Levy probably got this information from my webpage on Ralph Miliband. (The information originally came Michael Newman's book, Ralph Miliband and the Politics of the New Left). On Saturday, if you typed in “Ralph Miliband” into Google my site came second after the Wikipedia entry.
What Levy does not mention is the reason for the diary entry. The Miliband family were Jews living in Belgium who had arrived in May 1940 after fleeing persecution from the Nazis who had recently taken over western Europe. Ralph was shocked by the level of anti-Semitism that existed in England at the time. Ironically, much of this anti-Semitism and dislike of Europeans had come from the propaganda campaign that had taken place in the 1930s. The man behind this campaign was Lord Rothermere, the great-grandfather of the current Lord Rothermere, the owner of The Daily Mail. The current owner of the Daily Mail has an estimated wealth of £1.02 billion but pays no tax in the UK although he seems that his newspaper is very concerned about all those who are taking too much from the “benefit system”.
Fascinating assertion in there that the Rothemere got his title in return for pledging the paper's support to the conservative party.
The Daily Mail is a bunch of cunts seems to be the narrative dominating this story. Must be hard for Cameron to have his party conference completely overshadowed by this.
So the Mail on Sunday apologises for crashing the private memorial service to Ed Milliband's uncle.
The Mail goes on the defensive and tries to portray this as a row about anti-Semitism.
No, it's because Ed Milliband wants greater regulation of the press and the Mail can see Cameron's grip on power slipping. So by pointing out Ed's Marxist past they can create an adverse reaction. But it's not going to work.
I at first thought it rather odd that the young Ralph Miliband should have felt the English of 1940 to be more nationalistic than the Germans. After a little more consideration, though, it does seem a reasonable opinion. He 'hated' Britain for the much the same reasons that Hitler loved it.
Emoticon and contraction free since... quite a while ago.
There needs to be a Parliamentary law introduced that requires all members of the cabinet to be restricted to only being allowed to use the public services they're collectively responsible for.
So, they can only use the NHS. They can only send their kids to state-run schools. Et cetera.
After all, if they believe - as they regularly claim - that they're running these services well, fairly and to the best of their abilities, then what could be their possible objection to this?
And it's a simple way to ensure that they always abide by the Golden Rule - "do unto others, as you would have done unto you" - because that principle is legally enforced. They can only do unto others, what they themselves must also suffer.
But, hey, if they're good to their word, in that what they're doing is fair, just, responsible, well-run, comprehensive and socially beneficial then there would be no sufferance on their part whatsoever in doing so, right?
"Words ought to be a little wild - for they are assaults of thought on the unthinking."
- John Maynard Keynes
One of the worst ideas I've read in this thread. Think of the consequences. Would MPs only be allowed NHS glasses (these still exist) not designer expensive ones or contact lenses and so look like dorks? What about dental services? However implemented it would keep many successful people out of politics. The education restriction would be the killer here. Those with children in private schools would be excluded from being MPs.
The idea seems to rest on the assumption that ministers can do much to influence the quality of services. But this is an incredibly naïve and simplistic view. In the very long term perhaps as policies on school curricula, staffing, buildings take effect. But there's also culture, other stakeholders such as unions. Ultimately it all comes down to decisions made by ministers. But this takes years and decades. You'd be penalising ministers for decisions made by their predecessors and opponents.
Instead we need what we have now: a free press. So when e.g. after previously criticising Blair for sending his children to a selective state school Diane Abbot sent her son to a private school she had to defend it in the press.
Ministers can certainly make public services worse.
Personally I'm in favour of the idea, for schools at least. But if I was in charge I would require all children in full-time education to be at a state school rather than a private one so obviously I would be.
That would be utterly defeatist though. I mean private schools do one great service (apart from the obvious one of educating the future elite): they show what's possible with focus and resources. They set a standard the state sector should aspire to meet.
It's already hard enough to hold ministers accountable for school performance. They happily lie about how standards are improving based on blatantly fudged exam results. You can look at international comparisons, or ask university admission departments, to get a clearer picture, but nothing says "state schools aren't doing their job" like private schools with much better outcomes.
Leave them there, and challenge ministers to raise state schools to the same standard. Outlaw private schools and it will become much easier for ministers to pretend there's nothing wrong with state education.
And it would be very damaging for the economy. Now education is a big export industry, as we educate the progeny of wealthy foreigners as well as our own elite. Both would go overseas if they had to (schools teaching in English would spring up in other countries), making us a substantial importer of education and doing massive harm to our economy.
I argue that private schools don't actually have dramatically better outcomes if you factor out the difference in ability at intake, the level of parental support, selection and the old school tie.
And even taking your view and assuming that's not the case - doesn't the funding gap of a factor of 2-20 per pupil have some kind of effect?
Dio wrote:I argue that private schools don't actually have dramatically better outcomes...
Obviously it's only a single data point, and of an ex-pat private school in france at that, but I should mention at this point that my wife works at a private school, and it is, apparently, fairly regular practice for failing pupils to have their results "boosted". In this case, you're not paying for an (arguably) better education, you're paying for a better mark on a piece of paper at the end of a school career.
"massive retard™", "full of shit™", "tiny bitch™", "retarted™", "a bit of a one trick pony™", "petty™", "simple minded idealistic twat™", "miserable humourless fucker™"
(By the way, for those who didn't work it out, I was being facetious. It wasn't a serious proposal.
The only actually serious bit was just the highlighting of that slight flaw in our system that we've got people deciding things for other people who'll never themselves experience the consequences of their decisions.
And it'll never happen anyway, because it's the MPs themselves who vote things into law, so they'll simply never vote for something that's against their own personal interests.
But, nonetheless, elements of Pogo's reaction does speak volumes. E.g. rich people can't be expected to wear dorky glasses.
Not only do I find it kind of bizarre that this is the first thing he thinks of - "I oppose this Marxist nonsense because it makes people look dorky! Oh, as an aside, it's also a flawed economic theory that massively failed, leading to the poverty, oppression and deaths of millions. But, most importantly - first and foremost - I object to the dorky glasses!".
Because this kind of suggests that, as Pol Pot rounded up and killed anyone who wore glasses for fear that they might be "intellectuals" who could oppose him, it's as if he'd be just fine with the Khmer Rouge's killing fields. Just as long as, you know, no-one's being made to wear any dorky glasses. Heaven forbid.
But it's also just the underlying implication that, though it's apparently the most evil thing imaginable to make rich people wear dorky glasses or suffer tooth ache, it's just fine to fob off the Great Unwashed with all the dorky glasses and bad teeth instead.
It's totally unacceptable that any rich person is even mildly inconvenienced by a pair of aesthetically-displeasing NHS eye-wear.
But, oddly, not a peep of protest that maybe the poor also shouldn't have these self-same shit glasses and crooked teeth, that it's so blasphemous to suggest be laid at the feet of our rich Lords and Masters, foisted upon them either. He's gleefully ripping into the overall shitness of our public services for the blasphemy of ever suggesting the rich suffer it, as if he's seemingly totally forgotten that this is exactly what the poor do have inflicted upon them, with his apparent full approval.
So, ironically enough, the more he tears into it, the more he's kind of proving my point.
The rich wouldn't remotely stand for this crap, he's perfectly right. But, umm, this is exactly the self-same crap that we expect the poor to swallow without the slightest protest and smile gratefully for what the elites, in their mercy, have deemed their tax money should be taken for and wasted on (yes, their tax money because, collectively, absolutely none of it is a freebie, of course - we're all paying out the arse for this crap that you're happily tearing to shreds, as totally unacceptable for any "real" non-subhuman people to ever suffer for a nanosecond).
I'm rather glad that I was just being flippant and not altogether serious with that proposal. Because, frankly, if I was being serious and Pogo's response was also being genuinely serious too, I'd really be entirely lost for knowing what the fuck to write as a serious, earnest reply to that whole "dorky glasses" counter-argument.)
"Words ought to be a little wild - for they are assaults of thought on the unthinking."
- John Maynard Keynes
