beag_teeets Posted April 14, 2010 Share Posted April 14, 2010 How can you argue that Labour didn't bring the smoking ban in to the UK? Who cares who did it first, the party that got the legislation on to the statute books was Labour. Are we going to take the "he built the autobahns" off Hitler because some Roman Caesar had the idea about build roads first? Too early to judge surestart as it is a long term policy, will take at least a decade to be able to judge it a failure. The fox hunting issue is a bit of a dog whistle issue. Personally I couldn't care less but the people who are pro-hunting are not my kind of people, seeing them wound up by it gives me pleasure. If the fox population needs controlling I'd rather see it done with poison, guns, traps or whatever than a bunch of in-breds charging round the place in an extension of the golf-club mentality. Wasting any more parliamentary time on this would be an absolute disgrace so Camoron making it a manifesto pledge just shows what a misguided fool he is. Class sizes does matter, matter alot. My wife is a primary school teacher, she teaches reception or infant 1 in old money. She has 24 kids in her class and there are 24 in the other infant 1 class. Their school got a cracking ofsted report and as a result there are already 50/53 kids down to come in September with 25 more appealing the decision not to allow them in. If any of these appeals are successful then the knock-on effects for the school are significant, they simply haven't the size for an influx of that many kids, there are 2 infant 1 classes but that isn't mirrored through out the school, there are already mixed aged classes, any more and they are looking at temporary classrooms - portacabins. So the school becomes a victim of its own success, higher rolls for a few years then as a result of increased entry resources are stretched and by the time the next ofsted comes round, standards have dropped, outcomes have dropped, they get a worse ofsted, seen as a bad school, parents then stop sending their kids there, funding is cut...blah..blah..blah... As for tuition fees, I work in HE, the funding model had been artificially propped up for years, it was unsustainable. It had to be paid for by other means which would either have meant tax raises or make the people who use the service pay. Personally I'd have gone for tax raises but that's another issue. I'm sure crime is either down or static, reporting of crime is up either by victims or media, if it bleeds it leads which leads to the perception of crime being worse. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
razza699 Posted April 14, 2010 Share Posted April 14, 2010 I'd wager that a more apt core of government could be formed from this board alone. I'll be PM (but I will need a rise), leeslover can be Chancellor, Lags the Minister of State, oafc0000 as Minister of Transport and your good self as Minister of Drugs. Could I apply for Head of Sports Development ? muahaha , goodbye United City Bury Rochdale, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leeslover Posted April 14, 2010 Share Posted April 14, 2010 Peace in Northern Ireland. A good thing I suppose but I'd have been tempted to let anyone who wanted to remain British come to great Britain and left Ireland sort out those that wanted to be Irish. Incidentally who was in charge when the troubles began? Henry II... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rudemedic Posted April 14, 2010 Share Posted April 14, 2010 How can you argue that Labour didn't bring the smoking ban in to the UK? Who cares who did it first, the party that got the legislation on to the statute books was Labour. Are we going to take the "he built the autobahns" off Hitler because some Roman Caesar had the idea about build roads first? Too early to judge surestart as it is a long term policy, will take at least a decade to be able to judge it a failure. The fox hunting issue is a bit of a dog whistle issue. Personally I couldn't care less but the people who are pro-hunting are not my kind of people, seeing them wound up by it gives me pleasure. If the fox population needs controlling I'd rather see it done with poison, guns, traps or whatever than a bunch of in-breds charging round the place in an extension of the golf-club mentality. Wasting any more parliamentary time on this would be an absolute disgrace so Camoron making it a manifesto pledge just shows what a misguided fool he is. Class sizes does matter, matter alot. My wife is a primary school teacher, she teaches reception or infant 1 in old money. She has 24 kids in her class and there are 24 in the other infant 1 class. Their school got a cracking ofsted report and as a result there are already 50/53 kids down to come in September with 25 more appealing the decision not to allow them in. If any of these appeals are successful then the knock-on effects for the school are significant, they simply haven't the size for an influx of that many kids, there are 2 infant 1 classes but that isn't mirrored through out the school, there are already mixed aged classes, any more and they are looking at temporary classrooms - portacabins. So the school becomes a victim of its own success, higher rolls for a few years then as a result of increased entry resources are stretched and by the time the next ofsted comes round, standards have dropped, outcomes have dropped, they get a worse ofsted, seen as a bad school, parents then stop sending their kids there, funding is cut...blah..blah..blah... As for tuition fees, I work in HE, the funding model had been artificially propped up for years, it was unsustainable. It had to be paid for by other means which would either have meant tax raises or make the people who use the service pay. Personally I'd have gone for tax raises but that's another issue. I'm sure crime is either down or static, reporting of crime is up either by victims or media, if it bleeds it leads which leads to the perception of crime being worse. I'm not arguing that Labour introduced the smoking ban, I'm arguing that they did so because they happened to be in power when 1.) the developed world realised it was a good idea and 2.) when it became part of European law- judging by the stuff the Spanish say about it. I think most parties would have introduced it in the last 5 years but because Labour was actually in power they can get credit for it- not for me. If you can find me some election manifesto from the last general election which has it on I will be surprised. I don't judge Surestart as a failure- I think it overall does some good stuff, how much will need more time to judge. I would point out that like the smoking ban Labour was in power when it was introduced after someone/people in the NHS came up with it, when they came up with it I'm not sure but I think other parties may have given it a go too, I don't remeber it being on the manifesto back in the day. Class sizes matters in that example but has anyone ever done some research to say that those children in a class size of 25 do significantly better than those in a class size of 30 (all other things considered)? The tuition fees thing I will accept- personally I'd have made people who paid to send their kids to school pay the same price to send their kids to uni or said certain degrees are free but if you want to do other stuff then its going to cost you or got the universities to limit their research budgets and not the system we have now where a lot of children from not very well off backgrounds come out of uni with loads of debt because of the extra costs. As for fox hunting I wouldn't have bothered getting rid of it, far more important things in my eye, and I wouldn't bother changing it, for the same reason. However, I would wager than in a few marginals in certain areas saying he will reinstate it might get him a few more votes and those votes might get him into power so to say he is misguided is a bit harsh. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
24hoursfromtulsehill Posted April 14, 2010 Author Share Posted April 14, 2010 (edited) Leeslover says And massively decreased crime levels. My arse How many times can someone be wrong in one day? Check this out. Longer-term trends in violence from the British Crime Survey show that the number of violent crimes increased since the first BCS results in 1981: gradually through the 1980s and then sharply after 1991 to reach a peak in the mid-1990s. Substantial declines have been noted subsequently (although levels in recent years have appeared more stable) and the number of violent incidents is now at a similar level to 1981. Incidents of violent crime reported to the BCS have fallen by half (48%) since 1995, representing an estimated two million fewer incidents and around three-quarters of a million fewer victims. The pattern of the last couple of days goes something like this: 1. You make stuff up. 2. I find the correct information. Wrong again. Now will you vote Labour? Edited April 14, 2010 by 24hoursfromtulsehill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
24hoursfromtulsehill Posted April 14, 2010 Author Share Posted April 14, 2010 (edited) When I posted "massively decreased crime levels" as a Labour achievement, Killens physio said: I think not somehow. The only way you could think that is if you have read some very heavily doctored statistics! Yeah sure. The British Crime Survey. Not doctored in the slightest I'm afraid. Sorry. Clatteringly, appallingly wrong. I'm embarrassed for you. Edited April 14, 2010 by 24hoursfromtulsehill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
24hoursfromtulsehill Posted April 14, 2010 Author Share Posted April 14, 2010 (edited) And massively decreased crime levels. I'm unsure about this one- crime may have gone down as a whole but I thought the crimes that actually cause people to be scared like murder, rape, violent stuff had actually gone up- but I stand to be corrected. The above comments are on violent crime, but the same pattern appears for burglary, crimes against the person, vehicle crime - every single category. There's hardly any difference between the 1981 numbers and the 2009 numbers. However, there's a steady increase througout the '80s, a massive hike in the early 1990s to a peak in 1995, and a dramatic decrease after 1997. You stand corrected. Once again, why don't you just find the information instead of making blind assertions? It's not a bleeding state secret. Edited April 14, 2010 by 24hoursfromtulsehill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rudemedic Posted April 14, 2010 Share Posted April 14, 2010 And massively decreased crime levels. I'm unsure about this one- crime may have gone down as a whole but I thought the crimes that actually cause people to be scared like murder, rape, violent stuff had actually gone up- but I stand to be corrected. The above comments are on violent crime, but the same pattern appears for burglary, crimes against the person, vehicle crime - every single category. There's hardly any difference between the 1981 numbers and the 2009 numbers. However, there's a steady increase througout the '80s, a massive hike in the early 1990s to a peak in 1995, and a dramatic decrease after 1997. You stand corrected. Once again, why don't you just find the information instead of making blind assertions? It's not a bleeding state secret. Why bother when you will do it for me- I'm not voting labour and you moaning about me not looking things up and having a big red Vote Labour signature is not going to change my mind. Plus when as I'm unsure about this one ever been a blind assertion. Incidentally every single category- so what about firearms- that's doubled since 97, and muggings has remained the same (or gone slightly up). How about when you find the information you report it correctly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafc0000 Posted April 14, 2010 Share Posted April 14, 2010 Class sizes matters in that example but has anyone ever done some research to say that those children in a class size of 25 do significantly better than those in a class size of 30 (all other things considered)? I would of thought common sense would prove this... Less children more time per child... Why do you think private Schools do so well etc? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafc0000 Posted April 14, 2010 Share Posted April 14, 2010 (edited) For me it is pretty simple... Child Benefit (worth £20 a week) Child Trust Fund (worth £250 one off) Surestart NHS Schools If the Torys get in I will be down £1290 in their first year. I will be down a further £1040 year on year when they scrap Child Benefit for everyone except those on low wages. I won't trust them to educate my child so that will be about an extra £5000 on private school fees every year. Why would I vote for anyone but Labour when I have a young family ? Edited April 14, 2010 by oafc0000 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Killens_physio Posted April 14, 2010 Share Posted April 14, 2010 When I posted "massively decreased crime levels" as a Labour achievement, Killens physio said: Yeah sure. The British Crime Survey. Not doctored in the slightest I'm afraid. Sorry. Clatteringly, appallingly wrong. I'm embarrassed for you. Dont be embarrased for me. I couldnt give a monkey's what you think! Labour have just clouded the water of what constitutes a crime, and this was shown to be true by a study, by the independent House of Commons Library who found Violent attacks are estimated to be 44 per cent higher than they were in 1998 after research on the way police record them allowing for comparisons for the first time. Its hardly surprising when the Police have simply become a Political tool of the Labour party, rather than doing what they are supposed to be doing.........you know catching those naughty people who break these things called laws? As a Labour supporter surely you know what they are, the Socialist rabble you are voting for has introduced 1000's of them since it came to power! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafc0000 Posted April 14, 2010 Share Posted April 14, 2010 (edited) Do people really think the government has that much say over crime rates anyway ? I mean seriously, its down to :censored: parenting and people who just don't give a dam about anybody but themselves.... Edited April 14, 2010 by oafc0000 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Killens_physio Posted April 14, 2010 Share Posted April 14, 2010 (edited) Why would I vote for anyone but Labour when I have a young family ? Because you dont want them to be brought up living in a cesspit which Labour is trying, and sadly succeeding in doing? To many people are thinking of the short term benefits rather than the long term future. Labour will promise you the earth, but in reality anything they say will prove to be false promises as usual. Anything which they have put in their manifesto is no more likely to happen than our vote on the EU they promised. I am still yet to meet one Labour supporter who can justify why on Earth Gormless Brown thinks he can break such a promise and why thats acceptable? Edited April 14, 2010 by Killens_physio Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafc0000 Posted April 14, 2010 Share Posted April 14, 2010 (edited) Because you dont want them to be brought up living in a cesspit which Labour is trying, and sadly succeeding in doing? Not everywhere is a cesspit... Its lovely around here... Personally I have done alright under Labour and so have my wider family... and looking at the choices Labour better get back in or its going to hit me hard... Edited April 14, 2010 by oafc0000 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Killens_physio Posted April 14, 2010 Share Posted April 14, 2010 Personally I have done alright under Labour and so have my wider family... and looking at the choices Labour better get back in or its going to hit me hard... So have hundreds of thousands of people out there as well..........mainly the ones who rely on state handouts because they cant be arsed to work. Not saying you personally! How can any society function when there are so many people willing to live off those who do work, and work hard? The current benefits culture which Labour has created (mainly due to the fact they they know the workshy will vote to keep the cushy lives) is nothing but a drain on an already overstretched economy. There is no incentive for these people to do anything but sponge off others. Sadly where I live in Reading is a Labour stronghold and has been for some time. The other day my neighbours who havent done a days work in almost 10 years (that i know of) summed it up perfectly when they said 'I'll be voting Labour because the Tories may cut my benefits'. Says it all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafc0000 Posted April 14, 2010 Share Posted April 14, 2010 So have hundreds of thousands of people out there as well..........mainly the ones who rely on state handouts because they cant be arsed to work. Not saying you personally! How can any society function when there are so many people willing to live off those who do work, and work hard? The current benefits culture which Labour has created (mainly due to the fact they they know the workshy will vote to keep the cushy lives) is nothing but a drain on an already overstretched economy. There is no incentive for these people to do anything but sponge off others. Sadly where I live in Reading is a Labour stronghold and has been for some time. The other day my neighbours who havent done a days work in almost 10 years (that i know of) summed it up perfectly when they said 'I'll be voting Labour because the Tories may cut my benefits'. Says it all. Well I certainly do not live off state handouts... I get very little from the state... What little I do get from the state is likely to be rolled back under the torys and key services my family need will be, once again, underfunded. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Killens_physio Posted April 14, 2010 Share Posted April 14, 2010 Well I certainly do not live off state handouts... I get very little from the state... What little I do get from the state is likely to be rolled back under the torys and key services my family need will be, once again, underfunded. Sadly for people like yourself who genuinely do need the certain benefits that you mention, it is the millions of others who vote Labour who have put such a drain on resources that cutbacks are going to be needed. Labour have said they want to spend their way out of recession and to re-build the economy. The fact is is that its just not a realistic aim, we are already in catastrophic debt. If the Tories do get in then hard choices will have to be made, but I would rather there was a party who was tackling the problem head on, rather than a party prone to the old ostrich effect! It wasnt until very recently, mainly because his hand was forced, that Brown even admitted the need for cuts. The only cuts Brown will make is to once again hit middle England in the pocket it his warped attempt of class war. Its funny for years Labour has strayed away from representing the working class vote, who traditionally are sposed to be their core voters (in fact they havent represented anyone for many years apart from their own Marxist agenda), but now with an Election coming up they suddenly remembered that they are there to represent the people who vote for them, and lo and behold they are asking for your vote again. Come May 7th if they are elected again they will once again forget about the electorate and go about their own merry way doing what as they please! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
24hoursfromtulsehill Posted April 14, 2010 Author Share Posted April 14, 2010 (edited) Why bother when you will do it for me- I'm not voting labour and you moaning about me not looking things up and having a big red Vote Labour signature is not going to change my mind. Plus when as I'm unsure about this one ever been a blind assertion. Incidentally every single category- so what about firearms- that's doubled since 97, and muggings has remained the same (or gone slightly up). How about when you find the information you report it correctly. I'm not sure I share your analysis of the data. Mainly because you're wrong. According to the 2008/09 BCS, a firearm was used in just one per cent of violent incidents; no change compared with the 2007/08 survey. Between 1995 and 2008/09, the proportion of incidents of BCS violence where a firearm was used has remained stable at or below one per cent. . Provisional figures show that 8,184 firearm offences were recorded in 2008/09 in England and Wales, a 17 per cent decrease on 2007/08. Numbers peaked in 2005/06 (11,088 offences) since when firearm offences have decreased by 26 per cent, representing 2,904 fewer offences. Why don't you just vote for whomsoever you wish, based on a total misreading of the facts and some rather quaint personal inventions? Goon. Edited April 14, 2010 by 24hoursfromtulsehill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lookers_Carl Posted April 14, 2010 Share Posted April 14, 2010 I am still sitting on the fence. I do think Cameron has actually hit the nail on the head when he talks about - Big government not working - Labour ignoring and penalising honest hard working people, (but can't do enough to look after the spongers) - A culture change is needed with more emphasis on taking responsibility as opposed to the 'pass the blame on' culture that has developed under Labour. Bottom line is at the moment that we have a society where some young teens/mothers consider bringing a child into this world simply so that they can stay on benefits and not go into work, and where some would actually be financially better off on benefits as opposed to working. This element of society needs to change. The problem is I do not trust cameron and the tories to implement these changes, but then again I do not think that this current labour government deserve a 4th term in office. My money at the moment would be a hung parliament but with the conservatives being the largest party, which I think would be a wake up call, as such a result in my opinion would state the public do not have confidence in either party to govern. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
opinions4u Posted April 14, 2010 Share Posted April 14, 2010 My money at the moment would be a hung parliament but with the conservatives being the largest party, which I think would be a wake up call, as such a result in my opinion would state the public do not have confidence in either party to govern. You'd see 6 months of populist policy implementation and then another election. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
opinions4u Posted April 14, 2010 Share Posted April 14, 2010 (edited) I would of thought common sense would prove this... Less children more time per child... Why do you think private Schools do so well etc? While a private school will invariably have around 18-20 kids per class, the style of teaching and the implementation of consistent discipline are the main reasons why they do better. A class of 40 can still be controlled effectively and the right quality of teaching delivered though. Edited April 14, 2010 by opinions4u Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lookers_Carl Posted April 14, 2010 Share Posted April 14, 2010 You'd see 6 months of populist policy implementation and then another election. Yup, another election within 12 months would be inevitable Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldhamSheridan Posted April 14, 2010 Share Posted April 14, 2010 Sadly for people like yourself who genuinely do need the certain benefits that you mention Sticking kid in Private school. Sounds like those benefits will be lining the pockets to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldhamSheridan Posted April 14, 2010 Share Posted April 14, 2010 While a private school will invariably have around 18-20 kids per class, the style of teaching and the implementation of consistent discipline are the main reasons why they do better. A class of 40 can still be controlled effectively and the right quality of teaching delivered though. Sod that, bung a few teaching assistants in there, that works*. *Although, I'm sure I saw a study a year or so back saying it does the opposite. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafc0000 Posted April 14, 2010 Share Posted April 14, 2010 While a private school will invariably have around 18-20 kids per class, the style of teaching and the implementation of consistent discipline are the main reasons why they do better. A class of 40 can still be controlled effectively and the right quality of teaching delivered though. Most private schools have classes of 13 to 16 on average... Classes of 40 being controlled effectively ? Total fantasy... 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.