An Evening With... Jeremy Corbyn

Moby

westernpromise wrote: »

Nonsense. RT offers weepy anecdotes of poor children in Peckham, but the actual facts are that the party he supports opposes everything that would improve the lot of such children. Grammar schools, free schools, free places - he should welcome the lot, but not a bit of it. And here's why - this is John Prescott on this subject in 2005:

""My argument is that middle-class parents are concerned, and rightly so, about the quality of education for their children, which sadly is not the same for working-class parents," he said. "If you set up a school and it becomes a good school, the great danger is that's the place they want to go to."
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/prescott-hits-out-over-great-danger-from-blairs-school-reforms-519970.html

ISIL? Zika? AIDS? Knife crime? The obesity epidemic? Those aren't dangers. Danger is good schools. Danger is good education. We can't have that. I live near Henrietta Barnet school and he's right, that school is a huge danger. All those dangerous kids, getting a good education, getting on in life and learning to think! And those middle-class parents, the b~stards! Being concerned about the quality of their kids' education? Why can't they not give a stuff, like "working class" parents? Eh? Like Prescott says?

The people most responsible for the existence and plight of RT's canonical poor child in Peckham are people like RT himself, who've ensured that the mother is funded to have as many children as she likes, who rob the taxpayers of places like Surrey for the money, and who then have the effrontery to blame the people they're robbing for the consequences of their own stupidity.

The single best way to eliminate this problem is to make sure it doesn't pay better to ponce off others than it does to work. Meanwhile, the kids I really feel sorry for are the ones held back from all they might achieve because people like RT have decided that everyone's conditions must be made equally bad. There are kids who could have gone to a grammar school but the likes of RT closed it; kids who could be at a free school but RT voted it down; kids who could have had an assisted place but RT put a stop to it.

They grow up, they remember what he did and they vote Tory.

Of course your rant completely ignored what I said and the grammar school debate has raised its ugly head again and is the catch all solution to the worlds ills for the selfish tories:rotfl:
You feel sorry for the kids not given the opportunity of grammar schools because that's the cure all to the social problems we have............. really!......... and you call my post nonsense!
Have a look at this timely report......perhaps more grammar schools will solve it all..........but no they can't can they because all the places will be taken up by the middle class in their Surrey suburbs. This is a far deeper issue than you acknowledge. Grammar schools are not the answer!
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/aug/18/human-rights-watchdog-urgent-action-deep-rooted-inequality

ruggedtoast

CLAPTON wrote: »

oh dear toxic toastie never will actual discuss actual policies : only made up nonsense to suit the trotskyite 'narrative.
why not consider thinking about policies that actually help real people rather than smug 'revolutionaries'.

Grammar schools would be fine if working class children graduated from primary school with the same levels of attainment as their middle class peers, but they don't.

Under the Tories, an 11+ grammar school selection will only serve to ensure that most working class kids are locked out of a route to higher education before they even become teenagers.

This government has already removed EMT payments for the poorest A level students, thereby robbing them of their chance to even apply for a university. It mustn't be allowed to destroy their chances before they even sit a GCSE.

Not that you care about children you don't know, or apparently anyone else at all.

Moby

Wild_Rover wrote: »

It would be great if you were right, but I assure you I described him accurately. If anything I was too kind.

I am unlikely to get him on here, as he and I have not on good terms. He was a parasite on the neck of our family for decades, even demanding cash from family friends. On the first occasion I took Mrs Wild Rover to the family home, while I was in the kitchen making tea and coffee, he asked my then student girlfriend if she could "lend" him £50.

I can remember him shouting at me, the night before my degree exams, ranting that if the government were happy to pay thousands a month to keep folk in prison, they should be prepared to pay the same to folk like him on the dole to keep them out of it. He really didn't fancy the prospect of me doing well, as it would show him up. He told me not to move away from home for my first job because "they" (whoever "they" were) should give me a job near home; I happily moved over 150 miles. I later realised that, if course, he wanted me to stay at home as I was another source of cash. Not so easy when 150 miles apart.

To claim that folk like my brother didn't or don't exist is just delusional but that isn't the point. I have no problem helping those who can't support themselves - age, illness, disability. Rugged and his comrades are welcome to give as much of their own cash as they want to folk like by brother, but it's interesting that when I asked him how much more of my income I should pay, or how much of my savings I should hand over, the reply was silence and instead came the waffle. That's fine, but waffle is not a programme for government, as Labour under Corbyn will find out.

WR

Don't think you are being balanced.....as I said your brother would probably not agree with your view. You could be maligning him because of some bitterness for all we know. As I said best not be too judgemental of others. Who gets to define who is deserving and who is undeserving. It's not an easy problem to solve!

Moby

ruggedtoast wrote: »

Just out of interest are you more in favour of the birch being brought back into schools or is the slipper adequate for most state school children of working class parents?

You know, those f3ckless ingrates who go through life "robbing" you of your privileged lifestyle and having the temerity not to grovel and pull their forelocks when you drive past in your chaffeur driven Jaguar.

Well, you know whats good for them. You must do because you have more money, the accumulation of which, apparently is the only measure worth applying.

Its a shame that penniless loser, Gandhi, isn't still around so you could give him a lecture in pulling his socks up and sponging like a parasite on society.

Must admit ....we dont agree on Jezza but you do write well! Did you go to a good grammar school:rotfl:

Out,_Vile_Jelly

The posts on the past few pages are mostly from the more extreme ends of the political spectrum; from those whose views are so entrenched they will never change their mind and vote for the despicable "other".

You have to remember that the majority of Britons:

- are not members of a political party
- don't go to political meetings/activist events
- vote out of a vague sense of obligation, usually for the least worst option, rather than in a frenzy of enthusiasm
- are not passionately welded to a certain political viewpoint, and may regularly change the way they vote
- don't like being hectored for the way they vote, and being told what to do (a significant factor in the Remain campaign failing IMO).

Are these people likely to be swayed by the hysterical righteousness of the shrill Corbynites?

ruggedtoast

Moby wrote: »

Must admit ....we dont agree on Jezza but you do write well! Did you go to a good grammar school:rotfl:

Thank you.

No, but I was in the top set for English.

My school had top, middle, and the Special Needs Hut.

That is what this despicable government would like to see state schools reduced to. Giant Special Needs Huts to store the working classes until they can be herded off to call centres, vocational training courses and the army.

ruggedtoast

Out,_Vile_Jelly wrote: »

The posts on the past few pages are mostly from the more extreme ends of the political spectrum; from those whose views are so entrenched they will never change their mind and vote for the despicable "other".

You have to remember that the majority of Britons:

- are not members of a political party
- don't go to political meetings/activist events
- vote out of a vague sense of obligation, usually for the least worst option, rather than in a frenzy of enthusiasm
- are not passionately welded to a certain political viewpoint, and may regularly change the way they vote
- don't like being hectored for the way they vote, and being told what to do (a significant factor in the Remain campaign failing IMO).

Are these people likely to be swayed by the hysterical righteousness of the shrill Corbynites?

Then majority of Britons appalling indifference to how the country is being run is sleepwalking them into a neoliberal nightmare.

I am aware that many people find it inconvenient that "my lot" are demanding they pay at least as much attention to what the government are doing as to what is going on in TOWIE, and actually take some responsibility themselves.

For my part at least I know I will be able to look people in the eye in 20 years time, when the only way to see a free doctor is to spend a day waiting in A&E, employers can fire people at will, and Higher Education is a privilege of the rich who hide in gated communities, that I was one of the people that tried to raise the alarm when there was still some point in doing so.

Eric_the_half_a_bee

ruggedtoast wrote: »

Then majority of Britons appalling indifference to how the country is being run is sleepwalking them into a neoliberal nightmare.

Yes, everybody's thick apart from you.

BobQ

Wild_Rover wrote: »

.........................
You can rage as much as you like, but your student union-level Dear Leader will be able to do absolutely nothing to change the 'system', because even if (or probably "when") he wins the Leadership again, he will have doomed a once great party to 10-20 years of electoral oblivion...... and its your kind "thinking" that will have helped him achieve that brilliant outcome. Well done. You will have driven the moderates from what will then be "your" party and without support from the middle ground, NO party can win an election. You are making your own bed and you will just have to lie in it. You'll find it firmly attached to the opposition benches in the House of Commons.

WR

Very true. But if it were just RT and his friends ruining a party that would be fine. But this war that Corbyn is waging affects many people who need help.

Politics is not black and white. There is a genuine debate to be had about the extent to which the "haves" should help the "have nots" and the role of the state. But that debate cannot happen without a credible advocacy of both viewpoint and the opportunity for one side to moderate the views of those in power or to take power through the ballot box.

Labour is close to the point where it cannot even hope to be elected, let alone make a difference to the lives of those who it claims to want to help. It is they who will be affected by an unelectable opposition.

westernpromise

ruggedtoast wrote: »

Just out of interest are you more in favour of the birch being brought back into schools or is the slipper adequate for most state school children of working class parents?

You know, those f3ckless ingrates who go through life "robbing" you of your privileged lifestyle and having the temerity not to grovel and pull their forelocks when you drive past in your chaffeur driven Jaguar.

Well, you know whats good for them. You must do because you have more money, the accumulation of which, apparently is the only measure worth applying.

Its a shame that penniless loser, Gandhi, isn't still around so you could give him a lecture in pulling his socks up and sponging like a parasite on society.

And once again, you demonstrate why you're heading for utter and shattering electoral defeat. You think it's 1916 not 2016, you still believe in top-hatted capitalists and you believe everything Trotsky ever said. This is why Tories think Labour are simply stupid.

Meanwhile, the actual Tory party that you will actually be campaigning against has introduced gay marriage, extended the free schools programme, spent record amounts on the NHS, extracted more tax from higher earners than any government in history, presided over record employment and has carefully and skilfully managed the smoking wreck of an economy that it inherited. While you and the crazies are yacking on about class and toffs nobody's listening and you're heading for a split party with 150 MPs between you. So keep it up.