Politics

[Kevin S. Assilleekunt 1]

Tony Blair is not a socialist and never pretended to be one.

[Acid 0]

Again with Cameron, he didnt beat Davis because of Eton, he beat him because he was the better.

 

The programme argues that the system is such now that comprehensive education is now far less likely to produce someone capable of being better than Cameron, not that there are better people being overlooked due to some upper-crust conspiracy.

 

I dont buy that. As with all life , people buy people, and no amount of education can make a false dullard a leader. You need to have that x factor to get your peers to elect you leader. MP's vote for vote winners to lead them.

 

Now more than ever its personality that makes the difference between a leader like Blair and a dullard like Brown.

 

So you don't think it was the education that Cameron, Clegg, Osborne, Blair etc received that gave them the advantage over their poorer peers? Do you think they are genetically superior and just happened to go to a £30k private school by coinicidence (this is a common theme amongst private school boys I know)? Or do you just have no problem with inequalities like this and parliament not representing it's population?

 

Like I said, I figured you would have no problem with this. Btw, I wasn't making a party political point over this. I reckon there are thousands of tories from less affluent backgrounds who are aspirational and would disagree strongly with you as well. Thatcher for one, which is acknowledged in the programme.

 

Bridget went to a comp btw but went to Oxford (essential nowadays). but it would have been a hundred times more difficult for her than for your tory chums.

 

Well your probably better educated than my good self, yet I can hold a discussion without resorting to jibes, something you have trouble with and I can stay composed and discuss the facts, and get them right.

 

The facts are, you mislead us in your opening post. You said 70% of MP's are privately educated when the truth is the figure is around 47%

 

That means the majority of the house of commons is made up from "normal" people that went to comp then uni. (Like Bridget). And just like Maggie would have done were she going through education today.

I am just at ease with an Etonian Prime Minister as I am with say an ex Teacher, Plumber or Grocers daughter.

 

The bottom line for me is whether I think they are up to the job and have a vision to move the country forward.

 

The truth is you have watched a sensationalised documentary, then spewed the same sensational story without checking your facts.

 

Your argument is full of holes, mis-information and theories that are plain stupid.

 

You have large chips on your shoulders about people with money, however I guess like Dianne Abbott or Blair, you are one of these that talks a good socialist game, while choosing a nice shiny private education for your own children. (now or future).

 

Clearly absent-minded to just think corruption is not an issue especially with the ruling class, unbelievable.

 

If your views are trying to suggest your some middle-class conservative throughout your life, then you're deluded, epitomised by your half-hearted attempts to spice up your life.

 

From a taxi driver.

Edited January 27, 2011 by Acid

[Matt 0]

Neil was not arguing against private education, but how the failings of our 'one size fits all' policy are manifesting itself within the people who are running the country. I think while the link is a little tenous, it's a debate worth having, and personally I am massively in favour of moving away from the current broad brush approach.

 

It's got nothing to do with what you think of Cameron or why you think he's wonderful.

Edited January 27, 2011 by Matt

[Christmas Tree 3997]

Again with Cameron, he didnt beat Davis because of Eton, he beat him because he was the better.

 

The programme argues that the system is such now that comprehensive education is now far less likely to produce someone capable of being better than Cameron, not that there are better people being overlooked due to some upper-crust conspiracy.

 

I dont buy that. As with all life , people buy people, and no amount of education can make a false dullard a leader. You need to have that x factor to get your peers to elect you leader. MP's vote for vote winners to lead them.

 

Now more than ever its personality that makes the difference between a leader like Blair and a dullard like Brown.

 

So you don't think it was the education that Cameron, Clegg, Osborne, Blair etc received that gave them the advantage over their poorer peers? Do you think they are genetically superior and just happened to go to a £30k private school by coinicidence (this is a common theme amongst private school boys I know)? Or do you just have no problem with inequalities like this and parliament not representing it's population?

 

Like I said, I figured you would have no problem with this. Btw, I wasn't making a party political point over this. I reckon there are thousands of tories from less affluent backgrounds who are aspirational and would disagree strongly with you as well. Thatcher for one, which is acknowledged in the programme.

 

Bridget went to a comp btw but went to Oxford (essential nowadays). but it would have been a hundred times more difficult for her than for your tory chums.

 

Well your probably better educated than my good self, yet I can hold a discussion without resorting to jibes, something you have trouble with and I can stay composed and discuss the facts, and get them right.

 

The facts are, you mislead us in your opening post. You said 70% of MP's are privately educated when the truth is the figure is around 47%

 

That means the majority of the house of commons is made up from "normal" people that went to comp then uni. (Like Bridget). And just like Maggie would have done were she going through education today.

I am just at ease with an Etonian Prime Minister as I am with say an ex Teacher, Plumber or Grocers daughter.

 

The bottom line for me is whether I think they are up to the job and have a vision to move the country forward.

 

The truth is you have watched a sensationalised documentary, then spewed the same sensational story without checking your facts.

 

Your argument is full of holes, mis-information and theories that are plain stupid.

 

You have large chips on your shoulders about people with money, however I guess like Dianne Abbott or Blair, you are one of these that talks a good socialist game, while choosing a nice shiny private education for your own children. (now or future).

 

Clearly absent-minded to just think corruption is not an issue especially with the ruling class, unbelievable.

 

If your views are trying to suggest your some middle-class conservative throughout your life, then you're deluded, epitomised by your half-hearted attempts to spice up your life.

 

From a taxi driver.

 

 

And Landlord

 

To be honest, your post makes absolutely no sense what so ever. Rather than trying to be clever you should try and explain your view, if you actually have one, better.

 

Just for the record, Ive even read it a few times and still cant make any sense of it.

 

It sounds very angry though so maybe your a student? If you are, how you can look down your nose at real workers.....

 

Spice up my life?????????

Edited January 27, 2011 by Christmas Tree

[Christmas Tree 3997]

Neil was not arguing against private education, but how the failings of our 'one size fits all' policy are manifesting itself within the people who are running the country. I think while the link is a little tenous, it's a debate worth having, and personally I am massively in favour of moving away from the current broad brush approach.

 

It's got nothing to do with what you think of Cameron or why you think he's wonderful.

 

That's the whole point though. The majority of MP's were state educated.

[Park Life 70]

Again with Cameron, he didnt beat Davis because of Eton, he beat him because he was the better.

 

The programme argues that the system is such now that comprehensive education is now far less likely to produce someone capable of being better than Cameron, not that there are better people being overlooked due to some upper-crust conspiracy.

 

I dont buy that. As with all life , people buy people, and no amount of education can make a false dullard a leader. You need to have that x factor to get your peers to elect you leader. MP's vote for vote winners to lead them.

 

Now more than ever its personality that makes the difference between a leader like Blair and a dullard like Brown.

 

So you don't think it was the education that Cameron, Clegg, Osborne, Blair etc received that gave them the advantage over their poorer peers? Do you think they are genetically superior and just happened to go to a £30k private school by coinicidence (this is a common theme amongst private school boys I know)? Or do you just have no problem with inequalities like this and parliament not representing it's population?

 

Like I said, I figured you would have no problem with this. Btw, I wasn't making a party political point over this. I reckon there are thousands of tories from less affluent backgrounds who are aspirational and would disagree strongly with you as well. Thatcher for one, which is acknowledged in the programme.

 

Bridget went to a comp btw but went to Oxford (essential nowadays). but it would have been a hundred times more difficult for her than for your tory chums.

 

Thatchers husband was a multi-millionaire.

 

They met after she became an MP. What's your point?

 

Being well-monied (through birthright) is another trend that you can see in Parliament today. Mind, you have to have loaded parents to go to Eton or Westminster. Thatcher was the daughter of green grocer though.

 

iirc she married in 1951 and became an MP for Finchley (a rock solid safe tory seat a cat with a blue ribband would win) in 1959.

 

Could be wrong like.

[Park Life 70]

Tony Blair is not a socialist and never pretended to be one.

 

[Renton 17759]

Again with Cameron, he didnt beat Davis because of Eton, he beat him because he was the better.

 

The programme argues that the system is such now that comprehensive education is now far less likely to produce someone capable of being better than Cameron, not that there are better people being overlooked due to some upper-crust conspiracy.

 

I dont buy that. As with all life , people buy people, and no amount of education can make a false dullard a leader. You need to have that x factor to get your peers to elect you leader. MP's vote for vote winners to lead them.

 

Now more than ever its personality that makes the difference between a leader like Blair and a dullard like Brown.

 

So you don't think it was the education that Cameron, Clegg, Osborne, Blair etc received that gave them the advantage over their poorer peers? Do you think they are genetically superior and just happened to go to a £30k private school by coinicidence (this is a common theme amongst private school boys I know)? Or do you just have no problem with inequalities like this and parliament not representing it's population?

 

Like I said, I figured you would have no problem with this. Btw, I wasn't making a party political point over this. I reckon there are thousands of tories from less affluent backgrounds who are aspirational and would disagree strongly with you as well. Thatcher for one, which is acknowledged in the programme.

 

Bridget went to a comp btw but went to Oxford (essential nowadays). but it would have been a hundred times more difficult for her than for your tory chums.

 

Well your probably better educated than my good self, yet I can hold a discussion without resorting to jibes, something you have trouble with and I can stay composed and discuss the facts, and get them right.

 

The facts are, you mislead us in your opening post. You said 70% of MP's are privately educated when the truth is the figure is around 47%

 

That means the majority of the house of commons is made up from "normal" people that went to comp then uni. (Like Bridget). And just like Maggie would have done were she going through education today.

 

I am just at ease with an Etonian Prime Minister as I am with say an ex Teacher, Plumber or Grocers daughter.

 

The bottom line for me is whether I think they are up to the job and have a vision to move the country forward.

 

The truth is you have watched a sensationalised documentary, then spewed the same sensational story without checking your facts.

 

Your argument is full of holes, mis-information and theories that are plain stupid.

 

You have large chips on your shoulders about people with money, however I guess like Dianne Abbott or Blair, you are one of these that talks a good socialist game, while choosing a nice shiny private education for your own children. (now or future).

 

Right. Firstly CT, what jibe are you referring to? 'Tory chums? Very sensitive of you. However, I would suggest your presumptious and personal comment about me at the end of your post is somewhat more of a jibe and beneath you, so try not to be a complete hypocrite old chap.

 

Secondly, I held up my hands immediately as soon as you showed I had my facts wrong with your outdated Google search (your sole source of 'facts'). I was actually referring to the front benches rather than Parliament as a whole, I'm sorry for getting the two confused. But arguably, it's the proportion of the cabinet (the government) that's most relevant anyway. And besides, the fact that almost half of parliament were privately educated, when they only account for 7% of the population is still a shocking figure to me. I'd also like to know what proportion of the remaining 50% actually went to a comprehensive, as presumably there must be a lot of old-timers still around who went to Grammar schools.

 

Thirdly, you say you don't care what the background of the PM is as long as they are the right person for the job, whether they are Eton educated or a plumber. Well that's the point you seemingly keep missing, a plumber can never be PM in this country because the educational and political system we have won't facilitate it, but much worse than this, all the signs are we are becoming less meritocratic, not more. Does this represent progress for you?

 

Finally, as for having a chip on my shoulder, too right I have. Because it's not just politics that's affected by this. I know from personal experience that the old boy network permeates throughout the professions as well, including healthcare and most certainly the legal and judicial system. All too often in this country its not about what you know, but who you know. I'm curious how you, as a father of four, are not bothered by this, but perhaps you should be, and I promise you will be should one of your kids try and enter certain professions.

 

Having a chip on your shoulder is nowt to be ashamed of if your sense of injustice is, well, justified, and I think mine is. After all, if people throughout history had just shrugged their shoulders and accepted things, we'd still live in feudal times. Not that I'm a class warrior like, the most I do about anything is get into arguments on a messageboard, and feel a slight sense of depression when I see the kids going to RGS compared with those going to the local comp, and knowing how different most of their futures will be.

[Park Life 70]

Para 4 is an undisputed fact Renty.

[Rob W 0]

"Because it's not just politics that's affected by this. I know from personal experience that the old boy network permeates throughout the professions as well, including healthcare and most certainly the legal and judicial system. All too often in this country its not about what you know, but who you know"

 

but that is the way of the world

 

Interestingly it applies to all sorts - jobs at Fords building cars, being a boilermaker in the shipyards, commentating on Grand Occasions on TV, getting a trial at a football club

 

We are social animals and it makes sense to help people you know rather than take a chance and find you've hired Leazes or Parky.................

[Matt 0]

Neil was not arguing against private education, but how the failings of our 'one size fits all' policy are manifesting itself within the people who are running the country. I think while the link is a little tenous, it's a debate worth having, and personally I am massively in favour of moving away from the current broad brush approach.

 

It's got nothing to do with what you think of Cameron or why you think he's wonderful.

 

That's the whole point though. The majority of MP's were state educated.

 

Aside from the fact that figure still shows disparity given the ratio of state to private schooling (clearly it's never going to be 1:1 and I'm not suggesting it should be), the focus was on members of cabinet, rather than some backbench. Jesus even Ronnie Campbell is still an MP, he's uneducated enough to make up for all of Eton past and present. It's about the people who are setting policy will will shape our country for years to come.

[Renton 17759]

'What chance do you have against a tie and a crest?'.......

 

I'm not naive enough to think that cronyism and nepotism doesn't exist in all walks of life (but much more so in higher echelons), but I was naive enough to believe this could be gradually countered and we could move to a more meritocratic society. Obviously I was wrong, what bugs me most though is nobody seemingly gives a shit about it. I'm joining Parky's revolution.

[NJS 3978]

Having a chip on your shoulder is nowt to be ashamed of if your sense of injustice is, well, justified, and I think mine is. After all, if people throughout history had just shrugged their shoulders and accepted things, we'd still live in feudal times. Not that I'm a class warrior like, the most I do about anything is get into arguments on a messageboard, and feel a slight sense of depression when I see the kids going to RGS compared with those going to the local comp, and knowing how different most of their futures will be.

 

There are many good things about the UK but one of the worst imo is the deliberate way the rich have engendered such a meek populace, mainly by promoting a "we're your betters" line culminating in an obscene worship of the monarchy.

 

One of the first times I went to London for a match I remember wandering around the West End and seeing the obvious wealth which has been there for centuries (which doesn't even include the wealth in the land) and I couldn't help thinking how much I'd like to travel back in time and put trips on for workers in the Industrial revolution who contributed so much to it to travel down to see it in the hope we'd have had a revolution.

 

In the 20th centrury people did stand up for their rights and begin to fight back but perhaps Thatcher's greatest victory was killing the notion of fighting the system - now thanks to her and her successors the most people aspire to is to join that corrupt system rather than to change it.

 

It's a depressing note for a Friday but it makes me glad to a certain extent I have no kids.

[Guest alex]

Again with Cameron, he didnt beat Davis because of Eton, he beat him because he was the better.

 

The programme argues that the system is such now that comprehensive education is now far less likely to produce someone capable of being better than Cameron, not that there are better people being overlooked due to some upper-crust conspiracy.

 

I dont buy that. As with all life , people buy people, and no amount of education can make a false dullard a leader. You need to have that x factor to get your peers to elect you leader. MP's vote for vote winners to lead them.

 

Now more than ever its personality that makes the difference between a leader like Blair and a dullard like Brown.

 

So you don't think it was the education that Cameron, Clegg, Osborne, Blair etc received that gave them the advantage over their poorer peers? Do you think they are genetically superior and just happened to go to a £30k private school by coinicidence (this is a common theme amongst private school boys I know)? Or do you just have no problem with inequalities like this and parliament not representing it's population?

 

Like I said, I figured you would have no problem with this. Btw, I wasn't making a party political point over this. I reckon there are thousands of tories from less affluent backgrounds who are aspirational and would disagree strongly with you as well. Thatcher for one, which is acknowledged in the programme.

 

Bridget went to a comp btw but went to Oxford (essential nowadays). but it would have been a hundred times more difficult for her than for your tory chums.

 

Well your probably better educated than my good self, yet I can hold a discussion without resorting to jibes, something you have trouble with and I can stay composed and discuss the facts, and get them right.

 

The facts are, you mislead us in your opening post. You said 70% of MP's are privately educated when the truth is the figure is around 47%

 

That means the majority of the house of commons is made up from "normal" people that went to comp then uni. (Like Bridget). And just like Maggie would have done were she going through education today.

 

I am just at ease with an Etonian Prime Minister as I am with say an ex Teacher, Plumber or Grocers daughter.

 

The bottom line for me is whether I think they are up to the job and have a vision to move the country forward.

 

The truth is you have watched a sensationalised documentary, then spewed the same sensational story without checking your facts.

 

Your argument is full of holes, mis-information and theories that are plain stupid.

 

You have large chips on your shoulders about people with money, however I guess like Dianne Abbott or Blair, you are one of these that talks a good socialist game, while choosing a nice shiny private education for your own children. (now or future).

 

Right. Firstly CT, what jibe are you referring to? 'Tory chums? Very sensitive of you. However, I would suggest your presumptious and personal comment about me at the end of your post is somewhat more of a jibe and beneath you, so try not to be a complete hypocrite old chap.

 

Secondly, I held up my hands immediately as soon as you showed I had my facts wrong with your outdated Google search (your sole source of 'facts'). I was actually referring to the front benches rather than Parliament as a whole, I'm sorry for getting the two confused. But arguably, it's the proportion of the cabinet (the government) that's most relevant anyway. And besides, the fact that almost half of parliament were privately educated, when they only account for 7% of the population is still a shocking figure to me. I'd also like to know what proportion of the remaining 50% actually went to a comprehensive, as presumably there must be a lot of old-timers still around who went to Grammar schools.

 

Thirdly, you say you don't care what the background of the PM is as long as they are the right person for the job, whether they are Eton educated or a plumber. Well that's the point you seemingly keep missing, a plumber can never be PM in this country because the educational and political system we have won't facilitate it, but much worse than this, all the signs are we are becoming less meritocratic, not more. Does this represent progress for you?

 

Finally, as for having a chip on my shoulder, too right I have. Because it's not just politics that's affected by this. I know from personal experience that the old boy network permeates throughout the professions as well, including healthcare and most certainly the legal and judicial system. All too often in this country its not about what you know, but who you know. I'm curious how you, as a father of four, are not bothered by this, but perhaps you should be, and I promise you will be should one of your kids try and enter certain professions.

 

Having a chip on your shoulder is nowt to be ashamed of if your sense of injustice is, well, justified, and I think mine is. After all, if people throughout history had just shrugged their shoulders and accepted things, we'd still live in feudal times. Not that I'm a class warrior like, the most I do about anything is get into arguments on a messageboard, and feel a slight sense of depression when I see the kids going to RGS compared with those going to the local comp, and knowing how different most of their futures will be.

Nicely put.

Edited January 28, 2011 by alex

[Christmas Tree 3997]

"Because it's not just politics that's affected by this. I know from personal experience that the old boy network permeates throughout the professions as well, including healthcare and most certainly the legal and judicial system. All too often in this country its not about what you know, but who you know"

 

but that is the way of the world

 

Interestingly it applies to all sorts - jobs at Fords building cars, being a boilermaker in the shipyards, commentating on Grand Occasions on TV, getting a trial at a football club

 

We are social animals and it makes sense to help people you know rather than take a chance and find you've hired Leazes or Parky.................

 

 

Spot on.

[Christmas Tree 3997]

Neil was not arguing against private education, but how the failings of our 'one size fits all' policy are manifesting itself within the people who are running the country. I think while the link is a little tenous, it's a debate worth having, and personally I am massively in favour of moving away from the current broad brush approach.

 

It's got nothing to do with what you think of Cameron or why you think he's wonderful.

 

That's the whole point though. The majority of MP's were state educated.

 

Aside from the fact that figure still shows disparity given the ratio of state to private schooling (clearly it's never going to be 1:1 and I'm not suggesting it should be), the focus was on members of cabinet, rather than some backbench. Jesus even Ronnie Campbell is still an MP, he's uneducated enough to make up for all of Eton past and present. It's about the people who are setting policy will will shape our country for years to come.

 

Like Gordon brown ? Being shaping it for the last 13 years. State school boy iirc.

 

It's going to take years to come to undo his work!

[Guest alex]

Putting aside whether he got things right or wrong (you could debate the blame game until you're blue in the face on that one) Brown is arguably the exception which proves the rule.

[Renton 17759]

Putting aside whether he got things right or wrong (you could debate the blame game until you're blue in the face on that one) Brown is arguably the exception which proves the rule.

 

He certainly is. He's the first PM since 1935 not to have attended Oxbridge.

 

And has been pointed out by CT many times before, the way he got the top job was hardly typical.

[Guest alex]

Putting aside whether he got things right or wrong (you could debate the blame game until you're blue in the face on that one) Brown is arguably the exception which proves the rule.

 

He certainly is. He's the first PM since 1935 not to have attended Oxbridge.

 

And has been pointed out by CT many times before, the way he got the top job was hardly typical.

Forgive me if I'm wrong but I thought John Major left school at 16. Another notable exception though, I'd guess.

[Renton 17759]

Putting aside whether he got things right or wrong (you could debate the blame game until you're blue in the face on that one) Brown is arguably the exception which proves the rule.

 

He certainly is. He's the first PM since 1935 not to have attended Oxbridge.

 

And has been pointed out by CT many times before, the way he got the top job was hardly typical.

Forgive me if I'm wrong but I thought John Major left school at 16. Another notable exception though, I'd guess.

 

Quite correct. Three O levels! Fuck me I'm getting things wrong in this thread. My point still stands though.

[Renton 17759]

Just checked and Callaghan is another 'exception'. But, overall, the vast majority of PMs went to Oxbridge. Also 19 prime ministers have been to Eton.

[Guest alex]

Thought Wilf Self was good crack on Question Time last night btw. Predictably asked the most pertinent question of the night and, equally predictably, none of the politicians could/would answer it. And her off The Apprentice - what a horrible woman she is.

[Renton 17759]

Thought Wilf Self was good crack on Question Time last night btw. Predictably asked the most pertinent question of the night and, equally predictably, none of the politicians could/would answer it. And her off The Apprentice - what a horrible woman she is.

 

Just saw a bit of it but what a vile woman Hopkins is. Her idea of 'banter' is character assassination, as she showed when she was on the show. What a horsey-faced bitch and great advert for the Conservative party.

[Kevin S. Assilleekunt 1]

Putting aside whether he got things right or wrong (you could debate the blame game until you're blue in the face on that one) Brown is arguably the exception which proves the rule.

 

He certainly is. He's the first PM since 1935 not to have attended Oxbridge.

 

And has been pointed out by CT many times before, the way he got the top job was hardly typical.

Forgive me if I'm wrong but I thought John Major left school at 16. Another notable exception though, I'd guess.

 

Quite correct. Three O levels! Fuck me I'm getting things wrong in this thread. My point still stands though.

 

Diana failed all her O levels twice, and she still became QUEEN OF OUR HEARTS , a position even greater than that of primeminister.

[Billy Castell 0]

Speak for yourself Kevin S. I thought she was a tedious media harpy.