Is it PotG?
Thrifty non-licker
I think comments and attitudes such as that are where Labour went awry last time, and preached they'd learn
Seems not.
Negative electioneering doesn't work.
Carry on.
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
[Politics] Tory meltdown finally arrived [was: incoming]...
- Thread starter TomandJerry
- Start date
Seems not.
Negative electioneering doesn't work.
Carry on.
darkwolf666
Well-known member
Negative like our PM, in The House, calling the leader of the opposition Beer Starmer, Captain Hindsight and raking up false allegations regarding Jimmy Saville - that sort of negativity?
rogersix
Well-known member
- Jan 18, 2014
- 8,185
they don't, no
and you're still planning on voting for that moral vacuum, the custard filled matress known as bungle****?
rogersix
Well-known member
- Jan 18, 2014
- 8,185
no you won't, you'll just vote tory again like you always do
Super Steve Earle
Well-known member
These two posts actually made me reflect. My voting tendency is Tory and is generally policy and outlook before personality. But when I consider Labour, I look at personality before policy. Reading this thread which is naturally left leaning, and the above posts, it suggests Labour supporters do the same in reverse.
[tweet]1530627345262219264[/tweet]
Personally, my only preference is to get rid of this mendacious Government and the liar-in-chief Boris Johnson. They are destroying our democracy and our international reputation.
rogersix
Well-known member
- Jan 18, 2014
- 8,185
most people vote tory because,
1 they always do, and
2 they assume that their quality of life will improve through slightly lower income tax, and never look any deeper than that
Super Steve Earle
Well-known member
I suspect most people who vote Labour do so because they always do too.
vegster
Sanity Clause
- May 5, 2008
- 28,186
The price of reduced Income Tax is a lack of Midwives, a lack of NHS Dentists, a lack of experienced teachers, a lack of Mental Health services, etc etc...oh, and a society slowly collapsing .
rogersix
Well-known member
- Jan 18, 2014
- 8,185
granted. what i mean is most people don't vote on polocies, who can be arsed to read a manifesto?
so voting for personalities makes sense.
bungle**** has so many character defects that he really should be seperated from society, not "leading it"
rogersix
Well-known member
- Jan 18, 2014
- 8,185
i know
they know
lots of people think that they are exceptional,
like depeffelfeffel, good education, think as mince
Super Steve Earle
Well-known member
Interesting that Boris drew policy in to play by saying that a windfall tax would be 'unconservative', therefore it was voted down. Yet arguably a windfall tax would be the most populist and popular decision he could make. Surely every voter in the land would support it and I believe some of the energy companies signalled they would not oppose a proportionate tax on their windfall profits. No wonder the U-turn. On topic with policy versus personality, I now find myself drawn to try and look past the Labour personalities and see what policies they have to offer.
Is it PotG?
Thrifty non-licker
Free wi-fi do ya?
Super Steve Earle
Well-known member
Deportivo Seagull
I should coco
[emoji23]The Tory’s won the last election on the “anyone one but Corbyn” ticket …
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Motogull
Todd Warrior
- Sep 16, 2005
- 10,255
Speaking from the perspective of having spent five years as a boarder at a British public school I think this is worth commenting on.
Public schools do indeed have great resources. They have enough equipment and text books to go round, home-work (prep) and revision is supervised and compulsory. Class sizes are smaller. All the things you imagine, all true.
However, that doesn't mean the teaching and tuition is of a better standard. I don't know what it's like now but back in the late 80's and early 90's when I was there, teachers (Masters) barely stuck to a curriculum, half of them were semi-pissed, they dithered around with classroom tests asking cricket questions in maths tests so that nobody got full marks , the religious nutters just debated the bible all class, some just joked around with the sports cliques all period.
Masters well past their sell by dates talking about the war or cars or great test matches when they should have been teaching the curriculum. Classes were what I imagine a meeting at No.10 might be like today, good fun but totally unfit for purpose.
The real learning went on in extra-curricular classes run by teachers who were passionate about their subjects and wanted to teach. They ran extra classes in lunch breaks and evenings for those who were keen, because everyone knew you learnt **** all in most of the day classes.
Then you had the other element which idiots like Johnson and Mogg could very well have benefitted from. Not just rich parents but rich parent who were willing to throw money at the school;
"Mr. X, we think it would greatly advance your son's education if the new library was finished ahead of schedule. Mr. Y, we think you son could probably make the Rugby 1st's if only he had a new pitch to practice on" etc.....
The sort of parents who always had their cheque book on them when attending school functions.
That's not to say one had to be rich to get ahead there, if you were bright and applied yourself you would be fine. But if you weren't bright and didn't apply yourself but your parents had means, you would also be fine.
So in short, these people we perceive to have had great educations probably had nothing of the sort. They had expensive educations. Sure, they can quote a bit of Latin but they know nothing about history, politics, geo-politics, other nations, economics, social studies etc. All they learned was that pissing about and not putting the effort in didn't necessarily preclude you from being rewarded.
How disappointingly well it has served them.
Last edited: