Calling all Tories. Why do you Tory?

[Ban-jani]

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

It’s an argument or point you construct yourself to then easily knock down.

 

[Mr Kobayashi]

It’s an argument or point you construct yourself to then easily knock down.

Are you speaking from experience? ;)

 

[Ban-jani]

Are you speaking from experience? ;)

Yeah of reading the posts from socialists on here ;-)

 

[Ancient Citizen]

I went to a grammar school. It was a mix of kids from the local area (like me) and then boarders who paid huge amounts to go. The boarders didn’t have to pass the entrance exam to get in.

Well educated thick cunts is a very good description of most of them!

I don't know about any boarders paying, you must have gone later than me,
as that system wasn't in place. When I went to Grammar school, I went with around four or 5 lads and girls from a council estate, there were a good few 'Wealthy' kids there, but no one paid for it. The 11 plus for all was the best way of improving social mobility, poor kids got the opportunity of a
Grammar school education without the fees, not the case now.

 

[meltonblue]

I don't know about any boarders paying, you must have gone later than me,
as that system wasn't in place. When I went to Grammar school, I went with around four or 5 lads and girls from a council estate, there were a good few 'Wealthy' kids there, but no one paid for it. The 11 plus for all was the best way of improving social mobility, poor kids got the opportunity of a
Grammar school education without the fees, not the case now.

It is still the case now, at least it is with the one I went to. Local kids don’t pay, those boarding did.

Are you saying the grammar you went to paid for boarders accommodation too? Or that you didn’t have any so you’re thinking as everyone as day boarders?

 

[urban genie]

It’s an argument or point you construct yourself to then easily knock down.

Yeah, but they are constructd to counter an argument, as this thread was a question not an arguement

 

[Ban-jani]

Yeah, but they are constructd to counter an argument, as this thread was a question not an arguement

I don’t want to get in a tit for tat of what an expression means, I just disagree with what you’ve said on there.

The Tory Party are relatively centrist in their social policy.

 

[Ancient Citizen]

It is still the case now, at least it is with the one I went to. Local kids don’t pay, those boarding did.

Are you saying the grammar you went to paid for boarders accommodation too? Or that you didn’t have any so you’re thinking as everyone as day boarders?

I know it's the case now, but the number of schools that got the chop far
exceed the few that are left. The Grammar school I went to was a state school, they all (or most) were, everyone took the test, if you passed, you
went to Grammar, if you failed, you went to a Secondary Modern, nobody,
rich or poor, paid a thing.
All this meant opportunity for brighter, poorer kids, but I have to say that most of
my mates went to a secondary, and virtually all of them did fine. For those
who believe the 11 plus was in some way unfair, or a blunt instrument, this
was also acknowledged, and those who had the ability after their first year at secondary got the chance of a '12 Plus,' my next door but one mate did this, and ended up head boy at our school, which is more than I did, I binned it at 16, lol.

 

[metalblue]

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.

It seems so many private school kids are a “bit thick” or “rich thicko’s” makes you wonder why they bother really.

Obviously for private schools results are paramount and individual teachers will pick their own teaching style, but it does seem our exam system suits a spoon feed and regurgitate approach. Not sure that really helps them understand the topic and that will mean they struggle at A level and beyond where the subject is building on what was learnt before which is maybe why they may seem “thick” I suppose.

 

[meltonblue]

I know it's the case now, but the number of schools that got the chop far
exceed the few that are left. The Grammar school I went to was a state school, they all (or most) were, everyone took the test, if you passed, you
went to Grammar, if you failed, you went to a Secondary Modern, nobody,
rich or poor, paid a thing.
All this meant opportunity for brighter, poorer kids, but I have to say that most of
my mates went to a secondary, and virtually all of them did fine. For those
who believe the 11 plus was in some way unfair, or a blunt instrument, this
was also acknowledged, and those who had the ability after their first year at secondary got the chance of a '12 Plus,' my next door but one mate did this, and ended up head boy at our school, which is more than I did, lol.

Yes, that’s entirely the same for mine for those in the local area.

 

[stonerblue]

Blaming the housing crisis on Right to Buy is a bit of a myth.

For starters, the housing affordability crisis kicked in a long time after Thatcher had been deposed.

e.g. in 1997 the average housing affordability ratio* in England was 3.5, not having changed much since the late 70s.

* = Ratio of median house prices to median earnings.

However, between '97 and 2006 the ratio nearly doubled, to 7.15. Since the mid noughties it has generally hovered between 6.5-7.5 depending on the state of the economy.

Basically we didn't simply build enough houses during the Blair/Brown years when housing demand was high due to demographic factors (net immigration, divorce rates, older people living longer/staying in their homes longer, etc.)

Shortage of housing also impacts on rents, obviously.

Tenure plays a part (some people will never earn enough to own their own home) but this is small beer compared to the shortfall in supply of homes of all types that was evident during the late 90s through the noughties.

Maybe the shortfall is social housing occured because councils up and down the country sold off everything it could?

 

[stonerblue]

Exactly my views. Capitalism is the best system, we just need to make it work for as many people as possible and all club in to help those left behind.

Making everything under one roof and trying to get salaries equal across the board is lunacy.

Sort of makes your stance on immigration, specifically the uk immigration bill, wrong.

 

[stonerblue]

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.

I have several mates and my brother who went to grammar school off the back of the 11plus. They were treated like shit and all expelled or 'left' after a year.

 

[metalblue]

I have several mates and my brother who went to grammar school off the back of the 11plus. They were treated like shit and all expelled or 'left' after a year.

That leads me to think there was something wrong with the school. Some are far to ready to boot out kids (or “recommend” they leave) who don’t fit in and fitting in is a fairly narrow band of acceptable behaviours and “looking” the right way

 

[Ban-jani]

Sort of makes your stance on immigration, specifically the uk immigration bill, wrong.

How so?

Saying something is ‘wrong’ is never a good idea when discussing a political view, as it’s opinion.

 

[pirate]

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.

yes the prices went up 1997 - 2006.
the financial crisis of the late 1980's early 1990's led to a crash in house prices in the early 1990's.
once the recovery kicked in in the late 90s the effect of the lack of affordable, secure rental stock kicked in

 

[Ban-jani]

yes the prices went up 1997 - 2006.
the financial crisis of the late 1980's early 1990's led to a crash in house prices in the early 1990's.
once the recovery kicked in in the late 90s the effect of the lack of affordable, secure rental stock kicked in

If property and housing had been developed then it wouldn’t have happened, regardless of if people owned the homes themselves or not.

There’s many brownfield sites available across the country to develop, we just needed to/need to make the investment.

 

[Rascal]

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.

Oh Misty, stop being naughty.

 

[pirate]

If property and housing had been developed then it wouldn’t have happened, regardless of if people owned the homes themselves or not.

There’s many brownfield sites available across the country to develop, we just needed to/need to make the investment.

so we agree, if thatcher had let the councils spend the money on building new houses instead of being forced to use it to keep rates/council taxes low, then we wouldnt have this situation.
Equally the major, blair, brown, cameron governments could have invested in housing to turn it round, but thatchers government was the cause.

 

[Ban-jani]

so we agree, if thatcher had let the councils spend the money on building new houses instead of being forced to use it to keep rates/council taxes low, then we wouldnt have this situation.
Equally the major, blair, brown, cameron governments could have invested in housing to turn it round, but thatchers government was the cause.

Thatcher’s government obviously was the first to not invest heavily, of course, but there wasn’t the need to spend it at that time, that came years after she left and I don’t think the sake of council houses was a bad thing.

I think those that followed Thatcher right up until now are more culpable but we agree in the main I think.