_id
stringlengths 23
47
| text
stringlengths 70
6.67k
|
|---|---|
training-education-egpeupdw-con03b | Military presentations in schools are not designed to be propaganda for their institutions, or the state as a whole, but educate the school children as to the undeniably important role that they play. State survival invariably is dependent upon the existence of a strong, well-trained armed force filled with motivated volunteers. Furthermore, demonstrations of modern technology and smart uniforms do not paint an unfair or inaccurate image of contemporary warfare. Such examples in fact illustrate the honesty of militaries in their portrayal to school children of modern combat. They act as not merely an educational tool, but a life lesson, demonstrating that the world of their video games is, in conflict zones at least, very much real. |
training-education-egpeupdw-con02b | Recruiters do not minimise the risks of a military career, rather the armed forces have a good story to tell and they don't prevent themselves from saying so. Furthermore, it is policy for recruitment staff to 'explain the recruits' rights and responsibilities and the nature of the commitment to the Armed Forces'1. There really are great opportunities for keen, talented young people in the military, and almost all soldiers, etc. find it a very satisfying life. And compared with the past, soldiers today are much better looked after in terms of physical, medical and psychological wellbeing. 1 Gee, D. (2008, January). Informed Choice? Armed forces recruitment practice in the United Kingdom. Retrieved May 18, 2011, from Informed Choice: |
training-education-eghwbsuj-pro01a | Students should be allowed to wear religious dress If children are religious, they should be allowed to wear the clothes that express their religion, but school a uniform can often restrict this. Religious beliefs can be extremely valuable and important to many children, giving their lives a great deal of meaning and structure and inspiring them to work hard and behave compassionately in a school environment. Some religions place a great deal of value upon worn symbols of faith, such as turbans, headdresses and bracelets. When a school demands that a child remove these symbols, it inadvertently attacks something central to that child’s life. This may cause the child to see her school and her faith as mutually exclusive institutions[1]. Vulnerable young people should not be forced into an adversarial relationship with their school, as close, collaborative involvement with teaching and learning techniques will greatly effect a child’s ability to adapt, learn and acquire new skills in the future. For example, school skirts are often not long enough for Muslim girls, who believe that they should cover most of their bodies. To allow children to express their religions, we should get rid of school uniforms. |
training-education-eghwbsuj-con03b | Researchers have actually found that having to wear a school uniform does not make children better behaved. For example, Brunsma and Rockquemore[22] looked at data for more than 4,500 students and found that those who wore a school uniform did not have fewer behavioural problems or better attendance. School uniform does not encourage discipline, so there is no need to make children wear one. |
training-education-eghwbsuj-con01b | There will always be teasing between children. If it's not based on what clothes the kids are wearing, it'll be because of their hair colour[4], or the fact that they wear glasses [5]. Children need to learn from an early age that everyone is different, or how can they learn to accept that? The differences between people should be embraced; in making students wear a uniform, schools are wrongly teaching children that everyone should look the same. When it comes to the opposition's evidence it should be remembered that opinion polls themselves are slippery, depending on the question asked, as is something like a belief in the benefits of school uniforms. There is also no evidence to link parent's belief that it promotes equality to whether it really does. |
training-education-eghwbsuj-con01a | School uniforms create a sense of equality School catchment areas are diverse and in private schools, some children are there on a scholarship. So, without uniforms there are clear indicators of wealth between what children wear. This makes poorer children stand out, (or even possibly the reverse). Children can then be bullied for being different, which diminishes a child's enjoyment of school. A study in New York has shown that 84% of parents think uniforms promote equality, and 89% of guidance counselors think uniforms help teach children to be more accepting of others who are less fortunate[3]. This perception among parents will help create the same perception among their children. This is also likely to translate to the teachers who will therefore treat their pupils more equally. |
training-education-eguhwefpgu-pro02a | Vocational courses produce better employees The courses which are generally offered at the moment are not serving students well when it comes to providing the skills for employment. 65% of businesses complain of being unable to hire people with the right skills. [1] Increasingly, universities are offering as a selling point the fact that they have extra-curricular courses to teach people business skills, but this is a tacit admission that they are selling people degrees which are not fit for purpose. Solving this requires us to teach more vocationally. There are schemes underway in many areas to do just that – to give one example, in Maine, USA, a bill has been passed to improve local colleges. [2] Our policy moves these efforts from the fringes to the core of the system: isolate as far as possible the specific things which make good employees and teach those to people. This will help them get jobs more easily, and also ensure that companies are able to operate effectively. The consequences of such a policy would be good all round. [1] Personnel Today, ‘Skills gap ‘hindering UK business growth’, say CEOs’, agr, 29 April 2013 [2] State House Bureau, ‘House Oks bill to plug ‘skills gap’, Portland Press Herald, 21 May 2013 |
training-education-eguhwefpgu-pro03b | The statement “universities can’t take everyone” is clearly true. But there is a big jump from that to saying “we should stop people from applying,” for two reasons. Firstly, the more obvious conclusion would be to find a way to increase the number of places available, on the grounds that more students means a larger pool of knowledge to draw from and therefore academia will be better. Secondly, for this to have the desired effect we would need the good people to continue to apply, and this is by no means guaranteed – they may simply waltz off into jobs and be lost to academia, in which case we will actually end up worse off. The limited number of places is a problem, but the proposed solution may make things worse. |
training-education-eguhwefpgu-pro01a | Students are forcing themselves through university even when it is not right for them Not everyone should be spending their time in academic study. As well as requiring certain skills, it also requires that the personality of the student be suited to it. They must be capable of manufacturing a sustained interest in a subject, or they will not be able to drag themselves through three or more years of thinking about little else. Some people are, by nature, not that kind of person – they may think in a short-term way or simply not be curious about the world. It also requires a level of intelligence which some people simply don’t have. These people will gain very little from spending time at university. In fact, at some (typically less prestigious) universities, dropout rates can be as high as 20%, meaning students will literally gain nothing. [1] Many people are putting themselves through university despite it not being right for them. Partial blame for this lies with employers – the large number of graduates means a culture has developed among recruiters of using the presence or absence of a degree as a default filter for applicants; 78% of leading employers filter out anyone with less than a 2:1. [2] We should discourage this. By implementing this policy, we create a different and better way to measure someone’s employability. This will make employers more likely to hire these people, and allow them to follow a path through life better suited to their personality. [1] Paton, Graeme, ‘University drop-out rate soars by 13pc in a year’, The Telegraph, 29 March 2012 [2] Tims, Anna, ‘Get a third-class degree? Time to turn on the charm’, The Guardian, 11 September 2010 |
training-education-eguhwefpgu-con03b | Clearly, more tolerance is a good thing, but putting people through an expensive, three-year course with no career benefit is a sensible way to achieve this. As an example of an alternative, give more support to gap-year programmes and run them in such a way as to get an equivalent mixing. People will learn just as much tolerance in one year as in three, will save time and can even do useful volunteering while they’re on it. This is not mutually exclusive with our policy, which means that you get both benefits. |
training-education-eguhwefpgu-con01b | The importance of university to minority groups derives directly from its importance to the rest of the country. It is seen as the key to things like higher-paying jobs for low-income families because it is seen as the key to higher-paying jobs in general. Moreover, this is based on an attitude problem: there are plenty of jobs which do not require degree-level education and which can pay very well at the top end. [1] Under our vocational system, this will all change, and academic study will no longer be the benchmark for success. Alternatively, even under the current system, what matters to people generally is not the fact of university education alone, it is the careers which it opens up – in particular, stereotypically middle-class careers such as lawyers and bankers. Vocational training would give children just as many opportunities, if not more, as they are not being forced through an academic process of questionable utility first. [1] Smith, Jacquelyn, ‘America’s Best-Paying Blue-Collar Jobs’, Forbes, 6th April 2012 |
training-education-eguhwefpgu-con04a | We must retain a respect for academia Academia is important to society. Technical subjects have the obvious outcomes of new inventions, gadgets, medicines etc. – and although these applications are vocational, they are inspired by academic study. Creative arts are also a huge industry in their own right. Humanities are a source of ideas about society, happiness, social policy and cultural understanding, besides simply being interesting. [1] This is all activity which we should encourage. Emphasising vocational training would damage the image of academia. Quite apart from the fact that reduced government support for the sector is likely to damage it in real terms, it is very likely that if people are being told by the whole government education system that vocational training is more useful for themselves and for society, they will come to regard non-vocational courses with suspicion. Pressure to conform is a real factor, especially for schoolchildren at ages when they are unlikely to see any reason for a principled, pro-academia stance. This means fewer children will go into it and fewer people will tolerate support for it. Preserving the prestige of non-vocational courses is important, and it requires government policy to take them seriously. [1] ‘Section 3: What Research in the Humanities and Social Sciences Offers’, British Academy, accessed 12 June 2013 |
training-education-eguhwefpgu-con03a | Universities cut across class and social divides in a unique way University is a great equaliser. One positive side-effect of people going through university is that they are virtually guaranteed to interact with people who are different from them in all sorts of ways – including ethnicity, where minority groups are sometimes better represented than they are in the general population, [1] and international students account for 17% of the university population. [2] The more this mixing happens, the easier it is for people to be tolerant and sensitive to other people. While this isn’t necessarily a problem everywhere, there are still places where these divides cause tension and violence, so the fact that our policy helps to tackle this makes it good. Vocational courses are rather less likely to be mixed. Certain careers are associated with certain groups, and people studying for that specific career will be drawn largely from that group. For example, the clients of an accountancy course and a construction course are not likely to overlap very much, if at all. Despite whatever merits vocational education may have, government policy is not just about education: it should take into account the wider social good, and so we should be on the side which produces a more tolerant society. [1] Sellgren, Katherine’, ‘Rise in ethnic minority students at UK universities’, BBC News, 3 February 2010 [2] ‘International students in UK higher education: key statistics’, UK Council for International Student Affairs, 2011-12 |
training-education-eguhwefpgu-con04b | It is entirely consistent to respect academia while insisting it isn’t appropriate for everyone. By way of analogy, consider that few people do serious sport, but almost no-one looks down on those who do (thinking particularly of casual sport rather than professional sport). We are perfectly capable of seeing the value in things which we don’t do ourselves. It is even plausible that under the new system academics would become an elite cadre of intellectuals whom schoolchildren would aspire to join and the status of academia would be considerably enhanced. There is a well-known saying, “familiarity breeds contempt.” If fewer people were tempted to think of themselves as amateur scientists, amateur historians etc., we might have more respect for the real ones. |
training-education-aetuhwrcp-pro02b | For whatever reason the treasures were first collected, we should not rewrite history. There is no reason to politicise this argument; museums have no 'political' agenda but merely wish to preserve historical objects for their intrinsic value. Their reasons for keeping these items may be financial, or in the interests of keeping the artefacts safe and accessible to the public; whatever they may be, they are not political. Don’t the nations who have expended resources protecting and preserving these artefacts deserve in return the right to display them? Additionally, not all artefacts held outside their country of origin are the result of imperial or exploitative relationships. The original Medieval Crown of England is held in Munich [1] . Artistic exchange has nothing to do with politics anymore. [1] Bayerische Verwaltung der staatlichen Schlösser, Gärten und Seen, ‘Treasury (Schatzkammer)' |
training-education-aetuhwrcp-pro02a | Retaining artefacts is a relic of imperialist attitudes to non-occidental cultures Display of cultural treasures in Western museums may be seen as a last hangover from the imperial belief that “civilised” states such as Britain were the true cultural successors to Ancient Greece and Rome, and that the ‘barbarian’ inhabitants of those ancient regions were unable to appreciate or look after their great artistic heritage. Whether that was true in the 19th century is open to doubt; it certainly is not valid today and the display of imperial trophies in institutions such as the British Museum or the Louvre is a reminder to many developing nations of their past oppression. For instance, the British Museum is refusing to return 700 of the Benin Bronzes to Nigeria despite repeated requests by the Nigerian government [1] . The Rosetta stone has been the subject of demands by the Egyptian government but remains in London. These artefacts become almost souvenirs of Imperialism, a way of retaining cultural ownership long after the political power of Britain has faded. Returning them would be a gesture of goodwill and cooperation. [1] “The British Museum which refuses to state clearly how many of the bronzes it has is alleged to be detaining has 700 bronzes whilst the Ethnology Museum, Berlin, has 580 pieces and the Ethnology Museum, Vienna, has 167 pieces. These museums refuse to return any pieces despite several demands for restitution.” From Opoku, Kwame, ‘France returns looted artefacts to Nigeria: Beginning of a long process or an isolated act?’ 29th January 2010 |
training-education-aetuhwrcp-pro03a | Many artefacts resting in western museums were acquired illegally. Western states have a duty to retain them. Artefacts were often acquired illegally. Elgin, for instance, appropriated the Parthenon Marbles from the Ottoman authorities who had invaded Greece and were arguably not the rightful owners of the site; he took advantage of political turmoil to pillage these ancient statues. Doubt has even been cast on the legality of the 1801 document which purportedly gave Elgin permission to remove the marbles [1] . The Axum obelisk was seized from Ethiopia by Mussolini as a trophy of war; fortunately the injustice of this action has since been recognised and the obelisk was restored to its rightful place in 2005 [2] . UNESCO regulations initially required the return of artefacts removed from their country of origin after 1970,when the treaty came into force, but did not deal with any appropriations before this date due to deadlock in the negotiations for the framing of the convention that prevented inclusion of earlier removals. . However, the 1995 UNIDROIT Convention on Stolen or Illegally Exported Cultural Objects essentially removes the ambiguity about time limitations of UNESCO’s 1970 convention. Here, nations are required, in all cases, to return cultural artefacts to their countries of origin if those items were once stolen or removed illegally [3] . International law is thus on the side of returning artefacts. [1] Rudenstine, David, 'Did Elgin cheat at marbles?' Nation, Vol. 270, Issue 21, 25 May 2000. [2] BBC News, ‘Who should own historic artefacts?’, 26th April 2005, [3] Odor, ‘The Return of Cultural Artefacts to Countries of Origin’. |
training-education-aetuhwrcp-pro04a | Developing countries are able to guard and preserve their own cultural treasures It may have been true that countries such as Greece were not capable of looking after their heritage in the past, but that has now changed. Since 197 5 Greece has been carefully restoring the Acropolis and Athens now has a secure environment to maintain the marbles. The state-of-the-art New Acropolis Museum, which cost $200m, has now been completed to house the surviving marbles [1] , and even contains a replica of the temple, thus the marbles would appear as being exactly the same as on the real temple. Pollution control measures (such as installing pollution monitoring stations throughout metropolitan Athens and ensuring that motor vehicles must comply with emission standards [2] ) have reduced sulphur-dioxide levels in the city to a fifth of their previous levels. At the same time the curatorship of institutions such as the British Museum is being called into question, as it becomes apparent that controversial cleaning and restoration practices may have harmed the sculptures they claim to protect. In the 1930s the British museum’s attempt to clean them using chisels caused irreparable damage. [3] They have also been irresponsible when it comes to protecting the fate of many of its artefacts: “The British Museum has sold off more than 30 controversial Benin bronzes for as little as £75 each since 1950, it has emerged”; “The museum now regrets the sales” [4] . [1] Acropolis museum, Home page. [2] Alexandros.com, ‘Greece’. [3] Smith, Helena, ‘British damage to Elgin marbles ‘irreparable’’, The Guardian, 12 November 1999. [4] BBC News, ‘Benin bronzes sold to Nigeria’, 27th March 2002. |
training-education-aetuhwrcp-con03b | Many people from an artefact's country of origin never get to see them because they cannot afford to travel to a foreign museum; as such the cost of access to that museum is a very small part of the total cost. These artefacts are part of their cultural history and national identity, and it is important that local people are given the opportunity to see them. It is not all about quantity of visitors; those closest to the artefacts have the greatest right to see them. For others, it should be a privilege not a right. |
training-education-aetuhwrcp-con01b | If the artefacts are of sufficient historical and cultural interest, scholars will travel to any location in order to study them. Indeed, the proximity of artefacts in developing countries may even stimulate intellectual curiosity and increase the quality of universities in there, which would be beneficial for world culture. |
training-education-aetuhwrcp-con03a | Artefacts should be made accessible to the largest possible number of visitors Art treasures should be accessible to the greatest number of people and to scholars, because only then can the educational potential of these artefacts be realised. In response to a question about whether museums have any social responsibility, Richard Armstrong, director at the Guggenheim, said “Absolutely, it began with the French Revolution. It is the more than a 200-year-old quest to have the most powerful cultural artefacts available to the greatest number of people. One could say it is the project of democratizing beauty” [1] . In practice this means retaining them in the great museums of the world. Further some of the world great museums, such as those in Britain and the Smithsonian in Washington D.C. are free of charge. [1] Boudin, Claudia, ‘Richard Armstrong on the Future of the Solomon R Guggenheim Foundation’, 4th November 2008. |
training-education-aetuhwrcp-con02b | Artefacts often have unique religious and cultural connections with the place from where they were taken, but none for those who view them in museum cases. To the descendants of their creators it is offensive to see aspects of their spirituality displayed for the entertainment of foreigners. Meanings may have accumulated around artefacts, but their true significance is rooted in its origins. |
training-education-eghbpsbhrt-pro03b | Authority aversion is a good counterargument here. (see op argument 4) |
training-education-eghbpsbhrt-pro05a | Individual Responsibility The philosophy underling the proposition is one in which the child is not solely responsible for his or her own behaviour. Even if the threats of parental punishment and involvement are successful in the short term in modifying a child’s behaviour, the long term sequlae is that the child’s good behaviour is predicated not on an understanding of the consequence of their behaviour and a consideration of their own long term interests, but merely out of fear and external consequences. In the long run, instilling this message is likely to lead to future misbehaviour as the external punishments, in this case imposed on the parents, fall away. Once the child reaches an age at which the parents cannot be punished or the child does not care about parental punishment, building an ethic around such external consequences will fail to deter the child from misbehaviour. (See argument 4) |
training-education-eghbpsbhrt-pro05b | Children are too young to internalize and understand broad philosophies of responsibility. A small child refrains from stealing a cookie out of fear of being caught, not out of some grand regard for a morally just universe in which his actions must be scrutinized. Later on, as the child gets older, his/her understanding can mature. |
training-education-eghbpsbhrt-con03b | One way to deal with this argument is by noting that this would be one tool in a school’s arsenal. If it proves to be obviously counterproductive, then it will not be employed, in the same way that other disciplinary tactics schools/society can impose will not be used if they are seen to be adverse or ineffective. |
training-education-eghbpsbhrt-con01b | The “parental responsibility” argument is a good counter here. An appeal to the fact that some lax parents clearly raise spoiled children can also be effective in building intuition about the notion that parents are imposing a cost through their actions. |
training-education-eghbpsbhrt-con02a | Danger for Abuse Many children that have consistent behavioural problems at school come from dysfunctional families in which either physical or emotional abuse and neglect is common. This has then resulted in behavior disorders such as Oppositional Defiant Disorder. [1] While it would be nice to believe that parents would respond to the stated incentives in a healthy way, it must be considered that it is just as likely that in some of these households parents would crack down violently (again, either emotionally or physically ) on their children. Such actions by parental role models often lead to a vicious cycle in which the behaviour is then continued at school and in future generations. It is difficult to say what proportion of households may respond in this fashion, but if even a small proportion of children are actively harmed by this policy, it is a strong argument against its uniform adoption. [1] ‘Behaviour Problems in Children and Adolescents’, Children’s Mental Health Ontario, |
training-education-eghbpsbhrt-con01a | Unjust There is an argument to be made that this form of punishment of parents is simply unjust. The legal basis of punishment is based on the principle that a sane individual is fully responsible for his or her actions. One can always point to dysfunctional families or other influences that may have had an effect on an individual’s actions, but the level of influence is impossible to quantify. Therefore, any level of punishment that is meted out to external sources cannot be matched proportionally to actions taken by these outside parties, thereby abrogating the principle of proportional punishment. As a result, any just system of punishment is bound by this constraint, and shifting responsibility to external sources is not consistent with our principles. This argument functions best in the criminal justice context, but applies in the school context as well. Schools that adopt this policy must examine the ethical underpinnings of the policy, and if the policy itself is immoral, then regardless of its efficacy (which is disputed in the first argument and later on) the policy should not be adopted. |
training-education-egshwrsla1-pro02b | The cost of extending the period of compulsory education is just too high. In many countries the number of students in the last two years of formal schooling would at least double, requiring a huge investment in teachers, books, new school buildings, computers, etc. And this is just the direct cost - there are also potentially enormous indirect losses to the state in terms of the taxes and pension contributions which it currently receives from young workers but would forego if the school-leaving age was raised. |
training-education-egshwrsla1-pro03b | Unfortunately equality in the job market is unlikely to emerge simply because everyone now stays in school for the same amount of time. As noted above, not everyone will get the same out of school for being there the same time. Those who achieve the best exam results will still be the most employable, especially if they go into tertiary education before finding a job. |
training-education-egshwrsla1-pro01a | More education brings more opportunities More education provides the opportunity to acquire more skills and therefore more options. It has been shown many times that those with more education find it easier to find work and that they are more likely to find that work satisfying. Similarly, the level of education among the population can have a positive effect on the economy as a whole as they can be more efficient workers. The impact of extra years of education on earnings and economic productivity is also disproportionately heavy at the lower end - that is, two more years at school for a 16 year old will make a much greater percentage difference to their later economic worth than two years of graduate work for a 22 year old. The UK has recently raised the school leaving age to 18 for the same reasons. [1] [1] Browne, Anthony and Webster, Philip, ‘School leaving age goes up to 18’, 2007 |
training-education-egshwrsla1-pro01b | This argument suggests that children whom Britain's state schools have failed to teach even to read and write should be compelled to stay at those schools for an extra two years. It will not suddenly bring new opportunities just because children are forced to sit in a classroom for longer. This is absurd. It is re-enforcing failure. It is an idea according to which, if climbing a mountain on your hands and knees does not work, then you should be made to go on doing it. [1] [1] Bartholomew, James, ‘Raising the school-leaving age would be crazy’, 2006, |
training-education-egshwrsla1-pro03a | Raising the school learning age promotes equal opportunities Ensuring everyone gets educated for the same amount of time at school should promote equality. Currently early-school leaving is linked with other indicators of socio-economic disadvantage, such as low-income jobs or high unemployment. More importantly parents who left school young and as a consequence have lower-grade occupations are more likely to have children who leave school early (only 60% of those children stay in education past 16) [1] . Forcing all children to stay in school longer could break this cycle of disadvantage. [2] [1] Ibid, ch 3 [2] RTE News, ‘Early school leavers earn lower wages’, 2009, |
training-education-egshwrsla1-con01b | UK statistics plainly show “There is no evidence that raising the minimum school leaving age made people who had not intended to leave at the minimum age raise their educational standard. This is consistent with the view that education raises productivity and not with the view that productive people get more education.” [1] [1] Zhu, Y., & Walker, I. Education, earnings and productivity: recent UK evidence, 2003, |
training-education-egshwrsla1-con02a | Not all skills are best learnt in a classroom environment. Practical skills (for example carpentry, cookery, gardening etc.), are often best learnt ‘on-the-job’ or through an apprenticeship. Both routes place young people into contact with professionals in the field as well as giving them access to a wider range of tools and materials than could possibly be available in schools. For many young people who would like to work in these areas extra years at school will merely be time ‘treading water’ before they can get on with learning the skills of their trade. This is even more alarming in the case of the UK with the new tuition fees for universities, which are likely to decrease the chances of certain socio-economic categories of going to university at all. |
training-education-egshwrsla1-con03a | There are cases where leaving school early is necessary Working early can be an advantage in some circumstances. Many families need their children to make an economic contribution to the family income, often for example on a farm or in a family business. Working early can help these families to survive. Similarly unqualified individuals can gain equality or even an advantage over their qualified peers by having a few years’ work-experience ‘on-the-shop-floor’. If they are forced to stay in school as long as their peers they lose this advantage. Recognizing this, the British government introduced 21,000 extra apprenticeships in 2009 in an attempt to ensure those who aren’t suited to school do not fall behind when it comes to finding a job and a sustainable income. (Lipsett, 2009) |
training-education-pstpsnbtsj-con03a | Education is about teaching culture, the arts, and creativity We want cultured people to graduate from schools. It would be terrible if high school graduates had no understanding of the arts and had no desire to explore cultural places like museums and art galleries. The arts inspire learning and encourage human curiosity; removing this cultural aspect from schools means that we produce people without the creativity necessary for society to grow. At present the only cultural GCSE subject that is compulsory is English Literature; as such, it is important to include as much culture in it as possible i.e. novels and poetry. |
training-education-pstpsnbtsj-con02b | Poetry is hardly the only way to teach people how to express themselves; if we are interested in self-expression for democratic purposes then children should be taught politics. If they are to express their ideas about nature then other art forms are just as important. Unfortunately poetry as a form of self-expression can only be crippled as a result of students’ lack of knowledge of the basics of language. The priority of government should be to achieve a basic level of literacy for all students; only then can the luxury of teaching art be introduced. There is no use in children being able to effortlessly quote Shakespeare if they have no idea how to spell his name. |
training-education-uhwecpuu-pro02b | Universities can't be guided by an "invisible hand": the conditions in the higher education market are not such that optimum results will obtain from this sort of "free market" idea. There are several reasons why. First, demand for university courses fluctuates, and a low intake for a course one year, and therefore decreased funding, could unfairly penalise other people studying in that department, who are not free to leave (and take their money elsewhere) but simply have to suffer the decrease in quality until the end of their degree course. Second, universities don't operate in a true free-market system: the high start up costs (buildings, libraries) mean that it is very difficult for new universities to enter the market, even if standards in existing ones fall.Thirdly, there will always be those students who are poorer and have to go to the worse universities (if they cannot afford or do not want the burden of a student loan). A poorer student will either get a second rate education and waste valuable time and money or will opt out of higher education all together and accrue none of the benefits, since graduates typically earn more than non-graduates1. 1 Lexington, "Higher education: Is it really the next bubble?" The Economist, 21 April 2011, |
training-education-uhwecpuu-pro02a | The introduction of more private universities would increase the quality of education by allowing open competition In the rest of the economy, when consumers are allowed to choose between goods or services, the higher quality products are successful and the bad ones fail. Similarly, when consumers can makes choices between universities, and are putting money on the line (thus taking a risk) they will choose the good universities, and consider the bad universities as not worth wasting their money on. As a consequence, the best universities will expand, and the worst universities will either improve or fail. The New College of the Humanities for example is aiming to rival Oxford and Cambridge1 so helping to provide these two elite institutions with the necessary competition to force up standards. This will result in a higher quality of education being available to more people. 1 BBC News, "Academics launch £18,000 college in London.” 5 June 2011 |
training-education-uhwecpuu-pro03b | If more diversity is necessary, then governments can change the way in which they fund universities, perhaps by giving a proportion of funding based on student numbers. However, for the large part so-called "increased diversity" would not constitute improvements on the quality of academic education, but rather gimmicks to make a university look more attractive to the young people who apply – there are incentives to make the university popular to sixth-form applicants, not to existing undergraduates. |
training-education-uhwecpuu-pro01b | Encouraging private universities will not increase the number of university places available. Instead they will skim off the students who can afford to pay, but who would be going to university anyway. This will leave remaining publicly funded universities having to pick up the strain, often with less money and just as many potential students without places. |
training-education-uhwecpuu-pro04a | The current system constitutes taking from the poor and giving to the rich The majority of people in the UK have not benefited from a university education, and graduates earn more, on average, than the rest of the population. Further, universities accept a larger number of richer people than they do poorer people. A National Audit Office report claims "Socioeconomic background remains a strong determinant of higher education participation. People from lower socioeconomic backgrounds make up around half of the population of England, but represent just 29 per cent of young, full-time, first-time entrants to higher education."1 It is therefore wrong on principle to use tax-payers' money to subsidise universities, because when universities are subsidised from a general "pot" of taxation, a redistribution of wealth occurs whereby the rich benefit at a cost to the poorer people in society. This is wrong, because we should be using taxation to attempt to mitigate economic inequality, not to exacerbate it. 1 Woolcock, Nicola, "White working class boys least likely to go to university." Times Online, 25 June 2008, |
training-education-uhwecpuu-con01b | Allowing market forces to control educational opportunity is as legitimate at university level as it is at school level. Parents wanting the best for their children should be allowed to spend the resources that they have accumulated in any way that they like, rather than have those resources taken from them by the state to create an education system that isn't as good as that which those parents could have funded themselves. |
training-education-uhwecpuu-con02a | Private Universities would risk reducing the quality of university degrees. New private universities will not have a long standing reputation to keep up. They may not be as well regulated and they will have no social interest beyond simply getting money from their students. This means that they may well offer cheap and poor quality education in order to find a gap in the market. This could damage the reputation of other universities as Dr Paul Greatrix registrar of Nottingham University worries "If there are entrants who are on the extreme end of cheap and cheerful, this will damage our international reputation."1 In systems that are both private and state funded universities there is an immense divide between a few very good elite institutions that charge immense amounts and a much larger number of poorer quality universities. Take the US system, it is well known for its world class Ivy League universities. Its publicly funded universities however do much less well with only the University of Michigan near the top of the world rankings in 20th place. Of the state universities only those that do not face so much Ivy league competition over in California due to distance do well1. Having Private universities clearly creams off the best students and the funding leaving the public universities in a worse position lowering the overall quality of education. 1 Shepherd, Jessica, "What universities think of competing for their admissions." Guardian.co.uk, 28 June 2011. 2 Hotson, Howard, "Don't Look to the Ivy League." London Review of Books, Vol.33, No.10, 19 May 2011 . |
training-education-uhwecpuu-con03a | This will increase the perception that universities are just for the rich Treating university education like any other commodity will increase the perception that, like any other very expensive commodity, it is a luxury, and that therefore those who can't afford it should just see that as an economic reality, and not as an assault against their life chances. This will mean that fewer people from less well-off backgrounds will go to university, even if they are very clever, and thus will decrease social mobility. |
training-education-uhwecpuu-con01a | Allowing universities to be guided by an invisible hand does more harm than good University degree programmes, unlike other products like televisions or designer shoes, are tools of social mobility: unlike a TV, a good degree will help you to get other good things later in life (like a higher salary). This means that it is important that people have a fairly equal opportunity to access the best degrees. Market forces will make the best universities more expensive than the others, and mean that the best degree places are awarded not to the cleverest, but to those able to afford it. Universities are already elitist despite being open to all and being publicly funded. In the UK class is a major determinant of where you go to university. Oxford University only has 11.5%, and Cambridge 12.6% of its students coming from a working class background compared to an average of 32.3%1. This is a situation that will only get worse as students have to pay for the best private universities. 1 Davis, Rowenna, "Does your social class decide if you go to university? Get the full list of colleges." Guardian.co.uk, 28 September 2010, |
training-education-egtyhshs-pro06a | Homeschooling allows for the accommodation of faith practices. The state constantly fails those with greatest faith needs in schools. There are numerous examples of failure of accommodation: ignorant provision for prayer times, banning of religious dress, unwitting subjection of students to religious festivals that are manifestly unsuitable1. If parents want to avoid such perils altogether, and teach their child within an environment that caters for their religious need then that is and should be their right. 1'Rise in racism in the playground' BBC News (2007) |
training-education-egtyhshs-pro05a | Parents should be permitted to home-school their children provided they register the fact and submit to inspections Parents who take their children out of school, or choose to home-school due to apprehensions over the quality of state education, should be entitled to do so provided the child is better off as a result. To ensure they are not neglected, parents hoping to home-school must both register the fact they are home-schooling their child and submit to regular, state inspections of the child's progress. If the child is deemed to be falling behind his age group, the parent may be forced to return the child to a school. The parent should be given standards of teaching that they must adhere to before the inspections occur, and the standards should be sufficiently flexible to reflect children learn at different speeds and that not all children's development reflects fairly on their teacher. |
training-education-egtyhshs-pro01b | Interaction with other pupils is a crucial element of a child's development and involvement in clubs is not a substitute for the social skills learnt in school. Teaming building, working towards goals, being forced to confront problems with and live alongside individuals one might not like, or come from different backgrounds, is clearly done best in a school environment1. Those that seek to cocoon their offspring from the outside world merely delay the time when their children have to deal with it. Education is about more than academic teaching, it's about educating the whole person, and that is best achieved by educating them within a school with their peers. 1 'School as a context of early adolescent's academic and social-emotional development: A summary of research findings' RW Roeser, JS Eccles, The Elementary School Journal (2000) |
training-education-egtyhshs-pro05b | Merely ensuring the registration of a child as being home-schooled does not fulfill the state's right to ensure that all children are given a satisfactory education. Inspections will help, but parents will nevertheless be unable to provide to their children the opportunities present in a school environment. The inspections should require that parents offer their children at least an equivalent level of teaching to that he or she would receive at a school, yet how is a parent going to teach practical science? How are they going to dissect animals? The inevitable result of such a policy therefore would be the acceptance of inadequate education. The only policy that respects and protects a child's right to education is to ban home-schooling altogether. |
training-education-egtyhshs-con01b | Schools are often of poor quality and are failing the children. Parents have the right to withdraw their children from bed state schools. If the quality of education is sufficiently low in their eyes, they are entitled to be allowed to make the considerable sacrifice involved in becoming a 'home schooler'. It is reasonable that a parent should want to reject such educational theories and if they pass the inspection process then should not be denied that chance. "Homeschool freedom works. Homeschoolers have earned the right to be left alone."1 1 'Academic Statistics on Homeschooling', Home Schooling Legal Defense Association, (October 22, 2004) |
training-education-egtyhshs-con02b | It is wrong to assume that home schooling will necessarily be of poor quality. Many parents will be fantastic teachers with or without a formal qualification. One parent says that it is often teacher themselves that recognise that teaching qualification are not necessarily the most important factor: 'the more people– mainly teachers – we spoke to, the more it began to seem like school could actually be a damaging place to be.’1 In addition, there are extensive support networks that are capable of providing a range of skills and knowledge that a parent might be lacking. The internet makes these connections increasingly viable as well as providing better research facilities than any school library had ten years ago. 1 ‘Honey, I think we're home-schooling the kids’ from the Guardian website |
training-education-pstuhbhhnp-pro01b | Where there is uncertainty, this can and should be highlighted if pupils have the intellectual capacity to understand the debate. Much of the benefit of studying History is that it is not (or should not be) solely based upon the learning of facts. Rather, History develops the ability to evaluate and challenge different interpretations. If historical study were postponed to adulthood, this would mean that most people would learn no History, unless they chose to study for a History degree. And it is impossible to escape any discussion of History in adult life - there are many television programmes and press articles devoted to historical subjects every day, and politicians constantly refer to past events to justify their actions. Only if citizens are equipped at school to question such historical interpretations can the public avoid being misled. |
training-education-pstuhbhhnp-pro03a | History lessons can be used as state-sponsored propaganda, distorting the events of the past History taught in schools sometimes involves flagrant distortion of historical evidence either by the State or by individual teachers. Attempts may be made to avoid nasty aspects of a nation's past (e.g. the massacre of Chinese civilians by Japanese soldiers at Nanking in 1937) and/or to put down other peoples (e.g. the presentation of Australian Aboriginals as uncivilized until the 1960s). Japan's attempt to erase the memory of Nanking in its schoolchildren began in 1950s when it banned a third of all textbooks and 'Nanking Massacre simply disappeared' from their history1. As well as these extreme examples, low-level anti-Americanism is arguably pervasive in modern French school textbooks, reflecting tensions between France and the USA arising from the latter's Gaullist heritage and the recent "War on Terror". It is highly undesirable for school pupils to be exposed to misinformation peddled in History classes, which can lead to violence, hatred or discrimination. 1 Chapel, Joseph. "Denying Genocide: The Evolution of the Denial of the Holocaust and the Nanking Massacre." University of California: Santa Barbara. May 2004. (accessed July 14, 2011). |
training-education-shbpshrpe-pro02b | While it is true that parents who are having their children educated privately still pay their taxes that get spent on state education, it is also worth noting that private schools currently hold charitable status in the UK, and as such benefit from tax subsidies that some people estimate as £88 million annually (BBC, 2011). This money is able to fund facilities that state schools could not afford. Therefore while private schools financially benefit state schools in some ways, they also are financially damaging to state schools in many other ways. |
training-education-shbpshrpe-pro03b | The US magazine Time found research in 2007 that suggested that private schools do not provide a better education than state schools, they do however have a higher percentage of students who would do well in any situation. This means that these children would not lose out by going to state schools. ‘The study says that it is "the kinds of economic and resource advantages their parents can give [students]" — as well as the level of parental involvement in their kids' education —that determines success or failure in high school. The problem isn't in the schools; it's with social inequality’ (Time.com). The second criticism is that statistics provided by the argument are true only because private education exists, and takes all the best teachers, head teachers and resources away from state schools. If public schools were banned then state schools would gain more teachers and resources and thus would raise to the standards currently occupied by private schools. In a study by Hill and Guin for the University of Washington found that in the US more experienced teachers taught in private schools, thus in theory improving levels of teaching due to experience. (University of Washington2003). |
training-education-shbpshrpe-pro01a | People should have free choice about how they spend their money People should be allowed to spend their money as they wish. If parents choose to spend money on their children’s advancement over something else they could buy then it is there decision to make. The core of this is the idea of ownership over our income, and that the state should not be able to restrict our spending this income by banning products such as private education. Education in Germany can be used as an example of allowing parents the free will to decide where their child goes to school, article 7 paragraphs 4 of the Grundgesetz enshrines the right to create private schools. (The Grundgesetz). There are many other similar cases where the state provides a service but there are also private options, healthcare being the most obvious. While most people in Britain use a National Health Service (NHS) hospital there are other options provided privately by companies such as BUPA, no one proposes that people should not be able to buy better healthcare, quite the opposite - the NHS may be moving towards privatization.(McCabe and Kirkpatrick, 2011) |
training-education-shbpshrpe-con03b | This is what is already happening. It is the government that sets a curriculum for state schools (such as in Great Britain, Singapore, Japan, China, New Zealand and France) and the government want us to vote for them. So in many ways the education system may already be indoctrinating children in state school in the way this argument fears private schools do. Yet there are also private interests in many state schools already. For example in Britain academies are partially funded privately and in return are outside of local authority control so they do not have to follow the national curriculum.(BBC News, 2010) |
training-education-shbpshrpe-con01b | Abolishing private schools will not bring to an end to inequality between pupils as this is illustrated every day in state schools. For example, bullying is extremely common in all schools whether they be state or private. Bullying represents inequality between pupils as often it is the result of one pupil being different to another. Additionally, teachers may treat their students differently depending on their intellectual ability or their behaviour. In the US racism between students and teachers is still a big issue, as minority groups are consistently placed on slower academic tack and in 38 states “black students are twice as likely as whites to be labelled as mentally retarded” (University of Washington2003). Thus Private schools are not the only means of inequality between students and so the abolition of these would not completely diminish student inequality. On the disparity between private and state schools, the correct way to improve the education for children in state schools is to spend more money on state schools, devote more time, energy and enthusiasm to them rather than punishing those schools that do just that. Preventing a minority from having a certain type of education is not the way to help improve the majority’s education. By and large, the complaint is that private schools are doing well and providing a good education, whilst state schools lag behind. It is in all our interests to set the standard of education as high as we can – you do this by raising state schools to the standard of private schools, not by depriving children of a private education. |
training-education-shbpshrpe-con03a | Schools should be free from bias Private education needs funding, be it from a business, individual funders or organisations and private schools rely on this money to run. It seems unlikely then, in this context, that these funders that the school is so reliant on may have an influence (even if unintentional) on various factors of the school life such as curriculum, food or teaching style. In many countries, such as the US, the curriculum in private schools does not need to be standardised (as State education does) and therefore teachers are free to teach what they desire and this might not give an open and full account of certain topics. The bias could be political, charitable or even commercial. We could have a political group like GreenPeace wanting to run a school and heavily emphasising environmental issues, or a company like Shell emphasising our desperate need for oil. Neither of these would present a balanced education which is what our children need. An example of this is that about 50 independent Christian schools in the UK teach creationism as part of biology.(Walker, 2006) In countries such as the Netherlands, South Africa and the republic of Ireland, private schools are set up and run by religious groups, and therefore will have a degree of influence over the curriculum. Education is a powerful tool, especially to impressionable children. And ultimately it appears that private education is at a much higher risk of being biased in its teaching than state education. |
training-education-shbpshrpe-con01a | Private schools encourage elitism Private education suggests that a higher level of schooling is a privilege of those who can afford it, rather than a right. This encourages a cycle, whereby those who get a good, private education are more likely to get higher paid jobs as private education increases access to higher education (in the UK twice the percentage of students from private school went to university than those from state school), certain sectors of employment, (in the UK only 7% of students go to private schools, yet these people hold 86% top media jobs and 70% of barrister positions, 33% of MPs) (Gibson, 2006) and employer networking. Thus their children are more likely to go to private school and get a better job. This means that by allowing private education we create a society where the rich remain rich, and the poor remain poor, with the gulf between the two areas ever increasing. If we were to remove private education the field would be open for people from all walks of life to achieve a range of different things. |
training-education-shbpshrpe-con02b | Similarly the counterargument to this has two distinct principles. 1) That some state schools lack social diversity as much as private schools, particularly in small, rural areas. Therefore we cannot simply criticize private schools, and must recognise that all schools have different levels of diversity. MacKinnon recognises that segregation in the United States schooling system is often defended on the grounds that it ‘represents the community’. Yet this is only the case because housing itself is segregated (Scrapbook). Therefore if we are banning private schools on the grounds of diversity, we should enforce a policy whereby neighbourhoods are forced to be diverse in order to ensure the same thing happens in state schools. 2) That rather than shut down private schools we should encourage the creation of funded places or bursaries. This way people who can afford private school do not have their choices limited, but that there is a greater diversity as people from poorer backgrounds would still be able to attend the schools. |
training-politics-oamepwhbwi-pro02a | Intervention prevented an impending bloodbath in Benghazi. From the day of the uprising in Benghazi, the government was committed to fight back till the end. Gaddafi asserted that he will chase down the protesters and cleanse house by house while his son said that rivers of blood would flow with thousands of deaths, if the uprising didn’t stop [1]. Military jets and helicopter gunships were indiscriminately unleashed upon people who had no means to defend themselves against assault from the air. The resolution of a no fly zone passed by the security council weakened and prevented government forces from killing people and destroying cities using air strikes[2]. Air strikes went on to destroy artillery, armor and other weapons that could be used for indiscriminate attacks. The intervention therefore stopped large scale civilian bloodshed. [1] The middle east in revolt, ‘Gaddafi’s son; last gasp of Libya’s dying regime?’, time.com [2] Los Angeles Times, ‘Obama on Libya; Intervention prevented more bloodshed’, latimes.com, 28 March 2011 |
training-politics-oamepwhbwi-pro01a | A long ruling and ruthless dictator was toppled. Gaddafi was an oppressive ruler who led Libya for 42 years. The country had no Parliament, political parties, or NGO’s and no civil society [1]. He ruled Libya with an iron fist, eliminating any political opposition, restricting people’s rights and worst of all supporting different terrorist groups around the world. The same man was responsible for the 1988 bombing of a Pan Am jet over Lockerbie, Scotland, which killed 270 people [2] and he supported the leadership of Iddi Amin a dictator who killed masses in Uganda. His leadership posed a threat not only to Libya but to countries around the world. Western intervention in the Libyan civil war paved a clear path for the downfall of Gaddafi’s rule. We should consider the downfall of such a dictator to be a success and benefit to Libya and all who Gaddafi threatened. [1] Neil, MacFarquhar, ‘An erratic leader, brutal and defiant to the end’ nytimes.com, 20 October 2011 [2] BBC News South Scotland, ‘Colonel Gaddafi ordered Lockerbie Shooting’, bbc.co.uk, 23 February 2011 |
training-politics-oamepwhbwi-pro01b | Intervention was approved under the doctrine responsibility to protect and it aimed at protecting civilians in Libya [1]. While toppling Gaddafi was successful, it did not help in stabilising Libya. Many would prefer stability under a dictatorship than chaos. The situation today is even worse than during Gaddafi’s regime, with insecurity and chaos across the country, increased reports of human rights violation and terrorism [2]. Intervention however did not restore peace and did nothing to help or protect civilians in the longer term. [1] The economist, ‘The lessons of Libya’, economist.com, 19 May 2011 [2] The fault lines, ‘Libya; state of insecurity background reading’, Aljazeera.com, 14 February 2014 |
training-politics-oamepwhbwi-pro03a | Ushered in the liberation of Libya. The uprising sparked off as a concern for freedom in the country, people were tired of the oppressive regime and wanted to be liberated. This could not happen by people power alone; Gaddafi was willing to crack down to prevent it like Assad in Syria did. Western intervention in the civil war helped the citizens gain power and force to fight for their rights, by providing them with training, intelligence and logistics among others hence ejecting the oppressive leadership a symbol for liberation. After the civil war, people were able to participate in an election of the national assembly considered free and fair for the first time in Libya[1]. The part of the Mo Ibrahim index that rates participation and human rights rose from 20% in 2010 to 30.5% in 2012 [2]. More democratic and accountable government institutions have been set up, NGO’s welcomed and civil society empowered. Libya is becoming much freer with freedom house upgrading the country from ‘not free’ to ‘partially free’ [3]. [1] BBC news Africa, ‘Libya election success for secularist Jibril’s bloc’, bbc.co.uk, 18 July 2012 [2] Mo Ibrahim foundation, ‘Ibrahim index; Libya’, moibrahimfoundation.org [3] ‘Freedom in the World 2013’, Freedom House, 2013 |
training-politics-oamepwhbwi-con03b | Russia’s long standing antagonism with the west is not new [1] and Libya is not the cause. Its reaction towards the Syrian conflict is driven by a complex mixture of political and economic interests including having a naval base in the country [2]. The UN security council has also continued to ensure that its operations are successful and have acted on the Syrian crisis too. It approved a mission to destroy chemical weapon stockpiles in Syria and evacuate people from Homs. This shows how the UNSC usually works; where the major powers can agree they do and act, where they can’t the council does nothing. This would have happened in Syria regardless of what occurred in Libya; Syria is simply worth more strategically to Russia than Libya was. [1] Con, Coughlin, ‘While Putin still believes the west is still an enemy, Russia will not change’, telegraph.co.uk, 3 December 2010 [2] Nicholas, Kosturos, ‘What Drives Russia’s Unrelenting Position on Syria?’, americanprogress.org, 13 August 2012 |
training-politics-oamepwhbwi-con03a | Created a large divide in the UN security council. The UN security council approved humanitarian intervention in Libya that ensured a no fly zone to protect civilians from government attacks. However, the west went beyond the resolution’s intent and turned it into a de facto campaign for regime change [1]. This made Russia and China who initially had opposed any intervention feel cheated. The divide has affected the response of the security council to other crises notably in Syria where over a hundred thousand people have been killed and an even larger number displaced. Russia and China have vetoed resolutions on Syria three times [2] fearing that it may end like the Libyan case a fact that Russian foreign minister Sergei Lavrov stressed; “Russia will not allow a repetition of the Libyan scenario in Syria” [3]. Such divisionism has destroyed the credibility of the security council [4] and created an unintended casualty of the Libyan intervention. [1] David, Blair, ‘Putin thinks Cameron conned him over Syria, he won’t allow that to happen again with Syria’, telegraph.co.uk, 2 August 2012 [2] Rick, Gladstone, ‘Friction at the U.N. as Russia and China Veto Another Resolution on Syria Sanctions’, nytimes.com, 19 July 2012 [3] Global research, ‘Russia Will not Allow Repetition of “Libya Scenario” in Syria’ globalresearch.ca [4] Mick, B. Krever, ‘Why won’t the UN Security council intervene in Syria?’, cnn.com 14,January 2012 |
training-politics-oamepwhbwi-con02b | The Malian conflict is not new and has been on for a long period notably the 1960, 1996 and the 2006 rebellions[1]. It did not break up from the Libyan conflict and additionally the Tuareg were not the only rebels involved in this crisis. The insecurity reports across Libya is typical for every emerging democracy in transition and cannot be a reason to claim that it is not stable. Even the Libyan people accept it with 71% of the population being optimistic about the current situation [2]. [1] Mats,Utas, ‘The Malian crisis; Causes, consequences, responses’, wordpress.com 7 May 2013 [2] JMW Consulting, ‘Believing in Democracy: Public Opinion Survey in Libya’, National Democratic Institute, August 2013, p.6 |
training-politics-oepvhwvseacd0-pro03b | The only way to ensure that the UK does not become part of a political union is to leave entirely. The European Scrutiny Committee of the UK Parliament has concluded that the “ever closer union” is largely symbolic so guarantees against it amount to little. [1] Meanwhile the pledges about competitiveness are vague. It leaves as an open question what are the administrative burdens that are going to be lowered or what legislation might be repealed. Without specifics is it likely that any such repeal will take place? [1] European Scrutiny Committee, ‘Voters must know EU changes will require Treaty amendment’, parliament.uk, 15 December 2015, |
training-politics-oepvhwvseacd0-pro01a | A fundamental change to Britain’s relationship with Europe It was too much to hope that the deal might involve a complete change for the EU as a whole. However it has the potential to fundamentally change the UK’s relationship with the EU by putting it on a much more secure footing. The most fundamental change is the acceptance of two Europes. By accepting the UK opting out of ever closer union in perpetuity there is now an acceptance that the whole of Europe is not necessarily even moving to the same goal. As the deal states there can be “a deeper degree of integration among the Member states that share such a vision of their common future, without this applying to other Member States.” [1] The second change is increasing democratic accountability through increasing the power of national Parliaments. Now if 55% of national parliaments reject a European Council proposal the Council will need to think again. [2] [1] Annex 1, P.17 [2] Annex 1, P.17 |
training-politics-oepvhwvseacd0-pro03a | Ensures Europe stays of the track Britain wants it to be on Britain’s ideal for the European Union is a union that is founded upon free trade; an economic not a political block. The agreement ensures that the European Union remains on this path in two ways. First through agreement on competitiveness where members pledged the “lowering administrative burdens and compliance costs on economic operators, especially small and medium enterprises, and repealing unnecessary legislation”. [1] Second it is explicitly stated “references [in EU treaties] to ever closer union do not apply to the United Kingdom” [2] which ensures that the UK will never have to become part of a political union but can instead remain in an economic partnership with the EU even if the EU itself moves towards political union. [1] Annex 1, p.15 [2] Annex 1, p.16 |
training-politics-oepvhwvseacd0-con03b | Neither are at all likely. Gove’s opinion has been rejected by the Attorney General saying “It has legal effect from the point the UK says it intends to remain in the EU, and the European court must take it into account. The job of the European court is to interpret the agreements”. [1] Similarly the European Parliament is very unlikely to reject the deal which has been agreed by the leaders of all member states. MEPs have generally shown support for the UK remaining in Europe and the leader of the EPP, the biggest group, has stated “We support the core of the agreement.” [2] [1] Mason, Rowena, ‘Attorney general rejects Gove claim that EU deal is not legally binding’, The Guardian, 24 February 2016, [2] European parliament web team, ‘EU Referendum: MEPs Debate the UK's European Future’, Huffington Post, 25 February 2016, |
training-politics-oepvhwvseacd0-con01b | This is the case in all negotiations. Both sides start out with their maximalist demands that they would like to have and both sides compromise and reduce their own demands until they meet in the middle. During this compromise many ideas and proposals are dropped or watered down until both sides get the core of what they want. Cameron was never going to get all of his demands and it is disingenuous to suggest this could have happened. |
training-politics-oepvhwvseacd0-con02a | The deal makes no difference to migration David Cameron failed to even negotiate on the area that the people of the UK most want changed; cutting migration. The only way to do this is to end freedom of movement through the Schengen agreement; something that was never on the table. As a result the changes are minor ones to benefits which the Office for Budgetary Responsibility has said “changes to benefit rules are unlikely to have a huge impact on migration flows” indeed “In my opinion: not much”. [1] Polling by ComRes within days of the agreement showed that 53% of the British public believe there will be no change in migration as a result of the deal while roughly equal numbers think it will increase as decrease; 21% to 22%. [2] [1] May, John, and Whale, Sebastian, ‘OBR: Four-year ban on benefits 'unlikely' to cut EU immigration significantly’, Politics Home, 8 December 2015, [2] Slack, James, ‘A complete failure: Voters offer damning verdict on PM's Europe deal with three-quarters claiming migration will not change as a result of his reforms - and could even increase’, 24 February 2016, |
training-politics-oepvhwvseacd0-con03a | The renegotiation agreement could yet fall through At the moment is simply an agreement between the leaders of the states within the EU. Until it is written into treaties the agreement is vulnerable. There are two ways in which it could fall through or be changed. The first is for the European Court to declare part of it incompatible with the EU treaties. The Secretary of State for Justice Michael Gove has argued "The facts are that the European Court of Justice is not bound by this agreement until treaties are changed and we don't know when that will be". [1] The second is that the European Parliament still needs to approve as would any legislature when given a proposal by the executive branch. [2] Members of the European Parliament have refused to rule out that it could be rejected. [3] Even then nothing is secure until there is treaty change as the only way the agreement can be legally binding “would be through Treaty amendment, or the equivalent agreement of a Protocol.” [4] [1] ‘EU reforms ‘not legally binding’ – Michael Gove’, BBC News, 24 February 2016, [2] Peers, Steve, ‘The draft UK/EU renegotiation deal: is it ‘legally binding and irreversible’?’, EU Law Analysis, 10 February 2016, [3] Stone, Jon, ‘David Cameron’s EU deal can’t be legally binding, EU Parliament president Martin Schulz says’, Independent, 16 February 2016, [4] European Scrutiny Committee, ‘Voters must know EU changes will require Treaty amendment’, parliament.uk, 15 December 2015, |
training-politics-oepvhwvseacd0-con02b | Migration is a benefit to the UK financially. Most migrants don’t claim benefits which is why such benefit rules changes will not make much difference. Cutting migration would be easier outside the European Union however even then there is unlikely to be scope to cut migration as far as skeptics want. Net migration from outside the EU in year ending September 2015 was 191,000 [1] far above the Conservative target to get migration below 100,000. [1] White, Nicola, ‘Migration Statistics Quarterly Report: February 2016’, ons.gov.uk, 25 February 2016, |
training-politics-glgvhbprss-pro02b | As an American state, Puerto Ricans would pay federal income taxes, which most currently do not. Some businesses would also lose tax breaks they currently enjoy. [1] This would harm not only the wealth of individual Puerto Ricans but also harm the country's economic standing, as it would become less appealing as an investment destination without these tax breaks and with the presence of federal income taxes. There is no guarantee that the extremely high rates of economic growth the pro-statehood optimists forecast will actually come about to balance out these increased costs for all Puerto Ricans. Historically statehood could have been disastrous for Puerto Rico's economy: the post-World War Two economic growth in Puerto Rico was the result of special treatment via exemption from Federal corporate taxes resulting from Puerto Rico' special non-state status. [2] [1] Constitutional Rights Foundation. “BRIA 17 4 c Puerto Rico: Commonwealth, Statehood, or Independence?”. Constitutional Rights Foundation. Fall 2001 (17:4). [2] Leibowitz, Arnold H. “Defining Status: A Comprehensive Analysis of United States Territorial Relations”. Dordrecht: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers. 1989. |
training-politics-glgvhbprss-pro02a | Puerto Rico would benefit economically from statehood American statehood would lead to significant economic growth for Puerto Rico. Statehood would mean that the island would shed its ineffective and costly reliance on preferential tax credits and more fully integrate into the national economy. In a study by Hexner, Jenkins, Lad and Lame, "Puerto Rican Statehood: A Precondition to Sound Economic Growth," the case is persuasively made that statehood is necessary for the island's economic growth. [1] [2] As an American state, the standard of living in Puerto Rico would profoundly improve for the average person. With average income going up, families would be able to pay their fair share of taxes while still improving their net income and standard of living. For those with low incomes, the U.S. citizens of Puerto Rico would have the same access to tax relief and federal support programs as any other citizen of the country, unlike under the present status where significant disparities exist. This is particularly significant as approximately 50% of Puerto Ricans live under the federal poverty line. [3] Many areas of US Federal funding to Puerto Rico would actually improve. For example, the current 50 states can receive up to 90% reimbursement through Medicaid for critical health information technologies; Puerto Rico is not eligible for these supplements. According to 2005 Congressional testimony by Governor Anibal Acevedo-Vila, had Puerto Rico been treated like the other states, it would have received $1.7 billion dollars in federal Medicaid support instead of the $219 million received. Translated to monthly amounts, federal Medicaid support in the states approximated $330 per month per participant; the amount in Puerto Rico was about $20 per month. [4] The US is one of the richest countries on earth, and being a full part of it would give Puerto Ricans a lot of practical advantages that the independent countries of the Spanish-speaking Caribbean lack. The right to move to the US-proper and work there legally, for example, is extremely valuable. [5] Overall, therefore, there is a compelling economic case for Puerto Rico to seek American statehood. [1] Puerto Rico Statehood Students Association. “Statehood”. [2] United States Council for Puerto Rico Statehood. “Statehood Issues”. United States Council for Puerto Rico Statehood. 2004. [3] United States Council for Puerto Rico Statehood. “Statehood Issues”. United States Council for Puerto Rico Statehood. 2004. [4] Frisse, Dr. Mark. “Puerto Rico”. Wellshpere. 7 September 2008. [5] Yglesias, Matthew. “What is the Case for Puerto Rican Independence?”. Think Progress. 1 May 2010. |
training-politics-pggdfakhwf-pro02a | Think tanks’ power of objectivity is the best form of marketing for biased views Think tanks are considered more credible than corporate marketing. [1] In the case of corporate marketing the recipient is aware that he is being sold a product. In the case of think tanks, the recipient believes he is being given unbiased information. Therefore, it is tempting for corporations to finance think tanks and encourage them to reach the conclusions that they otherwise would promote through marketing. This way, think tanks can be powerful tools for promoting a biased agenda: if done successfully the same message is communicated but in the form of credible information rather than manipulative marketing. In fact, it is common practice for journalists to quote think tanks without labelling their political bias. [2] And they most certainly don’t say if there is funding from a particular interest for example with the supposedly free market Institute of Public Affairs in Australia that somehow ends up arguing for government investment and intervention in Northern Australia – a position suspiciously close to several big mining companies. [3] This violates people’s freedom to make an informed decision, and can give biased views disproportionate and undue influence. By forcing them to disclose, any corruption or bias will become obvious to all. [1] Mayer, Jane. “Covert Operations”, A Reporter at Large, The New Yorker. 30 August 2010 [2] Dolny, Michael. “What’s in a Label?”, Extra!, FAIR. 1 May 1998 [3] MediaWatch, “Disclosing the funding of think tanks”, ABC News, 27 May 2013, |
training-politics-pggdfakhwf-pro03b | It is already in the interest of think tanks to be transparent. Think tanks exist in societies that depend on open communication and the free flow of ideas. Numerous organisations exist to criticise and unmask non-transparent think tanks: [1] this is sufficient incentive for them to reveal their funding. There may be exceptions in which the benefits of non-disclosure overrule the disadvantages in terms of trust, but these are rare, and it does not follow that it will be abused. [1] Who Funds You, Political Innovation, |
training-politics-pggdfakhwf-pro01a | People have a right to know where their information comes from Democracies rely on transparency. Our commitment to transparency means surrendering part of our autonomy for the collective. This does not mean that our autonomy does not still belong to us; the institutions that affect our lives are under a constant obligation to justify their decisions and existence in relation to us. I do not have a right to know everything about the local football club (if I don’t play football and they are not a public company their decisions don’t affect me). Think tanks, however, are highly influential, and directly affect the society in which we live: some have, for example, lobbied successfully against action to prevent global warming. [1] Therefore they are to be considered a power in society, and the principle of transparency must be extended to them. [1] Monbiot, George. “The educational charities that do PR for the rightwing ultra-rich”, Comment is Free, The Guardian. 18 February 2013, |
training-politics-pggdfakhwf-pro04b | Think tanks can choose transparency in the status quo anyway (as shown by nef): this benefit is relatively small. On the other hand, it harms the many other think tanks that need to protect the information of who funds them if, for instance, the funders do not wish to disclose it. It is a loss of freedom for the majority, not a gain. |
training-politics-pggdfakhwf-pro04a | Legally requiring disclosure from all benefits think tanks Even think tanks benefit from the introduction of this policy. The status quo leaves disclosure as a strategic device: think tanks are unwilling to disclose more than their competition for fear of being unfavourably portrayed. Such negative competition, i.e. competition in factors that do not improve the products of the market, makes them unable to make rational decisions about their funding if, for instance, potential funders want to contribute only on the condition that this funding be made public. As a consequence, the advent of organisations who call for transparency has been praised by prominent think tanks like the New Economics Foundation. [1] By depriving everybody of the strategic tool of revealing none or only a part of their funding, think tanks cannot be pressured into hiding or providing certain information about their funders, and they can thus act more independently. [1] Read, Sam. “Think tank funding matters: it’s central to democracy”, the nef blog, 22 June 2012, |
training-politics-pggdfakhwf-con03b | On the other hand, by disclosing funders more corporations and individuals will have an incentive to fund think tanks. They will be assured that they will be publically recognised for it, and thus be rewarded when the think tanks they support produce good ideas. |
training-politics-pggdfakhwf-con01b | Such a system, in which one allows think tanks to accept substantial anonymous donations, has immense downsides. It is simply too easy for a think tank to claim all, or most, of its funding is anonymous to them when it is questioned, while in fact they have been having informal strategic talks with potential funders days prior to, during, or after the donation. We cannot adopt a policy that is so easy too abuse, and since all think tanks must know who their funders are, we are not restricting their independence any further by asking them to make it public. |
training-politics-pggdfakhwf-con04b | People are capable of assessing a biased idea after discovering its bias, while it is dangerous to present potentially biased ideas as genuine, for this limits discussion. This is especially so in the status quo, where the suspicions of who may be funding think tanks remain when they choose not to disclose their funders. A blanket obligation of all think tanks to reveal their funding allows for open discourse and thus more space to discuss the ideas themselves. |
training-politics-oapglvsghw-pro02b | Suggesting that feminising African politics will stop poverty and provide empowerment returns to the ideas we attach to women. Women are often associated with domesticity, care, and reproductivity. Who’s to say that this is what women are or what they stand for? Basing quota systems on what women are believed to do is dangerous – in reality behaviour cannot be predicted, as women remain diverse and heterogeneous. A study has shown that there is no relationship between the number of women cabinet members and the sex of the executive implying that women don’t really help other women in politics (Jalalzai, p.196). Additionally who is to say that by having women in political roles they will instantly be able to implement and act on their desired policies? How resources and power are distributed within the political system is key. Resources may remain controlled by men. |
training-politics-oapglvsghw-pro02a | Feminising the state: women helping women Including women in politics helps enable poverty to be tackled. Poverty is a women’s issue; women are more likely to live in poverty than men, and women are needed in politics to change this. Women understand each other, and what they need. Furthermore, although data varies, evidence shows gender inequalities remain intertwined to poverty and impoverishment [1] [2] . Women in positions of power and leadership can put the issues women face on the agenda and apply action. There is clearly a need to get women into politics to counter the current ‘boys club’ that exists in most countries where men help each other into positions of power squeezing out women and other methods of doing things. [1] See further readings: Gender Inequality Index, 2014. [2] See further readings: Chant, 2003. |
training-politics-oapglvsghw-pro03b | Women become integrated into a man’s world. But the territory may not be changed. First, women may become like men in response to the jobs they take up and how one is expected to act in the given role. When we consider what conditions women are introduced, potentially with limited training in public speaking, confidence or acceptance, how will they fare? Their best way forward is to get help from the men already in parliament. Secondly, how do women experience work and are they treated at work? Quotas introduce more women, however, they may experience gender-based harassment and unfair treatment at work. In the case of Kenya, a female politician was publicly slapped [1] . Who will ensure their rights are protected and they are treated equally in a political world? Finally, is power redistributed? Frequent protests in Senegal show that despite quota systems being implemented women do not end up with power despite being in parliament. [2] Women are legally enrolled into local and national parties but do their seats ensure they can lead political parties? Does being a local candidate ensure the potential for national progression? [1] African Spotlight, 2013. [2] Kabwila, 2012. |
training-politics-oapglvsghw-pro01b | Having more women does not mean a representative democracy is built as it is not just gender balance that needs to be considered but ethnicity, language groups etc. as well. Additionally, the bias quota system will cause future problems. In the future men will need to be targeted and receive help. For example in Rwanda the focus on including women has pushed men out of politics. Implementing quotas favours the creation of a certain ‘representative democracy’. The democracy becomes ‘represented’ by what we think democracy should look like. |
training-politics-oapglvsghw-pro04b | When we don’t just consider battle deaths the extent to which violence is declining is questionable [1] . Furthermore, we cannot suggest women in politics will limit war, conflict, or violence, as anomalies are found – such as Margret Thatcher’s use of violence in closing down industries across the UK and willingness to engage in the Falklands conflict. Furthermore the idea returns to a preconceived image and ideal women. The women are represented as the caregiver, submerged within traditional constructions of women as nurturing and empathetic. [1] See further readings: WDR, 2011. |
training-politics-oapglvsghw-con02a | The woman’s ‘political job’ Quotas mean more women are able to enter the political world; however, how is it decided what political jobs and positions they can utilise? The inclusion of women into politics in Africa has mainly been in certain departments i.e. gender and health. More powerful women are needed in positions that remain masculinised – such as defence and security. Therefore the quota may introduce more women in politics, however, how active are they in deciding what area of politics? The quota may well be seen merely a means to introduce women passively into new distinct gender roles. If women are believed to be granted positions as a result of the quotas, rather than it being a position they have earned, they may be more at risk of marginalisation at work. Having a quota provides a reason to argue that an exceptional woman has received her place no based upon merit but due to the quota. This may be used as an excuse to prevent women reaching the most important positions. |
training-politics-oapglvsghw-con03a | Assuming causality: Africa Vs Scandinavia Scandinavian countries – Norway, Sweden and Denmark – have high female participation rates in parliament. However, Rwanda is one African nation that has even greater female parliamentary representation. In Scandinavia the quota has been introduced but is only implemented by some parties. Nevertheless there is little difference between parties in Denmark, for example, that utilise the quota and those that do not. This shows that voluntary quotas can work but also that they are not really necessary. This is because the position of women and capability to engage in politics was tackled first. The key thing is the perception of women; if they are perceived equally and voted for on their own merits women will win as often as men. This shows, crucially, political participation by women should not be dependent on quotas. We should not rely on quotas for gender equality. Women face multiple barriers to political participation; deeper action is required to adjust imbalances rather than simple quotas. Having quotas simply encourages a perception that gender matters in politics when the desired outcome is the opposite; a belief by the electorate that politics is genderless with both as able to perform the role. In Senegal for example, the quota is being criticised as challenging traditional culture and patriarchal society norms it is however those norms that need to be changed not just the number of women in politics [1] . [1] See further readings: Hirsch, 2012. |
training-politics-oapglvsghw-con01a | Are the women representative of all women? How can it be assured the women entering African politics are representative of the women in that African nation? Further, will the leader implement politically popular ideas or required policies? If we are introducing quotas for women in politics we need to think about what women are entering. The concern with race, ethnicity, age, sexuality, and class is fundamental as if we accept the principle that an unrepresented group should get a quota of parliamentarians this should not just apply to women. We need to think about who the women are, what they represent, and who. Even for women simple quotas do not ensure effective representation of what all women want, or ensure the means for change. Women are heterogeneous, as are their challenges in life. |
training-politics-ghsdltwt-pro01b | The 'Middle Way' is no different from the current situation. Although, theoretically, the 'Middle Way' proposition offers the Chinese authorities and ordinary Tibetans a way to harmonise their conflicting interests, it is practically no different from the political accommodation that Tibet currently subscribes to. Under the ‘Middle Way’, the Dalai Lama has expressed willingness to accept socialist rule in Tibet. He has also dropped former Tibetan demands that their homeland be offered a political relationship as expansive as China’s offer in the early-1980s to Taiwan in favour of an insistence on a Hong Kong-style ‘association’ relationship with Beijing. Since the early 2000s, in keeping with the ‘Middle Way’, his hints about a residual international personality have been kept to a minimum. Further, the autonomy arrangement sought is an amalgam of the Hong Kong ‘one country, two systems’ formula and the existing autonomy provisions of the PRC Constitution. [1] This gradual dropping of Tibetan demands under the name of the ‘Middle Way’ means that it offers little improvement from the status quo. The background in terms of political events that led to a proposition of a "Middle Way" sheds more light into the fact that his strategy is just a new name on the board for the same as the provisions currently existing within the PRC constitution. [2] If the PRC sees that the ‘middle way’ is slowly reducing the demands for more freedom for Tibet then they are unlikely to embrace it as they can equally wait for more concessions. Despite all these concessions to the PRC position there are still things that China will never accept such as any idea that Tibet will be transformed into a ‘zone of peace and non-violence’ or that there should be a popularly elected legislature – it would inevitably mean others in China would believe they should have more democracy. By giving away so many concessions before negotiations but still making it impossible for the PRC to accept the Dalai Lama makes it unlikely that his middle way will get anywhere in negotiations so it is not really ‘realistic’. [1] Gupta, Sourabh. “The Dalai Lama’s Middle-Way approach needs re-adjustment”. EastAsiaForum. 8 March 2010. http :// www . eastasiaforum . org /2010/03/08/ the - dalai - lamas - middle - way - approach - and - the - need - for - re - adjustment / [2] ChinaDaily. “What is Dalai Lama's 'Middle Way'”. ChinaDaily.com.cn 26 July 2007. |
training-politics-ghsdltwt-pro03a | The 'Middle Way' respects China's right to territorial integrity The Chinese government has a right to protect the unity of China against Tibetan separatism. US President Abraham Lincoln, in justifying efforts to maintain the union in the face of an imminent civil war, said in 1858, “A house divided cannot stand”. [1] Unity was argued to be essential to the integrity and future of the union if the United States as a much more decentralized federal union cannot sanction such a division then a much more centralized China cannot. China can put forth the same rationale as Lincoln for forcing Tibet to remain part of China, for example when it notes argues that the concept of an independent Tibet has historically been used by what it calls ‘foreign imperialists’ to interfere in China internally and split it up so that it can more easily be controlled from abroad. As an example of this, the CIA’s support for Tibetan separatists during the Cold War is cited. [2] [3] Mongolia provides a striking precedent for for Chinese worries about Tibetan independence, as it gained independence through Soviet backing and subsequently came under effective control of the USSR. [4] If Tibet were to achieve independence, both China and Tibet would be weaker, with less geopolitical strength and with greater tensions and opportunities for conflict. This is especially true in light of the history of foreign attempts to interfere with China internally, as noted above. The Dalai Lama made a similar argument himself when he stated: “Look at the European Union … What is the use of small, small nations fighting each other? Today it's much better for Tibetans to join [China].” [5] In 2008 the Foreign Minister of Cyprus similarly argued that the ‘One China’ policy, including Tibet, was necessary to safeguard China’s territorial integrity. [6] The government of Fiji has offered similar support. [7] The 'Middle Way' accounts for this need of China's whilst also offering greater autonomy to the Tibetan people, thus respecting the rights of both parties. [1] Abraham Lincoln Online. “House Divided Speech”. Abraham Lincoln Online. [2] Xinhua News report Xinhua News Report. Xinhua News. http :// news . xinhuanet . com / zhengfu /2002-11/15/ content _630888. htm [3] Wonacott, Peter. " Revolt of the Monks : How a Secret CIA Campaign Against China 50 Years Ago Continues to Fester ; A Role for Dalai Lama ' s Brother " . Wall Street Journal . 30 August 2008. http :// online . wsj . com / article / SB 122005956740185361. html ? mod = googlenews _ wsj [4] Xinhua News report Xinhua News Report. Xinhua News. http :// news . xinhuanet . com / zhengfu /2002-11/15/ content _630888. htm [5] Liu, Melinda. “Fears and Tears”. The Daily Beast. 19 March 2008. [6] Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Cyprus. “Cyprus supports the principle of a ‘single’ China”. Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Cyprus. 20 March 2008/ . http :// www . mfa . gov . cy / mfa / mfa 2006. nsf / All /5 B 640 E 57 BE 973 A 1 FC 22574120050 A 086? OpenDocument [7] Fijilive. “Fiji backs China’s action in Tibet”. Fijilive. 24 March 2008. http :// www . fijilive . com / news _ new / index . php / news / show _ news /3075 |
training-politics-dhwrt-pro02a | Trident allows the UK to maintain its global status Currently the UK is recognised as a nuclear power by the Nuclear non-proliferation treaty along with the USA, China, France and Russia. All of whom are either modernising or maintaining their current nuclear arsenals. This means to not replace Trident would mean that we'd suffer a severe loss of status in relation to the other permanent members of the UN Security Council. This would also raise questions of whether the UK even deserves its place as a member there as it would show the UK’s declining global role and military power. Other countries that can be considered "more representative" such as India (the world's largest democracy) now would be an obvious replacement at the top table. [1] Churchill said that the H bomb that it was "our badge to the Royal Enclosure [at Ascot]" [2] and today Trident remains one of our master keys to the Britain’s status at organisations such as the United Nations Security Council. There are already plenty of reasons why other countries might be more deserving of a security council place than the UK; we don’t need to add another. [1] James Wirtz in "Contemporary Security Studies" Oxford University Press, First Edition 2007, Chapter 15, p273 [2] Adamson, Samuel H., ‘Supreme Effort: A lesson in British decline’, BC Journal, Vol. 16, 2010. |