Page 4 of 5

Posted: Thu Apr 29, 2010 12:57 pm
by tomoufc
OK GY and Boris. I got your posts mixed up or something so sorry.

I agree with Boris about Brown not being a Socialist. GY what are you on about? Or does real socialism not exist anymore in your view? Are all politcal ideologies now sqeezed into a neo-liberal framework as you see it?

Re:

Posted: Thu Apr 29, 2010 12:58 pm
by scooter
&quotGodalmingYellow&quot wrote:
&quotboris&quot wrote:
&quotGodalmingYellow&quot wrote: The same could be said for virtually every PPC over every party:

Gordon Brown because he is excessively socialist.
Nick Clegg because he is excessively liberal.
Nick Griffin because he is a racist thug and a wanker.
I agree, but &quotGordon Brown ... is excessively socialist.&quot is just simply untrue. One of the main problems with the Labour party since Blair arrived on the scene is their progressive distancing from anything slightly resembling Socialism, beginning with the removal of Clause 4 from their mandate. Christ, if you think Gordon Brown is a Socialist then I'd hate to see on a scale how far to the right you are!
:lol:

You see boxing people left and right doesn't work, and I don't fit into one of those boxes. That's is the problem with politics based around a party system.

On my Facebook page I describe myself as socially lef tof centre and economically right of centre, but even that doesn't work very well.

I like Green Party policies on creating green jobs and use of renewables and refusal to accept nuclear energy, but their economic and social justice arguments are laughable.

I like the Lib Dems policy of scrapping nukes and increasing personal allowance to £10k, and proportional representation, but their immigration amnesty is a joke, and Saint Vince has no idea about economics despite the media portrayals of the opposite, and their manifesto on the economy has huge holes in it.

I like the Tory cap on immigration and their guarantee to raise NHS spending ahead of inflation, but George Osborne is a buffoon.

I don't really like any Labour policies, and I think they've made a terrible mess of almost every aspect of this country, except maybe foreign aid, despite inheriting economic heaven.

I don't want to go on at length (collective sigh of relief :lol: ), but politics should be about getting policies right for the country as a whole, not improving it for some areas and not others, and not for meaningless irrelevant political ideals.
I've had three kids in the state education system since Labour came to power and I have to say my experience is that particularly at primary school level it is worlds ahead of where it was in 1997.

Also the limited experiences we as a family have had for the NHS have generally been good.

I still overall feel that I am better off under Labour than either of the other two main parties, but when that choice comes with GB it becomes a very close call.

Re:

Posted: Thu Apr 29, 2010 12:59 pm
by Sackcloth Ox
&quotboris&quot wrote:
&quotGodalmingYellow&quot wrote: Whether Mrs Duffy is a bigot, are should we more accurately say racist, we will probably never know.
But is she any good at penalties?
&quotSackcloth Ox&quot wrote:Politics is going to be very different from now on though.
No it's not. Politics will remain just the way it always has been, with self-serving liars seeking public office to assuage their egos and fill their coffers. The way politics is presented in the media may change, the Libs may even manage to achieve some sort of compromise reform with the voting system, but the politics itself will not change while this society champions the market and self-interest ahead of equality and common-wealth.

Complacent answer. It's already changing. The TV debates have woken a lot of previously politically uninterested citizens up. I'll give you two examples, my two younger daughters.

What's wrong with a marketplace subject to civilised controls btw?

Re:

Posted: Thu Apr 29, 2010 1:05 pm
by tomoufc
&quotGodalmingYellow&quot wrote:
&quottomoufc&quot wrote:
&quotGodalmingYellow&quot wrote: No myths need dispelling here. But your spelling needs attention.

Everyone in the World is descended from Africa, so talk of Latvian's in this context is irrelevant.
Check your grammer before you start critisising as well.
What is wrong with my grammer? Looks fine to me.
Right I've got it now. You refer to Latvian's. The way you have used the apostrophe suggests that a single Latvin ownes something. For example: I stole the Latvian's football. You were reffering to Latvians in the plural (which is &quotLatvians&quot) and so there was no need for the apostrophe.

Re:

Posted: Thu Apr 29, 2010 1:09 pm
by GodalmingYellow
&quottomoufc&quot wrote:
&quotGodalmingYellow&quot wrote:
&quottomoufc&quot wrote: Check your grammer before you start critisising as well.
What is wrong with my grammer? Looks fine to me.
Right I've got it now. You refer to Latvian's. The way you have used the apostrophe suggests that a single Latvin ownes something. For example: I stole the Latvian's football. You were reffering to Latvians in the plural (which is &quotLatvians&quot) and so there was no need for the apostrophe.
You're right. Good spot! :oops:

Re:

Posted: Thu Apr 29, 2010 1:12 pm
by Myles Francis
&quotGodalmingYellow&quot wrote:
&quotMyles Francis&quot wrote:
&quotGodalmingYellow&quot wrote:I can't see any connection between that and your use of a headline to batter a parliamentary candidate.
Before I respond to the substantive points, can we just clarify what you mean by this?
I would have thought it looks self evident Myles. Unless I have mis-read your original post, you used a single headline, with little evidence to support the headline, to complain about a PPC being not good enough for front bench duties as claimed by Cameron.
It's the use of the word &quotheadline&quot I'm unclear about. I wasn't sure if you were suggesting that I had seized on a media headline without looking further, which is not the case.

I guess that what you are suggesting is that because I have made a brief point (or &quotheadline&quot in your terminology) and haven't presented reams of evidence to support that point, it is worthless. Of course, presenting a brief point without all the supporting evidence in the first instance is something you could never be accussed of. :roll:

Coming back to the substantive issue, IMHO you seem to be missing the point by a good distance. The fact that the businesses went under, and the circumstances in which they did, matter not one jot. The issue is that the candidate is presented as a successful businessman whilst the records of the businesses to which he has been linked suggest otherwise. It is this lack of candour (if not an outright attempt to deceive) which is the problem.

I would also suggest that the range and depth of questions you aimed at me might be best addressed at the candidate to justify the claims which have been made if not by them directly, certainly on their behalf. Surely it is incumbent on them to be able to demonstrate the veracity of those claims?

Re:

Posted: Thu Apr 29, 2010 1:20 pm
by scooter
&quottomoufc&quot wrote:
&quotGodalmingYellow&quot wrote:
&quottomoufc&quot wrote: Check your grammer before you start critisising as well.
What is wrong with my grammer? Looks fine to me.
Right I've got it now. You refer to Latvian's. The way you have used the apostrophe suggests that a single Latvin ownes something. For example: I stole the Latvian's football. You were reffering to Latvians in the plural (which is &quotLatvians&quot) and so there was no need for the apostrophe.
Eventhough we are in the most turbulent of times, with the European economy facing meltdown, the looming prospect of the UK being run by a committee of nobodies and most importantly OUFC facing the defining moment of their season, it is so comforting to know the ROL apostrophe police are still on full alert.

Re:

Posted: Thu Apr 29, 2010 1:29 pm
by GodalmingYellow
&quotscooter&quot wrote:I've had three kids in the state education system since Labour came to power and I have to say my experience is that particularly at primary school level it is worlds ahead of where it was in 1997.

Also the limited experiences we as a family have had for the NHS have generally been good.

I still overall feel that I am better off under Labour than either of the other two main parties, but when that choice comes with GB it becomes a very close call.
My experience is somewhat different to that.

On the NHS: I had to wait 2 years for a knee operation. My wife needed treatment for an eye problem, but was told by the GP that the NHS in our area no longer provides medical treatment for eyes, except for acicdent and emergency cases. We were told that she had to private to get treatment.

If my neighbour, who is unemployed, needs a prescription, he has to pay for it, because his wife works more than 16 hours per week, irrelevant of the amount she is paid. Whereas someone on benefits gets the same prescription free.

The N in NHS stands for National, meaning a nationwide service free at the point of need. We don't have that anymore. We now have a multi-tiered health service in which where you live and the number of hours you work determines if you get treatment and the length of time that you wait.

I have 2 children in school. I have experience of both primary and secondary education. Class sizes are well over 30 in both and the effect is insufficient one to one teacher pupil time. SATS are a complete waste of time. There is virtually no physical education at primary level. There are no resources for capital expenditure to improve equipment, books and buildings. This money is largely raised from parents own pockets. Teachers have no power to deal with disruptive pupils, and the entrants policy means the wealthy move into areas covered by the best schools, putting huge pressure on those schools and preventing local children getting into local schools. Little is done to improve the failing schools. School lunches are very expensive, unless you are on benefits. School uniform policies enable schools to insist on very specific items of clothing irrelevant of cost. Teacher parent meetings are rare and last only a few minutes each and tell parents nothing. Oh and by the way, this is what is happening at the best schools, not the worst schools.

Any more examples you wish to discuss?

Re:

Posted: Thu Apr 29, 2010 1:35 pm
by tomoufc
&quotscooter&quot wrote:
&quottomoufc&quot wrote:
&quotGodalmingYellow&quot wrote: What is wrong with my grammer? Looks fine to me.
Right I've got it now. You refer to Latvian's. The way you have used the apostrophe suggests that a single Latvin ownes something. For example: I stole the Latvian's football. You were reffering to Latvians in the plural (which is &quotLatvians&quot) and so there was no need for the apostrophe.
Eventhough we are in the most turbulent of times, with the European economy facing meltdown, the looming prospect of the UK being run by a committee of nobodies and most importantly OUFC facing the defining moment of their season, it is so comforting to know the ROL apostrophe police are still on full alert.
Look, I didn't start this.

Re:

Posted: Thu Apr 29, 2010 1:37 pm
by SmileyMan
&quotboris&quot wrote:...this society champions the market and self-interest ahead of equality and common-wealth.
Just a (probably painful) question - how much has this changed under 13 years of Labour? And how much will it change with another 5?

If you don't know the answer to both is &quot3 tenths of fuck all&quot then you're kidding yourself.

Re:

Posted: Thu Apr 29, 2010 1:41 pm
by GodalmingYellow
&quotMyles Francis&quot wrote:
&quotGodalmingYellow&quot wrote:
&quotMyles Francis&quot wrote: Before I respond to the substantive points, can we just clarify what you mean by this?
I would have thought it looks self evident Myles. Unless I have mis-read your original post, you used a single headline, with little evidence to support the headline, to complain about a PPC being not good enough for front bench duties as claimed by Cameron.
It's the use of the word &quotheadline&quot I'm unclear about. I wasn't sure if you were suggesting that I had seized on a media headline without looking further, which is not the case.

I guess that what you are suggesting is that because I have made a brief point (or &quotheadline&quot in your terminology) and haven't presented reams of evidence to support that point, it is worthless. Of course, presenting a brief point without all the supporting evidence in the first instance is something you could never be accussed of. :roll:

Coming back to the substantive issue, IMHO you seem to be missing the point by a good distance. The fact that the businesses went under, and the circumstances in which they did, matter not one jot. The issue is that the candidate is presented as a successful businessman whilst the records of the businesses to which he has been linked suggest otherwise. It is this lack of candour (if not an outright attempt to deceive) which is the problem.

I would also suggest that the range and depth of questions you aimed at me might be best addressed at the candidate to justify the claims which have been made if not by them directly, certainly on their behalf. Surely it is incumbent on them to be able to demonstrate the veracity of those claims?
I wasn't referring to any media headline, only your use of a single sentence to condemn the PPC.

It remains unclear how you substantiate your use of the headline. How do you know these businesses have failed or the reaons for failure if that occurred. How do you know that the PPC does not have 100 other very successful businesses? These are important points, despite your protestations to the contrary, as the declaration of failed businesses may not be accurate, and thereby the case you put for lack of candour may be unreasonable.

You can't rely on a statement that the PPC had a business which failed with £3m debt, which underpins your complaint about lack of candour, without knowing the how's, why's, and wherefore's.

And I wasn't asking you to provide reams of evidence, I was simply wondering if you reached your conclusion by looking at the actual evidence, rather than media or political reports.

Re:

Posted: Thu Apr 29, 2010 1:47 pm
by boris
&quotSmileyMan&quot wrote:
&quotboris&quot wrote:...this society champions the market and self-interest ahead of equality and common-wealth.
Just a (probably painful) question - how much has this changed under 13 years of Labour? And how much will it change with another 5?

If you don't know the answer to both is &quot3 tenths of fuck all&quot then you're kidding yourself.
I have no illusions on that score.

Re:

Posted: Thu Apr 29, 2010 2:00 pm
by tomoufc
&quotboris&quot wrote:
&quotSmileyMan&quot wrote:
&quotboris&quot wrote:...this society champions the market and self-interest ahead of equality and common-wealth.
Just a (probably painful) question - how much has this changed under 13 years of Labour? And how much will it change with another 5?

If you don't know the answer to both is &quot3 tenths of fuck all&quot then you're kidding yourself.
I have no illusions on that score.
I think you should stand Boris. You would make an excellent candidate.

Posted: Thu Apr 29, 2010 2:12 pm
by amershamwrighty
It would be a wheeze drafting up Boris' Manifesto, wouldn't it ?

1) Soap and toilet paper to be permanently available in the Ladies toilets in the South Stand

2) Jake Wright to be his running mate (Boris would not be able to count on GY's vote in that event)

3) Compulsory purchase of the Stadium from Firoka for 1p

etc etc

Re:

Posted: Thu Apr 29, 2010 2:12 pm
by scooter
&quotGodalmingYellow&quot wrote:
&quotscooter&quot wrote:I've had three kids in the state education system since Labour came to power and I have to say my experience is that particularly at primary school level it is worlds ahead of where it was in 1997.

Also the limited experiences we as a family have had for the NHS have generally been good.

I still overall feel that I am better off under Labour than either of the other two main parties, but when that choice comes with GB it becomes a very close call.
My experience is somewhat different to that.

On the NHS: I had to wait 2 years for a knee operation. My wife needed treatment for an eye problem, but was told by the GP that the NHS in our area no longer provides medical treatment for eyes, except for acicdent and emergency cases. We were told that she had to private to get treatment.

If my neighbour, who is unemployed, needs a prescription, he has to pay for it, because his wife works more than 16 hours per week, irrelevant of the amount she is paid. Whereas someone on benefits gets the same prescription free.

The N in NHS stands for National, meaning a nationwide service free at the point of need. We don't have that anymore. We now have a multi-tiered health service in which where you live and the number of hours you work determines if you get treatment and the length of time that you wait.

I have 2 children in school. I have experience of both primary and secondary education. Class sizes are well over 30 in both and the effect is insufficient one to one teacher pupil time. SATS are a complete waste of time. There is virtually no physical education at primary level. There are no resources for capital expenditure to improve equipment, books and buildings. This money is largely raised from parents own pockets. Teachers have no power to deal with disruptive pupils, and the entrants policy means the wealthy move into areas covered by the best schools, putting huge pressure on those schools and preventing local children getting into local schools. Little is done to improve the failing schools. School lunches are very expensive, unless you are on benefits. School uniform policies enable schools to insist on very specific items of clothing irrelevant of cost. Teacher parent meetings are rare and last only a few minutes each and tell parents nothing. Oh and by the way, this is what is happening at the best schools, not the worst schools.

Any more examples you wish to discuss?
Our local primary is rated outstanding in the most recent OFSTED report.

Class sizes are generally around 30 and each class has a teaching assistant as well as a teacher to ensure one on one time.

Each child has access on a daily basis to a laptop and most homework can now be done on a computer and either emailed or taken in on a memory stick.

Each class has an interactive whiteboard.

Children needing learning help are identified early and assisted discreetly and effectively.

Each kid plays sport weekly and there are many representative sports teams. PE consists of touch rugby, football, quick cricket, netball, rounders, basketball, dance and athletics.

The school opened in 2001 relocating from a different site, has a large playing field and is well maintained with regular upgrades to equipment.

Parent teacher meetings are twice a term, one is on an informal drop in basis where you view the kids and the class work and have a chat about any issues with the teacher, the other is a formal review with 15 minutes allocated, when one of ours was slipping we had access to teachers on a daily basis if required.

Our kids are vegetarian so take packed lunches as they don't like the veggie school meal options, neither we or they have a problem with this.

None of them have been freaked by the SATS, they may well not be the perfect way of measuring progress, but in my mind there is no harm in puttting kids under a bit of academic pressure occasionally, I had to sit the 11 plus which really was a defining moment in your education.

School uniform comes from Asda for a few quid apart from the badged sweatshirts which aren't that expensive.

I accept that others experiences will differ, we are very lucky, but most of the excellence in the school is down to a visionary and superb head teacher who motivates her team and makes excellent use of the resources available. Yes there is still PTA fundraising etc, but that has allways been the case since I was at school in the sixties.

Maybe new labour just don't like Surrey :wink:

As for the NHS as I said we have had ( thankfully a limited need for it ) childbirth, GP ( normally same day appointments available ) and the occasional A&ampE trip for sprains etc, all of these experiences have been OK and I would suggest would have been less good under a tory run NHS.