Really? It is OK for Labour Cabinet ministers to decide that private education should be denied to others in the future whilst sending their children to paid for selective schools. This is hypocrisy in the extreme. Maybe candidates that have been to Eton and end up in Oxbridge have had an excellent education. We do require the best brains to lead the country. From personal experience I'm sure the sacrifices I've seen made were fully justified and ensured the children had a really good education in a disciplined environment.
Thirty million jabs, if successful: 1. That's around £2.50 per jab - presumably, if the NHS is fully privatised by then, to be sold at greater cost, says the cynic in me 2. That covers less than half the population. I wonder who gets first dibs, and who misses out...
M y second daughter still keeps in contact with her friends from Berkhamsted School. The pupils are now all in their mid forties and the majority are at the top of their respective professions. There are barristers, doctors, senior civil servants plus many running lucrative businesses. Private education certainly gives the pupils confidence and a type of education that universities and employers are looking for.
I will make reference to your second sentence here - this is another way of admitting that Britain is not a meritocracy. If the criteria for Eton and then Oxbridge is wealth, and products of those establishments have a stranglehold on the best jobs then you are not getting the most able people in the top jobs, just those who happen to have a wealthy background. Do you really believe your statement that these products of wealth are the 'best brains to lead the country' ? Do you really think that clowns like Rees Mogg or Bojo would have got into their present positions if Britain really were a meritocracy ? You are drawing all of your political elite from a tiny degenerate pool of candidates. I guess that some Labour leaders have thought that if Eton were the only way to the top, and to win influence, then they have to go along the same path - a mistake - but you will have to ask them because I don't have the intimate knowledge of why they act as they do. In the meantime we need to remember that this thread is about the Corona virus and themes such as this will make tiresome reading for other posters. In other words - party politics belongs elsewhere.
Politics was introduced in this thread today by the moderator, I assumed the discussion was therefore wide enough to comment. We do need a separate political thread again so other threads can be kept on track.
The British public keep voting for the political party that includes many that have had privilege educations. All the public is concerned about is competency regarding the economy. Rather than an Eton education being a political negative the public's approval of the posh PM was a factor in the decisive result.
The moderator did not do anything of the sort SH. If you think that showing up how the simple minded can be taken in by the gutter press then your level of understanding is less than I believed.
https://www.bmj.com/content/369/bmj.m1932 Worth a read as it sets out quite clearly the timeline of the UK response to the crisis.
Most of the posts in this thread are about slagging off politicians, seems to be OK as long as it targets the government side. There should be more consistency.
That was a perfectly good article. I'm sure Starmer understands the potential value of his land when he retires from front line politics.
Any slagging off of politicians would automatically be targetting the government side SH. it is they who are, supposedly, trying to deal with the Corona crisis - the opposition has no role to play in this.
Damning of the UK approach eh.. Look at the deaths %... Shocking... My heart goes out to all those needless deaths...
It has no value as it is on green belt land and building on it is barred. It was a brazen piece of second rate journalism that has been widely derided even by many Mail readers. The paper even took it down from the website. Why you should try to defend it seems very strange.
Not correct, other political parties are very much involved in major issues concerning the UK, especially this pandemic. They may not be in a position to make decisions but can, and do, use the pandemic to further other issues. A classic example is the Scottish leader in Parliament, amongst others, using the issue to call for an extension to the transitional Brexit period. I'm afraid it is impossible to isolate each individual political issue, in general and on these threads.
Many houses are built on greenbelt land, I built one recently. Councils have a legal responsibility to build a certain number of houses under local and strategic plans. Councils are, on occasions, obliged to use plots as building land previously thought as sacrosanct. The scrutiny on Starmer is simply par for the course for a high profile politician. If it was Rees Mogg being investigated you would be all over it like a dog with a bone.
You are defending the undefendable SH. It is the government who are responsible for the response to this crisis, and that is made up exclusively by Tories. Their response has been woefull, and I would say that whichever party was in power. It may be that the ideology of herd immunity was not the basis of government policy, but the impression is there based on their actions. The response in terms of PPE was too late and did not use the opportunity of international collaberation,. when it was available. The lockdown was too late and too half hearted - at any time during this crisis you could have taken pictures of crowded tube trains without a mask in sight. Britain is also not ready for the relaxation of this half hearted lockdown - the country has the highest number of deaths in Europe, and still has the highest numbers of daily new cases. In terms of the numbers of active cases (ie. those currently infected) Britain is one of a small handfull of countries where the number is still rising. Most other European countries are now in the position of being able to relax restrictions a little, but Britain isn't one of them. Governments are there on the condition that they will be judged by their actions.
It is far too early to make judgements comparing countries, in addition there are many variable factors to take account of. There may well be subsequent waves of infections to come. The time to assess policies is when this pandemic has passed.
