I can believe Peter's claim that he can't find anyone to debate him on Education. There simply aren't people around with the knowledge and understanding Peter has. I actually shake my head at every single person who interviews him as none not even one of them seems to be on the same level as Peter.
I went to a secondary modern school in 1968 without knowing what one was. I only learnt recently that they were in effect designed to produce factory fodder ie unskilled or semi-skilled manual workers. The school classes were divided into A & B streams as in Primary school. However, there was a difference, the streams were divided by subject. Thai is you could be in the A stream for Maths and the B stream for history or indeed vis versa. The A streamers in the main left school at the earliest opportunity ie 16 yet these were supposedly the brightest kids. They left in order to earn a wage that would give them economic independence from their parents. So, they were smart in that sense. I stayed on to be six former but could only take CSE’s which were not worth the paper they are written on. However, I did manage to leave school able to read and write and with a healthy interest in the world. I avoided the waste heap that my father was thrown on aged 14. So, somethings improved and what’s more I benefited by having poor parents. It meant I received a grant that funded my higher education which allowed me to join the Civil Service within the Foreign Office.
The elephant in the room is that when we last had this type of grammar school system, we also had nationalised industry and a proper military. Now, we have a service sector economy and a tiny military. Over the last 40 years, the country has degenerated into a wimpy dumbed down slum.
My late father, who started his career as a teacher in a newly built secondary modern, just as PH describes, at that peak baby boomer point of 1957, would have enjoyed that. Moreover, he would have reinforced the point that it was common in his school for more academically gifted pupils to be identified and switched to grammar schools, contrary to the commonplace alternative view. He was utterly opposed to the comprehensive programme. As for the inflation of the academic currency exhibited by exams that has been evident for decades. When I sat A Levels in 1980 we practised on past papers from the 1950s so that when presented with their 1980 counterparts they were easy. Before abandoning it as a career path I took a PGCE course and enjoyed winding up lecturers on the subject of selection. They (lefties all of them) insisted that the debate about selection was over while I insisted that it would return with force once the evidence of the comprehensive disaster became generally evident and in the meantime I would only teach in a selective school.
It is incredibly different, the centralizing of resources by not having them spread between many different schools makes a huge difference, school ethos also matters and to be frank modern state schools are so awful that they undoubtedly do more harm than good, you'd be better off by far not sending your children to school than sending them to the ones which exist at this time in this country.
Peters comments about secondary modern rings true for me. I loved my secondary modern then they changed it to a socialist comprehensive. It became rubbish
My father was a housemaster at the biggest Comp in the country (St Kevins) in 1965, both me and my Brother later went to a Grammer (sadly the worst in the country)
One of the central arguments made against elites generally and systematic oppresion - a relative term that pertinent to this country means less food starvation - although food poverty demonstrably exists - it is what shamefully MP's (not all) simply dismiss as 'constituency matters' far too unimportant to concern themselves with - presumably in a marginal seat - that rapidly changes. The issue clearly understood by some noble and advanced advocates of constituency matters - pertains to a national interest that is accessibility for wealthy minority to legal and health and all manner of vital supportive services versus a majority in work impoverishment unless laden with huge debt. My point is that structurally the system is simply perpetuating deprivation of varying kind - that is a priority recognised by some public figures who actually listen to people as opposed to dismissiveness by those other folk who enjoy inflicting hardship on people - because they benefit from power and wealth they could benefit from under different conditions that were equitable and transparent and advanced. If you just consider the approach BAE take to investing in people in pretty bad areas with high deprivation as opposed to generally the investment in say deprived areas by industry - what does it say that basically you have an entity reliant on weapons and that sort of sector to improve deprived folks wellbeing etc? That is a observation PH (and others) refer to with regard to the USA industry - that sort of progressive approach from BAE should and could be made by industry generally - I think that the brightest minds are utterly ignored and as far as I can deduce - the epicentre of everything creative and advanced in London is stiffled by an utter distortion over freedom to actually convey such plain observations. I think that far too much opagueness exists in vital areas pertaining to job applications - personal data and everything once personal that is now controlled via technology that basically nobody quite understands given its rapid evolving. Surely, that is a valid point that is worthy to be acknowledged - you have your privacy and identity basically on a phone or computer - by tens of millions of people and yet nobody in public debates real protections over our own data and devices and that is a new paradigm and it is destroying individuality and we are China or overly influenced by varying state institutions. Finally, an example of what I describe - is that if a public figure articulates points of fact over real life experiences and challenges for people - they lose their column or are effected by an interuption to their career such as a book being basically not published or losing a presenting job etc - if a serf speaks out - they are utterly ignored. How is that different to a state controlled society like China as reported in media? I once believed at an earlier juncture of my existence (based on my experience and that broadly speaking to my observations and understanding) that predjudice was basically diminished and its true overtly other countries are far more overtly racist etc. I take the view that structurally you have conditions that disproportinately impact classes of serfs and that amounts to the precise same harm caused via the former. These are simply verifiable and supportive by any metric selected - you basically get a bunch of people as dressage to higher positions of power - women and minority groups and behind the scenes the same shit runs the show. Its dressage. Its fake and it is a coterie.
the schools classes divided up into tiers anyway so it doesn't matter. the naughty stupid kids get the hard end of the stick and the good smarty kids go to the higher tier classes. the problem is that there's more stupid naughty kids than there were before.
Exactly! Many schools also have a grammar leagues. But he just says these things to please his older audience who don’t know. Telling people what they want to hear
@@NGE0001 I dunno, I tend to agree that high performance schools are a good idea. I think putting the better performing kids in a better environment is worth it. I think you would get a whole new set of naughty kids in the high performing school but I think maybe if admittance to the school was done on a bi-annual basis or something, so you could warn the high performing kids that they might get sent to the low performing school, and vice versa for the low performing ones it would be an incentive.
@@megaxenu753 The problem is logistics. Geography simply does not allow for it. Also I seem to remember the inventor of the 11+ exam says it is a flawed exam though I can no longer find this. There is also the added problem Grammars get more spent on pupils her head so of course if you take smart kids and spend more money on them they will do better but people should not have to pay for other peoples kids. But I get your points but it is in many ways a none issue. Culture around education is not that high in the UK and is higher in other countries which preform better.
@@NGE0001 Well if you don't give the smart, well-behaved kids the edge in funding then you bring them all down to the level of the disruptive kids. China has a merit based education system even though it is socialist/communist. There's an easy way to get ahead and that's to work hard. With the promise of being able to go to a better school based on performance a lot of kids would try harder. It's not about logistics or geography either, it's about regulation. There's plenty of spaces to use but you can't use just any room to rent out as a school because of all the regulations. If you had a contribution + merit based system with less regulation you could reduced the class sizes and improve results. the schools right now are just day care centres, that is except if your parents pay for extra curricular education. A performance based system is far far superior.
@@megaxenu753 Well said, half of a good school is strict discipline and an orderly environment; while there are many arguments for specialized schools, it's worth separating those who appreciate the privilege that education is and want to take full advantage of it from those who do not for precisely that reason alone.
My argument to those who vehmently resist any meaningful change to power structures that are effectively institutions like local authorities and authorities generally as a concept are - when people 'whine' as is commonly derogatorily appropriated to them - why is it that we are told happiness or contentness are individual based - as in that is your mind that needs to construct a wellbeing balance etc - yet those very same individuals are literally subjected to the power structures I correctly point out are utterly interfering in peoples lives? It is either one or the other - if you sway towards individual responsibility etc - fine, I recognise that, but precisely why is it that collective power invokes various measures that demonstrably impact the ability for an individual to flourish and then riposte - by the way - don't moan and anyone who does is a liar or anxiety etc? There is a defect in that countenance from the people who like enfirced deprivation and zero tranparency - its called hypocrisy and I think people in specifically developed nations are very aware of that hypocrisy. What I have learned in my life is that people do far better when their real needs are recognised and whilst I accept that is of course, variable, I do not accept anything that does not recognise that frankly - people do very well when they are basically free and encouraged and not threats and force which is perpetuating economic and social disparities. People do not need hand outs - they need opportunities and real freedoms that they then flourish from - those in real power today, seek to control everything and that development is at some point going to cause profound division. It is that simple. I sense that urban areas of the country are very different to other rural areas and I sense that technology is corrupted by ghastly people to sustain social and economic disparities - technology is a tool used by those utterly resistant to real representation and real change and the concept of technology as a unifying and noble development has been stolen to as I say utilise further oppresion on genuine freedoms and individual self determination etc.
Isn't the answer to questions of ideas - effectively, you take parts of one party manifesto and create a better manifesto that is implemented. In other words - I think labelling people is unhelpful because it is inaccurate and causes profound wastefulness that is needless. It is patently clear that PH is highly advanced in some policies he advocates - not so in others, conversely, you find extremely advanced policies from other enlightened citizens that also contribute and put together, you create an advanced state of affairs. The facts are that the right is just as capable of wilful pig headedness that PH attributes to the left - as it happens PH most humourous analogy to accreditation in hugher education akin to laden with Zimbawean currency is true. I dispute the narrative that propogates that everything this guy wrote or this leader did was bad or good - this is a media trick that serves only to distract serious issues from being improved. If you think that at this current juncture of our country's evolvement - climate change - pronouns and student politics basically is the priority of our time you are in for a great awakening or your grandchildren etc. It is absurd - as most vital changes imposed occured in history - this happens without much fanfare until you get that very overt peasants revolt or disobedience. The objective is to practice democracy and openess and abandon opagueness that is a guise for controlling too much over too many people. Thatcher was correct that some entities could be privatised - I think there is a very cogent argument that some sectors in national security sense - energy for example are possibly incomptatible with the fact subsidies are required and so the keft have a point on some industries being safer marginally in public hands. The thing with Marx is I think there is a sort of armaggedon view - this is of religion also - that money eventually is thrown into the streets and it is worthless and this picture of effectively dystopian transition and white collar proffesionals like medicine and legal and world leaders swallow this sermon BS and they believe this and run the world mostly. I take the view that demographics with regard to injustice and disparities eventually can no longer be 'managed' - I think the existential threat to once civilised nation states is not nuclear or climate armaggedon or visions of money everywhere evaporating - I think it is people and their eventual enough is enough and fragmentation and so on - that could be decades away but I just do not accept the priorities espoused by very astoundingly intelligent academics and others articulate as their conclusions to be the defining priority of our time - the issue is that everything more or less needed to be written has been - as PH says - 'they know' - in reference to nobody willing to debate him and that is the reason why I think eventually you see more people with the means to do so emigrate and transition and you hear of this reported already in America - this sense of desolation in formerly vibrant areas because it turns out people value different things and authority - as a concept - either overt or not - is incomptatible with individualism and freedom and real choice etc - everything America was begun with has reportedly become diminished - our country is aligned to American advanced ideas of freedoms and the economic uplifting and so on - we too have turned towards the complete opposite of what I think will manifest somewhere on earth - it is about less authority yet the opposite occurs - that to me stiffles everything and I think people as Max Keiser said - 'America is an idea - I can go take that idea elsewhere where it will be implemented' - words to that effect. The people of London specifically are broadly anti war - open minded and simply not interested in the old way of running a country in the year 2023. Thanks
If you consider - large parts of urban areas are effectively minority white and former minorities now the majority - why is it that confidence in vital public services is so low amongst now the majority non-white communities? Surely, this supports the view - that the real power is held by a coterie that is simply obstructive to real advanced change - less authority and force and malevolence and far more openess and transparency and equitable state of affairs. These are facts - you have real health and safety and fake health and safety. You have real power behind the scenes and fake public faces masqurading as the leader of this and that - a public enquiry was called for by Corbyn and his supporters were correct on civil liberties - in fact, they are highly advanced in real protections and safeguards for all people - not some people - some of the time.
Nice to watch a Hitchens interview that doesn’t leave you in completely black despair
There's always tomorrow!
I’ve never seen peter smile as much
I can believe Peter's claim that he can't find anyone to debate him on Education. There simply aren't people around with the knowledge and understanding Peter has. I actually shake my head at every single person who interviews him as none not even one of them seems to be on the same level as Peter.
I went to a secondary modern school in 1968 without knowing what one was. I only learnt recently that they were in effect designed to produce factory fodder ie unskilled or semi-skilled manual workers. The school classes were divided into A & B streams as in Primary school. However, there was a difference, the streams were divided by subject. Thai is you could be in the A stream for Maths and the B stream for history or indeed vis versa.
The A streamers in the main left school at the earliest opportunity ie 16 yet these were supposedly the brightest kids. They left in order to earn a wage that would give them economic independence from their parents. So, they were smart in that sense. I stayed on to be six former but could only take CSE’s which were not worth the paper they are written on.
However, I did manage to leave school able to read and write and with a healthy interest in the world. I avoided the waste heap that my father was thrown on aged 14. So, somethings improved and what’s more I benefited by having poor parents. It meant I received a grant that funded my higher education which allowed me to join the Civil Service within the Foreign Office.
The elephant in the room is that when we last had this type of grammar school system, we also had nationalised industry and a proper military. Now, we have a service sector economy and a tiny military. Over the last 40 years, the country has degenerated into a wimpy dumbed down slum.
Love Peter ❤
Snowden has a calming influence on Hitchens. First time I've heard him give equivocal answers.
Whaddaya mean 'equivocal' ?
My late father, who started his career as a teacher in a newly built secondary modern, just as PH describes, at that peak baby boomer point of 1957, would have enjoyed that. Moreover, he would have reinforced the point that it was common in his school for more academically gifted pupils to be identified and switched to grammar schools, contrary to the commonplace alternative view. He was utterly opposed to the comprehensive programme. As for the inflation of the academic currency exhibited by exams that has been evident for decades. When I sat A Levels in 1980 we practised on past papers from the 1950s so that when presented with their 1980 counterparts they were easy.
Before abandoning it as a career path I took a PGCE course and enjoyed winding up lecturers on the subject of selection. They (lefties all of them) insisted that the debate about selection was over while I insisted that it would return with force once the evidence of the comprehensive disaster became generally evident and in the meantime I would only teach in a selective school.
It is incredibly different, the centralizing of resources by not having them spread between many different schools makes a huge difference, school ethos also matters and to be frank modern state schools are so awful that they undoubtedly do more harm than good, you'd be better off by far not sending your children to school than sending them to the ones which exist at this time in this country.
Excellent as always.
Peters comments about secondary modern rings true for me. I loved my secondary modern then they changed it to a socialist comprehensive. It became rubbish
My father was a housemaster at the biggest Comp in the country (St Kevins) in 1965, both me and my Brother later went to a Grammer (sadly the worst in the country)
Great interview!
Lovely Mr Hitchens doesn't say 'Thank you for having me.' Just 'Good Afternoon.'
What on earth does the 'ft.' in 'Snowdon ft.' mean? Some teenage text slang like 'lol'?
One of the central arguments made against elites generally and systematic oppresion - a relative term that pertinent to this country means less food starvation - although food poverty demonstrably exists - it is what shamefully MP's (not all) simply dismiss as 'constituency matters' far too unimportant to concern themselves with - presumably in a marginal seat - that rapidly changes.
The issue clearly understood by some noble and advanced advocates of constituency matters - pertains to a national interest that is accessibility for wealthy minority to legal and health and all manner of vital supportive services versus a majority in work impoverishment unless laden with huge debt.
My point is that structurally the system is simply perpetuating deprivation of varying kind - that is a priority recognised by some public figures who actually listen to people as opposed to dismissiveness by those other folk who enjoy inflicting hardship on people - because they benefit from power and wealth they could benefit from under different conditions that were equitable and transparent and advanced.
If you just consider the approach BAE take to investing in people in pretty bad areas with high deprivation as opposed to generally the investment in say deprived areas by industry - what does it say that basically you have an entity reliant on weapons and that sort of sector to improve deprived folks wellbeing etc?
That is a observation PH (and others) refer to with regard to the USA industry - that sort of progressive approach from BAE should and could be made by industry generally - I think that the brightest minds are utterly ignored and as far as I can deduce - the epicentre of everything creative and advanced in London is stiffled by an utter distortion over freedom to actually convey such plain observations.
I think that far too much opagueness exists in vital areas pertaining to job applications - personal data and everything once personal that is now controlled via technology that basically nobody quite understands given its rapid evolving.
Surely, that is a valid point that is worthy to be acknowledged - you have your privacy and identity basically on a phone or computer - by tens of millions of people and yet nobody in public debates real protections over our own data and devices and that is a new paradigm and it is destroying individuality and we are China or overly influenced by varying state institutions.
Finally, an example of what I describe - is that if a public figure articulates points of fact over real life experiences and challenges for people - they lose their column or are effected by an interuption to their career such as a book being basically not published or losing a presenting job etc - if a serf speaks out - they are utterly ignored.
How is that different to a state controlled society like China as reported in media?
I once believed at an earlier juncture of my existence (based on my experience and that broadly speaking to my observations and understanding) that predjudice was basically diminished and its true overtly other countries are far more overtly racist etc.
I take the view that structurally you have conditions that disproportinately impact classes of serfs and that amounts to the precise same harm caused via the former.
These are simply verifiable and supportive by any metric selected - you basically get a bunch of people as dressage to higher positions of power - women and minority groups and behind the scenes the same shit runs the show.
Its dressage.
Its fake and it is a coterie.
You can see Peter laugh at the suggestion of, "...and who could be more interesting...".
the schools classes divided up into tiers anyway so it doesn't matter. the naughty stupid kids get the hard end of the stick and the good smarty kids go to the higher tier classes. the problem is that there's more stupid naughty kids than there were before.
Exactly! Many schools also have a grammar leagues. But he just says these things to please his older audience who don’t know. Telling people what they want to hear
@@NGE0001 I dunno, I tend to agree that high performance schools are a good idea. I think putting the better performing kids in a better environment is worth it. I think you would get a whole new set of naughty kids in the high performing school but I think maybe if admittance to the school was done on a bi-annual basis or something, so you could warn the high performing kids that they might get sent to the low performing school, and vice versa for the low performing ones it would be an incentive.
@@megaxenu753 The problem is logistics. Geography simply does not allow for it. Also I seem to remember the inventor of the 11+ exam says it is a flawed exam though I can no longer find this. There is also the added problem Grammars get more spent on pupils her head so of course if you take smart kids and spend more money on them they will do better but people should not have to pay for other peoples kids. But I get your points but it is in many ways a none issue. Culture around education is not that high in the UK and is higher in other countries which preform better.
@@NGE0001 Well if you don't give the smart, well-behaved kids the edge in funding then you bring them all down to the level of the disruptive kids. China has a merit based education system even though it is socialist/communist. There's an easy way to get ahead and that's to work hard. With the promise of being able to go to a better school based on performance a lot of kids would try harder. It's not about logistics or geography either, it's about regulation. There's plenty of spaces to use but you can't use just any room to rent out as a school because of all the regulations. If you had a contribution + merit based system with less regulation you could reduced the class sizes and improve results. the schools right now are just day care centres, that is except if your parents pay for extra curricular education. A performance based system is far far superior.
@@megaxenu753 Well said, half of a good school is strict discipline and an orderly environment; while there are many arguments for specialized schools, it's worth separating those who appreciate the privilege that education is and want to take full advantage of it from those who do not for precisely that reason alone.
Reupload the drugs debate they did together, please.
Unbelievable that people are still on the fence with this…how bizarre and stupid in the face of such huge evidence 🙄🤦♂️
does peter know that classes are setted in comprehensives? you don't get grade 2 and 9 kids in the same maths class.
Peter Hitchens is a bloated old windbag but he does have a first class beard. One cannot argue with that. ❤❤❤
My argument to those who vehmently resist any meaningful change to power structures that are effectively institutions like local authorities and authorities generally as a concept are - when people 'whine' as is commonly derogatorily appropriated to them - why is it that we are told happiness or contentness are individual based - as in that is your mind that needs to construct a wellbeing balance etc - yet those very same individuals are literally subjected to the power structures I correctly point out are utterly interfering in peoples lives?
It is either one or the other - if you sway towards individual responsibility etc - fine, I recognise that, but precisely why is it that collective power invokes various measures that demonstrably impact the ability for an individual to flourish and then riposte - by the way - don't moan and anyone who does is a liar or anxiety etc?
There is a defect in that countenance from the people who like enfirced deprivation and zero tranparency - its called hypocrisy and I think people in specifically developed nations are very aware of that hypocrisy.
What I have learned in my life is that people do far better when their real needs are recognised and whilst I accept that is of course, variable, I do not accept anything that does not recognise that frankly - people do very well when they are basically free and encouraged and not threats and force which is perpetuating economic and social disparities.
People do not need hand outs - they need opportunities and real freedoms that they then flourish from - those in real power today, seek to control everything and that development is at some point going to cause profound division. It is that simple.
I sense that urban areas of the country are very different to other rural areas and I sense that technology is corrupted by ghastly people to sustain social and economic disparities - technology is a tool used by those utterly resistant to real representation and real change and the concept of technology as a unifying and noble development has been stolen to as I say utilise further oppresion on genuine freedoms and individual self determination etc.
A real small c conservative.
Isn't the answer to questions of ideas - effectively, you take parts of one party manifesto and create a better manifesto that is implemented.
In other words - I think labelling people is unhelpful because it is inaccurate and causes profound wastefulness that is needless.
It is patently clear that PH is highly advanced in some policies he advocates - not so in others, conversely, you find extremely advanced policies from other enlightened citizens that also contribute and put together, you create an advanced state of affairs.
The facts are that the right is just as capable of wilful pig headedness that PH attributes to the left - as it happens PH most humourous analogy to accreditation in hugher education akin to laden with Zimbawean currency is true.
I dispute the narrative that propogates that everything this guy wrote or this leader did was bad or good - this is a media trick that serves only to distract serious issues from being improved.
If you think that at this current juncture of our country's evolvement - climate change - pronouns and student politics basically is the priority of our time you are in for a great awakening or your grandchildren etc.
It is absurd - as most vital changes imposed occured in history - this happens without much fanfare until you get that very overt peasants revolt or disobedience.
The objective is to practice democracy and openess and abandon opagueness that is a guise for controlling too much over too many people.
Thatcher was correct that some entities could be privatised - I think there is a very cogent argument that some sectors in national security sense - energy for example are possibly incomptatible with the fact subsidies are required and so the keft have a point on some industries being safer marginally in public hands.
The thing with Marx is I think there is a sort of armaggedon view - this is of religion also - that money eventually is thrown into the streets and it is worthless and this picture of effectively dystopian transition and white collar proffesionals like medicine and legal and world leaders swallow this sermon BS and they believe this and run the world mostly.
I take the view that demographics with regard to injustice and disparities eventually can no longer be 'managed' - I think the existential threat to once civilised nation states is not nuclear or climate armaggedon or visions of money everywhere evaporating - I think it is people and their eventual enough is enough and fragmentation and so on - that could be decades away but I just do not accept the priorities espoused by very astoundingly intelligent academics and others articulate as their conclusions to be the defining priority of our time - the issue is that everything more or less needed to be written has been - as PH says - 'they know' - in reference to nobody willing to debate him and that is the reason why I think eventually you see more people with the means to do so emigrate and transition and you hear of this reported already in America - this sense of desolation in formerly vibrant areas because it turns out people value different things and authority - as a concept - either overt or not - is incomptatible with individualism and freedom and real choice etc - everything America was begun with has reportedly become diminished - our country is aligned to American advanced ideas of freedoms and the economic uplifting and so on - we too have turned towards the complete opposite of what I think will manifest somewhere on earth - it is about less authority yet the opposite occurs - that to me stiffles everything and I think people as Max Keiser said - 'America is an idea - I can go take that idea elsewhere where it will be implemented' - words to that effect.
The people of London specifically are broadly anti war - open minded and simply not interested in the old way of running a country in the year 2023.
Thanks
If you consider - large parts of urban areas are effectively minority white and former minorities now the majority - why is it that confidence in vital public services is so low amongst now the majority non-white communities?
Surely, this supports the view - that the real power is held by a coterie that is simply obstructive to real advanced change - less authority and force and malevolence and far more openess and transparency and equitable state of affairs.
These are facts - you have real health and safety and fake health and safety.
You have real power behind the scenes and fake public faces masqurading as the leader of this and that - a public enquiry was called for by Corbyn and his supporters were correct on civil liberties - in fact, they are highly advanced in real protections and safeguards for all people - not some people - some of the time.
Edward Snowden is safe in Holy Russia. Who is this Snowden being discussed?