A large proportion of posts on here quote tweets and articles from individuals that happen to agree with the posters view.
Er.... the many hyperlinks in the article ?
No I can't. Both are opinions based on the observations of the author.
If you really can't see the difference between this article and the one you posted then christ there's no helping you.
That may well be true.
In truth I'm not really a Tory, certainly not a tax and spend Johnson Tory. I'm a proponent of low taxation (which Tories haven't been in decades) allowing for maximum civil liberties (which Tories have never been).
This is quite true, I know 3 teachers and all are pro-Labour and very anti-Tory and I've definitely witnessed this bias over my kids primary school years.
The article I posted is based on a material reading of the British economy and the effects this has on people voting patterns(This is back with data - click and read the hyperlinks). The secret teacher article is some guy complaining that his students think the tories are ''baddies''(Which by the way has nothing to do with how children are being taught in schools but in fact the reality young people face everyday under a tory government)but hey he did quote John Stewart Mill.
That wasn't a heckle and the person asking Johnson about Tory islamophobia got the exact same reaction.
Not the only reason. They are also influenced by peers and, these day social media, which generally places compassion for the poor, equality and general do-gooding wholly in the realm of the left wing and on plane that no Tory could ever reach. For me the arguments have always been about economics and individual freedoms. But it has been dragged down to a straight fight on here between cnuts and non-cnuts.
Previous polling recently suggested the exact opposite of this was true.
Youngsters are always more leftist but that's becoming more pronounced because the right is now offering them less and less than before. Under Thatcher they at least had a decent chance of owning property and thus obtaining capital if they succeeded in the economy; now that's ridiculously difficult compared to before. University is more expensive and jobs aren't as guaranteed or safe as they were before. Any actual reasons for young people to vote Tory aren't really there anymore.
Laura as always makes up her own story and makes it seem like he was struggling in his speech. He got a laugh within ten seconds by ribbing Boris, answered the anti-Semitism question well and didn't feck it up, directly answered every single point of all questions and got a better round of applause at the end that BoJo did.
This is where I have always stood too, but the current lot are a long way from these ideals.
Probably on account of it being total horseshit.
A lot of this is a result of Blair's policies that everyone should go to University. You can't go from the top 5% going to University, when it was free and students received a grant from the Government, to 50% going to University without someone having to pay for it. It also devalues a degree, such that there are never going to be enough graduate level opportunities to go around.
Hong Kong and Singapore are also renowned as bastions of inequality though. Simply having good economic performance doesn't mean you're properly taking care of your citizens.
So your solution is that only rich, wealthy elites should go to uni?
I do agree that if the Tories don't fix the housing issues they will lose the economic argument.
I don't think Colin is saying that.
Where did you get rich from
Yes, but look at the choice available.
But in reality if you're limiting how many people go to uni, it's still ultimately going to be the richest who can go because they can afford it.Where did you get rich from
If everyone who goes to University gets a means tested grant, which is how it used to work, then those form the poorest backgrounds get a full grant and those form richer backgrounds get a reduced grant. This is what Conservatism should be about, that anyone, from any background, has the opportunity to make the very best of themselves.
That's the exact opposite of what you said.
Edit: John gets it
The Tories proposed to build 200,000 starter homes in 2015, at a cost of 2.3bn
That is utter drivel & you know it. My dad went to University and he could not possibly have come from a poorer background.
Are you arguing it wasn't formerly the case that university wasn't typically something attended disproportionately by well-off people in comparison to the working classes? Anecdotal evidence doesn't prove your point here.
Everyone could already afford it. And even moreso if the means tested maintenance grants are reinstated, as they should be. It's a shame so many politicians want to spread disinformation about student finance to put so many millions off of going. Martin Lewis has a lot of useful stuff to say about it.
Stupid country.
There's a reason why anecdotal evidence is worthless. If 5 in 1000 poor kids go to university and 500 in 1000 rich ones, no it doesn't mean that going to university as a poor kid is impossible, it just means its bloody hard and the poor kids have to work considerably harder than the rich ones do to get that same opportunity. That's what the left has the issue with.
I'm sure the Irish people who're seeing record growth propel record investment throughout society would disagree.
Income inequality in Singapore is improving year on year, as is wage inflation across all deciles. Likewise if you look at their education standards it's not hard to predict that this trend will inevitably continue. The same was the case in Hong Kong prior to Chinese involvement. Obviously though these are "newer" countries and so are improving from a lower base.
I would have thought that was more a function of those from poorer backgrounds not believing University was for them, rather than any lack of opportunity. If you had the application, anyone, from any background could go to University.
There is some truth here. I was socially conditioned to think that Uni was beyond my reach when I left school. Plus I had some pressure from my parents regarding having to pay my way and so I chose an apprenticeship. Ten years later later I returned to Uni as a mature student. I was means tested. My fees were paid and I received a mature student maintenance grant.
That's not a benefit of low taxation it's a benefit of taxation disparity. It doesn't work if the overall trend is towards low taxation and it works much less for markets such as ourselves that already have pull through access and skills. It works even less for markets leaving a trading bloc.I'm sure the Irish people who're seeing record growth propel record investment throughout society would disagree.
Income inequality in Singapore is improving year on year, as is wage inflation across all deciles. Likewise if you look at their education standards it's not hard to predict that this trend will inevitably continue. The same was the case in Hong Kong prior to Chinese involvement. Obviously though these are "newer" countries and so are improving from a lower base.
Ireland on the other hand is a more established economy and shows low taxes and low spend propelling fast growth, allowing both increased spending alongside a budget surplus; meaning more more is being spent on services rather than servicing debt. Likewise record unemployment and fantastic wage growth at over 3.5%. Malta has shown a similar pattern of a reduction in tax resulting in better GDP growth.
In truth though it's common sense. Imagine if local authorities set their own tax rates. What do you think would happen if Birmingham set a corporation and income tax rate much lower than anywhere else in the UK? You'd see businesses and people moving out of other cities and into Birmingham. This would result in Birmingham undergoing a large boom as we've seen with Ireland, with other "progressive" cities (as the UK) trying to tread water. Businesses and people are far more fluid now so a country like Ireland with under 23% tax to GDP will attract people and business, whereas a country like France 46% tax to GDP will repel businesses and people.
I'm curious what people think would happen to Birmingham if they and they alone reduced all taxes by a third?
Haha you're such a gammon
