The 2015 Popularity Contest (aka UK General Election )

[roydo]

Abolishing private schools to try and improve the state sector is totalitarian.

It is also utterly pointless. To abolish them for that reason.

 

[Mrk]

Does it? In a country where GCHQ logs every text message, every phone call, every purchase, every bank transaction, every comment you make on FB, every tweet, every website you visit - you think that sounds totalitarian? Okay, mate.

All you've done there is present another fine example of totalitarian-esque government intrusion - that doesn't make your idea of banning things simply because you don't like them sound any less totalitarian.

 

[Clint Planet]

Abolishing private schools to try and improve the state sector is totalitarian.

That's not what I'm suggesting though, is it?

 

[Clint Planet]

It is also utterly pointless. To abolish them for that reason.

Which, of course, isn't the reason I'm suggesting they should be abolished for.

 

[roydo]

If the state system was as good as, or perceived as being as good as, the private schools, would you still want to abolish it?

edit. The private schools that is.

Just read that analogy mate, and see what you mean.

But if say, the arm bands given out were as good as the dead expensive life jackets that some parents bought anyrate, and no kids were drowned, would you still ban parents wasting money on the expensive ones?

Which, of course, isn't the reason I'm suggesting they should be abolished for.

So would you abolish them under the situation I asked?

 

[Seanjd]

Just incase children from wealthy families don't already have increased chances if reaching their potential, allow for them to be educated at a 'better' school with smaller class sizes and better resources simply because they are fortunate enough to have the money to pay for it. I cannot fathom how some people see this model as acceptable. This has nothing to do with being anti business, or totalitarian, this has everything to do with the gap between the rich and the poor widening. Nobody should be able to buy a better education than somebody else purely because of their wealth. Nobody.

 

[Seanjd]

Also, private schools are a largely tax payer subsidised class privilege. Like I mentioned above, they are ridiculously granted charitable status which saves them huge amounts in tax every year.

 

[bring the ghost on]

Also, private schools are a largely tax payer subsidised class privilege. Like I mentioned above, they are ridiculously granted charitable status which saves them huge amounts in tax every year.

What about a middle way short of abolition which is to tax them like real businesses with also a punitive tax which creates a new source of funding for state schools to try to bring them in line with the private school models.

I'm just trying to think of a system in which private schools can exist but wouldn't account for 75% of politicians, judges, etc. If it's possible to remove that inequality, then as @roydo says, surely it's more preferable than banning?

 

[Tubey]

Cameron has been such a coward over these debates... I can't understand the strategy, unless he's that convinced he has less to lose by being a blatant shathouse than by giving Milliband the opportunity to debate.

Honestly, if you're afraid of debating a political lightweight like Milliband you may as well jack it all in.

 

[Tubey]

Just incase children from wealthy families don't already have increased chances if reaching their potential, allow for them to be educated at a 'better' school with smaller class sizes and better resources simply because they are fortunate enough to have the money to pay for it. I cannot fathom how some people see this model as acceptable. This has nothing to do with being anti business, or totalitarian, this has everything to do with the gap between the rich and the poor widening. Nobody should be able to buy a better education than somebody else purely because of their wealth. Nobody.

It's as simple as this for me. The upper tier private schools are simply the elite protecting the elite, like Harrow and Eton.

But if you're against those institutions, then you can't pick and choose - for that reason, I'm against private schools as an overall idea.

I'm against tiers of things that are essential in life, such as health and education. Equal opportunity for all should be something to strive for, not fear.

 

[Brennan]

Cameron has been such a coward over these debates... I can't understand the strategy, unless he's that convinced he has less to lose by being a blatant shathouse than by giving Milliband the opportunity to debate.

Honestly, if you're afraid of debating a political lightweight like Milliband you may as well jack it all in.

He's seemingly decided that being able to speak independently (in the talk with Paxman) and in a massive scrum debate with 7 leaders where nobody will get a commanding voice will make the Tories more likely to stay in, or at least more likely to gain a majority. And i agree with him.

 

[Tubey]

He's seemingly decided that being able to speak independently (in the talk with Paxman) and in a massive scrum debate with 7 leaders where nobody will get a commanding voice will make the Tories more likely to stay in, or at least more likely to gain a majority. And i agree with him.

It would, if he could avoid the tag of being a chicken and massive hypocrite.

He doesn't want to give the opposition a platform, and indeed who would want that. The problem he has is that he sang loud about the debates being critical for democracy and getting the public involved - all it looks like now is an incumbent who has changed his tune and is scared of justifying his record to the country in a direct and more personal way than TV and radio soundbytes during a 'normal' election.

For him, he's chasing the elderly, upper- and middle-class votes, who are less likely to care about televised debates than the young and lower-classes. So yes, you're right, he's certainly correct in his reasons for not wanting the debates - he's an idiot in the way he's gone about it IMO.

 

[edge]

It would, if he could avoid the tag of being a chicken and massiis hypocrite.

He doesn't want to give the opposition a platform, and indeed who would want that. The problem he has is that he sang loud about the debates being critical for democracy and getting the public involved - all it looks like now is an incumbent who has changed his tune and is scared of justifying his record to the country in a direct and more personal way than TV and radio soundbytes during a 'normal' election.

For him, he's chasing the elderly, upper- and middle-class votes, who are less likely to care about televised debates than the young and lower-classes. So yes, you're right, he's certainly correct in his reasons for not wanting the debates - he's an idiot in the way he's gone about it IMO.

He would get slaughterd by farage on one side then the other parties would pick him apart on the other, he Is gambling his budget and his mantra of good economics will win the day before anybody questions why they have doubled the debt and not had any increase in output the only real way out of the hole we are in long term.

 

[Seanjd]

It would, if he could avoid the tag of being a chicken and massive hypocrite.

He doesn't want to give the opposition a platform, and indeed who would want that. The problem he has is that he sang loud about the debates being critical for democracy and getting the public involved - all it looks like now is an incumbent who has changed his tune and is scared of justifying his record to the country in a direct and more personal way than TV and radio soundbytes during a 'normal' election.

For him, he's chasing the elderly, upper- and middle-class votes, who are less likely to care about televised debates than the young and lower-classes. So yes, you're right, he's certainly correct in his reasons for not wanting the debates - he's an idiot in the way he's gone about it IMO.

The 2010 debates did more harm than good for him and his party. I think you're right about the demographic of the debate viewers, hence that lib dem surge we saw in 2010, hence Cameron's unwillingness to participate. His advisers know that he can't connect with these voters so he's better staying out if it. The guy is a millionaire descendent of Richard II for christ sake.

 

[Joey66]

The 2010 debates did more harm than good for him and his party. I think you're right about the demographic of the debate viewers, hence that lib dem surge we saw in 2010, hence Cameron's unwillingness to participate. His advisers know that he can't connect with these voters so he's better staying out if it. The guy is a millionaire descendent of Richard II for christ sake.

That's because he's Billy Liar, and never answers a question in PMQS!