An Evening With... Jeremy Corbyn

TrickyTree83

ruggedtoast wrote: »

No, the story is that you achieved. Given your age, mostly under a Labour government that you detest, crippling you with comprehensive education that apparently educated you, and the terrible certainty of a welfare safety net that would catch you if you took a risk that failed to pay off.

Now the system that you succeeded under is under threat, and for some reason you are pleased. Which makes no sense at all considering the background you say you have, as the march toward neoliberalism is designed to stop people like you succeeding.

But that is what propaganda does. It makes people want that which is diametrically opposed to their interests.

My success was despite the system I can assure you. At 17 I was told by my IT teacher "You'll never work in the industry", I sincerely doubt it was some form of reverse psychology. None of it was what I would consider good apart from perhaps the English teaching, and not long after I eventually left that school at 18 it was classed as a failing school and had money pumped into it.

So no I don't agree with what you've said. I fully agree that grammar schools should be available to those who want to use them, I don't agree that they should be denied the opportunity because of ideology.

The welfare state is a good idea poorly implemented, possibly to the benefit of Labour as a political party. Why are we handing out money to the destitute? A roof over their head, food vouchers so they don't go hungry and all other resources attributed to help them should go on training. It should not be possible to achieve the anomalies of a single mum with 13 kids. Or a family of 8 in a house worth over a million on housing benefit. I appreciate that these are the extreme examples, but they prove that the system is flawed, it needs to change.

I would consider myself a libertarian, small government, light touch regulation, as free as we can get it trade and no state involvement in your private life. If you want to marry someone of the same gender you should never have had to get the permission of the state. If I want to send my children to a grammar school I should not have to get permission from the state. Etc... Big government continually makes excuses for more big government, and shrieks like billy-o when people attempt to reign it in and shrink it.

ruggedtoast

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

My success was despite the system I can assure you. At 17 I was told by my IT teacher "You'll never work in the industry", I sincerely doubt it was some form of reverse psychology. None of it was what I would consider good apart from perhaps the English teaching, and not long after I eventually left that school at 18 it was classed as a failing school and had money pumped into it.

So no I don't agree with what you've said. I fully agree that grammar schools should be available to those who want to use them, I don't agree that they should be denied the opportunity because of ideology.

The welfare state is a good idea poorly implemented, possibly to the benefit of Labour as a political party. Why are we handing out money to the destitute? A roof over their head, food vouchers so they don't go hungry and all other resources attributed to help them should go on training. It should not be possible to achieve the anomalies of a single mum with 13 kids. Or a family of 8 in a house worth over a million on housing benefit. I appreciate that these are the extreme examples, but they prove that the system is flawed, it needs to change.

I would consider myself a libertarian, small government, light touch regulation, as free as we can get it trade and no state involvement in your private life. If you want to marry someone of the same gender you should never have had to get the permission of the state. If I want to send my children to a grammar school I should not have to get permission from the state. Etc... Big government continually makes excuses for more big government, and shrieks like billy-o when people attempt to reign it in and shrink it.

I see, well make sure you get enough malted milks for Clapton, I am sure you will have lots to discuss.

Maybe the ghost of Margaret Thatcher will pop by as well. I presume you'll have to draw the blinds then.

Good day.

CLAPTON

ruggedtoast wrote: »

I see, well make sure you get enough malted milks for Clapton, I am sure you will have lots to discuss.

Maybe the ghost of Margaret Thatcher will pop by as well. I presume you'll have to draw the blinds then.

Good day.

good old toxic toastie

no ideas except to blame all the ills of the world on a woman.

TrickyTree83

ruggedtoast wrote: »

I see, well make sure you get enough malted milks for Clapton, I am sure you will have lots to discuss.

Maybe the ghost of Margaret Thatcher will pop by as well. I presume you'll have to draw the blinds then.

Good day.

Not an argument.

Next you'll be referring to Hitler and the Nazi's and I'll be linking you to this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law

CLAPTON

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

Not an argument.

Next you'll be referring to Hitler and the Nazi's and I'll be linking you to this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law

No I don't think so

toxic toastie see Thatcher as being worse that any Nazi
and even blames her for all the lost mining jobs between 1950 and 1980

westernpromise

I fully agree that grammar schools should be available to those who want to use them, I don't agree that they should be denied the opportunity because of ideology.

And this is Toastie's problem. Opponents of grammar schools shed a lot of crocodile tears, but the real reason they don't like them is that they wouldn't have got in and nor would their kids. And what they can't have, they want nobody else to have. It as though they think there is a fixed amount of education available, and if some get a good education, others must get a worse one.

The idea that a secondary modern is worse than a comp can only be true if the denizens of the latter somehow gain from having 11+ kids among them. If so then presumably the grammar haters feel that the 11+ kids should be sacrificed by being sent to the comp for the benefit of the others. The selfishness and entitlement of this attitude is repellent.

The left can't make up its mind whether it hates grammars because they do work as advertised or despises them because they don't. While it makes up its mind, the world moves on.

westernpromise

CLAPTON wrote: »

No I don't think so

toxic toastie see Thatcher as being worse that any Nazi
and even blames her for all the lost mining jobs between 1950 and 1980

The left despises women. It thinks they're so useless they can't get ahead without quotas.

ruggedtoast

westernpromise wrote: »

I fully agree that grammar schools should be available to those who want to use them, I don't agree that they should be denied the opportunity because of ideology.

And this is Toastie's problem. Opponents of grammar schools shed a lot of crocodile tears, but the real reason they don't like them is that they wouldn't have got in and nor would their kids. And what they can't have, they want nobody else to have. It as though they think there is a fixed amount of education available, and if some get a good education, others must get a worse one.

The idea that a secondary modern is worse than a comp can only be true if the denizens of the latter somehow gain from having 11+ kids among them. If so then presumably the grammar haters feel that the 11+ kids should be sacrificed by being sent to the comp for the benefit of the others. The selfishness and entitlement of this attitude is repellent.

The left can't make up its mind whether it hates grammars because they do work as advertised or despises them because they don't. While it makes up its mind, the world moves on.

Having read your disassociative paranoid ranting for a few weeks I am far from convinced you would excel in the survival of the fittest dystopia you long for.

You should probably thank the quotas. I imagine you have been part of a few in your time.

CLAPTON

ruggedtoast wrote: »

Having read your disassociative paranoid ranting for a few weeks I am far from convinced you would excel in the survival of the fittest dystopia you long for.

You should probably thank the quotas. I imagine you have been part of a few in your time.

so toxic toastie : still no recipe for actually helping people improve their lot in life

[Deleted User]

CLAPTON wrote: »

so toxic toastie : still no recipe for actually helping people improve their lot in life

No, Clapton old chap. We do not always agree but I'm afraid I must stop you there. This is the "an evening with" thread.

Ruggedtoast would much prefer not to answer questions on economics, policies etc on the "Dystopia" thread...... :whistle: ; he insists on not answering questions on detail on the correct thread.:cool:

WR