Corbyns Torque

"I don't really know what intelligent young people did in the 1960s but it's pretty obvious they didn't all become students."

They didn't Varian. As Jalima mentioned, income was a factor too. Many poor families needed their school leavers to get a job and contribute to household income. Sixth forms were quite small back then. My siblings were very bright but went straight into the world of work after 'O' levels. Today, University is almost a rite of passage for teenagers. We have so many more Universities too.

Ok we have at present a culture that not only stacks the odds against someone from a poor family achieving anything but actually costs more to do this.There was a scheme called "Sure Start" which provided early years support and education. It was based on an American scheme called Head Start which had been running long enough to show that providing such support cut crime rates and imprisonment rates in teens and adults and saved money This government cut it. Investing properly in anything always pays dividends

Just to be clear, lemongrove I did not say that all students in the 1960s were stupid, only that some were, or appeared to be.

Because you personally may have known somebody you considered stupid ( who went to university) but A levels were considered harder in the 60’s than now, and even if you think they weren’t harder then than now, do you consider students to be stupid now? If not, why then?

That was under 'the conservative' Tony Blair's government I think.

sorry, that was referring to Sure Start.

I went to uni after the 60's - they were all pretty smart then! Maybe you're remembering a few duff years varian

The funding for Sure Start has been cut which is a pity; however, it is still going in certain areas.
I thought that the worry was that wealthier middle-class parents were taking advantage of the scheme and that those whom it was designed to help were missing out.

I'm telling you my experience (and that of the lecturer I mentioned). I knew more than one person who was a student in the early sixties who appeared to be pretty stupid and I am sure there are some like that today.

I don't know whether A levels were harder. I did Scottish Highers, but I do know that today's students often have about twice as many A levels or Highers as we needed to get to university in the early 60s.

At that time you could become a teacher, nurse, physiotherapist, lawyer, accountant or executive grade civil servant without a degree.

The introduction of comprehensive education has certainly extended opportunities but education in this country is still not a level playing field.

When I last took a glance, there were several threads complaining about the Government, Brexit, the incompetent Tories on the News and Politics forum and have been for some considerable time, so I'm no really sure why it is so wrong to have two or three consecutive threads grumbling about Corbyn and Momentum.

Perhaps someone could explain that to me.

Perhaps they weren't stupid varian - perhaps they just lacked common sense.

Sometimes very intelligent people do seem to have no common sense, I know one or two myself. The saying 'All brains and no common-sense' did not evolve from nowhere.

It doesn't mean that their contribution to he world would be less valuable because of that.

I don't know about anyone else but my problem isn't with the attacks on Corbyn and Momentum Jalima . It is with the fact that, not having got the response required, the attacks began to be made generally on GNetters who weren't even posting on this thread. The thread was left to Corbyn haters (or dislikers if that is deemed too strong) until that point - or perhaps you didn't notice.

Chat away about Corbyn and Momentum and leave other none participant GNetters alone and I doubt there will be any problems.

Jalima there is nothing wrong with having a thread about Corbyn and Momentum, except that some posters don’t like it!
There were no personal attacks on here until today btw.There is a reason for that.

What childish and petulant comments from you GGM2

Indeed.

What are you talking about GGM2 ( I really do wonder sometimes) as you say ‘the attacks began to be made on GNers who weren’t even on this thread’ ....please explain yourself.
You have turned up on this thread with a large spoon in hand.

Probably a good idea to get back to the subject and take no notice of any whatifery.

Corbyn and McDonnell have their own agenda but so do Momentum, nobody should be under any illusion that the Leadership of the LP don’t approve of Momentum and their ruthless methods of getting rid of any moderates, councillors,hopeful MP’s to be and actual MP’s ( it will happen.)

I agree lemon

Article in The Times today about the costs of renationalisation.

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/corbyns-nationalisation-plan-is-176bn-gamble-mbd9003lh

"Labour’s plans would cost £55.4bn to renationalise energy infrastructure, £86.25bn for the water sector, £4.5bn for Royal Mail and £30bn for PFI nationalisation.

If Labour renationalised the whole energy sector — not just the national grid — it would raise the total cost to £306bn.

Labour has threatened to buy the businesses for less than they are worth and run them at no cost, arguing that profits would cover the extra borrowing. Yet it has also promised to use the same profits to cut household bills by £220 a year.

The report’s author, Daniel Mahoney, called the plans “an expensive gamble”. He said: “John McDonnell’s claim that bills will fall by £220 after nationalisation does not stand up to scrutiny. By his own admission, any profits from the industries would end up going to pay debt interest, so how can they be used to lower the cost of bills?

“It is also deeply concerning that Corbyn and McDonnell appear to be planning to seize assets below their commercial value."

£300 billion.

That's nearly 3 times the size of the banks bail out at the very peak of lending.



(one for each £100 billion!)

Exactly. Back to the subject without the stirring.

I still need someone to outline how everyone - every sector of society, is likely to benefit from socialist policies.

A government is duty bound to consider how polices affect every sector. I am getting the distinct impression that socialist policies do not benefit working people and concentrate solely on the poor. Despite pointing out we do thankfully have means and ways of providing for the poor in society, left wingers have suggested on this thread that sector is the only one of concern.

I fully agree that we have a duty to the poor, sick, old and less able in society, no quibbles there at all and it has to be paid for. I don't think any of us minds contributing to a welfare state.

I want to know what other sectors of society can look forward to a Labour government, and how they will benefit.

I can only see the vast majority of tax payers/workers funding a levelling-out programme and paying for the debt that Labour borrowing will get us into. John McDonnell, Shadow Secretary cannot provide figures or income sources for Labour's schemes when put on the spot.

Up until a certain point, it was an interesting thread with varied views from posters who may not necessarily always agree, but good-tempered and civilised for a politics thread.

I hope it remains civilised, interesting and informative.

In the meantime, I am going to watch that highly intellectual throwback to the 1960s - Call the Midwife.

It’s absolutely frightening isn’t it? Hopefully the next election is so far off that anything ( except that! ) could happen.

Ahhh. Thanks for the figures above Primrose Hadn't read that far when I wrote my post (above)

Worrying. Very worrying.