Jump to content

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, chaddyrovers said:

well you are wrong on these points. 

I think the Government should have Year 9 children back for 4 to 5 weeks before the summer break. So they can prepare for the GCSE and make a start on their subjects. I also think that we should have summer schools for pupils who don't have access to laptops or lack of internet access at home so they don't fall behind and struggle with the workload when they go back in September. 3 or 4 lessons per day including a meal at school. Also Social interacting is key aswell which millions of Children are missing out on daily. 

Also it is yourself who is bringing football teams into this debate not myself. Clearly you have a problem that I am not a swing voter. 

You should have just posted the bit in bold.

Yes, I do. As it means you will simply follow/defend anything that the party does. If you are unable to be negative against any part of the party you support and just blindly follow them - you are nothing more than a sheep. Think for yourself and have an opinion on what is right/wrong, what are good/bad decisions and what should and should not be done for this country. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 9.5k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Thought I would offer an insight into the School Meal Voucher scheme being used to provide vouchers to those parents and children that need it desperately.  The scheme is provided by Edenred a co

This sermon is brought to you by the Daily Mail. Victim-blaming repugnant nonsense. 

You need to completely change your perspective. Do you think they don’t realise how dangerous is?  They don’t have other options. Of course it’s dangerous but the alternative, for most, is l

Posted Images

1 hour ago, only2garners said:

Just 44 minutes for you to be contradicted Jim - the Government has just caved in. In reality there were far too many Tory MPs lining up to criticise.

If they keep this up Jim will be voting for them next!

Fair play to the Tories I say, its hard to admit you got it wrong and thats exactly what this u-turn says.

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, jim mk2 said:

They did a U-turn because of a high profile footballer.

If  Labour has been calling for it there's no way they'd have caved in.

Pure populism by the government ..... and the fact they were contemplating it shows they're a heartless, nasty bunch. 

Keir Starmer asked about it at PMQ's last week and Johnson waffled about already allocating £60m to local authorities which missed the point completely. Well done Marcus Rashford for shaming them.

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, JacknOry said:

You should have just posted the bit in bold.

Yes, I do. As it means you will simply follow/defend anything that the party does. If you are unable to be negative against any part of the party you support and just blindly follow them - you are nothing more than a sheep. Think for yourself and have an opinion on what is right/wrong, what are good/bad decisions and what should and should not be done for this country. 

Why don't you just accept people have different opinions. Clearly you can't. 

I have also posted different views and ideas on schools. Did you not read them? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, arbitro said:

Keir Starmer asked about it at PMQ's last week and Johnson waffled about already allocating £60m to local authorities which missed the point completely. Well done Marcus Rashford for shaming them.

 Yep, cynical, populist move by the government.

They thought they could get away with letting children go hungry but refused to act until an England footballer pointed out they were wrong.

The Tories are despicable really .....hue and cry and calling for long jail sentences for defacing of statues yet happy to let the poorest suffer without any sympathy. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, chaddyrovers said:

Why don't you just accept people have different opinions. Clearly you can't. 

I have also posted different views and ideas on schools. Did you not read them? 

The point on schools is completely irrelevant to my point - not sure why you brought it up in the first place. 

You don't have an opinion - that's the whole point. You opinion is whatever your party does/wants to do. You have basically said that you will always support the tories no matter what. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, JacknOry said:

You should have just posted the bit in bold.

Yes, I do. As it means you will simply follow/defend anything that the party does. If you are unable to be negative against any part of the party you support and just blindly follow them - you are nothing more than a sheep. Think for yourself and have an opinion on what is right/wrong, what are good/bad decisions and what should and should not be done for this country. 

Funnily enough I haven't read you saying this to the far bigger group of Labour-only posters that we have on here.

Is that because they support a party you are currently supporting? I understand it may be an assumption but I'm just curious why Chaddy has suddenly been rounded on by several people for only supporting one party when there's a good four or five Labour members on this board that don't get any similar treatment.

One rule for one, another for another. 

I am in agreement though. If you blindly follow one party only then you are only fooling yourself in the long run. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Dreams of 1995 said:

Funnily enough I haven't read you saying this to the far bigger group of Labour-only posters that we have on here.

Is that because they support a party you are currently supporting? I understand it may be an assumption but I'm just curious why Chaddy has suddenly been rounded on by several people for only supporting one party when there's a good four or five Labour members on this board that don't get any similar treatment.

One rule for one, another for another. 

I am in agreement though. If you blindly follow one party only then you are only fooling yourself in the long run. 

I am not labour actually. And what I am saying is the same to all those that would blindly follow a party whichever party that is. Chaddy is the one that came out with the statement - so unfortunately he will get asked why this is the case. I have switched parties on numerous occasions due to their performance, policies, and my thoughts on the MP's running them. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

It is boggling why the Tories even had to do a U-Turn to tell you the truth.

If I was running any party and a campaign to feed potentially hungry children was spearheaded by the centre forward of the national team it wouldn't be in my mindset to say no. It could have been an almost perfect PR stunt, especially in the current climate.

A simple: "What a fantastic idea Marcus, we would like to take you up on the offer and invite you to sit on x committee to oversee the implementation" or whatever would have done a far better job than hand wringling and an almost regrettable u-turn. 

That MP from Suffolk is a dork enall. Why would you even comment on the water situation given the underlying theme of the message? She must not have to deal with many hungry children or poor families in her nice, suburban constituency. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, JacknOry said:

The point on schools is completely irrelevant to my point - not sure why you brought it up in the first place. 

You don't have an opinion - that's the whole point. You opinion is whatever your party does/wants to do. You have basically said that you will always support the tories no matter what. 

No it isnt irrelevant at all. Show different ideas. Which disapproves your points. 

I am Conservative voter. Time to accept it

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, JacknOry said:

I am not labour actually. And what I am saying is the same to all those that would blindly follow a party whichever party that is. Chaddy is the one that came out with the statement - so unfortunately he will get asked why this is the case. I have switched parties on numerous occasions due to their performance, policies, and my thoughts on the MP's running them. 

Why dont you ask other people instead of myself aswell in the fair of balance?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

One step forward.... and a huge step back.

In a very competitive field merging DfID with the Foreign Office might just be the most stupid thing this shambles of a Government has done. DfID was et up by the new Labour Government in 1997 but has been subsequently supported by the Coalition, Cameron and May Governments and the commitment to spend 0.7% of GDP has been achieved and held to in recent years, something I have been able to support a Conservative Government on. (Although there have been a few very dodgy practices slipping through in the last year or two, notable the execrable Priti Patel).

DfID is hugely admired around the world and has been one of those very few areas in which the UK can be said to be performing at a world class level on. The 0.7% commitment is not only making a real difference to the poorest in the developing world, it is also acting as excellent diplomacy across the world and a damn sight more effective than hanging on to an expensive nuclear deterrent. Just the sort of thing we'll need in the "brave new world" next year when Brexit is fully implemented - oops.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, chaddyrovers said:

Why dont you ask other people instead of myself aswell in the fair of balance?

 

Because I dont recall seeing anyone else posting that they would always only ever vote one party no matter what - there might be some and you are welcome to show me those posts but I myself have not seen any. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, chaddyrovers said:

No it isnt irrelevant at all. Show different ideas. Which disapproves your points. 

I am Conservative voter. Time to accept it

In truth though Chaddy you are only doing yourself a disservice here. You are a grown man and far be it for me to tell you what to do but choosing a side and sticking to it unapologetically isn't the best outlook on life. The Tories could implement a policy which devastates your industry and renders you unemployed - would you still vote for them then?

I voted Tory just gone. Already there's part of me regretting it. I don't think the Labour cabinet at the time would have been much better than this one but it doesn't stop me from reviewing the promises of the election, seeing if they were implemented and then judging them at a later date. If there was an election tomorrow, the current Tory government would not get my vote.

Phillipl posted a good article about the polarising of politics in the USA, and how "Republican vs Democrat" is now the fundamental issues in deciding where you stand in society. Having seen the goings on in the USA we should make it perfectly clear that we don't want that kind of partisan population- we want an electorate that thinks for itself, holds politicians to account in the polling booth despite allegiances and ultimately votes for the better of the country, not the party. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, chaddyrovers said:

No it isnt irrelevant at all. Show different ideas. Which disapproves your points. 

I am Conservative voter. Time to accept it

It is not relevant or proves anything. It is what you would like to see done but if it is not done, you will not switch to another party that promises to do it (if your party doesnt). If your party does not no what you want, you will support their decision not to rather than go against them. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, only2garners said:

One step forward.... and a huge step back.

In a very competitive field merging DfID with the Foreign Office might just be the most stupid thing this shambles of a Government has done. DfID was et up by the new Labour Government in 1997 but has been subsequently supported by the Coalition, Cameron and May Governments and the commitment to spend 0.7% of GDP has been achieved and held to in recent years, something I have been able to support a Conservative Government on. (Although there have been a few very dodgy practices slipping through in the last year or two, notable the execrable Priti Patel).

DfID is hugely admired around the world and has been one of those very few areas in which the UK can be said to be performing at a world class level on. The 0.7% commitment is not only making a real difference to the poorest in the developing world, it is also acting as excellent diplomacy across the world and a damn sight more effective than hanging on to an expensive nuclear deterrent. Just the sort of thing we'll need in the "brave new world" next year when Brexit is fully implemented - oops.

 

"Merging" is usually business-speak for streamlining, which is further business speak for cost-cutting. 

Why we would choose to cost-cut on a department which exerts worldwide influence is beyond me. Maybe if we hadn't spent x billions destroying the Middle East we wouldn't now need to spend x billions trying to fix it. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Tories seem to have problems with British successes which have been adopted as a model the world over.

DFID decision is awful but then realising it now falls under the dismal Raab just makes me weep.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So Dominic Raab - the man who suggested live on BBC One in 2017 that the "typical food bank user had cash flow problems episodically" and was not '"languishing in poverty." - is going to be in charge of handing out money to the world's poorest nations?

Wonderful. Britain's international reputation is going to take another nosedive. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Dreams of 1995 said:

It is boggling why the Tories even had to do a U-Turn to tell you the truth.

If I was running any party and a campaign to feed potentially hungry children was spearheaded by the centre forward of the national team it wouldn't be in my mindset to say no. It could have been an almost perfect PR stunt, especially in the current climate.

A simple: "What a fantastic idea Marcus, we would like to take you up on the offer and invite you to sit on x committee to oversee the implementation" or whatever would have done a far better job than hand wringling and an almost regrettable u-turn. 

That MP from Suffolk is a dork enall. Why would you even comment on the water situation given the underlying theme of the message? She must not have to deal with many hungry children or poor families in her nice, suburban constituency. 

I bet she has never been hungry or missed a meal in her life. And looking at her she could do with missing a few ???.

Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Dreams of 1995 said:

"Merging" is usually business-speak for streamlining, which is further business speak for cost-cutting. 

Why we would choose to cost-cut on a department which exerts worldwide influence is beyond me. Maybe if we hadn't spent x billions destroying the Middle East we wouldn't now need to spend x billions trying to fix it. 

If it were just about streamlining it might not be so bad but it seems that the primary driver is to direct our aid budget into schemes that are wholly in the UK's interests. When I was a lad there was a simple word to describe that - colonialism. To be proposing such a policy right now just shows a lack of self-awareness that is simply shocking.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Free school dinners was always a bit of an embarrassment at school. I was on them from Primary school, where the teachers actually made us line up separately. This confused me because at the beginning of the school day people who paid for their dinners had to give money during reception, so it was pointless to separate us.

In secondary school it got a bit better because practically everyone from my estate had them. We went to a school that had a mixture of social classes. One or two jokes about being poor got made but the lads that were on FSM would wipe the floor with the Aldridge / Sutton posh-boy crew and the jokes soon ended. "I'd rather be poor than a pussy" - kids are cruel. There was a lot of thieving at my school though, which always made me wonder whether everybody who deserved FSM was on them. Folding a paper plate over a slice of pizza and shoving it in your inside blazer pocket was the usual. A lot of kids used to steal their lunches and then use any money their parents gave them on fags, pop and sweets. The "Pepsi-Kid" made a fortune stealing fags from his parents shop and selling em at 50p a pop, back when you could get a 20 pack of sterling for 3 quid.

Whilst this is a great - forced - gesture it does leave you wondering whether the nutritional needs of children are met during school time. I know mine certainly weren't. We usually had pockets full of brain lickers, acid sweets and fizzy drinks and the school dinners were trash. I can imagine that this situation is mirrored all around the country. Definitely something that needs looking at, although probably never will. "Kids will be kids". 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Dreams of 1995 said:

In truth though Chaddy you are only doing yourself a disservice here. You are a grown man and far be it for me to tell you what to do but choosing a side and sticking to it unapologetically isn't the best outlook on life. The Tories could implement a policy which devastates your industry and renders you unemployed - would you still vote for them then?

I voted Tory just gone. Already there's part of me regretting it. I don't think the Labour cabinet at the time would have been much better than this one but it doesn't stop me from reviewing the promises of the election, seeing if they were implemented and then judging them at a later date. If there was an election tomorrow, the current Tory government would not get my vote.

Phillipl posted a good article about the polarising of politics in the USA, and how "Republican vs Democrat" is now the fundamental issues in deciding where you stand in society. Having seen the goings on in the USA we should make it perfectly clear that we don't want that kind of partisan population- we want an electorate that thinks for itself, holds politicians to account in the polling booth despite allegiances and ultimately votes for the better of the country, not the party. 

Great post. The America parallel is very appropriate. One thing that strikes me in the US political debate is, from speaking to US friends, if you are on side Democrat for example you are "for" all of their policies, likewise with Republican. To like only some and to pick and mix is very unheard of and not the done thing. A look at Americans social media seems to back this up. The actual policies and character of politicians goes by the wayside at the expense of party loyalty. It's not a great place to be in at all...

 

Edit - Dreams school meals are a bit better now and more balanced  but still not great. At least they are getting solid meals which is better than nothing by a long stretch. 

Edited by Blue blood
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Dreams of 1995 said:

In truth though Chaddy you are only doing yourself a disservice here. You are a grown man and far be it for me to tell you what to do but choosing a side and sticking to it unapologetically isn't the best outlook on life. The Tories could implement a policy which devastates your industry and renders you unemployed - would you still vote for them then?

I voted Tory just gone. Already there's part of me regretting it. I don't think the Labour cabinet at the time would have been much better than this one but it doesn't stop me from reviewing the promises of the election, seeing if they were implemented and then judging them at a later date. If there was an election tomorrow, the current Tory government would not get my vote.

Phillipl posted a good article about the polarising of politics in the USA, and how "Republican vs Democrat" is now the fundamental issues in deciding where you stand in society. Having seen the goings on in the USA we should make it perfectly clear that we don't want that kind of partisan population- we want an electorate that thinks for itself, holds politicians to account in the polling booth despite allegiances and ultimately votes for the better of the country, not the party. 

Spot on. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.