Jeremy Paxman says 'no votes for pensioners'

I don't suppose 7 years as a war correspondent can be described as a "menial"job POGS but I suspect it was a lot more harrowing than most of the things you or I have done. I suppose you never benefited from the socialist society you grew up in. But if there had been no socialist policies just think how much harder life would have been. Paxman is right about people behaving like spoilt children, spoilt children always imagine that others have been given more than them, particularly younger people. They don't appreciate what they have been given and refuse to share their wealth.

The less educated voted leave.
Not in my circle they didn't

I have been berated by people I know for voting Remain; they have PhDs and I only have a mere degree.

trisher

So do you agree with Paxman enough to do as he believes and give up your right to vote at 65 or now if you are older than 65.

I would not.

Or are you intimating only Socialists should be entitled to vote as they are some sort of superior human beings which reading your post more than a couple of times leads me to believe could be your thought.

The over 65s voted for us to enter the EU in 1974 (Common Market as was then) so why would the majority of them vote to leave? Any evidence?

Only 5% of over 65s are educated to degree level? Really? Evidence? In 1960s grammar schools creamed off between 18% and 30% of population, and pushed most towards higher education, which either immediately or eventually led to a degree (e.g. Open University). I have peers who were rejected by grammar schools, but went onto degree level.

If anyone reads the DM can they let us know when this is going to appear please?

Original article by JP in the DM
Gransnet asking
We'd love to hear your thoughts on this.

In 1959-1960 only 2.61% of school-leavers in England went on to university. This rose to 5.92% in 1968-69. Of course some of these dropped out before graduating, so that graduates of that generation are a very small percentage.

hansard.millbanksystems.com/written_answers/1976/mar/29/school-leavers

I think people who do vote should consider the present situation, look at the appalling inequalities in our society, and use their vote to ensure that the policies which made post war society a place of greater equality than ever before, or since, are re-established. Of course some are convinced that they have done everything themselves and refuse to recognise the benefits they grew up with. They post about how hard their childhood was but don't seem to realise that pre WW2 things were very much worse and it was socialism that improved their lot.
I have already said that I think Paxman was making a joke.

Hm99 states that. "Only 5% of over 65s are educated to degree level? Really? Evidence? In 1960s grammar schools creamed off between 18% and 30% of population"

My post (above) showed the evidence that between 2.61% and 5.92% are the percentage of school-leavers going on to university between the beginning and end of the 1960s.

Most of these children had passed the eleven plus and gone on to grammar schools in the 1950s and although the average for England was around 25% this varied hugely from one area to another and the majority of grammar school leavers did not go on to university.

Someone I know went to a primary school in a wealthy part of Surrey and passed the eleven plus in 1953 and yet he was one of only two out of forty who went to grammar school. Some of those who failed the eleven plus were sent to private schools.

Someone else I know went to a primary school in a pit village in Yorkshire around the same time. No-one in his school passed the eleven plus. They all went to secondary moderns. When he left school at fifteen he was the only boy in his class not to go "down the pit". He became a clerk in the local hospital, worked hard and studied and eventually became a very senior hospital administrator.

The eleven plus condemned many to a harder life and was a bit of a postcode lottery. We should all celebrate the improvement in life chances brought about by the introduction of comprehensive schools.

I would be interested to know, varian, how many of those who finished school in the sixties got degrees as mature students later on.
One of the brilliant things that happened in the seventies was the advent of the OU, and the realisation that many of us could graduate later in life, not just from the OU, but also from many other universities which allowed mature students to graduate.

Education doesn't stop at 16, 18, 21 or any other arbitrary age. Those who look for it can find it.

I think people who do vote should consider why the party who gave us the NHS, Open University, Comprehensive Schools etc were so rejected in 1983 for the next fourteen years .

varian the trouble with figures like those are they cut out all the other methods there were of gaining degrees. Art schools, teacher training colleges, technical colleges all had graduates. Arguably the 3 year teaching Certificate was equivalent to a degree as well and for many working class kids the route out. Then there were "sandwich courses" working in industry part time, attending college and gaining an engineering degree.
But I agree that education is a lifetime thing. You can gain qualifications if you wish or simply do it for education's sake.

Anniebach because having been raised in a socialist environment some people chose to think that they had done it all themselves and rejected the system which had helped them. Just as they are now. Unfortunately others are now suffering because having 'made it' these people refuse to support the same policies which made them what they are. That's exactly why Paxman said they shouldn't be allowed to vote.

It is also the case trisher that many courses which did not lead to degrees at one time do now, eg nursing.

There is a debate in the nursing profession about the effectiveness of academic courses rather than on-the-job training, some saying that today's new nursing graduates are far less able to do the job than the newly qualified nurses of the 1960s.

However we seem to have got to the stage where degrees are the norm and it is difficult for the nursing profession, or any other profession, to relinquish the perceived status of being a graduate-only profession.

What on earth has that to do with how many people gained degrees in the past. And as nurses take on more and more work which requires medical expertise would you be happy to be treatef by a doctor without a degree? So why shouldn't you expect equal qualifications for a nurse?

Would you say that formative years up to, say, 21 made people what they are, or do you mean all the way through to retirement age trisher?

A simple list of post-war governments up until 2010:
www.dummies.com/education/politics-government/post-1945-british-governments/

There have been more Conservative than Labour governments (about 40 years of Conservative and 30 years of Labour) and some on here would argue that the 10 years of Tony Blair's government were more Conservative than Labour. The Government that did encourage people to think that they were better off than they were until along came the credit crunch?
And apparently, in 1957 we'd never had it so good although I do remember DF huffing and puffing about that!

So what has made us what we are?
And what has made many of today's young people what they are? I'm not talking about the have nots who need more apprenticeships to gain qualifications for their own benefit and ours, I'm asking about those who have?

I am just curious

Then there were "sandwich courses" working in industry part time, attending college and gaining an engineering degree.
They were an excellent idea, although not all courses led to a degree. Many led to HND and Associate Membership of an Institute and in fact these qualifications were very well respected and many of those gaining them went on to gain excellent jobs in industry.

Nothing to do with us when we were getting our education, but Hunt is having problems now getting enough nurses.

www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/jeremy-hunt-under-fire-from-rcn-and-labour-hell-bent-on-cuts-student-bursary-equality-analysis-reveals-bame-mature-students-deterred_uk_5a81e6e6e4b08dfc9306c1b5?utm_hp_ref=uk-politics

When we got our degrees, we were not expected to pay for them as they are now.

In those days, though nurses trained for SRN or SEN and in both cases worked on the wards as well whilst training to gain practical experience - a kind of day release scheme in fact.
Should we bring back a 'practical nursing' scheme similar to the SEN scheme as well as the degree course for those who want the higher qualifications?
Should student nurses taking degrees be exempt from fees bearing in mind that other healthcare professionals eg pharmacists, physiotherapists etc have to pay them?
What's the answer?

I thought they still did, Jalima.

The Open University is actually quite expensive now, I believe .

Actually I would not expect to be treated by a non-graduate doctor but would not necessarily expect my nurse to have a degree. Very few nurses of our generation did. Both nurses and doctors learned on the job but doctors will always require a greater depth of academic study.

Nowadays it is true that some, but not all, nurses do specialised work that at one time may have been done by doctors. What matters is that people have appropriate training for the job they do.

At one time there seemed to be many more evening classes run by Local Authorities - both vocational and leisure. As LA funding has been cut these courses are far fewer in number and much more expensive.

I wonder whether in future much theoretical learning in all subject areas will be done online. After all why pay to sit in a hall and listen to an average lecturer when you can listen to a world expert online?

For many professions practical hands-on training needs to be carried out in the workplace and the theoretical study is complimentary to that.

Trainee nurses still work on hospital wards. They are expected to know how to use complicated technology, administer drugs and perform some tasks once the job of doctors. This idea that nurses do not need to be well qualified is based on an old regime that no longer exists. Care and support of a non-medical nature is provided by Nursing Auxiliaries who do not have degrees.

Does it matter about education when it comes to having a democratic vote?

Does it have a relevance with regard to Paxman saying ALL over 65's should not be allowed to vote?

I don't think it can have missed anybodies attention how 'some' people call those who voted Leave in the EU Referendum thick / uneducated as if they felt they had no right to a vote.

I think Paxman is making the same association in part and I am of the belief so do many others.

Care and support of a non-medical nature is provided by Nursing Auxiliaries who do not have degrees
Are they now known as Healthcare Assistants?

I still think that the SEN nurses with their 2 year college and ward-based training were amongst some of the best, most caring and most practical nurses and their qualifications exceeded those of a Healthcare Assistant.

We do need nurses with degrees yes, but surely there is a need for both?