The Corbynistas.Who says that is bad?
The Corbynistas.Who says that is bad?
Who says that is bad?
What is your plan to improve standards across the board once you have banned private education?
Except Theresa May, who was indulging her Daily Mail tendencies and voting base rather than taking account of any evidence.Everyone in charge of education over the past forty years has decided that academic selection is bad, hence why the grammer school system has been dismantled in most places.
Instead of outlining how they intend to improve state schools to a level higher than those of private schools ( thus rendering the private system pointless) they merely try to make sure that mediocrity is made normal.
The problem isn't selective schools, it can be a very effective system depending on how students are selected. The problem with too many British public schools is that the wealthy self-select by virtue of being wealthy and the schools focus on creating 'leaders'* rather than on academic success.State schools will never be able to compete with selective private schools operating outside of tax and education laws that apply to everyone else.
I'd pull Eton down and turn it into flats for asylum seekers if I got my way.
...and I'd make them subject to OFSTED inspections.
I don't disagree with your analysis, but any party that abolishes the tax breaks for private schools will get my vote.
Corbyn attended a private school for part of his education as did his son so he understands the issues.Besides if Labour do get rid of private schools, where will they send their own offspring to be educated?
The party of "do what I say, not as I do" springs to mind.
Corbyn attended a private school for part of his education as did his son so he understands the issues.
because, of course, once the evil private education system is dismantled those same rich parents wont just pay for a private tutor for little Jonny...........
The only real way to do this is to fund all the schools in the North and deprived areas more than the schools down south and in the suburbs, therefore all the rich will move to the North and deprived areas, society will be fixed. There I have just wrote my first Labour Policy best get on the phone to Corbo and Seamus.
Is there any information on your Labour candidate's views and whether they align with yours (or Corbyn's)? With Labour currently it's more necessary than ever to vote on the actual candidate not just the party line, for Labour in particular.My seat of Southport is currently Tory (boo hiss) so I definitely wont be voting for them, so my options then are Labour or Lib Dem.
I voted (tactically) Lib Dem in 2017 but this split the protest vote as Labour finished second (unexpectedly) and Lib Dems third.
So, at the moment I dont know - I *may* vote Labour for the first time if I like their policies (I dont like JC) or I may play safe and vote Lib Dem.
Decisions, Decisions
I can't find that in the shadow Home Secretary's conference speech, perhaps you can find a link? Surely it can't be a newspaper scaremongering , could it? 'Unlimited' access to benefits sounds like 'unlimited' coffee in 'spoons!Was reading a newspaper yesterday and one ideal of Labour was unlimited immigration with unlimited access to benefits.
.
I can't find that in the shadow Home Secretary's conference speech, perhaps you can find a link? Surely it can't be a newspaper scaremongering , could it? 'Unlimited' access to benefits sounds like 'unlimited' coffee in 'spoons!
Labour members have voted overwhelmingly to give full voting rights to all UK residents, committing the party to extend the franchise to millions of immigrants.
A motion tabled by the Labour Campaign for Free Movement was passed at the party’s conference in Brighton on Wednesday morning, after MPs were forced to rush back to Westminster to attend the newly reconvened House of Commons.
As well as extending voting rights, the text commits a future Labour government to closing all immigration detention centres, ending “no recourse to public funds” policies and seeking to extend free movement rights to people around the world.
The motion also opposed immigration systems based on a person’s income or “utility to big business”, and any caps or targets on the number of people moving to the UK.
...
Following the conclusion of the Labour Party conference on Wednesday, the front page of the Telegraph’s Thursday edition reported that the party had agreed a policy to remove all controls on immigration.
This is incorrect, as the Labour party pointed out.
At its annual conference, Labour passed a broad proposal for its future migration policy.
The motion said Labour will include manifesto pledges to, among other things, “maintain and extend free movement rights”, “close all detention centres” and to “reject any immigration system based on incomes, migrants’ utility to business, and number caps/targets.” The full text of the proposal is available here.
Afterwards, Shadow Home Secretary Diane Abbott was quoted by the Guardian as saying: “Be assured, our plans for government include these provisions and a lot more,” indicating that the proposal would be adopted as party policy.
The provisions laid out in the motion do seem to represent significant reductions in the barriers to immigrants coming to the UK and settling here. However claiming these proposals amount to the removal of “all controls on immigration” is exaggeration.
...
Dipped back into this thread to see how the voting is going. Given that well over 250 people have voted, the results are still some way from being ‘statistically significant’ from a pollsters perspective (most opinion polls have at least 1000 respondents).
However it would appear to be reasonable to conclude that the RUK readership of this thread are more than twice as likely to vote Lib Dem than any other party. Which is astonishing. I’m not quite sure whether this says something about RUK contributors, the Lib Dems, or society as a whole. You could get a decent essay out of this!
I’d agree with that, but I’d go one further and say that there are plenty of traditional Labour voters on here that are pretty angry at the mess the party finds itself in at a time when they should be absolutely knocking the Tory’s out of the park.The other reason that leaps to mind is that going by people's posts, there are "traditional" Labour voters here who are put off doing so by some combination of Corbyn himself, the people around him or the policies and behavior of the party. I would certainly consider voting Labour (depending on the candidate as I posted somewhere above) but very put off by the antics at the conference - seems to be straight back to the 80s.
However it would appear to be reasonable to conclude that the RUK readership of this thread are more than twice as likely to vote Lib Dem than any other party. Which is astonishing. I’m not quite sure whether this says something about RUK contributors, the Lib Dems, or society as a whole. You could get a decent essay out of this!
I do agree Cowley although given the much greater mess we're in with Johnson & Co, given the choice I'd favour what I would judge as the lesser evil.I’d agree with that, but I’d go one further and say that there are plenty of traditional Labour voters on here that are pretty angry at the mess the party finds itself in at a time when they should be absolutely knocking the Tory’s out of the park.
Indeed, typically the perception would be that a rail basis forum (with the likelihood of union members skewing the results) that we'd see a fairly strong Labour vote.
The Lib Dems bring typically the third (or forth since the SNP do so well in Scotland) party in most elections wouldn't be expected to do overly well in any poll.
The only thinking that I've got is that either:
We are mostly remainers and so wish to vote for the biggest party which is clear on its stance on Brexit.
We are reflecting the potential view that Brexit in its current form or potential form isn't what those who wanted to leave thought that it would be and so people have shifted their view and therefore voting choice.
It being an internet based forum we don't attract the typical Tory Party Euro Sceptic and so this skews the result, however they are much more likely to vote in a traditional election.
Any combination of the above, or even some other reason.
The whole nature of a coalition is that the smaller party in particular has to swallow some stuff they don't want, to get a chance for some of their policies to be taken on board. With hindsight the LibDems probably shouldn't have gone into it and certainly shouldn't have been so enthusiastic about it, ending up shafted by Osborne and paving the way for Brexit. But at the time the need was for a stable government in the midst of the financial crisis, and the numbers meant that a LibDem/Labour coalition would have had to have pretty much every minor party on board as well to get a majority.Perhaps they wish to have more Austerity (given Jo Swinson's endorsement of it)
I see where you are coming from but there was of course the myth peddled by Cameron and Osborne that Labour was responsible for the worldwide financial crisis, tell a lie often enough etc etc and once that was picked up by mainstream media the die was cast. The LibDems were very enthusiastic about it (the need for Austerity) at the time, they might like to row back from it a bit now, but Swinson has said, I think, that she has no regretsThe whole nature of a coalition is that the smaller party in particular has to swallow some stuff they don't want, to get a chance for some of their policies to be taken on board. With hindsight the LibDems probably shouldn't have gone into it and certainly shouldn't have been so enthusiastic about it, ending up shafted by Osborne and paving the way for Brexit. But at the time the need was for a stable government in the midst of the financial crisis, and the numbers meant that a LibDem/Labour coalition would have had to have pretty much every minor party on board as well to get a majority.