To be worried about what the Labour government will do next?

[Scenicgirl]

Let's be honest, Labour has been a massive disappointment for this country, pissing off the pensioners with taking away the WFA, the farmers, NI changes which impact employers, immigration etc and today refusing compensation to the WASPI women after they ridiculed the Conservatives when they didn't commit to a solution. Don't we deserve better than this constant shit show of lies and deceptions which were clearly spouted out purely to gain power?
For the 1st time in my life, I worry about where we are heading.

Oh there are many reasons why I have zero respect for Sunak and Hunt but academic credentials is not one of them. They were both pretty dire in ministerial posts which shows that it takes a lot more than a silver spoon academic pedigree to be any good in politics. Reeves may in time also go down in history as a poor chancellor but at this stage the question was whether she was a real economist. Her academic credentials are similar to other Tory ministers and she has every right to say she is an economist and not be on the brunt of misogynistic labels like ‘Rach from customer services’. That’s the crux of it.

I don’t think I specifically said “people are delusional”?
In case you hadn’t noticed, I like accuracy.

The level of delusion coming specifically from Conservative voters on this thread has been high. As has the lack of rigorous debate.

Are Conservative voters on this thread not people?

You don't become an "economist" by just going to university surely? It's like saying you are a "lawyer" because you've done a law degree. And presumably you need to have been working for a long time in a relevant area at a very senior professional level to consider yourself to have sufficient expertise and experience to become Chancellor?

The RFCS has really hit a nerve. You've mentioned it many times in an attempt to police other people's language. Interesting.

They haven't just graduated though. What was it in the 80s/90s out of interest?

In case you hadn’t noticed, I like accuracy.

Who were you referring to with the insult?

Also 'lack of rigorous debate' and admission it's not your area of expertise, I mean fine for it not to be but that seems another superfluous insult

I've mentioned it because it is misogynistic and unfair. It is. That's all I have to say to you.

Those are two entirely different statements. Surely you can see that?

It’s blatantly misogynistic. Like saying the UK is a “magnet for the world’s poor” is racist.
Language does matter. So does pointing out discrimination.

I haven’t insulted anyone. Let’s not descend into silliness.

It is factual. Her name is Rachel and she worked in customer services (as she eventually admitted).

Don't be such a snob. There's nothing wrong with working in customer services is there? I bet loads of people on this thread do.

Outrageous to suggest that it's sexist to mention someone worked in customer relations. Plenty of men do! I think it's rather snobby of you to be so dismissive of that sort of career. Like it's unmentionable. I mean, it doesn't qualify you for Chancellor obviously, which is sort of the point that you and your friend miss?

…I hear he’s banning Christmas

Let’s not descend into silliness.

I think a good idea to apply that to some of your and other posts tbf going on about delusion, lack of rigour and the other pp who resorts to insults

Like Cromwell! Well hopefully this Labour government will just be The Interregnum before normal service is resumed. Although I'm not happy about that either, but anything is better than Keir and RFCS I suppose.

Not at all, I don't play with semantics. Delusional statements come from delusional people otherwise they wouldn't be delusional.

The poster didn't say that that was what was sexist at all. 🙄
I can't be bothered explaining though, as you might genuinely not know, or you might be being obtuse on purpose to which I can't be arsed with.

Thanks for chipping in.

It's not sexist to point out a lie. Are we not, simply because shes a woman, allowed to mention that she lied on her CV and was actually from customer services and therefore unfit for both reasons to be Chancellor? And instead we don't mention it and give her a free pass? Is that equality?? I certainly wouldn't let a man off for the same behaviour either. I've spent a lot of time criticising Keir for his lies too.

If you are trying to excuse RR's lies and ask people not to mention it because she's a woman you are the sexist one.

Blair was lucky - he came to power when Britain was booming. Starmer has inherited a mess. Far harder to deal with.

Oh there are many reasons why I have zero respect for Sunak and Hunt but academic credentials is not one of them ... a silver spoon academic pedigree

Your statements are somewhat contradictory with yet another dig! I also see that both Hunt and Sunak were head boys at their respective schools.

Reeves may in time also go down in history as a poor chancellor

Hunt and Sunak are not generally regarded as 'poor chancellors'.

According to you, there’s no need to pay for private school because you as a parent can fix all problems that your DC encounter in a state school. Do you genuinely think that all parents can do that? As a member of a parents support group, I have come across some horrific cases which have resulted in children suffering severe mental health breakdowns. Many of these parents have spent years trying to get support for their DC in their state schools before exploring other options.

I am not anti-state. One of my DC is doing amazing in state school. He got his first GCSE age 13 (grade 9). However, all children are different and the state system lets a lot of children down because it has too much of a one size fits all approach. Your repeated reference to privilege shows how little you understand about the independent school system and why parents use it. Many parents choose an independent school to gain equality for their child. So that they can flourish just as your children and one of my DC’s has in their state schools.

When selecting an independent school for my DC, I looked at a school whose exam results are nothing special (lower than most high performing comps) whose pupils never go on to Russell Group universities. So why would parents pay for that? Because they want their children to be happy and healthy. Many of the pupils at that school have been badly let down by the state system but they are thriving in a small, nurturing school.

My own privately educated DC struggles badly with noise, disorder and large groups of people. Our local comp (which is large and has serious behaviour problems) would be torture for him. My only option is to pay for a smaller, calmer environment (or home school him). There is nothing that I can do as parent to make the local school suitable for him.

So, yes, it is insulting to tell people that they as parents should be able to fix all problems that their children encounter in state schools. Which is what you have done on this thread.

I meant if Reeves obtained a low 2:1 and Sunak a high First - the range of marks would not be 10% maximum. The pp posted the 'difference between a First and 2:1 could be splitting hairs' - the gap could also be much wider than that.

Disingenuous. I can hear your dogwhistle.

False equivalence.

Thank you for the potted history. I’m entitled to my belief that private education is a key driver of societal inequality and to freely state that belief despite people attempting guilt trips.