Those who support or lean towards the Labour Party, why?

[dbgtz]

I'm just curious from that other thread why people support Labour. I can't quite understand why people do to be honest and nobody has ever really made it clear, so I decided to make a thread. Not looking for a debate of any kind, just an explanation. I figured now would be the best time since the debate has passed.

[Sharon]

i just like labour. like considering before september i didn't know who ed miliband even was and i know everything i do from doing politics and reading the news i just seem to have leaned towards that party. i have also been taught in a way that makes me hate the conservatives lol? my teacher is a lib dem though so i don't think he is or would he try to do that. i like the values that labour stand for and i think they should be given a chance in this general election to prove how much they have changed since blair/brown.

i personally find ed miliband brilliant lol which is like so so unpopular of an opinion i just think he's such a people person, clearly genuine and does actually have w/c interests at heart, which cameron clearly does not. i think he did great in that programme the other day and handled paxman well although clearly becoming frustrated at the **** that paxman was giving out as per. he's well mannered clearly in his approach to answering questions and although does lack in his ability to be taken seriously and answer WELL he certainly tries.

if we were left with another conservative government/coalition i would be deeply disappointed they have made a mess

[dbgtz]

i just like labour. like considering before september i didn't know who ed miliband even was and i know everything i do from doing politics and reading the news i just seem to have leaned towards that party. i have also been taught in a way that makes me hate the conservatives lol? my teacher is a lib dem though so i don't think he is or would he try to do that. i like the values that labour stand for and i think they should be given a chance in this general election to prove how much they have changed since blair/brown.

i personally find ed miliband brilliant lol which is like so so unpopular of an opinion i just think he's such a people person, clearly genuine and does actually have w/c interests at heart, which cameron clearly does not. i think he did great in that programme the other day and handled paxman well although clearly becoming frustrated at the **** that paxman was giving out as per. he's well mannered clearly in his approach to answering questions and although does lack in his ability to be taken seriously and answer WELL he certainly tries.

if we were left with another conservative government/coalition i would be deeply disappointed they have made a mess

Do you know about the recent history of the party?

[Kardan]

Because it's not the conservatives, and it's not run by Nick Clegg and voting for the other parties is a waste of time?

[RyRy]

I can see this thread being "Ed seems like a nice guy" with no actual basis for why you'd vote labour.....!!

[The Don]

I'm voting for Labour because I don't want the conservatives to get in.

[RyRy]

I'm voting for Labour because I don't want the conservatives to get in.

How did the Conservatives and Lib Dems get in? Because people didn't want Labour to get in again.

The merry-go-round of political idiocy just keeps spinning!

[The Don]

How did the Conservatives and Lib Dems get in? Because people didn't want Labour to get in again.

The merry-go-round of political idiocy just keeps spinning!

Sorry for exercising my right to vote, douche.

Edit: Just wanted to add, what a ridiculously arrogant and self-righteous attitude you have. I don't want the conservatives to get in because I quite like being in the EU and they want to have a referendum on that. Labour are pro-europe. And people voted Lib Dems because of their policies, not to stop labour from getting in so your example of 'political idiocy' is completely wrong.

[RyRy]

Sorry for exercising my right to vote, douche.

Edit: Just wanted to add, what a ridiculously arrogant and self-righteous attitude you have. I don't want the conservatives to get in because I quite like being in the EU and they want to have a referendum on that. Labour are pro-europe. And people voted Lib Dems because of their policies, not to stop labour from getting in so your example of 'political idiocy' is completely wrong.

Well why didn't you say so? You make yourself sound like a moron when in actual fact you've got a good reason! :)

[MKR&*42]

I genuinely detest anyone (not aimed at you Akeam) who is just voting so they can stop X party getting in.

You should vote the party whose policies and MPs you support, not one which you're only going to use tactically IMO

[-:Undertaker:-]

Although it doesn't apply to myself, it certainly applies to areas like mine and many areas of the country: that Labour are voted in purely because of hatred of the Conservative Party along with the fact that their flat-capped grandfather used to vote for them. That's it.

The Labour Party used to be an admirable organisation with legit aims, but now it's run by an Islington elite who are so far removed from their voters that it'll only take a competent rival to completely knock them off their feet: we're already seeing it in Scotland with the SNP set to wipe out Labour in seats they've held since the 1950s and my guess is that if we have a Labour government (hopefully) we'll see the same happen in northern England before 2020.

I used to think the Tory Party was the weaker and most decayed of the two dying parties but now I am not so sure.

[Kyle]

Nice witch hunt u got going here lads top notch

I vote labour because I support eu membership and international development above blind patriotism. We live in a global society and Britain must play its part.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Nice witch hunt u got going here lads top notch

I vote labour because I support eu membership and international development above blind patriotism. We live in a global society and Britain must play its part.

Given Labour doubled spending under the last government (which was unaffordable), how do you think a future bankrupt state will play its part then?

Edit: I'm not having a go at people and I won't post again just I don't get why people don't think there's consequences for actions?? :P :S

[Kardan]

I genuinely detest anyone (not aimed at you Akeam) who is just voting so they can stop X party getting in.

You should vote the party whose policies and MPs you support, not one which you're only going to use tactically IMO

You shouldn't blame the people that are voting like that, but blame the way this country elects MPs.

[MKR&*42]

You shouldn't blame the people that are voting like that, but blame the way this country elects MPs.

I agree the voting system is a terrible one also :P

I can't understand why so many people rejected the AV referendum a few years ago. It seems more fair than the current system.

[Inseriousity.]

If I lived anywhere else, I probably would vote for them. I don't agree with everything. Unfortunately, my area is a safe Labour area and they've got way too complacent and lazy. Democracy only works if there's competition so I need to choose someone else. Problem is don't have a clue.

[-:Undertaker:-]

@Kardan (http://www.habboxforum.com/member.php?u=3428); @Intersocial (http://www.habboxforum.com/member.php?u=15792);

FPTP has problems but to replace it with a proportional system means you get even worse: you then have a situation where a party can be voted out of office yet remains in the government as it becomes part of a rainbow coalition. Also, tactical voting still operates under AV and PR so that is a dud point anyway.

I don't understand why people keep talking about reforming everything OTHER THAN the two main political parties. It is they who are the problem, stop voting for them. Worth remembering also, FPTP also works in your favour at a certain point when voting for a new rising party. Just look at the seat projections for the SNP.

So it can be done. Stop blaming the system and take some responsibility at election time.

[Firehorse]

Just to keep some impartiality in this thread, let me give you an argument which contradicts the views of those who are pro-Labour.

I personally believe the people who vote for Labour are often quite naïve in matters of politics. A party is best judged over previous performance, not the things they promise you as an election approaches; Labour have a horrific track record following their last time in government. If it wasn't for the conservatives, Labour would have driven us into bankruptcy by now and we'd be in a situation more similar to that of Portugal.

The main 3 parties are all disconnected from the general public more than ever, but I feel Labour are by far the worst of them all.

You really need to take a step back and think about what incentivises these parties, NOT just believe the things they like to tell you.

For the Tories it's about making money, not just for society as a whole but also for the big business that fund their party. Sure a lot of people see this as unfair, but in the end everyone ends up better off because wealth is created and spread among the population through jobs. I personally think the wealth could be more evenly distributed, but I don't think the situation is as dire as it could be.

For Labour, it's a socialist ideal they have, so the generation of wealth isn't what's driving them (in fact they quite like spending what we don't have); they have to have another incentive. So what is their incentive? It's thirst for power. Think about it, they bribe people for their vote by promising them more money, literally. They are the party that loves to pay benefits, and it's not for your benefit, it's for theirs. If you rely on benefits then it means you are staying at the level they want you. They love people being reliant on their hand-outs because they see it as Labour loyalty.

Labour doesn't have the incentive to help you earn more and improve because those that earn more are less likely to vote for them. What amazes me is how many people fail to see this. This continues too with their other policies; they opened the door to mass immigration knowing that large numbers of low earners able to migrate to the UK would be more likely to vote for a socialist party, effectively importing Labour voters.

Also note that before Labour introduced their mass immigration policy we didn't even need a minimum wage because the supply of workers was low enough for employers to have to offer reasonable wages. The large over-supply of workers caused by Labour means that not only is the minimum wage now absolutely necessary as a consequence of Labour's open door policy, it's also the "normal wage" offered by employers for unskilled work across the board. This wage depression is a deliberate consequence of Labour's policies, designed to make a large proportion of the population earn less than they otherwise would be able to, and therefore more reliant on government subsidies. It also has the effect of reducing living standards for all but the very richest, making people feel hard-done by.
The unions also benefit from this as they end up holding more power.

As a plan it's absolutely ingenious! Ingenious that they can get away with it all while continuing to blame the Conservatives for the problems they caused themselves! Despicable really.

It should also be mentioned how much hypocrisy goes on in the Labour party; they say ONLY what they believe will get them votes. They promise to get rid of zero hour contracts whilst employing 22,000 people on zero hour contracts themselves! You couldn't make it up!


Because it's not the conservatives, and it's not run by Nick Clegg and voting for the other parties is a waste of time?

I'm voting for Labour because I don't want the conservatives to get in.

I vote labour because I support eu membership and international development above blind patriotism. We live in a global society and Britain must play its part.

As quoted, the arguments supporting a Labour vote really are quite pathetic and superficial.

[The Don]

Just to keep some impartiality in this thread, let me give you an argument which contradicts the views of those who are pro-Labour.

I personally believe the people who vote for Labour are often quite naïve in matters of politics. A party is best judged over previous performance, not the things they promise you as an election approaches; Labour have a horrific track record following their last time in government. If it wasn't for the conservatives, Labour would have driven us into bankruptcy by now and we'd be in a situation more similar to that of Portugal.

The main 3 parties are all disconnected from the general public more than ever, but I feel Labour are by far the worst of them all.

You really need to take a step back and think about what incentivises these parties, NOT just believe the things they like to tell you.

For the Tories it's about making money, not just for society as a whole but also for the big business that fund their party. Sure a lot of people see this as unfair, but in the end everyone ends up better off because wealth is created and spread among the population through jobs. I personally think the wealth could be more evenly distributed, but I don't think the situation is as dire as it could be.

For Labour, it's a socialist ideal they have, so the generation of wealth isn't what's driving them (in fact they quite like spending what we don't have); they have to have another incentive. So what is their incentive? It's thirst for power. Think about it, they bribe people for their vote by promising them more money, literally. They are the party that loves to pay benefits, and it's not for your benefit, it's for theirs. If you rely on benefits then it means you are staying at the level they want you. They love people being reliant on their hand-outs because they see it as Labour loyalty.

Labour doesn't have the incentive to help you earn more and improve because those that earn more are less likely to vote for them. What amazes me is how many people fail to see this. This continues too with their other policies; they opened the door to mass immigration knowing that large numbers of low earners able to migrate to the UK would be more likely to vote for a socialist party, effectively importing Labour voters.

Also note that before Labour introduced their mass immigration policy we didn't even need a minimum wage because the supply of workers was low enough for employers to have to offer reasonable wages. The large over-supply of workers caused by Labour means that not only is the minimum wage now absolutely necessary as a consequence of Labour's open door policy, it's also the "normal wage" offered by employers for unskilled work across the board. This wage depression is a deliberate consequence of Labour's policies, designed to make a large proportion of the population earn less than they otherwise would be able to, and therefore more reliant on government subsidies. It also has the effect of reducing living standards for all but the very richest, making people feel hard-done by.
The unions also benefit from this as they end up holding more power.

As a plan it's absolutely ingenious! Ingenious that they can get away with it all while continuing to blame the Conservatives for the problems they caused themselves! Despicable really.

It should also be mentioned how much hypocrisy goes on in the Labour party; they say ONLY what they believe will get them votes. They promise to get rid of zero hour contracts whilst employing 22,000 people on zero hour contracts themselves! You couldn't make it up!





As quoted, the arguments supporting a Labour vote really are quite pathetic and superficial.


Sorry for exercising my right to vote, douche.

Edit: Just wanted to add, what a ridiculously arrogant and self-righteous attitude you have. I don't want the conservatives to get in because I quite like being in the EU and they want to have a referendum on that. Labour are pro-europe. And people voted Lib Dems because of their policies, not to stop labour from getting in so your example of 'political idiocy' is completely wrong.

All a bit rich considering you're a UKIP voter iirc, a party whose mantra consists almost entirely of "bloody immigrants" and "the EU did it!!".

[-:Undertaker:-]

All a bit rich considering you're a UKIP voter iirc, a party whose mantra consists almost entirely of "bloody immigrants" and "the EU did it!!".

A better mantra than your lot who just repeat "Without [insert immigrants or EU] the country would collapse and we'd lose 3m jerbs!!!" and "racists!!!!".

[The Don]

A better mantra than your lot who just repeat "Without [insert immigrants or EU] the country would collapse and we'd lose 3m jerbs!!!" and "racists!!!!".

No because labour has actual policies and isn't just a single-issue party like UKIP.

[Firehorse]

All a bit rich considering you're a UKIP voter iirc, a party whose mantra consists almost entirely of "bloody immigrants" and "the EU did it!!".

Quite the assumption. You don't know how I vote, I may be opinionated (heavily so against Labour) but I'm actually an undecided voter. More likely to vote Conservative whether or not you choose to believe that.

But I like your attempt at slander; your lack of ability to provide a counter argument further serves to prove the lack of substance in your reasoning. Your obstinate inclination towards the Labour party with almost no reasoning whatsoever except for not wanting a Conservative government (without reason as to why other than wishing citizens to not have a say on their own futures) really illustrates how stubborn you, like a lot of people, are, voting because of a socialist ideal without realising they're actually shooting themselves in the foot.

... A bit rich considering you're a Labour voter, a party whose mantra consists almost entirely of "vote for us and we'll give you free money" and "we'll spend more on X, Y and Z [of the money we don't actually have]". Oh, and the classic line From Ed Miliband during the debate: "don't look at the past, look at the future [so you don't scrutinise us on our gigantic cockups during the last time we were in government]"


I don't want the conservatives to get in because I quite like being in the EU and they want to have a referendum on that.

So because you as an individual don't want it, you believe nobody else should be afforded the opportunity to voice their opinion. I think you would have quite liked living in Soviet Russia, the GDR, or North Korea.

I'm sure if 70% voted against what you want and the vote was then disregarded you'd be quite pleased, rather than outraged at a lack of democratic procedure. But let's for a moment imagine 52% of the vote was for Labour and the result was then vetoed letting the Conservatives into government, you'd clearly be livid about it. Hypocrisy at its finest.

[-:Undertaker:-]

No because labour has actual policies and isn't just a single-issue party like UKIP.

You mean the policy of spending like a lunatic?

[lemons]

i like the colour red

[Kyle]

Lol this is why Young people are apathetic towards politics. If they hold an unpopular opinion Among those that consider themselves better educated they are hounded for it. i won't post the entirety of my reasoning for supporting labour because this isn't (SHOULDNT be) a debate and was posed as a question. Would I be bothered if the conservatives got a second term? Probably not. It's not something that lays very heavily on my mind or affects my own life very directly.

[The Don]

Quite the assumption. You don't know how I vote, I may be opinionated (heavily so against Labour) but I'm actually an undecided voter. More likely to vote Conservative whether or not you choose to believe that. But I like your attempt at slander
Oh, don’t be so dramatic. I put iirc afterwards to highlight that I wasn’t entirely sure.


your lack of ability to provide a counter argument further serves to prove the lack of substance in your reasoning.
A counter argument to what? Your revolutionary point that *shock* parties have other incentives? Your grand point that Labour wants power? One of the most laughable points I’ve ever read. Every political party wants power, every political party has incentives. The bias from your post is incredible. I didn’t provide a counter argument because there is no need for one. People don’t need to elaborate on their reasons for voting. A lack of a response doesn’t indicate the inability to provide one, what stupid logic. Perhaps people don’t reply to you because you write paragraphs of waffle and then write off their opinions because you disagree with them.


Your obstinate inclination towards the Labour party with almost no reasoning whatsoever except for not wanting a Conservative government
Can you not read? I clearly provided my reasoning in another post.


(without reason as to why other than wishing citizens to not have a say on their own futures) really illustrates how stubborn you,
Oh, so you did read my reasoning, but dismissed it because you disagreed with it whilst in the same breath having the audacity to call me stubborn.


... A bit rich considering you're a Labour voter, a party whose mantra consists almost entirely of "vote for us and we'll give you free money" and "we'll spend more on X, Y and Z [of the money we don't actually have]". Oh, and the classic line From Ed Miliband during the debate: "don't look at the past, look at the future [so you don't scrutinise us on our gigantic cockups during the last time we were in government]" you seem to think I’m some sort of devote Labour loyalist, I’m not, if it wasn’t a close call between the Conservatives and Labour I wouldn’t be voting for them, but because it is so close, and because I disagree with some of the conservatives policies I will have to vote for Labour.


So because you as an individual don't want it, you believe nobody else should be afforded the opportunity to voice their opinion. I think you would have quite liked living in Soviet Russia, the GDR, or North Korea.
So you don’t believe I should be afforded my right to vote for Labour because I should afford you your right to have a referendum? Do you realize how ridiculous that sounds. The hypocrisy in that paragraph is mindblowing.

[David]

Edit: I'm not having a go at people and I won't post again

that lasted long

[-:Undertaker:-]

that lasted long

The thread needed new life, we just performed forum CPR.

[Firehorse]

Lol this is why Young people are apathetic towards politics. If they hold an unpopular opinion Among those that consider themselves better educated they are hounded for it. i won't post the entirety of my reasoning for supporting labour because this isn't (SHOULDNT be) a debate and was posed as a question. Would I be bothered if the conservatives got a second term? Probably not. It's not something that lays very heavily on my mind or affects my own life very directly.

Anybody who holds a political opinion needs to have a reason for it. First time voters or people who are apathetic towards a subject will often be less well informed about that subject, and not be in the correct position to make an informed decision. Unfortunately too many people take the things that Ed, Dave and Nick say at face value without knowing their track record and the REALITY behind the vote they make.

Labour plans to lower the voting age to 16; whilst saying it's to be fair and get younger people involved in politics, yet it's only another vote manipulation scandal. They know full well that the young are more naïve and take what they say at face value and are therefore more likely to vote for them. Ken Livingstone even spoke to people at my school after 2008 to convince their parents to vote for him so they would get EMA when they reached sixth form (when his position as Mayor of London had no power over EMA in the first place). Literally lying for votes.
The same reason the SNP successfully campaigned to have the voting age set at 16 for the Scottish Independence Referendum: because younger voters are more naïve and are more prone to idealism.

Also this can be a question as to why, but without opposing reasons the thread would serve only as propaganda for Labour, which is wholly undemocratic.

I understand that many Labour supporters are quite happy for the younger population to be lied to because it gets them the outcome they want. Well not everybody is happy about it.

18 year olds voting now would majorly not have taken any interest in politics during the last general election at age 13, so have no or little idea of what has previously happened in the last election or elections prior to that. Ed Miliband could say "we'll give everybody a free house and make the debt vanish by borrowing even more" and there would be people who actually believe him.


Oh, don’t be so dramatic. I put iirc afterwards to highlight that I wasn’t entirely sure.

You had nothing to say so using a party you assumed I would vote for you attempted to insult me and bring my post into disrepute. You, as Kyle suggests are "hounding me for my unpopular opinion", funny how it works both ways, isn't it kyle!

To ridicule someone over support for a political party is akin to tactics used by the Kremlin to remove the threat of opposition. I'm not ridiculing you over your support for Labour, merely your lack of reasoning. I may as well though, seeing how much of a shambles the Labour party is.



A counter argument to what? Your revolutionary point that *shock* parties have other incentives? Your grand point that Labour wants power? One of the most laughable points I’ve ever read. Every political party wants power, every political party has incentives. The bias from your post is incredible. I didn’t provide a counter argument because there is no need for one. People don’t need to elaborate on their reasons for voting. A lack of a response doesn’t indicate the inability to provide one, what stupid logic. Perhaps people don’t reply to you because you write paragraphs of waffle and then write off their opinions because you disagree with them.

Not every party wants power for the same reasons. Most parties want power because they feel they have something to contribute to the running of the country and for the betterment of the country as a whole. The political decisions made by most parties are in the interest of the country, but what I have highlighted in my post is that Labour abused its power to the benefit not of the country, but of its own interests. When you are in a job to serve the country but only serve yourself, this is PLAIN AND SIMPLE CORRUPTION.

I'm not "writing off your opinions because I disagree", you barely seem to have an opinion on anything, except that you're tenaciously left wing regardless of actual policy or practice.

You may not believe so, but it's important that people can justify their opinions, otherwise vast numbers of people can be misled. If people are unable to justify an opinion it is also evidence that they themselves have been misled. Take a history lesson, Hitler misled Germany into World War II through unjustified opinion, false promises, and socialist ideology. The only thing that's changed is Labour are unlikely to amass an army and start a world war.

Without justified opinion people end up following the crowd just because it's what everyone else is doing, not because it's what they deem right. This is a very dangerous prospect.




Can you not read? I clearly provided my reasoning in another post.

Oh, so you did read my reasoning, but dismissed it because you disagreed with it whilst in the same breath having the audacity to call me stubborn.


Your reasoning being only that you think people shouldn't be afforded the right to vote on an EU referendum... because you're worried the majority of people don't agree with your opinion. You're accusing myself and the people who vote for UKIP as being fixated on a single policy, yet all you're fixated on is the exact opposite of the same one policy? If your entire vote is based on this then your decision is completely beguiled. As I specifically stated "almost no reasoning" and "except for not wanting a conservative government" (for the reason of keeping out of the EU, which is the same reason you don't want a conservative government hence the claim to "almost no reasoning"), you are deliberately misquoting me.



you seem to think I’m some sort of devote Labour loyalist, I’m not, if it wasn’t a close call between the Conservatives and Labour I wouldn’t be voting for them, but because it is so close, and because I disagree with some of the conservatives policies I will have to vote for Labour.


Voting for a party because you disagree with other parties is very bad practice. This is the same irrational reasoning that led to the BNP getting seats in the London Assembly and the European Parliament. Other than the slim possibility of an EU referendum being offered by the conservatives (they promised it at the last election and didn't deliver it, and are making the same promise now so fat chance of it actually happening), you haven't actually stated which policies you dislike, or in fact which Labour policies you agree with.



So you don’t believe I should be afforded my right to vote for Labour because I should afford you your right to have a referendum? Do you realize how ridiculous that sounds. The hypocrisy in that paragraph is mindblowing.

I never stated you should not have a right to vote for [whichever political party you want]. I merely compared YOUR reasoning of not wanting others to have a vote to countries where people did not/do not get a say AT ALL. There is no hypocrisy in my post, you're merely making things up as you go again. Mind blowing, perhaps because you can't quite comprehend it?

[The Don]

Anybody who holds a political opinion needs to have a reason for it. First time voters or people who are apathetic towards a subject will often be less well informed about that subject, and not be in the correct position to make an informed decision. Unfortunately too many people take the things that Ed, Dave and Nick say at face value without knowing their track record and the REALITY behind the vote they make.

Labour plans to lower the voting age to 16; whilst saying it's to be fair and get younger people involved in politics, yet it's only another vote manipulation scandal. They know full well that the young are more naïve and take what they say at face value and are therefore more likely to vote for them. Ken Livingstone even spoke to people at my school after 2008 to convince their parents to vote for him so they would get EMA when they reached sixth form (when his position as Mayor of London had no power over EMA in the first place). Literally lying for votes.
The same reason the SNP successfully campaigned to have the voting age set at 16 for the Scottish Independence Referendum: because younger voters are more naïve and are more prone to idealism.

Also this can be a question as to why, but without opposing reasons the thread would serve only as propaganda for Labour, which is wholly undemocratic.

I understand that many Labour supporters are quite happy for the younger population to be lied to because it gets them the outcome they want. Well not everybody is happy about it.

18 year olds voting now would majorly not have taken any interest in politics during the last general election at age 13, so have no or little idea of what has previously happened in the last election or elections prior to that. Ed Miliband could say "we'll give everybody a free house and make the debt vanish by borrowing even more" and there would be people who actually believe him.



You had nothing to say so using a party you assumed I would vote for you attempted to insult me and bring my post into disrepute. You, as Kyle suggests are "hounding me for my unpopular opinion", funny how it works both ways, isn't it kyle!

To ridicule someone over support for a political party is akin to tactics used by the Kremlin to remove the threat of opposition. I'm not ridiculing you over your support for Labour, merely your lack of reasoning. I may as well though, seeing how much of a shambles the Labour party is.



Not every party wants power for the same reasons. Most parties want power because they feel they have something to contribute to the running of the country and for the betterment of the country as a whole. The political decisions made by most parties are in the interest of the country, but what I have highlighted in my post is that Labour abused its power to the benefit not of the country, but of its own interests. When you are in a job to serve the country but only serve yourself, this is PLAIN AND SIMPLE CORRUPTION.

I'm not "writing off your opinions because I disagree", you barely seem to have an opinion on anything, except that you're tenaciously left wing regardless of actual policy or practice.

You may not believe so, but it's important that people can justify their opinions, otherwise vast numbers of people can be misled. If people are unable to justify an opinion it is also evidence that they themselves have been misled. Take a history lesson, Hitler misled Germany into World War II through unjustified opinion, false promises, and socialist ideology. The only thing that's changed is Labour are unlikely to amass an army and start a world war.

Without justified opinion people end up following the crowd just because it's what everyone else is doing, not because it's what they deem right. This is a very dangerous prospect.



Your reasoning being only that you think people shouldn't be afforded the right to vote on an EU referendum... because you're worried the majority of people don't agree with your opinion. You're accusing myself and the people who vote for UKIP as being fixated on a single policy, yet all you're fixated on is the exact opposite of the same one policy? If your entire vote is based on this then your decision is completely beguiled. As I specifically stated "almost no reasoning" and "except for not wanting a conservative government" (for the reason of keeping out of the EU, which is the same reason you don't want a conservative government hence the claim to "almost no reasoning"), you are deliberately misquoting me.



Voting for a party because you disagree with other parties is very bad practice. This is the same irrational reasoning that led to the BNP getting seats in the London Assembly and the European Parliament. Other than the slim possibility of an EU referendum being offered by the conservatives (they promised it at the last election and didn't deliver it, and are making the same promise now so fat chance of it actually happening), you haven't actually stated which policies you dislike, or in fact which Labour policies you agree with.



I never stated you should not have a right to vote for [whichever political party you want]. I merely compared YOUR reasoning of not wanting others to have a vote to countries where people did not/do not get a say AT ALL. There is no hypocrisy in my post, you're merely making things up as you go again. Mind blowing, perhaps because you can't quite comprehend it?

You're talking about the Kremlin and Nazis now? Ridiculous. I've clearly expressed why I will be voting for Labour in the upcoming elections, you obviously still can't comprehend the fact that reasons still exist regardless of whether you agree with them or not so i'm done responding to you. Don't take the lack of any future replies as an "inability to respond" to your wishy-washy points but as a display of my lack of interest in debating with you.

[Firehorse]

You're talking about the Kremlin and Nazis now? Ridiculous. I've clearly expressed why I will be voting for Labour in the upcoming elections, you obviously still can't comprehend the fact that reasons still exist regardless of whether you agree with them or not so i'm done responding to you. Don't take the lack of any future replies as an "inability to respond" to your wishy-washy points but as a display of my lack of interest in debating with you.

History repeats itself and it is very important lessons are learnt from it. There are many laws and provisions in place to ensure history does not repeat itself in many cases, it can be disastrous.

Why is it ridiculous to compare political circumstances? It's very relevant.

I don't need to make those other points about your lack of argument, your post speaks for itself.

[Kardan]

As quoted, the arguments supporting a Labour vote really are quite pathetic and superficial.

Why?

I disagree with how the Conservatives are running (and planning to run) the country, especially in regards to education and an EU referendum. Whilst I'm not a great fan of Miliband the shadow cabinet at the moment seem a lot better than the current cabinet - I agree with Labour's policies more than any other party and in my constituency it's a clear battle between the Conservatives and Labour - no other party has a chance of getting in and frankly the Conservatives are pretty safe in my seat anyway, so it's more than likely that my vote for Labour is just as much of a waste as if you wanted me to vote for UKIP/Greens/Lib Dems.

[Firehorse]

Why?

I disagree with how the Conservatives are running (and planning to run) the country, especially in regards to education and an EU referendum. Whilst I'm not a great fan of Miliband the shadow cabinet at the moment seem a lot better than the current cabinet - I agree with Labour's policies more than any other party and in my constituency it's a clear battle between the Conservatives and Labour - no other party has a chance of getting in and frankly the Conservatives are pretty safe in my seat anyway, so it's more than likely that my vote for Labour is just as much of a waste as if you wanted me to vote for UKIP/Greens/Lib Dems.

Like I said before:


Voting for a party because you disagree with other parties is very bad practice. This is the same irrational reasoning that led to the BNP getting seats in the London Assembly and the European Parliament.

The conservatives offering an EU referendum is just a tactic for votes, they said the same thing at the last election and it didn't happen.

I'm assuming your opinion on education is based on the rise in tuition fees? Labour were the ones who introduced fees in the first place! The promised reduction is NOTHING EXCEPT A BRIBE FOR YOUR VOTE.

Labour were also the ones who abolished technical colleges, turning them into universities. No longer would plumbers/electricians/mechanics get trained up at the level they needed but instead were encouraged to go to university instead. This was Labour's way of skewing the figures to make it look like more people were in university than ever before, they would rather people got degrees in useless subjects like media than gain the skills needed to actually keep the country running. It also meant that people who wanted to become mechanics/electricians now had to do more expensive courses to gain their qualifications, all thanks to Labour. Labour portray themselves as trying to help people, yet almost EVERYTHING they do undermines the working class making it more difficult for people to actually get a leg up. There's so much contradiction in what people think Labour stand for and what they really stand for. They don't want people to succeed. If people succeed they would have no voters left!

Even as recently as 2009 Labour made it law that by 2013 all nurses had to have a university nursing degree. Another hurdle to stop people doing the jobs the country needs and replace them with migrant workers. This meant nurses had to go through the university system and end up with student debt instead of going on free nurse training courses. The NHS isn't just in a state thanks to the Tories, Labour's policies were still coming into action as recently as two years ago! More people just where Labour want them, in hardship.

I agree that the increase in tuition fees was wrong, especially when Scotland gets to go to university for free.

What the conservatives have done during their time in government is start to reintroduce technical colleges; they know that people need to be trained up to work for the country, otherwise you become reliant on migrant workers to fill key jobs which is all part of Labour's greater plan. Labour bribe you with the odd thousand pounds here and there but you need to look at the bigger picture, they're dangerous for this country's wellbeing.

Michael Gove may not have been the best education secretary; for schools the best option is to pick a system and then leave it alone and not change it every few governments. Labour were no better at this, they first removed grammar schools and turned them into state schools, and then turned the state schools into academies which did no better end job than the state schools. The only difference it made was intelligent children from poor backgrounds no longer being able to apply to schools with entry requirements, the intelligent were mixed in with the more difficult pupils to deliberately reduce the levels of effective education, they INCREASED the education gap between the poor and rich whilst feeding people the line it was all about equality to mix different levels of pupils, again so they can point the finger at the Conservatives for an unfair society and their newly produced under-educated society would vote for them believing it! What's more the academies were able to pay their leadership staff more instead of spending the money on pupils.

So in short: you're afraid the country doesn't agree with you on the EU so don't want people to be afforded the opportunity to voice their opinion, and you don't like the recent changes made to the education system but haven't actually scrutinised Labour's track record and will take what Miliband says at face value.

It's like the way people argue that the Conservatives have been privatising the NHS... when Labour privatised twice as much as the Conservatives to begin with!

When people vote for Labour "because they don't want the Conservatives" or "don't want a vote on the EU", then it IS a pathetic argument. It's as simple as that.

People don't even argue to agree with the incredible amount of changes Labour made in the past which have vastly changed the country for the worse, only basing their argument on two idealistic points (maybe they don't actually agree with Labour's dreadful past and deludedly think they've ACTUALLY changed this time round. Get real). It is idiocy.

Look into the details and don't be a sheep that takes what politicians say at face value. There is so much wrong with the Labour party it's quite unbelievable people still vote for them.

http://www.quickmeme.com/img/22/22f1859164124ddac16ad217d74cfe09185b865b862e4a6637 269af7b634b25d.jpg

[scottish]

vote labour

[FlyingJesus]

Literally every manifesto claim is a bribe for your vote, that's the whole point of saying what you'll do

Everyone is stupid

[Firehorse]

Literally every manifesto claim is a bribe for your vote, that's the whole point of saying what you'll do

Everyone is stupid

It is in a lot of cases, and not just for Labour. Labour are just the worst at it.

Conservatives and Lib Dems do it too.

[Sian]

Im labour because at heart (though not always frequently practiced) they're against privatisation (nothing like giving massive conglomerates the power to bankrupt people even easier), they tend to be more modernised (the Tories keep harking back to thatcher whereas right now we need to look to future Britain).

Main reasons, though im not an Ed fan, but he isnt the entirety of the labour party.

[The Don]

vote labour

wooo, labour!

[buttons]

vote labour
i will cut off your hands to stop you

[scottish]

i will cut off your hands to stop you

better than ukip

[Kardan]

Like I said before:



The conservatives offering an EU referendum is just a tactic for votes, they said the same thing at the last election and it didn't happen.

I'm assuming your opinion on education is based on the rise in tuition fees? Labour were the ones who introduced fees in the first place! The promised reduction is NOTHING EXCEPT A BRIBE FOR YOUR VOTE.

Labour were also the ones who abolished technical colleges, turning them into universities. No longer would plumbers/electricians/mechanics get trained up at the level they needed but instead were encouraged to go to university instead. This was Labour's way of skewing the figures to make it look like more people were in university than ever before, they would rather people got degrees in useless subjects like media than gain the skills needed to actually keep the country running. It also meant that people who wanted to become mechanics/electricians now had to do more expensive courses to gain their qualifications, all thanks to Labour. Labour portray themselves as trying to help people, yet almost EVERYTHING they do undermines the working class making it more difficult for people to actually get a leg up. There's so much contradiction in what people think Labour stand for and what they really stand for. They don't want people to succeed. If people succeed they would have no voters left!

Even as recently as 2009 Labour made it law that by 2013 all nurses had to have a university nursing degree. Another hurdle to stop people doing the jobs the country needs and replace them with migrant workers. This meant nurses had to go through the university system and end up with student debt instead of going on free nurse training courses. The NHS isn't just in a state thanks to the Tories, Labour's policies were still coming into action as recently as two years ago! More people just where Labour want them, in hardship.

I agree that the increase in tuition fees was wrong, especially when Scotland gets to go to university for free.

What the conservatives have done during their time in government is start to reintroduce technical colleges; they know that people need to be trained up to work for the country, otherwise you become reliant on migrant workers to fill key jobs which is all part of Labour's greater plan. Labour bribe you with the odd thousand pounds here and there but you need to look at the bigger picture, they're dangerous for this country's wellbeing.

Michael Gove may not have been the best education secretary; for schools the best option is to pick a system and then leave it alone and not change it every few governments. Labour were no better at this, they first removed grammar schools and turned them into state schools, and then turned the state schools into academies which did no better end job than the state schools. The only difference it made was intelligent children from poor backgrounds no longer being able to apply to schools with entry requirements, the intelligent were mixed in with the more difficult pupils to deliberately reduce the levels of effective education, they INCREASED the education gap between the poor and rich whilst feeding people the line it was all about equality to mix different levels of pupils, again so they can point the finger at the Conservatives for an unfair society and their newly produced under-educated society would vote for them believing it! What's more the academies were able to pay their leadership staff more instead of spending the money on pupils.

So in short: you're afraid the country doesn't agree with you on the EU so don't want people to be afforded the opportunity to voice their opinion, and you don't like the recent changes made to the education system but haven't actually scrutinised Labour's track record and will take what Miliband says at face value.

It's like the way people argue that the Conservatives have been privatising the NHS... when Labour privatised twice as much as the Conservatives to begin with!

When people vote for Labour "because they don't want the Conservatives" or "don't want a vote on the EU", then it IS a pathetic argument. It's as simple as that.

People don't even argue to agree with the incredible amount of changes Labour made in the past which have vastly changed the country for the worse, only basing their argument on two idealistic points (maybe they don't actually agree with Labour's dreadful past and deludedly think they've ACTUALLY changed this time round. Get real). It is idiocy.

Look into the details and don't be a sheep that takes what politicians say at face value. There is so much wrong with the Labour party it's quite unbelievable people still vote for them.

http://www.quickmeme.com/img/22/22f1859164124ddac16ad217d74cfe09185b865b862e4a6637 269af7b634b25d.jpg

No, it's not about tuition fees, otherwise I'd be voting greens since they want to scrap it. It's also quite astounding how many assumptions you make about people based on their choice of political party.

Yes Labour have made mistakes, and so have every other party that has ever had a part to play in a government. Probably worth telling you that I'll still vote Labour despite you trying to convince me otherwise.

[Firehorse]

No, it's not about tuition fees, otherwise I'd be voting greens since they want to scrap it. It's also quite astounding how many assumptions you make about people based on their choice of political party.

Yes Labour have made mistakes, and so have every other party that has ever had a part to play in a government. Probably worth telling you that I'll still vote Labour despite you trying to convince me otherwise.

If not tuition fees then what? I didn't just discuss tuition fees I discussed the entire education system, which you have sidestepped even mentioning in your response.

I'm not trying to convince you to change your vote, only justify your opinion (which you haven't done). If you can't justify your opinion then it holds no substance. Who you vote for is your own entitlement, I just deem it overly zealous to support a party based on one or two election promises and their ideals whilst ignoring the reality of their history in government.

[Alysha]

I feel like this thread fully defines why voting is anonymous. Personally, I wouldn't vote for any of the main parties, but alas, the choice will always be limited.
I'd prefer not to have David Cameron as Prime Minister, but that isn't to say I disagree with conservative policies. I'm not likely to vote for them ever though.
Labour are too lax in their financial choices.
I wish the Lib Dems actually stood a chance at making any change.
I'm not for UK independence.
Greens only have about 2 policies that I care about.
Plaid Cymru won't gain anything external with a few local votes.
Meh. Highly undecided.

Might I add, that no one has to justify their vote. Ever. You may be trying to keep the thread alive, but it's not your place to judge their choice even with their reasoning.

[Firehorse]

Might I add, that no one has to justify their vote. Ever. You may be trying to keep the thread alive, but it's not your place to judge their choice even with their reasoning.

Sorry but there is so much wrong with not having to justify opinion. There are some very racist and dangerous people in the world yet their arguments can be undone by simply asking them to make a justification for the argument.

No justification of opinion is very serious; you believe in something but don't even know why you believe in it? Ridiculous!

Let's look at a significant example of history where people could not justify their opinions: WWII Germany... "Why do you hate Jews?". There was no justification. People only knew they hated Jews because that's what the government and others told them. It was the popular opinion, but that didn't make it right. If you make decisions with no basis in fact or experience then you make bad decisions. It's not about bullying people into believing what you believe (this is ironically what unjustified opinion largely achieves, as demonstrated by the WWII case study), it's just about making sure people KNOW WHAT THEY'RE ACTUALLY DOING AND MORE IMPORTANTLY KNOW WHY THEY'RE DOING IT.

I'm also not judging anybody for their choice of vote, as I have mentioned previously. People have the right to vote for whomever they wish, and everybody has the right to scrutinise and make people think twice about who they're voting for. If I don't change anybody's mind on the party they're voting for then my posts will not have been for nothing. People can read the reasons for voting Labour, read the reasons for not voting Labour, and then make their own informed opinions. Someone might read the negative arguments and then be encouraged to think about other aspects that may not have been mentioned and develop a more informed counter argument which may very well defeat the anti-Labour argument; which I very much welcome because it would help me further inform my own opinions, and would afford others the same opportunity.

Do you disagree with scrutiny? Do you believe the BNP should never have been scrutinised? Maybe the EDL shouldn't be scrutinised? The KKK shouldn't have been scrutinised? Do you think paedophile rings shouldn't be scrutinised? Neo-Nazis? ISIS? What is wrong with scrutiny? Scrutiny only weeds out the bad; those that can stand up to scrutiny through justification of opinion and action deserve merit, not those that just sort of say "because I believe in it". Guess what, people who support those organisations believe in an ideal without being able to justify it. I can justify why I would vote for a number of parties, but I have a real problem with people who would vote for a party without really even knowing why they're doing so other than because "they believe in the ideal".

People have the right to anonymity in their vote, and nobody here has been asked to justify their vote; only justify reasoning that has already been voiced publicly which is a different matter.

I've given a lot of argument yet my real vote still remains anonymous, for all you know I might vote Labour, or for an independent MP.

The aim of argument is to inform, not to belittle.

Debate is a brilliant way of exchanging opinions and ideas; it should never be discouraged.

[Kardan]

If not tuition fees then what? I didn't just discuss tuition fees I discussed the entire education system, which you have sidestepped even mentioning in your response.

I'm not trying to convince you to change your vote, only justify your opinion (which you haven't done). If you can't justify your opinion then it holds no substance. Who you vote for is your own entitlement, I just deem it overly zealous to support a party based on one or two election promises and their ideals whilst ignoring the reality of their history in government.

The Labour party will ensure that all teachers in state schools are qualified, something I believe should be done. The Conservatives are quite happy having unqualified teachers in permanent job roles in schools. I wouldn't want an unqualified surgeon operating on me, so why should we allow unqualified teachers to teach?
I'm not a fan of free schools which were set up by the Conservative party - not only are they allowed to employ unqualified teachers but councils have absolutely no control over the schools, yet the council are the ones held responsible if there are issues with school places in the local area. Of course, one benefit with free schools is that there is an increase in school places but because they are free schools and the council have no responsibility with where they are built, they are often built in places where extra places aren't needed, the money the government are providing should be spent on building schools in areas that need the extra places, especially primary schools.
Other education policies I agree with: Compulsory sex and relationship education, including the targeting of homophobic bullying within schools. Of course the reduction in tuition fees to £6,000 is better than the current situation but it is not ideal.

Non-education policies that 'justify' my vote for Labour: They will ensure that University students are not deterred by immigration laws. Introducing a tax on bankers bonuses, a 5% pay cut for every government minister, a drive against tax avoidance by keeping money overseas, GP appointments within 48 hours, prioritising children's mental health services, getting rid of zero hour contracts, pushing apprenticeships for those that choose not to go to university, scrapping of police and crime commissioners, banning child sex offenders from working with children, withdrawal of winter fuel allowance from wealthy pensioners, increase of paternity leave from 2 to 4 weeks, and an increase in pay for paternity leave and a rise in minimum wage.

I'm not going to waste my time and explain in depth why I agree with all those non-education policies and even if I did I'm sure you'll manage to come up with something that will 'counter-act' each of my points whether that be 'Well the Conservatives have a better policy on that' or 'Labour wouldn't need to do that if they didn't mess it up in their last government'.

Probably also worth saying that yes, at the moment they're just plans, and yes it's very likely that even if Labour win a majority they won't implement everything I agree with during the next 5 years, but please tell me a party that has always delivered 100% of the things it claimed to do before an election. Out of the two main parties, who do I think will do a better job in the next 5 years? Labour. So I'm voting for them. Am I an avid Labour campaigner and will I think it's the end of the world if the Conservatives stay in power? No. But my mind is still made up.

[-:Undertaker:-]

So basically @Kardan (http://www.habboxforum.com/member.php?u=3428); wants all the fluffy sounding and expensive things.

Without a clue how to pay for them. Without a clue as to what the unintended consequences will be.

The road to Hell is paved with good intentions, as they say.


withdrawal of winter fuel allowance from wealthy pensioners

Why would you want to do that rather than say scrap the foreign aid budget?

My Nan and Grandad have worked all their lives for everything they own, including their own house. If something were to happen to them where they needed care, they would have to sell their house to pay for that care which would be the same care as somebody who sat on their arse all their lives and spent their money in the Bingo Hall every friday night would also be entitled to. And it's the same with the winter fuel allowance: why should those who have paid into the pot get charged extra for something they paid for?

I love it when left wingers talk about fairness, they don't know the meaning of the word.


getting rid of zero hour contracts

Companies will simply get around that by introducing shorter contracts.


Introducing a tax on bankers bonuses

So you want to punish our most successful industry and ensure that it goes to Frankfurt and Hong Kong?

Let's get this straight: bankers and people who are productive are one thousand times more clever than you or Labour ministers. They will always get around you.


banning child sex offenders from working with children

Trusting the party of Rotherham and the party that is soft on crime to do that?


pushing apprenticeships for those that choose not to go to university

And when they finish their apprenticeships?

They'll find that, thanks to Labour, all the low skilled jobs are occupied by foreign workers. :clap:

Do you not put two and two together?

[Kardan]

Damn, Undertaker decided to do it despite saying he wouldn't have a go at people and despite saying he wouldn't post again. I was so sure that Hashterix was going to be the one.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Damn, Undertaker decided to do it despite saying he wouldn't have a go at people and despite saying he wouldn't post again. I was so sure that Hashterix was going to be the one.

We await your reply.

Don't you put two and two together when agreeing to all these things? Do you think people like myself are against more paternity leave, new schools buildings and more mental health services because we are just simply evil or because we think of things like.. uhhh I don't know, the costs + consequences?

Tell me why my nan and grandad should have to pay through their noses for something they've paid for over and over? So you can feel good about yourself?

[Kardan]

And do you think because I'm voting Labour I must be opposed to cutting any of the foreign aid budget?

I see the winter fuel allowance as a benefit, to help those that are not able to do so. Just like we don't give out JSA to those that have jobs, the winter fuel allowance I think should only be given to pensioners that are seriously in danger of not paying their fuel costs. In fact, I wouldn't be too opposed to scrapping it altogether.

In fact, you've convinced me, instead of voting for the Europe loving paedophiles that spend spend spend, I'm going to vote for UKIP! I've seen the light!

[The Don]

Damn, Undertaker decided to do it despite saying he wouldn't have a go at people and despite saying he wouldn't post again. I was so sure that Hashterix was going to be the one.

He has the self-awareness of one of those street preachers that desperately tries to convert you despite the fact you've already politely said no

[-:Undertaker:-]

And do you think because I'm voting Labour I must be opposed to cutting any of the foreign aid budget?

So you do agree with me in cutting the foreign aid budget as one of our least essential spending budgets given our debt?


I see the winter fuel allowance as a benefit, to help those that are not able to do so. Just like we don't give out JSA to those that have jobs, the winter fuel allowance I think should only be given to pensioners that are seriously in danger of not paying their fuel costs. In fact, I wouldn't be too opposed to scrapping it altogether.

At least we can agree on some things.


In fact, you've convinced me, instead of voting for the Europe loving paedophiles that spend spend spend, I'm going to vote for UKIP! I've seen the light!

Well the question is really, what do Labour have do to actually lose your vote?

Given Rotherham, the Iraq war, the debt ... how much more do they have to do before you punish them?


He has the self-awareness of one of those street preachers that desperately tries to convert you despite the fact you've already politely said no

Don't flatter yourself that I am trying to convince you, no, that would be pointless. My main aim when I debate you isn't to convince you at all, it is to make a show of you so that anyone who is reading may be convinced/won't feel like they are alone in holding their opinions. The amount of times I have had people PM me after a debate on here, in private, and tell me that they agree with me but don't want to say so themselves is comforting.

If I end up convincing you otherwise then that's just a bonus.

[Kardan]

So you do agree with me in cutting the foreign aid budget as one of our least essential spending budgets given our debt?



At least we can agree on some things.



Well the question is really, what do Labour have do to actually lose your vote?

Given Rotherham, the Iraq war, the debt ... how much more do they have to do before you punish them?



Don't flatter yourself that I am trying to convince you, no, that would be pointless. My main aim when I debate you isn't to convince you at all, it is to make a show of you so that anyone who is reading may be convinced/won't feel like they are alone in holding their opinions. The amount of times I have had people PM me after a debate on here, in private, and tell me that they agree with me but don't want to say so themselves is comforting.

If I end up convincing you otherwise then that's just a bonus.

If the past is anything to go by then promising to scrap tuition fees and then tripling them is a pretty good way to lose my vote.

[The Don]

So you do agree with me in cutting the foreign aid budget as one of our least essential spending budgets given our debt?



At least we can agree on some things.



Well the question is really, what do Labour have do to actually lose your vote?

Given Rotherham, the Iraq war, the debt ... how much more do they have to do before you punish them?



Don't flatter yourself that I am trying to convince you, no, that would be pointless. My main aim when I debate you isn't to convince you at all, it is to make a show of you so that anyone who is reading may be convinced/won't feel like they are alone in holding their opinions. The amount of times I have had people PM me after a debate on here, in private, and tell me that they agree with me but don't want to say so themselves is comforting.

If I end up convincing you otherwise then that's just a bonus.

The point of this thread isn't to debate and you would know that if you cared to read the opening post which actually said "not looking for a debate of any kind".

[Inseriousity.]

Voting based on a party's past would mean you'd only ever really vote for the parties that have never had to make choices. UKIP for example has never been tested. There comes a point where a party can reinvent itself (New Labour, compassionate conservatism) and it becomes okay to draw the line that the party's past is now in the past and the party is going in a different direction that you approve of and can vote for.

[Firehorse]

The Labour party will ensure that all teachers in state schools are qualified, something I believe should be done. The Conservatives are quite happy having unqualified teachers in permanent job roles in schools. I wouldn't want an unqualified surgeon operating on me, so why should we allow unqualified teachers to teach?

So just like Labour did with making nurses get a degree? Notice how absolutely nothing in the NHS has changed for the better: there are now a shortage of nurses and not only are they on a low wage but also paying off student debt thanks to Labour. One thing is certain about this policy: there will be a loss of jobs and a resulting shortage of teachers. Teaching is NOT a job many people set out to do, schools struggle to get teachers at all let alone qualified ones. This is another case of the Labour party doing something with what seems, to those who don't take a moment to think about it, like good intention, but the outcome will be far from that good intention as has already been proven too many times to count.

Surely an unqualified teacher is better than no teacher at all? Many teachers at the Academy I went to did the job just because they had a degree and therefore it was a job they could get easily if they had been made redundant in their sector or left for other reasons; people like this who teach would not do so if they were required to obtain a PGCE on top of their current qualification. It would mean going back to university to study the PGCE course (and pay the fees to do so, ending up in the debt cycle which is exactly what Labour wants).

You do not have 40 people applying for every teacher position like you do every fast food position. Schools struggle to find teachers. The actual level of education will not be positively affected by this; some people have specialist degrees and can actually teach their specific subject much better than many who are only qualified to deliver the curriculum like a robot.



I'm not a fan of free schools which were set up by the Conservative party - not only are they allowed to employ unqualified teachers but councils have absolutely no control over the schools, yet the council are the ones held responsible if there are issues with school places in the local area.


You have just perfectly described Academies... which, by the way, were a Labour invention. Good example of hypocrisy.



Of course, one benefit with free schools is that there is an increase in school places but because they are free schools and the council have no responsibility with where they are built, they are often built in places where extra places aren't needed, the money the government are providing should be spent on building schools in areas that need the extra places, especially primary schools.

More nonsense. Educational facilities cannot appear out of thin air. They require planning permission. You cannot even convert the use of an old building to become an educational facility without planning permission from the local authority. The council has the absolute authority to decline planning permission for a free school if it does not see fit that it meets the schooling requirements of the area.



Other education policies I agree with: Compulsory sex and relationship education, including the targeting of homophobic bullying within schools.

You're using half-truths in this statement. I say half truths because despite stating this as opinion, you are deliberately failing to mention that sex education is already compulsory from age 11 upwards; Labour's change here is to make it compulsory for younger children. When you say only that you agree with compulsory sex education it implies that it is not currently compulsory at all, when it is.

Relationship education and bullying of all types is already covered in the PSHE curriculum which all primary schools must cover. So again using half truths to insinuate that schools don't have to cover it. Not only is it covered, there is an entire week devoted to educating about the issues.



Of course the reduction in tuition fees to £6,000 is better than the current situation but it is not ideal.

No, it's not ideal. Because they introduced the fees in the first place after closing the free technical colleges, forcing people into the debt culture (and as mentioned with nurses and now teachers, they will do anything to trap people into that debt culture).

It was seen as politically correct to get everybody into university regardless of actual ability, but not actually help them earn money when they reached the real world by making sure they had trained up for jobs that would actually earn that money.

If you are really against fees and are passionate about a good education system then why aren't you considering UKIP as a party? Regardless of their other policies they want to scrap university fees altogether and reintroduce grammar schools which help the poorest in society get the top jobs. (Remember how Labour scrapped those too.. can't have their core voters escaping their debt culture now can they!)



Non-education policies that 'justify' my vote for Labour: They will ensure that University students are not deterred by immigration laws.

So what proportion of international students do you suggest the UK has to cater for before you consider them no longer deterred by immigration policies? You haven't explained why they might be deterred by immigration laws in the first place (which are already very relaxed compared to most international immigration policies). Currently 18.9% (https://www.hesa.ac.uk/content/view/3484/#dom) of the UK student population are from an overseas domicile. Universities accept international students based on criteria and availability, the same way students of UK domicile are accepted by universities. Your comment about students being DETERRED is crazy; they're not deterred, students WANT to study in the UK.



Introducing a tax on bankers bonuses,


Bankers bonuses are already taxed at the PAYE rate the same as everybody else's bonuses on the same sliding scale of tax. The issue comes when they as individuals use tax avoidance schemes.

So where's the plan? How are they going do to it? They're just spouting idealistic rhetoric with no actual solution to the problem.



a 5% pay cut for every government minister,

Do I even need to mention the party responsible for the introduction of the inefficient IPSA who has decided every MPs salary increase since 2010? That's right, Labour!

Labour are also copying exactly what the Conservatives did during their first cabinet meeting of this parliament!

Conservative and Lib-Dem MPs took a 5% pay cut and pay freeze (http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2010/may/13/ministers-pay-cut-frozen) throughout their entire time in parliament without even having declared it as an election promise, whilst Labour MPs enjoyed their larger salaries. The fact it was a pay freeze and not just a pay cut that the coalition took meant that the only MPs whose salaries actually rose to £67k were that of Labour and the SNP. You couldn't make it up!

Another fine example of Labour's hypocrisy.



a drive against tax avoidance by keeping money overseas,

If someone is keeping their assets overseas you can't force them to move their money to the UK. You can tax the movement of money as it leaves or returns but you cannot force people to move assets which are outside of the jurisdiction of the UK unless you get an international court order. Yet more idealism which Labour rely on people not to fully understand.



GP appointments within 48 hours,

How do you suppose this will be achieved? GPs are already heavily overworked (that's no secret). Do you suppose Labour will force current GPs to work under even more extreme conditions or magic some new ones out of thin air?


getting rid of zero hour contracts

So students will have less ability to work flexibly.

Also it will have NO impact because the companies already have a loophole in the form of four hour contracts. This is already in practice in the cinema industry. A four hour contract means you're guaranteed to get at least 4 hours work in a week, but that doesn't change anything else. Like I've said previously, Labour MPs collectively employ 22,000 people on zero hour contracts; they don't practice what they preach.



pushing apprenticeships for those that choose not to go to university,

Which is a Conservative initiative. The Conservatives revived apprenticeships and got a huge amount of people into work. In a few weeks I will be interviewing apprenticeship applicants for the company I work for, it's a brilliant system and has done wonders for both workers and industry.

But again, you're using this as a reason to vote Labour when this is a Conservative initiative. Judging by Labour's past, they'll surely find a way of cocking up the system by introducing some sort of fee or tax on either the employee or the employer.



scrapping of police and crime commissioners,

So who will be accountable for the police force? Elected crime commissioners replaced the unaccountable police authorities which were found to be performing 'adequately' or 'poorly', but rarely 'well' or 'excellently'. Whilst they cost money to run, the work has to be offloaded somewhere. If a commissioner isn't doing it then another authority will be paid to do it; you might be able to save enough to cover the salaries of 3 or 4 officers per region.


banning child sex offenders from working with children

This is probably by far the most misguided comment so far. ANY POLITICIAN can spout what they agree or disagree with but that doesn't change the reality!

The reality is that it is already illegal for a convicted paedophile to work with children! In fact they're banned from even standing within a specified distance of public parks where children might be playing. What on earth do you think a CRB and DBS check is for?

What exactly is Labour going to change here?



withdrawal of winter fuel allowance from wealthy pensioners,

Define wealthy.


a rise in minimum wage.

I've already explained previously how the minimum wage only needs to exist thanks to Labour's policies of the 1990's which served to only change the competition for employees to competition for jobs, so no need to go into more detail than that.



I'm not going to waste my time and explain in depth why I agree with all those non-education policies and even if I did I'm sure you'll manage to come up with something that will 'counter-act' each of my points whether that be 'Well the Conservatives have a better policy on that' or 'Labour wouldn't need to do that if they didn't mess it up in their last government'.

You're not going to explain them because you can't defend them? Or you're just copying and pasting from Labour's manifesto without justification for any of it and hope the sheer quantity of things they promise will be reason enough? A couple of your points I didn't respond to because I agree with them (like prioritising children's mental health) or neither agree or disagree with (paternity leave); both of which are policies covered similarly by the Lib Dems anyway.

It's not about the Conservatives having a better policy for some points (although in some cases they might), but in the cases you listed it's more about simply copying and pasting what the Conservatives have already done in the last parliament and claiming it as Labour's idea.

And no, Labour doesn't need to do any of what it's promising because of their last time in government because they're not actually promising to fix any of the problems they caused the last time they were in power!

[-:Undertaker:-]

@Hashterix (http://www.habboxforum.com/member.php?u=37222); has just demolished all of those points as easily as kicking in some flat pack IKEA furniture would be, well done.

It goes to show what a load of absolute incoherent drivel comes from the main parties, and how their supporters just lap it up without examining a thing.


If the past is anything to go by then promising to scrap tuition fees and then tripling them is a pretty good way to lose my vote.

Hashterix has already alluded to Labour's record on tution fees which is even worse than the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats. More to the point, I am sure my memory serves me right in that it was a Labour peer who wrote the Green paper before the last election for the current proposals which was not carried through by Labour before a General Election (for obvious reasons). Ontop of that, you've also had Miliband twice change his policy on tuition fees since 2010 where he said he'd abolish them and now he's saying £6,000. Doesn't sound like a principled position to me, rather like someone hedging their bets as to how many gullible students they can get to vote for them depending on the extent of the Liberal Democrats polling collapse.


Voting based on a party's past would mean you'd only ever really vote for the parties that have never had to make choices. UKIP for example has never been tested. There comes a point where a party can reinvent itself (New Labour, compassionate conservatism) and it becomes okay to draw the line that the party's past is now in the past and the party is going in a different direction that you approve of and can vote for.

The real changes in political parties don't take place in front of the camera with shiny new public relations campaigns, a smiling young leader and a new slogan. The real changes in political parties take place in internal leadership coups and party splits (Labour and the SDP, Tories and the coup against IDS). The mere rebranding exercises of New Labour and Dave's 'compassionate conservatism' took place well over a decade or more after the actual change had occurred.

Don't go by what they say, go by what happens.

[Inseriousity.]

But you can't go by what happens until they're voted in and given the opportunity to prove they've changed so there comes a point where you have to trust that it's not just a facade and there's a genuine desire to change. I don't personally think that's the case with Labour atm (I think it's just political convenience to try to distance themselves from the past rather than any genuine conviction) but I do think there comes a point where you have to put the past behind you.

[The Don]

Hashterix; It is not compulsory for students to have sex education in the UK as you claim as parents can refuse to let their children take part. You also start to discuss planning permission on a point kardan made about there being an overabundance of schools in particular areas without addressing the actual point. Obviously planning permission is needed on any building in the UK, that's not the point Kardan was making. The point is that the government doesn't choose where they are built meaning you can get free schools being built in areas which don't need them.

I can't be bothered to research the rest of your comments but it's clear you don't really know what you're talking about.

[Firehorse]

But you can't go by what happens until they're voted in and given the opportunity to prove they've changed so there comes a point where you have to trust that it's not just a facade and there's a genuine desire to change. I don't personally think that's the case with Labour atm (I think it's just political convenience to try to distance themselves from the past rather than any genuine conviction) but I do think there comes a point where you have to put the past behind you.

The good thing about our democracy is that there is an opposition. Everything gets debated and voted on. The main parties use the whip system to tell their MPs how to vote, but UKIP is structured differently in the way that they don't use the whip system. This means that while the party can hold major stances, they will listen to local people and act on what they want. For example, the party may be pro-fracking, but if a constituency does not want it then the MP for that constituency is afforded the freedom to vote in the interest of their locals and not just in the interest of the party.

The 5 year terms in our system also mean that there are limits to the amount of damage that can be done by a party. If they really cannot run the country then they can be voted out again.

We don't have a system which is open to abuse like that of countries where democratically elected leaders have ended up becoming dictators. The vast majority of policies can be undone with relative ease (as you can see with the back and forth between the Conservatives and Labour), it gets more dangerous when a party holds power for a significant period of time and begins to get complacent (as Labour did) and begin making changes to the very foundation of the country's democratic system without affording the people of that democracy the opportunity to disagree with what they're doing.

Policies about level of taxation and benefits is actually very much small talk in the grand scheme of things. Whilst being mismanaged it can lead to bankruptcy, it can still be undone and changed in any way a future government wishes. When you start changing who has the power to make the law and who has a say, that is a very big issue; yet it is treated as being no more important than the £100 extra spare change you might have at the end of a year.

[FlyingJesus]

Am I the only person in the country who thinks things are mostly ok

[Firehorse]

@Hashterix (http://www.habboxforum.com/member.php?u=37222); It is not compulsory for students to have sex education in the UK as you claim as parents can refuse to let their children take part. You also start to discuss planning permission on a point kardan made about there being an overabundance of schools in particular areas without addressing the actual point. Obviously planning permission is needed on any building in the UK, that's not the point Kardan was making. The point is that the government doesn't choose where they are built meaning you can get free schools being built in areas which don't need them.

I can't be bothered to research the rest of your comments but it's clear you don't really know what you're talking about.

It is defined as a compulsory subject. https://www.gov.uk/national-curriculum/other-compulsory-subjects, yes parents can opt out their child of the physical condom demonstration and the showing of diseased genitalia, but not of the scientific study which still teaches the facts about pregnancy, sexually transmitted disease, and prevention. This is more a debate about parents vs a nanny state dictating what is best for a child. Labour also had 13 years to focus on these issues instead of a war in Iraq.

Local authorities have the power to grant or decline planning permission. As part of the process they consult on the requirements of an area. Whether local authorities get it right or wrong is a different issue, but claiming they have no say in where they are built is unfounded. Firstly the government doesn't deal with schools at that level, it's local authority that manages the planning. There is nothing stopping a local authority from working with a free school, they're not rogue entities like you insinuate. A council can't just open a school anywhere either, it still needs to have a site. There's nothing to stop a council working with a free school to provide a site if it is in the interest of both parties.

You can't be bothered to respond to my whole post because I clearly don't know what I'm talking about? You picked two points that you claim to be incorrect even though they can be backed up, and then use it to attempt to discredit the entire post. Scraping the barrel.

[The Don]

It is defined as a compulsory subject. https://www.gov.uk/national-curriculum/other-compulsory-subjects, yes parents can opt out their child of the physical condom demonstration and the showing of diseased genitalia, but not of the scientific study which still teaches the facts about pregnancy, sexually transmitted disease, and prevention. This is more a debate about parents vs a nanny state dictating what is best for a child. Labour also had 13 years to focus on these issues instead of a war in Iraq.

Some parts are mandatory the rest are not. You cannot claim a subject is compulsory if only a small part of it actually is.


Local authorities have the power to grant or decline planning permission. As part of the process they consult on the requirements of an area. Whether local authorities get it right or wrong is a different issue, but claiming they have no say in where they are built is unfounded. Firstly the government doesn't deal with schools at that level, it's local authority that manages the planning. There is nothing stopping a local authority from working with a free school, they're not rogue entities like you insinuate. A council can't just open a school anywhere either, it still needs to have a site. There's nothing to stop a council working with a free school to provide a site if it is in the interest of both parties.

Nobody said they have "no say" you're literally the first person to say that, stop making things up. There is nothing stopping a local authority from working with a free school, nobody claimed otherwise? Doesn't change the fact that the council doesn't have responsibility for where they are built.


You can't be bothered to respond to my whole post because I clearly don't know what I'm talking about? You picked two points that you claim to be incorrect even though they can be backed up, and then use it to attempt to discredit the entire post. Scraping the barrel.

I can't be bothered to fact check your entire post because you've wrote so much and i'd much rather watch Frasier on Netflix. The small part of your post I did fact check showed that you were wrong which brings into question the validity of the rest of your post.

[Firehorse]

Some parts are mandatory the rest are not. You cannot claim a subject is compulsory if only a small part of it actually is.


Nobody said they have "no say" you're literally the first person to say that, stop making things up. There is nothing stopping a local authority from working with a free school, nobody claimed otherwise? Doesn't change the fact that the council doesn't have responsibility for where they are built.


I can't be bothered to fact check your entire post because you've wrote so much and i'd much rather watch Frasier on Netflix. The small part of your post I did fact check showed that you were wrong which brings into question the validity of the rest of your post.

It is defined as such on the government website. I am not "making claims", I am quoting a valid source.

Claiming a council has no responsibility is the SAME as saying they have no say! I have just explained how this is wrong and that they do in fact hold responsibility for the site of a free school through planning permission.

I am fact checking, your argument is simply futile.

[The Don]

It is defined as such on the government website. I am not "making claims", I am quoting a valid source.

Claiming a council has no responsibility is the SAME as saying they have no say! I have just explained how this is wrong and that they do in fact hold responsibility for the site of a free school through planning permission.

I am fact checking, your argument is simply futile.

It also says on the governments website that parents can remove their children from most of the classes. Kardans comment that labour would make it compulsory is therefore valid as it clearly isn't compulsory at the moment, only part of it is. Partially quoting there hashterix. "The government/council has no responsibility towards where they're built" is not the same as "the government/council has no responsibility". Approving something is not the same thing as planning it. The fact that they have to grant planning permission doesn't remove the fact that they don't choose the location.

[Kardan]

So just like Labour did with making nurses get a degree? Notice how absolutely nothing in the NHS has changed for the better: there are now a shortage of nurses and not only are they on a low wage but also paying off student debt thanks to Labour. One thing is certain about this policy: there will be a loss of jobs and a resulting shortage of teachers. Teaching is NOT a job many people set out to do, schools struggle to get teachers at all let alone qualified ones. This is another case of the Labour party doing something with what seems, to those who don't take a moment to think about it, like good intention, but the outcome will be far from that good intention as has already been proven too many times to count.

Surely an unqualified teacher is better than no teacher at all? Many teachers at the Academy I went to did the job just because they had a degree and therefore it was a job they could get easily if they had been made redundant in their sector or left for other reasons; people like this who teach would not do so if they were required to obtain a PGCE on top of their current qualification. It would mean going back to university to study the PGCE course (and pay the fees to do so, ending up in the debt cycle which is exactly what Labour wants).

You do not have 40 people applying for every teacher position like you do every fast food position. Schools struggle to find teachers. The actual level of education will not be positively affected by this; some people have specialist degrees and can actually teach their specific subject much better than many who are only qualified to deliver the curriculum like a robot.


As I said, I'm sure you would have came up with reasons disregarding each one of my points and you have, so as I said, I'm not going to waste time replying on those points - no matter what I say, you'll find something to counteract it with, and we'll keep going around in circles.

I will take you up on one of the points close to myself and that is teaching. First of all, it's one of those urban myths that there aren't enough teachers to be employed in the country, out of all the teaching posts in the UK it is estimated that less than 1% have been vacant since 2000 (that is since the year 2000, that rate has never gone above 1% - not that only 1% of roles have been empty for 15 years). It is certainly somewhat difficult to hire certain teachers as some are in short supply than others but it is not a widespread problem.

Surely an unqualified teacher is better than no teacher at all? Would it? Let's say I had to have a operation that wasn't life threatening and I had the choice between a unqualified surgeon or waiting for a qualified surgeon - I'd wait. Of course there's situations where this wouldn't be possible. If it were life threatening, I think everyone would choose the unqualified surgeon rather than die - so likewise in education there are bound to be areas where if unqualified teachers weren't hired, the school systems in that area would just collapse.

But if we get to a situation where we can replace every unqualified teacher with a qualified teacher, why wouldn't we want to do that? Why would any parent rather have their kids taught by an unqualified teacher than a qualified one?

Now, going back to the PGCE course point. Your point revolves around students getting into the 'debt cycle that Labour wants', except that a majority of students that go for a PGCE don't end up in the debt cycle at all. Yes, everyone has to pay the £9,000 tuition fees, but the department of education are giving funding to encourage students to get into teaching. For example, as of the next academic year, if you start learning to teach Maths, Physics, Chemistry, Computing or Modern Foreign Languages, the government will give you £25,000 tax free.

Of course I'm sure this will shift your point of attack to 'Students end up in the debt cycle that Labour want' to 'But where does that money come from, the country ends up in a debt cycle that Labour wants'.

You don't have 40 people applying for teaching posts? At the majority of places no, but there certainly has been for some posts. Every job I've even heard of being advertised this year so far has had a minimum of 5 applicants taken through to the interview day. I know the job interview I attended had 6 people on the interview day and I knew of at least 4 more people that applied that didn't get through to the interviews. Once again, it's some sort of urban myth that there are no teachers and schools just hire the first person that contacts them because that's the only person they will get.

And do you realise that students who go on to the PGCE course have to have the specialists degrees you talk about in order to teach that subject? Your specialist degree knowledge doesn't go away after one year. And if after a PGCE qualification you 'teach the curriculum like a robot' it would certainly make work for teachers a hell of a lot easier, but sadly, that's not the case either.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Surely an unqualified teacher is better than no teacher at all? Would it? Let's say I had to have a operation that wasn't life threatening and I had the choice between a unqualified surgeon or waiting for a qualified surgeon - I'd wait. Of course there's situations where this wouldn't be possible. If it were life threatening, I think everyone would choose the unqualified surgeon rather than die - so likewise in education there are bound to be areas where if unqualified teachers weren't hired, the school systems in that area would just collapse.

Surely it is up to the parents whether they view the teacher as being qualified to teach or not? Living in a sorely deprived northern city area, I can tell you that many of our government rubber stamped teachers may have been qualified on paper in that they went to university but they had no knowledge outside of education hence they did not know how to control a class and couldn't teach you other things at the side. I recall having one teacher, young and out of university, who couldn't teach to save her life and I had another teacher who had worked in the private sector in a chemicals company and become a teacher (did not have a degree) and was one of the best teachers in the school.

If parents are rejecting your state schools in favour of free schools, then what does that tell you about your state schools?

Yet that pisses you are your party off, doesn't it? That how dare parents have the nerve to want to do the best for their child and avoid your god-awful state comprehensive schools (largely out of control due to their sheer size) in favour of the likes of free schools. So what is your answer? Ban them!

And exactly the same applies to how your party (and the Tories mind) pulled up the ladder on clever working class kids and closed the grammar schools.

[Kardan]

Surely it is up to the parents whether they view the teacher as being qualified to teach or not? Living in a sorely deprived northern city area, I can tell you that many of our government rubber stamped teachers may have been qualified on paper in that they went to university but they had no knowledge outside of education hence they did not know how to control a class and couldn't teach you other things at the side. I recall having one teacher, young and out of university, who couldn't teach to save her life and I had another teacher who had worked in the private sector in a chemicals company and become a teacher (did not have a degree) and was one of the best teachers in the school.

If parents are rejecting your state schools in favour of free schools, then what does that tell you about your state schools?

Yet that pisses you are your party off, doesn't it? That how dare parents have the nerve to want to do the best for their child and avoid your god-awful state comprehensive schools (largely out of control due to their sheer size) in favour of the likes of free schools. So what is your answer? Ban them!

And exactly the same applies to how your party (and the Tories mind) pulled up the ladder on clever working class kids and closed the grammar schools.

I thought the country as a whole was more opposed to free schools?

https://yougov.co.uk/news/2015/03/10/voters-reject-free-schools/

[-:Undertaker:-]

I thought the country as a whole was more opposed to free schools?

https://yougov.co.uk/news/2015/03/10/voters-reject-free-schools/

??? That doesn't answer my question as to why many parents are choosing the free schools over your state comprehensive schools? If what you and Labour say are true, and free schools are full of unqualified staff who haven't got a clue, then why are parents choosing them over your state comprehensive schools?

Could it actually be the case, do you think, that non-government approved staff are actually doing a better job in free schools then your state schools?

[Kardan]

??? That doesn't answer my question as to why many parents are choosing the free schools over your state comprehensive schools? If what you and Labour say are true, and free schools are full of unqualified staff who haven't got a clue, then why are parents choosing them over your state comprehensive schools?

Could it actually be the case, do you think, that non-government approved staff are actually doing a better job in free schools then your state schools?

There are various reasons why a parent may choose a free school over a state school. More freedom in what they teach, might be in a better location, may have policies they agree with - you would have to ask those parents.

I've not said free schools are full of unqualified staff, I've said that free schools have the ability to employ unqualified staff. In fact, if you read my posts I'm more opposed to free schools based on the fact they can just pop up in places where school places aren't a major issue yet in other places in the UK they are, and we've spent all this extra money on free schools, and what do we have to show for it?

My issue with unqualified teachers is actually more of an issue in state schools - there are about 17,100 unqualified teachers in state schools, and 7,900 in academies and free schools.

I think I read a poll conducted by NUT that only 1% of parents were comfortable about their child's class being taught by someone without a teaching qualification.

And if you're wanting me to say if I think unqualified teachers are better than qualified teachers on the whole, I think everyone already knows my answer to that question.

[-:Undertaker:-]

There are various reasons why a parent may choose a free school over a state school. More freedom in what they teach, might be in a better location, may have policies they agree with - you would have to ask those parents.

So why then do you and your party seemingly wish to ban them?


I've not said free schools are full of unqualified staff, I've said that free schools have the ability to employ unqualified staff. In fact, if you read my posts I'm more opposed to free schools based on the fact they can just pop up in places where school places aren't a major issue yet in other places in the UK they are, and we've spent all this extra money on free schools, and what do we have to show for it?

My issue with unqualified teachers is actually more of an issue in state schools - there are about 17,100 unqualified teachers in state schools, and 7,900 in academies and free schools.

I think I read a poll conducted by NUT that only 1% of parents were comfortable about their child's class being taught by someone without a teaching qualification.

If your issue is unqualified staff teaching and those stats are true, shouldn't you instead be arguing for the closure of state comprehensives too?


And if you're wanting me to say if I think unqualified teachers are better than qualified teachers on the whole, I think everyone already knows my answer to that question.

If you go by what counts as qualified nowadays, then I would beg to differ. I have already given my own example of comparing a university educated teacher with an old school teacher who came from the private sector. He didn't follow the trendy teaching methods that they're told to do now by the government, nor did he have a degree: yet he could keep a class under control, he could teach his subject superb and he could teach things outside of his own subject.

All what the supposed qualified, New Labour educated teacher couldn't do. The very fact that many parents are choosing unqualified aka non-government approved teachers is a damning indictment of government schools, teachers and the national curriculum, is it not?

[Kardan]

So why then do you and your party seemingly wish to ban them?



If your issue is unqualified staff teaching and those stats are true, shouldn't you instead be arguing for the closure of state comprehensives too?



If you go by what counts as qualified nowadays, then I would beg to differ. I have already given my own example of comparing a university educated teacher with an old school teacher who came from the private sector. He didn't follow the trendy teaching methods that they're told to do now by the government, nor did he have a degree: yet he could keep a class under control, he could teach his subject superb and he could teach things outside of his own subject.

All what the supposed qualified, New Labour educated teacher couldn't do.

Because we're building free schools where they're not needed. You've said that class sizes are being driven up - then why don't we build schools in those areas rather in areas where we already have enough school places? That makes sense, does it not?

I'm not arguing for the closure of free schools purely because of unqualified teachers - it's because it's not being efficient with where the school places are. If I wanted to close the free schools just because they employed unqualified teachers, then yes, I'd have to be closing down all the state schools as well.

And of course, I forgot that one example of an unqualified teacher being good and a qualified teacher being crap means that must be the case for the whole of the country.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Because we're building free schools where they're not needed. You've said that class sizes are being driven up - then why don't we build schools in those areas rather in areas where we already have enough school places? That makes sense, does it not?

If free schools are being built where they are needed, then they wouldn't be able to function due to a shortage of children so you are inventing a story here. I think what you really mean is that they're not being built where there is a shortage, rather than why they are being built which is because the existing comprehensive state schools are so bad that parents living in the area have decided they want a choice other than that awful local state comprehensive: hence the free school being built to offer an alternative choice.

Now why should parents have that choice taken away from them by you?


I'm not arguing for the closure of free schools purely because of unqualified teachers - it's because it's not being efficient with where the school places are. If I wanted to close the free schools just because they employed unqualified teachers, then yes, I'd have to be closing down all the state schools as well.

And of course, I forgot that one example of an unqualified teacher being good and a qualified teacher being crap means that must be the case for the whole of the country.

If teachers like the one I spoke about are being marked as qualified by the government, then yes as always with government policy there will be much worse. Give me teachers with some real life experience rather than weakling university graduates who the kids walk all over anyday. Like it used to be.

Instead of complaining about free schools unqualified teachers (which seem quite popular given people are opting to go through all the hassle of setting up these schools are then sending their children there) why don't you worry about the state comprehensive school mess that the Labour Party, aided by the Conservatives, have created and grown from the 1960s onwards? You remind me in wanting to close free schools of those on the left who want to close private schools for the reason that they embarass you in how well they do compared to your state comprehensives.

In other words, the competition is so good and is making a show of us... so lets ban them!

[scottish]

http://sd.keepcalm-o-matic.co.uk/i/keep-calm-and-vote-labour-29.png

[-:Undertaker:-]

scottish;

Unless you're an English girl under the age of 16 living in northern England, in which case be very afraid.