An Evening With... Jeremy Corbyn

TrickyTree83

Wild_Rover wrote: »

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

This recent tirade started when he said no one had looked at the policies. Yet people have, then we descended into labelling and ad hominem attacks.

ukcarper

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.

Quite a few Tory MPs seem to be opposed to grammar schools are they the left.

CLAPTON

ukcarper wrote: »

Quite a few Tory MPs seem to be opposed to grammar schools are they the left.

they probably send their children to public schools.

LHW99

Grammar schools work(ed) for the kids who can think in the abstract and can work with concepts on paper rather than in 3D - that was what the 11+ used to test. The problem at the time was not that grammar schools didn't do what they were supposed to - it was that the secondary moderns by and large did not do well by many of their intake.

So it was obviously logical to ditch the grammars, turn the secondary moderns into comprehensives and force all the kids to suffer the lower standards.
I remember when my old grammer had to merge to become a comp the schools that amalgamated had no timetable at all for the first year because they were on four sites, and teachers couldn't get from one site to another in between lessons. It took someyears before a single site was built

bobbymotors

Thatcher was the right person for the time...the country was in a dreadful state after the disastrous Callaghan government. No one believed in her till she confronted Arthur Scargill and won.

But when they got rid of her in 1990, it really was time for her to go.

The right person, at the right time.

However, we still need Rt to tell us of a socialist regime that actually works ok. I cant think of one but i might be wrong.

I am getting on,i can remember every government from 1964....and there is not ONE labour government that has left the country better off than when they started. Sure, they've thrown money at things, but it was all borrowed money, and that always needs to be paid back.

We keep hearing 'austerity' 'cuts' savage spending review'...it's actually called living within your means, a hard but vital lesson.

ruggedtoast

bobbymotors wrote: »

Thatcher was the right person for the time...the country was in a dreadful state after the disastrous Callaghan government. No one believed in her till she confronted Arthur Scargill and won.

But when they got rid of her in 1990, it really was time for her to go.

The right person, at the right time.

However, we still need Rt to tell us of a socialist regime that actually works ok. I cant think of one but i might be wrong.

I am getting on,i can remember every government from 1964....and there is not ONE labour government that has left the country better off than when they started. Sure, they've thrown money at things, but it was all borrowed money, and that always needs to be paid back.

We keep hearing 'austerity' 'cuts' savage spending review'...it's actually called living within your means, a hard but vital lesson.

You bandy about words like "socialist" and "communist" without apparently the faintest idea what you mean.

Corbyn's policies would be in line with the Nordic countries, France or Germany. Hardly socialist dystopias.

ruggedtoast

LHW99 wrote: »

Grammar schools work(ed) for the kids who can think in the abstract and can work with concepts on paper rather than in 3D - that was what the 11+ used to test. The problem at the time was not that grammar schools didn't do what they were supposed to - it was that the secondary moderns by and large did not do well by many of their intake.

So it was obviously logical to ditch the grammars, turn the secondary moderns into comprehensives and force all the kids to suffer the lower standards.
I remember when my old grammer had to merge to become a comp the schools that amalgamated had no timetable at all for the first year because they were on four sites, and teachers couldn't get from one site to another in between lessons. It took someyears before a single site was built

If you have schools that self select students based on an arbitrary test the working class ones won't have seen before, and then consign the 80% who fail into holding pens designed to make them feel like failures, they will be failures.

More than half the people on here ranting about grammar schools clearly wouldn't have got into one, unless the criteria for passing the 11+ was an inability to spell, capitalise words correctly, or master basic syntax.

There is no average ability child born to wealthy parents in the UK, who turns to the private education system only to be told:

"Your child isn't very bright so there's no point you spending any money on her and even if you did we couldn't educate her beyond being a grunting low class slob anyway."

This is fundamentally what the Tories want to inflict on 80% of state school children. Its social engineering designed to disempower the working class and render them ignorant and supine vessels for Murdoch propaganda.

Conrad

Corbyn last night said we should check the writings on anti semitism of Orwell, so I did, and what I found was he had a life long battle with his revulsion of Jews, such as describing London Jewish women as loud, rude, always drawing attention to themselves, and other more disparaging stuff I won't mention here.

He was obsessed with what he felt were disagreeable inalienable characteristics, mentioned throughout his diary, although tempered in his books.

Interesting for me was I then read only 10% of Jews are Semetic, but most Arabs of the region are Semetic. I read that the Rothschilds financed both sides of every European war since 1700. Then I discovered the roots of Nazism were steeped in anti capitalism and the Star of David was an old Germanic occult symbol. Confused or what, thanks Jeremy.

[Deleted User]

Good morning Rugged.... how goes the day for you?

I was just wondering - you were reasonably quick to respond to the post by LHW99.

Are you planning to respond to the post by Bobbymotors including the bit -

"However, we still need Rt to tell us of a socialist regime that actually works ok. I cant think of one but i might be wrong.".........

or maybe that question was a bit too specific for you? If so, will it just join the other great unanswerable of our time, like requests for your viwes on issues like Labour's 50+ winnable constituencies, what you think about tax bands, thresholds and rates, etc?

I'm nipping out for a while, so that'll give you plenty of time to think. :cool:

WR

TrickyTree83

Wild_Rover wrote: »

Good morning Rugged.... how goes the day for you?

I was just wondering - you were reasonably quick to respond to the post by LHW99.

Are you planning to respond to the post by Bobbymotors including the bit -

"However, we still need Rt to tell us of a socialist regime that actually works ok. I cant think of one but i might be wrong.".........

or maybe that question was a bit too specific for you? If so, will it just join the other great unanswerable of our time, like requests for your viwes on issues like Labour's 50+ winnable constituencies, what you think about tax bands, thresholds and rates, etc?

I'm nipping out for a while, so that'll give you plenty of time to think. :cool:

WR

According to Jeremy it's 90 seats from the Tories, Smith thinks 106.

Bleak doesn't do the situation justice.