I agree with Alex that children need discipline and there must be predictable consequences if they behave in a disruptive manner or otherwise try to destroy the learning process classrooms are there for. However, I don't think the sort of policies he rightly condemns stem from misguided leftism, political correctness or anything like that. I think they stem from radical individualism which in turn is derived from free market ideology.

Think about it. If you have a free market system where anything goes in order to gain personal wealth and feel good about yourself, why should you give a stuff about fellow students, your teachers and anyone else for that matter? If Thatcher (supposedly) once said "there is no society", aren't people (no matter how young) going to take that seriously? Of course they are. They are just following what is regarded as normal or fashionable.

Once you destroy collectivity, radical individualism and a lack of responsibility regarding your own actions (let alone other people's welfare) follows as a logical consequence. So thank you, free market ideologues, for giving us a society where people sue at a drop of a hat because a teacher threw their child out of class or sack workers to rake in greater profits or cheat shareholders out of their savings. Thanks for a society where "I" am the most important in the world.

Man, I love swearing. Obviously if it's over used it loses it's effectiveness, but that's about the only problem I have with swearing. It rules! I'd be swearing all the time on this forum if I could!

Yes, duh, of course children need discipline, but swearing is really unimportant compared to violent behaviour and..I dunno, stealing, racism, failing to eat vegetables, whatever it is kids do. Swearing really doesn't matter at all in comparison to these things.

If I ever were to be a parent, for a start, what happened to me, but secondly, I would have my priorities straight about what was silly bad behaviour and what was actual bad behaviour. It seems parents get all huffy about naughty words mainly because it makes them uncomfortable. Sounds like the parents problem more than anything.

Teach a child that naughty words are that and ONLY that, but also that they should not use them when in the company of those who may be offended. Yes, that includes the classroom. So yes, the main point of the article, that the five strikes rule is bullsh...is stupid, I agree.

I just wanted to express my feelings on how much swearing rules. Hooray for swear words!

Too late Alex. In the early 80's and into the 90's, sons of migrants whose ranks are swollen with misogynists were swearing at female teachers in Arabic. The very PC teachers' union told its members not to rock the boat because we had to 'adjust' to these new arrivals. The sisterhood, normally using its very best stentorian voice to denounce anything resembling female bashing, turned its attention to rape in war and other causes. Can't have one group of the cognoscenti at odds with others in the group. By not speaking out at the time the teachers have themselves to blame.

Also happening in the period I mentioned was the new approach to spelling and sentence construction. A friend of mine was teaching in the Newcastle area and he had the District Inspector sitting in his class reviewing his teaching. My friend corrected a young student who had made an error in sentence construction. The DI later told my friend that he shouldn't make such corrections because 'students will learn to communicate in different ways'.

If teachers have no respect for themselves why should they expect students to respect them?

I love swearing too, spendocrat. It is rich, dynamic and expressive. It is also clear and often funny and a great antidote to the bland, corporate speak of so much of today's acceptable language.
The author of this rather prissy article calls himself naive a number of times, I would have to agree.
Adolescents have always tried to shock, in a way, that is their job. Our job, as sensible adults, teachers, parents, whatever, is not to be shocked. Otherwise we prove we have failed to grow up and give them the upper hand. We can disapprove and point out why we think behaviour -like inappropriate swearing - is foolish, but if we freak out, faint and froth at the mouth at mere words....we've lost.
I taught my kids that swearing with their peers is fine, if that is the teenage patois, swearing when they stub their toe or something is probably also an acceptable release of tension, but swearing at someone, or calling anyone names (swearwords or not) was never acceptable. Indeed, it ain't the words that worry me so much, it is the intention behind them. You can do much more harm calling someone an idiot or a retard or a loser, than telling them you think what they're saying is bulls...t. maybe teachers in schools should punish name calling and verbal abuse much more severely than swearing. And maybe some of them should think carefully about their own language in class, particularly if they have a tendency to call kids names.

Indeed, enaj. I used to try and get around my mum's ban on swear words by saying "oh FROG!". She firmly pointed out to me that it is the INTENTION, rather than the WORD that is the issue.

I really think that the main issue is not that teachers do not want to impose discipline, but they are hampered at every step by parents who are utterly convinced that THEIR little darling can do no wrong, and it must be someone else's fault.

A good example of this happened in my cousin's school trip to central Australia- two kids were caught (underage) drinking alcohol, and were sent home early from the camp in disgrace, at great cost to the parents. The parents, however, did not ground these kids for the rest of the two weeks that their peers were away, no, they felt they had been unjustly punished, and took them shopping to stop them getting bored while their friends were away!

There are of course many many other examples of this- when teachers are up against parents yelling at them for everything (eg "you gave my child detention! I dont care they threatened another child with scissors! My child wouldn't do that! You have a vendetta against my child!") then you can see that really, swearing is so far down the list of dramas that they are trying to deal with, and they know they are not going to get any backup from home, that it dosn't seem worth the trouble.

The problem with the approach being taken by the school in the UK is that it puts an arbitrary limit on the relative naughtiness of something. In this kind of environment, for the ease of all participants, either something is okay or it isn't. However, I disagree with the point being made by the author that this is a result of nannyism...I have to agree with other post-ers that schools run a really fine line with what they can and can't enforce, and some of this comes down to consistency. If a school can't expect to have the support of the broader community in enforcing, say, a swearing ban, then maybe it's an inappropriate thing to do. Plus for goodness sake, let's stop expecting teachers to do all our parenting for us!

And swearing can enhance our meaning! It can be a rich and "colourful" (hence the euphemism) and sometimes explain things in a way that no other words can. Doesn't mean I'd roll out an observation about how 'f---ing awesome the New Testament is' in church. Because, as post-ers have commented, sometimes it's appropriate and sometimes it isn't.

My partner and I have made quite an effort to cut down on our swearing in front of the two-year-old, mainly because he was starting to repeat those words prior to his understanding of "good/bad", he's just used to us being impressed he can repeat words that we can say.

I also agree that the motivation is often the important factor: my parents also banned "swear word substitutes" (I seem to recall 'fruit tingles' was what they were opposed to) in our house. I'd rather he hear, for example, an exclamation of 's---!' in response to a stubbed toe than for him to think that his parents calling each other "fat cow" or the like was appropriate. Just because something doesn't contain a swear word, doesn't make it more acceptable.

Patience, posties, the backlash is coming. It is inevitable if people want their children to be educated. If I were put in charge of a school I could guarantee that I would fix the discipline problem within a week. I would give the students a lesson in Austrtalian history by doing four simple things:

1. I would not do anything until the State Parliament passed legislation authorising me to take the required action. Note: It would not be the Commonwealth Government, which has no constitutional powers in this area, and any stupid edicts from the United Nations would be ignored. We need to have different laws in different states, with people racing to the Queensland frontier with the police close behind. Remember, if state laws are different, there is no extradition.

2. I would have a suitable triangle erected within the school grounds.

3. I would post up a simple list of rules for all students to note.

4. Then I would get out the lash.

It would be my considered opinion that I would only have to expose the backbone of one or two students before all the others would get the message and perfect discipline would prevail throughout the school.

What all the go-gooders will never realise is that you have to make life more inconvenient for those who do not obey the rules. In the last resort you must rule by fear.

Obviously the school in question has a lot of students who hear it all around them at home. I imagine that a teacher in such a school has enough trouble just getting the students to bring their own pen and book to school let alone control the swearing. Restricting the f word to 5 times in a lesson is probably a very realistic and potentially achievable goal in such an environment.

Why should schools teach anything other then the three R's. The state should not be impossing manners on our childern. Parents are the ones to blame for this problem not schools, Parents are spending less and less time with their kids and even less time teaching them things like morals.

How apt that DavidJS invokes the spirit of Margaret Thatcher as evidence that "society" is to blame.

"why should you give a stuff about fellow students, your teachers and anyone else for that matter? If Thatcher (supposedly) once said "there is no society", aren't people (no matter how young) going to take that seriously?"

The quote most often attributed to her is "There's no such thing as society", and used as evidence of her unfeeling arrogance. But when these words are put back into their original context, what do we find?

"[People constantly requesting government intervention] are casting their problems at society. And, you know, there's no such thing as society. There are individual men and women and there are families. And no government can do anything except through people, and people must look after themselves first. It is our duty to look after ourselves and then, also, to look after our neighbours."

What she was actually saying is what a number of others have already articulated here - if you leave it (discipline) to the government, you have already lost the battle.

DavidJS “If Thatcher (supposedly) once said "there is no society-
Once you destroy collectivity, radical individualism and a lack of responsibility regarding your own actions - o thank you, free market ideologues - blah,”

Margaret said “There is no such thing as Society. There are individual men and women, and there are families.” If you are going to quote her please use the full quote and not some politicially contrived and manipulated abridgement to suit a particular agenda.

Margaret also said “We want a society where people are free to make choices, to make mistakes, to be generous and compassionate. This is what we mean by a moral society; not a society where the state is responsible for everything, and no one is responsible for the state.”

Your “Collectivity” that hapless notion of a group of people exercising greater “responsibility” and producing greater “collective benefit” than individuals pursuing individual objectives is a lie.

Individualism is the result of mutual respect. Some will be “radicals” – regardless of political persuasion.

The outcome of Free market policies is to breakdown the “protectionism” .
Hence cheaper clothing for consumers and farmers buying cheaper tractors than the ones which were once made in Australia.
It means greater market opportunity for people to be employed in businesses where their return for effort has greater economic value than sewing up underpants. Farmers can expands their export markets (check growth in Australian farm exports into India). Cars, clothes, electronics are cheaper in terms of price to number of average days/weeks earns than they used to be. All due to free market policies.

“Peace through Trade!”

None of that has anything to do with parental responsibility for children. Alexander Deans is right. Standards of behaviour are a matter of where we set the “bar” of acceptable behaviour. If we follow socialist policies of the 70’s, 80’s etc, Joan Kirner & Co removed the “bar” completely and are more culpable for low standards than any Liberal party – I cite Latham as example – and (from what he wrote) the Labor Caucus too.

Col Rouge, your hero Thatcher also said in 1986 -

"A man who, beyond the age of 26, finds himself on a bus can count himself as a failure".

I really would like to see you try and justify that one as being anything other than arrant nonsense.

[Deleted for bad language. Poster suspended for one week.]

[Deleted for bad language. Poster suspended for a week.]

I didn't think I got the quote quite right but the overall point stands. Thatcher obviously took great pride in destroying collective efforts and social services and lauded individualism. Sure, she was a hypocrite - she was one for eulogising family responsibilities while eliminating the jobs of hardworking parents. She supported unions in Poland but not in Britain and South Africa. And it is quite clear from her policies, regardless of what she mouthed, that "greed is good" (the proverbial 80s motto) was what she lived by. Still, she was a fighter for her class and I guess you can admire her for that.

Speaking of class, Deane complains about the behaviour of school children. When were the British children and teenagers of today born? In Thatcher's or Major's or Blair's Britain. This surely has a greater influence on their behaviour than so-called socialism (as if British Labour was ever socialist). And please nobody talk about the influence of the 1960s. That was over 30 years ago and prior to 17 years of continous Tory rule. I think the latter maybe more influential on today's children than the Summer of Love.

[Deleted for using a second alias to get around a suspension. Suspended for six months.]

Some quick research has revealed that in ancient England a person could not have sex unless you had consent of the King (unless you were in the Royal Family, and look what that produced..urrgh!)

Apparently when anyone wanted to have a baby, they got consent of the King, the King gave them a placard that they hung on their door while they were having sex. The placard had F.*.*.*. (Fornication Under Consent of the King) on it.

Now you know where that came from, I'm now wondering if those English kiddies are Monarchists or Republicans.
Col, do you know if Margaret Thatcher ever uttered this naughty word

Alex

Thank you for your article.

Interesting isn't it? Behaviour modification - reward the behaviour so that it will be repeated.

So, if I was a kid in that school I would probably aim for as many swearing points as I could in any one class and in any one day. Great way to reinforce swearing - and the often mental/emotional violence that it can connote! So, when I go home from school I can say: "You f*n mother f*er, you beat me, you got more f*s in than me!".

Gee, that's a great way to teach kids about the value of life.

So, is the next step: earn 6 points each session for saying f^n c*t?

I am not a wowzer - after 27 years of psych nursing! Wait for my next post folks!

Cheers
Kay

I was always told that the use of the vernacular indicated a lack of vocabulary.

I swear, probably more than I would like. Thinking about when I do, I realise that the preceding comment is exactly why - I swear because I can't find other words to express myself clearly, or with the requisite amount of emotion. More to the point, I don't take the time to find these words, which in turn just makes it easier to swear (I'm a little lazy these days).

So is it cool, as other posters have argued, or a sign of something else?

How hilarious that rancitas (aka auntyhazel) has been suspended for naughty behaviour on this particular posting thread! Maybe Alex Deane could give him/her a sounding spanking!

Rainier - I'm afraid you've been taken in.

http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a2_268b.html

DavidJS “Thatcher obviously took great pride in destroying collective efforts and social services and lauded individualism.”

Thatcher recognised – “society” is the collective noun for “individuals”.

Society is not an entity, it has no shape or form and exists only as an amorphous changing mass. People are “individuals” and all human endeavour is the outcome of the thoughts and actions of individuals.
“Society” does not have thought or feeling, only individuals do.
Margaret Thatcher recognised the decline of Britain as a consequence of the Socialist delusional policies of the 1960s and 1970s and endeavoured to “change the culture” from “socialist co-dependence” to “individual independence”, within a common culture. She had bigger gonads than most on the Conservative side of politics, whilst the socialists were a bunch of neutered non-entities.

“This surely has a greater influence on their behaviour than so-called socialism (as if British Labour was ever socialist) “

It might be worth pointing out that whilst Margaret Was PM, Ken Livingston (Red Ken) was leader of LCC – the point – “negative socialist” influences continued to linger in the bottom of the gully trap.
As for British Labour Party being “Socialist” – the British labour party manifesto of 1970’s was more left wing than the Italian communist party, “entryism” (Trotskyites infiltrating the labour party) was at its height. Michael Foot (raving leftie loon) ended up as the ineffectual leader and Anthony Wedgewood-Benn was shortening his name, having already denounced his hereditary title, and slipping into what seemed like some form of premature dementia to hide his irrelevance.

Rainier, reference to Kings, to give such comment “context” tell us when such practices ceased. I know but you finding out will benefit your education. I am sure Margaret was capable of using any language she cared but had more class than to bore us with expletives, same applies to John Howard versus potty-mouth Latham

Finally another MT quote “And what a prize we have to fight for: no less than the chance to banish from our land the dark divisive clouds of Marxist socialism.”

BC2 Col Rouge, your hero Thatcher also said in 1986 -

"A man who, beyond the age of 26, finds himself on a bus can count himself as a failure".

In the hurly-burly of UK Commons debate I guess many things are said.

If you want to quote Dearest Margaret ( a good source of all things) try

“I don't think there will be a woman Prime Minister in my lifetime"

I guess she got that wrong too!

As for "arrant nonsense" all I need to do is look at past Labor leaders - say

Bob Hawke “No Australian Child will live in poverty in 1990”

Keating “This is the recession we had to have”

Latham (Oh Latham – what a cesspool of arrant nonsense this galah will prove to be) how about

"The role of government is to stimulate market competition, not smother it with tariffs, subsidies and central planning." – an early bid for the liberal vote!

or

“Labor is “irreparably broken”,” – he would know – he broke it!

of course the following is a good reference to character (or lack of it)

“The numerous snakes, freaks, arseholes and sewer rats in the (labor) caucus …… lot of people will be unhappy about the truth, but quite frankly I couldn’t give a rat’s arse about them. Good luck in the future with your work and thanks again for your support while I was leader of "that thing". Kind regards, Mark Latham.”

Or what other people (of the left) thought of Latham

Kevin Rudd: “Mark Latham has a big problem with the truth.”

NSW Labor senator Steve Hutchins: “I’ve always thought he was a sleaze and he’s proven he is.”

Jeff Kennett went out on a limb 8 months ago and suggested Latham was mentally unbalanced - the above proves Jeff called it right.

Col, Are you saying Margaret preferred to say

'go and get rogered' (a touch more high brow expression) instead of the lower class 'f; word?

For example;

'I got rogered today'

Or

'I'm going to roger you' or in reference to her late hubby

'Denis, why don't you just 'roger' off…or Denis, you’re a lousy ‘roger”

Alex, please. Swearing is, I believe, directly related to a deep frustration and anger. Children pick up on this, they hear these words and are immediately told that they are “bad” words. Quiet naturally they use them as a form of rebellion against authority. Immature? Probably, however, if a severe reaction follows, “the lash” or anything equivalent can, I believe, produce a worse reaction. A child can either meekly accept the authority or go further in their rebellion. Old fashioned tories seem to think that meekly submitting to the “good” authority that they possess produces a better person. No it doesn’t it. It merely produces robots who aren’t allowed, for fear of upsetting the authority, to express anger or frustration. Maybe that’s good for the authority, they have produced a person directly in their own image, great for their own ego. I honestly believe that all humans have what I call a little anarchist bug within them and that many people have used this anti-authoritarian stance in a positive way. I think that this is part of the rebellious streak that underlines our existence. From the moment we are born we are looking for a way to create our own identity. Using “bad” language does not automatically turn us into bomb throwing crack smoking idiots who use the f and c words every second word. I have met people from all classes of society, you would be surprised how many “proper” people use these words. There are far worse examples of human behavior throughout history than a few curse words. In other words, get over it. I use “bad” words all the time and respect others. I have used curse words around people who don’t appreciate it. They let me know that they personally find it offensive and I accepted their beliefs and apologized. In return I expect people to respect my right to use “bad” language within my own social circle. If they try to stop me from my right to curse then an immature nasty response would follow. Ultimately, that would defeat the purpose of ending “bad’ language.

[Deleted for abuse of forum rules.]

[Deleted for abuse of forum rules.]

Noting the various approaches to the issue already made, I have a different one.

Linguistically, the most powerful 'swear' words that I know of, are related to the most intimate acts and body parts.
The "F" word is a corruption of intercourse, or perhaps more a commentary on the level to which it has degenerated. Then the 'C' word, and I find it strange that a womans vagina, is conceptualized as 'someone despicable'. Of course, there are many combinations of how these 2 words are juxtaposed, with the additional reference to another body part or 2, but they all relate to the same area of life and human interaction.

Is it possible that our 'swearing' is in fact a cry for help ? is it an admission that we have failed to obtain the love and security that intercourse and the human body were intended to give, and therefore we attack it with all that is within us ?

Then there is the cultural aspect. When a horrible distortion of our procreative, security giving and pleasuring activities become the linguistic 'norm' we fall victim to the same situation that the feminists are on about -'structural, language based sexism'. We are engaging in the destruction of that which should be most precious to us, and on which our survival depends.

As for how to handle it in the class room ? Simple.

1/ You ! kid in the 3rd row, you used an obcenity, and it is NOT part of this class culture. Give the class an apology now !"
2/ No apology, and your out !
3/ A letter will be sent to your parents.
4/ (1964) Go to mr Lee's office for 6 of the best.
4/ (2005) You can say it 5 times.... blah blah...

I received a letter for my son drawing 'Inappropriate drawings' (very well done too) and I had to front the vice principle.. with him.. and look at the drawings TOGETHER (VP is female) haven't had a re-offence.

And for Spendo who has obviously embraced 'swearing'.. newsflash :) it does not 'rule' :)

DavidBOAZ – agree with your view (original 1-4) – acceptance of parental responsibility and discipline (defining boundaries of acceptable versus unacceptable behaviour) is instrumental to child development. My eldest daughter actually thanked me for defining those boundaries for her when young – and when needed. Children need to test limits to develop – if there is no resistance in testing they will simply assume they have not reached it thus far and grow up with the idea that their individual rights are unbridled with no respect for other people. A bit like Rancitas or Aunty Hazel or “the The” or whatever nom-de-plume it is using today.

Unable to accept or exercise self control or responsibility for its expression rancitas uses multiple logons to circumvent the discipline of site. I trust Graham Young with take appropriate retrospective action and delete the asinine postings of the spoilt, unruly and undisciplined brat.

Ranier – whilst you seem fascinated with Margaret Thatchers sex life I am sure of one thing – she had one – the way you seem fixated on such pursuits by others suggests the nearest you get leaves you at risk of carpel–tunnel syndrome.

Finally – my understanding of urbane legend, the origin of the "F" word was “Forced Use of Carnal Knowledge” as a simile for rape.

Hey Col
that was a very polite response. Appreciated.
Organized religion is not my cup of tea either, in the Anglican/Catholic sense. Huge beurocracies have never been a good seed bed of 'rubber meets the road' faith experience.
The early church comprised of house churches, many of whom lived in constant fear of their lives.

If you can wade through it, here is a glimpse of the Church I was a part of during my 'misho' days. The last lines are very heartwarming.
http://www.necf.org.my/berita/berita_nov_dec1999/prayerwave.htm

I looked up the 'F' word, and Wikepedia has plenty to say, but not a whole lot about the actual origin which seems quite obscure.
One thing for sure, you can say a heck of a lot using it's many permutations, noun, adjective, verb, etc. But while the word has flexibility, its connotations are still a sad commentary on our social condition.

We should 'stir each other up to good works' is the Biblical idea, and I feel this applies to language also.

BOAZ_David

I found your last post interesting. Isn't it sad that a woman's vagina can be connoted with something that is filthy - as in the "c" word? I will never understand that. And I also cannot understand why some males call other males f'ing cs. What does that mean?

I am not a wowzer even though I was reared in a Christian household where swearing was forbidden.

As a mental health nurse I have nursed people from all levels of the social spectrum. And believe me, that's when swearing crosses no barriers - including Nuns and Priests in a psychotic state using fs and cs. Very sad really, because when they became well and remembered their illness state, they were filled with remorse and guilt - and never understanding where such stuff came from.

I have always accepted bad language when people are in an acute illness stage, but when they are recovering, that's when I put the brakes on. I say things like: "When you were so very ill, you were not responsible for what you were saying. Now that you are recovering I no longer accept your foul language. I am not employed in a caring relationship to be abused. If you continue to use abusive language towards me or others, I will ignore you. It's as simple as that. You have rights yes - but that does not include a right to use foul language to abuse me". Almost always worked.

I used the f word far regularly some years back. Now I just think that swearing shows poor taste and is basically a waste of oxygen.

I think that there is a fair amount to deep seated anger and/or hate when people repeatedly use fs and cs as part of their normal vocabulary.

I was talking with my mother last night. She was washing my nieces' clothing. She found a note when cleaning out pockets prior to laundering items. Our 13 years old had notes from others - all filled with fs and cs. Sickening isn't it?

Cheers
Kay

The decline of Britain as an economic power goes further back than Col Rouge suggests. It can be traced as far back as the early 20th century when the US overtook it as the world's major economic power. Labour governments of the late 40s, early 50s and 70s are but blips compared to this much larger socio-economic process.

In regard to declining moral standards, which is at the heart of Alex Deane's article, my main point was to suggest the ways of thinking and social mores under Thatcher (and Major and Blair for that matter) has been much more influential on school children than the left counterculture and political movements of the 60s and 70s. Why? Because the children of today have grown up or are growing up in the 1980s onwards. Put it this way. I was born in 1964. The social values in 1970s Australia has had far more influence that World War II or the Great Depression on my way of thinking.

Too often on this forum, people blame things they don't like that are happening now on the 60s. This is getting less and less tenable as time goes by. To put it another way, "greed is good" is more influential on today's children and young adults than "the personal is political" because the former is closer chronologically to the here and now.

BOAZ - nah, it totally does. It's awsome. So expressive and colourful, applicable in a million circumstances and always straight to the point. Not that many words are so immediately effective and universally understandable.

'newsflash'? What are you, in primary school?

Exactly kay :)

Poor spendo will most likely be in a home and under your care due to hyper vocal activity saying lots but little :)

Spendo, ur a baddd boy..goto ur room and think about that :)
and if u still have ur potty mouth when you have 'reflected' u will see me reaching for the chille sauce..grrrrrr :)

How was the weekend ? I had a good one. Though verrrrry stressed over my son who sucked up to me last week to zip off to Japan for the 'weekend'.. aarggggggggggggggggh... (also sucked up for about half his plane fare.. mumbles.) He didn't give me any phone number to contact there, his mobile wont work there, and he told me that he got an email in Singpore (during his 2 hour transit stop) which totally changed the meeting place. "We wont meet you at the airport, but u catch a train to such and such a place and meet us under the 7 story building like a 'chic'. Myyyyyyy goodness.. there were enough 'what if's in my head about this I could fill a britanica.

Fortunately, all went well and he comes back "I had the best time dad" 2night.

Ok.. gloves are now off...back to the battle :)

Does anyone know the derivation of the old maxim: "Spare the rod and spoil the child"?

DavidJS “The decline of Britain as an economic power goes further back than Col Rouge suggests. It can be traced as far back as the early 20th century when the US overtook it as the world's major economic power. Labour governments of the late 40s, early 50s and 70s are but blips compared to this much larger socio-economic process.”

Oh David, lets not split hairs over such matters.

If you want to compare the real decline of Britain – it “started” in 1776 when, what was to ultimately become the core of USA, ceded from dear old King Georges Sovereign possession (Sure India and Australia had barely been added to the “Empire” but the "decline" definitely started when the “American colonies“ won independence (and not without a few drops of blood being spilt).

Britain remained the hub of trade, innovation and financial services (regardless of USA’s capacity to produce with economies of scale for what ended up a significantly larger domestic demand), for a long time after

Oh, if you want to know about "socio-economic process" I suggest start to figure the EEC - one reason for it was to eliminate inter-state differences and thus "compete" with common market population statistics with USA.

However, that in no way excuses or reduces the negative influence of the lies and delusions of socialism and the corrosive effects they had on British economic performance and individual standards of living, let alone “terms of trade” (– which fell into the abyss under Wilson and Callaghan).

As for “This is getting less and less tenable as time goes by” –
You have a choice – suffer or desist – Not everyone thinks what you post is sacrosanct and inviolate and I for one will not acquiesce to any such piffle regardless of its “tenability”.

DavidBOAZ - being called "Dad" is one of the best things in the world - my girls and I plus our respective partners went to see "Wallace & Grommit" on Friday night as a group - great "family" time.

The poor state of the British (and Australian) education systems ensure that although the kids can say the words, they sure as s#@* can't spell 'em.

Col, I never have regarded my posts as "sacrosanct". That's your piffle projected onto me. I wouldn't post here if I couldn't put up with responses. I'm not really sure now whether actually understand the point I'm making. I thought it was a simple one. That is, if Deane laments declining moral standards of children in Britain he must consider the society they were born and brought up in. The time for blaming "socialism" Wilson, Callaghan et al is long gone. Or will we still be blaming the malign influence of 60s and 70s "socialism" in 2060?

Similar garbage is trotted out by Brendan Nelson when he refers to teaching standards. "Political correctness" is a term used like so much confetti. Teachers' unions are blamed. Everyone it seems except his own incompetent government which underfunds already underfunded schools and then whinges about poor educational outcomes.

DavidJS "Everyone it seems except his own incompetent government which underfunds already underfunded schools and then whinges about poor educational outcomes."

Lets see - Education Budgets - Managed by State Governments...

State Governments, ironically controlled by Labor

Discipline and Testing (quality performance) of schools progressively eroded by successive State Labor governments.

Parental Discipline underminded by fairy-floss socialist policies of childrens so called rights etc.

Keep it up and I can keep it up too.

Make you point and I am happy to counter it.

Socialism is the "methodone" which replaced the "opiate" of religion (to extend Marx)- replace one dependency with another.

In the real world, we are individually "tested" daily in our life roles.
We all individually fail at some time - and such failures are as valuable a source of personal development as a success.

"Individuals" are the source of all human output, excellence and performance. They operate best when left to think and develop independently / individually (not constrained by fatuous notions of co-dependence).

To function best as an individual requires "self discipline", focus and commitment.

"Self discipline" is developed from extention to the fundamental education which schools are supposed to provide but which is disrupted by weakwilled teachers who indulgence those who would sooner disrupt the education flow with "potty mouth" outbursts and expletives.
Deny children their "disciplined education", we end up with lazy minded morons who think the world is their birth right and society will provide for their every indulgence.
Those morons will whine and moan about the successes of those who did learn that "discipline of self" comes from discipline in class.
Unfortunately - those same morons will one day grow up to vote and vote labor - the party of co-dependence, excuse and failure.

DavidJS; I think you'll find that the shocking standard of education in Britain and Australia has much more to do with the ideologies of state Labor governments and left wing teacher unions than it does with federal funding levels.
Isn't education funding primarily a state responsibility? The thing that amazes me is that our kids education runs a very poor second behind proping up stupid and demonstrably second-rate standards and ideologies and federal government bashing. If you were fair dinkum you'd acknowledge that our education standards are falling and try to help fix the problem instead of blaming society. What a cop-out.
Your assertion that the problems in education can be placed at the feet of a free-market economy is ludicrous. Especially when it's the very people you don't blame (the lefties, correctoids etc) that have been in control of education for many years.

The Commonwealth has funding allocations and guidelines for schools including private schools:

http://www.dest.gov.au/sectors/school_education/programmes_funding/forms_guidelines/quadguide/schools_quadrennial_administrative_guidelines_2001_2004.htm

State governments administer school education and provide their own funding. State governments are run by right-wing ALP politicians - not so-called socialists. Even when there is a left-wing Education Minister such as Carmel Tebbutt in NSW (and she ain't that left), there is no guarantee of a "socialist" agenda influencing educational outcomes or programs. Indeed, Tebbutt removed an anti-homophobia program recently from NSW schools at the behest of the Murdoch press. Moreover, state governments have been in the hands of the Coalition in the recent past - certainly more recently than the freewheeling 60s and 70s. Greiner in NSW and Kennett in Victoria come to mind.

Deane is talking about Britain. Britain had a conservative government from 1979 to 1997. After that it has had a right-wing Labour Government. Local government in Britain has been mainly either Labour, Liberal or Conservative. It has never been Marxist.

Co-dependency? How about the co-dependency of private schools, including some of the wealthiest in the country, on taxpayer funding?

Blame it on society? Read Deane again and you'll find he says precisely that. Are people agreeing with the author here or disagreeing? And he also says there is a need for leadership from government (or is that just the author revealling his "co-dependence"?).

Finally, if you think left-wing teachers are the problem, perhaps it might be a good idea to pay right-wing wages.

Go DavidJS!
Great posts and you know your facts.
The Federal Govt is destroying public schools, not only via funding but via the New Schools program that deregulated the opening of private schools, so that non-viable tiny private schools can now get big bucks (millions, in some cases) and drain kids from what were viable public schools, so that we now have many more small, not very good, struggling schools, both public and private.
The NSW govt can't help close the funding gap between private and public schools thanks to another Liberal party ideologue, Terry Metherell, who enshrined in legislation that for every dollar going to a public school, 25cents must go to a private one. Every time they increase funding to public schools, the private schools get a windfall too. Only the Feds can do it and they give 70% of their funds to private schools, and are taking away public school kids opportunities because they want to break a union. There's good values for you.....
Very, very soon with falling birthrates we will have to start closing schools, and the only ones we can close are the only ones open to all. Yep, you guessed it, public schools. So, if you're contemplating having kids, save your money, because you ain't going to have any choice. You are going to have to send your kids to a private school, and pay fees. heaven help you if the private school nearest you doesn't want your kid....or you can't afford the fees. Gee, I guess if we want to stay a first world country and have an educated population, we'll just have to re-invent compulsory education and public schools again. What a waste of time!

DavidJS “How about the co-dependency of private schools, including some of the wealthiest in the country, on taxpayer funding?”

Oh hardly. Simple principle “no taxation without representation”. If I am levied tax and charges for a government provided service, I am entitled to participate in the benefits services provided - just like the medicare system.

“Blame it on society” – I did not read that into what he was saying I read it that the education process, with a much of a generation of leftie-limp-wristed-inadequates working as teachers, the problem is entrenched – just like that teachers union idiot who wanted to only teach a “socialist politically directed” syllabus

I quote from Kevin Donnelly’s article, presented here 29th January 2004

“since the late 1970s, teachers unions such as the AEU have been captured by the Left…..
Anyone familiar with the union’s 1993 and 1988 curriculum policies will know that the union has long viewed Australian society as inequitable and socially unjust. Education, in the words of the Marxist theorist Louis Althusser, is part of the "ideological state apparatus" and those advocating change must "take the long march through the institutions".
As former Victorian premier and education minister Joan Kirner has argued, education has to be reshaped "so that it is part of the socialist struggle for equality, participation and social change, rather than an instrument of the capitalist system". That the AEU embraces a politically correct view of the world can be seen by its views on assessment.”

I care less about your leftwing policy desires than you do about my rightwing views.

I can live my lifestyle (model) without your ineffective efforts or input and I rely on you in no way.

Conversely, your “model” demands excessive tax levies on my efforts and would cap my "reward" at the same level of that made provided for the intellectually and attitudinally inadequate.

We are both equal when it comes to voting and I will fight with my vote against your views forever.

Dear Col Rouge,

Taxpayer funding to private schools is most unusual in the western world, we are one of the very few countries to do it.

Most countries look at it this way. The tax payer provides a fully subsidised free place for every child in the community, those who choose not to use it pay for their child to attend a private school.

Tax is not a savings scheme, you don't put money in so that you can directly use it, otherwise we would all only pay for the roads we personally drive on, the trains we catch and the hospitals we go to.

At the moment, someone who sends their child to a private school and then decides, for whatever reason that they don't want it any more ( perhaps they can't afford the fees any longer, their kid is expelled, or hates it, or they don't like what's being taught) can access a guaranteed place at their local public school for their child, that is the right of every tax payer. (68% of the current year 11 at my kid's public school have come from private schools, a drift never talked about, interestingly enough.)You may not choose to use a public school, but you can change your mind any time you like. But it does not work the other way around. Just because my taxes go to private schools doesn't mean my kid can attend one, especially if I can't afford the fees. So, many tax payers, particularly the poorer ones, are contributing taxes to schools that would never accept their child.

Even more galling, they sometimes watch their taxes go towards more and more salubrious resources at schools their kids can never attend.

If we're going to talk about the rights that flow from paying taxes, its important to think it through.

I refer you to the following link
http://www.ctredpol.org/vouchers/privateschoolfundingapp.pdf
Are public funds used to finance private schools

Australia – yes
Austria – yes
Belgium – yes
Canada – yes (generally by state)
Denmark – yes
Finland – yes
France – yes when complying to contract rules
Germany – yes
Greece – No – although ministerial discretion and pupil direct financial assistance available
Iceland – yes
Ireland – yes
Italy – partial depending on availability of public schooling
Luxembourg – yes
Netherlands – yes
New Zealand – yes
Norway – yes but very small sector V public schooling
Poland – yes
Portugal – yes
Spain – yes
Sweden – yes
Switzerland – not stated
UK – depends on circumstance – but some do
USA – yes

So – enaj

“Taxpayer funding to private schools is most unusual in the western world, we are one of the very few countries to do it.”

Based on the list of 23 countries above, only Greece does not fund private schools in any way and for Switzerland the funding regime was not stated – the other 21 do – so your statement is clearly a lie.

Note USA was not part of the report but funding is provided (among confusion about church v state)

As for “Most countries look at it this way. The tax payer provides a fully subsidised free place for every child in the community, those who choose not to use it pay for their child to attend a private school.”

My response to your post – For building an argument such a statement has the reasoning and structural quality of fairyfloss, Your post is intended to support a preconceived political view which is as easy to disprove as your claim that “Taxpayer funding to private schools is most unusual in the western world”

As for “If we're going to talk about the rights that flow from paying taxes, its important to think it through.”

As well as “thinking things through”, some thought and consideration should be given to “getting the basic facts” first, otherwise everything which follows is pure “crap”