the fittest. Not many books in that, so people need to come up with all manner of inherently left wing gobbledegook to justify their existence and make some cash – ‘proving’ that the market doesn’t work and speculating on appropriate ‘corrections’.
School teachers are left wing because they didn’t work hard enough at uni, got a rubbish degree, couldn’t get a better job and are jealous of their mates racking it up in the city.
Talking of the City, and the evils of regulation, the problem is that the bankers are happy to quote the free market bible when things are going well but are very keen on interventionalism to bail them out when they f*** up. The problem is that the government is so appallingly inept at negotiation the City boys know they’ll get what they want – if the government had some balls to play hardball in a crisis the City would be more risk averse in the first place and the deregulated scenario would work as its meant to
“I’m not sure why that has to be the case. A history teacher can’t occupy the central ground politically? That’s precisely where he or she is best placed to teach the subject. The English dept was also chock-a-block full of PC lefties. Anthropology likewise” – I am not saying that it HAS to be the case: I am in agreement that it IS the case, to some (difficult to quantify) extent, and am sharing your negative feelings about it.
“School teachers are left wing because they didn’t work hard enough at uni, got a rubbish degree, couldn’t get a better job and are jealous of their mates racking it up in the city” –
rarely have I seen such a comprehensive and ignorant generalisation.
I did not work hard enough at Uni, but I got a good degree. I could’ve got a “better” job but chose to make a modest living in return for a happy and calm existence. I have no mates in the city and would not in any case be jealous of their lives if I did.
The assumption implicit in this generalisation is that people are machines that set out from day one to make as much money as possible, to climb the pole as high as they can, and that those who choose to do something different must by definition be embittered losers.
If you really believe that, then the unremitting socialism of your teachers didn’t have much of an effect on you did it? In fact, it’s been so counterproductive in your own case that you should be happy that there are so many socialist teachers – they might produce more people as dogmatically anti-socialist as yourself!
It’s really strange. I thought it was Marxists who were supposed to see everything through the distorting prism of money and economics, while old-fashioned conservative liberals (old school liberalism, broad liberalism in the best sense) could see the value of a vocation teaching children, could follow it because they felt that education was worthwhile and important? Now we have free-market anti-Marxists defining (and dismissing) teachers as a group who by definition are embittered losers due to their failure to command a higher salary. Strange times indeed.
“rarely have I seen such a comprehensive and ignorant generalisation.”
try three posts up where somebody has deemed the whole of this country a ‘mess’ which can rightfully be pitied by inherently superior Americans
“where somebody has deemed the whole of this country a ‘mess’ which can rightfully be pitied by inherently superior Americans” –
You do need someone to hold your hand while reading, don’t you? Kindly show us where I said anything about anyone being ‘inherently superior’, you jackass.
This country as a whole is a mess compared to even 10 years ago, never mind 30. This is very clear when you look at the general level of politeness (that’s ‘averaged across the country’, for illiterates like you), plus any number of other indicators.
blah blah blah blah. Got any stats to prove the ‘general level of politeness’? Then I can join you in ‘looking at them’.
I believe you were approving of ‘most’ Americans you know regarding the UK with ‘sorrow’. Now I appreciate that logical progression may be beyond the capability of a clown like yourself, but I look with ‘sorrow’ on the fate of countries which I feel are inherently inferior to my own. Somalia perhaps? North Korea? Haiti?
Personally I find my bit of the country more pleasant than it was 10 years ago, in the amount and quality of entertainment, amenities and yes even levels of service and social interaction with random members of the public. I appreciate this might not be the same everywhere, but then I’ve worked hard to earn enough to select somewhere very pleasant to live. I could’ve sat around whingeing in a barely literate manner about things being everyone else’s fault, but that would make me a bit of a jackass.
And as for the country being in more of a mess than 30 years ago…… hahahahahaha
Cockney calls ME a clown? ROFLMAOWMP.
yeah, sorry. clowns actually serve a purpose.
You don’t.
I’m trying to decide whether I’d rather be a clown, a slug, or a demagogue. This site can be so thought-provoking.
Those who can’t, teach!
Those who can’t, teach!” –
those who are dumb and ignorant and would last about 2 microseconds in front of a classroom, come out with this idiotic nonsense.
Excellent, all neutral visitors to the site should now be thoroughly convinced of our case against the BBC, and of our collective powers of analysis and maturity.
I once had a geometry teacher who came out with the classic, “If the centre is in the middle”
Those who can’t, teach!
dunce | 28.04.08 – 5:17 pm |
I forgot to mention that those who can’t teach go into the meedja.
Is that why you are in the media, then?
As a matter of fact, the centre of a triangle (when defined as the centre of the circumscribing centre) can be outside the triangle altogether.
Is that why you are in the media, then?
Nearly Oxfordian | 28.04.08 – 8:34 pm |
Good Lord no.
However I have been an instructor (I taught adults) and lectured. Once on avionic systems and much later on a range of subjects from witness protection to criminal intelligence analysis to RIPA 2000 etc etc.
Oh, and my geometry teacher was describing a circle when he said ‘If the centre’s in the middle”
Oh and I was also trying to wind you up and being self depreciating at the same time by describing myself as “Dunce”.
Obviously lost on you. Should have posted under my ususal moniker of TPO
Of course I got the ‘dunce’ bit – seemed a little too obvious to comment on …
So that’s why you aimed this at me:
Those who can’t, teach!” –
those who are dumb and ignorant and would last about 2 microseconds in front of a classroom, come out with this idiotic nonsense.
Cameron and the Tories are no different to Labour. I see no difference between them.
1. Cameron won’t re-instate the 10p tax rate. A true conservative would take people earning under 10K out of the tax system altogether.
2. Cameron seems to be in favour of taxpayers money being used to bail out greedy banks. Like Bush he believes in Privatising Profit and Socialising Risk, like most of our courrpt ruling elite. “Helicopter” Ben Bernanke is as inept as Brown.
3. Cameron will not stop mass immigration because the CBI likes it.
Nearly Oxfordian | 27.04.08 – 7:30 pm |
Why, is he an authority on anything else? He has proved himself to be extremely woolly of thinking, full stop. It’s a mystery how he gained his doctorate.
The admitted agnostic Primate of All England got his DPhil in Russian religious philosophy. If you’ve ever read any of that stuff, you’ll know that you’ve already answered your own question.
Thanks, David. I don’t think I’ll bother to read it. Although fairly inquisitive by nature, I am not yet quite that tired of life 😉