New plan for airport

Homeslice wrote:

Graiser wrote:

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

Czarcasm wrote:

They get away with it because despite the exorbitant prices, trains are still (largely) full. You can charge what you like, to a degree, if demand is still there. And it is.

They get away with it because people keep voting Tory.

Nobody else wants to see the rail network privatised any more.

Labour had 13 years in power to do something about it and did sod all

You do realise that the Labour Party is under new management these days, and one of the reasons it’s under new management is because between 1997 and 2010 *cough* Labour had 13 years in power to do something about it and did sod all.

I certainly do realise that, even more worrying is Corbyn taking us back to the sixties and seventies

beesrus wrote:

Graiser wrote:

While Corbyn and his bunch may well nationalise the Railways, having that crowd running the country scares me more than Trump

Blimey, you don't half frighten easily, you big booby.
What do you think will happen ? a plague of frogs ? allotments free at the point of delivery ?
You've been reading too many comics. I'm sure we'll all manage.

More like a reality check once the youngsters of this country realise what a bunch of braindeads Corbyn’s cronies really are

Czarcasm wrote:

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

Czarcasm wrote:

They get away with it because despite the exorbitant prices, trains are still (largely) full. You can charge what you like, to a degree, if demand is still there. And it is.

They get away with it because people keep voting Tory.

Nobody else wants to see the rail network privatised any more.

And why do people keep voting Tory? Because the alternative is so utterly unpalatable. But there we go.

Got it in one.

Hopefully he'll take people forward to the twenties, although I would prefer it to be Lucas. Short arse Milton Friedman and his bankrupt monetarism is a dead fish careering headlong to fiscal disaster with those masses not at the top being earmarked for the biggest fall. I sometimes wonder just how much fake money and capital they can try and create out of thin air. And now before the big crash, the likes of Brent are getting out with that fake capital in their trousers and hoovering up as many REAL land assets as they can. Far worse fiscal games than any left of centre political party ever attempted in the 60s and 70s.
Those horrible seventies ended up giving you and millions more secure employment, proper working representation and a nice  final salary pension, thank you. Yet now, you don't want the same conditions offered to the next generation. You should be ashamed of yourself.
Just what was so horrible about the 60s and 70s ? We started with DDT and disgusting animal welfare and we ended up with the Summer of love, huge social change, outdated appalling sexual laws repealed. Let me guess ... you didn't like worker strikes. Well, I lived then too and apart from one strike where the chippy on Mutley had to cook by candlelight once, I was never affected by any strike. And of course, the whole idea was to protect pensions like yours, as opposed to the modern employers like BHS and carillion who just steal those pensions and scarper.

Graiser wrote:

Homeslice wrote:

Graiser wrote:

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

Czarcasm wrote:

They get away with it because despite the exorbitant prices, trains are still (largely) full. You can charge what you like, to a degree, if demand is still there. And it is.

They get away with it because people keep voting Tory.

Nobody else wants to see the rail network privatised any more.

Labour had 13 years in power to do something about it and did sod all

You do realise that the Labour Party is under new management these days, and one of the reasons it’s under new management is because between 1997 and 2010 *cough* Labour had 13 years in power to do something about it and did sod all.

I certainly do realise that, even more worrying is Corbyn taking us back to the sixties and seventies

Happy for May to take us back to the 50's though?

it would nice if plymouth had an airport again. i accept it will never happen.

TJOA wrote:

Graiser wrote:

Homeslice wrote:

Graiser wrote:

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

Czarcasm wrote:

They get away with it because despite the exorbitant prices, trains are still (largely) full. You can charge what you like, to a degree, if demand is still there. And it is.

They get away with it because people keep voting Tory.

Nobody else wants to see the rail network privatised any more.

Labour had 13 years in power to do something about it and did sod all

You do realise that the Labour Party is under new management these days, and one of the reasons it’s under new management is because between 1997 and 2010 *cough* Labour had 13 years in power to do something about it and did sod all.

I certainly do realise that, even more worrying is Corbyn taking us back to the sixties and seventies

Happy for May to take us back to the 50's though?

At the moment I’m not happy with Politics period, I was a labour man until 1997, never voted Tory and never will, this period of politics we seem to be surrounded by nonentities on all sides, no inspiration, no leadership, no sod all.

beesrus wrote:

Hopefully he'll take people forward to the twenties, although I would prefer it to be Lucas. Short arse Milton Friedman and his bankrupt monetarism is a dead fish careering headlong to fiscal disaster with those masses not at the top being earmarked for the biggest fall. I sometimes wonder just how much fake money and capital they can try and create out of thin air. And now before the big crash, the likes of Brent are getting out with that fake capital in their trousers and hoovering up as many REAL land assets as they can. Far worse fiscal games than any left of centre political party ever attempted in the 60s and 70s.
Those horrible seventies ended up giving you and millions more secure employment, proper working representation and a nice  final salary pension, thank you. Yet now, you don't want the same conditions offered to the next generation. You should be ashamed of yourself.
Just what was so horrible about the 60s and 70s ? We started with DDT and disgusting animal welfare and we ended up with the Summer of love, huge social change, outdated appalling sexual laws repealed. Let me guess ... you didn't like worker strikes. Well, I lived then too and apart from one strike where the chippy on Mutley had to cook by candlelight once, I was never affected by any strike. And of course, the whole idea was to protect pensions like yours, as opposed to the modern employers like BHS and carillion who just steal those pensions and scarper.

“Never affected by any strike” what rock were you hiding under.

Three-day weeks, candles at night, cold dinners, and power cuts and all because of what.
Unions who decided to hold the country to ransom!
Strikes seem to be the only thing on the news back then.
I was glad when the 70s ended, it was an awful time.
On the other hand the seventies were very successful for candlemakers

Graiser wrote:

I was glad when the 70s ended, it was an awful time.

I suspect you found the 80s the 90s the noughties, all awful too.
Bleddy unions, reds under the bed, go back to Russia etc etc. Geddon.

Man, NS, fully pensioned, musical taste The Proclaimers, seeks squire to lead him to a better world.

beesrus wrote:

Graiser wrote:

I was glad when the 70s ended, it was an awful time.

I suspect you found the 80s the 90s the noughties, all awful too.
Bleddy unions, reds under the bed, go back to Russia etc etc. Geddon.

I was an active member of the NUR until I realised, as many of us did circa 82/83 what a twisting bunch of self interested people they were and in regard to the eighties which were dominated by Thatcher, well, while there’s no doubt she was a leader, I despised her and her Government with a vengeance and still do.

until they won a court case and were able to stop paying....

'Whatever the attraction, Arthur Scargill is reluctant to give up his £1.5m flat in the Barbican Centre, for which the National Union of Mineworkers forks out £34,000 a year. And it's not hard to see why'.
Guardian Oct 2012

I get that the Tories are looking after themselves and their fat cat mates, it's what they do, but Socialists proclaim to be and are supposed to be different.

Is that the Scargill whose told his mother to buy her council house when Thatchers government offered discounted prices.
Yep, true and typical.

beesrus wrote:

Graiser wrote:

I was glad when the 70s ended, it was an awful time.

I suspect you found the 80s the 90s the noughties, all awful too.
Bleddy unions, reds under the bed, go back to Russia etc etc. Geddon.

Man, NS, fully pensioned, musical taste The Proclaimers, seeks squire to lead him to a better world.

Not at all, but I did seek a better world with the Labour Party until that Jock chancellor robbed the pension schemes in 1997, estimated at 160 billion pounds.
As an aside I was in work for 53 years, paid full stamp for 50 years and into company pension scheme throughout, so I’ve no guilt about drawing my pension old pal

Graiser wrote:

As an aside I was in work for 53 years, paid full stamp for 50 years and into company pension scheme throughout, so I’ve no guilt about drawing my pension old pal

Good grief bhey, you must be nearly as old as zyph.

Every group has some self serving types, that's the nature of things. That doesn't mean the majority are.
Hatton was a problem, but I don't think Scargill was. We invited him down to West Hoe Park for a little event one Mayday. I though he was quite a sweet guy. I think some of you misunderstand what left wing principles are all about but then ho hum. Ownership of land and resource for everyone.
Some of those council houses were well built after the war, some with very fine gardens You wouldn't get that in today's capitalist mess. Pods they're building now.. The real problem with the house sales was the councils were forbidden from spending the proceeds on replacement housing. Charming. Anyone who thinks the continually tweaked and rigged "free market" has served housing needs well in the last 30 years needs their head examining. It's so mad, that people are supposed to cheer when the press say everything's fine, house prices are still on the move upwards. The Aviva thing isn't just dumb footy fans.
Just finished watching the Return of the King again. Great stuff. I can't believe how long ago it was when I first read those books. When I was spending a lot of work time in Oxford, I used to frequent the Lamb and Flag where Tolkein used to quaff and big up Frodo.
Fine hostelry, met a fine gal or two, happy memories.

Les Miserable wrote:

Graiser wrote:

As an aside I was in work for 53 years, paid full stamp for 50 years and into company pension scheme throughout, so I’ve no guilt about drawing my pension old pal

Good grief bhey, you must be nearly as old as zyph.

I’m a baby compared to Zyph!

Graiser wrote:

Les Miserable wrote:

Graiser wrote:

As an aside I was in work for 53 years, paid full stamp for 50 years and into company pension scheme throughout, so I’ve no guilt about drawing my pension old pal

Good grief bhey, you must be nearly as old as zyph.

I’m a baby compared to Zyph!

Graiser wrote:

beesrus wrote:

Graiser wrote:

I was glad when the 70s ended, it was an awful time.

I suspect you found the 80s the 90s the noughties, all awful too.
Bleddy unions, reds under the bed, go back to Russia etc etc. Geddon.

Man, NS, fully pensioned, musical taste The Proclaimers, seeks squire to lead him to a better world.

Not at all, but I did seek a better world with the Labour Party until that Jock chancellor robbed the pension schemes in 1997, estimated at 160 billion pounds.
As an aside I was in work for 53 years, paid full stamp for 50 years and into company pension scheme throughout, so I’ve no guilt about drawing my pension old pal

That's why I wouldn't piss on a labour MP even if they were on fire.

beesrus wrote:

Hatton was a problem, but I don't think Scargill was. We invited him down to West Hoe Park for a little event one Mayday. I though he was quite a sweet guy.

Some are so easily charmed by a 'Squire' in sheep's clothing.

Very true. Self serving sorts often hone their charm skills to the extent of a personality disorder. I've a pretty good radar on the whole.

I do wonder when people think socialists are somehow not into personal enrichment. Their philosophy includes self confidence and freedom from oppression by others and of poverty. It's us Greens who sometimes have the frugal gene and often avoid the material ownership thing. Ownership isn't a problem for socialists, just who does the owning, and to what degree that impinges on others.

Of course a socialist can be wealthy. It's when they choose to deny the opportunities that they were afforded, that's the hypocrisy. The opposition to Grammar schools is a case in point. There will always be more gifted children. It's not a crime. Yet lefties continue to want the "one cap fits all" system. But closer scrutiny reveals many send their own children to private or independent selective schools. It stinks.
Likewise tax. They will set up their own complex avoidance schemes.
Then there's the large houses or perhaps holiday homes that have empty rooms. I can think of no one that offered a room for any refugee or even Grenfell victims. Yet they preach constantly of how selfish we've become.
What about the property portfolios many so called lefties hold. Mind you Nye Bevin set the tone owning two homes.
Why do video conferencing when they can jet around the world causing untold environmental damage?
And when they die, don't expect the government to benefit from any inheritance monies. Their wills will have made sure any money left is well out of reach.
It's just a label they give themselves to cleanse their conscience.

beesrus wrote:

"I do wonder when people think socialists are somehow not into personal enrichment."

"Ownership isn't a problem for socialists, just who does the owning,"

Some socialist you are..  No doubt in the same mold as Michael Parkinson (he of talk show fame) who famously said, " I voted for labour as soon as I was rich enough to do so.."

Guilt is just another tool constructed to keep people under the boot.
Own yer own home and somehow you're an unprincipled devil. Meh, I don't fall for the squire's mood music.
Never had much time for Parky, he appeared a bit of a sycophant, and his interviews about as interesting. But then, I never really did like the chat show thing. Of course, I suppose you loved all those inane questions.

Every post you make somehow comes back to class. It’s as clear as day.

By the way, you don’t construct guilt. It’s an emotion. But then again how would you know.

Regarding Grammar schools, comprehensive education, private and public schools it should be noted that public schools in the main follow the comprehensive model because they do not select according to ability to learn but by ability to pay and these two things are not measures of the same thing.

Also there is no study that has ever proven one way or another whether the comprehensive or selective models offer the best pedagogical outcomes. After all these years and all the debate I find that amazing. It could be done quite easily but it has never served a Government's (red or blue) interests to actually find out.

On top of that there is no evidence to suggest that mixed ability classes hold back the higher performing students which is mostly negated anyway by Comprehensives introducing sets through the subjects. This can then place a student in a class of similarly able peers subject by subject so that somebody who excels in French may be in the top set but if they are useless at Science then they go into a bottom set. This is far better than selection for everything according to some sort of IQ test and offers students a means of progression should they exceed initial assessment or a downward correction should they fail to meet expected progress.

But worst of all, and this is the clincher for me, if you tell the Grammar School students that they have passed then the others have obviously failed and the students know this all too keenly. If you are one of the 25% that has passed that's great but if you are one of the 75% that has failed that's a real kick in the teeth.

And like I said there is no evidence at all to justify it. Quite why anybody would want to tell 75% of our 11 year olds that they are failures when it doesn't need to be done at all is beyond me.