Keir Starmer

mexico1970 said:
It's obvious that some people get triggered by people who don't think like they do, echo chambers confirm they are right don't they? Well don't they? :)
Click to expand...

I don’t think anyone gets triggered especially. Things can get heated, but this is a political forum so it comes with the territory.

If by echo chamber you mean some peoples views are in a minority, well, there will always be a minority view. I proffered some support to JSO, more people seemed to disagree than agree with me. It’s they way it goes sometimes.
 
BobKowalski said:
I don’t think anyone gets triggered especially. Things can get heated, but this is a political forum so it comes with the territory.

If by echo chamber you mean some peoples views are in a minority, well, there will always be a minority view. I proffered some support to JSO, more people seemed to disagree than agree with me. It’s they way it goes sometimes.
Click to expand...
It’s not even that.

When all you get is “things are shit, but there’s nothing we can do about it as they’re all the same, whilst voting for stuff that makes things even more shit because they’ve said they’d drain the swamp”, it gets tedious.

Once all you have left is cynicism of everything, then you become a hateful, miserable person that tries to hide behind Christmas Cracker jokes, also always based on cynicism, ending with a smiley face.
 
Phil1 said:
His description of Starmer is what gets me. Uses all those negatives as a reason not to vote for him when the leaders of his party over the last few years have been all those things and worse including blatant corruption and failing the country and it’s people.
Make it make sense.
Click to expand...


It would be quite a fun exercise to get metalblue to list all the leaders/political parties he has voted for and we can see if he’s just another miserable hypocrite or if he actually has a record that shows he only votes for people who never change a policy.
 
Phil1 said:
I won’t be voting Labour, mate. I just found it amusing how you described Starmer when the Tory mob have been all that and much worse.
If Labour come in and prove to be more of the same then they will be rightly fucked off next time around and round and round we go.
Click to expand...

Spot on mate. I won’t be voting for either of them.
 
BobKowalski said:
Because you are a Tory. Your vote and allegiance is tribal and emotional. It is not based on policies.

My vote is pragmatic. I will vote Labour because I think they will do a competent job at governing. I have no particular allegiance to Labour or Starmer. I just think they will do a better job. Admittedly, this is not a high bar, but it is a bar nonetheless.

Whether Labour’s manifesto is Tory lite or Pol Pot communism depends entirely from what end of the political spectrum the attacks are coming from. Most of the attacks are illiterate garbage, but a few hit the mark. Which is to be expected. No leader or party is going to escape unscathed in a campaign and it does no harm to pull them up on occasions.

Fortunately for Labour, the Tory Party and campaign keep feeding us headline grabbing fuck ups on an almost daily basis. This latest betting scandal will run for days, maybe even up to polling day. It has that partygate drip effect. New day, a new name in the frame. It is truly remarkable how bad they are.
Click to expand...

But I’m not voting conservative at this election. Anything else in your locker or are we done here?
 
mexico1970 said:
We need to get the girl guides and boy scouts in charge because I have zero faith in any sitting politician festering in the big house right now.

Greed is everywhere, the only decision you or I have to make is which greedy bastard do we trust more.
Click to expand...

I get your cynicism about Labour but I really don't think they're anywhere near in the same boat as the current incarnation of the Tory party. Labour may well be Tory Lite, I guess we're going to find out soon enough, but the Tory party is in the clutches of extremists, economic headbangers and middle to old-aged delinquents.

As for the Guides and Scouts, I know a couple of leaders in both and though one of the four is sound I'm not sure about the other three! What about the National Trust? They've got experience of restoring things that are on their arse, they recently saw off a bunch of political nutters trying to take them over for their own ends and the cakes in their cafes are better than English Heritage.
 
bluenova said:
That's nothing to do with my comment. I was just explaining why the private school teacher would prefer a bigger bursary system, rather than VAT.

On profit - which schools are you talking about? Private schools that aren't paying VAT are charities/non-profit.
Click to expand...

You said:

The private schools wants the brightest kids, not because they want to make a difference to society. They want them because having bright kids pushes up the standards of everyone, and brings up their exam results, helping them attract more rich kids.

I assumed you meant profit.

On profit - which schools are you talking about? Private schools that aren't paying VAT are charities/non-profit

Correct. I was waiting for someone to twig they don’t make profit but put it back in to the school.

Teachers at private schools are no more or less likely to favour the private education system. No more than a doctor or nurse who works in BUPA would favour private over NHS.

Anyway why do you think having the brightest achieve their full potential is bad for the state system? What do you think more likely…that bright kids lift the class or the kids that fuck around drag the bright kids down?
 
metalblue said:
Teachers at private schools are no more or less likely to favour the private education system. No more than a doctor or nurse who works in BUPA would favour private over NHS.
Click to expand...
Citation?

Got some stats for the educational backgrounds of private school teachers?

Bupa doesn't have a role in educating people before they are adults with qualifications.
 
metalblue said:
You said:

The private schools wants the brightest kids, not because they want to make a difference to society. They want them because having bright kids pushes up the standards of everyone, and brings up their exam results, helping them attract more rich kids.

I assumed you meant profit.

On profit - which schools are you talking about? Private schools that aren't paying VAT are charities/non-profit

Correct. I was waiting for someone to twig they don’t make profit but put it back in to the school.

Teachers at private schools are no more or less likely to favour the private education system. No more than a doctor or nurse who works in BUPA would favour private over NHS.

Anyway why do you think having the brightest achieve their full potential is bad for the state system? What do you think more likely…that bright kids lift the class or the kids that fuck around drag the bright kids down?
Click to expand...

You probably only have to look at some of our recent PMs and cabinet ministers to see that "full potential" isn't necessarily what a private education achieves.

The teacher was already against the VAT charge, and offering an alternative, which would benefit her school. That's why I was *shocked, I tell ya, shocked!*. I'd be astonished if teachers in the private sector aren't significantly more likely to be in favour of private education. If you can show me any proof of that statement I'd love to see it, because it's very counterintuitive.

The argument is essentially grammar/secondary modern. It's one that had been argued for many years, and I can give you plenty of reasons why I think society benefits from schools with a mixed intake, while I'm sure you can fill this forum for days with counter arguments. Ultimately I believe schools do better with a mix of kids, that even the brightest benefit from mixing with others, and that streaming/small group hothousing, can give a great level of education in the state sector for even the brightest.

What the bursary/scholarship system does is select not just the more academically gifted, but selection at 11 also favours the more middle class kids from the most settled families. If anything, it's another advantage to kids who are already advantaged, and there are many other kids who could benefit a lot more from the small classes/high teacher ratios of the private sector.

It's such a big subject that we could be here all day, bur fortunately for anyone reading I'm off to a gig so this is my last comment :)
 
metalblue said:
He had his phone cut off one month mate. Lived in fhe wastelands of the Surrey / Kent borders. You don’t survive that sort of hostile environment if you’ve not got summit about you. That kid knew real hardship.
Click to expand...

You may laugh but he asked for a 47' Cheval Blanc and got a 48', hard to come back from that, inner steel.
 
metalblue said:
It’s not progressive tax, if they just increased tax on the top tax payers to pay for it I would agree.

The wealthy pay more - progressive
Tax on cigs for smokers - progressive
Tax on beer for drinkers - progressive
Tax on fuel for drivers - progressive

I can’t see how taxing a small group of people to pay for an education system they won’t use as progressive. Particularly as it’s education.
Click to expand...
its progressive as it taxes the rich, those in the 7% who are rich enough to send their kids to private schools.
and in fact it only taxes them if the private schools choose to pass the tax increase on
 
mexico1970 said:
Not at all, but they are very nearly the same. We have a choice which is Tory or Tory lite I choose to choose neither although I will most definitely vote.

My vote will not go to an incumbent.
Click to expand...

Your posting history suggests that as between Tory and Tory lite you have decided neither are right wing enough for your tastes.

Each to their own.
 
metalblue said:
But I’m not voting conservative at this election. Anything else in your locker or are we done here?
Click to expand...

Oh, I don’t know. I can see you being tempted to vote Tory out of concern of a Labour ‘supermajority’ - otherwise known as ‘a lot more seats’ - to ensure a strong opposition and in the interests of democracy.

But then I’m bit of a cynic.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top