Balanced Question Time panel tonight - of course not!
Discussion
Guybrush said:
TEKNOPUG said:
FredClogs said:
TEKNOPUG said:
The poor might be less poor if there wasn't a limitless supply of cheap foreign labour, driving down wages and encouraging zero-hour contracts. I appreciate that this viewpoint confirms that I'm a fear-mongering racist...
I'm not sure if this is the correct thread for such a discussion, but the point you raise should be scrutinised as if often repeated as a truth but I suspect when you really look into it you'll find little evidence that it is the case and given that UKIP are a party who wholeheartedly extol the virtues of Hayekian based market economics I very much doubt that they'll do anything to create market regulation when it comes to peoples individual employment contracts and wages. If you want controlled wages and representation in the workplace then you'll probably want to vote labour.I can tell you for certain that wages are determined by demand for labour versus supply of labour. If supply of labour exceeds demand, then wages are only going one way.
Abagnale said:
chris watton said:
In your opinion, who would be the best man/woman at the right time?
I don't know - honest answer. I know it's not Brand. For instance, one of his ideas in Revolution is to cancel all bank debt. He overlooks the fact that doing so would cause all banks to cease lending immediately & cause the collapse of the global economy. In one move.Equally, Farage is so far beyond what this country has historically been about that it's not him either. He's nebulous, light on realistic policy & prone to giving glimpses of extreme right wingery that were I the Queen, I just couldn't bring myself to give him the keys.
Unfortunately, Cameron & Miliband aren't up to much either & the less said about Clegg the better. In short, I don't have your answer, I'm agnostic politically & no one turns me on out of this crop but I will say this: I can't remember a time like this since the early eighties where ideology is to the fore & politics is at least exciting. I'm not sorry to see the end of centrist managerial, target led government-lite.
I too am agnostic', politically, even though I did join UKIP, because I see them as the best of a bad bunch right here, right now. The main parties have become so insular and lazy, they seem to be so out of touch it is frightening.
For me, rightly or wrongly, Farage does seem to be the one not speaking in evasive riddles. Whether or not he ends up being as bad as the rest, time will tell. If he and his party do end up dropping the ball, their support will quickly dissipate. Until that time, though, I am willing to give him my vote. I did for Blair in 1997, Cameron in 2010 - perhaps third time lucky. But I am not holding my breath, that's for sure.
What amuses me is that all Nigel Farage has to do is turn up and keep quiet. The prejudiced, poisonous, violent, delusional, irrational, lying, uneducated fools, and pseudo-intellectual humourless intolerant morons like Brand, then just herd another million voters towards UKIP. Job done. If UKIP didn't stand for the truth and common sense, other self-interested groups wouldn't be so enraged by the mere mention of it, and be so keen to smear it with false beliefs and policies.
TEKNOPUG said:
Guybrush said:
TEKNOPUG said:
FredClogs said:
TEKNOPUG said:
The poor might be less poor if there wasn't a limitless supply of cheap foreign labour, driving down wages and encouraging zero-hour contracts. I appreciate that this viewpoint confirms that I'm a fear-mongering racist...
I'm not sure if this is the correct thread for such a discussion, but the point you raise should be scrutinised as if often repeated as a truth but I suspect when you really look into it you'll find little evidence that it is the case and given that UKIP are a party who wholeheartedly extol the virtues of Hayekian based market economics I very much doubt that they'll do anything to create market regulation when it comes to peoples individual employment contracts and wages. If you want controlled wages and representation in the workplace then you'll probably want to vote labour.I can tell you for certain that wages are determined by demand for labour versus supply of labour. If supply of labour exceeds demand, then wages are only going one way.
Abagnale said:
I made no mention of Labour, so I'm not sure why you're trying to drag me down that path?
Well I'm not dragging you anywhere - you made a quip regarding rhetorical devices to ensnare cheap votes (as if it's unique to UKIP) and I offer you yesterday's headlines. It so happens it was Labour making them.Abagnale said:
As for the Euro elections, you discredit the electorate.
How so? It is a fact as that's what the counted votes tell us. You said there were numerous 'half formed' parties appearing out of crisis etc etc and I asked you to name one that achieved national significance via a vote in the UK, to back up your argument.And I made no comment about the lady journalist's bed-ability. Not yet, anyway. Although the Mordaunt women looked and acted just like the Labour leader in the last series of 'Thick of It' IMHO.
HonestIago said:
Grammar schools would significantly improve prospects for children of the poor and engender greater social mobility. Quite how you can oppose them is beyond me.
I'll oppose grammar schools because they are a blatantly stupid idea.Pushy middle class parents would do their upmost to secure grammar places for their children, leaving no space for children from poorer families.
Schools can currently stream more able students as it is, so what benefit will grammar schools actually achieve? All they will do is re-inforce class divisions between those that went to grammar and those that didn't.
The point raised last night was about social mobility, rhe real issue isn't that public/private school educated children are smarter or more able, it's that their parents have more contacts and influence to give them a leg up the ladder. It's easy to be a director of a company at 30 when you parents own it...
tangerine_sedge said:
The point raised last night was about social mobility, rhe real issue isn't that public/private school educated children are smarter or more able, it's that their parents have more contacts and influence to give them a leg up the ladder. It's easy to be a director of a company at 30 when you parents own it...
Of course, Turbobloke will be along to tell us how the whole system is skewed towards the poor and stupid, who should be grateful for any gobbets of nourishment falling from his silver plated trough.
tangerine_sedge said:
Pushy middle class parents would do their upmost to secure grammar places for their children, leaving no space for children from poorer families.
Really, loads of poorer kids when I was at Grammar School. Yes, there were also some push parents who wanted their kids in Oxbridge, but then aspiration used to be a good thing?league67 said:
Within the UK we have one of the lowest energy bills in Europe, and people still b
h and moan.
I'll leave you with this; UKIP's energy policy was 'devised' by Helmer and a blogger with bad degree from mickey mouse uni. But it's all 'common sense'.
shows how bloody inept the lot are that thought up the current policy then .h and moan. I'll leave you with this; UKIP's energy policy was 'devised' by Helmer and a blogger with bad degree from mickey mouse uni. But it's all 'common sense'.
tangerine_sedge said:
I'll oppose grammar schools because they are a blatantly stupid idea.
Pushy middle class parents would do their upmost to secure grammar places for their children, leaving no space for children from poorer families.
Schools can currently stream more able students as it is, so what benefit will grammar schools actually achieve? All they will do is re-inforce class divisions between those that went to grammar and those that didn't.
The point raised last night was about social mobility, rhe real issue isn't that public/private school educated children are smarter or more able, it's that their parents have more contacts and influence to give them a leg up the ladder. It's easy to be a director of a company at 30 when you parents own it...
As Farage said, its the shortage of Grammar schools that has led to the remaining ones being populated by middle class kids. The parents move to the catchment area to get them in, and push up house prices in the area to exclude the poorer. The grammar school I went to was more populated by working class and lower middle class kids than any other category. But that was before they converted most of them to Comps.Pushy middle class parents would do their upmost to secure grammar places for their children, leaving no space for children from poorer families.
Schools can currently stream more able students as it is, so what benefit will grammar schools actually achieve? All they will do is re-inforce class divisions between those that went to grammar and those that didn't.
The point raised last night was about social mobility, rhe real issue isn't that public/private school educated children are smarter or more able, it's that their parents have more contacts and influence to give them a leg up the ladder. It's easy to be a director of a company at 30 when you parents own it...
Middle Class parents (mine included) have always pushed to get their children into the best schools - it's not a recent development. The difference between now and when I was a boy is that there used to be a grammar school in every town which meant that there were more many more places at a good school available to the less well-off. There were plenty of boys from poorer backgrounds at my school (RGS Guildford).
People wouldn't mind if so many of the schools that replaced the grammars weren't so ste and I still don't understand why so many of the things that parents insist upon when they pay and which are partly responsible for the success of the private schools are not adopted by comprehensives.
People wouldn't mind if so many of the schools that replaced the grammars weren't so s
te and I still don't understand why so many of the things that parents insist upon when they pay and which are partly responsible for the success of the private schools are not adopted by comprehensives.fido said:
tangerine_sedge said:
Pushy middle class parents would do their upmost to secure grammar places for their children, leaving no space for children from poorer families.
Really, loads of poorer kids when I was at Grammar School. Yes, there were also some push parents who wanted their kids in Oxbridge, but then aspiration used to be a good thing?Abagnale said:
Digga said:
So you're one of those pigeon-holers who thinks women can be intelligent or shaggable but not both?
No. I'm one of those who read through this thread last night & this morning. You may wish to try it yourself, help you keep up.I'll let you find your own parrot.
fido said:
Really, loads of poorer kids when I was at Grammar School. Yes, there were also some push parents who wanted their kids in Oxbridge, but then aspiration used to be a good thing?
Not at mine, we were mostly sons of professionals - and that was true for all the grammar schools in Leicester in the 60's/70's. The few working class kids, apart from a couple of rare exceptions, didn't understand the grammar school ethos and tended to end up in the lower streams and left school at 15 while us middle class types headed to sixth form and university. (On the other hand, there was a huge influx of penniless Ugandan asian kids into my school at the same time as the working class kids left. They did get the grammar school ethos and flourished).FredClogs said:
Reduced welfare spending, tax cuts for the rich, grammer schools... UKIP is chock full or people who think the Tories have gone soft we all know it, an appeal to any political parties manifesto or policy statement as an explanation of their beliefs and motives is ridiculous, we all know politicians lie and deceive, don't kid yourself that UKIP are any different.
my initial reaction to the grammar school proposal was against it. the actual proposal involves creating enough that the current inflated house prices near grammar schools would end ,as there would be no need for people to move to be near them,creating a situation where only the well off can afford to live in the catchment area.the simple fact is since the late 80,s education standards have gone down the toilet. there should be schools where the very best students that are willing to learn get an opportunity to attend. we are wasting thousands of the very brightest kids from the poorer communities who get taught at the level of the lowest common denominator in the classes they attend. this is simply wrong,accept what we need are equal opportunities for all,but that not all are equal ,either mentally or physically. if we were ,we would all be brain surgeons and footballers and we could import half the population of europe to cover the menial tasks like banking,insurance, building formula one cars ,etc,etc
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff