Balanced Question Time panel tonight - of course not!

[Yazar]

Foppo said:

Brand has his hart in the right place he is battling with the sharks can't win.

The problem is that he isn't 'leading', merely making noise.

Why doesn't he setup a political party, or stand for london mayor? If you look at Farage, he has spent years as an outsider being labelled a 'fruitcake' and has fought to get UKIP where it is, why not Brand do the same?

That answer he gave on QT of "I'm afraid I will become one of them" was just not good enough.

[Langweilig]

VolvoT5 said:

I usually watch QT on Iplayer on a Friday but seeing that Russell Brand is on I am not sure I can stand to watch. Was he as bad as I am anticipating?

Edited by VolvoT5 on Friday 12th December 11:39

I found him so annoying that if I'd been on the panel I'd have punched him in the gob.

[RichB]

BGARK said:

...You could say that I'm brainwashed with what Brand is saying, but I have had my beliefs for a long time before I knew about what he is now doing now. I have changed what I think many times when seeing what our government is doing, I have come to the conclusion that any leisure we find is just an illusion to try and make us forget about the fact we are born, forced to work our whole lives and then die. We are practically slaves to the rich.

Right on mate but did that persist in remittance of fact in persual that displacement of obligatory truth, factual of requisite clarification, did not or had not caught such attention from the eyes of scrutiny and with that the eyes of truth. Fact was or had been for confirmation, not obliteration for clarification?

[NicD]

RichB said:

BGARK said:

...You could say that I'm brainwashed with what Brand is saying, but I have had my beliefs for a long time before I knew about what he is now doing now. I have changed what I think many times when seeing what our government is doing, I have come to the conclusion that any leisure we find is just an illusion to try and make us forget about the fact we are born, forced to work our whole lives and then die. We are practically slaves to the rich.

Right on mate but did that persist in remittance of fact in persual that displacement of obligatory truth, factual of requisite clarification, did not or had not caught such attention from the eyes of scrutiny and with that the eyes of truth. Fact was or had been for confirmation, not obliteration for clarification?

[BGARK]

NicD said:

RichB said:

BGARK said:

...You could say that I'm brainwashed with what Brand is saying, but I have had my beliefs for a long time before I knew about what he is now doing now. I have changed what I think many times when seeing what our government is doing, I have come to the conclusion that any leisure we find is just an illusion to try and make us forget about the fact we are born, forced to work our whole lives and then die. We are practically slaves to the rich.

Right on mate but did that persist in remittance of fact in persual that displacement of obligatory truth, factual of requisite clarification, did not or had not caught such attention from the eyes of scrutiny and with that the eyes of truth. Fact was or had been for confirmation, not obliteration for clarification?

Aaaah I never wrote that, I copied it a and posted it it from the comments linked above..

[Derek Smith]

otolith said:

There is a leftist dogma which holds it anathema to differentiate between those who deserve help and those who don't, holding that all that matters is whether they need help. The tension between this idea, and the reality of human nature is what creates the resentment amongst those who see supporting oneself if possible as a moral choice.

Could I ask what you mean by 'deserve'?

I was subjected to a lot of 'leftist' propaganda when I was in my youth, this is the 60s, and in the area I never heard this mantra.

There was an objection to means testing, if that's what you mean, but that was a hangover from the days when if you had a sideboard you got less money despite it being all but worthless and no one would buy it. My father said that he earned a few pence by helping to dump pianos, which were regarded as savings in a tax haven by the assessors it seems.

I found that the 'leftist' beliefs were based on a high moral standard. Enough to put anyone off.

[sidicks]

Derek Smith said:

Could I ask what you mean by 'deserve'?

I was subjected to a lot of 'leftist' propaganda when I was in my youth, this is the 60s, and in the area I never heard this mantra.

There was an objection to means testing, if that's what you mean, but that was a hangover from the days when if you had a sideboard you got less money despite it being all but worthless and no one would buy it. My father said that he earned a few pence by helping to dump pianos, which were regarded as savings in a tax haven by the assessors it seems.

I found that the 'leftist' beliefs were based on a high moral standard. Enough to put anyone off.

Can you explain why spending other people's money has a high moral element to it?

[chris watton]

sidicks said:

Can you explain why spending other people's money has a high moral element to it?

I would have thought that spending other people's money was one of the easiest things you could do, at the same time, getting paid via tax payer's money!

And then they somehow think they hold some fake moral high ground.

Bargain!

[RichB]

BGARK said:

Aaaah I never wrote that, I copied it a and posted it it from the comments linked above..

Ah right, sorry, in which case there's no requisite obligation for anything other than justification or misinterpretation there of dealt with in such hastening importance.

[BGARK]

RichB said:

h right, sorry, in which case there's no requisite obligation for anything other than justification or misinterpretation there of dealt with in such hastening importance.

Right-o your honour.

[otolith]

Derek Smith said:

otolith said:

There is a leftist dogma which holds it anathema to differentiate between those who deserve help and those who don't, holding that all that matters is whether they need help. The tension between this idea, and the reality of human nature is what creates the resentment amongst those who see supporting oneself if possible as a moral choice.

Could I ask what you mean by 'deserve'?

I was subjected to a lot of 'leftist' propaganda when I was in my youth, this is the 60s, and in the area I never heard this mantra.

There was an objection to means testing, if that's what you mean, but that was a hangover from the days when if you had a sideboard you got less money despite it being all but worthless and no one would buy it. My father said that he earned a few pence by helping to dump pianos, which were regarded as savings in a tax haven by the assessors it seems.

I found that the 'leftist' beliefs were based on a high moral standard. Enough to put anyone off.

Derek, if you google "deserving and undeserving poor" you will see plenty of articles about the idea, most of them about how it's wrong to make a distinction. Unfortunately, most people do see a difference between those who are simply unfortunate and those who are lazy, feckless, irresponsible or in other ways the architect of their own misfortune. The populist Tory reforms to the benefit system were essentially that causing the pendulum to swing the other way.

[gpo746]

Yazar said:

That answer he gave on QT of "I'm afraid I will become one of them" was just not good enough.

Personally I found it totally ludicrous.
Probably the most ridiculous thing I have heard on there in months.

[Guybrush]

gpo746 said:

Yazar said:

That answer he gave on QT of "I'm afraid I will become one of them" was just not good enough.

Personally I found it totally ludicrous.
Probably the most ridiculous thing I have heard on there in months.

Yes, the quickest answer he could think of when confronted with (yet another) difficult question. It really shows he doesn't have the balls and feels safest when heckling from the back row.

[McWigglebum4th]

Derek Smith said:

I found that the 'leftist' beliefs were based on a high moral standard. Enough to put anyone off.

I always felt that leftist ideal were based around the concept that only our leaders are wise enough to decide how we should run out lives


As the more left wing the person the less they believe in the state not getting involved with the day to day life of OTHER people

[NicD]

McWigglebum4th said:

I always felt that leftist ideal were based around the concept that only our leaders are wise enough to decide how we should run out lives


As the more left wing the person the less they believe in the state not getting involved with the day to day life of OTHER people

I think he spent a lot of time working on his 'poundshop' line and thought that would be a killer blow so he wouldn't need anything more.

[Einion Yrth]

Derek Smith said:

I found that the 'leftist' beliefs were based on a high moral standard. Enough to put anyone off.

You've written some crap over the years but you've truly excelled yourself with this gem.

[eccles]

McWigglebum4th said:

Derek Smith said:

I found that the 'leftist' beliefs were based on a high moral standard. Enough to put anyone off.

I always felt that leftist ideal were based around the concept that only our leaders are wise enough to decide how we should run out lives


As the more left wing the person the less they believe in the state not getting involved with the day to day life of OTHER people

It seems to a common problem these days from all parties. They all want to control our lives more and more.

[NicD]

Einion Yrth said:

Derek Smith said:

I found that the 'leftist' beliefs were based on a high moral standard. Enough to put anyone off.

You've written some crap over the years but you've truly excelled yourself with this gem.

well some of the 'beliefs' make sense, unfortunately, the 'some pigs are more equal' always takes over, and in a big way.

[jimbobsimmonds]

s2art said:

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.

I've probably joined this conversation a few days late.

But as a (fairly) recent grammar school leaver, I feel I need to jump in and defend them. There are a lot of middle class kids there, but it has been repeated before that this is because some parents will actually move/pay for private tutors pre 11+ test time in order to ensure their kids go to a grammar school. Luckily in Medway we are relatively spoil for grammars but the affluent Sevenoaks district for example has a massive shortage. Result, "pushy" (not always a bad thing) parents from Sevenoaks are moving/pulling favours etc to get their kids into a Medway or Maidstone school. I genuinely believe that if every town had one, this would dissapear.

As for this "full of middle class kids". This might sound really silly but did the OFSTED inspectors ask for a list of the incomes of all the parents and perform a class analysis? One of the reasons they came to this conclusion I would imagine is that in grammar schools the kids are relatively well behaved, wear shoes and uniform as opposed to some AirMax's and trackies, generally stfu when told etc; and this, for the most part, is because the kids want to be there! Most of my friends from the road I lived as a kid went to "normal" school. Most of them have turned out just fine but I am the one who is probably doing the best out of all of them now at 24. If I'd gone to the local school I have no doubt I would have titted around at school and left with grades not much better than them. This sounds harsh, but a class can only go as fast as its weakest link. It wouldn't have been fair to me to slow me down (I'd be bored and then probably start playing up) and let me learn 50% of what I had the potential to learn that day. Likewise it wouldn't have been fair to them to work so much faster that their ability. The idea of segregated streams inside a school is a valid one; but it just isn't the same as a whole school geared up to academic achievement. And like it or not, the grammar/private school model seems to be producing a better calibre of person at the end.

I've just realised what I have written is of such poor English that it is not exhulting the virtues of a grammar education. Please put that down to Sunday morning and a banging hangover.

[NicD]

Very good to hear!
At least something works here.