You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
The Labour Party
- Thread starter Ban-jani
- Start date
bluethrunthru
Well-Known Member
Well at least Diane Abbott and Shami Chakrabarti got their kids through private schools.
why shouldn't they? The idea is not to close fee paying schools just to level the playing field with the rest of the country - if that means the fee is the "going rate" what is wrong with that?
bluethrunthru
Well-Known Member
Maybe it's because very rich people tend to be quite bright, and when sending them to an excellent school which provides the kids with not only an enxcellent education, bur also tremendous confidence and leadership skills, they tend to do well.
But never mind Bob. The chip sits comfortably on your shoulder. No need to remove it
Oh - so having money increases your intelligence??? What fucking entitled bullshit.
Rascal
El Presidente
Maybe it's because very rich people tend to be quite bright
With statements like that, you are probably better off not wasting any of your time debating with me.
As a poor working class kid from Salford I am obviously of no value to any debate, perhaps there should be a sub forum for the rich bright kids, that would be fun.
Chippy_boy
Well-Known Member
Pray explain. Charitable status - no business rates many many advantages for the advantaged few - how do you think they benefit? You , me everybody pays tax that goes into education amongst other things yet only certain schools and certain school pupils parents benefit from tax breaks
Dear god.
Explain to me how someone PAYING to send their kids to school, makes them.better off? They are off course worse off.
How does a school PAYING for things a state school receives money from the state for, makes them better off.
If I pay 40% tax so I earn £100 and take home £60, how much money is the state GIVING me if they cut the rate to 35%?
Do you think they are giving me £5?
They are not. They are taking £35. This not giving.
Chippy_boy
Well-Known Member
Truth hurts. I agree about the sub forum. Keep the riff raff out.With statements like that, you are probably better off not wasting any of your time debating with me.
As a poor working class kid from Salford I am obviously of no value to any debate, perhaps there should be a sub forum for the rich bright kids, that would be fun.
Last edited:
BobKowalski
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 17 May 2007
- Messages
- 21,511
Maybe it's because very rich people tend to be quite bright, and when sending them to an excellent school which provides the kids with not only an enxcellent education, bur also tremendous confidence and leadership skills, they tend to do well.
But never mind Bob. The chip sits comfortably on your shoulder. No need to remove it
I’m sure a lot of rich people are bright. Their kids on the other hand well that’s a coin flip. But whether these kids are bright or thick as pig shit as long as you go to the right school you get a good chance at being PM. All you need is a confidence and a sense of entitlement. Talent and application well that’s for the ‘girly swots’.
How about we build a first class education system, give as many kids as possible the confidence to achieve and let those with actual talent elevate themselves? Or is that too radical? Alternatively we could carry on with an education system that seems to have been designed for the 19th century rather than the 21st.
Pip, pip.
bluethrunthru
Well-Known Member
Dear god.
Explain to me how someone PAYING to send their kids to school, makes them.better off? They are off course worse off.
How does a school PAYING for things a state school receives money from the state for, makes them better off.
If I pay 40% tax so I earn £100 and take home £60, how much money is the state GIVING me if they cut the rate to 35%?
Do you think they are giving me £5?
They are not. They are taking £35. This not giving.
That is the "we are all in this together" bullshit all over again.
of course if someone pays school fees they pay it and it reduces their wealth. However They make that decision because they can afford it. Why do you think everybody doesn't pay school fees for a better education for their kids?
When " we were all in this together" was justified it was because the wealthy had paid more tax than the poor. If you are wealthy and have to pay say £10k more tax its because you have that income. If you are poorer you don't earn the money so you haven't the more to pay.
Similarly if you cannot afford to send your kid to a fee paying school you don't because you can't. You don't earn enough. However because the fee paying school pays no business rates and has a charitable status which allows tax benefits on donations etc the fee they charge is not the market rate. Its subsidised by all the tax they can avoid the shortfall of which is made up by taxes paid by everyone.
I never claimed anything you said but I am not surprised to see you supporting the privileges for the wealthy few and the class system incorporating the old boy reactionary system - heaven forbid the great unwashed getting a break eh?
Interesting you dodged the notion that wealth brings intelligence.
Chippy_boy
Well-Known Member
Have you heard of this thing called genetics?Oh - so having money increases your intelligence??? What fucking entitled bullshit.
It's a fascinating new concept, but incredibly, if someone is very intelligent and happens through their intelligence, to do well for themselves and make a lot of money, there seems to be a good chsnce that their kids will have higher than average intelligence as well.
The inconvenient truth mate.
Last edited:
Chippy_boy
Well-Known Member
Interesting you dodged the notion that wealth brings intelligence.
See above.
By the way, my dad was a lathe operator from Eccles and my mum a nurse from Urmston, and I went to s comprehensive. It's not like I am lord toffingham.
I just don't subscribe to this bitterness and resentment bullshit. If someone does well in life fair fucking play to them. They already hand over 47% of everything they earn to other people. They already pay tens or hundreds of thousands in tax every year.vs most people paying virtually fuck all.
Time the less well off stopped bitching about hard done by they are. You make what you can of your life and those who need help get help. I'm sick of well off people being treated with contempt for having the affrontary of having done well for themselves.
bluethrunthru
Well-Known Member
Have you heard of this thing called genetics?
It's a fascinating new concept, but incredibly, if someone is very intelligent and happens through their intelligence, to do well for themselves and make a lot of money, there seems to be a good chsnce that their kids will have higher than average intelligence as well.
The inconvenient truth mate.
Jesus wept .................you actually do believe that someone is more intelligent by means of having money and wealth? Fuck me you have outed yourself tonight mate.
bluethrunthru
Well-Known Member
See above.
By the way, my dad was a lathe operator from Eccles and my mum a nurse from Urmston, and I went to s comprehensive. It's not like I am lord toffingham.
I just don't subscribe to this bitterness and resentment bullshit. If someone does well in life fair fucking play to them. They already hand over 47% of everything they earn to other people. They already pay tens or hundreds of thousands in tax every year.vs most people paying virtually fuck all.
Time the less well off stopped bitching about hard done by they are. You make what you can of your life and those who need help get help. I'm sick of well off people being treated with contempt for having the affrontary of having done well for themselves.
Keep tugging the forelock to those you consider your betters mate - they rely on your subservience and your gratitude that they allowed you to "better" yourself.
bluethrunthru
Well-Known Member
Its funny how Labour are about to pledge to make a £50k payment to the surviving members to the UK survivors of the British nuke tests in the Pacific and Australia were they to be elected goes unreported.
PannickAtTheDisco
Well-Known Member
Its funny how Labour are about to pledge to make a £50k payment to the surviving members to the UK survivors of the British nuke tests in the Pacific and Australia were they to be elected goes unreported.
mmm...you've been nuked, here's less than half of what McCluskey gets paid a year.
Well spotted, I’ll refrain from discussing politics with you looney lefties!! As I have mentioned before I’ve never voted anything other than Labour in my life. I’m middle of the road working class and proud of it. However, I can’t take to Corbyn and his ilk, he’s out of his depth and his policies are fiscally unrealistic. I’m not vindictive (apart from slagging off the Dippers) and at the end of the day we’re all blues so it’s not all bad is it?
Don't know the detail, or rights and wrongs, of the posts that led to this comment - but just a general observation:
There has been a trend these last years that has seen traditional / long-time Labour supporters being made to feel as if they are not 'worthy' because they are not 'left enough' - bit like a purge.
Problem is the 'purists' will find out that for Labour to form a government these votes are needed and I suspect the amount of alienation that has taken place these last years might be regretted
@Damocles Not being paying close attention but my summary:I'm out of the loop with this "Labour Civil War" as I've been busy the last week and only read BBC/mainstream news outlets. What's actually happening? Is there any genuine chance of a split or is it typical media shite?
Step 1 (some years ago) - the 'much more left-leaning' cadre, including Momentum seize control over the mechanisms to determine policy and leadership selection
Step 2 - Marginalise/get shot of/remove from influence all those wet/centrists that are left over from the Blair era - and hope the voting public don't notice - if they do they can fuck off too
Step 3 (where we are / leading up to the here and now) - drag the party much further Left and cement the position through policies decided at Conference. Now we are rid of the Centrists - continue the progress by finding the next group to be offended by and purge for not being 'left enough'.
Step 4 - (September 2019) - realisation dawns that Oh fuck!!!!! - we are not going to win the upcoming election following which out stooge will likely resign/retire - and just look at the possible replacement candidates FFS?
Watson would be a disaster - that Starmer fella is just another wet moderate and Thornberry is - well just Thornberry. We need the next leader to be someone from our ranks and we need to take action to ensure that we control the selection of Jeremy's replacement!!
We need to secure that control now - fuck whether its the start of the Conference and could play out really badly in the media - our need for control over who is the next leader is much more important!!
Ok - Firstly, let's ensure that Watson cannot fall into the job by default, then lets ensure that we can get 'true believers' put forwards as candidates and then we can ensure their selection. Angela, or Rebecca would probably do - so let's get one of them selected to be 'joint Deputy Leader'
What' the best way of achieving that???
Last edited:
See my last post - the hard-left are in control and are not relinquishing their grip one jot - they will consolidate it and fuck this wet bollocks about who would be more popular with the electorate.So they should. And so Watson and his crew should fight back.
This is the essence of democracy. When two factions disagree on a way forward then the more popular faction in the electorate should win and represent the Party, with an eye to a broad Church approach, as best they can.
The Tories are shite and people will want change and vote for us without looking too closely at policies (we convince ourselves)
Rascal
El Presidente
Don't know the detail, or rights and wrongs, of the posts that led to this comment - but just a general observation:
There has been a trend these last years that has seen traditional / long-time Labour supporters being made to feel as if they are not 'worthy' because they are not 'left enough' - bit like a purge.
Problem is the 'purists' will find out that for Labour to form a government these votes are needed and I suspect the amount of alienation that has taken place these last years might be regretted
This is wrong mate, I am Labour through and through and have always been on the left fringe of the party, the issue is not that they are less left, or less worthy it is because when the right fringe had democratic control of the party under Blair I was still 100% supportive of the party. Now the left have democratic control those on the right of the party will not accept the democratic wishes of the membership. Rightly or wrongly Blairism is history and we have to move on, the membership voted for the party to return to a more Socialist approach that was traditionally the Labour position. You often see it categorised as Old Labour and the media hark on about Foot and Benn etc, but I think we have returned to an approach more akin to Atlee and Bevin.
As a democrat, I accept the wishes and mandate of the majority, I do so with Brexit, I do so with the Labour party.
I think this post proves the truth of my previous posts - the had-left have control and everybody who has the temerity to question us can fuck offNoises off, it means nothing.
Watson is no more an effective Deputy to Corbyn than you are, everyone knows it, you might give a shit, but only because you want to. With respect you're a lost soul to Labour and you ain't coming back.
New Labour is dead, you'll have to find a home in the Lib Dems or hang around for a one nation Tory, there'll be one along soon enough.
I think you need an election asap before too many of us traditional Labour voters get wise to the level of contempt
Not wrong IMO - See fumble's post that I have just quotedThis is wrong mate, I am Labour through and through and have always been on the left fringe of the party, the issue is not that they are less left, or less worthy it is because when the right fringe had democratic control of the party under Blair I was still 100% supportive of the party. Now the left have democratic control those on the right of the party will not accept the democratic wishes of the membership. Rightly or wrongly Blairism is history and we have to move on, the membership voted for the party to return to a more Socialist approach that was traditionally the Labour position. You often see it categorised as Old Labour and the media hark on about Foot and Benn etc, but I think we have returned to an approach more akin to Atlee and Bevin.
As a democrat, I accept the wishes and mandate of the majority, I do so with Brexit, I do so with the Labour party.
That is the true face - rather than your attitude - of the move to the hard-left and the contempt for those 'not worthy'. It proves the truth of what I say IMO
Last edited: