The Labour Party

Gaudion M said:
It's nice to see people owning there shit.

I'm part of the -70% disapproval rating and one of Labours lost remainer voters. My MP defected from Labour because of the views of people like me.

I own it.
Click to expand...
I am a Socialist, I own that, I am on the left of the party and I am unapologetic about my stance as I want a Socialist government.
 
Rascal said:
They are not the servants of, they are the representatives of. This allow them to exercise freedom of conscience.
Click to expand...

So they keep telling us, and it's a subterfuge to two-finger us if we ever get to a point where we can say "Hey, whatchya doin'? It's a nice idea on paper, but when so many of them are 'unconscionable' it creates a very unsatisfactory situation.
 
Gaudion M said:
I was an early adopter of the view that Corbyn is a useless nob and a massive step backwards. But to be clear it is not him personally - it is the quirky extremes of the party that back him. Many of them utter morons.

He is the figure head for the wacky fringe left - and i'm not even sure he is in full control. They have turned Labour in to exactly the kind of incompetent shit show I expected. There policies are a bunch of expensive pet projects and the shadow cabinet is selected from the bottom quartile of competence within the PLP. They are in no way a unified party and have no joined up vision for how to unite the country. They are a fucking horror show.

I'd take them over the Tories as the above being in power is less damaging than a Tory brexit. My hope is that Lib Dems win enough seats and remain win enough seats that no party has an overall majority and some sensible exit from brexit can be implemented.
Click to expand...


As unified as always been in my experience.

These loonies in charge are not as left wing as I am trust me, and corbyns only problem is he is a soppy twat, not nearly totalitarian enough with the dissenters.

Kinnock was ruthless and blair sneaky, but both did not tolerate anyone no toeing the line, unlike jeremy who allows criticsim, nd then mainly ignores it.
 
Gaudion M said:
It's nice to see people owning there shit.

I'm part of the -70% disapproval rating and one of Labours lost remainer voters. My MP defected from Labour because of the views of people like me.

I own it.
Click to expand...

Your MP defected?

Now of all those who has left who are sitting MPs and can think of maybe one who didn't do it for their own self interest.

I can think of several who were stealing a living off the party and should have been fucked off years ago
 
Rascal said:
That is totally different to my point. The state by law has to provide education, the cost of that is irrelevant as it is the law to do so.

People who send their kids to private schools do not reduce the burden, because the provision is already there by law. whether the parents choose to take up that provision provided is up to them, but it is already in existence, by law of the land.

One of the arguments against free schools was that they would provide provision that already existed. If you have a school that provides education for a community then why would opening a second school offering similar provision help in any way as the provision was already there.
Click to expand...

Cost is entirely relevant to the points being made.

You seem to be confusing burden and obligation.

I have no idea how au fait you are with the concepts of capacity and fixed, variable and marginal costs but I will repeat that children who are in private education do absolutely reduce the financial burden on the state regarding the provision of education (by in the case of a single child the marginal cost of moving that child from private to state education - a figure that will vary from case to case).
 
Cox is putting his best ham acting masterclass on in the Commons.

What a self serving ****. Calling every fecker names who called him our for not resigning.
 
OB1 said:
Cost is entirely relevant to the points being made.

You seem to be confusing burden and obligation.

I have no idea how au fait you are with the concepts of capacity and fixed, variable and marginal costs but I will repeat that children who are in private education do absolutely reduce the financial burden on the state regarding the provision of education (by in the case of a single child the marginal cost of moving that child from private to state education - a figure that will vary from case to case).
Click to expand...

Nice to see you little cheer leaders are following this closely. Hello cheerleaders.

And I would argue it is not relevant, because the provision exists, it is a matter of not taking up the provision. At 5 the provision has to exist because the child exists, if the parent decide to pay for schooling elsewhere that provision is not lost it is still there. The fixed costs remain the same, the marginal costs of one less pupil per classroom is negligible and the variable costs are unaffected unless you feel the output of one less pupil will significantly increase the output/results of the other 29, based on a 30 kid classroom.

So I refute your argument that it reduces the burden on the state, because the obligation stands. If a child's parents suddenly go bankrupt, the child would not go uneducated because the provision for a state education exists for that child.
 
mat said:
Cox is putting his best ham acting masterclass on in the Commons.

What a self serving ****. Calling every fecker names who called him our for not resigning.
Click to expand...

I am listening to it on LBC, he sounds like a madman.
 
urban genie said:
Your MP defected?

Now of all those who has left who are sitting MPs and can think of maybe one who didn't do it for their own self interest.

I can think of several who were stealing a living off the party and should have been fucked off years ago
Click to expand...

How can that possibly be true. Many MPs have left the two main parties due to the state of their leaders. In all instances they have significantly dented there chance of being re-elected. How can that be in there self interest?

I don't agree that any MP is stealing their living of any party, firstly because the parties dont pay them and secondly, even the worst of the worst, the likes of Kate Howy or Christopher Chope (Rank Awful MPs) are there because parties put them forward and people elected them. Once those things happen they are there for the duration and you have to accept it.
 
Rascal said:
Nice to see you little cheer leaders are following this closely. Hello cheerleaders.

And I would argue it is not relevant, because the provision exists, it is a matter of not taking up the provision. At 5 the provision has to exist because the child exists, if the parent decide to pay for schooling elsewhere that provision is not lost it is still there. The fixed costs remain the same, the marginal costs of one less pupil per classroom is negligible and the variable costs are unaffected unless you feel the output of one less pupil will significantly increase the output/results of the other 29, based on a 30 kid classroom.

So I refute your argument that it reduces the burden on the state, because the obligation stands. If a child's parents suddenly go bankrupt, the child would not go uneducated because the provision for a state education exists for that child.
Click to expand...

So in the extreme case of putting 600,000 kids into state school, you don't think there would be a huge increase in costs and you think the capacity is there within the existing stat school system to accommodate them!

As to you comments trying to show you understand different types of costs! You don't.
 
OB1 said:
So in the extreme case of putting 600,000 kids into state school, you don't think there would be a huge increase in costs and you think the capacity is there within the existing stat school system to accommodate them!

As to you comments trying to show you understand different types of costs! You don't.
Click to expand...

Its either the costs are irrelevant as he put it himself the other day or we already have paid for it and as you say, 600,000 kids suddenly needing a state education wont have any impact whatsoever on an already stretched education system?

I think he is very very wrong on both.
 
blueinsa said:
Its either the costs are irrelevant as he put it himself the other day or we already have paid for it and as you say, 600,000 kids suddenly needing a state education wont have any impact whatsoever on an already stretched education system?

I think he is very very wrong on both.
Click to expand...

I usually avoid these kinds of threads. I am not into discussing politics on social media. However, private education is something that I do feel strongly about having spent a small fortune on it and having benefited from it myself. The subject of costs is also one that my expensive education allows me to talk about with some authority.

What is clear though is that people with extreme political views (whichever end of the spectrum) who don't know what they are talking about are bloody dangerous.
 
OB1 said:
I usually avoid these kinds of threads. I am not into discussing politics on social media. However, private education is something that I do feel strongly about having spent a small fortune on it and having benefited from it myself. The subject of costs is also one that my expensive education allows me to talk about with some authority.

What is clear though is that people with extreme political views (whichever end of the spectrum) who don't know what they are talking about are bloody dangerous.
Click to expand...

It is out and out politics of envy and so called class warfare.

Its also unworkable, unaffordable and unelectable so we shouldn't overly worry about it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: OB1
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