leeslover Posted May 9, 2010 Share Posted May 9, 2010 Explain... Your words really. You don't want to make every working class person into a middle class person, you think that the government should concentrate on keeping a proportion of the working class working class but raising their standards, so to speak. I found it bewildering when you said it, because in the first instance it seems to seek to define how peoples' lives will pan out regardless of what their talents and aspirations are purely on the basis of what their parents did, and also it is bizarre that you can so glibly enjoy your social mobility in a Dianne Abbott way. I mean, how is the education system really going to be affected in the next 3 or 4 years that is going to have an impact on your kid's education that is so severe that you can't take a chance on him or her being placed with the peasants? Are you actually bull:censored:ting and you were going to go private all along, but you are ashamed to admit it? Lots of good state schools, even the Tory top brass can find good enough for them. Is it so rough where you are that there isn't a half decent school, even after all the investment? I did reasonably OK from St Aidan's, Our Lady's and Bishop Henshaw/St Cuthberts. It could have been better, and maybe I would have gone private in secondary if things had worked out differently at that time with the family and jobs and so on, but I can read and write fairly well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafc0000 Posted May 9, 2010 Share Posted May 9, 2010 (edited) Your words really. You don't want to make every working class person into a middle class person, you think that the government should concentrate on keeping a proportion of the working class working class but raising their standards, so to speak. I found it bewildering when you said it, because in the first instance it seems to seek to define how peoples' lives will pan out regardless of what their talents and aspirations are purely on the basis of what their parents did, and also it is bizarre that you can so glibly enjoy your social mobility in a Dianne Abbott way. I mean, how is the education system really going to be affected in the next 3 or 4 years that is going to have an impact on your kid's education that is so severe that you can't take a chance on him or her being placed with the peasants? Are you actually bull:censored:ting and you were going to go private all along, but you are ashamed to admit it? Lots of good state schools, even the Tory top brass can find good enough for them. Is it so rough where you are that there isn't a half decent school, even after all the investment? I did reasonably OK from St Aidan's, Our Lady's and Bishop Henshaw/St Cuthberts. It could have been better, and maybe I would have gone private in secondary if things had worked out differently at that time with the family and jobs and so on, but I can read and write fairly well. No you are putting words in my mouth... "you think that the government should concentrate on keeping a proportion of the working class working class"... I never said that... You are spinning my words.. I think a government's responsibility is to provide people with the tools for social mobility (god I hate that term as you know but it works for the purpose of this point as its so used) but at the same time make sure that everyone who works can have a reasonable standard of living if they choose not to climb that ladder or they don't possess the abilities. Its pretty much the idea behind new Labour. I am very central in most my political thinking besides a few things. As for being ashamed to admit anything. Never.. I am pretty open and honest... Which is to my detriment sometimes when people like you want to spin my words. How can I be ashamed ? I am pretty open about what I would do in x,y and z position... I stated what I would be doing before the election if you care to check. How much damage would the Torys do ? We will see... I fear the worse... Edited May 9, 2010 by oafc0000 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafc0000 Posted May 9, 2010 Share Posted May 9, 2010 In attempt to lighten the move and move this beyond the typical personal bollox that people seem to want... Is the Clegg sat next to Cameron ?? lol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leeslover Posted May 9, 2010 Share Posted May 9, 2010 No you are putting words in my mouth... "you think that the government should concentrate on keeping a proportion of the working class working class"... I never said that... You are spinning my words.. I think a government's responsibility is to provide people with the tools for social mobility (god I hate that term as you know but it works for the purpose of this point as its so used) but at the same time make sure that everyone who works can have a reasonable standard of living if they choose not to climb that ladder or they don't possess the abilities. Its pretty much the idea behind new Labour. I am very central in most my political thinking besides a few things. As for being ashamed to admit anything. Never.. I am pretty open and honest... Which is to my detriment sometimes when people like you want to spin my words. How can I be ashamed ? I am pretty open about what I would do in x,y and z position... I stated what I would be doing before the election if you care to check. How much damage would the Torys do ? We will see... I fear the worse... Tory politicians in the later Thatcher and Major years were hammered as hyporocrites for sending their kids private, likewise the likes of Abbott have been hit more recently for making sure Jaquenta or whoever doesn't have have to mix with the kids of the people they claim to affilliate with. You are choosing for your kid to grow up a Nigel, that's your choice, but never again bleat on about your working class credentials because you are moving as fast as you can to make sure you and you family never see any aspect of that again. In some respects I regret that I didn't end up going to Hulme or Manchester Grammar, the cash wasn't there at the time but they were on too much for me to get funding, but hey ho. I stayed in the same system as the people I had grown up with, I stayed local to the area, I got a part time job in Morrisons, working in the butchers, which taught me more about working class life than anything before or since. You wank on about privilege in terms of inheritance tax yet want to spend hundreds of thousands on giving your own kids a leg up above working class families, get serious man and realise that you are out for number one as much as anyone. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafc0000 Posted May 9, 2010 Share Posted May 9, 2010 (edited) Tory politicians in the later Thatcher and Major years were hammered as hyporocrites for sending their kids private, likewise the likes of Abbott have been hit more recently for making sure Jaquenta or whoever doesn't have have to mix with the kids of the people they claim to affilliate with. You are choosing for your kid to grow up a Nigel, that's your choice, but never again bleat on about your working class credentials because you are moving as fast as you can to make sure you and you family never see any aspect of that again. In some respects I regret that I didn't end up going to Hulme or Manchester Grammar, the cash wasn't there at the time but they were on too much for me to get funding, but hey ho. I stayed in the same system as the people I had grown up with, I stayed local to the area, I got a part time job in Morrisons, working in the butchers, which taught me more about working class life than anything before or since. You wank on about privilege in terms of inheritance tax yet want to spend hundreds of thousands on giving your own kids a leg up above working class families, get serious man and realise that you are out for number one as much as anyone. Its almost like you didn't bother to read what I wrote and carried on with your line... I will continue to push my lines. I will continue to vote for a fairer Britain... But if the British public want to vote for "im alright jack" well, I will protect my family.... Only a :censored: uses his family in political games... Speaking of which... http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/s...000/2913807.stm Edited May 9, 2010 by oafc0000 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
24hoursfromtulsehill Posted May 10, 2010 Author Share Posted May 10, 2010 Tory politicians in the later Thatcher and Major years were hammered as hyporocrites for sending their kids private, likewise the likes of Abbott have been hit more recently for making sure Jaquenta or whoever doesn't have have to mix with the kids of the people they claim to affilliate with. You are choosing for your kid to grow up a Nigel, that's your choice, but never again bleat on about your working class credentials because you are moving as fast as you can to make sure you and you family never see any aspect of that again. In some respects I regret that I didn't end up going to Hulme or Manchester Grammar, the cash wasn't there at the time but they were on too much for me to get funding, but hey ho. I stayed in the same system as the people I had grown up with, I stayed local to the area, I got a part time job in Morrisons, working in the butchers, which taught me more about working class life than anything before or since. You wank on about privilege in terms of inheritance tax yet want to spend hundreds of thousands on giving your own kids a leg up above working class families, get serious man and realise that you are out for number one as much as anyone. Even by your high standards this is stand-out BS. First of all, someone who sends their kids to a private school is not the same as being among the richest in society. Second, how are you not one of the workers? You don't have any property, any property income, shares, capital of any sort, savings, pension. If anyone's in denial about their social class, it's you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leeslover Posted May 10, 2010 Share Posted May 10, 2010 Even by your high standards this is stand-out BS. First of all, someone who sends their kids to a private school is not the same as being among the richest in society. Second, how are you not one of the workers? You don't have any property, any property income, shares, capital of any sort, savings, pension. If anyone's in denial about their social class, it's you. You miss the point entirely. I don;t go around telling anyone what to think or how to act dependant on any of the above, or where people grew up or what their parents did. The whole class obsession is absurd, as anyone reading you foaming at the mouth because you suffer a massive inferiority complex towards some people would realise. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafc0000 Posted May 10, 2010 Share Posted May 10, 2010 (edited) I don;t go around telling anyone what to think or how to act dependant on any of the above, or where people grew up or what their parents did. I do it no more than you do or various other posters!! FFS... Ok I dared to use some personal examples to me to try to show why I feel x,y,z about something... Its hardly a license to then start getting personal and :censored:ty with someone... Cut this personal attacking bull:censored: out... Election is over now... Move on... Bloody debate was going great until recently... The fight for who now forms the government is the interesting debate. Edited May 10, 2010 by oafc0000 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafc0000 Posted May 10, 2010 Share Posted May 10, 2010 Just saw this on the BBC site... http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/8663742.stm?ls Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leeslover Posted May 10, 2010 Share Posted May 10, 2010 I do it no more than you do or various other posters!! FFS... Ok I dared to use some personal examples to me to try to show why I feel x,y,z about something... Its hardly a license to then start getting personal and :censored:ty with someone... Cut this personal attacking bull:censored: out... Election is over now... Move on... Bloody debate was going great until recently... The fight for who now forms the government is the interesting debate. I was replying to Mr Tulsehill, who has talked of little but poshos, scabs, Bullingdon club etc since the thing began. He simply has an enormous chip on his shoulder, poor chap can't help it! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
24hoursfromtulsehill Posted May 10, 2010 Author Share Posted May 10, 2010 I was replying to Mr Tulsehill, who has talked of little but poshos, scabs, Bullingdon club etc since the thing began. He simply has an enormous chip on his shoulder, poor chap can't help it! Surveillance: a well known Government Minister having a celebratory slurp on the Terrace after a narrow election victory over a chiselling miser. Yee haw! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OminousPoultry Posted May 10, 2010 Share Posted May 10, 2010 Only a :censored: uses his family in political games... out of the mouths of babes and innocents. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OminousPoultry Posted May 10, 2010 Share Posted May 10, 2010 I am not going to put my child through a system I do not believe in. Only a total tit would do that when they have access to an alternative. Simple... Tory in charge my kids are going private... Labour in charge kids going state... The other alternative is to challenge your beliefs. By that - I mean how research have you done into schools in your area? I went to a private school. I can afford to send my children to a fee paying school. They attend the local state school, and are much the better for it. rant deleted The British public has voted for "im alright jack and screw the masses"... Actually - isn't that what you are doing right now....?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
24hoursfromtulsehill Posted May 10, 2010 Author Share Posted May 10, 2010 I was replying to Mr Tulsehill, who has talked of little but poshos, scabs, Bullingdon club etc since the thing began. He simply has an enormous chip on his shoulder, poor chap can't help it! Not quite true. I spent quite a bit of this thread debunking the myths that you made up because you can't be bothered to look up the facts. Headline unemployment, sickness benefits, crime levels...the list goes on. Or did you conveniently forget about how wrong you were about all those things? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafc0000 Posted May 10, 2010 Share Posted May 10, 2010 The other alternative is to challenge your beliefs. By that - I mean how research have you done into schools in your area? I went to a private school. I can afford to send my children to a fee paying school. They attend the local state school, and are much the better for it. Actually - isn't that what you are doing right now....?? I have nothing more to say to you out of the interest of moving on. Your only contribution has been to get :censored:ty with me so sorry for coming to the conclusion that further interaction would be fruitless and lead to further bollox. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dkenyonqfc2 Posted May 10, 2010 Share Posted May 10, 2010 gordon brown stepped down Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leeslover Posted May 11, 2010 Share Posted May 11, 2010 gordon brown stepped down It's all getting a bit messy now. Cleggy seems to have changed his mind from giving the Tories first pop (and don't forget they could quite plausibly have a go with a minority government) and is selling his wimsy to the highest bidder. I presume it means the Tories are playing hardball over PR, hence Labour are likewise dropping their trousers in enthusiasm for it. What troubles me is that the Lib Labs are doing a deal without having a clue who are going to be the key people they would be working with - are they doing deals on budgets for instance, without knowing who will be Chancellor? Scrapping Trident without knowing who the PM will be? It's all a bit odd. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beag_teeets Posted May 11, 2010 Share Posted May 11, 2010 It's all getting a bit messy now. Cleggy seems to have changed his mind from giving the Tories first pop (and don't forget they could quite plausibly have a go with a minority government) and is selling his wimsy to the highest bidder. I presume it means the Tories are playing hardball over PR, hence Labour are likewise dropping their trousers in enthusiasm for it. What troubles me is that the Lib Labs are doing a deal without having a clue who are going to be the key people they would be working with - are they doing deals on budgets for instance, without knowing who will be Chancellor? Scrapping Trident without knowing who the PM will be? It's all a bit odd. Tories desperately clinging to any remaining hope that they get a lick of the shiny power penny. Labour had electoral reform in their manifesto. No guarantee that Cameron will be the tory leader if he can't secure a deal favourable to the tory faithful. £millions spent, favourable media, no scrutiny and still can't "seal the deal" If I was Cameron I would be afraid, very afraid if I didn't have mummy and daddies (plus the wife's) millions to fall back on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leeslover Posted May 11, 2010 Share Posted May 11, 2010 Tories desperately clinging to any remaining hope that they get a lick of the shiny power penny. Labour had electoral reform in their manifesto. No guarantee that Cameron will be the tory leader if he can't secure a deal favourable to the tory faithful. £millions spent, favourable media, no scrutiny and still can't "seal the deal" If I was Cameron I would be afraid, very afraid if I didn't have mummy and daddies (plus the wife's) millions to fall back on. Labour have had electoral reform in their manifesto for donkey's years, now we can see why. A few of them are/were genuinely for it (Robin Cook I think?) but they have shown zero interest in implementing it. They've been in power 13 years and the second chamber is still populated by placemen, hereditaries and fake Bishops for crying out loud. It was always a fallback for where they find themselves now I think. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafc0000 Posted May 11, 2010 Share Posted May 11, 2010 (edited) Going to be one of the most interesting days in politics since I was a voting adult... For me there are two options... A rocky coalition between Labour, Libs and the rest... A strong coalition defence between Labour, Libs and the rest fighting a Tory minority government... I don't think Tory / Lib is now realistic... ...I am not sure what is the best thing... The British public did not vote for a Tory government... But it certainly didn't vote for a Labour one either... and that is the whole problem at the moment... If this was happening in another country and I was looking at it through unbiased eyes I would say the people have voted for a coalition... Unless we are saying a party which failed to get enough votes under ANY electoral system should lead the country alone ? I don't think a coalition works well for Labour in the long term... But it would work well to get in a different voting system which works well for the Libs and IMO democracy in the future... This whole deal is more favourable to the Libs I am feeling than either the Torys or Labour, so I wouldn't be surprised if talks breakdown completely.. Edited May 11, 2010 by oafc0000 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garcon Posted May 11, 2010 Share Posted May 11, 2010 (edited) It's been interesting over the last day or two to hear the various voices, from the principled and objective (John Reid and Paddy Ashdown to name two for me) to the shameless "I'll take it bareback if only you'll give us a sniff of power" (Michael Gove and Peter Hain). The main protagonists have given us the old "strong government in the national interest" a few times too many now - push a line too far and people stop believing it. And as these complex discussions have dragged on, the impression is that party political interest (some of it very short sighted) is beginning to come to the fore. Those Lib Dems who are clamouring for guaranteed electoral reform and seem to be willing to risk the possibility of any coalition in that cause ought to recognise that this very process is being scrutinised by the electorate as a test of our Parliamentary parties. Failure to reach an enduring coalition agreement now will be seen by many as proof that the Lib Dems' dream of PR and perpetual coalition governments would never work. I think we'll see some kind of decision today, but I haven't a clue what it will be. My feeling is that whatever it is will not be strong enough to last and we'll be back at the polls within a year. Edited May 11, 2010 by garcon Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
24hoursfromtulsehill Posted May 11, 2010 Author Share Posted May 11, 2010 Labour have had electoral reform in their manifesto for donkey's years, now we can see why. A few of them are/were genuinely for it (Robin Cook I think?) but they have shown zero interest in implementing it. They've been in power 13 years and the second chamber is still populated by placemen, hereditaries and fake Bishops for crying out loud. It was always a fallback for where they find themselves now I think. As I've said before in this thread, Labour have been genuinely split on electoral reform since John Smith's days. It's difficult for Labour to implement constitutional reform because of the "natural" Tory bias of the House of Lords. The Lords can't kill legislation, but they can delay it, as they have on numerous occasions, which makes it difficult to get enough parliamentary time. Electoral reform is the last in a long line of constitutional changes proposed and backed by Labour. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leeslover Posted May 11, 2010 Share Posted May 11, 2010 As I've said before in this thread, Labour have been genuinely split on electoral reform since John Smith's days. It's difficult for Labour to implement constitutional reform because of the "natural" Tory bias of the House of Lords. The Lords can't kill legislation, but they can delay it, as they have on numerous occasions, which makes it difficult to get enough parliamentary time. Electoral reform is the last in a long line of constitutional changes proposed and backed by Labour. Don't you think that maybe if they wanted to get it through they might have got it rolling until the limo was waiting outside to take Gordy to the Queen at the end of 13 years with large majorities? Simple fact is that it was below things like fox hunting on their agenda. And what do you mean they were split? Manifesto commitment, as said very large majorities, they could have whipped it through, piece of piss. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
24hoursfromtulsehill Posted May 11, 2010 Author Share Posted May 11, 2010 Don't you think that maybe if they wanted to get it through they might have got it rolling until the limo was waiting outside to take Gordy to the Queen at the end of 13 years with large majorities? Simple fact is that it was below things like fox hunting on their agenda. And what do you mean they were split? Manifesto commitment, as said very large majorities, they could have whipped it through, piece of piss. Fox hunting is not a like-for-like comparison. You had free votes, private Members' Bills, Government Bills, and eventually the invocation of the Parliament Act. The ban took 7 years to introduce, and failed several times because of lack of time and resistance in the Lords. You'd be looking at worse delays than that for any proposal to change the electoral system, which would mean an end to the party system as we know it. The Labour party has always been split on reform, with some heavily pro and some dead against. That's politics. Only a few months ago, a proposal for a referendum on AV was killed in the Lords by the Tories. You can but try. If the Liberals were serious about electoral reform, they could have introduced a Bill and used up some of their Opposition days to try to get it through. And yet no such measure was proposed. Once again, we find that the Liberals are all talk and no action. You might look at Labour's failure to introduce electoral reform, but the Liberals are just as guilty. The late Tory conversion is a desperate joke. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beag_teeets Posted May 11, 2010 Share Posted May 11, 2010 Looks like we have wisely pulled out of talks. Shame as it means moon-faced Dave and his gormless wife will be able to put the curtains they already bought up in No10. Welcome to the ConDem Nation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.