I wish someone would put themselves forward in this labour leader race who didn't go to private school. I've got no problem with people who go to private school, but I'd prefer the next labour leader to have had a similar life experience as the majority of the UK have. Not to mention most private schools are expensive and require tuition fees, so the chances are if you went to one them then your parents were probably better off than the majority of the counties parents as well, so your whole childhood experience will have been nothing like the majority of voting adults in the UK. On top of the life experience issue it also gives the impression that labour believe you have to have gone to private school in order to succeed and be the best, which I couldn't disagree with more. How little money your parents have does not define how smart someone can be or what they are capable of achieving. 7% of British children go to private (independent) schools. At the time of writing both labour leader candidates, Liz Kendall and Chuka Umunna, went to private schools Before any UKIP voters jump on this, Farage did go to a public school, however some independent schools refer to themselves as public because any 'member of the public' can apply to join them (as long as you can afford it that is). The school Farage went to was an independent school which refers to itself as public. It costs £6,077 per term to go to the school Farage went to, its a boys boarding school and to board you have to pay £12,684 per year. So Farage's education from age 7 to 16 costs around £369,920. UKIP make sure Farage is advertised as going to a "public school". Keep that in mind the next time you vote UKIP. Sorry for another post about politics and not football, it just gets my goat
why do we only get the details of Farages school costs,balance it up a little,maybe with harriet harmans education. bare in mind farages fees if you are thinking about voting ukip,but dont give it a second thought if they are from the labour party. the fact that its all former public school chums running the labour party shows you why many see little difference between either side of the house of commons.
i assume there is little difference in the education of the majority of our elected leaders. they didnt choose to support labour/conservative at school age despite what that ****** from wentworth said the the tory party conference as a kid. Public schooling isnt the problem here.
...because I haven't got all day to look up every fact for people who misinterpret my post To be clear I am disappointed that the two labour leader choices so far both had expensive private educations and I'm pointing out that UKIP are no better either. Cons is a given. I can simplify with pictures if you like? LAB = **** choices CON = Just as bad UKIP = Just as bad Hows that?
I'm still hoping Dan will have a rethink. Family get behind him, tell him it's a once in a lifetime opportunity, rally round with support for his wife and kids etc etc.. Come on Dan - you know it meks sense. I'm voting for you anyway, even if you're not on the ballot.
Agree re Jarvis He would be ideal and I would use my vote to vote for him! Come on Dan, do it for us, for Barnsley and for the country...please!
Re: Agree re Jarvis What is there to suggest he would be a good leader and able to make good decisions with billion pound budgets? Not knocking him, I simply know next to nothing about him
Re: Agree re Jarvis Think his army background shows experience of real life and real danger. He is also very personable, works tirelessly and seems like a decent bloke...unlike most of the other politicians put together.
If I was in the PLP (i.e. if I was a Labour MP) I'd be standing...I went to a comp. Aspirational Socialism...YES Austerity....NO Back to Blairism....NO
how do you work that out redstar? 50% of the vote went to the tories and ukip,both hardly anti austerity..if labour had been more left wing where do you think they would have pulled votes from? dont kid yourself that they'd have done better north of the border,the vote up there went the way it did because they are anti westminster,even tho sturgeon and co would have you think otherwise.Decades of either tories or labour is why the scots voted snp,they know there is **** all between them,much in the same way labour lost thousands of votes to ukip down here. austerity isnt having the effect on people some left wing commentators would have you believe,if it was then there would have been more of an anti austerity vote from the electorate.