Should Corbyn remain as Labour leader?

[Bobby Hundreds]

24 minutes ago, A Red said:

32 hour working week? Fucking hell. I'm surprised more on here arent outraged at the increase.

I'd be happy if they just stopped employers from forcing people to work over 40 hours and treating them like property.

[Strontium]

Obviously it's a policy that has zero chance of happening anyway, but abolishing private schools will do nothing to solve entrenched privilege. Well-off families will still be able to buy better education for their children, whether that be through purchasing more expensive houses in catchment areas with better schools, or hiring private tutors.

 

My school was a selective grammar school with no catchment area, but the overwhelming majority of pupils there were still from the wealthier parts of the city. There were only a few of us from North Liverpool. Because success more than anything is highly dependent on the value parents place on education, and families with money invariably place much more value on education (to the extent that some of them are prepared to pay thousands a year extra). This won't change if you abolish private schools. Rich kids will still be far more successful.

[Jairzinho]

3 minutes ago, Bobby Hundreds said:

I'd be happy if they just stopped employers from forcing people to work over 40 hours and treating them like property.

Well, they're going to further. Which is ace.

[SasaS]

32 minutes ago, moof said:

It’s not analogous. Fact of the matter is private schools segregate children based on wealth of their parents. It’s an immoral system and one of the biggest structural problems in our society. 

Wouldn't they just be replaced by a system of excellent (publicly run) primary schools in middle class and above catchment areas?

Edit: didn't see SD already posting.

[Bobby Hundreds]

2 minutes ago, Jairzinho said:

Well, they're going to further. Which is ace.

Shame they won't win. This is a Tory cuntry.

[AngryOfTuebrook]

3 minutes ago, Strontium Dog™ said:

Obviously it's a policy that has zero chance of happening anyway, but abolishing private schools will do nothing to solve entrenched privilege. Well-off families will still be able to buy better education for their children, whether that be through purchasing more expensive houses in catchment areas with better schools, or hiring private tutors.

 

My school was a selective grammar school with no catchment area, but the overwhelming majority of pupils there were still from the wealthier parts of the city. There were only a few of us from North Liverpool. Because success more than anything is highly dependent on the value parents place on education, and families with money invariably place much more value on education (to the extent that some of them are prepared to pay thousands a year extra). This won't change if you abolish private schools. Rich kids will still be far more successful.

It's not about the quality of teaching or the learning environment.  It's about the class structures that public schools prop up.

 

 

[Strontium]

Just now, AngryofTuebrook said:

It's not about the quality of teaching or the learning environment.  It's about the class structures that public schools prop up.

 

 

 

If you think you can shatter class structures by cancelling private schools, I think you're going to be very disappointed.

[cloggypop]

No sure how you'll cope without an Eton educated PM

 

 

 

[AngryOfTuebrook]

2 hours ago, A Red said:

If you are going to negotiate a deal and then argue that people should reject it, arent they purposely going to negotiate a shit deal? I might be missing something but seems a bit mad to me.

You're not missing anything.  It was a fucking ridiculous idea which would have handed the initiative to twats like Johnson and Farage. 

 

Thankfully, Labour can now rightly claim to have the only sensible policy on Brexit: one that doesn't try to dismiss half the electorate, but offers Leavers their only chance of leaving with a deal and offers Remainers their only chance of a second referendum. 

[AngryOfTuebrook]

2 minutes ago, cloggypop said:

No sure how you'll cope without an Eton educated PM

 

 

 

We'll be fine. Corbyn went to a private school. 

[Jairzinho]

8 minutes ago, Bobby Hundreds said:

Shame they won't win. This is a Tory cuntry.

They'll die soon, mate. Be positive.

[AngryOfTuebrook]

4 minutes ago, Strontium Dog™ said:

 

If you think you can shatter class structures by cancelling private schools, I think you're going to be very disappointed.

Nobody said that was all it takes. But you'd be hard-pressed to change the anti-democratic system of class if you don't tackle any of its key components.

[moof]

23 minutes ago, A Red said:

You could have said similar or comparable you big headed cunt, I had to look that up.

 

I think the principle is the same, if you want the same education and healthcare for all then you get rid of fee paying schools and private practitioners as you must consider them immoral. You didnt answer as to whether you have used private healthcare 

Yes, I’ve used private medical care. It was very expensive. Physiotherapy, mental health care, dental work, etc etc should be available to all, at a highly subsidised rate, at least.

 

Private schooling is unavailable to 90% of the population - a more clear example of privilege leading to privileged outcomes you’ll never see. It’s a fundamental foundation underpinning the inequality in society and the dissonance between the elite and the rest of us. It’s a major problem 

[A Red]

17 minutes ago, AngryofTuebrook said:

You're not missing anything.  It was a fucking ridiculous idea which would have handed the initiative to twats like Johnson and Farage. 

 

Thankfully, Labour can now rightly claim to have the only sensible policy on Brexit: one that doesn't try to dismiss half the electorate, but offers Leavers their only chance of leaving with a deal and offers Remainers their only chance of a second referendum. 

Its even more mad than I thought.

 

So let me get this right. Labour if it wins a GE, will negotiate a new deal for up to 3 months then a referendum after 6 months. Whilst it is negotiating this deal they will not tell us what they want to do - stay or leave, and will only make it clear when the referendum campaign starts. How can you negotiate for something when you dont have a view on the outcome?

 

So when I come to vote, all i know is that Labour want a referendum not what the party wants to happen. 

 

Labour will be the only major party unable to tell the electorate where it stands on the most important issue in 80 odd years. A potential government should be able tell the electorate what they stand for, just stating they want a referendum is a cop out.

[Bjornebye]

5 minutes ago, A Red said:

Its even more mad than I thought.

 

So let me get this right. Labour if it wins a GE, will negotiate a new deal for up to 3 months then a referendum after 6 months. Whilst it is negotiating this deal they will not tell us what they want to do - stay or leave, and will only make it clear when the referendum campaign starts. How can you negotiate for something when you dont have a view on the outcome?

 

So when I come to vote, all i know is that Labour want a referendum not what the party wants to happen. 

 

Labour will be the only major party unable to tell the electorate where it stands on the most important issue in 80 odd years. A potential government should be able tell the electorate what they stand for, just stating they want a referendum is a cop out.

Yep you are as thick as I thought. 

 

I think Corbyn wants to respect the vote but equally wants people to have a choice on what they voted for in the first place. In other words "We will respect the vote of the people when the people have voted for something they know what they are voting for"

 

Not fucking hard is it. 

[Brownie]

21 minutes ago, A Red said:

A potential government should be able tell the electorate what they stand for, just stating they want a referendum is a cop out.

That’s the whole point though isn’t it? They can’t, because they are split themselves, just like the people.

 

The Tories and Labour are not united behind either position (the Tories are obviously more split), their parties reflect the position of the country.

 

May as well be open about that and leave it to the people to decide than to align behind a false position (and therefore ignore half of the people).
 

If Labour were in power then it would be a different story.

 

This is politics.

[Rico1304]

Turns out the shadow education secretary is from near me. Went to a school called Avondale and didn’t get a GCSE above a D.  

[A Red]

34 minutes ago, Bjornebye said:

Yep you are as thick as I thought. 

 

I think Corbyn wants to respect the vote but equally wants people to have a choice on what they voted for in the first place. In other words "We will respect the vote of the people when the people have voted for something they know what they are voting for"

 

Not fucking hard is it. 

Then why not say "we want to leave/stay but will give you another vote and will respect it because you will have had a clearer idea what you have voted for" The tories policy is leave, the lib dems is stay and labour is???

 

As for the being thick accusation, you might be right, clearly im not as bright as you, however these discussions tend to go far better without insults. 

[Bjornebye]

4 minutes ago, A Red said:

Then why not say "we want to leave/stay but will give you another vote and will respect it because you will have had a clearer idea what you have voted for" The tories policy is leave, the lib dems is stay and labour is???

 

As for the being thick accusation, you might be right, clearly im not as bright as you, however these discussions tend to go far better without insults. 

If you didn't support r*ngers I'd probably be nicer.

 

Read my post back, again. Thats what he is saying to anyone who isn't thick. 

[A Red]

26 minutes ago, Brownie said:

That’s the whole point though isn’t it? They can’t, because they are split themselves, just like the people.

 

The Tories and Labour are not united behind either position (the Tories are obviously more split), their parties reflect the position of the country.

 

May as well be open about that and leave it to the people to decide than to align behind a false position (and therefore ignore half of the people).
 

If Labour were in power then it would be a different story.

 

This is politics.

I'm not arguing against another referendum just that, as a voter, you should know what a parties policy is on something like remain/stay. As Rico stated, as a staunch remainer, how can he now vote labour? Just as if you are mad keen to leave, how can you vote labour? Far better Tory or Lib Dems.

 

Seems like a daft tactic to me.

[Bjornebye]

8 minutes ago, Rico1304 said:

Turns out the shadow education secretary is from near me. Went to a school called Avondale and didn’t get a GCSE above a D.  

Johnson wasn't elected. 

[A Red]

1 minute ago, Bjornebye said:

If you didn't support r*ngers I'd probably be nicer.

 

Read my post back, again. Thats what he is saying to anyone who isn't thick. 

1. I dont support Rangers. There is no relevance anyway, please knock it on the head

 

2. It isnt labours policy to state their preference until after the election.

 

I'm beginning to think that perhaps youre just as thick as me

[AngryOfTuebrook]

52 minutes ago, A Red said:

Its even more mad than I thought.

 

So let me get this right. Labour if it wins a GE, will negotiate a new deal for up to 3 months then a referendum after 6 months. Whilst it is negotiating this deal they will not tell us what they want to do - stay or leave, and will only make it clear when the referendum campaign starts. How can you negotiate for something when you dont have a view on the outcome?

 

So when I come to vote, all i know is that Labour want a referendum not what the party wants to happen. 

 

Labour will be the only major party unable to tell the electorate where it stands on the most important issue in 80 odd years. A potential government should be able tell the electorate what they stand for, just stating they want a referendum is a cop out.

Why do you need a party leader to tell you how to vote in the referendum? Can you not make your own mind up?

 

The people negotiating the deal will be negotiating acceptable terms on which to leave.  My understanding is that talk of the party "remaining neutral" means that MPs will be free to campaign to leave or remain.

 

It's a good-faith position that respects the electorate. 

[AngryOfTuebrook]

18 minutes ago, Rico1304 said:

Turns out the shadow education secretary is from near me. Went to a school called Avondale and didn’t get a GCSE above a D.  

Left school pregnant at 16.

 

Far more qualified to understand important issues than any Etonian silver-spoon cunt.

[Bobby Hundreds]

What makes Labour think they can get a deal any better than the May one?