Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊

How LARGE will Cameron's failure be ?

General Election predictions


  • Total voters
    212
  • Poll closed .


wellquickwoody

Many More Voting Years
NSC Patron
Aug 10, 2007
13,912
Melbourne
neither do I think that enacting law to deprive some children of a good education is a good solution, or in any way helpful to the overall debate.

Do you mean my lack of empathy for state sanctioned dumbing down? My support for excellent education, wherever it might be found?
QUOTE]
I want excellent education for all. Sorry.

There will always be a minority that will want, create, be able to afford a better education. It is called aspiration. Unless you fancy strict communism, state education will always struggle to be as good as that in the private sector.
 




binky

Active member
Aug 9, 2005
632
Hove
I've got no problem with you disagreeing, but don't wrap it up in a load of disingenuous claptrap. You claim you want standards in state schools brought up, but everything else you say betrays a total ambivalence to that aim. You support "excellent education" but only for the relatively small number of people that can afford it. I want excellent education for all. Sorry.

Hmm. Seems to me that you are quite blinded by your ideology.

I want every child to get an excellent education.
Politicians of all stripes have not been able to provide that in the state system, across the board.

GIVEN that at present, I cannot get that education for my children in the state system, why would you remove my choice to pay more of my taxed income to provide for my children?

Im not sure why you see this as disingenuous claptrap.:down:
 




Tooting Gull

Well-known member
Jul 5, 2003
11,033
why would you remove my choice to pay more of my taxed income to provide for my children?
:

I'm going to spare you and the rest of the board another five pages of explanation as to what I would do and why. Revisit if you must. And when do the very pejorative phrases 'dogma' and 'blinded by ideology' become simply believing in one issue strongly and knowing exactly what you think about it...I could have accused you of being blinded by self-interest, but I don't think that would be helpful. It's natural to want the best for your kids.
 


Although this is well off track now, the Politics Home website is saying if a vote was taken today, the Tories would win 11 short of a majority.

http://www.politicshome.com/uk/article/7620/election_projection_tories_11_short_of_a_majority.html
... which is probably enough to ensure that they could govern without needing the formal support of any other political group in parliament.

Northern Ireland's MPs wouldn't rock the boat (apart from the SDLP) and that would ensure that a Tory programme could be achieved.

But the gap between the leading party and the rest ALWAYS closes during an election campaign. If it's 11 seats short of an overall majority today, expect it to be more by 6 May.
 




Simster

"the man's an arse"
Jul 7, 2003
54,952
Surrey
Consitutional issue:
If there is no overall majority, is it true to say that Labour would get first go and trying to form a government, on the basis that they are the ones in power?
 


Gwylan

Well-known member
Jul 5, 2003
31,827
Uffern
.
But the gap between the leading party and the rest ALWAYS closes during an election campaign. If it's 11 seats short of an overall majority today, expect it to be more by 6 May.

It didn't in 1983. Tories had a big lead over Labour at the start of the campaign and although the Tories' lead fell, Labour's share fell even more. L/SDP alliance increased dramatically.
 


Gwylan

Well-known member
Jul 5, 2003
31,827
Uffern
Consitutional issue:
If there is no overall majority, is it true to say that Labour would get first go and trying to form a government, on the basis that they are the ones in power?

The Queen invites a party to try to form a government - there's nothing in any constitution to say which one, although when this last happened in 1974, Heath did try to stay on to form a government.
 




Dandyman

In London village.
The Queen invites a party to try to form a government - there's nothing in any constitution to say which one, although when this last happened in 1974, Heath did try to stay on to form a government.

Good points. I guess it decides on who feels that they can form a working government. If Broon felt able to claim the support of the Liberals (in exchange for electoral reform for example) then he might be able to claim first dibs. if the parties stand alone then I'd expect the Tories to form the government on a minority basis but the country to be back at the polls within 12 months.
 


Les Biehn

GAME OVER
Aug 14, 2005
20,610
Has anyone mentioned yet that Cameron is pally with some rather nasty racist and homophobic parties on the continent? I read 5 pages but got no further.
 


Acker79

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Nov 15, 2008
31,921
Brighton
Assuming that 99% of parents of kids in the private education sector actually care about their kids education, and this percentage is lower in the state education, then how can those kids parachuted in from the private sector have anything but a positive effect?

I don't get the idea at the heart of your argument.

Why is a parent who rather than taking it on themselves to help with their child's education decides to just pay for a better school to educate their child for them will suddenly become so active they'd campaign their state school to improve standards?

Can you explain how exactly an increased percentage of parents who would otherwise send their kids to private school helps a state school?


Several things - for a start, there's the administration involved when you would have to register your income
...And on and on. It's bad enough sorting this shit out with HMRC, the Benefits Agency would probably just implode.

Why make it means tested? Why not just make it applied for? Granted there would still be some people who don't need the support still claiming it but it would still be fewer people taking than hand out than everyone taking it. All you need is confirmation the child actually exists, surely that's not going to be any more of a burden on the system than the current set up is?
 




Harty

New member
Jul 7, 2003
1,759
Sussex
I used to work with an old bloke, fought in the war etc, etc, who stated that he thought every male in this country should have a reversable sterilisation at 16, which could be reversed once he could prove he was responsible and had the means to bring up a child/children.

I thought he was so wide of the mark it was bordering on insanity, but looking at some of the chavs around now, was he the sane one rather than me?
 


wigman

Well-known member
Oct 10, 2006
4,754
East Preston
I used to work with an old bloke, fought in the war etc, etc, who stated that he thought every male in this country should have a reversable sterilisation at 16, which could be reversed once he could prove he was responsible and had the means to bring up a child/children.

I thought he was so wide of the mark it was bordering on insanity, but looking at some of the chavs around now, was he the sane one rather than me?

That statement proves your getting older;Harty.
Btw i think its a great idea.
 


The Cardinal

Bishop of Withdean
Sep 2, 2008
228
St Peters
CMD still failing to smarm enough of the British electorate according to the latest polls. Tories are defo not going to get a working majority.
 














Chicken Run

Member Since Jul 2003
NSC Patron
Jul 17, 2003
19,811
Valley of Hangleton
FFS, I'll say it again! How does a link to a story about a chav who is getting too much in benefits prove that there are more people like him around than genuine single mothers who struggle to cope with day to finances and work?
FFS it is better than the first link though FFS:lol:
 


k2bluesky

New member
Sep 22, 2008
803
Brighton
It won't be as large as the 'schoolboy in a sweet shop with his mummy's purse' who has been running the country's economy for the last 13 years, letting anyone into the country in the hope they will vote labour, stealing pensions to fund his unrealistic idealism and plunging the country into an irretrievable debt, Britain is the laughing stock of the world thanks to Blair and Brown, Cameron could not possibly do worse. Any leader will be seen as a failure taking on the problems they have been left with, it will take 10 years at least to set things right - be careful who you vote for or it could get a lot worse.
 


Albion and Premier League latest from Sky Sports


Top
Link Here