So is the idea now that the state just provides for skills in reading, writing and arithmetic for free?

It is neither vague nor alarmist although I agree that what is being aimed at is alarming.

I am not making "allegations" I am merely repeating back what the Conservatives, led by the New Right after throwing out the centrists, have said they wanted.

Perhaps the problem is that you have not bothered to find out what that is, e.g., - just a quick google and Wikipedia will tell you:

A small government is a principle invoked by New Right conservatives and libertarians to describe an economic and political system where there is minimal government involvement in certain areas of public policy or the private sector, especially matters considered to be private or personal.

and:

While implying the size or budget of a government, the term "small government" in political philosophy refers to the framework of principles underlying a government’s limited role or functions.
Lexico defines small government as:
An approach to government which seeks to minimize the role of the State, especially in providing services and regulating the private sector; government based on these principles.[3]

There is also the Conservative web site and many essays and articles.

I was obviously in error thinking that people would have done some research before voting in 2019. It was in the Conservative Party manifesto. I don't think it unreasonable to think that those interested in politics might have caught up with why the Tories are doing what they are doing by now.

DaisyAnne this is the second time on GN that you have made claims about the aims of the government or some other such controversial subject and then when asked to provide links to your sources for the claim you have just shrugged your shoulders (metaphorically) and said find it out for yourself.

Apart from suggesting that you too know that what you wrote is nonsense, it is discourteous to other members of GN and shows a lack of respect for them.

Before the pandemic, when I was still going to the gym, someone told me that his wife, an art teacher, had lost her job because of government cut backs. Art not deemed to be necessary.

M0nica what are you asking? This is about the aims of this government. I don't really know what more you need as we should surely all know something about that and can find sources that tell us about their policies.

I agree it's controversial but why do you expect me to give you chapter and verse about where this government is taking us? We can all see, they tell us, what more do you need? I am not shrugging my shoulders but I think someone is having a laugh when they ask for "sources". The Conservative manifesto, the Conservative website, the speeches made by Tory ministers, the endless discussions we can see, all are readily available.

You are now attacking me personally and offensively rather than attempting to discuss the aims of this government and how small government will affect all we have as a country so it's probably time just to leave it there.

MayBee70

Before the pandemic, when I was still going to the gym, someone told me that his wife, an art teacher, had lost her job because of government cut backs. Art not deemed to be necessary.

She will probably have to work for a private company MayBee and then those that can afford "Art" will pay for it.

DaisyAnne

Will we soon find that we pay for anything over the very, very basic needs? We have seen this in dentistry, social care and medical care. It seems as if this is the plan.

Is this what everyone voted for? Did you? We are a democracy, so they say. Is this what everyone wants? Is it what levelling up means and if so, could someone please explain that to me.

It seems as if this is the plan
How do you know? Could you provide the source for this assumption, please.

Obviously you have read it, heard it somewhere and unless we know where the information is published and what is in your source information we can't really comment.

It's no good getting annoyed with other posters when they ask for details and ask why you posted this.

Will we soon find that we pay for anything over the very, very basic needs?
I don't know - will we?
What made you think that?

It might be easier to ask what you know about the intentions of our government Callistemon

I don't think I am saying anything new. When you look at the extremes of right and left and then at the centre parties how do you think each wants the country to look economically and where do you think this government is on the spectrum?

You're movng the goalposts.

You asked:
So is the idea now that the state just provides for skills in reading, writing and arithmetic for free?

You won't link to your source for this idea and are getting annoyed when posters, quite reasonably ask for more information about your reasons for this assertion.

Which makes us wonder if it's true.

Over here even state education is anything but free. Every year you have to pay for all the school books, a maintenance fee of a few hundred dollars, uniforms ( nearly all schools have them, including state schools), excursion fees, computer and laptop costs unless you are extremely disadvantaged. Nothing is for nothing. They seem to have cut back on things like music unless you pay privately for tuition. Plenty of art and other topics like psychology, photography etc. which we never had. I actually think it would be better, in primary school, to get back to the basics because they are being neglected and then the secondary schools have to do a catch up job.

Callistemon21

You're movng the goalposts.

You asked:
So is the idea now that the state just provides for skills in reading, writing and arithmetic for free?

You won't link to your source for this idea and are getting annoyed when posters, quite reasonably ask for more information about your reasons for this assertion.

Which makes us wonder if it's true.

The source is my brain. I am asking others what they think. I would have thought that was obvious by the So is the idea .... I have no idea why you are doing this but surely asking for others opinions is not rule-breaking. I am beginning to feel stalked by these silly questions.

nanna8

Over here even state education is anything but free. Every year you have to pay for all the school books, a maintenance fee of a few hundred dollars, uniforms ( nearly all schools have them, including state schools), excursion fees, computer and laptop costs unless you are extremely disadvantaged. Nothing is for nothing. They seem to have cut back on things like music unless you pay privately for tuition. Plenty of art and other topics like psychology, photography etc. which we never had. I actually think it would be better, in primary school, to get back to the basics because they are being neglected and then the secondary schools have to do a catch up job.

I'm sure I should know by now nanna8, but may I ask where "over here" is?

Which makes us wonder if it's true.

Us?

I see you haven't answered my question Callistemon21. It would help to know, what you know, about the intentions the Conservative government have laid out for the economy.

I’m sorry but I’m with Callistemon. I still don’t understand your OP totally

I think there are plenty enough things to worry about with the current government. So until there are signs from the DfE of statutory changes to the core and foundation curriculum (which think highly unlikely) I would be far more concerned about overall cuts to school budgets and the evidence that is emerging about the apparently rather haphazard implementation of the catch-up programme.

As an idea this really doesn't hold water.
Apart from anything else the logistics of teaching only "reading, writing and arithmetic" would be bonkers. First you would have to make statutory changes to the curriculum, produce new materials and re-train teachers. In primary schools you are talking about class teachers teaching all subjects so you still need the same number of bodies to teach three skills.
In secondary schools you could in theory sack all but the staff required for maths and English, but they might be a bit overstretched teaching a thousand or so students all day every day. I suppose the other staff could hang around to provide pay as you go lessons in other subjects, but I somehow don't think they would.
?

This post will be my last on this thread as there seems little point in continuing. I have previously apologised if my OP was not clear to some and I am happy to do so again.

However, what has surprised me and shocked me the most is the number of posters asking for links to the basic economic history of the Conservative Party. I had assumed that voters, and I did take it for granted that the majority posting on this forum are UK voters, would have ensured they understood what the party they wanted in power or didn't want in power, stood for. This has been a big reminder to "never assume".

The rise of the New Right in the Thatcher era, their attempts to reverse what was termed increasing 'statism' was something we lived through and presumably voted for or against. The Keynesian settlement after the war was something that fed our childhood and the attempted restructuring of the British model of government under Thatcher are surely a known period to us all. The New Right neoliberal ethos has acknowledged that a more egalitarian model of society would never be the practical outcome of its preferred economic structure. This possibly led to it becoming less popular and the demise of Thatcher and the sidelining, for a period, of "Thatcherism.

The New Right view never died. We have been through its resurgence. Cameron moved towards it and George Osborne was certainly a New Right Chancellor. The Austerity agenda was out and out New Right and it seems we have a follower of this path in Rishi Sunak. We have watched the "are we, aren't we New Right" wars in the Conservative Party over recent years, culminating with the ejection of those who were not New Right enough for the leadership. And you were all there!

The pandemic led to the government being forced to turn on their principles and support the economy. However, we can hear from the treasury, and from Johnson, the intention to reverse back to the position they believe in and put forward in their manifesto and in almost everything they have said since except when they were forced to U-Turn.

Having assumed you would have taken the stance of this Tory government into account I simply asked the question "what will peeling-back the state eventually do to education". It seems that is not a question anyone wants to answer and, of course, that is your right.

DaisyAnne your entire OP and your ideas are based on your assumption that the U.K. will have a majority Conservative Government after the next election. U.K.

Unless you have an extremely good crystal ball, you or anyone else have absolutely no idea who will form the next Government or indeed what their education policy will be…

My daughter left teaching several years ago because she was fed up of the lack of funds. I’m sure things haven’t improved since she left.

Lucca

I’m sorry but I’m with Callistemon. I still don’t understand your OP totally

Not just me, then!

I don't think my questions are silly, DaisyAnne, I would just like some clarification of the question and your basis for it.

You have now explained that The source is my brain. I am asking others what they think so just musings with no basis in fact.

Thank you.

Mamie

As an idea this really doesn't hold water.
Apart from anything else the logistics of teaching only "reading, writing and arithmetic" would be bonkers. First you would have to make statutory changes to the curriculum, produce new materials and re-train teachers. In primary schools you are talking about class teachers teaching all subjects so you still need the same number of bodies to teach three skills.
In secondary schools you could in theory sack all but the staff required for maths and English, but they might be a bit overstretched teaching a thousand or so students all day every day. I suppose the other staff could hang around to provide pay as you go lessons in other subjects, but I somehow don't think they would.
?

Mamie it's nice to see that some people still believe teaching should be done by qualified people, sadly this isn't true anymore. Lessons can be delivered by all sorts of people under the supervision of a qualified teacher. So it could be someone training to be a teacher, a teaching assistant, a cover supervisor or anyone else recruited by the school and given some sort of title (and paid less than a QT of course). It's all about the money, money!!!

Yes I know Trisher. There is still no logic to the idea of going to the trouble of re-drawing the curriculum and ditching foundation subjects to further a right wing agenda is there?
I am a great supporter of teaching assistants, but their skills should be properly employed.
I have consistently said that lack of funding is a huge threat to schools. I still have plenty of former colleagues in the system at all levels to keep me updated.

The curriculum has been redrawn at least 5 times since it's original introduction, so I can't see another redrawing being a problem
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Curriculum_for_England
Look at the subjects which are no longer compulsory after 14.
and what is.

What no one ever takes into account when considering how other people vote is that in many cases people vote for a party, not because they support it, but because it is seen as the lesser of 2 evils.

This was very much the case in the last election. Given the choice between Johnson and Corbyn. People who had been Labour all their lives voted, not for Johnson, but to make absolutely sure Corbyn didn't become the next Prime Minister.

DaisyAnne

Given the rather obvious direction in which this government is travelling, you posed a question based on what you think might happen in the future if they are re-elected (which I think they will be).

Of course the government hasn't announced that they plan to cut back on certain parts of the curriculum, but their ideology makes this a possibility in the future. It's guesswork, based on what we already know and have experienced, thus...

Will we soon find that we pay for anything over the very, very basic needs? We have seen this in dentistry, social care and medical care. It seems as if this is the plan.

It's not possible for you to quote 'sources' because what you are doing is simply asking people where they think this RW government is heading - based on what has already happened under Tory rule.

What each person 'believes' cannot always be substantiated with facts because the belief is based on what one thinks might happen. So I don't understand why people don't 'get' that this is a philosophical discussion about ideology - in this case right-wing, libertarian philosophy, and where it might lead. Given that dentistry, social care and some aspects of medical care have now become commodities, I don't think it's outside the realms of possibility that the same will happen with education.

It is however a fact that in dentistry, social and medical care, most of what we had when we were growing up - for 'free' - is no longer available unless you pay for it.