FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Labour Policy Pledges
Labour Policy Pledges
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Labour need to polish off the 2017 manifesto, brush it up and present it competently. Job’s a good ‘un. Oversimplifying of course, but that manifesto was immensely popular, and (once purdah kicked in) saw their popularity climb rapidly." That manifesto wasn't popular enough to win the election for Labour back in 2017. What makes you think that it'll be more popular now? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Labour need to polish off the 2017 manifesto, brush it up and present it competently. Job’s a good ‘un. Oversimplifying of course, but that manifesto was immensely popular, and (once purdah kicked in) saw their popularity climb rapidly. That manifesto wasn't popular enough to win the election for Labour back in 2017. What makes you think that it'll be more popular now?" there's a debate whether it was manifesto or leadership. Ditto 2019. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It is rather lacking in headline, and feels like a tory light middle ground. It will be surprising if anything doesn't make it to the manifesto, it is so unremarkable. I feel a few things are militant red war cries, such as cutting private equity firm loopholes in gas and oil companies, and tax break removal for private schools, not sure any of that will be delivered, but it sounds left wing enough to make people feel those who have money will be singled out. " Amazing what you think are "militant red war cries". | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It is rather lacking in headline, and feels like a tory light middle ground. It will be surprising if anything doesn't make it to the manifesto, it is so unremarkable. I feel a few things are militant red war cries, such as cutting private equity firm loopholes in gas and oil companies, and tax break removal for private schools, not sure any of that will be delivered, but it sounds left wing enough to make people feel those who have money will be singled out. Amazing what you think are "militant red war cries". " Entirely my prerogative to think how I want. Unlike Starmer and the left wing who insist you must think like them or you are not British in thinking. Don't you think giving out the message that people who educate their children privately will no longer qualify for tax deductions, is pandering to the left wing militants who hate anyone who has succeeded in life? The rest of the ideas are tory light... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It is rather lacking in headline, and feels like a tory light middle ground. It will be surprising if anything doesn't make it to the manifesto, it is so unremarkable. I feel a few things are militant red war cries, such as cutting private equity firm loopholes in gas and oil companies, and tax break removal for private schools, not sure any of that will be delivered, but it sounds left wing enough to make people feel those who have money will be singled out. Amazing what you think are "militant red war cries". Entirely my prerogative to think how I want. Unlike Starmer and the left wing who insist you must think like them or you are not British in thinking. Don't you think giving out the message that people who educate their children privately will no longer qualify for tax deductions, is pandering to the left wing militants who hate anyone who has succeeded in life? The rest of the ideas are tory light..." Of course you're allowed to have any opinion you wish. Thinking it's militant left wing to think that the rich shouldn't get tax breaks for privately educating their kids is just so far away from anything I can imagine. This isn't even an especially left wing policy. But I agree on the rest, this offers no new ideas and nothing but more of the same. Starmer wants to get elected and thinks that being a Tory in a red tie will get him there. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It is rather lacking in headline, and feels like a tory light middle ground. It will be surprising if anything doesn't make it to the manifesto, it is so unremarkable. I feel a few things are militant red war cries, such as cutting private equity firm loopholes in gas and oil companies, and tax break removal for private schools, not sure any of that will be delivered, but it sounds left wing enough to make people feel those who have money will be singled out. Amazing what you think are "militant red war cries". Entirely my prerogative to think how I want. Unlike Starmer and the left wing who insist you must think like them or you are not British in thinking. Don't you think giving out the message that people who educate their children privately will no longer qualify for tax deductions, is pandering to the left wing militants who hate anyone who has succeeded in life? The rest of the ideas are tory light... Of course you're allowed to have any opinion you wish. Thinking it's militant left wing to think that the rich shouldn't get tax breaks for privately educating their kids is just so far away from anything I can imagine. This isn't even an especially left wing policy. But I agree on the rest, this offers no new ideas and nothing but more of the same. Starmer wants to get elected and thinks that being a Tory in a red tie will get him there." I wouldn't call it militant as such but it's pretty far left (note, not far-left). Those people who send their children to private school already save the taxpayer over £70k per child. Now we wanna tax them on it too? Aswell as tax the schools more? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It is rather lacking in headline, and feels like a tory light middle ground. It will be surprising if anything doesn't make it to the manifesto, it is so unremarkable. I feel a few things are militant red war cries, such as cutting private equity firm loopholes in gas and oil companies, and tax break removal for private schools, not sure any of that will be delivered, but it sounds left wing enough to make people feel those who have money will be singled out. Amazing what you think are "militant red war cries". Entirely my prerogative to think how I want. Unlike Starmer and the left wing who insist you must think like them or you are not British in thinking. Don't you think giving out the message that people who educate their children privately will no longer qualify for tax deductions, is pandering to the left wing militants who hate anyone who has succeeded in life? The rest of the ideas are tory light... Of course you're allowed to have any opinion you wish. Thinking it's militant left wing to think that the rich shouldn't get tax breaks for privately educating their kids is just so far away from anything I can imagine. This isn't even an especially left wing policy. But I agree on the rest, this offers no new ideas and nothing but more of the same. Starmer wants to get elected and thinks that being a Tory in a red tie will get him there." It can’t be a little left wing, it either is or it isn’t and we all know it is. Starmer has thrown out snippets that he thinks will help him appear to be a man of the people, by isolating those that can afford private education… The more I hear of him the more I feel we aren’t going to be swerving wildly off course if he gets into number 10. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Based on a quick read of The Guardian article, for the most part that all sounds fairly centre ground to me. I am against the removal of charity status/charitable tax arrangements for private schools and actually think this will backfire and end up not raising the level of tax they believe and will actually end up exacerbating the wealth divide in education due to the removal of bursaries and scholarships. If you stop treating private schools as charities they will stop acting like charities." Agreed. I also don't think we should be removing tax breaks from parents who save the state money. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Labour need to polish off the 2017 manifesto, brush it up and present it competently. Job’s a good ‘un. Oversimplifying of course, but that manifesto was immensely popular, and (once purdah kicked in) saw their popularity climb rapidly. That manifesto wasn't popular enough to win the election for Labour back in 2017. What makes you think that it'll be more popular now?" 6 more years of Tory. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Based on a quick read of The Guardian article, for the most part that all sounds fairly centre ground to me. I am against the removal of charity status/charitable tax arrangements for private schools and actually think this will backfire and end up not raising the level of tax they believe and will actually end up exacerbating the wealth divide in education due to the removal of bursaries and scholarships. If you stop treating private schools as charities they will stop acting like charities." Good job I’m not PM. My plan for private schools would upset a few folks  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Based on a quick read of The Guardian article, for the most part that all sounds fairly centre ground to me. I am against the removal of charity status/charitable tax arrangements for private schools and actually think this will backfire and end up not raising the level of tax they believe and will actually end up exacerbating the wealth divide in education due to the removal of bursaries and scholarships. If you stop treating private schools as charities they will stop acting like charities." To add... I think private schools should be set a minimum threshold for the number of pupils in receipt of scholarships and bursaries otherwise they lose their charity status. In other words prove they are charities via an increase in charitable activity. Many private schools also have partnerships arrangements with local state schools providing access to facilities and equipment. This too should be increased. But removing charity status (and forcing them to pay VAT) will see increased fees passed on to parents and the removal of bursaries and scholarships pricing out any low-middle income families and forcing all of those kids into the state system but with no additional funding per pupil. Combine that with the fact that all the parents who have kids in pvt sch have contributed tax towards the state education system they are not making use of. Purely a populist punitive policy. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Based on a quick read of The Guardian article, for the most part that all sounds fairly centre ground to me. I am against the removal of charity status/charitable tax arrangements for private schools and actually think this will backfire and end up not raising the level of tax they believe and will actually end up exacerbating the wealth divide in education due to the removal of bursaries and scholarships. If you stop treating private schools as charities they will stop acting like charities. Good job I’m not PM. My plan for private schools would upset a few folks "Do share  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Based on a quick read of The Guardian article, for the most part that all sounds fairly centre ground to me. I am against the removal of charity status/charitable tax arrangements for private schools and actually think this will backfire and end up not raising the level of tax they believe and will actually end up exacerbating the wealth divide in education due to the removal of bursaries and scholarships. If you stop treating private schools as charities they will stop acting like charities. Good job I’m not PM. My plan for private schools would upset a few folks "What is your plan? Increase the tax allowance as a thank you to those that have worked hard to be able to put their children in private education, saving the tax the tax payer millions in extra teachers and schools? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Based on a quick read of The Guardian article, for the most part that all sounds fairly centre ground to me. I am against the removal of charity status/charitable tax arrangements for private schools and actually think this will backfire and end up not raising the level of tax they believe and will actually end up exacerbating the wealth divide in education due to the removal of bursaries and scholarships. If you stop treating private schools as charities they will stop acting like charities. Good job I’m not PM. My plan for private schools would upset a few folks
What is your plan? Increase the tax allowance as a thank you to those that have worked hard to be able to put their children in private education, saving the tax the tax payer millions in extra teachers and schools? "Oh bless you, my sweet summer child. Associating high pay with hard work, so delightfully naive! No, I’d close them down. State education only. Same opportunities for all regardless of familial wealth. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Based on a quick read of The Guardian article, for the most part that all sounds fairly centre ground to me. I am against the removal of charity status/charitable tax arrangements for private schools and actually think this will backfire and end up not raising the level of tax they believe and will actually end up exacerbating the wealth divide in education due to the removal of bursaries and scholarships. If you stop treating private schools as charities they will stop acting like charities. Good job I’m not PM. My plan for private schools would upset a few folks
What is your plan? Increase the tax allowance as a thank you to those that have worked hard to be able to put their children in private education, saving the tax the tax payer millions in extra teachers and schools?
Oh bless you, my sweet summer child. Associating high pay with hard work, so delightfully naive!
No, I’d close them down. State education only. Same opportunities for all regardless of familial wealth. "Ideologically I know why a Socialist would want to do that. The reality is that the very wealthy will just send their kids abroad. The kids that get impacted will be the high achieving low and middle income kids who lose out on opportunities to maximise their abilities. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Based on a quick read of The Guardian article, for the most part that all sounds fairly centre ground to me. I am against the removal of charity status/charitable tax arrangements for private schools and actually think this will backfire and end up not raising the level of tax they believe and will actually end up exacerbating the wealth divide in education due to the removal of bursaries and scholarships. If you stop treating private schools as charities they will stop acting like charities. Good job I’m not PM. My plan for private schools would upset a few folks
What is your plan? Increase the tax allowance as a thank you to those that have worked hard to be able to put their children in private education, saving the tax the tax payer millions in extra teachers and schools?
Oh bless you, my sweet summer child. Associating high pay with hard work, so delightfully naive!
No, I’d close them down. State education only. Same opportunities for all regardless of familial wealth. "I love the way you think, you always lean towards the lowest common denominator type approach… Little Johnny can’t read, take away all books. You’re right it is a good job you’re not PM! You would be the first person to invent time travel as you took the country back through the victorian ages and finally to the point nobody had fire, after all, we couldn’t have people being able to cook, or see in the dark and others not. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Based on a quick read of The Guardian article, for the most part that all sounds fairly centre ground to me. I am against the removal of charity status/charitable tax arrangements for private schools and actually think this will backfire and end up not raising the level of tax they believe and will actually end up exacerbating the wealth divide in education due to the removal of bursaries and scholarships. If you stop treating private schools as charities they will stop acting like charities. Good job I’m not PM. My plan for private schools would upset a few folks
What is your plan? Increase the tax allowance as a thank you to those that have worked hard to be able to put their children in private education, saving the tax the tax payer millions in extra teachers and schools?
Oh bless you, my sweet summer child. Associating high pay with hard work, so delightfully naive!
No, I’d close them down. State education only. Same opportunities for all regardless of familial wealth.
Ideologically I know why a Socialist would want to do that. The reality is that the very wealthy will just send their kids abroad. The kids that get impacted will be the high achieving low and middle income kids who lose out on opportunities to maximise their abilities."Exactly, and the gap simply widens as those in the middle dig deeper to give their kids a better chance. They get hit hardest but it seems the norm in this country. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Based on a quick read of The Guardian article, for the most part that all sounds fairly centre ground to me. I am against the removal of charity status/charitable tax arrangements for private schools and actually think this will backfire and end up not raising the level of tax they believe and will actually end up exacerbating the wealth divide in education due to the removal of bursaries and scholarships. If you stop treating private schools as charities they will stop acting like charities. Good job I’m not PM. My plan for private schools would upset a few folks
What is your plan? Increase the tax allowance as a thank you to those that have worked hard to be able to put their children in private education, saving the tax the tax payer millions in extra teachers and schools?
Oh bless you, my sweet summer child. Associating high pay with hard work, so delightfully naive!
No, I’d close them down. State education only. Same opportunities for all regardless of familial wealth.
I love the way you think, you always lean towards the lowest common denominator type approach…
Little Johnny can’t read, take away all books.
You’re right it is a good job you’re not PM! You would be the first person to invent time travel as you took the country back through the victorian ages and finally to the point nobody had fire, after all, we couldn’t have people being able to cook, or see in the dark and others not."Not sure FunFella does that. I can understand why some people would be ideologically opposed to private schools. But why always take a punitive approach...”I can’t have that so you shouldn’t have it” instead of “you have that so more of us should have it!” | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Based on a quick read of The Guardian article, for the most part that all sounds fairly centre ground to me. I am against the removal of charity status/charitable tax arrangements for private schools and actually think this will backfire and end up not raising the level of tax they believe and will actually end up exacerbating the wealth divide in education due to the removal of bursaries and scholarships. If you stop treating private schools as charities they will stop acting like charities. Good job I’m not PM. My plan for private schools would upset a few folks
What is your plan? Increase the tax allowance as a thank you to those that have worked hard to be able to put their children in private education, saving the tax the tax payer millions in extra teachers and schools?
Oh bless you, my sweet summer child. Associating high pay with hard work, so delightfully naive!
No, I’d close them down. State education only. Same opportunities for all regardless of familial wealth.
I love the way you think, you always lean towards the lowest common denominator type approach…
Little Johnny can’t read, take away all books.
You’re right it is a good job you’re not PM! You would be the first person to invent time travel as you took the country back through the victorian ages and finally to the point nobody had fire, after all, we couldn’t have people being able to cook, or see in the dark and others not.
Not sure FunFella does that. I can understand why some people would be ideologically opposed to private schools. But why always take a punitive approach...”I can’t have that so you shouldn’t have it” instead of “you have that so more of us should have it!”"In your example it shows he does. If x hasn’t got that, nobody should have that and we start from the position of x. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Based on a quick read of The Guardian article, for the most part that all sounds fairly centre ground to me. I am against the removal of charity status/charitable tax arrangements for private schools and actually think this will backfire and end up not raising the level of tax they believe and will actually end up exacerbating the wealth divide in education due to the removal of bursaries and scholarships. If you stop treating private schools as charities they will stop acting like charities. Good job I’m not PM. My plan for private schools would upset a few folks
What is your plan? Increase the tax allowance as a thank you to those that have worked hard to be able to put their children in private education, saving the tax the tax payer millions in extra teachers and schools?
Oh bless you, my sweet summer child. Associating high pay with hard work, so delightfully naive!
No, I’d close them down. State education only. Same opportunities for all regardless of familial wealth.
I love the way you think, you always lean towards the lowest common denominator type approach…
Little Johnny can’t read, take away all books.
You’re right it is a good job you’re not PM! You would be the first person to invent time travel as you took the country back through the victorian ages and finally to the point nobody had fire, after all, we couldn’t have people being able to cook, or see in the dark and others not.
Not sure FunFella does that. I can understand why some people would be ideologically opposed to private schools. But why always take a punitive approach...”I can’t have that so you shouldn’t have it” instead of “you have that so more of us should have it!”
In your example it shows he does. If x hasn’t got that, nobody should have that and we start from the position of x."Yeah but “always the lowest denominator”? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Based on a quick read of The Guardian article, for the most part that all sounds fairly centre ground to me. I am against the removal of charity status/charitable tax arrangements for private schools and actually think this will backfire and end up not raising the level of tax they believe and will actually end up exacerbating the wealth divide in education due to the removal of bursaries and scholarships. If you stop treating private schools as charities they will stop acting like charities. Good job I’m not PM. My plan for private schools would upset a few folks
What is your plan? Increase the tax allowance as a thank you to those that have worked hard to be able to put their children in private education, saving the tax the tax payer millions in extra teachers and schools?
Oh bless you, my sweet summer child. Associating high pay with hard work, so delightfully naive!
No, I’d close them down. State education only. Same opportunities for all regardless of familial wealth.
I love the way you think, you always lean towards the lowest common denominator type approach…
Little Johnny can’t read, take away all books.
You’re right it is a good job you’re not PM! You would be the first person to invent time travel as you took the country back through the victorian ages and finally to the point nobody had fire, after all, we couldn’t have people being able to cook, or see in the dark and others not."If private schools actually aided a meritocracy then I’d not have a problem with them. In reality they don’t, they provide a few crumbs to the poorest, whilst enabling the wealthy and powerful to maintain a grip over power and industry. It’s interesting that you accuse me of leaning towards the lowest denominator whilst also being against trade unions, good pensions for private sector workers etc. At least show some consistency. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Based on a quick read of The Guardian article, for the most part that all sounds fairly centre ground to me. I am against the removal of charity status/charitable tax arrangements for private schools and actually think this will backfire and end up not raising the level of tax they believe and will actually end up exacerbating the wealth divide in education due to the removal of bursaries and scholarships. If you stop treating private schools as charities they will stop acting like charities. Good job I’m not PM. My plan for private schools would upset a few folks
What is your plan? Increase the tax allowance as a thank you to those that have worked hard to be able to put their children in private education, saving the tax the tax payer millions in extra teachers and schools?
Oh bless you, my sweet summer child. Associating high pay with hard work, so delightfully naive!
No, I’d close them down. State education only. Same opportunities for all regardless of familial wealth.
I love the way you think, you always lean towards the lowest common denominator type approach…
Little Johnny can’t read, take away all books.
You’re right it is a good job you’re not PM! You would be the first person to invent time travel as you took the country back through the victorian ages and finally to the point nobody had fire, after all, we couldn’t have people being able to cook, or see in the dark and others not.
Not sure FunFella does that. I can understand why some people would be ideologically opposed to private schools. But why always take a punitive approach...”I can’t have that so you shouldn’t have it” instead of “you have that so more of us should have it!”"This is exactly it. If instead of private schools having the best teachers, best equipment, best environment - shouldn’t that be the aim of all schools? Why do we have a two-tier system which allows the wealthy to dominate society? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" You would be the first person to invent time travel as you took the country back through the victorian ages and finally to the point nobody had fire, after all, we couldn’t have people being able to cook, or see in the dark and others not." Hmmm. The Victorian age where the poor worked unlimited hours, in dangerous conditions for a pittance, whilst the wealthy lived a life of luxury off the back of others labour. You just described the Tory wet dream. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Based on a quick read of The Guardian article, for the most part that all sounds fairly centre ground to me. I am against the removal of charity status/charitable tax arrangements for private schools and actually think this will backfire and end up not raising the level of tax they believe and will actually end up exacerbating the wealth divide in education due to the removal of bursaries and scholarships. If you stop treating private schools as charities they will stop acting like charities. Good job I’m not PM. My plan for private schools would upset a few folks
What is your plan? Increase the tax allowance as a thank you to those that have worked hard to be able to put their children in private education, saving the tax the tax payer millions in extra teachers and schools?
Oh bless you, my sweet summer child. Associating high pay with hard work, so delightfully naive!
No, I’d close them down. State education only. Same opportunities for all regardless of familial wealth.
I love the way you think, you always lean towards the lowest common denominator type approach…
Little Johnny can’t read, take away all books.
You’re right it is a good job you’re not PM! You would be the first person to invent time travel as you took the country back through the victorian ages and finally to the point nobody had fire, after all, we couldn’t have people being able to cook, or see in the dark and others not.
Not sure FunFella does that. I can understand why some people would be ideologically opposed to private schools. But why always take a punitive approach...”I can’t have that so you shouldn’t have it” instead of “you have that so more of us should have it!”
This is exactly it. If instead of private schools having the best teachers, best equipment, best environment - shouldn’t that be the aim of all schools?
Why do we have a two-tier system which allows the wealthy to dominate society? "Except that costs money that won’t come into the state system simply because private schools are banned for reasons I have said above. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Based on a quick read of The Guardian article, for the most part that all sounds fairly centre ground to me. I am against the removal of charity status/charitable tax arrangements for private schools and actually think this will backfire and end up not raising the level of tax they believe and will actually end up exacerbating the wealth divide in education due to the removal of bursaries and scholarships. If you stop treating private schools as charities they will stop acting like charities. Good job I’m not PM. My plan for private schools would upset a few folks
What is your plan? Increase the tax allowance as a thank you to those that have worked hard to be able to put their children in private education, saving the tax the tax payer millions in extra teachers and schools?
Oh bless you, my sweet summer child. Associating high pay with hard work, so delightfully naive!
No, I’d close them down. State education only. Same opportunities for all regardless of familial wealth.
I love the way you think, you always lean towards the lowest common denominator type approach…
Little Johnny can’t read, take away all books.
You’re right it is a good job you’re not PM! You would be the first person to invent time travel as you took the country back through the victorian ages and finally to the point nobody had fire, after all, we couldn’t have people being able to cook, or see in the dark and others not.
Not sure FunFella does that. I can understand why some people would be ideologically opposed to private schools. But why always take a punitive approach...”I can’t have that so you shouldn’t have it” instead of “you have that so more of us should have it!”
This is exactly it. If instead of private schools having the best teachers, best equipment, best environment - shouldn’t that be the aim of all schools?
Why do we have a two-tier system which allows the wealthy to dominate society?
Except that costs money that won’t come into the state system simply because private schools are banned for reasons I have said above."There are other ways of funding education! Example - punitive inheritance tax. Sounds incredibly socialist, right? Hit the wealthy hard when they die - except it’s actually an incredibly capitalist policy - Because you’re forcing the very wealthy to spend their money, not to hoard it. You’re ensuring money is put back into the system. Which is obviously what capitalism is meant to do. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Based on a quick read of The Guardian article, for the most part that all sounds fairly centre ground to me. I am against the removal of charity status/charitable tax arrangements for private schools and actually think this will backfire and end up not raising the level of tax they believe and will actually end up exacerbating the wealth divide in education due to the removal of bursaries and scholarships. If you stop treating private schools as charities they will stop acting like charities. Good job I’m not PM. My plan for private schools would upset a few folks
What is your plan? Increase the tax allowance as a thank you to those that have worked hard to be able to put their children in private education, saving the tax the tax payer millions in extra teachers and schools?
Oh bless you, my sweet summer child. Associating high pay with hard work, so delightfully naive!
No, I’d close them down. State education only. Same opportunities for all regardless of familial wealth.
I love the way you think, you always lean towards the lowest common denominator type approach…
Little Johnny can’t read, take away all books.
You’re right it is a good job you’re not PM! You would be the first person to invent time travel as you took the country back through the victorian ages and finally to the point nobody had fire, after all, we couldn’t have people being able to cook, or see in the dark and others not.
Not sure FunFella does that. I can understand why some people would be ideologically opposed to private schools. But why always take a punitive approach...”I can’t have that so you shouldn’t have it” instead of “you have that so more of us should have it!”
This is exactly it. If instead of private schools having the best teachers, best equipment, best environment - shouldn’t that be the aim of all schools?
Why do we have a two-tier system which allows the wealthy to dominate society? "And you had the nerve to call me naive
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Based on a quick read of The Guardian article, for the most part that all sounds fairly centre ground to me. I am against the removal of charity status/charitable tax arrangements for private schools and actually think this will backfire and end up not raising the level of tax they believe and will actually end up exacerbating the wealth divide in education due to the removal of bursaries and scholarships. If you stop treating private schools as charities they will stop acting like charities. Good job I’m not PM. My plan for private schools would upset a few folks
What is your plan? Increase the tax allowance as a thank you to those that have worked hard to be able to put their children in private education, saving the tax the tax payer millions in extra teachers and schools?
Oh bless you, my sweet summer child. Associating high pay with hard work, so delightfully naive!
No, I’d close them down. State education only. Same opportunities for all regardless of familial wealth.
I love the way you think, you always lean towards the lowest common denominator type approach…
Little Johnny can’t read, take away all books.
You’re right it is a good job you’re not PM! You would be the first person to invent time travel as you took the country back through the victorian ages and finally to the point nobody had fire, after all, we couldn’t have people being able to cook, or see in the dark and others not.
Not sure FunFella does that. I can understand why some people would be ideologically opposed to private schools. But why always take a punitive approach...”I can’t have that so you shouldn’t have it” instead of “you have that so more of us should have it!”
This is exactly it. If instead of private schools having the best teachers, best equipment, best environment - shouldn’t that be the aim of all schools?
Why do we have a two-tier system which allows the wealthy to dominate society?
And you had the nerve to call me naive
"I’d love to hear your idea for ensuring all children have access to the same standard of education. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I also don't think we should be removing tax breaks from parents who save the state money." I don't think the parents get any tax breaks. The Guardian article certainly doesn't say that, it talks about removing the tax breaks that schools get. On this issue, I agree with _irldn, if we don't let the schools be charities, they won't offer non-fee places to gifted youngsters. This will remove the avenue of escape for poor children, and increase the educational divide. I'm surprised that no one is talking about the plan to remove non-dom status. Labour seem to think that this will raise £3bn. I think they're wrong. Non-dom status allows rich foreigners to come here, set up businesses, and send their kids to our well-regarded public schools. Then after 15 years they lose that status, but are so embedded in their life here that they just start paying full tax. If we removed the tax break, they wouldn't come here in the first place. I think that removing non-dom status won't raise any extra money, it'll just lower the amount of inward investment. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Based on a quick read of The Guardian article, for the most part that all sounds fairly centre ground to me. I am against the removal of charity status/charitable tax arrangements for private schools and actually think this will backfire and end up not raising the level of tax they believe and will actually end up exacerbating the wealth divide in education due to the removal of bursaries and scholarships. If you stop treating private schools as charities they will stop acting like charities. Good job I’m not PM. My plan for private schools would upset a few folks
What is your plan? Increase the tax allowance as a thank you to those that have worked hard to be able to put their children in private education, saving the tax the tax payer millions in extra teachers and schools?
Oh bless you, my sweet summer child. Associating high pay with hard work, so delightfully naive!
No, I’d close them down. State education only. Same opportunities for all regardless of familial wealth.
I love the way you think, you always lean towards the lowest common denominator type approach…
Little Johnny can’t read, take away all books.
You’re right it is a good job you’re not PM! You would be the first person to invent time travel as you took the country back through the victorian ages and finally to the point nobody had fire, after all, we couldn’t have people being able to cook, or see in the dark and others not.
Not sure FunFella does that. I can understand why some people would be ideologically opposed to private schools. But why always take a punitive approach...”I can’t have that so you shouldn’t have it” instead of “you have that so more of us should have it!”
This is exactly it. If instead of private schools having the best teachers, best equipment, best environment - shouldn’t that be the aim of all schools?
Why do we have a two-tier system which allows the wealthy to dominate society?
And you had the nerve to call me naive
I’d love to hear your idea for ensuring all children have access to the same standard of education. "How do you ensure the standard of education is the same across the board? Or facilities? What happens to those teachers who are exceptionally talented, keep them locked into the same robotic teaching as every other teacher regardless of skill. Riddle me that one brother and we can take it from there | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Based on a quick read of The Guardian article, for the most part that all sounds fairly centre ground to me. I am against the removal of charity status/charitable tax arrangements for private schools and actually think this will backfire and end up not raising the level of tax they believe and will actually end up exacerbating the wealth divide in education due to the removal of bursaries and scholarships. If you stop treating private schools as charities they will stop acting like charities. Good job I’m not PM. My plan for private schools would upset a few folks
What is your plan? Increase the tax allowance as a thank you to those that have worked hard to be able to put their children in private education, saving the tax the tax payer millions in extra teachers and schools?
Oh bless you, my sweet summer child. Associating high pay with hard work, so delightfully naive!
No, I’d close them down. State education only. Same opportunities for all regardless of familial wealth.
I love the way you think, you always lean towards the lowest common denominator type approach…
Little Johnny can’t read, take away all books.
You’re right it is a good job you’re not PM! You would be the first person to invent time travel as you took the country back through the victorian ages and finally to the point nobody had fire, after all, we couldn’t have people being able to cook, or see in the dark and others not.
Not sure FunFella does that. I can understand why some people would be ideologically opposed to private schools. But why always take a punitive approach...”I can’t have that so you shouldn’t have it” instead of “you have that so more of us should have it!”
This is exactly it. If instead of private schools having the best teachers, best equipment, best environment - shouldn’t that be the aim of all schools?
Why do we have a two-tier system which allows the wealthy to dominate society?
And you had the nerve to call me naive
I’d love to hear your idea for ensuring all children have access to the same standard of education.
How do you ensure the standard of education is the same across the board? Or facilities?
What happens to those teachers who are exceptionally talented, keep them locked into the same robotic teaching as every other teacher regardless of skill.
Riddle me that one brother and we can take it from there"A properly run school system (that is one with a competent dept. for education) would be able to manage such a system. The best teachers would rise to the top as they do now, and become heads, consultants etc. Do you have a suggestion for ensuring kids have access to the same standard of education regardless of their familial wealth? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It is rather lacking in headline, and feels like a tory light middle ground. It will be surprising if anything doesn't make it to the manifesto, it is so unremarkable. I feel a few things are militant red war cries, such as cutting private equity firm loopholes in gas and oil companies, and tax break removal for private schools, not sure any of that will be delivered, but it sounds left wing enough to make people feel those who have money will be singled out. Amazing what you think are "militant red war cries". Entirely my prerogative to think how I want. Unlike Starmer and the left wing who insist you must think like them or you are not British in thinking. Don't you think giving out the message that people who educate their children privately will no longer qualify for tax deductions, is pandering to the left wing militants who hate anyone who has succeeded in life? The rest of the ideas are tory light... Of course you're allowed to have any opinion you wish. Thinking it's militant left wing to think that the rich shouldn't get tax breaks for privately educating their kids is just so far away from anything I can imagine. This isn't even an especially left wing policy. But I agree on the rest, this offers no new ideas and nothing but more of the same. Starmer wants to get elected and thinks that being a Tory in a red tie will get him there. It can’t be a little left wing, it either is or it isn’t and we all know it is. Starmer has thrown out snippets that he thinks will help him appear to be a man of the people, by isolating those that can afford private education… The more I hear of him the more I feel we aren’t going to be swerving wildly off course if he gets into number 10." I agree with your last paragraph. Which makes it pretty pointless voting for Labour. Are all they're offering is a less corrupt version of what we have no. No where near good enough for my vote. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I also don't think we should be removing tax breaks from parents who save the state money. I don't think the parents get any tax breaks. The Guardian article certainly doesn't say that, it talks about removing the tax breaks that schools get. On this issue, I agree with _irldn, if we don't let the schools be charities, they won't offer non-fee places to gifted youngsters. This will remove the avenue of escape for poor children, and increase the educational divide. I'm surprised that no one is talking about the plan to remove non-dom status. Labour seem to think that this will raise £3bn. I think they're wrong. Non-dom status allows rich foreigners to come here, set up businesses, and send their kids to our well-regarded public schools. Then after 15 years they lose that status, but are so embedded in their life here that they just start paying full tax. If we removed the tax break, they wouldn't come here in the first place. I think that removing non-dom status won't raise any extra money, it'll just lower the amount of inward investment." The education element, tackling private equity firms and the non-dom are soundbites to confuse their supporters into thinking Starmer is going to give to the rich, nothing will happen in those spaces come the time they are elected. Which leaves a Tory ish plan for the manifesto | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It is rather lacking in headline, and feels like a tory light middle ground. It will be surprising if anything doesn't make it to the manifesto, it is so unremarkable. I feel a few things are militant red war cries, such as cutting private equity firm loopholes in gas and oil companies, and tax break removal for private schools, not sure any of that will be delivered, but it sounds left wing enough to make people feel those who have money will be singled out. Amazing what you think are "militant red war cries". Entirely my prerogative to think how I want. Unlike Starmer and the left wing who insist you must think like them or you are not British in thinking. Don't you think giving out the message that people who educate their children privately will no longer qualify for tax deductions, is pandering to the left wing militants who hate anyone who has succeeded in life? The rest of the ideas are tory light... Of course you're allowed to have any opinion you wish. Thinking it's militant left wing to think that the rich shouldn't get tax breaks for privately educating their kids is just so far away from anything I can imagine. This isn't even an especially left wing policy. But I agree on the rest, this offers no new ideas and nothing but more of the same. Starmer wants to get elected and thinks that being a Tory in a red tie will get him there. It can’t be a little left wing, it either is or it isn’t and we all know it is. Starmer has thrown out snippets that he thinks will help him appear to be a man of the people, by isolating those that can afford private education… The more I hear of him the more I feel we aren’t going to be swerving wildly off course if he gets into number 10. I agree with your last paragraph. Which makes it pretty pointless voting for Labour. Are all they're offering is a less corrupt version of what we have no. No where near good enough for my vote." Johnny we agree | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"There are other ways of funding education! Example - punitive inheritance tax. Sounds incredibly socialist, right? Hit the wealthy hard when they die - except it’s actually an incredibly capitalist policy - Because you’re forcing the very wealthy to spend their money, not to hoard it. You’re ensuring money is put back into the system. Which is obviously what capitalism is meant to do." I'm actually in favour of punitive inheritance tax, for exactly the reasons that you give above. But if a future government enacted that, it wouldn't bring in any extra money at all. The rich would just create trusts and shell companies to pass their wealth to their children, and the rest of us would spend it before dying. If we all knew that our wealth would go to the government on our death, everyone would make damn sure that they spent it all before they died. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Based on a quick read of The Guardian article, for the most part that all sounds fairly centre ground to me. I am against the removal of charity status/charitable tax arrangements for private schools and actually think this will backfire and end up not raising the level of tax they believe and will actually end up exacerbating the wealth divide in education due to the removal of bursaries and scholarships. If you stop treating private schools as charities they will stop acting like charities. Good job I’m not PM. My plan for private schools would upset a few folks
What is your plan? Increase the tax allowance as a thank you to those that have worked hard to be able to put their children in private education, saving the tax the tax payer millions in extra teachers and schools?
Oh bless you, my sweet summer child. Associating high pay with hard work, so delightfully naive!
No, I’d close them down. State education only. Same opportunities for all regardless of familial wealth.
I love the way you think, you always lean towards the lowest common denominator type approach…
Little Johnny can’t read, take away all books.
You’re right it is a good job you’re not PM! You would be the first person to invent time travel as you took the country back through the victorian ages and finally to the point nobody had fire, after all, we couldn’t have people being able to cook, or see in the dark and others not.
Not sure FunFella does that. I can understand why some people would be ideologically opposed to private schools. But why always take a punitive approach...”I can’t have that so you shouldn’t have it” instead of “you have that so more of us should have it!”
This is exactly it. If instead of private schools having the best teachers, best equipment, best environment - shouldn’t that be the aim of all schools?
Why do we have a two-tier system which allows the wealthy to dominate society?
And you had the nerve to call me naive
I’d love to hear your idea for ensuring all children have access to the same standard of education.
How do you ensure the standard of education is the same across the board? Or facilities?
What happens to those teachers who are exceptionally talented, keep them locked into the same robotic teaching as every other teacher regardless of skill.
Riddle me that one brother and we can take it from there
A properly run school system (that is one with a competent dept. for education) would be able to manage such a system. The best teachers would rise to the top as they do now, and become heads, consultants etc.
Do you have a suggestion for ensuring kids have access to the same standard of education regardless of their familial wealth?"As I said you had the nerve to call me naive.... You assume we are all the same, should be all the same and be motivated by the same. Surely you can see this is not the reality? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Based on a quick read of The Guardian article, for the most part that all sounds fairly centre ground to me. I am against the removal of charity status/charitable tax arrangements for private schools and actually think this will backfire and end up not raising the level of tax they believe and will actually end up exacerbating the wealth divide in education due to the removal of bursaries and scholarships. If you stop treating private schools as charities they will stop acting like charities. Good job I’m not PM. My plan for private schools would upset a few folks
What is your plan? Increase the tax allowance as a thank you to those that have worked hard to be able to put their children in private education, saving the tax the tax payer millions in extra teachers and schools?
Oh bless you, my sweet summer child. Associating high pay with hard work, so delightfully naive!
No, I’d close them down. State education only. Same opportunities for all regardless of familial wealth.
I love the way you think, you always lean towards the lowest common denominator type approach…
Little Johnny can’t read, take away all books.
You’re right it is a good job you’re not PM! You would be the first person to invent time travel as you took the country back through the victorian ages and finally to the point nobody had fire, after all, we couldn’t have people being able to cook, or see in the dark and others not.
Not sure FunFella does that. I can understand why some people would be ideologically opposed to private schools. But why always take a punitive approach...”I can’t have that so you shouldn’t have it” instead of “you have that so more of us should have it!”
This is exactly it. If instead of private schools having the best teachers, best equipment, best environment - shouldn’t that be the aim of all schools?
Why do we have a two-tier system which allows the wealthy to dominate society?
And you had the nerve to call me naive
I’d love to hear your idea for ensuring all children have access to the same standard of education.
How do you ensure the standard of education is the same across the board? Or facilities?
What happens to those teachers who are exceptionally talented, keep them locked into the same robotic teaching as every other teacher regardless of skill.
Riddle me that one brother and we can take it from there
A properly run school system (that is one with a competent dept. for education) would be able to manage such a system. The best teachers would rise to the top as they do now, and become heads, consultants etc.
Do you have a suggestion for ensuring kids have access to the same standard of education regardless of their familial wealth?
As I said you had the nerve to call me naive....
You assume we are all the same, should be all the same and be motivated by the same.
Surely you can see this is not the reality?
"No it’s not the reality. Should we meekly accept things that are unfair just because that’s the way it’s always been? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Based on a quick read of The Guardian article, for the most part that all sounds fairly centre ground to me. I am against the removal of charity status/charitable tax arrangements for private schools and actually think this will backfire and end up not raising the level of tax they believe and will actually end up exacerbating the wealth divide in education due to the removal of bursaries and scholarships. If you stop treating private schools as charities they will stop acting like charities. Good job I’m not PM. My plan for private schools would upset a few folks
What is your plan? Increase the tax allowance as a thank you to those that have worked hard to be able to put their children in private education, saving the tax the tax payer millions in extra teachers and schools?
Oh bless you, my sweet summer child. Associating high pay with hard work, so delightfully naive!
No, I’d close them down. State education only. Same opportunities for all regardless of familial wealth.
I love the way you think, you always lean towards the lowest common denominator type approach…
Little Johnny can’t read, take away all books.
You’re right it is a good job you’re not PM! You would be the first person to invent time travel as you took the country back through the victorian ages and finally to the point nobody had fire, after all, we couldn’t have people being able to cook, or see in the dark and others not.
Not sure FunFella does that. I can understand why some people would be ideologically opposed to private schools. But why always take a punitive approach...”I can’t have that so you shouldn’t have it” instead of “you have that so more of us should have it!”
This is exactly it. If instead of private schools having the best teachers, best equipment, best environment - shouldn’t that be the aim of all schools?
Why do we have a two-tier system which allows the wealthy to dominate society?
And you had the nerve to call me naive
I’d love to hear your idea for ensuring all children have access to the same standard of education.
How do you ensure the standard of education is the same across the board? Or facilities?
What happens to those teachers who are exceptionally talented, keep them locked into the same robotic teaching as every other teacher regardless of skill.
Riddle me that one brother and we can take it from there
A properly run school system (that is one with a competent dept. for education) would be able to manage such a system. The best teachers would rise to the top as they do now, and become heads, consultants etc.
Do you have a suggestion for ensuring kids have access to the same standard of education regardless of their familial wealth?
As I said you had the nerve to call me naive....
You assume we are all the same, should be all the same and be motivated by the same.
Surely you can see this is not the reality?
No it’s not the reality. Should we meekly accept things that are unfair just because that’s the way it’s always been?
"And here is the headline! It is not fair. Didn't take long to get there but we did. How do we measure fair? How do we stop fair being a blocker for those who are average and above? Who says what fair is? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Based on a quick read of The Guardian article, for the most part that all sounds fairly centre ground to me. I am against the removal of charity status/charitable tax arrangements for private schools and actually think this will backfire and end up not raising the level of tax they believe and will actually end up exacerbating the wealth divide in education due to the removal of bursaries and scholarships. If you stop treating private schools as charities they will stop acting like charities. Good job I’m not PM. My plan for private schools would upset a few folks
What is your plan? Increase the tax allowance as a thank you to those that have worked hard to be able to put their children in private education, saving the tax the tax payer millions in extra teachers and schools?
Oh bless you, my sweet summer child. Associating high pay with hard work, so delightfully naive!
No, I’d close them down. State education only. Same opportunities for all regardless of familial wealth.
I love the way you think, you always lean towards the lowest common denominator type approach…
Little Johnny can’t read, take away all books.
You’re right it is a good job you’re not PM! You would be the first person to invent time travel as you took the country back through the victorian ages and finally to the point nobody had fire, after all, we couldn’t have people being able to cook, or see in the dark and others not.
Not sure FunFella does that. I can understand why some people would be ideologically opposed to private schools. But why always take a punitive approach...”I can’t have that so you shouldn’t have it” instead of “you have that so more of us should have it!”
This is exactly it. If instead of private schools having the best teachers, best equipment, best environment - shouldn’t that be the aim of all schools?
Why do we have a two-tier system which allows the wealthy to dominate society?
And you had the nerve to call me naive
I’d love to hear your idea for ensuring all children have access to the same standard of education.
How do you ensure the standard of education is the same across the board? Or facilities?
What happens to those teachers who are exceptionally talented, keep them locked into the same robotic teaching as every other teacher regardless of skill.
Riddle me that one brother and we can take it from there
A properly run school system (that is one with a competent dept. for education) would be able to manage such a system. The best teachers would rise to the top as they do now, and become heads, consultants etc.
Do you have a suggestion for ensuring kids have access to the same standard of education regardless of their familial wealth?
As I said you had the nerve to call me naive....
You assume we are all the same, should be all the same and be motivated by the same.
Surely you can see this is not the reality?
No it’s not the reality. Should we meekly accept things that are unfair just because that’s the way it’s always been?
And here is the headline! It is not fair.
Didn't take long to get there but we did.
How do we measure fair? How do we stop fair being a blocker for those who are average and above?
Who says what fair is?"I’d say that a system in which expensive private schools utterly dominate the best universities (and subsequently higher end jobs/society) isn’t a fair distribution, I’m sure you’d agree? If we lived in an actual meritocracy (which I assume were all broadly in favour of) we’d see a reasonably equal share of public and private school kids at Oxbridge, wouldn’t we? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Based on a quick read of The Guardian article, for the most part that all sounds fairly centre ground to me. I am against the removal of charity status/charitable tax arrangements for private schools and actually think this will backfire and end up not raising the level of tax they believe and will actually end up exacerbating the wealth divide in education due to the removal of bursaries and scholarships. If you stop treating private schools as charities they will stop acting like charities. Good job I’m not PM. My plan for private schools would upset a few folks
What is your plan? Increase the tax allowance as a thank you to those that have worked hard to be able to put their children in private education, saving the tax the tax payer millions in extra teachers and schools?
Oh bless you, my sweet summer child. Associating high pay with hard work, so delightfully naive!
No, I’d close them down. State education only. Same opportunities for all regardless of familial wealth.
I love the way you think, you always lean towards the lowest common denominator type approach…
Little Johnny can’t read, take away all books.
You’re right it is a good job you’re not PM! You would be the first person to invent time travel as you took the country back through the victorian ages and finally to the point nobody had fire, after all, we couldn’t have people being able to cook, or see in the dark and others not.
Not sure FunFella does that. I can understand why some people would be ideologically opposed to private schools. But why always take a punitive approach...”I can’t have that so you shouldn’t have it” instead of “you have that so more of us should have it!”
This is exactly it. If instead of private schools having the best teachers, best equipment, best environment - shouldn’t that be the aim of all schools?
Why do we have a two-tier system which allows the wealthy to dominate society?
And you had the nerve to call me naive
I’d love to hear your idea for ensuring all children have access to the same standard of education.
How do you ensure the standard of education is the same across the board? Or facilities?
What happens to those teachers who are exceptionally talented, keep them locked into the same robotic teaching as every other teacher regardless of skill.
Riddle me that one brother and we can take it from there
A properly run school system (that is one with a competent dept. for education) would be able to manage such a system. The best teachers would rise to the top as they do now, and become heads, consultants etc.
Do you have a suggestion for ensuring kids have access to the same standard of education regardless of their familial wealth?"The cream of teachers becoming heads is in no way going to benefit the children. Why? Because they will no longer be teachers but managers. The best managers are always the best workers and the best workers aren't always the best managers. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Based on a quick read of The Guardian article, for the most part that all sounds fairly centre ground to me. I am against the removal of charity status/charitable tax arrangements for private schools and actually think this will backfire and end up not raising the level of tax they believe and will actually end up exacerbating the wealth divide in education due to the removal of bursaries and scholarships. If you stop treating private schools as charities they will stop acting like charities. Good job I’m not PM. My plan for private schools would upset a few folks
What is your plan? Increase the tax allowance as a thank you to those that have worked hard to be able to put their children in private education, saving the tax the tax payer millions in extra teachers and schools?
Oh bless you, my sweet summer child. Associating high pay with hard work, so delightfully naive!
No, I’d close them down. State education only. Same opportunities for all regardless of familial wealth.
I love the way you think, you always lean towards the lowest common denominator type approach…
Little Johnny can’t read, take away all books.
You’re right it is a good job you’re not PM! You would be the first person to invent time travel as you took the country back through the victorian ages and finally to the point nobody had fire, after all, we couldn’t have people being able to cook, or see in the dark and others not.
Not sure FunFella does that. I can understand why some people would be ideologically opposed to private schools. But why always take a punitive approach...”I can’t have that so you shouldn’t have it” instead of “you have that so more of us should have it!”
This is exactly it. If instead of private schools having the best teachers, best equipment, best environment - shouldn’t that be the aim of all schools?
Why do we have a two-tier system which allows the wealthy to dominate society?
And you had the nerve to call me naive
I’d love to hear your idea for ensuring all children have access to the same standard of education.
How do you ensure the standard of education is the same across the board? Or facilities?
What happens to those teachers who are exceptionally talented, keep them locked into the same robotic teaching as every other teacher regardless of skill.
Riddle me that one brother and we can take it from there
A properly run school system (that is one with a competent dept. for education) would be able to manage such a system. The best teachers would rise to the top as they do now, and become heads, consultants etc.
Do you have a suggestion for ensuring kids have access to the same standard of education regardless of their familial wealth?
The cream of teachers becoming heads is in no way going to benefit the children. Why? Because they will no longer be teachers but managers.
The best managers are always the best workers and the best workers aren't always the best managers. "Now that I do agree with - but obviously that’s the way that things tend to go in many industries. - I assume that teaching is no different. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Based on a quick read of The Guardian article, for the most part that all sounds fairly centre ground to me. I am against the removal of charity status/charitable tax arrangements for private schools and actually think this will backfire and end up not raising the level of tax they believe and will actually end up exacerbating the wealth divide in education due to the removal of bursaries and scholarships. If you stop treating private schools as charities they will stop acting like charities. Good job I’m not PM. My plan for private schools would upset a few folks
What is your plan? Increase the tax allowance as a thank you to those that have worked hard to be able to put their children in private education, saving the tax the tax payer millions in extra teachers and schools?
Oh bless you, my sweet summer child. Associating high pay with hard work, so delightfully naive!
No, I’d close them down. State education only. Same opportunities for all regardless of familial wealth.
I love the way you think, you always lean towards the lowest common denominator type approach…
Little Johnny can’t read, take away all books.
You’re right it is a good job you’re not PM! You would be the first person to invent time travel as you took the country back through the victorian ages and finally to the point nobody had fire, after all, we couldn’t have people being able to cook, or see in the dark and others not.
Not sure FunFella does that. I can understand why some people would be ideologically opposed to private schools. But why always take a punitive approach...”I can’t have that so you shouldn’t have it” instead of “you have that so more of us should have it!”
This is exactly it. If instead of private schools having the best teachers, best equipment, best environment - shouldn’t that be the aim of all schools?
Why do we have a two-tier system which allows the wealthy to dominate society?
And you had the nerve to call me naive
I’d love to hear your idea for ensuring all children have access to the same standard of education.
How do you ensure the standard of education is the same across the board? Or facilities?
What happens to those teachers who are exceptionally talented, keep them locked into the same robotic teaching as every other teacher regardless of skill.
Riddle me that one brother and we can take it from there
A properly run school system (that is one with a competent dept. for education) would be able to manage such a system. The best teachers would rise to the top as they do now, and become heads, consultants etc.
Do you have a suggestion for ensuring kids have access to the same standard of education regardless of their familial wealth?
As I said you had the nerve to call me naive....
You assume we are all the same, should be all the same and be motivated by the same.
Surely you can see this is not the reality?
No it’s not the reality. Should we meekly accept things that are unfair just because that’s the way it’s always been?
And here is the headline! It is not fair.
Didn't take long to get there but we did.
How do we measure fair? How do we stop fair being a blocker for those who are average and above?
Who says what fair is?
I’d say that a system in which expensive private schools utterly dominate the best universities (and subsequently higher end jobs/society) isn’t a fair distribution, I’m sure you’d agree?
If we lived in an actual meritocracy (which I assume were all broadly in favour of) we’d see a reasonably equal share of public and private school kids at Oxbridge, wouldn’t we? "This is from 2021: For the last two decades both Oxford and Cambridge have taken more than half of their entrants from state schools. The latest rates are 67% for Oxford and 68% for Cambridge, or somewhat higher if overseas students at UK schools are excluded. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" And here is the headline! It is not fair. " I’m very keen to hear your explanation for why you believe it is acceptable that some kids are born with an inherent likelihood of success by dint of their parents wealth/status. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Based on a quick read of The Guardian article, for the most part that all sounds fairly centre ground to me. I am against the removal of charity status/charitable tax arrangements for private schools and actually think this will backfire and end up not raising the level of tax they believe and will actually end up exacerbating the wealth divide in education due to the removal of bursaries and scholarships. If you stop treating private schools as charities they will stop acting like charities. Good job I’m not PM. My plan for private schools would upset a few folks
What is your plan? Increase the tax allowance as a thank you to those that have worked hard to be able to put their children in private education, saving the tax the tax payer millions in extra teachers and schools?
Oh bless you, my sweet summer child. Associating high pay with hard work, so delightfully naive!
No, I’d close them down. State education only. Same opportunities for all regardless of familial wealth.
I love the way you think, you always lean towards the lowest common denominator type approach…
Little Johnny can’t read, take away all books.
You’re right it is a good job you’re not PM! You would be the first person to invent time travel as you took the country back through the victorian ages and finally to the point nobody had fire, after all, we couldn’t have people being able to cook, or see in the dark and others not.
Not sure FunFella does that. I can understand why some people would be ideologically opposed to private schools. But why always take a punitive approach...”I can’t have that so you shouldn’t have it” instead of “you have that so more of us should have it!”
This is exactly it. If instead of private schools having the best teachers, best equipment, best environment - shouldn’t that be the aim of all schools?
Why do we have a two-tier system which allows the wealthy to dominate society?
And you had the nerve to call me naive
I’d love to hear your idea for ensuring all children have access to the same standard of education.
How do you ensure the standard of education is the same across the board? Or facilities?
What happens to those teachers who are exceptionally talented, keep them locked into the same robotic teaching as every other teacher regardless of skill.
Riddle me that one brother and we can take it from there
A properly run school system (that is one with a competent dept. for education) would be able to manage such a system. The best teachers would rise to the top as they do now, and become heads, consultants etc.
Do you have a suggestion for ensuring kids have access to the same standard of education regardless of their familial wealth?
As I said you had the nerve to call me naive....
You assume we are all the same, should be all the same and be motivated by the same.
Surely you can see this is not the reality?
No it’s not the reality. Should we meekly accept things that are unfair just because that’s the way it’s always been?
And here is the headline! It is not fair.
Didn't take long to get there but we did.
How do we measure fair? How do we stop fair being a blocker for those who are average and above?
Who says what fair is?
I’d say that a system in which expensive private schools utterly dominate the best universities (and subsequently higher end jobs/society) isn’t a fair distribution, I’m sure you’d agree?
If we lived in an actual meritocracy (which I assume were all broadly in favour of) we’d see a reasonably equal share of public and private school kids at Oxbridge, wouldn’t we? "What is stopping anyone going to Oxbridge, answer nothing if they are academically gifted, however there are only so many places, that is what makes it special and competition high... I'm not going to surprise you with the next part.. I am in favour of people making their own way in the world and not be held back by people who think it is not fair. It makes my blood run cold when I hear such talk. How do you feel about those teachers you mention that are excellent in their role and decide to go to private education for the money? It happens and it will always happen, the best in class (excuse the pun) will be find high paying jobs with wealthy organisations or individuals. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Based on a quick read of The Guardian article, for the most part that all sounds fairly centre ground to me. I am against the removal of charity status/charitable tax arrangements for private schools and actually think this will backfire and end up not raising the level of tax they believe and will actually end up exacerbating the wealth divide in education due to the removal of bursaries and scholarships. If you stop treating private schools as charities they will stop acting like charities. Good job I’m not PM. My plan for private schools would upset a few folks
What is your plan? Increase the tax allowance as a thank you to those that have worked hard to be able to put their children in private education, saving the tax the tax payer millions in extra teachers and schools?
Oh bless you, my sweet summer child. Associating high pay with hard work, so delightfully naive!
No, I’d close them down. State education only. Same opportunities for all regardless of familial wealth.
I love the way you think, you always lean towards the lowest common denominator type approach…
Little Johnny can’t read, take away all books.
You’re right it is a good job you’re not PM! You would be the first person to invent time travel as you took the country back through the victorian ages and finally to the point nobody had fire, after all, we couldn’t have people being able to cook, or see in the dark and others not.
Not sure FunFella does that. I can understand why some people would be ideologically opposed to private schools. But why always take a punitive approach...”I can’t have that so you shouldn’t have it” instead of “you have that so more of us should have it!”
This is exactly it. If instead of private schools having the best teachers, best equipment, best environment - shouldn’t that be the aim of all schools?
Why do we have a two-tier system which allows the wealthy to dominate society?
And you had the nerve to call me naive
I’d love to hear your idea for ensuring all children have access to the same standard of education.
How do you ensure the standard of education is the same across the board? Or facilities?
What happens to those teachers who are exceptionally talented, keep them locked into the same robotic teaching as every other teacher regardless of skill.
Riddle me that one brother and we can take it from there
A properly run school system (that is one with a competent dept. for education) would be able to manage such a system. The best teachers would rise to the top as they do now, and become heads, consultants etc.
Do you have a suggestion for ensuring kids have access to the same standard of education regardless of their familial wealth?
The cream of teachers becoming heads is in no way going to benefit the children. Why? Because they will no longer be teachers but managers.
The best managers are always the best workers and the best workers aren't always the best managers.
Now that I do agree with - but obviously that’s the way that things tend to go in many industries. - I assume that teaching is no different."I hope you realised I meant to say 'the best managers aren't always the best workers'. If you do agree with me then does that make your statement void? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I’d say that a system in which expensive private schools utterly dominate the best universities (and subsequently higher end jobs/society) isn’t a fair distribution, I’m sure you’d agree? If we lived in an actual meritocracy (which I assume were all broadly in favour of) we’d see a reasonably equal share of public and private school kids at Oxbridge, wouldn’t we? " Is this because the private schools teach better or is it because the family situation of kids going to private school is usually better? At this point, if a kid really wants to learn, there is abundance of free material in the internet. You can sit at home and watch classes taken by some of the best in the business. I think the problem is not the school itself. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Based on a quick read of The Guardian article, for the most part that all sounds fairly centre ground to me. I am against the removal of charity status/charitable tax arrangements for private schools and actually think this will backfire and end up not raising the level of tax they believe and will actually end up exacerbating the wealth divide in education due to the removal of bursaries and scholarships. If you stop treating private schools as charities they will stop acting like charities. Good job I’m not PM. My plan for private schools would upset a few folks
What is your plan? Increase the tax allowance as a thank you to those that have worked hard to be able to put their children in private education, saving the tax the tax payer millions in extra teachers and schools?
Oh bless you, my sweet summer child. Associating high pay with hard work, so delightfully naive!
No, I’d close them down. State education only. Same opportunities for all regardless of familial wealth.
I love the way you think, you always lean towards the lowest common denominator type approach…
Little Johnny can’t read, take away all books.
You’re right it is a good job you’re not PM! You would be the first person to invent time travel as you took the country back through the victorian ages and finally to the point nobody had fire, after all, we couldn’t have people being able to cook, or see in the dark and others not.
Not sure FunFella does that. I can understand why some people would be ideologically opposed to private schools. But why always take a punitive approach...”I can’t have that so you shouldn’t have it” instead of “you have that so more of us should have it!”
This is exactly it. If instead of private schools having the best teachers, best equipment, best environment - shouldn’t that be the aim of all schools?
Why do we have a two-tier system which allows the wealthy to dominate society?
And you had the nerve to call me naive
I’d love to hear your idea for ensuring all children have access to the same standard of education.
How do you ensure the standard of education is the same across the board? Or facilities?
What happens to those teachers who are exceptionally talented, keep them locked into the same robotic teaching as every other teacher regardless of skill.
Riddle me that one brother and we can take it from there
A properly run school system (that is one with a competent dept. for education) would be able to manage such a system. The best teachers would rise to the top as they do now, and become heads, consultants etc.
Do you have a suggestion for ensuring kids have access to the same standard of education regardless of their familial wealth?
As I said you had the nerve to call me naive....
You assume we are all the same, should be all the same and be motivated by the same.
Surely you can see this is not the reality?
No it’s not the reality. Should we meekly accept things that are unfair just because that’s the way it’s always been?
And here is the headline! It is not fair.
Didn't take long to get there but we did.
How do we measure fair? How do we stop fair being a blocker for those who are average and above?
Who says what fair is?
I’d say that a system in which expensive private schools utterly dominate the best universities (and subsequently higher end jobs/society) isn’t a fair distribution, I’m sure you’d agree?
If we lived in an actual meritocracy (which I assume were all broadly in favour of) we’d see a reasonably equal share of public and private school kids at Oxbridge, wouldn’t we?
This is from 2021:
For the last two decades both Oxford and Cambridge have taken more than half of their entrants from state schools. The latest rates are 67% for Oxford and 68% for Cambridge, or somewhat higher if overseas students at UK schools are excluded. "Another stat presented without any actual detail, feisty? Respective courses? plus the small number of private schools that actually present most of the private educated kids (I think just 10 schools produce well over 10% of oxbridge students.) That being said, things have improved dramatically in the past few years (particularly since 2019) - hopefully this trend will continue. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Based on a quick read of The Guardian article, for the most part that all sounds fairly centre ground to me. I am against the removal of charity status/charitable tax arrangements for private schools and actually think this will backfire and end up not raising the level of tax they believe and will actually end up exacerbating the wealth divide in education due to the removal of bursaries and scholarships. If you stop treating private schools as charities they will stop acting like charities. Good job I’m not PM. My plan for private schools would upset a few folks
What is your plan? Increase the tax allowance as a thank you to those that have worked hard to be able to put their children in private education, saving the tax the tax payer millions in extra teachers and schools?
Oh bless you, my sweet summer child. Associating high pay with hard work, so delightfully naive!
No, I’d close them down. State education only. Same opportunities for all regardless of familial wealth.
I love the way you think, you always lean towards the lowest common denominator type approach…
Little Johnny can’t read, take away all books.
You’re right it is a good job you’re not PM! You would be the first person to invent time travel as you took the country back through the victorian ages and finally to the point nobody had fire, after all, we couldn’t have people being able to cook, or see in the dark and others not.
Not sure FunFella does that. I can understand why some people would be ideologically opposed to private schools. But why always take a punitive approach...”I can’t have that so you shouldn’t have it” instead of “you have that so more of us should have it!”
This is exactly it. If instead of private schools having the best teachers, best equipment, best environment - shouldn’t that be the aim of all schools?
Why do we have a two-tier system which allows the wealthy to dominate society?
And you had the nerve to call me naive
I’d love to hear your idea for ensuring all children have access to the same standard of education.
How do you ensure the standard of education is the same across the board? Or facilities?
What happens to those teachers who are exceptionally talented, keep them locked into the same robotic teaching as every other teacher regardless of skill.
Riddle me that one brother and we can take it from there
A properly run school system (that is one with a competent dept. for education) would be able to manage such a system. The best teachers would rise to the top as they do now, and become heads, consultants etc.
Do you have a suggestion for ensuring kids have access to the same standard of education regardless of their familial wealth?
The cream of teachers becoming heads is in no way going to benefit the children. Why? Because they will no longer be teachers but managers.
The best managers are always the best workers and the best workers aren't always the best managers.
Now that I do agree with - but obviously that’s the way that things tend to go in many industries. - I assume that teaching is no different.
I hope you realised I meant to say 'the best managers aren't always the best workers'.
If you do agree with me then does that make your statement void?"No it doesn’t make it void - because good heads will also have most likely been good teachers - which in turn allows them influence over their staff. I was a bloody good train driver (if I may say so myself.) I use that experience to make others into bloody good train drivers too. Much as it would be nice to lock the best teachers into a classroom and happily stop their career progression there, it’s unlikely to work | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Based on a quick read of The Guardian article, for the most part that all sounds fairly centre ground to me. I am against the removal of charity status/charitable tax arrangements for private schools and actually think this will backfire and end up not raising the level of tax they believe and will actually end up exacerbating the wealth divide in education due to the removal of bursaries and scholarships. If you stop treating private schools as charities they will stop acting like charities. Good job I’m not PM. My plan for private schools would upset a few folks
What is your plan? Increase the tax allowance as a thank you to those that have worked hard to be able to put their children in private education, saving the tax the tax payer millions in extra teachers and schools?
Oh bless you, my sweet summer child. Associating high pay with hard work, so delightfully naive!
No, I’d close them down. State education only. Same opportunities for all regardless of familial wealth.
I love the way you think, you always lean towards the lowest common denominator type approach…
Little Johnny can’t read, take away all books.
You’re right it is a good job you’re not PM! You would be the first person to invent time travel as you took the country back through the victorian ages and finally to the point nobody had fire, after all, we couldn’t have people being able to cook, or see in the dark and others not.
Not sure FunFella does that. I can understand why some people would be ideologically opposed to private schools. But why always take a punitive approach...”I can’t have that so you shouldn’t have it” instead of “you have that so more of us should have it!”
This is exactly it. If instead of private schools having the best teachers, best equipment, best environment - shouldn’t that be the aim of all schools?
Why do we have a two-tier system which allows the wealthy to dominate society?
And you had the nerve to call me naive
I’d love to hear your idea for ensuring all children have access to the same standard of education.
How do you ensure the standard of education is the same across the board? Or facilities?
What happens to those teachers who are exceptionally talented, keep them locked into the same robotic teaching as every other teacher regardless of skill.
Riddle me that one brother and we can take it from there
A properly run school system (that is one with a competent dept. for education) would be able to manage such a system. The best teachers would rise to the top as they do now, and become heads, consultants etc.
Do you have a suggestion for ensuring kids have access to the same standard of education regardless of their familial wealth?
As I said you had the nerve to call me naive....
You assume we are all the same, should be all the same and be motivated by the same.
Surely you can see this is not the reality?
No it’s not the reality. Should we meekly accept things that are unfair just because that’s the way it’s always been?
And here is the headline! It is not fair.
Didn't take long to get there but we did.
How do we measure fair? How do we stop fair being a blocker for those who are average and above?
Who says what fair is?
I’d say that a system in which expensive private schools utterly dominate the best universities (and subsequently higher end jobs/society) isn’t a fair distribution, I’m sure you’d agree?
If we lived in an actual meritocracy (which I assume were all broadly in favour of) we’d see a reasonably equal share of public and private school kids at Oxbridge, wouldn’t we?
This is from 2021:
For the last two decades both Oxford and Cambridge have taken more than half of their entrants from state schools. The latest rates are 67% for Oxford and 68% for Cambridge, or somewhat higher if overseas students at UK schools are excluded.
Another stat presented without any actual detail, feisty?
Respective courses? plus the small number of private schools that actually present most of the private educated kids (I think just 10 schools produce well over 10% of oxbridge students.)
That being said, things have improved dramatically in the past few years (particularly since 2019) - hopefully this trend will continue.
"What detail would you like? Is it a fact that 67% of Oxbridge students come from state schools? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I’d say that a system in which expensive private schools utterly dominate the best universities (and subsequently higher end jobs/society) isn’t a fair distribution, I’m sure you’d agree? If we lived in an actual meritocracy (which I assume were all broadly in favour of) we’d see a reasonably equal share of public and private school kids at Oxbridge, wouldn’t we? Is this because the private schools teach better or is it because the family situation of kids going to private school is usually better? At this point, if a kid really wants to learn, there is abundance of free material in the internet. You can sit at home and watch classes taken by some of the best in the business. I think the problem is not the school itself." No absolutely family situation plays a role, but again, the poorer kids are held back - parents working multiple jobs or longer hours, looking after other siblings etc. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Based on a quick read of The Guardian article, for the most part that all sounds fairly centre ground to me. I am against the removal of charity status/charitable tax arrangements for private schools and actually think this will backfire and end up not raising the level of tax they believe and will actually end up exacerbating the wealth divide in education due to the removal of bursaries and scholarships. If you stop treating private schools as charities they will stop acting like charities. Good job I’m not PM. My plan for private schools would upset a few folks
What is your plan? Increase the tax allowance as a thank you to those that have worked hard to be able to put their children in private education, saving the tax the tax payer millions in extra teachers and schools?
Oh bless you, my sweet summer child. Associating high pay with hard work, so delightfully naive!
No, I’d close them down. State education only. Same opportunities for all regardless of familial wealth.
I love the way you think, you always lean towards the lowest common denominator type approach…
Little Johnny can’t read, take away all books.
You’re right it is a good job you’re not PM! You would be the first person to invent time travel as you took the country back through the victorian ages and finally to the point nobody had fire, after all, we couldn’t have people being able to cook, or see in the dark and others not.
Not sure FunFella does that. I can understand why some people would be ideologically opposed to private schools. But why always take a punitive approach...”I can’t have that so you shouldn’t have it” instead of “you have that so more of us should have it!”
This is exactly it. If instead of private schools having the best teachers, best equipment, best environment - shouldn’t that be the aim of all schools?
Why do we have a two-tier system which allows the wealthy to dominate society?
And you had the nerve to call me naive
I’d love to hear your idea for ensuring all children have access to the same standard of education.
How do you ensure the standard of education is the same across the board? Or facilities?
What happens to those teachers who are exceptionally talented, keep them locked into the same robotic teaching as every other teacher regardless of skill.
Riddle me that one brother and we can take it from there
A properly run school system (that is one with a competent dept. for education) would be able to manage such a system. The best teachers would rise to the top as they do now, and become heads, consultants etc.
Do you have a suggestion for ensuring kids have access to the same standard of education regardless of their familial wealth?
The cream of teachers becoming heads is in no way going to benefit the children. Why? Because they will no longer be teachers but managers.
The best managers are always the best workers and the best workers aren't always the best managers.
Now that I do agree with - but obviously that’s the way that things tend to go in many industries. - I assume that teaching is no different.
I hope you realised I meant to say 'the best managers aren't always the best workers'.
If you do agree with me then does that make your statement void?
No it doesn’t make it void - because good heads will also have most likely been good teachers - which in turn allows them influence over their staff.
I was a bloody good train driver (if I may say so myself.) I use that experience to make others into bloody good train drivers too.
Much as it would be nice to lock the best teachers into a classroom and happily stop their career progression there, it’s unlikely to work "Most likely have been good teachers? Not necessarily. That's just an assumption. The main problem with schools is management/trusts thinking that all kids are the same, they aren't and state school allows for no deviation from the plan. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Based on a quick read of The Guardian article, for the most part that all sounds fairly centre ground to me. I am against the removal of charity status/charitable tax arrangements for private schools and actually think this will backfire and end up not raising the level of tax they believe and will actually end up exacerbating the wealth divide in education due to the removal of bursaries and scholarships. If you stop treating private schools as charities they will stop acting like charities. Good job I’m not PM. My plan for private schools would upset a few folks
What is your plan? Increase the tax allowance as a thank you to those that have worked hard to be able to put their children in private education, saving the tax the tax payer millions in extra teachers and schools?
Oh bless you, my sweet summer child. Associating high pay with hard work, so delightfully naive!
No, I’d close them down. State education only. Same opportunities for all regardless of familial wealth.
I love the way you think, you always lean towards the lowest common denominator type approach…
Little Johnny can’t read, take away all books.
You’re right it is a good job you’re not PM! You would be the first person to invent time travel as you took the country back through the victorian ages and finally to the point nobody had fire, after all, we couldn’t have people being able to cook, or see in the dark and others not.
Not sure FunFella does that. I can understand why some people would be ideologically opposed to private schools. But why always take a punitive approach...”I can’t have that so you shouldn’t have it” instead of “you have that so more of us should have it!”
This is exactly it. If instead of private schools having the best teachers, best equipment, best environment - shouldn’t that be the aim of all schools?
Why do we have a two-tier system which allows the wealthy to dominate society?
And you had the nerve to call me naive
I’d love to hear your idea for ensuring all children have access to the same standard of education.
How do you ensure the standard of education is the same across the board? Or facilities?
What happens to those teachers who are exceptionally talented, keep them locked into the same robotic teaching as every other teacher regardless of skill.
Riddle me that one brother and we can take it from there
A properly run school system (that is one with a competent dept. for education) would be able to manage such a system. The best teachers would rise to the top as they do now, and become heads, consultants etc.
Do you have a suggestion for ensuring kids have access to the same standard of education regardless of their familial wealth?
As I said you had the nerve to call me naive....
You assume we are all the same, should be all the same and be motivated by the same.
Surely you can see this is not the reality?
No it’s not the reality. Should we meekly accept things that are unfair just because that’s the way it’s always been?
And here is the headline! It is not fair.
Didn't take long to get there but we did.
How do we measure fair? How do we stop fair being a blocker for those who are average and above?
Who says what fair is?
I’d say that a system in which expensive private schools utterly dominate the best universities (and subsequently higher end jobs/society) isn’t a fair distribution, I’m sure you’d agree?
If we lived in an actual meritocracy (which I assume were all broadly in favour of) we’d see a reasonably equal share of public and private school kids at Oxbridge, wouldn’t we?
This is from 2021:
For the last two decades both Oxford and Cambridge have taken more than half of their entrants from state schools. The latest rates are 67% for Oxford and 68% for Cambridge, or somewhat higher if overseas students at UK schools are excluded.
Another stat presented without any actual detail, feisty?
Respective courses? plus the small number of private schools that actually present most of the private educated kids (I think just 10 schools produce well over 10% of oxbridge students.)
That being said, things have improved dramatically in the past few years (particularly since 2019) - hopefully this trend will continue.
What detail would you like?
Is it a fact that 67% of Oxbridge students come from state schools?"Hey, you’re the one who gets chapped at others presenting unvarnished stats. Don’t grumble when others do it to you. Here’s a quote I found in a piece just now: “A fuller picture needs more context, including longer term trends in this indicator, rates of entry for other under-represented groups, data on other prestigious universities, the overall distribution of applications to and offers from Oxbridge by individual schools and colleges and a better understanding of the different types of state schools that send pupils to Oxbridge” | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I’d say that a system in which expensive private schools utterly dominate the best universities (and subsequently higher end jobs/society) isn’t a fair distribution, I’m sure you’d agree? If we lived in an actual meritocracy (which I assume were all broadly in favour of) we’d see a reasonably equal share of public and private school kids at Oxbridge, wouldn’t we? Is this because the private schools teach better or is it because the family situation of kids going to private school is usually better? At this point, if a kid really wants to learn, there is abundance of free material in the internet. You can sit at home and watch classes taken by some of the best in the business. I think the problem is not the school itself. No absolutely family situation plays a role, but again, the poorer kids are held back - parents working multiple jobs or longer hours, looking after other siblings etc. " In that case, doing anything about private schools isn't going to fix the issue? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I’d say that a system in which expensive private schools utterly dominate the best universities (and subsequently higher end jobs/society) isn’t a fair distribution, I’m sure you’d agree? If we lived in an actual meritocracy (which I assume were all broadly in favour of) we’d see a reasonably equal share of public and private school kids at Oxbridge, wouldn’t we? Is this because the private schools teach better or is it because the family situation of kids going to private school is usually better? At this point, if a kid really wants to learn, there is abundance of free material in the internet. You can sit at home and watch classes taken by some of the best in the business. I think the problem is not the school itself. No absolutely family situation plays a role, but again, the poorer kids are held back - parents working multiple jobs or longer hours, looking after other siblings etc. In that case, doing anything about private schools isn't going to fix the issue? " Improving state schools is. Removing private schools is about making an attempt at levelling the playing field. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Based on a quick read of The Guardian article, for the most part that all sounds fairly centre ground to me. I am against the removal of charity status/charitable tax arrangements for private schools and actually think this will backfire and end up not raising the level of tax they believe and will actually end up exacerbating the wealth divide in education due to the removal of bursaries and scholarships. If you stop treating private schools as charities they will stop acting like charities. Good job I’m not PM. My plan for private schools would upset a few folks
What is your plan? Increase the tax allowance as a thank you to those that have worked hard to be able to put their children in private education, saving the tax the tax payer millions in extra teachers and schools?
Oh bless you, my sweet summer child. Associating high pay with hard work, so delightfully naive!
No, I’d close them down. State education only. Same opportunities for all regardless of familial wealth.
I love the way you think, you always lean towards the lowest common denominator type approach…
Little Johnny can’t read, take away all books.
You’re right it is a good job you’re not PM! You would be the first person to invent time travel as you took the country back through the victorian ages and finally to the point nobody had fire, after all, we couldn’t have people being able to cook, or see in the dark and others not.
Not sure FunFella does that. I can understand why some people would be ideologically opposed to private schools. But why always take a punitive approach...”I can’t have that so you shouldn’t have it” instead of “you have that so more of us should have it!”
This is exactly it. If instead of private schools having the best teachers, best equipment, best environment - shouldn’t that be the aim of all schools?
Why do we have a two-tier system which allows the wealthy to dominate society?
And you had the nerve to call me naive
I’d love to hear your idea for ensuring all children have access to the same standard of education.
How do you ensure the standard of education is the same across the board? Or facilities?
What happens to those teachers who are exceptionally talented, keep them locked into the same robotic teaching as every other teacher regardless of skill.
Riddle me that one brother and we can take it from there
A properly run school system (that is one with a competent dept. for education) would be able to manage such a system. The best teachers would rise to the top as they do now, and become heads, consultants etc.
Do you have a suggestion for ensuring kids have access to the same standard of education regardless of their familial wealth?
As I said you had the nerve to call me naive....
You assume we are all the same, should be all the same and be motivated by the same.
Surely you can see this is not the reality?
No it’s not the reality. Should we meekly accept things that are unfair just because that’s the way it’s always been?
And here is the headline! It is not fair.
Didn't take long to get there but we did.
How do we measure fair? How do we stop fair being a blocker for those who are average and above?
Who says what fair is?
I’d say that a system in which expensive private schools utterly dominate the best universities (and subsequently higher end jobs/society) isn’t a fair distribution, I’m sure you’d agree?
If we lived in an actual meritocracy (which I assume were all broadly in favour of) we’d see a reasonably equal share of public and private school kids at Oxbridge, wouldn’t we?
This is from 2021:
For the last two decades both Oxford and Cambridge have taken more than half of their entrants from state schools. The latest rates are 67% for Oxford and 68% for Cambridge, or somewhat higher if overseas students at UK schools are excluded.
Another stat presented without any actual detail, feisty?
Respective courses? plus the small number of private schools that actually present most of the private educated kids (I think just 10 schools produce well over 10% of oxbridge students.)
That being said, things have improved dramatically in the past few years (particularly since 2019) - hopefully this trend will continue.
What detail would you like?
Is it a fact that 67% of Oxbridge students come from state schools?
Hey, you’re the one who gets chapped at others presenting unvarnished stats. Don’t grumble when others do it to you.
Here’s a quote I found in a piece just now:
“A fuller picture needs more context, including longer term trends in this indicator, rates of entry for other under-represented groups, data on other prestigious universities, the overall distribution of applications to and offers from Oxbridge by individual schools and colleges and a better understanding of the different types of state schools that send pupils to Oxbridge”
"I asked what you'd like. I didn't grumble. So you can't refute my stats? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I’d say that a system in which expensive private schools utterly dominate the best universities (and subsequently higher end jobs/society) isn’t a fair distribution, I’m sure you’d agree? If we lived in an actual meritocracy (which I assume were all broadly in favour of) we’d see a reasonably equal share of public and private school kids at Oxbridge, wouldn’t we? Is this because the private schools teach better or is it because the family situation of kids going to private school is usually better? At this point, if a kid really wants to learn, there is abundance of free material in the internet. You can sit at home and watch classes taken by some of the best in the business. I think the problem is not the school itself. No absolutely family situation plays a role, but again, the poorer kids are held back - parents working multiple jobs or longer hours, looking after other siblings etc. In that case, doing anything about private schools isn't going to fix the issue? Improving state schools is. Removing private schools is about making an attempt at levelling the playing field. " That just sounds like jealousy. We can't have it so neither can you  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I’d say that a system in which expensive private schools utterly dominate the best universities (and subsequently higher end jobs/society) isn’t a fair distribution, I’m sure you’d agree? If we lived in an actual meritocracy (which I assume were all broadly in favour of) we’d see a reasonably equal share of public and private school kids at Oxbridge, wouldn’t we? Is this because the private schools teach better or is it because the family situation of kids going to private school is usually better? At this point, if a kid really wants to learn, there is abundance of free material in the internet. You can sit at home and watch classes taken by some of the best in the business. I think the problem is not the school itself. No absolutely family situation plays a role, but again, the poorer kids are held back - parents working multiple jobs or longer hours, looking after other siblings etc. In that case, doing anything about private schools isn't going to fix the issue? Improving state schools is. Removing private schools is about making an attempt at levelling the playing field. That just sounds like jealousy. We can't have it so neither can you "It’s actually about ‘this kid deserves the same opportunity as that kid, regardless of his parents wealth level’ Do you think familial wealth/status should entitle a child to a greater likelihood of success in life? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I’d say that a system in which expensive private schools utterly dominate the best universities (and subsequently higher end jobs/society) isn’t a fair distribution, I’m sure you’d agree? If we lived in an actual meritocracy (which I assume were all broadly in favour of) we’d see a reasonably equal share of public and private school kids at Oxbridge, wouldn’t we? Is this because the private schools teach better or is it because the family situation of kids going to private school is usually better? At this point, if a kid really wants to learn, there is abundance of free material in the internet. You can sit at home and watch classes taken by some of the best in the business. I think the problem is not the school itself. No absolutely family situation plays a role, but again, the poorer kids are held back - parents working multiple jobs or longer hours, looking after other siblings etc. In that case, doing anything about private schools isn't going to fix the issue? Improving state schools is. Removing private schools is about making an attempt at levelling the playing field. That just sounds like jealousy. We can't have it so neither can you
It’s actually about ‘this kid deserves the same opportunity as that kid, regardless of his parents wealth level’
Do you think familial wealth/status should entitle a child to a greater likelihood of success in life? "You're going backwards in trying to 'create the same opportunities'. Do I believe if a family can afford the very best for their kids then they should be entitled to do just that? Fucking right I do. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Based on a quick read of The Guardian article, for the most part that all sounds fairly centre ground to me. I am against the removal of charity status/charitable tax arrangements for private schools and actually think this will backfire and end up not raising the level of tax they believe and will actually end up exacerbating the wealth divide in education due to the removal of bursaries and scholarships. If you stop treating private schools as charities they will stop acting like charities. Good job I’m not PM. My plan for private schools would upset a few folks
What is your plan? Increase the tax allowance as a thank you to those that have worked hard to be able to put their children in private education, saving the tax the tax payer millions in extra teachers and schools?
Oh bless you, my sweet summer child. Associating high pay with hard work, so delightfully naive!
No, I’d close them down. State education only. Same opportunities for all regardless of familial wealth.
I love the way you think, you always lean towards the lowest common denominator type approach…
Little Johnny can’t read, take away all books.
You’re right it is a good job you’re not PM! You would be the first person to invent time travel as you took the country back through the victorian ages and finally to the point nobody had fire, after all, we couldn’t have people being able to cook, or see in the dark and others not.
Not sure FunFella does that. I can understand why some people would be ideologically opposed to private schools. But why always take a punitive approach...”I can’t have that so you shouldn’t have it” instead of “you have that so more of us should have it!”
This is exactly it. If instead of private schools having the best teachers, best equipment, best environment - shouldn’t that be the aim of all schools?
Why do we have a two-tier system which allows the wealthy to dominate society?
And you had the nerve to call me naive
I’d love to hear your idea for ensuring all children have access to the same standard of education.
How do you ensure the standard of education is the same across the board? Or facilities?
What happens to those teachers who are exceptionally talented, keep them locked into the same robotic teaching as every other teacher regardless of skill.
Riddle me that one brother and we can take it from there
A properly run school system (that is one with a competent dept. for education) would be able to manage such a system. The best teachers would rise to the top as they do now, and become heads, consultants etc.
Do you have a suggestion for ensuring kids have access to the same standard of education regardless of their familial wealth?
As I said you had the nerve to call me naive....
You assume we are all the same, should be all the same and be motivated by the same.
Surely you can see this is not the reality?
No it’s not the reality. Should we meekly accept things that are unfair just because that’s the way it’s always been?
And here is the headline! It is not fair.
Didn't take long to get there but we did.
How do we measure fair? How do we stop fair being a blocker for those who are average and above?
Who says what fair is?
I’d say that a system in which expensive private schools utterly dominate the best universities (and subsequently higher end jobs/society) isn’t a fair distribution, I’m sure you’d agree?
If we lived in an actual meritocracy (which I assume were all broadly in favour of) we’d see a reasonably equal share of public and private school kids at Oxbridge, wouldn’t we?
What is stopping anyone going to Oxbridge, answer nothing if they are academically gifted, however there are only so many places, that is what makes it special and competition high... I'm not going to surprise you with the next part..
I am in favour of people making their own way in the world and not be held back by people who think it is not fair.
It makes my blood run cold when I hear such talk.
How do you feel about those teachers you mention that are excellent in their role and decide to go to private education for the money? It happens and it will always happen, the best in class (excuse the pun) will be find high paying jobs with wealthy organisations or individuals.
"You have ignored my post, that’s not fair | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I’d say that a system in which expensive private schools utterly dominate the best universities (and subsequently higher end jobs/society) isn’t a fair distribution, I’m sure you’d agree? If we lived in an actual meritocracy (which I assume were all broadly in favour of) we’d see a reasonably equal share of public and private school kids at Oxbridge, wouldn’t we? Is this because the private schools teach better or is it because the family situation of kids going to private school is usually better? At this point, if a kid really wants to learn, there is abundance of free material in the internet. You can sit at home and watch classes taken by some of the best in the business. I think the problem is not the school itself. No absolutely family situation plays a role, but again, the poorer kids are held back - parents working multiple jobs or longer hours, looking after other siblings etc. In that case, doing anything about private schools isn't going to fix the issue? Improving state schools is. Removing private schools is about making an attempt at levelling the playing field. That just sounds like jealousy. We can't have it so neither can you
It’s actually about ‘this kid deserves the same opportunity as that kid, regardless of his parents wealth level’
Do you think familial wealth/status should entitle a child to a greater likelihood of success in life? "Do you (and possibly your family) get free rail travel? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I’d say that a system in which expensive private schools utterly dominate the best universities (and subsequently higher end jobs/society) isn’t a fair distribution, I’m sure you’d agree? If we lived in an actual meritocracy (which I assume were all broadly in favour of) we’d see a reasonably equal share of public and private school kids at Oxbridge, wouldn’t we? Is this because the private schools teach better or is it because the family situation of kids going to private school is usually better? At this point, if a kid really wants to learn, there is abundance of free material in the internet. You can sit at home and watch classes taken by some of the best in the business. I think the problem is not the school itself. No absolutely family situation plays a role, but again, the poorer kids are held back - parents working multiple jobs or longer hours, looking after other siblings etc. In that case, doing anything about private schools isn't going to fix the issue? Improving state schools is. Removing private schools is about making an attempt at levelling the playing field. " But you admitted that the problem here lies at home and not with schools. Why do you want to change the way schools function if the real problem is with broken families or parents not having time to spend with kids? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I’d say that a system in which expensive private schools utterly dominate the best universities (and subsequently higher end jobs/society) isn’t a fair distribution, I’m sure you’d agree? If we lived in an actual meritocracy (which I assume were all broadly in favour of) we’d see a reasonably equal share of public and private school kids at Oxbridge, wouldn’t we? Is this because the private schools teach better or is it because the family situation of kids going to private school is usually better? At this point, if a kid really wants to learn, there is abundance of free material in the internet. You can sit at home and watch classes taken by some of the best in the business. I think the problem is not the school itself. No absolutely family situation plays a role, but again, the poorer kids are held back - parents working multiple jobs or longer hours, looking after other siblings etc. In that case, doing anything about private schools isn't going to fix the issue? Improving state schools is. Removing private schools is about making an attempt at levelling the playing field. That just sounds like jealousy. We can't have it so neither can you
It’s actually about ‘this kid deserves the same opportunity as that kid, regardless of his parents wealth level’
Do you think familial wealth/status should entitle a child to a greater likelihood of success in life?
Do you (and possibly your family) get free rail travel? "No. I get free rail travel on my company. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I’d say that a system in which expensive private schools utterly dominate the best universities (and subsequently higher end jobs/society) isn’t a fair distribution, I’m sure you’d agree? If we lived in an actual meritocracy (which I assume were all broadly in favour of) we’d see a reasonably equal share of public and private school kids at Oxbridge, wouldn’t we? Is this because the private schools teach better or is it because the family situation of kids going to private school is usually better? At this point, if a kid really wants to learn, there is abundance of free material in the internet. You can sit at home and watch classes taken by some of the best in the business. I think the problem is not the school itself. No absolutely family situation plays a role, but again, the poorer kids are held back - parents working multiple jobs or longer hours, looking after other siblings etc. In that case, doing anything about private schools isn't going to fix the issue? Improving state schools is. Removing private schools is about making an attempt at levelling the playing field. But you admitted that the problem here lies at home and not with schools. Why do you want to change the way schools function if the real problem is with broken families or parents not having time to spend with kids?" No, there are several reasons that poorer kids are held back, not just home life. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Now we’re getting way off topic here based on a tongue in cheek comment about me becoming PM - but if anyone can legitimately give a justifiable reason for kids of wealthy families having more likelihood of success than the kids of poor families, then feel free to share it. So far we have ‘that’s the way it is’ Any others?" So far we have you avoiding the questions? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I’d say that a system in which expensive private schools utterly dominate the best universities (and subsequently higher end jobs/society) isn’t a fair distribution, I’m sure you’d agree? If we lived in an actual meritocracy (which I assume were all broadly in favour of) we’d see a reasonably equal share of public and private school kids at Oxbridge, wouldn’t we? Is this because the private schools teach better or is it because the family situation of kids going to private school is usually better? At this point, if a kid really wants to learn, there is abundance of free material in the internet. You can sit at home and watch classes taken by some of the best in the business. I think the problem is not the school itself. No absolutely family situation plays a role, but again, the poorer kids are held back - parents working multiple jobs or longer hours, looking after other siblings etc. In that case, doing anything about private schools isn't going to fix the issue? Improving state schools is. Removing private schools is about making an attempt at levelling the playing field. That just sounds like jealousy. We can't have it so neither can you
It’s actually about ‘this kid deserves the same opportunity as that kid, regardless of his parents wealth level’
Do you think familial wealth/status should entitle a child to a greater likelihood of success in life?
You're going backwards in trying to 'create the same opportunities'.
Do I believe if a family can afford the very best for their kids then they should be entitled to do just that? Fucking right I do. "That’s absolutely fine. Just don’t pretend you believe in a meritocratic system. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Now we’re getting way off topic here based on a tongue in cheek comment about me becoming PM - but if anyone can legitimately give a justifiable reason for kids of wealthy families having more likelihood of success than the kids of poor families, then feel free to share it. So far we have ‘that’s the way it is’ Any others? So far we have you avoiding the questions?" Sorry, perhaps I missed it. Feel free to enlighten me. And then you can answer the one above that you’ve avoided on a couple of occasions now. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Now we’re getting way off topic here based on a tongue in cheek comment about me becoming PM - but if anyone can legitimately give a justifiable reason for kids of wealthy families having more likelihood of success than the kids of poor families, then feel free to share it. So far we have ‘that’s the way it is’ Any others?" FunFella I often agree with a lot of your posts but not on this topic of private schools. Please scroll up about a dozen posts to my last post. For me that is the basis of the argument to not ban them. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It is rather lacking in headline, and feels like a tory light middle ground. It will be surprising if anything doesn't make it to the manifesto, it is so unremarkable. I feel a few things are militant red war cries, such as cutting private equity firm loopholes in gas and oil companies, and tax break removal for private schools, not sure any of that will be delivered, but it sounds left wing enough to make people feel those who have money will be singled out. Amazing what you think are "militant red war cries". Entirely my prerogative to think how I want. Unlike Starmer and the left wing who insist you must think like them or you are not British in thinking. Don't you think giving out the message that people who educate their children privately will no longer qualify for tax deductions, is pandering to the left wing militants who hate anyone who has succeeded in life? The rest of the ideas are tory light... Of course you're allowed to have any opinion you wish. Thinking it's militant left wing to think that the rich shouldn't get tax breaks for privately educating their kids is just so far away from anything I can imagine. This isn't even an especially left wing policy. But I agree on the rest, this offers no new ideas and nothing but more of the same. Starmer wants to get elected and thinks that being a Tory in a red tie will get him there. It can’t be a little left wing, it either is or it isn’t and we all know it is. Starmer has thrown out snippets that he thinks will help him appear to be a man of the people, by isolating those that can afford private education… The more I hear of him the more I feel we aren’t going to be swerving wildly off course if he gets into number 10. I agree with your last paragraph. Which makes it pretty pointless voting for Labour. Are all they're offering is a less corrupt version of what we have no. No where near good enough for my vote." I mostly agree in principal too that Labour are so close to the Tories that they are in effect removing the reason to vote for them. That said it seemed to work for Blair. Some like me have already decided to not vote Tory this time around but there is no point in voting for the same stuff under a different management. Hopefully Labour will be less corrupt but there is no guarantee. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Now we’re getting way off topic here based on a tongue in cheek comment about me becoming PM - but if anyone can legitimately give a justifiable reason for kids of wealthy families having more likelihood of success than the kids of poor families, then feel free to share it. So far we have ‘that’s the way it is’ Any others? FunFella I often agree with a lot of your posts but not on this topic of private schools. Please scroll up about a dozen posts to my last post. For me that is the basis of the argument to not ban them." It’s cool I was legitimately being tongue in cheek about my policies as PM (though I will bulldoze Eton out of spite for the damage it’s done  )
I’m just incredulous about those who think that by virtue of money and status should entitle your offspring to more opportunities than the kids down the road who’ll receive no such leg-up.
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I’d say that a system in which expensive private schools utterly dominate the best universities (and subsequently higher end jobs/society) isn’t a fair distribution, I’m sure you’d agree? If we lived in an actual meritocracy (which I assume were all broadly in favour of) we’d see a reasonably equal share of public and private school kids at Oxbridge, wouldn’t we? Is this because the private schools teach better or is it because the family situation of kids going to private school is usually better? At this point, if a kid really wants to learn, there is abundance of free material in the internet. You can sit at home and watch classes taken by some of the best in the business. I think the problem is not the school itself. No absolutely family situation plays a role, but again, the poorer kids are held back - parents working multiple jobs or longer hours, looking after other siblings etc. In that case, doing anything about private schools isn't going to fix the issue? Improving state schools is. Removing private schools is about making an attempt at levelling the playing field. But you admitted that the problem here lies at home and not with schools. Why do you want to change the way schools function if the real problem is with broken families or parents not having time to spend with kids? No, there are several reasons that poorer kids are held back, not just home life. " What is it about private and public schools that is holding back some kids? As I said above, for any kid who wants to learn, everything is available on the internet. You keep saying students in private schools get more opportunities. How so? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I’m just incredulous about those who think that by virtue of money and status should entitle your offspring to more opportunities than the kids down the road who’ll receive no such leg-up." I don't think anyone believes that having more money should entitle your children to a better education. But the world isn't fair. Some people are cleverer than others, and that gives them an advantage. Some people are more attractive than others, and that gives them an advantage. And of course some people have more money than others, and that gives them and their offspring an advantage. It isn't fair, but it's also not the fault of the people involved. Why should you deny them the ability to get a better life for their children, just because not everyone else can afford it? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I’d say that a system in which expensive private schools utterly dominate the best universities (and subsequently higher end jobs/society) isn’t a fair distribution, I’m sure you’d agree? If we lived in an actual meritocracy (which I assume were all broadly in favour of) we’d see a reasonably equal share of public and private school kids at Oxbridge, wouldn’t we? Is this because the private schools teach better or is it because the family situation of kids going to private school is usually better? At this point, if a kid really wants to learn, there is abundance of free material in the internet. You can sit at home and watch classes taken by some of the best in the business. I think the problem is not the school itself. No absolutely family situation plays a role, but again, the poorer kids are held back - parents working multiple jobs or longer hours, looking after other siblings etc. In that case, doing anything about private schools isn't going to fix the issue? Improving state schools is. Removing private schools is about making an attempt at levelling the playing field. That just sounds like jealousy. We can't have it so neither can you
It’s actually about ‘this kid deserves the same opportunity as that kid, regardless of his parents wealth level’
Do you think familial wealth/status should entitle a child to a greater likelihood of success in life?
You're going backwards in trying to 'create the same opportunities'.
Do I believe if a family can afford the very best for their kids then they should be entitled to do just that? Fucking right I do.
That’s absolutely fine. Just don’t pretend you believe in a meritocratic system. "Who said I believe in a meritocratic system? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I’m just incredulous about those who think that by virtue of money and status should entitle your offspring to more opportunities than the kids down the road who’ll receive no such leg-up. I don't think anyone believes that having more money should entitle your children to a better education. But the world isn't fair. Some people are cleverer than others, and that gives them an advantage. Some people are more attractive than others, and that gives them an advantage. And of course some people have more money than others, and that gives them and their offspring an advantage. It isn't fair, but it's also not the fault of the people involved. Why should you deny them the ability to get a better life for their children, just because not everyone else can afford it?" I think that generally what happens when taking a punitive approach is you end up levelling down rather than levelling up. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I’d say that a system in which expensive private schools utterly dominate the best universities (and subsequently higher end jobs/society) isn’t a fair distribution, I’m sure you’d agree? If we lived in an actual meritocracy (which I assume were all broadly in favour of) we’d see a reasonably equal share of public and private school kids at Oxbridge, wouldn’t we? Is this because the private schools teach better or is it because the family situation of kids going to private school is usually better? At this point, if a kid really wants to learn, there is abundance of free material in the internet. You can sit at home and watch classes taken by some of the best in the business. I think the problem is not the school itself. No absolutely family situation plays a role, but again, the poorer kids are held back - parents working multiple jobs or longer hours, looking after other siblings etc. In that case, doing anything about private schools isn't going to fix the issue? Improving state schools is. Removing private schools is about making an attempt at levelling the playing field. But you admitted that the problem here lies at home and not with schools. Why do you want to change the way schools function if the real problem is with broken families or parents not having time to spend with kids? No, there are several reasons that poorer kids are held back, not just home life. What is it about private and public schools that is holding back some kids? As I said above, for any kid who wants to learn, everything is available on the internet. You keep saying students in private schools get more opportunities. How so?" As someone who does not believe we should remove charity status from pvt sch (and certainly should not ban) I can say there are clear advantages to pvt sch. Class size. Equipment. Resources. Better paid teachers attracting some of the best. But most importantly in most cases, a desire to learn and not be disruptive (or face losing your place). Smart kids surrounded by smart kids lift their game (although you do still get some Tim nice but dims). | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I’d say that a system in which expensive private schools utterly dominate the best universities (and subsequently higher end jobs/society) isn’t a fair distribution, I’m sure you’d agree? If we lived in an actual meritocracy (which I assume were all broadly in favour of) we’d see a reasonably equal share of public and private school kids at Oxbridge, wouldn’t we? Is this because the private schools teach better or is it because the family situation of kids going to private school is usually better? At this point, if a kid really wants to learn, there is abundance of free material in the internet. You can sit at home and watch classes taken by some of the best in the business. I think the problem is not the school itself. No absolutely family situation plays a role, but again, the poorer kids are held back - parents working multiple jobs or longer hours, looking after other siblings etc. In that case, doing anything about private schools isn't going to fix the issue? Improving state schools is. Removing private schools is about making an attempt at levelling the playing field. But you admitted that the problem here lies at home and not with schools. Why do you want to change the way schools function if the real problem is with broken families or parents not having time to spend with kids? No, there are several reasons that poorer kids are held back, not just home life. What is it about private and public schools that is holding back some kids? As I said above, for any kid who wants to learn, everything is available on the internet. You keep saying students in private schools get more opportunities. How so? As someone who does not believe we should remove charity status from pvt sch (and certainly should not ban) I can say there are clear advantages to pvt sch. Class size. Equipment. Resources. Better paid teachers attracting some of the best. But most importantly in most cases, a desire to learn and not be disruptive (or face losing your place). Smart kids surrounded by smart kids lift their game (although you do still get some Tim nice but dims)." There are few advantages. But the fact that private school students are easily getting into Oxbridge has more to do with the situation of the individual at home rather than the type of school they went to. In other words, private schools are symptoms not the cause of how the kids made it to better universities. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I’d say that a system in which expensive private schools utterly dominate the best universities (and subsequently higher end jobs/society) isn’t a fair distribution, I’m sure you’d agree? If we lived in an actual meritocracy (which I assume were all broadly in favour of) we’d see a reasonably equal share of public and private school kids at Oxbridge, wouldn’t we? Is this because the private schools teach better or is it because the family situation of kids going to private school is usually better? At this point, if a kid really wants to learn, there is abundance of free material in the internet. You can sit at home and watch classes taken by some of the best in the business. I think the problem is not the school itself. No absolutely family situation plays a role, but again, the poorer kids are held back - parents working multiple jobs or longer hours, looking after other siblings etc. In that case, doing anything about private schools isn't going to fix the issue? Improving state schools is. Removing private schools is about making an attempt at levelling the playing field. But you admitted that the problem here lies at home and not with schools. Why do you want to change the way schools function if the real problem is with broken families or parents not having time to spend with kids? No, there are several reasons that poorer kids are held back, not just home life. What is it about private and public schools that is holding back some kids? As I said above, for any kid who wants to learn, everything is available on the internet. You keep saying students in private schools get more opportunities. How so? As someone who does not believe we should remove charity status from pvt sch (and certainly should not ban) I can say there are clear advantages to pvt sch. Class size. Equipment. Resources. Better paid teachers attracting some of the best. But most importantly in most cases, a desire to learn and not be disruptive (or face losing your place). Smart kids surrounded by smart kids lift their game (although you do still get some Tim nice but dims). There are few advantages. But the fact that private school students are easily getting into Oxbridge has more to do with the situation of the individual at home rather than the type of school they went to. In other words, private schools are symptoms not the cause of how the kids made it to better universities. " Not sure I fully get what you are saying? Generally it will be A Level results and pvt schs hugely outperform state schools in that regard. Without a doubt home environment is a contributor but school environment will be the deciding factor. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I’d say that a system in which expensive private schools utterly dominate the best universities (and subsequently higher end jobs/society) isn’t a fair distribution, I’m sure you’d agree? If we lived in an actual meritocracy (which I assume were all broadly in favour of) we’d see a reasonably equal share of public and private school kids at Oxbridge, wouldn’t we? Is this because the private schools teach better or is it because the family situation of kids going to private school is usually better? At this point, if a kid really wants to learn, there is abundance of free material in the internet. You can sit at home and watch classes taken by some of the best in the business. I think the problem is not the school itself. No absolutely family situation plays a role, but again, the poorer kids are held back - parents working multiple jobs or longer hours, looking after other siblings etc. In that case, doing anything about private schools isn't going to fix the issue? Improving state schools is. Removing private schools is about making an attempt at levelling the playing field. But you admitted that the problem here lies at home and not with schools. Why do you want to change the way schools function if the real problem is with broken families or parents not having time to spend with kids? No, there are several reasons that poorer kids are held back, not just home life. What is it about private and public schools that is holding back some kids? As I said above, for any kid who wants to learn, everything is available on the internet. You keep saying students in private schools get more opportunities. How so? As someone who does not believe we should remove charity status from pvt sch (and certainly should not ban) I can say there are clear advantages to pvt sch. Class size. Equipment. Resources. Better paid teachers attracting some of the best. But most importantly in most cases, a desire to learn and not be disruptive (or face losing your place). Smart kids surrounded by smart kids lift their game (although you do still get some Tim nice but dims). There are few advantages. But the fact that private school students are easily getting into Oxbridge has more to do with the situation of the individual at home rather than the type of school they went to. In other words, private schools are symptoms not the cause of how the kids made it to better universities. " what do you mean by situation at home ? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I’d say that a system in which expensive private schools utterly dominate the best universities (and subsequently higher end jobs/society) isn’t a fair distribution, I’m sure you’d agree? If we lived in an actual meritocracy (which I assume were all broadly in favour of) we’d see a reasonably equal share of public and private school kids at Oxbridge, wouldn’t we? Is this because the private schools teach better or is it because the family situation of kids going to private school is usually better? At this point, if a kid really wants to learn, there is abundance of free material in the internet. You can sit at home and watch classes taken by some of the best in the business. I think the problem is not the school itself. No absolutely family situation plays a role, but again, the poorer kids are held back - parents working multiple jobs or longer hours, looking after other siblings etc. In that case, doing anything about private schools isn't going to fix the issue? Improving state schools is. Removing private schools is about making an attempt at levelling the playing field. But you admitted that the problem here lies at home and not with schools. Why do you want to change the way schools function if the real problem is with broken families or parents not having time to spend with kids? No, there are several reasons that poorer kids are held back, not just home life. What is it about private and public schools that is holding back some kids? As I said above, for any kid who wants to learn, everything is available on the internet. You keep saying students in private schools get more opportunities. How so? As someone who does not believe we should remove charity status from pvt sch (and certainly should not ban) I can say there are clear advantages to pvt sch. Class size. Equipment. Resources. Better paid teachers attracting some of the best. But most importantly in most cases, a desire to learn and not be disruptive (or face losing your place). Smart kids surrounded by smart kids lift their game (although you do still get some Tim nice but dims). There are few advantages. But the fact that private school students are easily getting into Oxbridge has more to do with the situation of the individual at home rather than the type of school they went to. In other words, private schools are symptoms not the cause of how the kids made it to better universities. Not sure I fully get what you are saying? Generally it will be A Level results and pvt schs hugely outperform state schools in that regard. Without a doubt home environment is a contributor but school environment will be the deciding factor." I am saying that even if private schools are abolished, the same set of kids who would have outperformed with private schools would still do better than the kids who wouldn't have gone to private schools. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I’d say that a system in which expensive private schools utterly dominate the best universities (and subsequently higher end jobs/society) isn’t a fair distribution, I’m sure you’d agree? If we lived in an actual meritocracy (which I assume were all broadly in favour of) we’d see a reasonably equal share of public and private school kids at Oxbridge, wouldn’t we? Is this because the private schools teach better or is it because the family situation of kids going to private school is usually better? At this point, if a kid really wants to learn, there is abundance of free material in the internet. You can sit at home and watch classes taken by some of the best in the business. I think the problem is not the school itself. No absolutely family situation plays a role, but again, the poorer kids are held back - parents working multiple jobs or longer hours, looking after other siblings etc. In that case, doing anything about private schools isn't going to fix the issue? Improving state schools is. Removing private schools is about making an attempt at levelling the playing field. But you admitted that the problem here lies at home and not with schools. Why do you want to change the way schools function if the real problem is with broken families or parents not having time to spend with kids? No, there are several reasons that poorer kids are held back, not just home life. What is it about private and public schools that is holding back some kids? As I said above, for any kid who wants to learn, everything is available on the internet. You keep saying students in private schools get more opportunities. How so? As someone who does not believe we should remove charity status from pvt sch (and certainly should not ban) I can say there are clear advantages to pvt sch. Class size. Equipment. Resources. Better paid teachers attracting some of the best. But most importantly in most cases, a desire to learn and not be disruptive (or face losing your place). Smart kids surrounded by smart kids lift their game (although you do still get some Tim nice but dims). There are few advantages. But the fact that private school students are easily getting into Oxbridge has more to do with the situation of the individual at home rather than the type of school they went to. In other words, private schools are symptoms not the cause of how the kids made it to better universities. what do you mean by situation at home ?" A peaceful environment at home where the kid is not distracted by other issues and parents who encourage the kids to do well in academics and make them ambitious. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As much as the hard left or the extreme right moan, this country doesn’t want to be led by those elements. The real silent majority are the moderates, not the vocal minorities on both sides of political spectrum. Dress it up as much as you want, but the electorate want answers to problems which are tough but fair, radical but sensible, funded but cost effective. I don’t see any of these values at the present moment with this current government. They could have made things better but they let level headedness go out of the window. Well hopefully they will recognise they need to just bow out and think about how to sort the mess they are in. " I agree the silent majority are moderates. I personally rhino this is why Labour will when the next election. However, just on your own stance. You describe 'hard' left as just that, but hard right as 'extreme'. One of those words is much stronger than the other, why do you choose a much stronger word to describe the opposite side? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As much as the hard left or the extreme right moan, this country doesn’t want to be led by those elements. The real silent majority are the moderates, not the vocal minorities on both sides of political spectrum. Dress it up as much as you want, but the electorate want answers to problems which are tough but fair, radical but sensible, funded but cost effective. I don’t see any of these values at the present moment with this current government. They could have made things better but they let level headedness go out of the window. Well hopefully they will recognise they need to just bow out and think about how to sort the mess they are in. I agree the silent majority are moderates. I personally rhino this is why Labour will when the next election. However, just on your own stance. You describe 'hard' left as just that, but hard right as 'extreme'. One of those words is much stronger than the other, why do you choose a much stronger word to describe the opposite side?" In reality the extreme left and extreme right are equally dangerous, but I believe the extend right are more numerous in the west - and as such are a greater threat. But yes - both are dangerous factions | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I’d say that a system in which expensive private schools utterly dominate the best universities (and subsequently higher end jobs/society) isn’t a fair distribution, I’m sure you’d agree? If we lived in an actual meritocracy (which I assume were all broadly in favour of) we’d see a reasonably equal share of public and private school kids at Oxbridge, wouldn’t we? Is this because the private schools teach better or is it because the family situation of kids going to private school is usually better? At this point, if a kid really wants to learn, there is abundance of free material in the internet. You can sit at home and watch classes taken by some of the best in the business. I think the problem is not the school itself. No absolutely family situation plays a role, but again, the poorer kids are held back - parents working multiple jobs or longer hours, looking after other siblings etc. In that case, doing anything about private schools isn't going to fix the issue? Improving state schools is. Removing private schools is about making an attempt at levelling the playing field. But you admitted that the problem here lies at home and not with schools. Why do you want to change the way schools function if the real problem is with broken families or parents not having time to spend with kids? No, there are several reasons that poorer kids are held back, not just home life. What is it about private and public schools that is holding back some kids? As I said above, for any kid who wants to learn, everything is available on the internet. You keep saying students in private schools get more opportunities. How so? As someone who does not believe we should remove charity status from pvt sch (and certainly should not ban) I can say there are clear advantages to pvt sch. Class size. Equipment. Resources. Better paid teachers attracting some of the best. But most importantly in most cases, a desire to learn and not be disruptive (or face losing your place). Smart kids surrounded by smart kids lift their game (although you do still get some Tim nice but dims). There are few advantages. But the fact that private school students are easily getting into Oxbridge has more to do with the situation of the individual at home rather than the type of school they went to. In other words, private schools are symptoms not the cause of how the kids made it to better universities. Not sure I fully get what you are saying? Generally it will be A Level results and pvt schs hugely outperform state schools in that regard. Without a doubt home environment is a contributor but school environment will be the deciding factor. I am saying that even if private schools are abolished, the same set of kids who would have outperformed with private schools would still do better than the kids who wouldn't have gone to private schools. " Ah ok I see your point. However, I think there is more nuance than that. Home environment is a major factor but not all poor kids have chaotic unsupportive homes just as not all rich kids have focused supportive parents. Not everyone in private school is intelligent (the Tim nice but dim Harry Enfield character is real). However, money does buy them a school situation that can give them more attention and focus (class of 15 vs a class of 30+ and little if any disruption). Put those kids in state and they certainly won’t flourish. The genius/talented kids (regardless of background) with the right work ethic will succeed (although those in a poor state school will have the odds stacked against them, in pvt sch they invariably flourish). It is the kids in the middle that are let down. The ones who are good, have potential, but risk getting lost in the state system as over stretched teachers deal with disruptive kids and/or focus in the stars. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As much as the hard left or the extreme right moan, this country doesn’t want to be led by those elements. The real silent majority are the moderates, not the vocal minorities on both sides of political spectrum. Dress it up as much as you want, but the electorate want answers to problems which are tough but fair, radical but sensible, funded but cost effective. I don’t see any of these values at the present moment with this current government. They could have made things better but they let level headedness go out of the window. Well hopefully they will recognise they need to just bow out and think about how to sort the mess they are in. I agree the silent majority are moderates. I personally rhino this is why Labour will when the next election. However, just on your own stance. You describe 'hard' left as just that, but hard right as 'extreme'. One of those words is much stronger than the other, why do you choose a much stronger word to describe the opposite side? In reality the extreme left and extreme right are equally dangerous, but I believe the extend right are more numerous in the west - and as such are a greater threat. But yes - both are dangerous factions" As demonstrated earlier, some people view militant or extreme left policies such as removing tax breaks for private schools. Doesn't sound super dangerous to me. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As much as the hard left or the extreme right moan, this country doesn’t want to be led by those elements. The real silent majority are the moderates, not the vocal minorities on both sides of political spectrum. Dress it up as much as you want, but the electorate want answers to problems which are tough but fair, radical but sensible, funded but cost effective. I don’t see any of these values at the present moment with this current government. They could have made things better but they let level headedness go out of the window. Well hopefully they will recognise they need to just bow out and think about how to sort the mess they are in. I agree the silent majority are moderates. I personally rhino this is why Labour will when the next election. However, just on your own stance. You describe 'hard' left as just that, but hard right as 'extreme'. One of those words is much stronger than the other, why do you choose a much stronger word to describe the opposite side? In reality the extreme left and extreme right are equally dangerous, but I believe the extend right are more numerous in the west - and as such are a greater threat. But yes - both are dangerous factions As demonstrated earlier, some people view militant or extreme left policies such as removing tax breaks for private schools. Doesn't sound super dangerous to me." No that’s not extreme IMO. The abolition of privately owned property would be an example of ‘extreme’ left wing thinking. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As much as the hard left or the extreme right moan, this country doesn’t want to be led by those elements. The real silent majority are the moderates, not the vocal minorities on both sides of political spectrum. Dress it up as much as you want, but the electorate want answers to problems which are tough but fair, radical but sensible, funded but cost effective. I don’t see any of these values at the present moment with this current government. They could have made things better but they let level headedness go out of the window. Well hopefully they will recognise they need to just bow out and think about how to sort the mess they are in. I agree the silent majority are moderates. I personally rhino this is why Labour will when the next election. However, just on your own stance. You describe 'hard' left as just that, but hard right as 'extreme'. One of those words is much stronger than the other, why do you choose a much stronger word to describe the opposite side? In reality the extreme left and extreme right are equally dangerous, but I believe the extend right are more numerous in the west - and as such are a greater threat. But yes - both are dangerous factions As demonstrated earlier, some people view militant or extreme left policies such as removing tax breaks for private schools. Doesn't sound super dangerous to me." The policy is left and my comment was referring to Starmer appealing to the militant left.... You replied and skirted the truth with your answer, by saying it wasn't that left... Do you really think taking away tax incentives for private schools isn't a left wing policy? Regardless, of your spin.. As I mentioned in my first post, this is noise to appeal to the left of left, I would be surprised if it is followed through. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As much as the hard left or the extreme right moan, this country doesn’t want to be led by those elements. The real silent majority are the moderates, not the vocal minorities on both sides of political spectrum. Dress it up as much as you want, but the electorate want answers to problems which are tough but fair, radical but sensible, funded but cost effective. I don’t see any of these values at the present moment with this current government. They could have made things better but they let level headedness go out of the window. Well hopefully they will recognise they need to just bow out and think about how to sort the mess they are in. I agree the silent majority are moderates. I personally rhino this is why Labour will when the next election. However, just on your own stance. You describe 'hard' left as just that, but hard right as 'extreme'. One of those words is much stronger than the other, why do you choose a much stronger word to describe the opposite side? In reality the extreme left and extreme right are equally dangerous, but I believe the extend right are more numerous in the west - and as such are a greater threat. But yes - both are dangerous factions As demonstrated earlier, some people view militant or extreme left policies such as removing tax breaks for private schools. Doesn't sound super dangerous to me. No that’s not extreme IMO. The abolition of privately owned property would be an example of ‘extreme’ left wing thinking. " You are not a good indicator of what is left or not. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As much as the hard left or the extreme right moan, this country doesn’t want to be led by those elements. The real silent majority are the moderates, not the vocal minorities on both sides of political spectrum. Dress it up as much as you want, but the electorate want answers to problems which are tough but fair, radical but sensible, funded but cost effective. I don’t see any of these values at the present moment with this current government. They could have made things better but they let level headedness go out of the window. Well hopefully they will recognise they need to just bow out and think about how to sort the mess they are in. I agree the silent majority are moderates. I personally rhino this is why Labour will when the next election. However, just on your own stance. You describe 'hard' left as just that, but hard right as 'extreme'. One of those words is much stronger than the other, why do you choose a much stronger word to describe the opposite side? In reality the extreme left and extreme right are equally dangerous, but I believe the extend right are more numerous in the west - and as such are a greater threat. But yes - both are dangerous factions As demonstrated earlier, some people view militant or extreme left policies such as removing tax breaks for private schools. Doesn't sound super dangerous to me. The policy is left and my comment was referring to Starmer appealing to the militant left.... You replied and skirted the truth with your answer, by saying it wasn't that left... Do you really think taking away tax incentives for private schools isn't a left wing policy? Regardless, of your spin.. As I mentioned in my first post, this is noise to appeal to the left of left, I would be surprised if it is followed through. " Has anyone said that wouldn’t be left wing policy? It is left wing, It’s just not that extreme left. (Unless of course you’re firmly on the right) | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As much as the hard left or the extreme right moan, this country doesn’t want to be led by those elements. The real silent majority are the moderates, not the vocal minorities on both sides of political spectrum. Dress it up as much as you want, but the electorate want answers to problems which are tough but fair, radical but sensible, funded but cost effective. I don’t see any of these values at the present moment with this current government. They could have made things better but they let level headedness go out of the window. Well hopefully they will recognise they need to just bow out and think about how to sort the mess they are in. I agree the silent majority are moderates. I personally rhino this is why Labour will when the next election. However, just on your own stance. You describe 'hard' left as just that, but hard right as 'extreme'. One of those words is much stronger than the other, why do you choose a much stronger word to describe the opposite side? In reality the extreme left and extreme right are equally dangerous, but I believe the extend right are more numerous in the west - and as such are a greater threat. But yes - both are dangerous factions As demonstrated earlier, some people view militant or extreme left policies such as removing tax breaks for private schools. Doesn't sound super dangerous to me. No that’s not extreme IMO. The abolition of privately owned property would be an example of ‘extreme’ left wing thinking. You are not a good indicator of what is left or not." Au contraire. Your position prevents you from understanding what extreme left wing politics are, as we’ve discovered repeatedly. You think Corbyn’s 2017 manifesto was solid horrendous slice of ultra-socialism rather than the reasonably moderate soc-dem package that it actually was. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As much as the hard left or the extreme right moan, this country doesn’t want to be led by those elements. The real silent majority are the moderates, not the vocal minorities on both sides of political spectrum. Dress it up as much as you want, but the electorate want answers to problems which are tough but fair, radical but sensible, funded but cost effective. I don’t see any of these values at the present moment with this current government. They could have made things better but they let level headedness go out of the window. Well hopefully they will recognise they need to just bow out and think about how to sort the mess they are in. I agree the silent majority are moderates. I personally rhino this is why Labour will when the next election. However, just on your own stance. You describe 'hard' left as just that, but hard right as 'extreme'. One of those words is much stronger than the other, why do you choose a much stronger word to describe the opposite side? In reality the extreme left and extreme right are equally dangerous, but I believe the extend right are more numerous in the west - and as such are a greater threat. But yes - both are dangerous factions As demonstrated earlier, some people view militant or extreme left policies such as removing tax breaks for private schools. Doesn't sound super dangerous to me. The policy is left and my comment was referring to Starmer appealing to the militant left.... You replied and skirted the truth with your answer, by saying it wasn't that left... Do you really think taking away tax incentives for private schools isn't a left wing policy? Regardless, of your spin.. As I mentioned in my first post, this is noise to appeal to the left of left, I would be surprised if it is followed through. " It's barely left wing. And certainly not militant left, or vaguely appealing to someone who is militant left. The point being, this is what's being considered extreme left these days, and is being compared to extreme right. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As much as the hard left or the extreme right moan, this country doesn’t want to be led by those elements. The real silent majority are the moderates, not the vocal minorities on both sides of political spectrum. Dress it up as much as you want, but the electorate want answers to problems which are tough but fair, radical but sensible, funded but cost effective. I don’t see any of these values at the present moment with this current government. They could have made things better but they let level headedness go out of the window. Well hopefully they will recognise they need to just bow out and think about how to sort the mess they are in. I agree the silent majority are moderates. I personally rhino this is why Labour will when the next election. However, just on your own stance. You describe 'hard' left as just that, but hard right as 'extreme'. One of those words is much stronger than the other, why do you choose a much stronger word to describe the opposite side? In reality the extreme left and extreme right are equally dangerous, but I believe the extend right are more numerous in the west - and as such are a greater threat. But yes - both are dangerous factions As demonstrated earlier, some people view militant or extreme left policies such as removing tax breaks for private schools. Doesn't sound super dangerous to me. The policy is left and my comment was referring to Starmer appealing to the militant left.... You replied and skirted the truth with your answer, by saying it wasn't that left... Do you really think taking away tax incentives for private schools isn't a left wing policy? Regardless, of your spin.. As I mentioned in my first post, this is noise to appeal to the left of left, I would be surprised if it is followed through. Has anyone said that wouldn’t be left wing policy? It is left wing, It’s just not that extreme left. (Unless of course you’re firmly on the right)" Your buddy on here certainly said it wasn't that left
Compared to you I'm right, to the population I would think more centre. As I mentioned your opinion of what is left or right is not something that hold weight. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As much as the hard left or the extreme right moan, this country doesn’t want to be led by those elements. The real silent majority are the moderates, not the vocal minorities on both sides of political spectrum. Dress it up as much as you want, but the electorate want answers to problems which are tough but fair, radical but sensible, funded but cost effective. I don’t see any of these values at the present moment with this current government. They could have made things better but they let level headedness go out of the window. Well hopefully they will recognise they need to just bow out and think about how to sort the mess they are in. I agree the silent majority are moderates. I personally rhino this is why Labour will when the next election. However, just on your own stance. You describe 'hard' left as just that, but hard right as 'extreme'. One of those words is much stronger than the other, why do you choose a much stronger word to describe the opposite side? In reality the extreme left and extreme right are equally dangerous, but I believe the extend right are more numerous in the west - and as such are a greater threat. But yes - both are dangerous factions As demonstrated earlier, some people view militant or extreme left policies such as removing tax breaks for private schools. Doesn't sound super dangerous to me. The policy is left and my comment was referring to Starmer appealing to the militant left.... You replied and skirted the truth with your answer, by saying it wasn't that left... Do you really think taking away tax incentives for private schools isn't a left wing policy? Regardless, of your spin.. As I mentioned in my first post, this is noise to appeal to the left of left, I would be surprised if it is followed through. It's barely left wing. And certainly not militant left, or vaguely appealing to someone who is militant left. The point being, this is what's being considered extreme left these days, and is being compared to extreme right. " Oh Johnny... Please read the comment in context, it helps with dialogue. If I wasn't clear enough I apologise, but for clarity the message ref private school tax and private equity firms / gas and oil, are only there to appease the militant left of the party. Is it a militant enough message, clearly not as seen here, with the comments of this is barely left in policy | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As much as the hard left or the extreme right moan, this country doesn’t want to be led by those elements. The real silent majority are the moderates, not the vocal minorities on both sides of political spectrum. Dress it up as much as you want, but the electorate want answers to problems which are tough but fair, radical but sensible, funded but cost effective. I don’t see any of these values at the present moment with this current government. They could have made things better but they let level headedness go out of the window. Well hopefully they will recognise they need to just bow out and think about how to sort the mess they are in. I agree the silent majority are moderates. I personally rhino this is why Labour will when the next election. However, just on your own stance. You describe 'hard' left as just that, but hard right as 'extreme'. One of those words is much stronger than the other, why do you choose a much stronger word to describe the opposite side? In reality the extreme left and extreme right are equally dangerous, but I believe the extend right are more numerous in the west - and as such are a greater threat. But yes - both are dangerous factions As demonstrated earlier, some people view militant or extreme left policies such as removing tax breaks for private schools. Doesn't sound super dangerous to me. The policy is left and my comment was referring to Starmer appealing to the militant left.... You replied and skirted the truth with your answer, by saying it wasn't that left... Do you really think taking away tax incentives for private schools isn't a left wing policy? Regardless, of your spin.. As I mentioned in my first post, this is noise to appeal to the left of left, I would be surprised if it is followed through. Has anyone said that wouldn’t be left wing policy? It is left wing, It’s just not that extreme left. (Unless of course you’re firmly on the right) Your buddy on here certainly said it wasn't that left
Compared to you I'm right, to the population I would think more centre. As I mentioned your opinion of what is left or right is not something that hold weight."Exactly. He said it’s not that left. And he’s correct. Compared to actual extreme left politics, removing tax breaks is moderate. It’s like saying having a hardline immigration policy isn’t that right wing - some will argue that, as we’ve seen repeatedly on here. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" What is it about private and public schools that is holding back some kids? As I said above, for any kid who wants to learn, everything is available on the internet. You keep saying students in private schools get more opportunities. How so? As someone who does not believe we should remove charity status from pvt sch (and certainly should not ban) I can say there are clear advantages to pvt sch. Class size. Equipment. Resources. Better paid teachers attracting some of the best. But most importantly in most cases, a desire to learn and not be disruptive (or face losing your place). Smart kids surrounded by smart kids lift their game (although you do still get some Tim nice but dims). There are few advantages. But the fact that private school students are easily getting into Oxbridge has more to do with the situation of the individual at home rather than the type of school they went to. In other words, private schools are symptoms not the cause of how the kids made it to better universities. Not sure I fully get what you are saying? Generally it will be A Level results and pvt schs hugely outperform state schools in that regard. Without a doubt home environment is a contributor but school environment will be the deciding factor. I am saying that even if private schools are abolished, the same set of kids who would have outperformed with private schools would still do better than the kids who wouldn't have gone to private schools. Ah ok I see your point. However, I think there is more nuance than that. Home environment is a major factor but not all poor kids have chaotic unsupportive homes just as not all rich kids have focused supportive parents. Not everyone in private school is intelligent (the Tim nice but dim Harry Enfield character is real). However, money does buy them a school situation that can give them more attention and focus (class of 15 vs a class of 30+ and little if any disruption). Put those kids in state and they certainly won’t flourish. The genius/talented kids (regardless of background) with the right work ethic will succeed (although those in a poor state school will have the odds stacked against them, in pvt sch they invariably flourish). It is the kids in the middle that are let down. The ones who are good, have potential, but risk getting lost in the state system as over stretched teachers deal with disruptive kids and/or focus in the stars." There are nuances to it. IMO kids who have the ambition and work ethic will do well in their life whether the parents are rich or poor. Thanks to technology, it's much easier for anyone who actually cares to become academically stronger. But without the ambition and focus, poor kids will end up struggling throughout their lives while the rich kid will end up having a good life in spite of not having done anything to deserve it. But the wealth doesn't usually last longer when the kid is so fucked up. It's just from my experience. I have seen kids from "those terrible schools" ending up doing so well in their lives, even better than the ones who went to rich schools. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As much as the hard left or the extreme right moan, this country doesn’t want to be led by those elements. The real silent majority are the moderates, not the vocal minorities on both sides of political spectrum. Dress it up as much as you want, but the electorate want answers to problems which are tough but fair, radical but sensible, funded but cost effective. I don’t see any of these values at the present moment with this current government. They could have made things better but they let level headedness go out of the window. Well hopefully they will recognise they need to just bow out and think about how to sort the mess they are in. I agree the silent majority are moderates. I personally rhino this is why Labour will when the next election. However, just on your own stance. You describe 'hard' left as just that, but hard right as 'extreme'. One of those words is much stronger than the other, why do you choose a much stronger word to describe the opposite side? In reality the extreme left and extreme right are equally dangerous, but I believe the extend right are more numerous in the west - and as such are a greater threat. But yes - both are dangerous factions As demonstrated earlier, some people view militant or extreme left policies such as removing tax breaks for private schools. Doesn't sound super dangerous to me. The policy is left and my comment was referring to Starmer appealing to the militant left.... You replied and skirted the truth with your answer, by saying it wasn't that left... Do you really think taking away tax incentives for private schools isn't a left wing policy? Regardless, of your spin.. As I mentioned in my first post, this is noise to appeal to the left of left, I would be surprised if it is followed through. Has anyone said that wouldn’t be left wing policy? It is left wing, It’s just not that extreme left. (Unless of course you’re firmly on the right) Your buddy on here certainly said it wasn't that left
Compared to you I'm right, to the population I would think more centre. As I mentioned your opinion of what is left or right is not something that hold weight.
Exactly. He said it’s not that left. And he’s correct.
Compared to actual extreme left politics, removing tax breaks is moderate.
It’s like saying having a hardline immigration policy isn’t that right wing - some will argue that, as we’ve seen repeatedly on here. "And if go back and read my post in context you will see that I'm saying Starmer's proposals are tory light and his message ref private schools is his attempt at looking left to the militants. He has clearly missed the mark, as can be seen here. Starmer is right to you and centre to the UK | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As much as the hard left or the extreme right moan, this country doesn’t want to be led by those elements. The real silent majority are the moderates, not the vocal minorities on both sides of political spectrum. Dress it up as much as you want, but the electorate want answers to problems which are tough but fair, radical but sensible, funded but cost effective. I don’t see any of these values at the present moment with this current government. They could have made things better but they let level headedness go out of the window. Well hopefully they will recognise they need to just bow out and think about how to sort the mess they are in. I agree the silent majority are moderates. I personally rhino this is why Labour will when the next election. However, just on your own stance. You describe 'hard' left as just that, but hard right as 'extreme'. One of those words is much stronger than the other, why do you choose a much stronger word to describe the opposite side? In reality the extreme left and extreme right are equally dangerous, but I believe the extend right are more numerous in the west - and as such are a greater threat. But yes - both are dangerous factions As demonstrated earlier, some people view militant or extreme left policies such as removing tax breaks for private schools. Doesn't sound super dangerous to me. The policy is left and my comment was referring to Starmer appealing to the militant left.... You replied and skirted the truth with your answer, by saying it wasn't that left... Do you really think taking away tax incentives for private schools isn't a left wing policy? Regardless, of your spin.. As I mentioned in my first post, this is noise to appeal to the left of left, I would be surprised if it is followed through. It's barely left wing. And certainly not militant left, or vaguely appealing to someone who is militant left. The point being, this is what's being considered extreme left these days, and is being compared to extreme right. Oh Johnny... Please read the comment in context, it helps with dialogue. If I wasn't clear enough I apologise, but for clarity the message ref private school tax and private equity firms / gas and oil, are only there to appease the militant left of the party. Is it a militant enough message, clearly not as seen here, with the comments of this is barely left in policy "I'm not disputing what you wrote. Just adding my comment that these vaguely left policies are seen as appealing to the "militant left". It's an indication of how far to the right British politics has been dragged. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As much as the hard left or the extreme right moan, this country doesn’t want to be led by those elements. The real silent majority are the moderates, not the vocal minorities on both sides of political spectrum. Dress it up as much as you want, but the electorate want answers to problems which are tough but fair, radical but sensible, funded but cost effective. I don’t see any of these values at the present moment with this current government. They could have made things better but they let level headedness go out of the window. Well hopefully they will recognise they need to just bow out and think about how to sort the mess they are in. I agree the silent majority are moderates. I personally rhino this is why Labour will when the next election. However, just on your own stance. You describe 'hard' left as just that, but hard right as 'extreme'. One of those words is much stronger than the other, why do you choose a much stronger word to describe the opposite side? In reality the extreme left and extreme right are equally dangerous, but I believe the extend right are more numerous in the west - and as such are a greater threat. But yes - both are dangerous factions As demonstrated earlier, some people view militant or extreme left policies such as removing tax breaks for private schools. Doesn't sound super dangerous to me. The policy is left and my comment was referring to Starmer appealing to the militant left.... You replied and skirted the truth with your answer, by saying it wasn't that left... Do you really think taking away tax incentives for private schools isn't a left wing policy? Regardless, of your spin.. As I mentioned in my first post, this is noise to appeal to the left of left, I would be surprised if it is followed through. It's barely left wing. And certainly not militant left, or vaguely appealing to someone who is militant left. The point being, this is what's being considered extreme left these days, and is being compared to extreme right. Oh Johnny... Please read the comment in context, it helps with dialogue. If I wasn't clear enough I apologise, but for clarity the message ref private school tax and private equity firms / gas and oil, are only there to appease the militant left of the party. Is it a militant enough message, clearly not as seen here, with the comments of this is barely left in policy
I'm not disputing what you wrote.
Just adding my comment that these vaguely left policies are seen as appealing to the "militant left". It's an indication of how far to the right British politics has been dragged. "How centre Starmer is... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As much as the hard left or the extreme right moan, this country doesn’t want to be led by those elements. The real silent majority are the moderates, not the vocal minorities on both sides of political spectrum. Dress it up as much as you want, but the electorate want answers to problems which are tough but fair, radical but sensible, funded but cost effective. I don’t see any of these values at the present moment with this current government. They could have made things better but they let level headedness go out of the window. Well hopefully they will recognise they need to just bow out and think about how to sort the mess they are in. I agree the silent majority are moderates. I personally rhino this is why Labour will when the next election. However, just on your own stance. You describe 'hard' left as just that, but hard right as 'extreme'. One of those words is much stronger than the other, why do you choose a much stronger word to describe the opposite side? In reality the extreme left and extreme right are equally dangerous, but I believe the extend right are more numerous in the west - and as such are a greater threat. But yes - both are dangerous factions As demonstrated earlier, some people view militant or extreme left policies such as removing tax breaks for private schools. Doesn't sound super dangerous to me. The policy is left and my comment was referring to Starmer appealing to the militant left.... You replied and skirted the truth with your answer, by saying it wasn't that left... Do you really think taking away tax incentives for private schools isn't a left wing policy? Regardless, of your spin.. As I mentioned in my first post, this is noise to appeal to the left of left, I would be surprised if it is followed through. It's barely left wing. And certainly not militant left, or vaguely appealing to someone who is militant left. The point being, this is what's being considered extreme left these days, and is being compared to extreme right. Oh Johnny... Please read the comment in context, it helps with dialogue. If I wasn't clear enough I apologise, but for clarity the message ref private school tax and private equity firms / gas and oil, are only there to appease the militant left of the party. Is it a militant enough message, clearly not as seen here, with the comments of this is barely left in policy
I'm not disputing what you wrote.
Just adding my comment that these vaguely left policies are seen as appealing to the "militant left". It's an indication of how far to the right British politics has been dragged. "Surely if British politics had been pulled as far to the right as you seem to think it has then Sunak would be centre and Starmer would be left? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" What is it about private and public schools that is holding back some kids? As I said above, for any kid who wants to learn, everything is available on the internet. You keep saying students in private schools get more opportunities. How so? As someone who does not believe we should remove charity status from pvt sch (and certainly should not ban) I can say there are clear advantages to pvt sch. Class size. Equipment. Resources. Better paid teachers attracting some of the best. But most importantly in most cases, a desire to learn and not be disruptive (or face losing your place). Smart kids surrounded by smart kids lift their game (although you do still get some Tim nice but dims). There are few advantages. But the fact that private school students are easily getting into Oxbridge has more to do with the situation of the individual at home rather than the type of school they went to. In other words, private schools are symptoms not the cause of how the kids made it to better universities. Not sure I fully get what you are saying? Generally it will be A Level results and pvt schs hugely outperform state schools in that regard. Without a doubt home environment is a contributor but school environment will be the deciding factor. I am saying that even if private schools are abolished, the same set of kids who would have outperformed with private schools would still do better than the kids who wouldn't have gone to private schools. Ah ok I see your point. However, I think there is more nuance than that. Home environment is a major factor but not all poor kids have chaotic unsupportive homes just as not all rich kids have focused supportive parents. Not everyone in private school is intelligent (the Tim nice but dim Harry Enfield character is real). However, money does buy them a school situation that can give them more attention and focus (class of 15 vs a class of 30+ and little if any disruption). Put those kids in state and they certainly won’t flourish. The genius/talented kids (regardless of background) with the right work ethic will succeed (although those in a poor state school will have the odds stacked against them, in pvt sch they invariably flourish). It is the kids in the middle that are let down. The ones who are good, have potential, but risk getting lost in the state system as over stretched teachers deal with disruptive kids and/or focus in the stars. There are nuances to it. IMO kids who have the ambition and work ethic will do well in their life whether the parents are rich or poor. Thanks to technology, it's much easier for anyone who actually cares to become academically stronger. But without the ambition and focus, poor kids will end up struggling throughout their lives while the rich kid will end up having a good life in spite of not having done anything to deserve it. But the wealth doesn't usually last longer when the kid is so fucked up. It's just from my experience. I have seen kids from "those terrible schools" ending up doing so well in their lives, even better than the ones who went to rich schools. " Totally agree. I just thought you were making a sweeping statement that home environment had more impact than school environment whereas there are lots of permutations. I get what you are saying now. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As much as the hard left or the extreme right moan, this country doesn’t want to be led by those elements. The real silent majority are the moderates, not the vocal minorities on both sides of political spectrum. Dress it up as much as you want, but the electorate want answers to problems which are tough but fair, radical but sensible, funded but cost effective. I don’t see any of these values at the present moment with this current government. They could have made things better but they let level headedness go out of the window. Well hopefully they will recognise they need to just bow out and think about how to sort the mess they are in. I agree the silent majority are moderates. I personally rhino this is why Labour will when the next election. However, just on your own stance. You describe 'hard' left as just that, but hard right as 'extreme'. One of those words is much stronger than the other, why do you choose a much stronger word to describe the opposite side? In reality the extreme left and extreme right are equally dangerous, but I believe the extend right are more numerous in the west - and as such are a greater threat. But yes - both are dangerous factions As demonstrated earlier, some people view militant or extreme left policies such as removing tax breaks for private schools. Doesn't sound super dangerous to me. The policy is left and my comment was referring to Starmer appealing to the militant left.... You replied and skirted the truth with your answer, by saying it wasn't that left... Do you really think taking away tax incentives for private schools isn't a left wing policy? Regardless, of your spin.. As I mentioned in my first post, this is noise to appeal to the left of left, I would be surprised if it is followed through. It's barely left wing. And certainly not militant left, or vaguely appealing to someone who is militant left. The point being, this is what's being considered extreme left these days, and is being compared to extreme right. Oh Johnny... Please read the comment in context, it helps with dialogue. If I wasn't clear enough I apologise, but for clarity the message ref private school tax and private equity firms / gas and oil, are only there to appease the militant left of the party. Is it a militant enough message, clearly not as seen here, with the comments of this is barely left in policy
I'm not disputing what you wrote.
Just adding my comment that these vaguely left policies are seen as appealing to the "militant left". It's an indication of how far to the right British politics has been dragged.
Surely if British politics had been pulled as far to the right as you seem to think it has then Sunak would be centre and Starmer would be left?
"There’s a certain poster who has been a bit quiet of late who saw Truss as just right of centre so God knows his views on Sunak and Starmer! What is clear is anyone’s view on what constitutes left, centre, or right policies depends where on the spectrum you sit yourself (and we have all debated the “it isn’t a linear scale” thing to death). I think what NotMe is saying is the that most of the policies feel very much from the centre ground (some just left of centre some just right if centre but centreish). Except the private schools one. That is clearly and emotive appeal to those who are more leaning. IMO banning pvt sch would be extreme left but removing charity status is certainly left (not centre left). As I said above, it is nothing more than a flawed punitive populist policy. The rest (at a glance) seems ok. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As much as the hard left or the extreme right moan, this country doesn’t want to be led by those elements. The real silent majority are the moderates, not the vocal minorities on both sides of political spectrum. Dress it up as much as you want, but the electorate want answers to problems which are tough but fair, radical but sensible, funded but cost effective. I don’t see any of these values at the present moment with this current government. They could have made things better but they let level headedness go out of the window. Well hopefully they will recognise they need to just bow out and think about how to sort the mess they are in. I agree the silent majority are moderates. I personally rhino this is why Labour will when the next election. However, just on your own stance. You describe 'hard' left as just that, but hard right as 'extreme'. One of those words is much stronger than the other, why do you choose a much stronger word to describe the opposite side? In reality the extreme left and extreme right are equally dangerous, but I believe the extend right are more numerous in the west - and as such are a greater threat. But yes - both are dangerous factions As demonstrated earlier, some people view militant or extreme left policies such as removing tax breaks for private schools. Doesn't sound super dangerous to me. The policy is left and my comment was referring to Starmer appealing to the militant left.... You replied and skirted the truth with your answer, by saying it wasn't that left... Do you really think taking away tax incentives for private schools isn't a left wing policy? Regardless, of your spin.. As I mentioned in my first post, this is noise to appeal to the left of left, I would be surprised if it is followed through. It's barely left wing. And certainly not militant left, or vaguely appealing to someone who is militant left. The point being, this is what's being considered extreme left these days, and is being compared to extreme right. Oh Johnny... Please read the comment in context, it helps with dialogue. If I wasn't clear enough I apologise, but for clarity the message ref private school tax and private equity firms / gas and oil, are only there to appease the militant left of the party. Is it a militant enough message, clearly not as seen here, with the comments of this is barely left in policy
I'm not disputing what you wrote.
Just adding my comment that these vaguely left policies are seen as appealing to the "militant left". It's an indication of how far to the right British politics has been dragged.
Surely if British politics had been pulled as far to the right as you seem to think it has then Sunak would be centre and Starmer would be left?
There’s a certain poster who has been a bit quiet of late who saw Truss as just right of centre so God knows his views on Sunak and Starmer!
What is clear is anyone’s view on what constitutes left, centre, or right policies depends where on the spectrum you sit yourself (and we have all debated the “it isn’t a linear scale” thing to death).
I think what NotMe is saying is the that most of the policies feel very much from the centre ground (some just left of centre some just right if centre but centreish). Except the private schools one. That is clearly and emotive appeal to those who are more leaning. IMO banning pvt sch would be extreme left but removing charity status is certainly left (not centre left).
As I said above, it is nothing more than a flawed punitive populist policy.
The rest (at a glance) seems ok."Typo city!!!! Back to school for me! “That is clearly an emotive appeal to those who are more left leaning” | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As much as the hard left or the extreme right moan, this country doesn’t want to be led by those elements. The real silent majority are the moderates, not the vocal minorities on both sides of political spectrum. Dress it up as much as you want, but the electorate want answers to problems which are tough but fair, radical but sensible, funded but cost effective. I don’t see any of these values at the present moment with this current government. They could have made things better but they let level headedness go out of the window. Well hopefully they will recognise they need to just bow out and think about how to sort the mess they are in. I agree the silent majority are moderates. I personally rhino this is why Labour will when the next election. However, just on your own stance. You describe 'hard' left as just that, but hard right as 'extreme'. One of those words is much stronger than the other, why do you choose a much stronger word to describe the opposite side? In reality the extreme left and extreme right are equally dangerous, but I believe the extend right are more numerous in the west - and as such are a greater threat. But yes - both are dangerous factions As demonstrated earlier, some people view militant or extreme left policies such as removing tax breaks for private schools. Doesn't sound super dangerous to me. The policy is left and my comment was referring to Starmer appealing to the militant left.... You replied and skirted the truth with your answer, by saying it wasn't that left... Do you really think taking away tax incentives for private schools isn't a left wing policy? Regardless, of your spin.. As I mentioned in my first post, this is noise to appeal to the left of left, I would be surprised if it is followed through. It's barely left wing. And certainly not militant left, or vaguely appealing to someone who is militant left. The point being, this is what's being considered extreme left these days, and is being compared to extreme right. Oh Johnny... Please read the comment in context, it helps with dialogue. If I wasn't clear enough I apologise, but for clarity the message ref private school tax and private equity firms / gas and oil, are only there to appease the militant left of the party. Is it a militant enough message, clearly not as seen here, with the comments of this is barely left in policy
I'm not disputing what you wrote.
Just adding my comment that these vaguely left policies are seen as appealing to the "militant left". It's an indication of how far to the right British politics has been dragged.
Surely if British politics had been pulled as far to the right as you seem to think it has then Sunak would be centre and Starmer would be left?
There’s a certain poster who has been a bit quiet of late who saw Truss as just right of centre so God knows his views on Sunak and Starmer!
What is clear is anyone’s view on what constitutes left, centre, or right policies depends where on the spectrum you sit yourself (and we have all debated the “it isn’t a linear scale” thing to death).
I think what NotMe is saying is the that most of the policies feel very much from the centre ground (some just left of centre some just right if centre but centreish). Except the private schools one. That is clearly and emotive appeal to those who are more leaning. IMO banning pvt sch would be extreme left but removing charity status is certainly left (not centre left).
As I said above, it is nothing more than a flawed punitive populist policy.
The rest (at a glance) seems ok."That is nicely put and exactly what I'm saying. I really don't think the actual left appeasing policies, if they make the manifesto, will be actioned. I think they will be kicked around the houses for a few years and then dropped. Going back to the manifesto. Starmer knows he needs the centre and labour need to appeal to the centre right, these proposals seem to be bargaining chips, if you don't let me add the new slightly watered down workers rights policy I will take out Private school tax to balance it up. Labours manifesto will be so centre it will be hard to tell them apart from the tories on 90% of their aspirations, is how I think it will end up. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As much as the hard left or the extreme right moan, this country doesn’t want to be led by those elements. The real silent majority are the moderates, not the vocal minorities on both sides of political spectrum. Dress it up as much as you want, but the electorate want answers to problems which are tough but fair, radical but sensible, funded but cost effective. I don’t see any of these values at the present moment with this current government. They could have made things better but they let level headedness go out of the window. Well hopefully they will recognise they need to just bow out and think about how to sort the mess they are in. I agree the silent majority are moderates. I personally rhino this is why Labour will when the next election. However, just on your own stance. You describe 'hard' left as just that, but hard right as 'extreme'. One of those words is much stronger than the other, why do you choose a much stronger word to describe the opposite side? In reality the extreme left and extreme right are equally dangerous, but I believe the extend right are more numerous in the west - and as such are a greater threat. But yes - both are dangerous factions As demonstrated earlier, some people view militant or extreme left policies such as removing tax breaks for private schools. Doesn't sound super dangerous to me. The policy is left and my comment was referring to Starmer appealing to the militant left.... You replied and skirted the truth with your answer, by saying it wasn't that left... Do you really think taking away tax incentives for private schools isn't a left wing policy? Regardless, of your spin.. As I mentioned in my first post, this is noise to appeal to the left of left, I would be surprised if it is followed through. It's barely left wing. And certainly not militant left, or vaguely appealing to someone who is militant left. The point being, this is what's being considered extreme left these days, and is being compared to extreme right. Oh Johnny... Please read the comment in context, it helps with dialogue. If I wasn't clear enough I apologise, but for clarity the message ref private school tax and private equity firms / gas and oil, are only there to appease the militant left of the party. Is it a militant enough message, clearly not as seen here, with the comments of this is barely left in policy
I'm not disputing what you wrote.
Just adding my comment that these vaguely left policies are seen as appealing to the "militant left". It's an indication of how far to the right British politics has been dragged.
How centre Starmer is... "My view is he is centre or centre right. The part I am disagreeing with you is those centre left policies, are not militant left or designed to appeal to the militant left. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As much as the hard left or the extreme right moan, this country doesn’t want to be led by those elements. The real silent majority are the moderates, not the vocal minorities on both sides of political spectrum. Dress it up as much as you want, but the electorate want answers to problems which are tough but fair, radical but sensible, funded but cost effective. I don’t see any of these values at the present moment with this current government. They could have made things better but they let level headedness go out of the window. Well hopefully they will recognise they need to just bow out and think about how to sort the mess they are in. I agree the silent majority are moderates. I personally rhino this is why Labour will when the next election. However, just on your own stance. You describe 'hard' left as just that, but hard right as 'extreme'. One of those words is much stronger than the other, why do you choose a much stronger word to describe the opposite side? In reality the extreme left and extreme right are equally dangerous, but I believe the extend right are more numerous in the west - and as such are a greater threat. But yes - both are dangerous factions As demonstrated earlier, some people view militant or extreme left policies such as removing tax breaks for private schools. Doesn't sound super dangerous to me. The policy is left and my comment was referring to Starmer appealing to the militant left.... You replied and skirted the truth with your answer, by saying it wasn't that left... Do you really think taking away tax incentives for private schools isn't a left wing policy? Regardless, of your spin.. As I mentioned in my first post, this is noise to appeal to the left of left, I would be surprised if it is followed through. It's barely left wing. And certainly not militant left, or vaguely appealing to someone who is militant left. The point being, this is what's being considered extreme left these days, and is being compared to extreme right. Oh Johnny... Please read the comment in context, it helps with dialogue. If I wasn't clear enough I apologise, but for clarity the message ref private school tax and private equity firms / gas and oil, are only there to appease the militant left of the party. Is it a militant enough message, clearly not as seen here, with the comments of this is barely left in policy
I'm not disputing what you wrote.
Just adding my comment that these vaguely left policies are seen as appealing to the "militant left". It's an indication of how far to the right British politics has been dragged.
How centre Starmer is...
My view is he is centre or centre right.
The part I am disagreeing with you is those centre left policies, are not militant left or designed to appeal to the militant left."What type of policy would appeal to the militant left? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As much as the hard left or the extreme right moan, this country doesn’t want to be led by those elements. The real silent majority are the moderates, not the vocal minorities on both sides of political spectrum. Dress it up as much as you want, but the electorate want answers to problems which are tough but fair, radical but sensible, funded but cost effective. I don’t see any of these values at the present moment with this current government. They could have made things better but they let level headedness go out of the window. Well hopefully they will recognise they need to just bow out and think about how to sort the mess they are in. I agree the silent majority are moderates. I personally rhino this is why Labour will when the next election. However, just on your own stance. You describe 'hard' left as just that, but hard right as 'extreme'. One of those words is much stronger than the other, why do you choose a much stronger word to describe the opposite side? In reality the extreme left and extreme right are equally dangerous, but I believe the extend right are more numerous in the west - and as such are a greater threat. But yes - both are dangerous factions As demonstrated earlier, some people view militant or extreme left policies such as removing tax breaks for private schools. Doesn't sound super dangerous to me. The policy is left and my comment was referring to Starmer appealing to the militant left.... You replied and skirted the truth with your answer, by saying it wasn't that left... Do you really think taking away tax incentives for private schools isn't a left wing policy? Regardless, of your spin.. As I mentioned in my first post, this is noise to appeal to the left of left, I would be surprised if it is followed through. It's barely left wing. And certainly not militant left, or vaguely appealing to someone who is militant left. The point being, this is what's being considered extreme left these days, and is being compared to extreme right. Oh Johnny... Please read the comment in context, it helps with dialogue. If I wasn't clear enough I apologise, but for clarity the message ref private school tax and private equity firms / gas and oil, are only there to appease the militant left of the party. Is it a militant enough message, clearly not as seen here, with the comments of this is barely left in policy
I'm not disputing what you wrote.
Just adding my comment that these vaguely left policies are seen as appealing to the "militant left". It's an indication of how far to the right British politics has been dragged.
How centre Starmer is...
My view is he is centre or centre right.
The part I am disagreeing with you is those centre left policies, are not militant left or designed to appeal to the militant left.
What type of policy would appeal to the militant left?"Complete state ownership of housing would appeal to some but a more likely policy would be mass council house building policy. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Labours manifesto will be so centre it will be hard to tell them apart from the tories on 90% of their aspirations, is how I think it will end up." Unless the Tories try to stay more to the right? As we all know, Blair/New Labour secured 97 for two reasons, grabbing the centre ground and people being tired of the Tories after so long. Sounds similar to now but Starmer isn’t Blair (earlier Blair rather than George W Bush lapdog Blair). | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"My view is he is centre or centre right." Really? I agree re centre but centre right? But then you are further left than me so that makes sense. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As much as the hard left or the extreme right moan, this country doesn’t want to be led by those elements. The real silent majority are the moderates, not the vocal minorities on both sides of political spectrum. Dress it up as much as you want, but the electorate want answers to problems which are tough but fair, radical but sensible, funded but cost effective. I don’t see any of these values at the present moment with this current government. They could have made things better but they let level headedness go out of the window. Well hopefully they will recognise they need to just bow out and think about how to sort the mess they are in. I agree the silent majority are moderates. I personally rhino this is why Labour will when the next election. However, just on your own stance. You describe 'hard' left as just that, but hard right as 'extreme'. One of those words is much stronger than the other, why do you choose a much stronger word to describe the opposite side? In reality the extreme left and extreme right are equally dangerous, but I believe the extend right are more numerous in the west - and as such are a greater threat. But yes - both are dangerous factions As demonstrated earlier, some people view militant or extreme left policies such as removing tax breaks for private schools. Doesn't sound super dangerous to me. The policy is left and my comment was referring to Starmer appealing to the militant left.... You replied and skirted the truth with your answer, by saying it wasn't that left... Do you really think taking away tax incentives for private schools isn't a left wing policy? Regardless, of your spin.. As I mentioned in my first post, this is noise to appeal to the left of left, I would be surprised if it is followed through. It's barely left wing. And certainly not militant left, or vaguely appealing to someone who is militant left. The point being, this is what's being considered extreme left these days, and is being compared to extreme right. Oh Johnny... Please read the comment in context, it helps with dialogue. If I wasn't clear enough I apologise, but for clarity the message ref private school tax and private equity firms / gas and oil, are only there to appease the militant left of the party. Is it a militant enough message, clearly not as seen here, with the comments of this is barely left in policy
I'm not disputing what you wrote.
Just adding my comment that these vaguely left policies are seen as appealing to the "militant left". It's an indication of how far to the right British politics has been dragged.
How centre Starmer is...
My view is he is centre or centre right.
The part I am disagreeing with you is those centre left policies, are not militant left or designed to appeal to the militant left.
What type of policy would appeal to the militant left?"Abolition of money? I dunno what you want me to say, it's your terminology to describe centre left policies. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Labours manifesto will be so centre it will be hard to tell them apart from the tories on 90% of their aspirations, is how I think it will end up. Unless the Tories try to stay more to the right? As we all know, Blair/New Labour secured 97 for two reasons, grabbing the centre ground and people being tired of the Tories after so long. Sounds similar to now but Starmer isn’t Blair (earlier Blair rather than George W Bush lapdog Blair)." He is the alternative with less to dislike for the centre and should walk the next GE. Having said that, part of me thinks he and his shadow cabinet have the potential screw it up, I think that is the only thing that wil save Sunak now, an own goal by labour | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Johnny... My view is he is centre or centre right. Really? I agree re centre but centre right? But then you are further left than me so that makes sense." He's moving to centre right. Prioritising oil company profits, joining in on the anti-immigrant rhetoric etc. Seems slightly more to the right than he was a couple of years ago. But if he is overall in the centre. That's not a hill I'd die on. So to speak. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As much as the hard left or the extreme right moan, this country doesn’t want to be led by those elements. The real silent majority are the moderates, not the vocal minorities on both sides of political spectrum. Dress it up as much as you want, but the electorate want answers to problems which are tough but fair, radical but sensible, funded but cost effective. I don’t see any of these values at the present moment with this current government. They could have made things better but they let level headedness go out of the window. Well hopefully they will recognise they need to just bow out and think about how to sort the mess they are in. I agree the silent majority are moderates. I personally rhino this is why Labour will when the next election. However, just on your own stance. You describe 'hard' left as just that, but hard right as 'extreme'. One of those words is much stronger than the other, why do you choose a much stronger word to describe the opposite side? In reality the extreme left and extreme right are equally dangerous, but I believe the extend right are more numerous in the west - and as such are a greater threat. But yes - both are dangerous factions As demonstrated earlier, some people view militant or extreme left policies such as removing tax breaks for private schools. Doesn't sound super dangerous to me. The policy is left and my comment was referring to Starmer appealing to the militant left.... You replied and skirted the truth with your answer, by saying it wasn't that left... Do you really think taking away tax incentives for private schools isn't a left wing policy? Regardless, of your spin.. As I mentioned in my first post, this is noise to appeal to the left of left, I would be surprised if it is followed through. It's barely left wing. And certainly not militant left, or vaguely appealing to someone who is militant left. The point being, this is what's being considered extreme left these days, and is being compared to extreme right. Oh Johnny... Please read the comment in context, it helps with dialogue. If I wasn't clear enough I apologise, but for clarity the message ref private school tax and private equity firms / gas and oil, are only there to appease the militant left of the party. Is it a militant enough message, clearly not as seen here, with the comments of this is barely left in policy
I'm not disputing what you wrote.
Just adding my comment that these vaguely left policies are seen as appealing to the "militant left". It's an indication of how far to the right British politics has been dragged.
How centre Starmer is...
My view is he is centre or centre right.
The part I am disagreeing with you is those centre left policies, are not militant left or designed to appeal to the militant left.
What type of policy would appeal to the militant left?
Abolition of money? I dunno what you want me to say, it's your terminology to describe centre left policies. "You are challenging me on who the left policies are aimed at by saying they are not that left to satisfy the militant in the party. I think it is a perfectly reasonable question to ask what type of policy would appeal to the militant. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As much as the hard left or the extreme right moan, this country doesn’t want to be led by those elements. The real silent majority are the moderates, not the vocal minorities on both sides of political spectrum. Dress it up as much as you want, but the electorate want answers to problems which are tough but fair, radical but sensible, funded but cost effective. I don’t see any of these values at the present moment with this current government. They could have made things better but they let level headedness go out of the window. Well hopefully they will recognise they need to just bow out and think about how to sort the mess they are in. I agree the silent majority are moderates. I personally rhino this is why Labour will when the next election. However, just on your own stance. You describe 'hard' left as just that, but hard right as 'extreme'. One of those words is much stronger than the other, why do you choose a much stronger word to describe the opposite side? In reality the extreme left and extreme right are equally dangerous, but I believe the extend right are more numerous in the west - and as such are a greater threat. But yes - both are dangerous factions As demonstrated earlier, some people view militant or extreme left policies such as removing tax breaks for private schools. Doesn't sound super dangerous to me. The policy is left and my comment was referring to Starmer appealing to the militant left.... You replied and skirted the truth with your answer, by saying it wasn't that left... Do you really think taking away tax incentives for private schools isn't a left wing policy? Regardless, of your spin.. As I mentioned in my first post, this is noise to appeal to the left of left, I would be surprised if it is followed through. It's barely left wing. And certainly not militant left, or vaguely appealing to someone who is militant left. The point being, this is what's being considered extreme left these days, and is being compared to extreme right. Oh Johnny... Please read the comment in context, it helps with dialogue. If I wasn't clear enough I apologise, but for clarity the message ref private school tax and private equity firms / gas and oil, are only there to appease the militant left of the party. Is it a militant enough message, clearly not as seen here, with the comments of this is barely left in policy
I'm not disputing what you wrote.
Just adding my comment that these vaguely left policies are seen as appealing to the "militant left". It's an indication of how far to the right British politics has been dragged.
How centre Starmer is...
My view is he is centre or centre right.
The part I am disagreeing with you is those centre left policies, are not militant left or designed to appeal to the militant left.
What type of policy would appeal to the militant left?
Abolition of money? I dunno what you want me to say, it's your terminology to describe centre left policies.
You are challenging me on who the left policies are aimed at by saying they are not that left to satisfy the militant in the party.
I think it is a perfectly reasonable question to ask what type of policy would appeal to the militant.
"I don't know who you perceive to be the militant left of the party. Seems like it's people who would be interested in "cutting private equity firm loopholes in gas and oil companies, and tax break removal for private schools". My only comment is that your view of "militant left" would appear to be more centre left. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Johnny... My view is he is centre or centre right. Really? I agree re centre but centre right? But then you are further left than me so that makes sense. He's moving to centre right. Prioritising oil company profits, joining in on the anti-immigrant rhetoric etc. Seems slightly more to the right than he was a couple of years ago. But if he is overall in the centre. That's not a hill I'd die on. So to speak." Which policies make those 2 statements correct? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"British public is bonkers - when Tories tries to send illegal migrants they shout and a big hue and cry…call them racist bunch..when they asks councils to give these migrants home, school, medicinal facilities and payments - they shout again, stating that priorities British first…kill private schools by putting 20% and push hardworking middle class who is scrapping everything to give their kids best in the corner….average brits gives thumbs up - but when these parents will move their kinds to the overcrowded and poorly funded state schools - they will cry and blame government..when North African men who are economical migrant enters Europe average Brit shouts - but they embrace them with open arms in their bedrooms, every swinging from vanilla clubs, when Indian immigrants ensuring that both husband and wife work and contribute back to British economy by paying huge taxes, average British gives thumbs down as they are stealing their jobs..and give them cold shoulder..average Brit does not know what they want..Labour will allow huge numbers of North African immigrants from Italy but average Brit will still vote for them as they hate Hindu unelected man (PM) and Tories, thanks to GB news..but when the public services suffer they shout and cry…god knows what this average Brit wants…" | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As much as the hard left or the extreme right moan, this country doesn’t want to be led by those elements. The real silent majority are the moderates, not the vocal minorities on both sides of political spectrum. Dress it up as much as you want, but the electorate want answers to problems which are tough but fair, radical but sensible, funded but cost effective. I don’t see any of these values at the present moment with this current government. They could have made things better but they let level headedness go out of the window. Well hopefully they will recognise they need to just bow out and think about how to sort the mess they are in. I agree the silent majority are moderates. I personally rhino this is why Labour will when the next election. However, just on your own stance. You describe 'hard' left as just that, but hard right as 'extreme'. One of those words is much stronger than the other, why do you choose a much stronger word to describe the opposite side? In reality the extreme left and extreme right are equally dangerous, but I believe the extend right are more numerous in the west - and as such are a greater threat. But yes - both are dangerous factions As demonstrated earlier, some people view militant or extreme left policies such as removing tax breaks for private schools. Doesn't sound super dangerous to me. The policy is left and my comment was referring to Starmer appealing to the militant left.... You replied and skirted the truth with your answer, by saying it wasn't that left... Do you really think taking away tax incentives for private schools isn't a left wing policy? Regardless, of your spin.. As I mentioned in my first post, this is noise to appeal to the left of left, I would be surprised if it is followed through. It's barely left wing. And certainly not militant left, or vaguely appealing to someone who is militant left. The point being, this is what's being considered extreme left these days, and is being compared to extreme right. Oh Johnny... Please read the comment in context, it helps with dialogue. If I wasn't clear enough I apologise, but for clarity the message ref private school tax and private equity firms / gas and oil, are only there to appease the militant left of the party. Is it a militant enough message, clearly not as seen here, with the comments of this is barely left in policy
I'm not disputing what you wrote.
Just adding my comment that these vaguely left policies are seen as appealing to the "militant left". It's an indication of how far to the right British politics has been dragged.
How centre Starmer is...
My view is he is centre or centre right.
The part I am disagreeing with you is those centre left policies, are not militant left or designed to appeal to the militant left.
What type of policy would appeal to the militant left?
Abolition of money? I dunno what you want me to say, it's your terminology to describe centre left policies.
You are challenging me on who the left policies are aimed at by saying they are not that left to satisfy the militant in the party.
I think it is a perfectly reasonable question to ask what type of policy would appeal to the militant.
I don't know who you perceive to be the militant left of the party.
Seems like it's people who would be interested in "cutting private equity firm loopholes in gas and oil companies, and tax break removal for private schools".
My only comment is that your view of "militant left" would appear to be more centre left."My view of the militant left are those who advocate the mindset that encourages people to complain and feel hard done by if they are not as successful as the person standing next to them, or they support the idea that anyone who is doing well for themselves must share the fruits of their labour with the population ahead of their family. This political view is regularly supported in this forum and it confuses me, mainly over the idea that society comes first regardless of effort, or merit and family second. When I see a proposal of removing tax incentives for private school education, or removing loopholes that allow private equity firms from capitalising on oil and gas, and removing loopholes for non-dom, it smacks of playing to the militants in the party, when everything else presented is either no change or tory light. Is this any clearer? If it isn't I will ask you again, what is it the militants in the labour party want and expect? I'm sure it is not tory light | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As much as the hard left or the extreme right moan, this country doesn’t want to be led by those elements. The real silent majority are the moderates, not the vocal minorities on both sides of political spectrum. Dress it up as much as you want, but the electorate want answers to problems which are tough but fair, radical but sensible, funded but cost effective. I don’t see any of these values at the present moment with this current government. They could have made things better but they let level headedness go out of the window. Well hopefully they will recognise they need to just bow out and think about how to sort the mess they are in. I agree the silent majority are moderates. I personally rhino this is why Labour will when the next election. However, just on your own stance. You describe 'hard' left as just that, but hard right as 'extreme'. One of those words is much stronger than the other, why do you choose a much stronger word to describe the opposite side? In reality the extreme left and extreme right are equally dangerous, but I believe the extend right are more numerous in the west - and as such are a greater threat. But yes - both are dangerous factions As demonstrated earlier, some people view militant or extreme left policies such as removing tax breaks for private schools. Doesn't sound super dangerous to me. The policy is left and my comment was referring to Starmer appealing to the militant left.... You replied and skirted the truth with your answer, by saying it wasn't that left... Do you really think taking away tax incentives for private schools isn't a left wing policy? Regardless, of your spin.. As I mentioned in my first post, this is noise to appeal to the left of left, I would be surprised if it is followed through. It's barely left wing. And certainly not militant left, or vaguely appealing to someone who is militant left. The point being, this is what's being considered extreme left these days, and is being compared to extreme right. Oh Johnny... Please read the comment in context, it helps with dialogue. If I wasn't clear enough I apologise, but for clarity the message ref private school tax and private equity firms / gas and oil, are only there to appease the militant left of the party. Is it a militant enough message, clearly not as seen here, with the comments of this is barely left in policy
I'm not disputing what you wrote.
Just adding my comment that these vaguely left policies are seen as appealing to the "militant left". It's an indication of how far to the right British politics has been dragged.
How centre Starmer is...
My view is he is centre or centre right.
The part I am disagreeing with you is those centre left policies, are not militant left or designed to appeal to the militant left.
What type of policy would appeal to the militant left?
Abolition of money? I dunno what you want me to say, it's your terminology to describe centre left policies.
You are challenging me on who the left policies are aimed at by saying they are not that left to satisfy the militant in the party.
I think it is a perfectly reasonable question to ask what type of policy would appeal to the militant.
I don't know who you perceive to be the militant left of the party.
Seems like it's people who would be interested in "cutting private equity firm loopholes in gas and oil companies, and tax break removal for private schools".
My only comment is that your view of "militant left" would appear to be more centre left.
My view of the militant left are those who advocate the mindset that encourages people to complain and feel hard done by if they are not as successful as the person standing next to them, or they support the idea that anyone who is doing well for themselves must share the fruits of their labour with the population ahead of their family.
This political view is regularly supported in this forum and it confuses me, mainly over the idea that society comes first regardless of effort, or merit and family second.
When I see a proposal of removing tax incentives for private school education, or removing loopholes that allow private equity firms from capitalising on oil and gas, and removing loopholes for non-dom, it smacks of playing to the militants in the party, when everything else presented is either no change or tory light.
Is this any clearer? If it isn't I will ask you again, what is it the militants in the labour party want and expect?
I'm sure it is not tory light
"That does make it clear. Thank you. I've rarely, or never seen anyone express the view "advocate the mindset that encourages people to complain and feel hard done by if they are not as successful as the person standing next to them, or they support the idea that anyone who is doing well for themselves must share the fruits of their labour with the population ahead of their family." I've seen people expressing the view that society should be moving towards a goal of making success in life more achievable to the 'have nots' as well as the 'haves'. And that corporations & billionaires should pay their taxes, IE closing loopholes. "what is it the militants in the labour party want and expect". I genuinely can't answer this, you've answered it for your definition of militant left. I'm not in the labour party, and don't know if they have anyone whom I would consider militant left. So at best, I would be speculating. I don't think Starmer cares too much, he's throwing his eggs in the 'don't change much, don't offer anything too different' basket. I'd guess he wants to attract voters swing voters or those who usually vote Tory but have had enough of their self serving behaviour. Personally, I don't think it will work, or even what the point of that is. But what do I know. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The Labour party is very hit and miss they make a pledge then change it then make another. Starmer wants back in the EU so he can get his hands on the £500.000 he lost when we left. Karen" It's about refinement, I don't think going back into the EU is really on labours mind now. I think the damage a tory Brexit is pretty self-evident now, but I do not think anyone wants to go down there again, its over. I do think we need to have a good relationship with the EU though, the majority of things we do agree on. Yes there are things we don't agree on. But like everything when the big calls need to be made we are very much aligned. Also the tories problem has been that we're unwilling to compromise on the basic technicalities, which led us here. With labour in power, I think a proper reset with the EU can happen. I think anymore engagement with the EU from the tories will just hurt us more. Who thinks so? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Sorry for the appalling use of the English language, my phone screen is semi knackered." ******************************************* What the devil has a "semi knackered" 'phone screen got to do with it....??! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"With labour in power, I think a proper reset with the EU can happen." I think differently. If there's one thing the EU are good at, it's negotiating. They have a lot of weight behind them, and they are willing to let negotiations drag on for years if they need to. I don't believe that the EU will see a change of government in the UK as being something that changes their opinion of us. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Sorry for the appalling use of the English language, my phone screen is semi knackered. ******************************************* What the devil has a "semi knackered" 'phone screen got to do with it....??!" Maybe be the ride is a bit bumpy on a mobility scooter? BTW when are you going to explain why you asked that in the other thread? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"With labour in power, I think a proper reset with the EU can happen. I think differently. If there's one thing the EU are good at, it's negotiating. They have a lot of weight behind them, and they are willing to let negotiations drag on for years if they need to. I don't believe that the EU will see a change of government in the UK as being something that changes their opinion of us." Were they good negotiators or were we bad at negotiating Brexit? I would say we were the latter. We did a terrible deal just to leave. If anything if the tories brought a cross party negotiation team in, we would have has a better deal. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"With labour in power, I think a proper reset with the EU can happen." "I think differently. If there's one thing the EU are good at, it's negotiating. They have a lot of weight behind them, and they are willing to let negotiations drag on for years if they need to. I don't believe that the EU will see a change of government in the UK as being something that changes their opinion of us." "Were they good negotiators or were we bad at negotiating Brexit? I would say we were the latter. We did a terrible deal just to leave. If anything if the tories brought a cross party negotiation team in, we would have has a better deal." Neither of us were in the room, so we don't really know. But my view is that the EU is a complex bureaucracy with a lot of different viewpoints, and it takes a lot of effort to get all of the stakeholders to agree anything. Any future government trying to get a new agreement over refugees is going to need something to offer the EU in return, and offering the EU anything is not going to be a popular decision with voters here in the UK. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"With labour in power, I think a proper reset with the EU can happen. I think differently. If there's one thing the EU are good at, it's negotiating. They have a lot of weight behind them, and they are willing to let negotiations drag on for years if they need to. I don't believe that the EU will see a change of government in the UK as being something that changes their opinion of us. Were they good negotiators or were we bad at negotiating Brexit? I would say we were the latter. We did a terrible deal just to leave. If anything if the tories brought a cross party negotiation team in, we would have has a better deal. Neither of us were in the room, so we don't really know. But my view is that the EU is a complex bureaucracy with a lot of different viewpoints, and it takes a lot of effort to get all of the stakeholders to agree anything. Any future government trying to get a new agreement over refugees is going to need something to offer the EU in return, and offering the EU anything is not going to be a popular decision with voters here in the UK." Of course, but that’s what they are paid to do, it’s a job. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So the Labour government in Wales introduced 20mph roads as well as the Labour London Mayor making more roads 20mph. If this is a template of a Labour Government would bring in for the whole country then quite frankly I won't be voting for them" That's an interesting thought. Everyone I've spoken to is angry about the 20mph change in Wales, and my experience so far is that it's making journeys intolerably long. I wonder if this will affect the Labour vote at the next general election. It would be something of an irony if Labour missed out on securing the UK parliament because of a devolved decision. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So the Labour government in Wales introduced 20mph roads as well as the Labour London Mayor making more roads 20mph. If this is a template of a Labour Government would bring in for the whole country then quite frankly I won't be voting for them That's an interesting thought. Everyone I've spoken to is angry about the 20mph change in Wales, and my experience so far is that it's making journeys intolerably long. I wonder if this will affect the Labour vote at the next general election. It would be something of an irony if Labour missed out on securing the UK parliament because of a devolved decision." Enforcement of the 20 mph speed limit is going to be tough. If penalty points start racking up, along with fines, I would expect a backlash. If the penalty points and fines don’t rise, would it indicate a lack of enforcement. Reducing the speed limit on the slowest of roads by 33% is a tough call. I personally think the smartest thing to do with speed limits is to reduce them in poor weather, 20mph if it is raining, foggy etc. Same for motorways 80mph good conditions, 60 poor. I can’t remember if it is France or Spain that I have driven through with those rules, but I like them | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So the Labour government in Wales introduced 20mph roads as well as the Labour London Mayor making more roads 20mph. If this is a template of a Labour Government would bring in for the whole country then quite frankly I won't be voting for them That's an interesting thought. Everyone I've spoken to is angry about the 20mph change in Wales, and my experience so far is that it's making journeys intolerably long. I wonder if this will affect the Labour vote at the next general election. It would be something of an irony if Labour missed out on securing the UK parliament because of a devolved decision. Enforcement of the 20 mph speed limit is going to be tough. If penalty points start racking up, along with fines, I would expect a backlash. If the penalty points and fines don’t rise, would it indicate a lack of enforcement. Reducing the speed limit on the slowest of roads by 33% is a tough call. I personally think the smartest thing to do with speed limits is to reduce them in poor weather, 20mph if it is raining, foggy etc. Same for motorways 80mph good conditions, 60 poor. I can’t remember if it is France or Spain that I have driven through with those rules, but I like them " I would have thought that at 20 mph a car is not very efficient. If that's true then it possibly will increase pollution as well as angering lots of people | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I would have thought that at 20 mph a car is not very efficient. If that's true then it possibly will increase pollution as well as angering lots of people" My trip computer says otherwise. It only goes up to 99.9mpg, and I was exceeding that the whole time this morning, till I got onto the motorway. But while I may be burning less fuel per mile, I'm spending 50% more time in town. That has to be cumulatively more pollution in a given area. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I would have thought that at 20 mph a car is not very efficient. If that's true then it possibly will increase pollution as well as angering lots of people My trip computer says otherwise. It only goes up to 99.9mpg, and I was exceeding that the whole time this morning, till I got onto the motorway. But while I may be burning less fuel per mile, I'm spending 50% more time in town. That has to be cumulatively more pollution in a given area." I think fuel consumption at different speeds depends a lot on the type of car. Also, if all cars are going at 20 mph consistently, drivers do not have to apply brakes often and maintain a consistent speed, which probably compensates a bit for the lack of efficiency in driving on lower speeds. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So the Labour government in Wales introduced 20mph roads as well as the Labour London Mayor making more roads 20mph. If this is a template of a Labour Government would bring in for the whole country then quite frankly I won't be voting for them That's an interesting thought. Everyone I've spoken to is angry about the 20mph change in Wales, and my experience so far is that it's making journeys intolerably long. I wonder if this will affect the Labour vote at the next general election. It would be something of an irony if Labour missed out on securing the UK parliament because of a devolved decision. Enforcement of the 20 mph speed limit is going to be tough. If penalty points start racking up, along with fines, I would expect a backlash. If the penalty points and fines don’t rise, would it indicate a lack of enforcement. Reducing the speed limit on the slowest of roads by 33% is a tough call. I personally think the smartest thing to do with speed limits is to reduce them in poor weather, 20mph if it is raining, foggy etc. Same for motorways 80mph good conditions, 60 poor. I can’t remember if it is France or Spain that I have driven through with those rules, but I like them I would have thought that at 20 mph a car is not very efficient. If that's true then it possibly will increase pollution as well as angering lots of people" I have no idea how much pollution a car makes based on speed and time taken to cover a distance. We have a poor technology, in ice, however we have emerging technologies in e-fuels that make me consider the benefits of ev. I truly believe the biggest breakthrough in cleaner air is and safe roads will be fully autonomous vehicles. Remove ownership and work on a ride and hire. That’s a completely different conversation, and maybe a vote winner or loser over the next 50 years | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I would have thought that at 20 mph a car is not very efficient. If that's true then it possibly will increase pollution as well as angering lots of people My trip computer says otherwise. It only goes up to 99.9mpg, and I was exceeding that the whole time this morning, till I got onto the motorway. But while I may be burning less fuel per mile, I'm spending 50% more time in town. That has to be cumulatively more pollution in a given area." I'm surprised at that. I always thought town driving was less efficient and at 20mph you won't get into top gear much . However I have never tested it so maybe not | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'm surprised at that. I always thought town driving was less efficient and at 20mph you won't get into top gear much. However I have never tested it so maybe not" Town driving at 30mph is less efficient than motorway driving at 60mph because there's lots of stopping and starting in town. When town driving at 30mph there's more air resistance than at 20mph, so the slower speed is a bit more efficient (assuming that you select the correct gear). | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So the Labour government in Wales introduced 20mph roads as well as the Labour London Mayor making more roads 20mph. If this is a template of a Labour Government would bring in for the whole country then quite frankly I won't be voting for them That's an interesting thought. Everyone I've spoken to is angry about the 20mph change in Wales, and my experience so far is that it's making journeys intolerably long. I wonder if this will affect the Labour vote at the next general election. It would be something of an irony if Labour missed out on securing the UK parliament because of a devolved decision." I doubt it will have much effect at the general election but unless the labour party abandon this 20 mph nonsense by 2026 I cant see many people voting for them in the assembly election. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'm surprised at that. I always thought town driving was less efficient and at 20mph you won't get into top gear much. However I have never tested it so maybe not Town driving at 30mph is less efficient than motorway driving at 60mph because there's lots of stopping and starting in town. When town driving at 30mph there's more air resistance than at 20mph, so the slower speed is a bit more efficient (assuming that you select the correct gear)." I tried it a bit today on the way to work. At 30mph I can be in fourth gear but at 20mph I have to be in third at best. I tried fourth at 20 but it did not like it much. For me at least it means driving in a lower gear which possibly outweighs the advantage of less wind resistance or at least wipes out most of the advantage | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I tried it a bit today on the way to work. At 30mph I can be in fourth gear but at 20mph I have to be in third at best. I tried fourth at 20 but it did not like it much. For me at least it means driving in a lower gear which possibly outweighs the advantage of less wind resistance or at least wipes out most of the advantage" It doesn't matter which gear you are in, what matters is the engine revs. If the engine is at 2000rpm in 4th gear, you're using the same amount of fuel as you would be at 2000rpm in 3rd gear. Of course, if you're in 3rd gear you'll be going slower, which means less air resistance, so better fuel economy. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I tried it a bit today on the way to work. At 30mph I can be in fourth gear but at 20mph I have to be in third at best. I tried fourth at 20 but it did not like it much. For me at least it means driving in a lower gear which possibly outweighs the advantage of less wind resistance or at least wipes out most of the advantage It doesn't matter which gear you are in, what matters is the engine revs. If the engine is at 2000rpm in 4th gear, you're using the same amount of fuel as you would be at 2000rpm in 3rd gear. Of course, if you're in 3rd gear you'll be going slower, which means less air resistance, so better fuel economy." It sounds right but certainly did not feel like that this morning. If I remember tomorrow I will try to keep an eye on revs and watch the mpg indicator at 20mph in third and 30mph in fourth. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I tried it a bit today on the way to work. At 30mph I can be in fourth gear but at 20mph I have to be in third at best. I tried fourth at 20 but it did not like it much. For me at least it means driving in a lower gear which possibly outweighs the advantage of less wind resistance or at least wipes out most of the advantage It doesn't matter which gear you are in, what matters is the engine revs. If the engine is at 2000rpm in 4th gear, you're using the same amount of fuel as you would be at 2000rpm in 3rd gear. Of course, if you're in 3rd gear you'll be going slower, which means less air resistance, so better fuel economy." Is that true? Gearing would surely cause more friction at lower RPM in a higher gear needing more fuel I would have thought. This is certainly outside of my knowledge and pure gut instinct thinking. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It sounds right but certainly did not feel like that this morning. If I remember tomorrow I will try to keep an eye on revs and watch the mpg indicator at 20mph in third and 30mph in fourth." If you have a British made car, they will be the same. The manufacturers set the gear ratios up for that purpose. My (diesel) ford drives along at exactly the same 1250rpm in 3rd at 20mph, in 4th at 30mph, and in 5th at 40mph. If you have a European car it'll be slightly different as their kph-based limits differ slightly. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It sounds right but certainly did not feel like that this morning. If I remember tomorrow I will try to keep an eye on revs and watch the mpg indicator at 20mph in third and 30mph in fourth. If you have a British made car, they will be the same. The manufacturers set the gear ratios up for that purpose. My (diesel) ford drives along at exactly the same 1250rpm in 3rd at 20mph, in 4th at 30mph, and in 5th at 40mph. If you have a European car it'll be slightly different as their kph-based limits differ slightly." So I tried it today and after repeated tests mine was always 1500rpm at 30 mph in forth and 1750rpm at 20mph in third making a total increase of 250rpm. Mine is a 1.6 petrol and Japanese. Not sure if it was made in Japan or elsewhere | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It sounds right but certainly did not feel like that this morning. If I remember tomorrow I will try to keep an eye on revs and watch the mpg indicator at 20mph in third and 30mph in fourth." "If you have a British made car, they will be the same. The manufacturers set the gear ratios up for that purpose. My (diesel) ford drives along at exactly the same 1250rpm in 3rd at 20mph, in 4th at 30mph, and in 5th at 40mph. If you have a European car it'll be slightly different as their kph-based limits differ slightly." "So I tried it today and after repeated tests mine was always 1500rpm at 30 mph in forth and 1750rpm at 20mph in third making a total increase of 250rpm. Mine is a 1.6 petrol and Japanese. Not sure if it was made in Japan or elsewhere" Well done you for doing the experiment. It looks like you will actually be a tiny bit less efficient at 20mph than you were at 30mph. You should weigh that up when it next comes to voting time. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What the devil has a "semi knackered" 'phone screen got to do with it....??! Maybe be the ride is a bit bumpy on a mobility scooter? BTW when are you going to explain why you asked that in the other thread?" ****************************** It worked...?!? Oh, my own 'By The Way' is...... Your use of the pronoun "when".... This does imply an obligation, on my part, of an imminent explanation to the reason(s) for the content of a recent post I uploaded. No such obligation exists but I thank you for your interest. (And now..... My tongue is fixed quite firmly in my cheek....!) X | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It sounds right but certainly did not feel like that this morning. If I remember tomorrow I will try to keep an eye on revs and watch the mpg indicator at 20mph in third and 30mph in fourth. If you have a British made car, they will be the same. The manufacturers set the gear ratios up for that purpose. My (diesel) ford drives along at exactly the same 1250rpm in 3rd at 20mph, in 4th at 30mph, and in 5th at 40mph. If you have a European car it'll be slightly different as their kph-based limits differ slightly. So I tried it today and after repeated tests mine was always 1500rpm at 30 mph in forth and 1750rpm at 20mph in third making a total increase of 250rpm. Mine is a 1.6 petrol and Japanese. Not sure if it was made in Japan or elsewhere Well done you for doing the experiment. It looks like you will actually be a tiny bit less efficient at 20mph than you were at 30mph. You should weigh that up when it next comes to voting time." I've not heard of any plans for it in my area yet so does not affect my vote just yet. It may come to my area one day so good to have some experience and as you say vote accordingly | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What the devil has a "semi knackered" 'phone screen got to do with it....??! Maybe be the ride is a bit bumpy on a mobility scooter? BTW when are you going to explain why you asked that in the other thread? ****************************** It worked...?!? Oh, my own 'By The Way' is...... Your use of the pronoun "when".... This does imply an obligation, on my part, of an imminent explanation to the reason(s) for the content of a recent post I uploaded. No such obligation exists but I thank you for your interest. (And now..... My tongue is fixed quite firmly in my cheek....!) X" Ah shame but then I knew you wouldn’t explain. It will forever be a mystery  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Labours pledges aren't worth the paper they're printed on. Sorry, but given that Starmer has broken every single pledge he made when running for the leadership, I just can't believe a single word that comes out of the Labour party" Usually I'd agree with you and have been very critical of Labour uturns on here, I think coming into election year were gonna see more things he actually believes he can achieve, rather than pipedreams. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Again I keep saying this, as much as I dont like the Tories, I just don't see Labour as a viable alternative under Keir Starmer. Just loves to say things that might appear popular to voters with no real direction, no real believe and definitely with no idea on what his doing." I don't disagree about Starmer, but how is that any different to the Tories? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Tories and Labour are 2 sides of the same coin or asshole thats my point" You appear to consider the Tories as better, or did I get that wrong? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"None of them are good, at this point I wouldnt mind if the Reform Party were voted in just to piss them both off" Would that piss them off? I can't see their agenda of anti-science, blame everything on foreigners, and only allowing racists to teach in schools being popular amongst the electorate. But then again, what do I know. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"None of them are good, at this point I wouldnt mind if the Reform Party were voted in just to piss them both off" That’d be great if you wanted a party which was even further right and probably even more incompetent than we presently have. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
