It does seem to me that a big reason for calling the snap election was to marginalise the decent Conservatives - of which there are a few. What I will give the Conservatives is a twisted credit for is being abe to utilise the politics of anger. It is something Corbyn is not good at - he comes over as a bloke trying to reason with you. When people are angry they respond best to angry messages. It cheapens politics but is effective.
It will come back to bite the Conservatives in the backside, but I suspect not yet!
Tories have now dropped pledges to not raise taxes (income, VAT, NI), the ones that hit the poor and middle classes. Hammond under no illusions that tax rises are a direct result of their plan to Hard Brexit.
Thus goes the last decent reason to vote Tory, and the last line they needed to cross to go from a centre-right party to full-on right nationalist/authoritarian party.
Are you ok Fiiish? When people undergo radical political conversions it can be a positive sign of intellectual rigour. When they start calling fairly boring right of centre parties Nazi's and accuse them of seeking to kill people it's time to see the GP.
The current Conservative Party leadership has allied itself with the alt-right, and has changed its tone severely to become more authoritarian (widespread surveillance, calling those who attempt to scrutinise their policies the enemy, wanting to scrap human rights, threatening to pull out of unilateral international security arrangements and making aggressive comments towards allies of the UK, refusing to honour its international obligations regarding refugees and migrants). There is nothing Centrist about the current Tory leadership - any Tory MP with a remotely liberal bone has either been ousted from the cabinet or has exiled themselves from the front bench or even the House entirely.
And no, I haven't accused them of wanting to kill people, try improving your reading skills. What is the case is that if the Tories continue to undermine support for the most vulnerable in society (the homeless, single parents, children in poverty, those in care, benefits recipients) as well as continue to let A&E wards get worse and worse, we will be seeing huge increases in easily preventable deaths because the Tories are shifting resources away from vital public services to wherever they hold shares. If you're happy to let people die because you want the rich to get richer (and by the sounds of your tone you're more than happy to let this happen) then that's on you. I'd rather take a stand.
I read someone else accusing the Tories of being intent on killing various sections of society today and I thought it was you, looking back I can see it wasn't on this thread (I was probably reading the Guardian), my apologies. That said I still think your Nazi illusion is ridiculous and as for supporting the Tories I've stated many times on here that I've got as many issues with them as I do with Labour.
You produce a long list of woe but the solutions aren't black and white however much you want them to be. The services that governments in the developed world provide are going to have to shrink as tax bases at best remain static and demands constantly rise. I don't see any way round this given the situation we find ourselves in. Rather than howling at reality I'd prefer a rational debate about targeting resources to do the most good. Sorry if you think my utilitarianist attitude is about being happy to let people die but I feel your utopian thinking is far more dangerous.
Tories have now dropped pledges to not raise taxes (income, VAT, NI), the ones that hit the poor and middle classes. Hammond under no illusions that tax rises are a direct result of their plan to Hard Brexit.
Thus goes the last decent reason to vote Tory, and the last line they needed to cross to go from a centre-right party to full-on right nationalist/authoritarian party.
Are you ok Fiiish? When people undergo radical political conversions it can be a positive sign of intellectual rigour. When they start calling fairly boring right of centre parties Nazi's and accuse them of seeking to kill people it's time to see the GP.
The current Conservative Party leadership has allied itself with the alt-right, and has changed its tone severely to become more authoritarian (widespread surveillance, calling those who attempt to scrutinise their policies the enemy, wanting to scrap human rights, threatening to pull out of unilateral international security arrangements and making aggressive comments towards allies of the UK, refusing to honour its international obligations regarding refugees and migrants). There is nothing Centrist about the current Tory leadership - any Tory MP with a remotely liberal bone has either been ousted from the cabinet or has exiled themselves from the front bench or even the House entirely.
And no, I haven't accused them of wanting to kill people, try improving your reading skills. What is the case is that if the Tories continue to undermine support for the most vulnerable in society (the homeless, single parents, children in poverty, those in care, benefits recipients) as well as continue to let A&E wards get worse and worse, we will be seeing huge increases in easily preventable deaths because the Tories are shifting resources away from vital public services to wherever they hold shares. If you're happy to let people die because you want the rich to get richer (and by the sounds of your tone you're more than happy to let this happen) then that's on you. I'd rather take a stand.
I read someone else accusing the Tories of being intent on killing various sections of society today and I thought it was you, looking back I can see it wasn't on this thread (I was probably reading the Guardian), my apologies. That said I still think your Nazi illusion is ridiculous and as for supporting the Tories I've stated many times on here that I've got as many issues with them as I do with Labour.
You produce a long list of woe but the solutions aren't black and white however much you want them to be. The services that governments in the developed world provide are going to have to shrink as tax bases at best remain static and demands constantly rise. I don't see any way round this given the situation we find ourselves in. Rather than howling at reality I'd prefer a rational debate about targeting resources to do the most good. Sorry if you think my utilitarianist attitude is about being happy to let people die but I feel your utopian thinking is far more dangerous.
I didn't use the word Nazi. If you see the facts I'm posting and think 'Nazis' then that's a pretty damning assessment of current Tory policy.
I disagree that wanting a country where the government invests very minor sums of money to stop thousands of preventable deaths is a utopia, I think it is totally achieveable. If thousands of people dying is an acceptable cost to you to make a handful of people richer then that's on you.
Corbyn's aim is not to beat the Tories but to 're-make' the Labour Party to match his model of what it should be.
The fact that this will lose voters matters to him not a jot.
Agreed - and in many ways honourable, irrespective of whether or not you sign-up to his political vision. At least he's not saying one thing and thinking of, or contemplating doing, another. One word that could be use to describe it is principled, something sadly lacking in the vast majority of politicians.
Corbyn's aim is not to beat the Tories but to 're-make' the Labour Party to match his model of what it should be.
The fact that this will lose voters matters to him not a jot.
Agreed - and in many ways honourable, irrespective of whether or not you sign-up to his political vision. At least he's not saying one thing and thinking of, or contemplating doing, another. One word that could be use to describe it is principled, something sadly lacking in the vast majority of politicians.
I would agree with this, but say principled to the point of stupidity. Things that are a big issue to him are less so to the electorate. One of my passions is this country becoming a fairer better place. I think I share that with Corbyn, but feel if he is unelectable, he is making that passion less likely.
Tories have now dropped pledges to not raise taxes (income, VAT, NI), the ones that hit the poor and middle classes. Hammond under no illusions that tax rises are a direct result of their plan to Hard Brexit.
Thus goes the last decent reason to vote Tory, and the last line they needed to cross to go from a centre-right party to full-on right nationalist/authoritarian party.
Are you ok Fiiish? When people undergo radical political conversions it can be a positive sign of intellectual rigour. When they start calling fairly boring right of centre parties Nazi's and accuse them of seeking to kill people it's time to see the GP.
The current Conservative Party leadership has allied itself with the alt-right, and has changed its tone severely to become more authoritarian (widespread surveillance, calling those who attempt to scrutinise their policies the enemy, wanting to scrap human rights, threatening to pull out of unilateral international security arrangements and making aggressive comments towards allies of the UK, refusing to honour its international obligations regarding refugees and migrants). There is nothing Centrist about the current Tory leadership - any Tory MP with a remotely liberal bone has either been ousted from the cabinet or has exiled themselves from the front bench or even the House entirely.
And no, I haven't accused them of wanting to kill people, try improving your reading skills. What is the case is that if the Tories continue to undermine support for the most vulnerable in society (the homeless, single parents, children in poverty, those in care, benefits recipients) as well as continue to let A&E wards get worse and worse, we will be seeing huge increases in easily preventable deaths because the Tories are shifting resources away from vital public services to wherever they hold shares. If you're happy to let people die because you want the rich to get richer (and by the sounds of your tone you're more than happy to let this happen) then that's on you. I'd rather take a stand.
I read someone else accusing the Tories of being intent on killing various sections of society today and I thought it was you, looking back I can see it wasn't on this thread (I was probably reading the Guardian), my apologies. That said I still think your Nazi illusion is ridiculous and as for supporting the Tories I've stated many times on here that I've got as many issues with them as I do with Labour.
You produce a long list of woe but the solutions aren't black and white however much you want them to be. The services that governments in the developed world provide are going to have to shrink as tax bases at best remain static and demands constantly rise. I don't see any way round this given the situation we find ourselves in. Rather than howling at reality I'd prefer a rational debate about targeting resources to do the most good. Sorry if you think my utilitarianist attitude is about being happy to let people die but I feel your utopian thinking is far more dangerous.
I didn't use the word Nazi. If you see the facts I'm posting and think 'Nazis' then that's a pretty damning assessment of current Tory policy.
I disagree that wanting a country where the government invests very minor sums of money to stop thousands of preventable deaths is a utopia, I think it is totally achieveable. If thousands of people dying is an acceptable cost to you to make a handful of people richer then that's on you.
Your first year politics student sanctimony is just tedious.
Is there any good reason why we shouldn't have televised, live leaders' debates enshrined in law?
One of the reasons we're told that the turnout at elections is so low is that politicians are seen to be too distant and fail to engage. I think it's a healthy, democratic excercise to see the leaders of the main parties holding each other to account. Surely the people best placed to put difficult, revealing questions to political leaders are their opponents. For that reason, I think we should have live tv debates written into law as a compulsory element of all general elections.
The upside is that more people may become engaged, understand policies better, become better placed to debate them and, ultimately, excercise their democratic right (or duty..?) by voting. The downside? I don't think there is one - some people say they wouldn't want to watch them: if that's the case, don't
Tories have now dropped pledges to not raise taxes (income, VAT, NI), the ones that hit the poor and middle classes. Hammond under no illusions that tax rises are a direct result of their plan to Hard Brexit.
Thus goes the last decent reason to vote Tory, and the last line they needed to cross to go from a centre-right party to full-on right nationalist/authoritarian party.
Are you ok Fiiish? When people undergo radical political conversions it can be a positive sign of intellectual rigour. When they start calling fairly boring right of centre parties Nazi's and accuse them of seeking to kill people it's time to see the GP.
The current Conservative Party leadership has allied itself with the alt-right, and has changed its tone severely to become more authoritarian (widespread surveillance, calling those who attempt to scrutinise their policies the enemy, wanting to scrap human rights, threatening to pull out of unilateral international security arrangements and making aggressive comments towards allies of the UK, refusing to honour its international obligations regarding refugees and migrants). There is nothing Centrist about the current Tory leadership - any Tory MP with a remotely liberal bone has either been ousted from the cabinet or has exiled themselves from the front bench or even the House entirely.
And no, I haven't accused them of wanting to kill people, try improving your reading skills. What is the case is that if the Tories continue to undermine support for the most vulnerable in society (the homeless, single parents, children in poverty, those in care, benefits recipients) as well as continue to let A&E wards get worse and worse, we will be seeing huge increases in easily preventable deaths because the Tories are shifting resources away from vital public services to wherever they hold shares. If you're happy to let people die because you want the rich to get richer (and by the sounds of your tone you're more than happy to let this happen) then that's on you. I'd rather take a stand.
I read someone else accusing the Tories of being intent on killing various sections of society today and I thought it was you, looking back I can see it wasn't on this thread (I was probably reading the Guardian), my apologies. That said I still think your Nazi illusion is ridiculous and as for supporting the Tories I've stated many times on here that I've got as many issues with them as I do with Labour.
You produce a long list of woe but the solutions aren't black and white however much you want them to be. The services that governments in the developed world provide are going to have to shrink as tax bases at best remain static and demands constantly rise. I don't see any way round this given the situation we find ourselves in. Rather than howling at reality I'd prefer a rational debate about targeting resources to do the most good. Sorry if you think my utilitarianist attitude is about being happy to let people die but I feel your utopian thinking is far more dangerous.
I didn't use the word Nazi. If you see the facts I'm posting and think 'Nazis' then that's a pretty damning assessment of current Tory policy.
I disagree that wanting a country where the government invests very minor sums of money to stop thousands of preventable deaths is a utopia, I think it is totally achieveable. If thousands of people dying is an acceptable cost to you to make a handful of people richer then that's on you.
Your first year politics student sanctimony is just tedious.
Ironic comparing me to a first year politics student when you're accusing people of making comparisons to the Nazis.
Tories have now dropped pledges to not raise taxes (income, VAT, NI), the ones that hit the poor and middle classes. Hammond under no illusions that tax rises are a direct result of their plan to Hard Brexit.
Thus goes the last decent reason to vote Tory, and the last line they needed to cross to go from a centre-right party to full-on right nationalist/authoritarian party.
Are you ok Fiiish? When people undergo radical political conversions it can be a positive sign of intellectual rigour. When they start calling fairly boring right of centre parties Nazi's and accuse them of seeking to kill people it's time to see the GP.
The current Conservative Party leadership has allied itself with the alt-right, and has changed its tone severely to become more authoritarian (widespread surveillance, calling those who attempt to scrutinise their policies the enemy, wanting to scrap human rights, threatening to pull out of unilateral international security arrangements and making aggressive comments towards allies of the UK, refusing to honour its international obligations regarding refugees and migrants). There is nothing Centrist about the current Tory leadership - any Tory MP with a remotely liberal bone has either been ousted from the cabinet or has exiled themselves from the front bench or even the House entirely.
And no, I haven't accused them of wanting to kill people, try improving your reading skills. What is the case is that if the Tories continue to undermine support for the most vulnerable in society (the homeless, single parents, children in poverty, those in care, benefits recipients) as well as continue to let A&E wards get worse and worse, we will be seeing huge increases in easily preventable deaths because the Tories are shifting resources away from vital public services to wherever they hold shares. If you're happy to let people die because you want the rich to get richer (and by the sounds of your tone you're more than happy to let this happen) then that's on you. I'd rather take a stand.
I read someone else accusing the Tories of being intent on killing various sections of society today and I thought it was you, looking back I can see it wasn't on this thread (I was probably reading the Guardian), my apologies. That said I still think your Nazi illusion is ridiculous and as for supporting the Tories I've stated many times on here that I've got as many issues with them as I do with Labour.
You produce a long list of woe but the solutions aren't black and white however much you want them to be. The services that governments in the developed world provide are going to have to shrink as tax bases at best remain static and demands constantly rise. I don't see any way round this given the situation we find ourselves in. Rather than howling at reality I'd prefer a rational debate about targeting resources to do the most good. Sorry if you think my utilitarianist attitude is about being happy to let people die but I feel your utopian thinking is far more dangerous.
I didn't use the word Nazi. If you see the facts I'm posting and think 'Nazis' then that's a pretty damning assessment of current Tory policy.
I disagree that wanting a country where the government invests very minor sums of money to stop thousands of preventable deaths is a utopia, I think it is totally achieveable. If thousands of people dying is an acceptable cost to you to make a handful of people richer then that's on you.
Your first year politics student sanctimony is just tedious.
I think every death that can be avoided is a tragedy and people that say there is nothing that we can do, it is just the way the world is need to look at themselves. It is just the way the world is that mega rich companies pay less tax than you or I?
Corbyn's outrageous claim utterly debunked in the BBC
The claim: Speaking in Swindon, Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn said: "Half a million children are now being taught in super-size classes of over 36."
Reality Check verdict: This is incorrect. Actually about 42,000 pupils are in classes of 36 or more - about 1% of children.
About half a million pupils in state-funded primary schools in England are in classes of between 31 and 35.
Labour claims that pupils in England's primary schools "are packed like sardines" in classrooms.
Government figures from the school census says that about 42,000 pupils are in classes of 36 pupils or more, which is about 1% of primary school pupils.
Exceptional circumstances Tory Government rules say no infant school child should be taught in a class size greater than 30 - that's children in Key Stage 1 who are aged five to seven.
That rule can be waived in exceptional circumstances - usually if twins or siblings are admitted to the school, or a child in care has to be given a place.
The official school census for 2016 shows that more than half of Key Stage 1 classes with one teacher have either 29 or 30 pupils in them. Of the infant classes with more than 30 pupils, roughly 95% have 31 or 32 pupils. Classes with more than 32 children in them are uncommon.
Remained stable Rules on classes sizes do not apply to children in Key Stage 2, which is ages seven to 11. Between 2006 and 2016, the average Key Stage 1 class grew from 25.6 to 27.4 but at Key Stage 2, where there is no cap on numbers, it has remained stable at around 27 pupils in a class on average.
While numbers of pupils in oversized classes has increased, the number of primary school aged children has increased by about half a million over that period.
While numbers of pupils in oversized classes has increased, the number of primary school aged children has increased by about half a million over that period.
Build new schools? It's not as if they didn't see it coming.
While numbers of pupils in oversized classes has increased, the number of primary school aged children has increased by about half a million over that period.
Build new schools? It's not as if they didn't see it coming.
I don't think they did!
I was a governor in Lewisham from 2003 to 2015, we had the predicted number of pupils for the next 3 years every year, it was generally pretty accurate give or take 1-2%.
For some reason between about 2008 and 2012 each year there was in excess of 20% more that applied for primary school places than expected. Ultimately there were far more people moving into the borough with young children/babies. This means that around 80% of primary schools in lewisham now have an extra class of 30 pupils in each year group.
This isn't meant to be in anyway controversial, but if I look now at the school where I was a governor, in excess of 60% of the children have english as a second language, that vast majority of those are not refugee's but economic migrants. When I first became a governor in 2003 it was less than 5%.
The measure to predict places was always births, thats where it fell down IMHO, as I don't think anyone took account of migration. It was the same in neighbouring boroughs, not sure of the country as a whole.
While numbers of pupils in oversized classes has increased, the number of primary school aged children has increased by about half a million over that period.
Build new schools? It's not as if they didn't see it coming.
So to have new schools built and staffed by 2010, when do you think the planning should have taken place? Getting the funding and contracts in place?
(Using PFI of course as it was the favoured cock-up method of funding of Gordon Brown, amongst others.)
While numbers of pupils in oversized classes has increased, the number of primary school aged children has increased by about half a million over that period.
Build new schools? It's not as if they didn't see it coming.
So to have new schools built and staffed by 2010, when do you think the planning should have taken place? Getting the funding and contracts in place?
(Using PFI of course as it was the favoured cock-up method of funding of Gordon Brown, amongst others.)
2005? 2006 maybe, 2007?
I think most people, even the tories, have moved on from blaming the last labour government for all the ills in society.
I wasn't making a political point but now you come to mention it, if we are talking about primary schools (Key Stage 1), pretty much all the children in them now have been born under a tory government.
If they can't plan for school place numbers then what chance have we got? - it isn't rocket science.
While numbers of pupils in oversized classes has increased, the number of primary school aged children has increased by about half a million over that period.
Build new schools? It's not as if they didn't see it coming.
I don't think they did!
I was a governor in Lewisham from 2003 to 2015, we had the predicted number of pupils for the next 3 years every year, it was generally pretty accurate give or take 1-2%.
For some reason between about 2008 and 2012 each year there was in excess of 20% more that applied for primary school places than expected. Ultimately there were far more people moving into the borough with young children/babies. This means that around 80% of primary schools in lewisham now have an extra class of 30 pupils in each year group.
This isn't meant to be in anyway controversial, but if I look now at the school where I was a governor, in excess of 60% of the children have english as a second language, that vast majority of those are not refugee's but economic migrants. When I first became a governor in 2003 it was less than 5%.
The measure to predict places was always births, thats where it fell down IMHO, as I don't think anyone took account of migration. It was the same in neighbouring boroughs, not sure of the country as a whole.
I was Chair of Governors of a Primary school in Medway for about 10 years during the last Labour government with immigration and new house building being very significant - we planned the expansion of that school from one form entry to two over a 5-7 year period and never was there more than 30 in any class. There was plenty of budget as well to accommodate that expansion.
Overcrowding in schools is not a unforeseen demographic issue - it is one purely related to a squeeze in funding.
Tories have now dropped pledges to not raise taxes (income, VAT, NI), the ones that hit the poor and middle classes. Hammond under no illusions that tax rises are a direct result of their plan to Hard Brexit.
Thus goes the last decent reason to vote Tory, and the last line they needed to cross to go from a centre-right party to full-on right nationalist/authoritarian party.
Are you ok Fiiish? When people undergo radical political conversions it can be a positive sign of intellectual rigour. When they start calling fairly boring right of centre parties Nazi's and accuse them of seeking to kill people it's time to see the GP.
The current Conservative Party leadership has allied itself with the alt-right, and has changed its tone severely to become more authoritarian (widespread surveillance, calling those who attempt to scrutinise their policies the enemy, wanting to scrap human rights, threatening to pull out of unilateral international security arrangements and making aggressive comments towards allies of the UK, refusing to honour its international obligations regarding refugees and migrants). There is nothing Centrist about the current Tory leadership - any Tory MP with a remotely liberal bone has either been ousted from the cabinet or has exiled themselves from the front bench or even the House entirely.
And no, I haven't accused them of wanting to kill people, try improving your reading skills. What is the case is that if the Tories continue to undermine support for the most vulnerable in society (the homeless, single parents, children in poverty, those in care, benefits recipients) as well as continue to let A&E wards get worse and worse, we will be seeing huge increases in easily preventable deaths because the Tories are shifting resources away from vital public services to wherever they hold shares. If you're happy to let people die because you want the rich to get richer (and by the sounds of your tone you're more than happy to let this happen) then that's on you. I'd rather take a stand.
I read someone else accusing the Tories of being intent on killing various sections of society today and I thought it was you, looking back I can see it wasn't on this thread (I was probably reading the Guardian), my apologies. That said I still think your Nazi illusion is ridiculous and as for supporting the Tories I've stated many times on here that I've got as many issues with them as I do with Labour.
You produce a long list of woe but the solutions aren't black and white however much you want them to be. The services that governments in the developed world provide are going to have to shrink as tax bases at best remain static and demands constantly rise. I don't see any way round this given the situation we find ourselves in. Rather than howling at reality I'd prefer a rational debate about targeting resources to do the most good. Sorry if you think my utilitarianist attitude is about being happy to let people die but I feel your utopian thinking is far more dangerous.
I didn't use the word Nazi. If you see the facts I'm posting and think 'Nazis' then that's a pretty damning assessment of current Tory policy.
I disagree that wanting a country where the government invests very minor sums of money to stop thousands of preventable deaths is a utopia, I think it is totally achieveable. If thousands of people dying is an acceptable cost to you to make a handful of people richer then that's on you.
Your first year politics student sanctimony is just tedious.
I think every death that can be avoided is a tragedy and people that say there is nothing that we can do, it is just the way the world is need to look at themselves. It is just the way the world is that mega rich companies pay less tax than you or I?
"My relationship with death remains the same, I'm strongly against it." - Woody Allen
Tories have now dropped pledges to not raise taxes (income, VAT, NI), the ones that hit the poor and middle classes. Hammond under no illusions that tax rises are a direct result of their plan to Hard Brexit.
Thus goes the last decent reason to vote Tory, and the last line they needed to cross to go from a centre-right party to full-on right nationalist/authoritarian party.
Are you ok Fiiish? When people undergo radical political conversions it can be a positive sign of intellectual rigour. When they start calling fairly boring right of centre parties Nazi's and accuse them of seeking to kill people it's time to see the GP.
The current Conservative Party leadership has allied itself with the alt-right, and has changed its tone severely to become more authoritarian (widespread surveillance, calling those who attempt to scrutinise their policies the enemy, wanting to scrap human rights, threatening to pull out of unilateral international security arrangements and making aggressive comments towards allies of the UK, refusing to honour its international obligations regarding refugees and migrants). There is nothing Centrist about the current Tory leadership - any Tory MP with a remotely liberal bone has either been ousted from the cabinet or has exiled themselves from the front bench or even the House entirely.
And no, I haven't accused them of wanting to kill people, try improving your reading skills. What is the case is that if the Tories continue to undermine support for the most vulnerable in society (the homeless, single parents, children in poverty, those in care, benefits recipients) as well as continue to let A&E wards get worse and worse, we will be seeing huge increases in easily preventable deaths because the Tories are shifting resources away from vital public services to wherever they hold shares. If you're happy to let people die because you want the rich to get richer (and by the sounds of your tone you're more than happy to let this happen) then that's on you. I'd rather take a stand.
I read someone else accusing the Tories of being intent on killing various sections of society today and I thought it was you, looking back I can see it wasn't on this thread (I was probably reading the Guardian), my apologies. That said I still think your Nazi illusion is ridiculous and as for supporting the Tories I've stated many times on here that I've got as many issues with them as I do with Labour.
You produce a long list of woe but the solutions aren't black and white however much you want them to be. The services that governments in the developed world provide are going to have to shrink as tax bases at best remain static and demands constantly rise. I don't see any way round this given the situation we find ourselves in. Rather than howling at reality I'd prefer a rational debate about targeting resources to do the most good. Sorry if you think my utilitarianist attitude is about being happy to let people die but I feel your utopian thinking is far more dangerous.
I didn't use the word Nazi. If you see the facts I'm posting and think 'Nazis' then that's a pretty damning assessment of current Tory policy.
I disagree that wanting a country where the government invests very minor sums of money to stop thousands of preventable deaths is a utopia, I think it is totally achieveable. If thousands of people dying is an acceptable cost to you to make a handful of people richer then that's on you.
Your first year politics student sanctimony is just tedious.
By the way, your contribution to this thread has singularly been to incorrectly accuse me of accusing the Tories of being murderous Nazis, then to insult me and claim I need to see a GP. Before you next contribute to this thread, maybe learn to read and actually find something worth contributing, because so far your posts have been less than worthless.
You've provided some genuinely interesting food for thought and insight there @Fiiish.
Even if I don't quite share your level of disgust/alarm over The Conservative Party (and I'm the first to admit I'm not particularly happy with them!), it's been quite thought provoking.
I think both Labour and Conservative have been pulled too far to their respective extremities, which is disastrous considering the post-Clegg implosion of the Liberal Democrats. There's a genuine need for a real centre party at the moment.
Out of interest though, how do you define alt-right? It's a term that bothers me a little to be honest, I see it referred to quite often but I can't seem to find anyone's actual definition. I've seen definitions range from "younger elements of the right", to "white supremacists and ultra-nationalists" - and I'm a tad confused to be honest!
Fiiish, I like the cut of your jib. Even back in your dark days when you were wrong you at least backed it up with well written explanations. Good to see you've seen the light.
Corbyn's outrageous claim utterly debunked in the BBC
The claim: Speaking in Swindon, Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn said: "Half a million children are now being taught in super-size classes of over 36."
Reality Check verdict: This is incorrect. Actually about 42,000 pupils are in classes of 36 or more - about 1% of children.
About half a million pupils in state-funded primary schools in England are in classes of between 31 and 35.
Labour claims that pupils in England's primary schools "are packed like sardines" in classrooms.
Government figures from the school census says that about 42,000 pupils are in classes of 36 pupils or more, which is about 1% of primary school pupils.
Exceptional circumstances Tory Government rules say no infant school child should be taught in a class size greater than 30 - that's children in Key Stage 1 who are aged five to seven.
That rule can be waived in exceptional circumstances - usually if twins or siblings are admitted to the school, or a child in care has to be given a place.
The official school census for 2016 shows that more than half of Key Stage 1 classes with one teacher have either 29 or 30 pupils in them. Of the infant classes with more than 30 pupils, roughly 95% have 31 or 32 pupils. Classes with more than 32 children in them are uncommon.
Remained stable Rules on classes sizes do not apply to children in Key Stage 2, which is ages seven to 11. Between 2006 and 2016, the average Key Stage 1 class grew from 25.6 to 27.4 but at Key Stage 2, where there is no cap on numbers, it has remained stable at around 27 pupils in a class on average.
While numbers of pupils in oversized classes has increased, the number of primary school aged children has increased by about half a million over that period.
It wasn't an "outrageous claim" at all. He cocked up as you well know as you read the report of the speech.
"...In his speech, Mr Corbyn appeared to confuse some of the statistics released earlier by his party, inadvertently overstating the number of children in large classes.
He told supporters: "500,000 children in England - half a million children - are now being taught in super-sized classes of over 36"."
Maybe look at your own comments earlier in this thread about how education under Blair was so wonderful, then read the facts that Corbyn "mis spoke" that suggest that things, whilst undoubtedly far from perfect snd under strain from years of unregistered immigration, aren't quite as bad as the Labour leader would accidentally have his followers believe.
While numbers of pupils in oversized classes has increased, the number of primary school aged children has increased by about half a million over that period.
Build new schools? It's not as if they didn't see it coming.
I don't think they did!
I was a governor in Lewisham from 2003 to 2015, we had the predicted number of pupils for the next 3 years every year, it was generally pretty accurate give or take 1-2%.
For some reason between about 2008 and 2012 each year there was in excess of 20% more that applied for primary school places than expected. Ultimately there were far more people moving into the borough with young children/babies. This means that around 80% of primary schools in lewisham now have an extra class of 30 pupils in each year group.
This isn't meant to be in anyway controversial, but if I look now at the school where I was a governor, in excess of 60% of the children have english as a second language, that vast majority of those are not refugee's but economic migrants. When I first became a governor in 2003 it was less than 5%.
The measure to predict places was always births, thats where it fell down IMHO, as I don't think anyone took account of migration. It was the same in neighbouring boroughs, not sure of the country as a whole.
I was Chair of Governors of a Primary school in Medway for about 10 years during the last Labour government with immigration and new house building being very significant - we planned the expansion of that school from one form entry to two over a 5-7 year period and never was there more than 30 in any class. There was plenty of budget as well to accommodate that expansion.
Overcrowding in schools is not a unforeseen demographic issue - it is one purely related to a squeeze in funding.
Plus the fact that some local schools like where my grandaughter goes too hasnrt expanded in line with new estates being built around it. I. E no structure plan.
Comments
It will come back to bite the Conservatives in the backside, but I suspect not yet!
Can you even imagine the toxic shit the Sun, Mail and Express are cooking up right now?
You produce a long list of woe but the solutions aren't black and white however much you want them to be. The services that governments in the developed world provide are going to have to shrink as tax bases at best remain static and demands constantly rise. I don't see any way round this given the situation we find ourselves in. Rather than howling at reality I'd prefer a rational debate about targeting resources to do the most good. Sorry if you think my utilitarianist attitude is about being happy to let people die but I feel your utopian thinking is far more dangerous.
I disagree that wanting a country where the government invests very minor sums of money to stop thousands of preventable deaths is a utopia, I think it is totally achieveable. If thousands of people dying is an acceptable cost to you to make a handful of people richer then that's on you.
The fact that this will lose voters matters to him not a jot.
Is there any good reason why we shouldn't have televised, live leaders' debates enshrined in law?
One of the reasons we're told that the turnout at elections is so low is that politicians are seen to be too distant and fail to engage. I think it's a healthy, democratic excercise to see the leaders of the main parties holding each other to account. Surely the people best placed to put difficult, revealing questions to political leaders are their opponents. For that reason, I think we should have live tv debates written into law as a compulsory element of all general elections.
The upside is that more people may become engaged, understand policies better, become better placed to debate them and, ultimately, excercise their democratic right (or duty..?) by voting. The downside? I don't think there is one - some people say they wouldn't want to watch them: if that's the case, don't
The claim: Speaking in Swindon, Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn said: "Half a million children are now being taught in super-size classes of over 36."
Reality Check verdict: This is incorrect. Actually about 42,000 pupils are in classes of 36 or more - about 1% of children.
About half a million pupils in state-funded primary schools in England are in classes of between 31 and 35.
Labour claims that pupils in England's primary schools "are packed like sardines" in classrooms.
Government figures from the school census says that about 42,000 pupils are in classes of 36 pupils or more, which is about 1% of primary school pupils.
Exceptional circumstances
Tory Government rules say no infant school child should be taught in a class size greater than 30 - that's children in Key Stage 1 who are aged five to seven.
That rule can be waived in exceptional circumstances - usually if twins or siblings are admitted to the school, or a child in care has to be given a place.
The official school census for 2016 shows that more than half of Key Stage 1 classes with one teacher have either 29 or 30 pupils in them. Of the infant classes with more than 30 pupils, roughly 95% have 31 or 32 pupils. Classes with more than 32 children in them are uncommon.
Remained stable
Rules on classes sizes do not apply to children in Key Stage 2, which is ages seven to 11.
Between 2006 and 2016, the average Key Stage 1 class grew from 25.6 to 27.4 but at Key Stage 2, where there is no cap on numbers, it has remained stable at around 27 pupils in a class on average.
While numbers of pupils in oversized classes has increased, the number of primary school aged children has increased by about half a million over that period.
I was a governor in Lewisham from 2003 to 2015, we had the predicted number of pupils for the next 3 years every year, it was generally pretty accurate give or take 1-2%.
For some reason between about 2008 and 2012 each year there was in excess of 20% more that applied for primary school places than expected. Ultimately there were far more people moving into the borough with young children/babies. This means that around 80% of primary schools in lewisham now have an extra class of 30 pupils in each year group.
This isn't meant to be in anyway controversial, but if I look now at the school where I was a governor, in excess of 60% of the children have english as a second language, that vast majority of those are not refugee's but economic migrants. When I first became a governor in 2003 it was less than 5%.
The measure to predict places was always births, thats where it fell down IMHO, as I don't think anyone took account of migration. It was the same in neighbouring boroughs, not sure of the country as a whole.
(Using PFI of course as it was the favoured cock-up method of funding of Gordon Brown, amongst others.)
2005? 2006 maybe, 2007?
I wasn't making a political point but now you come to mention it, if we are talking about primary schools (Key Stage 1), pretty much all the children in them now have been born under a tory government.
If they can't plan for school place numbers then what chance have we got? - it isn't rocket science.
Overcrowding in schools is not a unforeseen demographic issue - it is one purely related to a squeeze in funding.
Even if I don't quite share your level of disgust/alarm over The Conservative Party (and I'm the first to admit I'm not particularly happy with them!), it's been quite thought provoking.
I think both Labour and Conservative have been pulled too far to their respective extremities, which is disastrous considering the post-Clegg implosion of the Liberal Democrats. There's a genuine need for a real centre party at the moment.
Out of interest though, how do you define alt-right? It's a term that bothers me a little to be honest, I see it referred to quite often but I can't seem to find anyone's actual definition. I've seen definitions range from "younger elements of the right", to "white supremacists and ultra-nationalists" - and I'm a tad confused to be honest!
"...In his speech, Mr Corbyn appeared to confuse some of the statistics released earlier by his party, inadvertently overstating the number of children in large classes.
He told supporters: "500,000 children in England - half a million children - are now being taught in super-sized classes of over 36"."
Corbyn in being useless orator shock!