blunkett

[Fullyplumped]

Fair enough, Belboid, there's a lot in what you say - he's not very progressive in some areas, and I conceded earlier that he really didn't get much done at the Home Ofice. I don't concede what you say about his work in Education in England, though, and I would assert that it was right to target spending on young children rather than college and university students. I definitely don't concede what you say about the lib dems.

 

[Streathamite]

well, in what ways? my prob here is that neither you nor t'other one (who ain't a bad bloke, mebbe) have not given the reasons why you think he's sound.
I'm a reasonable bloke; 15 years of working my arse off for the LP convinced me that. truly 'politics is the art of the possible' - all I want is the case for the defence!

ahem, fullyplumped?
what be all those good things his done?
(like belboid, I don't give a fat flying one about his personality, as I'm not proposing to marry him!)

 

[Streathamite]

[cough]dented shield[/cough]

penny now dropped. true enough. mind, it was a race to break ranks on that one....

 

[belboid]

I would assert that it was right to target spending on young children rather than college and university students.

why is it an either or? that's part of the problem. and who is it who really pays the higher higher education costs? Working-class people, by being pushed out of attending.

I do entirely accept - and have said so on several ohter threads in days of yore - that Nu Labours approach is (often) about attemtping to help some of the very worst of, just not as much as they help the very well off. We do see this (in principle) via the SureStarts, the New Deal for Communities and a host of other schemes. And for some of the poorest (probably the second bottom decile, if thats the right expression - the 10-20% of the poorest, the actual bottom 10% still get shit, as they seem to be deemed undeserving) it has helped. However, government figures show the wealth gap is continuning to widen. The little that has been done by this, and by tax credits etc, has actually helped middle-class parents just as much or more.

 

[tbaldwin]

why is it an either or? that's part of the problem. and who is it who really pays the higher higher education costs? Working-class people, by being pushed out of attending.

.

Funny how some people never seem to understand the concept of prioritising spending.
NL got it right in spending more on Universal Education showing they are far more socialist than people like you bellboid who wanted them to spend more on H/E.

 

[belboid]

when did I say that baldwin? you're making things up again.

NU Labour are proud of promoting a low taxation 'flexible' economy with poor workers rights. If you accept that then you can make it look like the priorities labour have stated are acceptable, even left-wing. But the initial premise is an inherently right-wing one, and avowedly anti-socialist.

 

[tbaldwin]

when did I say that baldwin? you're making things up again.

.

What so you didnt want them to spend more money on H/E ?
Sorry i must have got you mixed up with one of the other mindless trendy twats on here...