Labour hypocrisy

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Page 2 of 3 < 1 2 3 >

HKOwen Hong Kong 29 Nov 22 9.30am
If Starmer truly believes this he should not put forward any Labour people for elevation. If he does put names forward, his word on this is worth nothing Start with Tom Watson. Responsibility Deficit Disorder is a medical condition. Symptoms include inability to be corrected when wrong, false sense of superiority, desire to share personal info no else cares about, general hubris. It's a medical issue rather than pure arrogance.
Alert a moderator to this post

HKOwen

Hong Kong 29 Nov 22 9.30am

If Starmer truly believes this he should not put forward any Labour people for elevation.

If he does put names forward, his word on this is worth nothing

Start with Tom Watson.

Responsibility Deficit Disorder is a medical condition. Symptoms include inability to be corrected when wrong, false sense of superiority, desire to share personal info no else cares about, general hubris. It's a medical issue rather than pure arrogance.

Alert a moderator to this post

Willo South coast - west of Brighton. 29 Nov 22 10.00am
Originally posted by Badger11 Labour plan to charge VAT on private school fees. So Starmer has finally come out with a policy instead of sitting on the sidelines. Actually I agree with him on this point, to a certain extent. Most private schools have charitable status and Starmer is now planning on removing this. I am not against private schools far from it but why should they enjoy charitable status and receive tax payer benefits when they don't actually help the public. Most pay lip service to their charitable work and will roll out the odd poor kid from the council estate whose getting a freebie, it's not enough. Private education is a personal choice but so if flying business class or eating in expensive restaurants. If you can do it good luck but don't expect the rest of us to subsidize it. How should the Tories respond? Well for a long time I have complained about organizations that enjoy charitable status and don't deserve it. For example there are many "charities" that are really left wing political campaign groups, then of course there are the dodgy rich people who use them as an unfair tax break. It's time to redefine what charitable status is. I don't have an exact definition but for example I would insist that annually charities publish what percentage of their income is spent on good works and any that fall below a threshold should lose it. I think the public would be shocked if they knew how little of their hard earned money actually goes on good causes and how much goes on salaries, lavish lifestyle and offices in Chelsea or Mayfair. None of this is likely to happen, both parties have too many vested interested so if Labour get elected they will pick on private schools and let the rest off. I am totally against such a policy, and I readily admit that my daughter was educated in a private school for which she is very grateful. Private education and private health care are anathema to the dastardly Labour Party. [Link] Edited by Willo (29 Nov 2022 10.04am)
Alert a moderator to this post

Willo

South coast - west of Brighton. 29 Nov 22 10.00am

Originally posted by Badger11

Labour plan to charge VAT on private school fees.

So Starmer has finally come out with a policy instead of sitting on the sidelines.

Actually I agree with him on this point, to a certain extent.

Most private schools have charitable status and Starmer is now planning on removing this.

I am not against private schools far from it but why should they enjoy charitable status and receive tax payer benefits when they don't actually help the public.

Most pay lip service to their charitable work and will roll out the odd poor kid from the council estate whose getting a freebie, it's not enough.

Private education is a personal choice but so if flying business class or eating in expensive restaurants. If you can do it good luck but don't expect the rest of us to subsidize it.

How should the Tories respond? Well for a long time I have complained about organizations that enjoy charitable status and don't deserve it.

For example there are many "charities" that are really left wing political campaign groups, then of course there are the dodgy rich people who use them as an unfair tax break.

It's time to redefine what charitable status is.

I don't have an exact definition but for example I would insist that annually charities publish what percentage of their income is spent on good works and any that fall below a threshold should lose it.

I think the public would be shocked if they knew how little of their hard earned money actually goes on good causes and how much goes on salaries, lavish lifestyle and offices in Chelsea or Mayfair.

None of this is likely to happen, both parties have too many vested interested so if Labour get elected they will pick on private schools and let the rest off.

I am totally against such a policy, and I readily admit that my daughter was educated in a private school for which she is very grateful.

Private education and private health care are anathema to the dastardly Labour Party.

[Link]

Edited by Willo (29 Nov 2022 10.04am)

Alert a moderator to this post

The Dolphin 29 Nov 22 10.32am
I believe that this is the Labour politics of envy and they just want to appease the Left of the Party. If fees go up by 20% then huge numbers of students will need to use the Stae system which is unable to cope at the moment let alone with a huge influx of ex-private school students. That will cost a fortune and wreck young people's dreams and I see no point in it because it will cause more problems than it solves. Add to that, the private schools will just take more Students from abroad which in itself will have many knock-on effects. Also - you will not be punishing - because that is what it is - the very rich, you will be punishing the people who scrimp and save to get their child a better education. The education system is in the sh1t and I wouldn't trust Labour to improve it in the future any more than I do the Tories to do it now. I would be more in favour of telling the private schools that they need to take in decent numbers of state pupils every year. They should also be run on a non-profit basis and therefore any profits made be split 50/50 with one half being spent on capital projects and the other on schools local to theirs. Something like that anyway!
Alert a moderator to this post

The Dolphin

29 Nov 22 10.32am

I believe that this is the Labour politics of envy and they just want to appease the Left of the Party.
If fees go up by 20% then huge numbers of students will need to use the Stae system which is unable to cope at the moment let alone with a huge influx of ex-private school students.
That will cost a fortune and wreck young people's dreams and I see no point in it because it will cause more problems than it solves.
Add to that, the private schools will just take more Students from abroad which in itself will have many knock-on effects.
Also - you will not be punishing - because that is what it is - the very rich, you will be punishing the people who scrimp and save to get their child a better education.
The education system is in the sh1t and I wouldn't trust Labour to improve it in the future any more than I do the Tories to do it now.
I would be more in favour of telling the private schools that they need to take in decent numbers of state pupils every year.
They should also be run on a non-profit basis and therefore any profits made be split 50/50 with one half being spent on capital projects and the other on schools local to theirs.
Something like that anyway!

Alert a moderator to this post

Matov 29 Nov 22 2.02pm
I actually think this is a good idea. It's not going to happen, and is strictly a way of Starmer throwing a bone to the Left in his party, but the principle makes perfect sense. If we charge VAT on other services, why should private education be any different? Personally, I would abolish all private education but then again, I am a Right Wing extremist. "The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command." - 1984 - George Orwell.
Alert a moderator to this post

Matov

29 Nov 22 2.02pm

I actually think this is a good idea. It's not going to happen, and is strictly a way of Starmer throwing a bone to the Left in his party, but the principle makes perfect sense.

If we charge VAT on other services, why should private education be any different?

Personally, I would abolish all private education but then again, I am a Right Wing extremist.

"The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command." - 1984 - George Orwell.

Alert a moderator to this post

Fatherken 29 Nov 22 2.03pm
With the cost of living all going up Hospital and School staff under paid War in Europe And Labours main policy is to get rid of the House of Lords They really got their finger on the pulse
Alert a moderator to this post

Fatherken

29 Nov 22 2.03pm

With the cost of living all going up
Hospital and School staff under paid
War in Europe
And Labours main policy is to get rid of the House of Lords
They really got their finger on the pulse

Alert a moderator to this post

cryrst The garden of England 29 Nov 22 6.15pm
Originally posted by Badger11 Unfortunately this is a dick measuring content only in this case it's whose party is not as terrible as the other lot. Hardly a vote of confidence. Where is the man of vision and principle. Feck em all
Alert a moderator to this post

cryrst

The garden of England 29 Nov 22 6.15pm

Originally posted by Badger11

Unfortunately this is a dick measuring content only in this case it's whose party is not as terrible as the other lot. Hardly a vote of confidence.

Where is the man of vision and principle.

Feck em all

Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays 30 Nov 22 8.09am
This question was always a hard one for me as I feel the arguments on both sides of the aisle have legitimate points of worth. So at various points I've been on both sides of this topic. So being someone who believes in natural law I have to go back to first principles. In that case it's the acknowledgement that hierarchy will always be with us and that default equality results in more harm than good. So I want the brightest minds doing the hardest jobs within the national talent pool that's available. That should be independent of money or status. So I would go back to the original aims of grammar schools....I would set regulations so the sharp elbowed middle class couldn't fill all the spaces; if the working class child was bright enough they were going independent of means. I think for many years the grammar system was used to extend advantage for those with means to gerrymander the system. So I believe in a grammar school system that operates on the IQ system not the class system. But again, that is not an invite for progressive ideologies like CRT and all the rest of it. It is purely an education device for ensuring the brightest minds are doing the hardest jobs for the betterment of both themselves and for society in general. Edited by Stirlingsays (30 Nov 2022 8.11am) 'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)
Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays

30 Nov 22 8.09am

This question was always a hard one for me as I feel the arguments on both sides of the aisle have legitimate points of worth.

So at various points I've been on both sides of this topic.

So being someone who believes in natural law I have to go back to first principles. In that case it's the acknowledgement that hierarchy will always be with us and that default equality results in more harm than good.

So I want the brightest minds doing the hardest jobs within the national talent pool that's available. That should be independent of money or status.

So I would go back to the original aims of grammar schools....I would set regulations so the sharp elbowed middle class couldn't fill all the spaces; if the working class child was bright enough they were going independent of means.

I think for many years the grammar system was used to extend advantage for those with means to gerrymander the system.

So I believe in a grammar school system that operates on the IQ system not the class system. But again, that is not an invite for progressive ideologies like CRT and all the rest of it.

It is purely an education device for ensuring the brightest minds are doing the hardest jobs for the betterment of both themselves and for society in general.

Edited by Stirlingsays (30 Nov 2022 8.11am)

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Alert a moderator to this post

Nicholas91 The Democratic Republic of Kent 30 Nov 22 9.11am
Originally posted by Stirlingsays This question was always a hard one for me as I feel the arguments on both sides of the aisle have legitimate points of worth. So at various points I've been on both sides of this topic. So being someone who believes in natural law I have to go back to first principles. In that case it's the acknowledgement that hierarchy will always be with us and that default equality results in more harm than good. So I want the brightest minds doing the hardest jobs within the national talent pool that's available. That should be independent of money or status. So I would go back to the original aims of grammar schools....I would set regulations so the sharp elbowed middle class couldn't fill all the spaces; if the working class child was bright enough they were going independent of means. I think for many years the grammar system was used to extend advantage for those with means to gerrymander the system. So I believe in a grammar school system that operates on the IQ system not the class system. But again, that is not an invite for progressive ideologies like CRT and all the rest of it. It is purely an education device for ensuring the brightest minds are doing the hardest jobs for the betterment of both themselves and for society in general. Edited by Stirlingsays (30 Nov 2022 8.11am) Unfortunately, whilst the 'brightest minds doing the hardest jobs' may seem for all the world the most logical approach, as soon as quotas for diversity are not hit you'll have those who have failed by every other means storming social media and so forth to claim 'facism'. The education system will then be reformed so as not to favour the groups that are succeeding and before you know it somebody belonging to a gender you have never heard of, with hair died all the colours of the rainbow, dressed like a 1960's ragdoll, who cries at every discussion about anything when things don't go their way and their every whim is not catered to, will be in charge of the aforementioned reform. Welcome to the 'new world'. Now Zaha's got a bit of green grass ahead of him here... and finds Ambrose... not a bad effort!!!!
Alert a moderator to this post

Nicholas91

The Democratic Republic of Kent 30 Nov 22 9.11am

Originally posted by Stirlingsays

This question was always a hard one for me as I feel the arguments on both sides of the aisle have legitimate points of worth.

So at various points I've been on both sides of this topic.

So I want the brightest minds doing the hardest jobs within the national talent pool that's available. That should be independent of money or status.

I think for many years the grammar system was used to extend advantage for those with means to gerrymander the system.

So I believe in a grammar school system that operates on the IQ system not the class system. But again, that is not an invite for progressive ideologies like CRT and all the rest of it.

It is purely an education device for ensuring the brightest minds are doing the hardest jobs for the betterment of both themselves and for society in general.

Edited by Stirlingsays (30 Nov 2022 8.11am)

Unfortunately, whilst the 'brightest minds doing the hardest jobs' may seem for all the world the most logical approach, as soon as quotas for diversity are not hit you'll have those who have failed by every other means storming social media and so forth to claim 'facism'.

The education system will then be reformed so as not to favour the groups that are succeeding and before you know it somebody belonging to a gender you have never heard of, with hair died all the colours of the rainbow, dressed like a 1960's ragdoll, who cries at every discussion about anything when things don't go their way and their every whim is not catered to, will be in charge of the aforementioned reform. Welcome to the 'new world'.

Now Zaha's got a bit of green grass ahead of him here... and finds Ambrose... not a bad effort!!!!

Alert a moderator to this post

Willo South coast - west of Brighton. 30 Nov 22 9.23am
Originally posted by Nicholas91 Unfortunately, whilst the 'brightest minds doing the hardest jobs' may seem for all the world the most logical approach, as soon as quotas for diversity are not hit you'll have those who have failed by every other means storming social media and so forth to claim 'facism'. The education system will then be reformed so as not to favour the groups that are succeeding and before you know it somebody belonging to a gender you have never heard of, with hair died all the colours of the rainbow, dressed like a 1960's ragdoll, who cries at every discussion about anything when things don't go their way and their every whim is not catered to, will be in charge of the aforementioned reform. Welcome to the 'new world'. I garland your comments with praise. I doff my hat.
Alert a moderator to this post

Willo

South coast - west of Brighton. 30 Nov 22 9.23am

Originally posted by Nicholas91

I garland your comments with praise.
I doff my hat.

Alert a moderator to this post

Badger11 Beckenham 30 Nov 22 9.28am
A friend's son is at Oxford after attending Dulwich College which is a well known private school. He is a nice kid but is finding it hard to fit in. Apparently there is quite a large intake from state schools these students do not like kids from the private schools and let them no it. They have even looked up the fees and demanded to know how he's parents could afford it.* Once upon a time a poor kid at Oxford was the odd one out soon it will be kids who went to private schools and neither case has anything to do with ability. This is the new world we live in. *His dad has his own architect business and his mum (my friend) is a writer both came from poor backgrounds worked hard and wanted the best for their kids. The whole family are thoroughly decent well balanced fair people. His twin sister is at Edinburgh University they are both smart kids who worked bloody hard for their excellent grades, in fact I remember his mother complaining that they worked too hard and not enough play time with their mates. One more point
Alert a moderator to this post

Badger11

Beckenham 30 Nov 22 9.28am

A friend's son is at Oxford after attending Dulwich College which is a well known private school. He is a nice kid but is finding it hard to fit in.

Apparently there is quite a large intake from state schools these students do not like kids from the private schools and let them no it.

They have even looked up the fees and demanded to know how he's parents could afford it.*

Once upon a time a poor kid at Oxford was the odd one out soon it will be kids who went to private schools and neither case has anything to do with ability.

This is the new world we live in.

*His dad has his own architect business and his mum (my friend) is a writer both came from poor backgrounds worked hard and wanted the best for their kids. The whole family are thoroughly decent well balanced fair people. His twin sister is at Edinburgh University they are both smart kids who worked bloody hard for their excellent grades, in fact I remember his mother complaining that they worked too hard and not enough play time with their mates.

One more point

Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays 30 Nov 22 5.26pm
Originally posted by Nicholas91 Unfortunately, whilst the 'brightest minds doing the hardest jobs' may seem for all the world the most logical approach, as soon as quotas for diversity are not hit you'll have those who have failed by every other means storming social media and so forth to claim 'facism'. The education system will then be reformed so as not to favour the groups that are succeeding and before you know it somebody belonging to a gender you have never heard of, with hair died all the colours of the rainbow, dressed like a 1960's ragdoll, who cries at every discussion about anything when things don't go their way and their every whim is not catered to, will be in charge of the aforementioned reform. Welcome to the 'new world'. Indeed sir, it's been a terrible blight on what should have been beneficial to society in general. 'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)
Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays

30 Nov 22 5.26pm

Originally posted by Nicholas91

Indeed sir, it's been a terrible blight on what should have been beneficial to society in general.

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Alert a moderator to this post

Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 30 Nov 22 7.26pm
Originally posted by Stirlingsays This question was always a hard one for me as I feel the arguments on both sides of the aisle have legitimate points of worth. So at various points I've been on both sides of this topic. So being someone who believes in natural law I have to go back to first principles. In that case it's the acknowledgement that hierarchy will always be with us and that default equality results in more harm than good. So I want the brightest minds doing the hardest jobs within the national talent pool that's available. That should be independent of money or status. So I would go back to the original aims of grammar schools....I would set regulations so the sharp elbowed middle class couldn't fill all the spaces; if the working class child was bright enough they were going independent of means. I think for many years the grammar system was used to extend advantage for those with means to gerrymander the system. So I believe in a grammar school system that operates on the IQ system not the class system. But again, that is not an invite for progressive ideologies like CRT and all the rest of it. It is purely an education device for ensuring the brightest minds are doing the hardest jobs for the betterment of both themselves and for society in general. Edited by Stirlingsays (30 Nov 2022 8.11am) It's nice to be able to agree with you on something. I too believe in a meritocracy and if the academically gifted will benefit from a grammar school then it's in all our interests that they do. That though doesn't seem to have any connection to private education! Grammar schools can be, and are, state funded. In fact I am instinctively opposed to private education, which I regard, as with health provision, as something that should be the exclusive responsibility of us collectively and not individually. I am also opposed to any kind of positive discrimination, or quotas. I find such concepts totally at odds with the principles of a meritocracy. If that results in an uneven distribution of places being allocated between men and women, racial groups or whatever, then the reasons why need to dealt with at source and not the sticking plaster of quotas. The way the better off should pay more is through taxation. For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.
Alert a moderator to this post

Wisbech Eagle

Truro Cornwall 30 Nov 22 7.26pm

Originally posted by Stirlingsays

This question was always a hard one for me as I feel the arguments on both sides of the aisle have legitimate points of worth.

So at various points I've been on both sides of this topic.

So I want the brightest minds doing the hardest jobs within the national talent pool that's available. That should be independent of money or status.

I think for many years the grammar system was used to extend advantage for those with means to gerrymander the system.

So I believe in a grammar school system that operates on the IQ system not the class system. But again, that is not an invite for progressive ideologies like CRT and all the rest of it.

It is purely an education device for ensuring the brightest minds are doing the hardest jobs for the betterment of both themselves and for society in general.

Edited by Stirlingsays (30 Nov 2022 8.11am)

It's nice to be able to agree with you on something. I too believe in a meritocracy and if the academically gifted will benefit from a grammar school then it's in all our interests that they do. That though doesn't seem to have any connection to private education! Grammar schools can be, and are, state funded.

In fact I am instinctively opposed to private education, which I regard, as with health provision, as something that should be the exclusive responsibility of us collectively and not individually.

I am also opposed to any kind of positive discrimination, or quotas. I find such concepts totally at odds with the principles of a meritocracy. If that results in an uneven distribution of places being allocated between men and women, racial groups or whatever, then the reasons why need to dealt with at source and not the sticking plaster of quotas. The way the better off should pay more is through taxation.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

Alert a moderator to this post

Page 2 of 3 < 1 2 3 >

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Crystal Palace FC Supporters' Website - The Holmesdale Online

Labour hypocrisy

Site Map

Sponsors