Polly Toynbee Slates Graft Gordon and the Nu-Labs Iniquitous Inequality

ruggedtoast

Our little boy was born on Monday so forgive me if this is already posted - feeling rather bleary eyed.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/may/09/labour-expenses-fairness-spending-cuts

MPs have been caught in a crucible between two social worlds growing increasingly far apart – worlds they should have done more to equalise. For years they have been warned that growing inequality is profoundly socially dysfunctional. For years, Tony Blair and Gordon Brown said inequality didn't matter. All that mattered was that the poor should be raised nearer the middle. Alas, this week's figures show that not even that happened. The middle stagnated while the poor have fallen behind. So now the social divide has jumped up and bitten Labour. People can see how far their rulers have grown from ordinary lives. In an ironic quirk of political timing, the angry response of many will be to vote Conservative instead.

Its a shame she seems to think the current debt burden is irrelevant based on this piece of nonsense from the bbc website:

So we hear that the British owe more on their mortgages than anywhere else in Europe. But we seldom hear the obvious corollary - that the British also own more housing wealth than anywhere else in Europe.

Apparently neither Toynbee nor the author she cites are aware of what a bad debt, negative equity, or deflation are.

Nevertheless I agree with her on the other points. This government have always been a total shower and its a grim day for Britain when you find yourself looking to the conservatives to promote equality.

Wookster

ruggedtoast wrote: »

Our little boy was born on Monday so forgive me if this is already posted - feeling rather bleary eyed.

Wehay! Congratulations.

amcluesent

LOL. Has Polly Technic ever written a word of sense in her life?

The fact is the Tory's always support equality of opportunity, hence supporting grammar schools and assisted places to lift bright kids out the sink estates and the bullying of any child with aptitude.

NuLabour want equality of outcome, so dumb down the exams until the mentally !!!!!! can get 5 'C's at GCSE.

whathavewedone

Not often that you get a thanks from me Amcluescent but I think you're spot on here. For years I thought that labour was the party that supports the working class but it's not. It's the party that patronises the working class and laughs at them up their sleeves for keeping them in power so that they can devise more and more ways of making their lives miserable. Of course labour hate the middle classes even more. Basically their aim is to make everyone poorer and more miserable while they take the p***.

Whereas the tories want everyone (including themselves I don't deny that) to get richer.

Congratulations Ruggedtoast! Is he your first?

olly300

amcluesent wrote: »

LOL. Has Polly Technic ever written a word of sense in her life?

The fact is the Tory's always support equality of opportunity, hence supporting grammar schools and assisted places to lift bright kids out the sink estates and the bullying of any child with aptitude.

All adults I've met who went to school under the assisted places scheme have/had middle class parents. They may have been the poor middle class but they were definitely middle class.

Oh and the grammar schools and voluntary aided schools in my area are a joke.

If your parents don't pay for tuition to enable you pass the entrance exams, then you best hope of a decent state funded 11-16 education is to be educated in one of the "non-selective" comprehensives in one of the neighbouring boroughs.

The comprehensives are "non-selective" in the sense they try and get people of every ability and background in the school unless the child is known to be disruptive, before they put the children in sets according to ability.

It does help that there are lots of middle class parents and aspiring immigrants who send their children to these schools.

This means if you are in one of the top sets you will be encouraged to improve the school's exam results. And if you are in a lower set but good at say a language which has a GCSE exam then you will find yourself being given the resources to sit it.

amcluesent wrote: »

NuLabour want equality of outcome, so dumb down the exams until the mentally !!!!!! can get 5 'C's at GCSE.

I do agree NuLabour want equality of outcome but they want to do it the cheap and easy way without regard for the fact that people are different.

Generali

ruggedtoast wrote: »

Our little boy was born on Monday so forgive me if this is already posted - feeling rather bleary eyed.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/may/09/labour-expenses-fairness-spending-cuts

Its a shame she seems to think the current debt burden is irrelevant based on this piece of nonsense from the bbc website:

Apparently neither Toynbee nor the author she cites are aware of what a bad debt, negative equity, or deflation are.

Nevertheless I agree with her on the other points. This government have always been a total shower and its a grim day for Britain when you find yourself looking to the conservatives to promote equality.

Congratulations on the birth of your son. I hope he brings you as much joy as mine has brought to me (although not at 3am!).

Re the later posts about Labour wanting equality of outcome, Labour seem to want everyone to be equally poor so they are all looking to a socialist Government to help them out.

olly300

Generali wrote: »

Re the later posts about Labour wanting equality of outcome, Labour seem to want everyone to be equally poor so they are all looking to a socialist Government to help them out.

None of the main stream political parties are socialist even though the Lib Dems are more left wing than them.

In fact if they win the next election it's because Cameron is seen as a bad leader.

mbga9pgf

olly300 wrote: »

All adults I've met who went to school under the assisted places scheme have/had middle class parents. They may have been the poor middle class but they were definitely middle class.

Oh and the grammar schools and voluntary aided schools in my area are a joke.

If your parents don't pay for tuition to enable you pass the entrance exams, then you best hope of a decent state funded 11-16 education is to be educated in one of the "non-selective" comprehensives in one of the neighbouring boroughs.

The comprehensives are "non-selective" in the sense they try and get people of every ability and background in the school unless the child is known to be disruptive, before they put the children in sets according to ability.

It does help that there are lots of middle class parents and aspiring immigrants who send their children to these schools.

This means if you are in one of the top sets you will be encouraged to improve the school's exam results. And if you are in a lower set but good at say a language which has a GCSE exam then you will find yourself being given the resources to sit it.



I do agree NuLabour want equality of outcome but they want to do it the cheap and easy way without regard for the fact that people are different.

One word. Darwinism.

If kids from sink estates could be arsed to break out from the easy life of lifetime benefits for no work and grasp a work ethic, perhaps they would deserve a place in a Grammar school. Life is no different. Why should earning a place at a priveledged school be any easier?

Lets hear the excuses....

ruggedtoast

Thanks guys - yes first one. I am rather pleased with him

Hopefully by the time hes old enough to vote we'll have a more sensible world where people co-operate a bit more and compete a bit less.

Heres hoping anyway.

Generali

olly300 wrote: »

None of the main stream political parties are socialist even though the Lib Dems are more left wing than them.

In fact if they win the next election it's because Cameron is seen as a bad leader.

Well Labour has been pretty socialist in deed if not in word - they've increased taxes on middle earners, confiscated property (Railtrack), redistributed income to the poor (sorry 'most vunner-rubble') in society and have dramatically reduced peoples' freedom to act as they wish in their private and business lives.

dopester

She likes the word `chimera' doesn't she. She used it twice in that article.

The awful champagne socialist do-gooder. Champion the cause in all the boom years, and then turn on her own as things slide.

She is totally out of her mind if she believes the markets will permit wealth to be inflated away so as to pick up all the costs of the consumer boom mega-party and reckless spending.

The markets will want fair exchange, and the markets offer the solutions and the way forward. There is no way forward for future growth and opportunity creation if wealth is inflated away to pay the debts of the stupid and the reckless.