Posts by bmk
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Busytown: School bully, in reply to Sacha,
Hasn't worked. Let's just make sure teachers don't need to act like social workers.
That's because the social welfare system is underfunded and benefits are too low. If benefits were at a decent level then I think this solves the problem. It's wasteful supplying breakfast to children who are fed when that money could be better used on the children who do need it. That way rather than giving breakfast to everyone you can give the children who need it breakfast, lunch and dinner.
-
Busytown: School bully, in reply to BenWilson,
That's the usual argument, to which the counter is that kids not getting breakfast might not be because breakfast was totally unaffordable, but that the parents preferred to use the money another way, or even were too lazy/drunk/stoned/disorganized/dopey to make it. So school breakfast can get around at least one bad outcome of having neglectful parents.
Yeah, well I don't buy that. Either that more money won't help the kids and if they have that neglectful parents what about lunch, what about dinner? If the children are being that neglectful then you need social workers in school not breakfast - breakfast is the cheapest of the three meals.
-
Busytown: School bully, in reply to bmk,
IE if the problem is hunger use the existing welfare system to solve it rather than the education system.
-
Busytown: School bully, in reply to Lucy Telfar Barnard,
tend to think that children not being hungry is a worthwhile objective all on its own, even if it doesn’t make any statistically significant difference to measured educational outcomes.
I agree. But if you want children to stop being hungry it might be better to increase payments to struggling families rather than supply breakfasts to all kids even those whose families are doing fine.
-
Busytown: School bully, in reply to BenWilson,
Quite. I think decent ECE access is under-emphasized, too.
Subsidised ECE is a good one too because it reaches across multiple policy areas. It helps families get by, it helps the economy by employing more people in ece and allowing people to work who otherwise find that after the costs of childcare they end up no better off. You could even possibly tie health into it.
-
Busytown: School bully, in reply to BenWilson,
I'm kind of regretting the war analogy.
Sorry - I'll stop my own continuation of this.
I agree with you that better policies must be formulated rather than straight opposition. But I think they are better to propose one or two strong policies and principles rather than a broad suite of policies. The latter approach will just lose public interest.
I completely agree that Labour must offer a better alternative rather than simply saying National is doing it wrong. Instead say we will do this instead which is better because ...
-
Busytown: School bully, in reply to linger,
My suggestion was that the advantage should be formed into very clear, specific objectives, with a strong thrust for each, rather than a general objective of "push back the Right".
I agree with this entirely. I think we are on the same page just expressing it in different ways. I still think a few direct policies are better than numerous policies. Fight one or two battles where you have an advantage rather than across a broad front where the enemies greater resources will prevail.
-
Busytown: School bully, in reply to BenWilson,
However, when you've got the numerical disadvantage, I think that if you really wish to win, then you have to do something other than the most obvious concentrated head on clash.
I agree with this entirely. I think we are on the same page just seeing different answers. To me staying on your line will mean you lose the war of attrition. You have to find a weak spot where although you have less forces overall you have more in that region and then hammer that point. In politics this means a policy area where you have an advantage and focus primarily on that.
If all they do is react and try and oppose National on all of National's policies I think they are bound to lose. They have to find a highly important policy where they have an advantage and concentrate on that.
-
Busytown: School bully, in reply to BenWilson,
True, though invading Russia usually spells defeat and there were a whole range of reasons why Napoleon was defeated. Logistics is often cited as the primary cause which usually is the limiting factor in an army's advance (see also Nazi Germany in both Russia and North Africa).
And to this day Clausewitz is the foundation of military strategy. He is far higher regarded than Tolstoy when it comes to military strategy and his key points aren't regarded as being refuted. For the tactics you mentioned to work you have to have substantial superiority.
In this political landscape National has the advantage and a significant one. I think if Labour followed your strategy they would make gradual gains and maybe regain office in 2017 or more likely 2020. If they actually want to win in 2014 they can't simply play it safe and wait for the opposition to make mistakes (show weaknesses). Sniping from a static front-line won't work when you are behind in the war.
-
Busytown: School bully, in reply to BenWilson,
I translated this metaphor into the political battle, which is “make attack on all policy fronts, targeting weakness, and never risking all out battle without significant advantage”. It’s not guaranteed to win, but the other strategy is, IMHO, guaranteed to lose.
If politics really were a war then the Clausewitz principle is to strike for the heart (or centre). If there is one objective that will win the war then you focus all your forces on that objective.Your strategy will lead to a dilution of forces and either an attritional stalemate or a loss if your enemy finds a weak point of yours and breaks through using a concentrated force.
Of course whether war is an applicable strategy guide is uncertain. Though I think the two are similar; as Clausewitz (again!) said 'war is the continuation of politics by any other means'. The corollary of that you could argue is therefore that 'politics is war by any other means'.