By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
Jeremy Corbyn's Labour an existential threat to...... on 00:06 - Sep 23 by factual_blue
So you don't.
Excellent.
And, while we're at it, let's put an addition (say 100%) on the fees payable directly to the public purse to support state education.
Can't see anything wrong with that.
I accept there’s a discussion to have on the tax status of private schools, sure, and if the pros are outweighing the cons then it’s a valid proposal.
The rest is just punishing the wealthy for the sake of equality, and taking away a choice avaizlable to some but without actually benefiting anyone. Typical politics of envy, and rank hypocrisy from Labour when so many of them have been happy to send their kids private.
I’m surprised you are so keen on these more socialist policies, I know how you feel about Tories but always had you pegged as a more Blairite centrist.
Jeremy Corbyn's Labour an existential threat to...... on 00:06 - Sep 23 by factual_blue
So you don't.
Excellent.
And, while we're at it, let's put an addition (say 100%) on the fees payable directly to the public purse to support state education.
Can't see anything wrong with that.
That's a long way from seizing assets and reappropriating them.
Why not deal with what's actually being discussed rather than a far more lightweight proposal that you seem to be pushing for some strange reason which nobody.
Do you agree with the policy?
SB
Avatar - IC410 - Tadpoles Nebula
0
Jeremy Corbyn's Labour an existential threat to...... on 07:06 - Sep 23 with 2119 views
Jeremy Corbyn's Labour an existential threat to...... on 08:17 - Sep 23 by footers
You say that as if it's a large amount. It isn't.
Well it’s all about opportunity cost isn’t it.
You don’t have to be a rabid Tory to suggest that 3bn extra education spending would go further if you aren’t also adding 600,000 former private pupils to the pool.
Jeremy Corbyn's Labour an existential threat to...... on 08:20 - Sep 23 by baxterbasics
Well it’s all about opportunity cost isn’t it.
You don’t have to be a rabid Tory to suggest that 3bn extra education spending would go further if you aren’t also adding 600,000 former private pupils to the pool.
Imagine how much better educated the country would be if we didn't spunk huge amounts on Trident!
All about priorities.
footers KC - Prosecution Barrister - Friend to all
Jeremy Corbyn's Labour an existential threat to...... on 08:41 - Sep 23 by BanksterDebtSlave
Is that what I think.....cheers for letting me know Stokie!
Yeah that seems a bit unfair from SB.
I understand the desire for choice in education, but the real problem here isn't with the schools themselves exactly but the network of connections that enable the wealthy advantages that aren't earnt.
Private education is just one small part of that.
footers KC - Prosecution Barrister - Friend to all
Jeremy Corbyn's Labour an existential threat to...... on 06:56 - Sep 23 by StokieBlue
That's obfuscation of the subject.
Nobody has said they should, in fact the first replies to the thread have said they shouldn't.
SB
If you read the thread op Stokie it appears to be you that is trying to determine which of the many possible directions this thread is allowed to explore!
"They break our legs and tell us to be grateful when they offer us crutches."
Jeremy Corbyn's Labour an existential threat to...... on 08:48 - Sep 23 by BanksterDebtSlave
If you read the thread op Stokie it appears to be you that is trying to determine which of the many possible directions this thread is allowed to explore!
Eh?
Everyone has agreed they shouldn't get charitable status. Factors was pushing that as something people didn't agree with which is untrue.
SB
Avatar - IC410 - Tadpoles Nebula
0
Jeremy Corbyn's Labour an existential threat to...... on 09:35 - Sep 23 with 2008 views
Jeremy Corbyn's Labour an existential threat to...... on 07:01 - Sep 23 by baxterbasics
I accept there’s a discussion to have on the tax status of private schools, sure, and if the pros are outweighing the cons then it’s a valid proposal.
The rest is just punishing the wealthy for the sake of equality, and taking away a choice avaizlable to some but without actually benefiting anyone. Typical politics of envy, and rank hypocrisy from Labour when so many of them have been happy to send their kids private.
I’m surprised you are so keen on these more socialist policies, I know how you feel about Tories but always had you pegged as a more Blairite centrist.
[Post edited 23 Sep 2019 7:17]
Factual's a loyal labour bloke regardless of who's running the show. I have a mate just like him - still swears Iraq was fine, but these days defends Jez all day long.
In one way, I'm horrified, in another, impressed.
Has anyone ever looked at their own postings for last day or so? Oh my... so sorry. Was Ullaa
Jeremy Corbyn's Labour an existential threat to...... on 07:06 - Sep 23 by footers
Politics aside, the fact that Boris went to Eton should make anyone question the actual value they get from a private education.
Eton is not really typical of most public schools.
The one I went to gave a decent liberal arts education affordable (just about) for the sons* of professional people - at a time when rigid catchment areas and county boundaries precluded the choice available nowadays**. It wasn't a cripplingly expensive breeding ground for elites to walk straight into City jobs and politics.
* It has since gone co-ed, expanded and included more science and technology teaching.
** Also in the era when disastrous "child-led learning" experiments were being carried out in parts of the state sector.
Jeremy Corbyn's Labour an existential threat to...... on 10:42 - Sep 23 by Guthrum
Eton is not really typical of most public schools.
The one I went to gave a decent liberal arts education affordable (just about) for the sons* of professional people - at a time when rigid catchment areas and county boundaries precluded the choice available nowadays**. It wasn't a cripplingly expensive breeding ground for elites to walk straight into City jobs and politics.
* It has since gone co-ed, expanded and included more science and technology teaching.
** Also in the era when disastrous "child-led learning" experiments were being carried out in parts of the state sector.
**What was the name of that liberal 1960s open school where kids were allowed to run around "doing their own thing"?! "Summers"-something?
Jeremy Corbyn's Labour an existential threat to...... on 22:20 - Sep 22 by StokieBlue
The thing is, as always, Labour have raised some very good points, especially around the charitable status of private schools which should be addressed.
They then go too far and say that the assets of the schools should be "appropriated". That is essentially seizing private property, something a lot of Labour leaning people said wouldn't happen. Why would they stop at schools or 10% of privately owned companies? It's literally taking a hammer to the concept of private property and assets - something which will put the government in the courts for probably their entire term if they win.
The run-up to their conference has raised some very good points and some policies which could definitely be beneficial - I just feel they always have to take it that one step to far based on ideology rather than realism and ultimately that is self-defeating as it means the reasonable stuff doesn't get a chance to be implemented.
Jeremy Corbyn's Labour an existential threat to...... on 08:46 - Sep 23 by footers
Yeah that seems a bit unfair from SB.
I understand the desire for choice in education, but the real problem here isn't with the schools themselves exactly but the network of connections that enable the wealthy advantages that aren't earnt.
Private education is just one small part of that.
Is it unfair?
"Your a fire starter, twisted fire starter.....Imagine actually living in a meritocracy, heavens forbid."
The conclusion from that is we don't live in a meritocracy and thus nobody gets where they are from deserving it. If he meant to caveat it by saying "some people" don't deserve what they have then fine.
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
