Next Leader of the Opposition

[inckley fox]

Hang on, you accused me of wanting to put the poor in concentration camps.

 

Now, enough of your posturing, stop telling us how offended you are by child poverty and then saying it's not a problem. Tell us your solution?

 

For my part, it's an equal chance in education. That we make parents accountable, that there's a high standard of teaching across education, that we value an A Level from a dodgy inner city school as highly as one from Eton and that higher education, be it vocational or academic, is affordable for everyone. If you jump those hoops and make sure you pay people based on their expertise then child poverty becomes perfectly escapable. In fact then we'd be able to say - as you do - that the only remaining obstacle is the 'personality' of the person in question. Apathy and stupidity would also, in this idealistic society, be as big a problem for the poor who wished to be well off, as it would for the well off who wished to remain well off.

[Buce]

You mention teaching - well I'm a teacher and I've done pretty well at it, I think. I value my profession highly but firmly disagree that we educate our kids 'astoundingly well'. Some of that is down to the government and their tendency to change the system rather than perfect it. Some of it is down to the teachers and the fact that a large number of them aren't very good at their jobs and don't value their profession, or appreciate their responsibilities, as much as they should.

 

I can, I'm ashamed to say, usually tell which young teachers are going to go far, and they're customarily as ambitious as they are unconcerned about the welfare of their students.

 

But this is because we reward the wrong things in society. Longevity in teaching is rewarded more than results. It's the case in many other areas of public service too. You'd be stunned by the applications I've received from people who have held all sorts of lofty positions simply because they were willing to do them, but have an appalling record when it comes to academic success. They sacrifice the job they're supposed to be doing for another one which they think will make them rich. And they're often wise to.

 

For me this is why society has to do everything it can to help a person be useful, and then reward them based on their worth. It's why inheritance tax is as important, more important maybe, than dealing with those who depend on the benefits system. It sounds very utilitarian, I know, but none of this means you need to leave those you can't find a purpose for to rot.

 

As for being able to afford education, I'd argue that tuition fees only account for a small percentage of university costs (there's books, accommodation etc.) and there's little doubt that university isn't a viable option for everyone for exactly this reason. There's also the issue of a large number of parents who depend on their kids to earn money for them, even care for them. And, while we're on the topic of the poor having fewer opportunities than the well off, red brick unis still stubbornly insist on offering places to the privately educated ahead of those with equivalent, and occasionally superior, grades from comprehensive education. In spite of god knows how many governments insisting that this shouldn't happen any more.

 

Apologies for the long post. I know you love my essays...

Excellent post.

[Webbo]

You mention teaching - well I'm a teacher and I've done pretty well at it, I think. I value my profession highly but firmly disagree that we educate our kids 'astoundingly well'. Some of that is down to the government and their tendency to change the system rather than perfect it. Some of it is down to the teachers and the fact that a large number of them aren't very good at their jobs and don't value their profession, or appreciate their responsibilities, as much as they should.

 

I can, I'm ashamed to say, usually tell which young teachers are going to go far, and they're customarily as ambitious as they are unconcerned about the welfare of their students.

 

But this is because we reward the wrong things in society. Longevity in teaching is rewarded more than results. It's the case in many other areas of public service too. You'd be stunned by the applications I've received from people who have held all sorts of lofty positions simply because they were willing to do them, but have an appalling record when it comes to academic success. They sacrifice the job they're supposed to be doing for another one which they think will make them rich. And they're often wise to.

 

For me this is why society has to do everything it can to help a person be useful, and then reward them based on their worth. It's why inheritance tax is as important, more important maybe, than dealing with those who depend on the benefits system. It sounds very utilitarian, I know, but none of this means you need to leave those you can't find a purpose for to rot.

 

As for being able to afford education, I'd argue that tuition fees only account for a small percentage of university costs (there's books, accommodation etc.) and there's little doubt that university isn't a viable option for everyone for exactly this reason. There's also the issue of a large number of parents who depend on their kids to earn money for them, even care for them. And, while we're on the topic of the poor having fewer opportunities than the well off, red brick unis still stubbornly insist on offering places to the privately educated ahead of those with equivalent, and occasionally superior, grades from comprehensive education. In spite of god knows how many governments insisting that this shouldn't happen any more.

 

Apologies for the long post. I know you love my essays...

I wouldn't disagree with most of that. Your observations on the teaching profession seem very believable to me.

[Molly]

it isnt of course just  the fianancial aspect that is the problem here, it's the mindset that this is an ok and acceptable way of life, or an ok thing to do... its also the influence this could then potentially have on friends/family/ children. Soon a trend can be made and followed....

 

That's a great point. If it wasn't for all the other people in the UK who influence others. Criminals, celebrities and honest politicians to name but a few.

 

Would you say a "don't want to work unemployed person" is worse on the UK psyche than a trusted and high ranking politician who snorts coke off a pro's titties or a prime minister who alledgedly fiddles kiddies? 

[Molly]

You mention teaching - well I'm a teacher and I've done pretty well at it, I think. I value my profession highly but firmly disagree that we educate our kids 'astoundingly well'. Some of that is down to the government and their tendency to change the system rather than perfect it. Some of it is down to the teachers and the fact that a large number of them aren't very good at their jobs and don't value their profession, or appreciate their responsibilities, as much as they should.

 

I can, I'm ashamed to say, usually tell which young teachers are going to go far, and they're customarily as ambitious as they are unconcerned about the welfare of their students.

 

But this is because we reward the wrong things in society. Longevity in teaching is rewarded more than results. It's the case in many other areas of public service too. You'd be stunned by the applications I've received from people who have held all sorts of lofty positions simply because they were willing to do them, but have an appalling record when it comes to academic success. They sacrifice the job they're supposed to be doing for another one which they think will make them rich. And they're often wise to.

 

For me this is why society has to do everything it can to help a person be useful, and then reward them based on their worth. It's why inheritance tax is as important, more important maybe, than dealing with those who depend on the benefits system. It sounds very utilitarian, I know, but none of this means you need to leave those you can't find a purpose for to rot.

 

As for being able to afford education, I'd argue that tuition fees only account for a small percentage of university costs (there's books, accommodation etc.) and there's little doubt that university isn't a viable option for everyone for exactly this reason. There's also the issue of a large number of parents who depend on their kids to earn money for them, even care for them. And, while we're on the topic of the poor having fewer opportunities than the well off, red brick unis still stubbornly insist on offering places to the privately educated ahead of those with equivalent, and occasionally superior, grades from comprehensive education. In spite of god knows how many governments insisting that this shouldn't happen any more.

 

Apologies for the long post. I know you love my essays...

 

Wish I could post like you.

[Rincewind]

Wish I could post like you.

Me too. Nothing left to say others have said it. Just a reminder that there are working people on benefits too.

Also there is a signifcant amount not being claimed that people are entitled to. Poverty is not a life choice.

Force is a bad choice of word for getting people into jobs. It brings up a picture of people wearing up with ball and chains.

There has to be the right incentive for people to work. If both parents work in a household with children they do not want to see their wages eaten up by childcare. If they have a child with a dissability they will need special care and if the benefit for that is reduced or taken away because they are working the incentive to work disappears and no amount of 'forcing' will make them to allow their child to suffer.

[Guest MattP]

Should we give benefits to men who play with sheep?

[Molly]

Should we give benefits to men who play with sheep?

 

Men who play what with sheep?

[Stadt]

Men who play what with sheep?

Ken, Finnegan and Derby fans

[Alf Bentley]

Should we give benefits to men who play with sheep?

 

 

It would be the Christian thing to do:

 

"The Lord is my shepherd, I shall not want; he maketh me down to lie, in pastures green...."

 

There's a line about getting comfort from your rod and staff, too, as I recall.

 

Conclusive proof that it's God's will. 

[Guest]

http://www.oddschecker.com/politics/british-politics/next-labour-leader Latest odds. I have as much chance as Liz Kendall it seems. Very tight between Corbyn and Burnham in the betting with Cooper still well in with a shout.

[Sir Fynwy]

This article gives a good insight into Andy Burnham http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2015/08/andy-burnham-seems-nice-bloke-i-havent-clue-what-he-stands 

[Guest MattP]

Still a few weeks to go but unless there is direct intervention into the election looks like Father Christmas, sorry Jeremy Corbyn has it wrapped up.

Over 30 point lead in the polls and as short as 4-9 with the bookies.

[Guest Bilo]

Still a few weeks to go but unless there is direct intervention into the election looks like Father Christmas, sorry Jeremy Corbyn has it wrapped up.

Over 30 point lead in the polls and as short as 4-9 with the bookies.

 

The hope has to be now that Corbyn doesn't get 50% in the first round of voting, then Burnham cleans up on second preferences in the second round.

 

Otherwise, we'll be voting again in 2016 when there's a vote of no confidence.

[Guest MattP]

http://news.sky.com/story/1533622/jeremy-corbyn-poll-suggests-32-point-lead

53% at the minute, absolutely outrageous. We could be seeing the death of the party. The Lib Dems and UKIP will be licking their lips at picking up the pieces from this.

I bet the Greens are shitting it as well.

[johnny the fox]

http://news.sky.com/story/1533622/jeremy-corbyn-poll-suggests-32-point-lead

53% at the minute, absolutely outrageous. We could be seeing the death of the party. The Lib Dems and UKIP will be licking their lips at picking up the pieces from this.

I bet the Greens are shitting it as well.

Labour are heading for oblivion.. like lemmings dashing for the edge... this election format is the legacy ed left the party..just proves he couldn't run a lash up in a brewery even in his own party....we face the terrible prospect of a one party state in england (tories) and a one party state in scotland..the nats... for a generation...not a healthy thing ...unless the people in  Labour grow up..

[Sir Fynwy]

The hope has to be now that Corbyn doesn't get 50% in the first round of voting, then Burnham cleans up on second preferences in the second round.

 

Otherwise, we'll be voting again in 2016 when there's a vote of no confidence.

Labour sold it's beliefs to the Blairites and now most of the hierarchy can't see past a centrist agenda with little opposition to market based policies, politics is evolving after years of stagnation and people are looking for differentiation and something new on offer (see Scotland and the rise of smaller parties if you don't believe this)

[Guest MattP]

You don't seriously believe the alternative most people want is Corbyn though surely?

I wouldn't place too much importance to Scotland, it's more a surge of nationalism and anti Westminster sentiment than any serious shift in public policy, Scotland has always been far more socialist than England but even Blair's centrist government swept up in both countries.

People had the chance to vote for Jeremy Corbyn policy in May with the Green party.

[Guest MattP]

In the report it says 7 out of 10 new sign ups are voting for Corbyn. It's clear all sorts from communists to conservatives are signing up to vote for him.

The whole election has been a farce really, how have they let that happen? You should have to be a full member and been one for a substantial amount of time to vote on matters as important as this.

[Guest Bilo]

Labour sold it's beliefs to the Blairites and now most of the hierarchy can't see past a centrist agenda with little opposition to market based policies, politics is evolving after years of stagnation and people are looking for differentiation and something new on offer (see Scotland and the rise of smaller parties if you don't believe this)

 

I disagree.

 

England and Wales seem to have little appetite for leftist policies, as seen by the failure of the Greens to exert any real authority and their overall terrible campaign. If it is evolving, it isn't evolving in the direction of the kind of 1980s style socialism that Corbyn espouses - look at the rise of UKIP for example, that's based more upon a lack of faith in the two main parties to control immigration and the related pressure upon the wages of the working classes. The way to win is now as it has always been, save for intermittent exceptions, through the centre ground. The Tories won through a centre-right social policy and right-wing fiscal policy, and even some of UKIP's was quite centrist in nature, in spite of their hard-right immigration rhetoric. The political consensus therefore, has shifted to the centre-right. Labour can begin to shift it leftwards again, but Corbyn would be too much, too soon. 

I'd agree that Scotland's move towards the SNP is based more on nationalism than anything else and a feeling of detachment from the Westminster bubble, the latter of which can be equally applied to Labour's loss of votes in the North as well. I don't think electing an MP whose entire career has been as a backbencher for an inner London constituency is going to alleviate that.

The rise of Corbyn seems to me to be more a social media fuelled fandom than anything else. The packed halls look great, as do the new members, but we need to be cautious of Damascene moments as they tend to be transient. The last thing Labour needs is to plump for The Next Big Thing that, in six months time, has gone the way of Kony 2012.

[Guest]

Huge move for Corbyn. He's now 4/7 favourite.

[Guest Bilo]

In the report it says 7 out of 10 new sign ups are voting for Corbyn. It's clear all sorts from communists to conservatives are signing up to vote for him.

The whole election has been a farce really, how have they let that happen? You should have to be a full member and been one for a substantial amount of time to vote on matters as important as this.

 

The new members bother me a lot less than the £3 voters. That at least forms something of a commitment, whereas the £3 votes thing was just an invitation to cranks and political opponents to skew the process. Whoever made that decision has so much to answer for, and I hope that the next leadership election shows evidence of lessons having been learned.

[johnny the fox]

The new members bother me a lot less than the £3 voters. That at least forms something of a commitment, whereas the £3 votes thing was just an invitation to cranks and political opponents to skew the process. Whoever made that decision has so much to answer for, and I hope that the next leadership election shows evidence of lessons having been learned.

Ed's 

[Guest MattP]

Absolutely scandalous.

I'd imagine the people behind it don't actually realise what the real world is like, the same sorts who are so out of touch they think Corbyn could win a nationwide election.

[Frank to be]

The North of England is probably a bit pissed off at the tory's lies over the whole "Northern powerhouse" thing, amongst other issues. I'm not at all surprised that the Labour leadership contest is registering a significant desire for change, if we ran the general election again knowing what we know now the tories would take a hammering in the North. Such a shame we don't get to vote on the truth.