An Evening With... Jeremy Corbyn

westernpromise

In what sense did I quote John Prescott out of context? Here is what I quoted him as having actually said:

"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

There you go: "a good school" gives rise to "great danger". It follows that we can have only bad schools. Otherwise, he must think that great dangers are a good thing, and that we need more of them.

So what is the substance of your claim that I have "quoted John Prescott out of context"? And in what material way do you disagree in 2016 with Prescott's 2005 horror of good schools, RT? Upthread that was your whole beef. Have you already forgotten your crocodile tears at the poor little Peckhamite who has to go to a rubbish school? And your loathing of the middle class kids you made up in "leafy Surrey" who go to a good school?

You thought that was outrageous, so you are evidently in complete agreement with Prescott: in the interests of equality, dangerous good schools should be closed and there should only be bad schools for all.

ruggedtoast

westernpromise wrote: »

In what sense did I quote John Prescott out of context? Here is what I quoted him as having actually said:

"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

There you go: "a good school" gives rise to "great danger". It follows that we can have only bad schools. Otherwise, he must think that great dangers are a good thing, and that we need more of them.

So what is the substance of your claim that I have "quoted John Prescott out of context"? And in what material way do you disagree in 2016 with Prescott's 2005 horror of good schools, RT? Upthread that was your whole beef. Have you already forgotten your crocodile tears at the poor little Peckhamite who has to go to a rubbish school? And your loathing of the middle class kids you made up in "leafy Surrey" who go to a good school?

You thought that was outrageous, so you are evidently in complete agreement with Prescott: in the interests of equality, dangerous good schools should be closed and there should only be bad schools for all.

I am just not very interested in John Prescott's opinions about schooling from 2005.

Maybe you could find a Prescottologist to thrash it out with, or hit up his Twitter.

Back in 2016 (the present, in case you are confused) - there is an entire Tory government introducing policy that is completely detrimental to the good of the country.

[Deleted User]

ukcarper wrote: »

Right wing boomers are not your problem they will vote Tory what ever.

Your problem is middle of the Rd voters boomer or otherwise and centre left voters boomer or otherwise, they will not vote for Corbyn and if you want to win they are the votes you need.

You appear to be under the impression that Rugged is interested in winning elections.

I'd never vote Tory but there's no chance of me voting for a Labour Party led by Corbyn.

Good luck with getting answers out of Rugged to your questions - he's certainly not keen on answering mine. He just seems to regard any invitation to respond as an invitation to jump on a soap box, shout a few slogans to the brothers and sisters, sing The Red Flag and regard that as day of solid achievement. Wonder what he does for a living?

I'd ask him but obviously that's a question, so a non-reply is just about guaranteed :cool: .

WR

westernpromise

ruggedtoast wrote: »

I am just not very interested in John Prescott's opinions about schooling from 2005.

I've demonstrated that they're also your opinions in 2016. So go on. What is Khorbiyn going to do about the great danger of good schools? And in what way did I quote him out of context?

ruggedtoast

westernpromise wrote: »

I've demonstrated that they're also your opinions in 2016. So go on. What is Khorbiyn going to do about the great danger of good schools? And in what way did I quote him out of context?

You haven't demonstrated any such thing. You've set up a clumsy strawman that you expect me to defend so you can start ranting about communists who want everyone to live in gulags wearing dungarees and manufacturing left shoes.

If you would like to present one of JC's actual policies as a point of disagreement I might grace you with a response.

If you want to dig up John Prescott excerpts from the last decade, less so.

Thrugelmir

ruggedtoast wrote: »

If you would like to present one of JC's actual policies as a point of disagreement I might grace you with a response.

When there's detailed proposals to consider we can debate them. Words made in speeches are cheap. Substance is a little more difficult to come by.

ruggedtoast

ruggedtoast wrote: »

I am just not very interested in John Prescott's opinions about schooling from 2005.

Maybe you could find a Prescottologist to thrash it out with, or hit up his Twitter.

Back in 2016 (the present, in case you are confused) - there is an entire Tory government introducing policy that is completely detrimental to the good of the country.

Thrugelmir wrote: »

When there's detailed proposals to consider we can debate them. Words made in speeches are cheap. Substance is a little more difficult to come by.

So you are basically admitting that you know nothing about Corbyn's policies but just oppose them anyway - whatever they are.

Give me strength...

westernpromise

ruggedtoast wrote: »

You haven't demonstrated any such thing. You've set up a clumsy strawman that you expect me to defend so you can start ranting about communists who want everyone to live in gulags wearing dungarees and manufacturing left shoes.

If you would like to present one of JC's actual policies as a point of disagreement I might grace you with a response.

If you want to dig up John Prescott excerpts from the last decade, less so.

I've invited you to say whether you agree with Prescott that good schools are a "great danger". It's not in doubt that he said it and I've given you the exact and full context. So:

1/ Do you agree that good schools are a great danger?
2/ Do you agree the focus should therefore be on making all schools equally bad, so that nobody gains over your Peckham boy by going to a good one?

ffacoffipawb

ruggedtoast wrote: »

You can't sound Welsh and be English. It's impossible.

Yes you can, because Owen Smith is English. Unless Morecambe, where he was born, is in Wales. Last time I checked, it wasn't.

If you teach a parrot to bark, does that make it a dog?

I am Welsh, but I sound English. However I am Welsh, born in Wales, and Welsh is my first language, felly twll dy din di, washi.

You obviously don't understand simple logic, are you a Labour voter?

setmefree2

ruggedtoast wrote: »

Absolutely. This is a transitional phase.

The establishment are desperately trying to avoid the transition.

:rotfl::rotfl:You really are priceless :rotfl::rotfl: