Calling all Tories. Why do you Tory?

[meltonblue]

Absolutely mate, private schools will always exist for the perceived social status but speaking from experience the majority of parents sending their kids to one are making sacrifices to send them there and only doing so because the local state school is wank. And you know what those kids are the lucky ones, the unlucky ones are the kids that still have to go to said state school.

So given it will be a longer journey to get state schools to a level of excellence let’s in the meantime make school fees payable ahead of tax making the option of going to one more accessible for a lot more parents without needing full bursaries and the such. You could only disagree with that on idealogical reasons.

Yeah I wasn’t arguing against private or grammar schools, just saying my experience of going to the latter.

Personally, I don’t particularly have an issue with them. The only issues I have is grammar schools like the one I went to that mixes up the admission criteria depending on the money people have rather than just judging it on potential and also, as much as they can be very good educationally, I know a few people that struggled socially for a long while after going to them.

 

[pirate]

Housing crisis came well after this time and it’s a result, imo, of population growth vs building, rather than the ownership of property changing hands.

Personally, owning your own house gives you a sense of pride that’s hard to put into words.

Personally we should be focusing on promotion of brown field redevelopment and trying not to significantly increase the country’s population, through obviously moral means.

the housing crisis arose because the thatcher government would not let the proceeds of the sale of council houses to be used to build more council houses.
that led to a number of issues including the rise of buy to let housing, which pushed up the price of houses whilst at the same time increasing rents, reducing secure tenancy (private sector leases are usually 6 months as opposed to open ended leases of council houses) and decreasing the standards of the housing stock available to rent (the primary goal of private landlords is to make money, therefore only the bare minimum of maintenance and repair is carried out).

 

[pirate]

And it was selective right? So By thick cunts do you mean lacking in common sense?

try to learn to read, he posted that the boarders did not have to pass the entrance exam, therefore not selective for the rich, any rich thicko could go. only selective for the locals

 

[pirate]

Absolutely mate, private schools will always exist for the perceived social status but speaking from experience the majority of parents sending their kids to one are making sacrifices to send them there and only doing so because the local state school is wank. And you know what those kids are the lucky ones, the unlucky ones are the kids that still have to go to said state school.

So given it will be a longer journey to get state schools to a level of excellence let’s in the meantime make school fees payable ahead of tax making the option of going to one more accessible for a lot more parents without needing full bursaries and the such. You could only disagree with that on idealogical reasons.

try to understand that the state schools are only wank due to funding
state school get approx 5k per pupil per year.
stockport grammer (not a prticularly elite private school) spends 12k a year per pupil (which the parents pay as fees)

if you want to get better state schools the only options are increase taxes or decrease spending in another areas.

thats it

the rest is bullshit

 

[meltonblue]

try to learn to read, he posted that the boarders did not have to pass the entrance exam, therefore not selective for the rich, any rich thicko could go. only selective for the locals

Exactly that.

Just for clarity too, for those locals that did pass the entrance exam, there were no fees at all (well, £12 a year book fees...)

 

[Alan Harper's Tash]

try to learn to read, he posted that the boarders did not have to pass the entrance exam, therefore not selective for the rich, any rich thicko could go. only selective for the locals

Maybe he’s a boarder?

 

[metalblue]

try to understand that the state schools are only wank due to funding
state school get approx 5k per pupil per year.
stockport grammer (not a prticularly elite private school) spends 12k a year per pupil (which the parents pay as fees)

if you want to get better state schools the only options are increase taxes or decrease spending in another areas.

thats it

the rest is bullshit

Literally what I said a few pages back. Try to learn to read ;)

 

[metalblue]

Maybe he’s a boarder?

No mate, state school me, didn’t really excel there was bang average. But what I did have was a strong work ethic and that’s seen me alright. But my all means imply I’m a thicko, you might even be right.

 

[metalblue]

the housing crisis arose because the thatcher government would not let the proceeds of the sale of council houses to be used to build more council houses.
that led to a number of issues including the rise of buy to let housing, which pushed up the price of houses whilst at the same time increasing rents, reducing secure tenancy (private sector leases are usually 6 months as opposed to open ended leases of council houses) and decreasing the standards of the housing stock available to rent (the primary goal of private landlords is to make money, therefore only the bare minimum of maintenance and repair is carried out).

In reality it’s probably costing the tax payer more paying “market rates” to private landlords or even “lower” rates to housing associations (as the state doesn’t own the asset) certainly created a more vulnerable housing situation for many like you say.

It wasn’t her best policy and I wonder if she could see the impact we have now she would have done the same and not-reinvested.

I’m not entirely sure it’s the only cause to our housing shortage but it’s a contributor.

 

[FogBlueInSanFran]

Everybody regardless should have the same equality of opportunity and then you may actually have a meritocracy.

Smart sentence (I cut off the silly part).

There is nothing meritous in getting a top job if you have a head start in life, there is a merit in getting a top job if you have do not have a head start in life.

Not a very smart sentence, especially the made-up word.

The problem is too few who dont have the head start ever have the chance to become meritous.

Smart sentence, except for the made-up word -- and that's exactly at the crux of defining things like social justice and defining the scope of a public good.

The top jobs are reserved for an elite, an old school tie network who have got the job by deem of inequality in opportunity.

Not a very smart sentence, at least as I view the part that I can understand.

Thus the pattern is as follows: hopes, goals and dreams and the provision of opportunity to achieve them are smart; silly, impossible-to-prove generalizations about a social strata (same as for race, creed, gender, nationality, etc. and damn near any other group) are stupid.

It does raise the question as to who determines what a "head start" is, and who should be arbiter of defining it.

 

[Rascal]

Smart sentence (I cut off the silly part).

Not a very smart sentence, especially the made-up word.

Smart sentence, except for the made-up word.

Not a very smart sentence, at least as I view the part that I can understand before it devolves into gibberish.

Thus the pattern is as follows: hopes, goals and dreams are smart; silly, impossible-to-prove generalizations about a social strata (same as for race, creed, gender, nationality, etc. and damn near any other group) are stupid.

It does raise the question as to who determines what a "head start" is, other than this reads like maybe you don't think you had one and therefore should be arbiter of it.

Fair points, i like to invent words thank you. I was struggling for a word to express my thoughts and that sounded about right. The silly bit you cut off is very true about UK politics, maybe not in the US because you do not have a party of the left.

I don't know how much you know about the UK education system and it's inbuilt inequalities, maybe you do and support it. The UK education system is heavily biased towards certain schools. The number of PMs that have been to just one school is astonishing. It is not just politics though, other parts of UK life such as the judiciary are also dominated by certain schools. Hence the Old School tie network, It is a very British thing. Also there are clubs such as the Marylebone Cricket Club that is dominated by the same schools, the tie is very important, an MCC tie is a status symbol and in a nation where class still dominates it epitomises it.

I don't believe anybody should have a head start, that is equality of opportunity. The most able will rise to the heights organically rather than by deem of monied advantage.

99.5% of British kids don't have the advantage of a head start, i went to a decent school deemed to be one of the best in the area yet that school had only ever had 3 pupils accepted by an Oxbridge university. Where I live in Mancunian terms is fairly well to do as well.

 

[nixmith2]

Come on you Tories, explain why you Tory.

Give us a glimpse into your weird and wacky world. Tell us your hero's and why your worship them? Who inspires you and why?

What is your favourite piece of Tory legislation?.

Explain your beliefs and where you got them from?


Nobodies bats need to leave their belfry's on this thread, be honest and enlighten us.

Well for me, they are the least worst of a bad bunch.

 

[Ifwecouldjust.......]

So based on the above how is it fair to remove private schools? I can afford to send my kid to a private school but others can’t. Well I’ve monetised my talents better than them so can afford to....so it is fair right?

Because Private Schools have a preferential status as 'charitable organisations' and thus take money out of the system rather than contribute. They also say that they are more successful than state schools because of the number and grade of qualifications they achieve but actually don't put the pupils through the same examinations instead offering them a watered down 'international' version.

Exams 2021: iGCSE and IA-level changes revealed

Cambridge International will allow students to be exempt from certain course components - but will not give advance notice of exam topics, unlike in England

www.tes.com

 

[Ifwecouldjust.......]

try to learn to read, he posted that the boarders did not have to pass the entrance exam, therefore not selective for the rich, any rich thicko could go. only selective for the locals

Socialism for the rich , Capitalism for the poor.

 

[metalblue]

Because Private Schools have a preferential status as 'charitable organisations' and thus take money out of the system rather than contribute. They also say that they are more successful than state schools because of the number and grade of qualifications they achieve but actually don't put the pupils through the same examinations instead offering them a watered down 'international' version.

Exams 2021: iGCSE and IA-level changes revealed

Cambridge International will allow students to be exempt from certain course components - but will not give advance notice of exam topics, unlike in England

www.tes.com

None of that explains why it is fair to close private schools though.

Removing charitable status, why do you care? It will reduce parents ability to afford to send their kid to private school (those making sacrifices to being able to send their kids there which is the vast majority) - but sure remove it, have these kids go to state schools that are already overrun and lose bursaries kicking out bright kids who through no fault of their own their parents can’t afford it. It seems fairly spiteful mind picking on kids but there you go. Personally I favour going the other way and making school fees payable ahead of tax increasing the opportunity for more kids to be able to go.

The exams they face are not “watered down” at all. @Psychedelic Casual might be able to opine on this one.

 

[NeilYoungIsBack]

which led directly to todays housing crisis

No it didn't. The national affordability crisis occurred between 1997-2006, with affordability plateauing (not getting worse, but also no better) since then. The data is there (ONS) if you care to look.

 

[Mr Kobayashi]

Because Private Schools have a preferential status as 'charitable organisations' and thus take money out of the system rather than contribute. They also say that they are more successful than state schools because of the number and grade of qualifications they achieve but actually don't put the pupils through the same examinations instead offering them a watered down 'international' version.

Exams 2021: iGCSE and IA-level changes revealed

Cambridge International will allow students to be exempt from certain course components - but will not give advance notice of exam topics, unlike in England

www.tes.com

Indeed. I went to a standalone sixth-form college overwhelmingly focused on A-level qualifications. Because it had a strong reputation it was seen as a viable alternative to parents continuing to send their kids to the private schools (three in the same town and one in the closest neighbour) in the area. Quite a few were a bit thick and one of the reasonably intelligent guys openly admitted (without prompting) that they were spoonfed by the teachers at his school.

 

[Blue Mist]

Margaret Thatcher. Simple.
She sorted out the miners, put the unions back in their box, fucked the Argies and gave me a 30k profit on the mother in laws council house.

Boris should do the right thing and make her birthday a bank holiday.

 

[Ban-jani]

Why is it still a popular choice amongst the English?
well unlike the other 2 nations of the UK and NI, there is a strong anglo-britishness sentiment and so as long as the idea of Britishness is tied to the monarch – and therefore the class system – and some idea of greatness linked to our past empire – and therefore the Tories were always going to win the struggle to represent it.


It’s this feeling that makes England Conservative (even if not generally conservative): the Tories are the party of Anglo-British nationalism and Empire, the party of the ruling class. And the underlying message in much of Anglo-British nationalism is that posh people – and the monarchy first of all – ought to be in charge. That is, after all, who ran things when Britain was ‘great’.

This is why David Cameron and Boris Johnson were considered ‘prime ministerial’ while John Major, Gordon Brown and Ed Miliband weren’t. It’s why the tabloids attacked labour not for it's economic or social policies, but for times it has supposed failure to genuflect sufficiently to the Queen and Country or unwillingness to commit to the mass slaughter of nuclear war by suggesting scrapping trident.


While you live in a class system you will be subribly taught from a young age that the higher class are best suited to rule.

That is how it was for near 200 years until thatcher decided, fuck society let's rip it up and let everyone look after themselves and greed is good anyine falling by the wayside, well tough shit, leading to an even bigger divide or society.

We haven now reverted back, in fact it is this tory party that is living in the 70s and earlier, a smear aimed at labour for the last few years.

Simply the tories will promise you a few nuggets,
less crime (a lie)
Make britain great again (a lie)
Make us a strong nation and world leader (a lie)
Military might (a lie)
Better for business (though will screw over business if in their own interest)

They play on pride in our nation while showing complete contempt for it and unfortunately we lap it up and decide to know our place.

I genuinely think this is the straw man version of how the modern left views the Tory Party.

 

[urban genie]

I genuinely think this is the straw man version of how the modern left views the Tory Party.

I think you misunderstand what a strawman arguement is then if that is the case.