Strokes Posted 9 February 2014 Posted 9 February 2014 This point stands whether you're talking about labour or Conservatives or even Liberals.It really doesn't.
l444ry Posted 9 February 2014 Posted 9 February 2014 Only a Tory could claim that borrowing an extra £400 billion in three years is clearing up "Labour's mess". They have borrowed more in the last 3 years than Labour did in 13 and yet they have the cheek to say Labour borrowed too much. You couldn't make it up!
MooseBreath Posted 9 February 2014 Posted 9 February 2014 Only a Tory could claim that borrowing an extra £400 billion in three years is clearing up "Labour's mess". They have borrowed more in the last 3 years than Labour did in 13 and yet they have the cheek to say Labour borrowed too much. You couldn't make it up! No choice in the matter. Government can't just instantly cut spending. The tories needed to borrow to keep up Labour's ridiculous welfare system, amongst other things, which became an enormous burden after Labour lead us into a recession with the resultant decreased tax take and increased welfare spending. Had Labour been more responsible prior to the recession and put money aside during the boom years our current borrowing requirements would be significantly less. But instead Labour ignored the obvious fact that boom would inevitably be followed by bust ("no more boom and bust" yeah well done genius), and it was all spend spend spend, buy votes buy votes by votes.
Strokes Posted 9 February 2014 Posted 9 February 2014 Only a Tory could claim that borrowing an extra £400 billion in three years is clearing up "Labour's mess". They have borrowed more in the last 3 years than Labour did in 13 and yet they have the cheek to say Labour borrowed too much. You couldn't make it up!Borrowing has gone up to help cover the shortfall along with cutbacks, all of which labour has opposed until recently. The Tories inherited a mess and have somehow put us back around, if labour had gotten in, we would have gone the way of greece etc.
l444ry Posted 9 February 2014 Posted 9 February 2014 No choice in the matter. Government can't just instantly cut spending. The tories needed to borrow to keep up Labour's ridiculous welfare system, amongst other things, which became an enormous burden after Labour lead us into a recession with the resultant decreased tax take and increased welfare spending. Had Labour been more responsible prior to the recession and put money aside during the boom years our current borrowing requirements would be significantly less. But instead Labour ignored the obvious fact that boom would inevitably be followed by bust ("no more boom and bust" yeah well done genius), and it was all spend spend spend, buy votes buy votes by votes. Still doesn't explain why the Tories keep lying that they're paying back Labour's debt though, does it?
MooseBreath Posted 9 February 2014 Posted 9 February 2014 Still doesn't explain why the Tories keep lying that they're paying back Labour's debt though, does it? When have they ever said that? They're trying to reduce the deficit currently, I believe they've targeted 2015 for when they're in a position to start reducing the debt.
Raj Posted 9 February 2014 Posted 9 February 2014 Not clever enough to give long winded political views like some...one reason i will not vote labour again...ED flat line BALLS .
l444ry Posted 9 February 2014 Posted 9 February 2014 When have they ever said that? They're trying to reduce the deficit currently, I believe they've targeted 2015 for when they're in a position to start reducing the debt. Posh Boy himself started it all off in this Tory Propaganda Broadcast (2mins 17secs). http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BAT_RW693BQ
Charl91 Posted 9 February 2014 Author Posted 9 February 2014 Exactly what I was trying to get at earlier when I asked what people actually have against the current government. Only one reasonable reaponse and that was "Gove", and I'm not even convinced by that. He seems to have made enemies with teachers but any suggestion that they might get a bit less money will do that. There seems to be an assumption that the right party will be able to immediately transform people's lives forthe better. No government will ever be able to do that. The best they can do is help to provide an environment with plentiful opportunity for people to make their own lives as good as they can be. And if you can't see any opportunity in this country at present then you're either blind or wilfully looking for an excuse to be a failure. Ok, I'll bite. You'll struggle to find anyone who has any idea about education who agrees with him. No other education minister has ever been so universally hated, and it's because he's absolutely clueless about education, and intent on victimising the teaching profession. If you were told you had to have less holidays, work 60% longer for less pay, and then told you had to produce the same results as private schools (who have 5x the budget of a state school, can pick and choose their students, can and do refuse to enter students into exams if they don't get the results they like, and generally have parents who push them more) then you would probably be pissed off. Not only that, but introducing ridiculous schemes which hinder learning (eg. synthetic phonics), and thinking that if you keep children in school from 8 - 6 then they'll learn more. I mean, the children in my school are already knackered by the end of a regular school day, they'd never cope with an extra 3 hours a day. But let's face it, it's nothing to do with education really, it's just so he can get more stay-at-home mums into work, using school as a glorified babysitting service. I can tell you now, if the education system carries on like this, standards are going to go way down. Most intelligent teachers will eventually leave the profession, because they will be able to get paid just aswell elsewhere for less work. The people you will be left with are the ones that you really don't want teaching your kids. But that's ok, because as Gove has decided you don't need to be qualified to teach, they'll simply be replaced with unqualified teachers, who can be paid less. I'm sure that will raise education standards. The only people who think he's doing a good job are either people who believe that teachers are overpaid for doing little work, and the ones that want to use school as an alternative to childcare while they're working. If teaching was a such a cushy, easy and well paid job, then why do 50% of teachers leave the profession within the first five years? Tl;dr. The only people who think he might be doing a good job, are the ones who are clueless/prejudice about education in general.
Rincewind Posted 9 February 2014 Posted 9 February 2014 Don't you know Moodsebreath is an expert on education and teachers? He has listened to Gove and read the papers. What more do you need to know about it? lol lol Seriously maybe there should be some middle ground and all concerned come to some compromise.
MooseBreath Posted 9 February 2014 Posted 9 February 2014 Posh Boy himself started it all off in this Tory Propaganda Broadcast (2mins 17secs). He isnt saying anything about the debt or the deficit at 2.17?
MooseBreath Posted 9 February 2014 Posted 9 February 2014 Ok, I'll bite. You'll struggle to find anyone who has any idea about education who agrees with him. No other education minister has ever been so universally hated, and it's because he's absolutely clueless about education, and intent on victimising the teaching profession. If you were told you had to have less holidays, work 60% longer for less pay, and then told you had to produce the same results as private schools (who have 5x the budget of a state school, can pick and choose their students, can and do refuse to enter students into exams if they don't get the results they like, and generally have parents who push them more) then you would probably be pissed off. Not only that, but introducing ridiculous schemes which hinder learning (eg. synthetic phonics), and thinking that if you keep children in school from 8 - 6 then they'll learn more. I mean, the children in my school are already knackered by the end of a regular school day, they'd never cope with an extra 3 hours a day. But let's face it, it's nothing to do with education really, it's just so he can get more stay-at-home mums into work, using school as a glorified babysitting service. I can tell you now, if the education system carries on like this, standards are going to go way down. Most intelligent teachers will eventually leave the profession, because they will be able to get paid just aswell elsewhere for less work. The people you will be left with are the ones that you really don't want teaching your kids. But that's ok, because as Gove has decided you don't need to be qualified to teach, they'll simply be replaced with unqualified teachers, who can be paid less. I'm sure that will raise education standards. The only people who think he's doing a good job are either people who believe that teachers are overpaid for doing little work, and the ones that want to use school as an alternative to childcare while they're working. If teaching was a such a cushy, easy and well paid job, then why do 50% of teachers leave the profession within the first five years? Tl;dr. The only people who think he might be doing a good job, are the ones who are clueless/prejudice about education in general. No solid criticisms in there for me. How would I react to being asked to do more for less? The same way ive reacted in the dozens of times it has been asked of me while working in the private sector, by getting on with what I'm being paid for. The focus on phonics actually begun under labour. I have no idea whether it is right or not, but you'd expect that the decision has been based on a substantial amount of credible research. I gather some children's authors dont like it. Would they by any chance have something to lose? Maybe money that wont now be required to be spent on their books? Children in school 8 til 6. When is that going to start then? The kids round here still do a 9 til 3 and I havent heard anything about that changing.
l444ry Posted 9 February 2014 Posted 9 February 2014 He isnt saying anything about the debt or the deficit at 2.17? Then whose debt is he claiming to pay down?
Strokes Posted 9 February 2014 Posted 9 February 2014 No solid criticisms in there for me. How would I react to being asked to do more for less? The same way ive reacted in the dozens of times it has been asked of me while working in the private sector, by getting on with what I'm being paid for. The focus on phonics actually begun under labour. I have no idea whether it is right or not, but you'd expect that the decision has been based on a substantial amount of credible research. I gather some children's authors dont like it. Would they by any chance have something to lose? Maybe money that wont now be required to be spent on their books? Children in school 8 til 6. When is that going to start then? The kids round here still do a 9 til 3 and I havent heard anything about that changing. 8-6 is only in extra curriculum activities, its just the schools will be obliged to offer them. Some already do, so its no big deal.
MooseBreath Posted 9 February 2014 Posted 9 February 2014 Then whose debt is he claiming to pay down? Sorry, was somehow watching the wrong video. He says "we're paying down Britain's debts". Doesn't mention Labour.
l444ry Posted 9 February 2014 Posted 9 February 2014 Sorry, was somehow watching the wrong video. He says "we're paying down Britain's debts". Doesn't mention Labour. Fair enough Moose. However, the Tory led coalition have borrowed more in 3 years than Labour in 13 years. So they aren't paying any debt down at all.
Rincewind Posted 9 February 2014 Posted 9 February 2014 Previous post edited. I may have come across a little too sarcastic. My SOH gets the better of me sometimes.
adam1 Posted 9 February 2014 Posted 9 February 2014 Ok, I'll bite. You'll struggle to find anyone who has any idea about education who agrees with him. No other education minister has ever been so universally hated, and it's because he's absolutely clueless about education, and intent on victimising the teaching profession. If you were told you had to have less holidays, work 60% longer for less pay, and then told you had to produce the same results as private schools (who have 5x the budget of a state school, can pick and choose their students, can and do refuse to enter students into exams if they don't get the results they like, and generally have parents who push them more) then you would probably be pissed off. Not only that, but introducing ridiculous schemes which hinder learning (eg. synthetic phonics), and thinking that if you keep children in school from 8 - 6 then they'll learn more. I mean, the children in my school are already knackered by the end of a regular school day, they'd never cope with an extra 3 hours a day. But let's face it, it's nothing to do with education really, it's just so he can get more stay-at-home mums into work, using school as a glorified babysitting service. I can tell you now, if the education system carries on like this, standards are going to go way down. Most intelligent teachers will eventually leave the profession, because they will be able to get paid just aswell elsewhere for less work. The people you will be left with are the ones that you really don't want teaching your kids. But that's ok, because as Gove has decided you don't need to be qualified to teach, they'll simply be replaced with unqualified teachers, who can be paid less. I'm sure that will raise education standards. The only people who think he's doing a good job are either people who believe that teachers are overpaid for doing little work, and the ones that want to use school as an alternative to childcare while they're working. If teaching was a such a cushy, easy and well paid job, then why do 50% of teachers leave the profession within the first five years? Tl;dr. The only people who think he might be doing a good job, are the ones who are clueless/prejudice about education in general. The same applies to Chris Grayling for his attempts to **** up the legal system to allow private companies to run legal aid.
Strokes Posted 9 February 2014 Posted 9 February 2014 The same applies to Chris Grayling for his attempts to **** up the legal system to allow private companies to run legal aid.Yeah, because legal aid has been a resounding success under previous governments.
Bob Weasel Fox Posted 10 February 2014 Posted 10 February 2014 Well due to the fact the Tories have completely fooked over my line of work in recent years I definately won't be voting for them
Chilwell_Fox Posted 6 March 2014 Posted 6 March 2014 Did that quiz, apparently I am a solid Tory. However, that has not come as a suprise.
ADK Posted 6 March 2014 Posted 6 March 2014 I scored high on all 3 main parties. Something like 83% labour, 79% Liberal, 72% Conservative.
Leicesterpool Posted 6 March 2014 Posted 6 March 2014 UKIP for me, just don't trust Tories and Labour tell utter lies and bullshit, Liberal are similar. I would have voted labour if David Milband was in charge as he was more of a leader than his twit of a brother.
The God Emperor Posted 6 March 2014 Posted 6 March 2014 Lib dem according to that. .....I need to go have a shower now
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.