Should Corbyn remain as Labour leader?

[SasaS]

Nothing to do with it. The kids there know they'll be rewarded for being cruel, evil, capitalist arseholes and don't care one bit who they hurt on the way. They need fighting and killing, not understanding. Capitalism has run its course, consumed by its greed. The revolution is coming.

 

 

[Strontium]

Being selfish (whatever that is supposed to mean) is cruel and evil, but slaughtering people en masse is okay.

[Boss]

Er, they aren't.

 

Unless of course you mean that you actually want to make a judgement on an 11 year old child, a judgement that will have a huge bearing on the rest of their life. 

 

There is ample scope at comprehensive schools for the most able to achieve.

 

They are, and i only need to delve into my own experiences as proof of that.

 

I was expelled from a higher set maths class in year 9 or 10 (can’t remember which). I was put in a class with kids with ADHD, behavioural problems and lads with hearing aids that could barely comprehend Dr Seuss (not even lying).  I’m sure there was some undiagnosed autistic spectrum disorders going on looking back, but it was just classified as bad behaviour.

 

That class was carnage every week. It was like a retarded Scouse version of Dangerous Minds. The whole purpose of the class, was to mentally break the poor soul that had the misfortune of teaching us. I saw teachers, broken, burst into tears and then leave the room never to return. It was worn as a badge of honour to do that to the substitute teachers.

 

I learnt nothing during my time in that class. Pythagoras theory? no chance. Trigonometry? not even once. I ended up with a C and that's only because i learnt everything i know from a GCSE revision book in the buildup to the test.

 

The point is this 'mixed classes' ideology wishes to unleash a bunch of disruptive arseholes, uniformly, in every class. Don't you think that's unfair on the kids that want to learn?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Boss]

Er, they aren't.

 

Unless of course you mean that you actually want to make a judgement on an 11 year old child, a judgement that will have a huge bearing on the rest of their life. 

 

There is ample scope at comprehensive schools for the most able to achieve.

 

They are, and i only need to delve into my own experiences as proof of that.

 

I was expelled from a higher set maths class in year 9 or 10 (can’t remember which). I was put in a class with kids with ADHD, behavioural problems and lads with hearing aids that could barely comprehend Dr Seuss (not even lying).  I’m sure there was some undiagnosed autistic spectrum disorders going on looking back, but it was just classified as bad behaviour.

 

That class was carnage every week. It was like a retarded Scouse version of Dangerous Minds. The whole purpose of the class, was to mentally break the poor soul that had the misfortune of teaching us. I saw teachers, broken, burst into tears and then leave the room never to return. It was worn as a badge of honour to do that to the substitute teachers.

 

I learnt nothing during my time in that class. Pythagoras theory? no chance. Trigonometry? not even once. I ended up with a C and that's only because i learnt everything i know from a GCSE revision book in the buildup to the test.

 

The point is this 'mixed classes' ideology wishes to unleash a bunch of disruptive arseholes, uniformly, in every class. Don't you think that's unfair on the kids that want to learn?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest Pistonbroke]

Strong smell of bullshit in here, double dose too. 

[Strontium]

They are, and i only need to delve into my own experiences as proof of that.

 

I was expelled from a higher set maths class in year 9 or 10 (can’t remember which). I was put in a class with kids with ADHD, behavioural problems and lads with hearing aids that could barely comprehend Dr Seuss (not even lying).  I’m sure there was some undiagnosed autistic spectrum disorders going on looking back, but it was just classified as bad behaviour.

 

That class was carnage every week. It was like a retarded Scouse version of Dangerous Minds. The whole purpose of the class, was to mentally break the poor soul that had the misfortune of teaching us. I saw teachers, broken, burst into tears and then leave the room never to return. It was worn as a badge of honour to do that to the substitute teachers.

 

I learnt nothing during my time in that class. Pythagoras theory? no chance. Trigonometry? not even once. I ended up with a C and that's only because i learnt everything i know from a GCSE revision book in the buildup to the test.

 

The point is this 'mixed classes' ideology wishes to unleash a bunch of disruptive arseholes, uniformly, in every class. Don't you think that's unfair on the kids that want to learn?

 

Sounds like Hell. You did well to escape with a C.

 

I should also mention, they still have setting in grammar schools. The least able science students went into a bottom set where they only did Combined Science rather than three separate sciences. We were also set for maths, and those of us in the top set were allowed to drop 1 of our 5 maths and English lessons a week in order to do Latin. Top set also did maths a year early.

 

I mean, how many comps even allow you to do Latin? None that I know of. And who is allowed to take maths at 15 (or 14, in my case) in a comp? Nobody. There's no way I would have had the quality of education I had at Blue Coat if I'd gone to Broadgreen like half my junior school.

[Strontium]

Anyway, back to Corbyn, and hopefully I won't be accused of opposing this "just because it's Labour".

 

Jeremy Corbyn: UK can be better off out of the EU

First speech of 2017 will make clear that Labour is not wedded to free movement and supports ‘repatriating powers’ from Brussels



Jeremy Corbyn will use his first speech of 2017 to claim that Britain can be better off outside the EU and insist that the Labour party has no principled objection to ending the free movement of European workers in the UK.

Setting out his party’s pitch on Brexit in the year that Theresa May will trigger article 50, the Labour leader will also reach for the language of leave campaigners by promising to deliver on a pledge to spend millions of pounds extra on the NHS every week.

He will say Labour’s priority in EU negotiations will remain full access to the European single market, but that his party wants “managed migration” and to repatriate powers from Brussels that would allow governments to intervene in struggling industries such as steel. Sources suggested that the economic demands were about tariff-free access to the single market, rather than membership that they argued did not exist.

Corbyn’s speech and planned media appearances represent the first example of a new anti-establishment drive designed by strategists to emphasise and spread his image as a leftwing populist to a new set of voters. They hope the revamp will help overturn poor poll ratings across the country, particularly with a looming byelection in Copeland, Cumbria.

Speaking in Peterborough, chosen because it is a marginal Tory seat that voted heavily in favour of Brexit, and which Labour is targeting, Corbyn will lay into May’s failure to reveal any Brexit planning, and say that Labour will not give the government a free pass in the negotiations.

After comparing the prime minister’s refusal to offer MPs a vote on the final Brexit deal to the behaviour of Henry VIII in a Guardian interview, Corbyn will say: “Not since the second world war has Britain’s ruling elite so recklessly put the country in such an exposed position without a plan.”

In a town that has experienced high rates of change in terms of migration, he will use his strongest language yet on the subject.

“Labour is not wedded to freedom of movement for EU citizens as a point of principle. But nor can we afford to lose full access to the European single market on which so many British businesses and jobs depend. Changes to the way migration rules operate from the EU will be part of the negotiations,” he will say.

“Labour supports fair rules and reasonably managed migration as part of the post-Brexit relationship with the EU.”

[Neil G]

What do you mean by that?

Republican, albeit not an active or vocal one.

 

Didn't sing the national anthem - however many times he sings it from now on he won't get close to fixing the damage from that first occasion.

 

Doesn't talk Britain up and doesn't articulate a sense of national purpose, or at least doesn't frame it in a way that would resonate with voters who care about national identity - the Tories have always been good at this, even when there's absolutely no substance to their words.

 

No acknowledgement of the question of English identity - good policies on devolution and giving power back to local communities are the best way to tackle this, but Corbyn has failed to link the two together so far.

 

Not much to say on Scottish independence and what Labour will do to keep the Union together - plenty of self-described English patriots would be happy to wave Scotland off, but at least it would show voters that Corbyn identified with the concept of Britain and was prepared to fight for it.

 

Previous support for a united Ireland - no longer his view as far as I'm aware, but in the context of his historical Sinn Fein links and the inevitable push for Irish reunification after Brexit it could be a problem for him.

 

Not all of these are policy positions as such, but they are all facets of his vision for Britain (or lack of one) that are perceived by voters as weaknesses that go beyond just personal shortcomings. Corbyn could be a much better speaker, organiser and leader than he is and would still run into trouble on those issues.

[skend04]

Anyway, back to Corbyn, and hopefully I won't be accused of opposing this "just because it's Labour".

He's a fucking idiot. It's taken several months of re-imaging to come back as Tory-lite? Not even in a good way. He's now chosen the 'have cake and eat it' version.

[AngryOfTuebrook]

I'm not sure what you're referring to. Nevertheless, I would always be hesitant to draw a conclusion from a single datapoint.

 

You'll of course note I wasn't actually opposing renationalising the railways, just pointing out that folk are dreaming if they think renationalisation is some magic bullet.

 

While having no firm position on railway renationalisation, I obviously remain sceptical about putting billions of pounds of public money into railways that are overwhelmingly used by those of above average wealth. As a general rule I would tend to believe that public money should be spent on improving the lot of the least well off, not subsidising cheap travel for rich commuters.

You do know that these dreaming "folk" of yours don't exist? Why the fuck are you arguing with the fairies of your imagination?

 

In the real world, millions of people know that privatised and fragmented railways don't work. Worse than that, they are far more expensive, not only for passengers, but for taxpayers. It's been a while since I've seen any updated figures, but I recall seeing that every passenger mile on our private railways costs the taxpayer 3 times as much as a passenger mile on British Rail.

 

If you want to prioritise public spending, an easy place to start is rail renationalisation.

[AngryOfTuebrook]

SD's school taught him that he is clever and all other "folk" are "thickos". All these years later, he hasn't grown out of that arrogant, self-defeating bullshit.

 

It's a compelling argument against grammar schools.

[Lee909]

So it's okay to select by ability within one school, but not to select by ability over several schools?

 

Someone is going to have to explain the logic behind that to me.

Id say it is.

Because if a kid starts to grasp say maths he can be moved up to the top set. If struggling he can be moved down a set. Once you split them in schools you have done it permanently on how intelligent they were at a specific age.

[Jose Jones]

SD's school taught him that he is clever and all other "folk" are "thickos". All these years later, he hasn't grown out of that arrogant, self-defeating bullshit.

 

It's a compelling argument against grammar schools.

I don't think they would have taught him that at school.

The compelling argument should be how the school system provides the best education to the most people.

 

I'm pretty sure that it's been shown that grammar schools don't really have any greater impact than comprehensive schools, which is one of the reasons they were phased out.

 

As with a lot of things, the scando's tend to do it best - particularly Finland I think.

[VladimirIlyich]

I am reluctant to get involved in this argument over education due to me being a thicko and being in the company of such a genius. I went to the same comp as AoT so I am not worthy to contribute to a thread with such brilliant minds involved in it.

[Rico1304]

This is the reason education should be outside politics. Let the experts decide the best system and then back them with the necessary funds. If that ends up being a grammar style system then tough, if it ends up being comprehensive then tough.

[Section_31]

Don't see the big deal with what Corbyn's said there, 'old school' Labour have traditionally been anti EU anyway, the first 'out' campaign back in the day was led by the left. 

[Mook]

I see Corbyn has indicated this morning that he would like to see a cap on maximum earnings.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-38568116

 

So we can expect increased attacks on him from the media then.

[Rico1304]

I see Corbyn has indicated this morning that he would like to see a cap on maximum earnings.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-38568116

 

So we can expect increased attacks on him from the media then.

So you think it's a good idea?

[Nelly-Szoboszlai]

I think we'll see more mis-reporting on what Corbyn said today.

 

I'm not sure I'm in full agreement with a maximum wage law, setting down in legislation an actual top line amount.

 

But, to bury one's head in the sand and largely do nothing about the growing disparity between incomes surely shouldn't appeal to large chunks of the electorate either?

 

What Corbyn has said today will be attacked. Don't doubt it for one second. I'll go with the lefty, politics of envy angle being used.

 

But, he's hinted on it. The wider context of what he's saying. These high paid people sometimes work for tax avoiding corporations too. So, money that should be going into the public purse is instead being used to inflate the already large salaries of some people. Corbyn stated that this could be used to fund the NHS and other things instead, if the right taxation was recouped.

 

A fair point, surely?

[Mook]

So you think it's a good idea?

 

If you read what he's said then, yes - I agree with that.

 

1% of people in Britain own the same amount of wealth as the other 99% put together, something needs to be done about the distribution of it.

[Jairzinho]

I see Corbyn has indicated this morning that he would like to see a cap on maximum earnings.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-38568116

 

So we can expect increased attacks on him from the media then.

 

Followed by millions of turkeys complaining about someone blocking the oven door.

[Rico1304]

So the best way to prevent corporate tax evasion is to cap wages?

[stringvest]

I agree with the principle of capping maximum earnings, the reason it won't happen is that there are myriad ways of getting around the issue.  Shares, gifts, pensions - a million ways of dodging the cap, and plenty of people incentivised to do it for others.  

 

The fact that the top 1% have been siphoning money away from the majority of working people in this trickle up economy is shameful, but the populace has been sedated, dumbed down, and fed for decades that material aspiration is what life is all about.  And they believe it. So they continue to work longer and longer hours for less and less money while borrowing more and more to try to reach this aspirational lifestyle everyone is telling them about.   

 

corporate tax evasion will continue unabated, because of the obvious reason that there is no-one in power with the appetite to do anything about it, when it feathers their own nest so comfortably.  

[Rico1304]

If you read what he's said then, yes - I agree with that.

 

1% of people in Britain own the same amount of wealth as the other 99% put together, something needs to be done about the distribution of it.

So how does a wage cap solve that problem? It's a daft idea, pandering to people who already vote for him. Do you honestly think anyone listening to that who voted for other parties will now be tempted to vote for him?

[Rico1304]

But what would a cap achieve? You make it high so talent doesn't leave the country and the impact is negligible, or you make it low and watch people leave reducing the amount of tax revenue.