NJS

I have my "impression" of how the Tories have always been passed doen by my parents. I know that sounds irrational and sheeplike to a degree but if you're taught that a trend exists and then you see it for yourself in its full glory the lesson stands.

I think it would have been very interesting if the crunch hadn't happened - the tories would have been able to promise quite large tax cuts and Labour would have been able to pursue a quite radical agenda to combat that. I think now both are a bit timid (understandably) knowing we're skint.

The idea of a hung parliament/coalition appeals to me on the one hand as I like the idea of a collaborative consensus drawing from a few sides of any debate. The argument against that has always been it restricts a government with a firm progressive mandate which is true but I think those days are over anyway. I agree there is a shelf-life concept in the UK - to some extent I was surprised Major lost as I never found Blair's vision that inspiring - I had a feeling they would fail to right many of the wrongs but a bit of that was due to Major acting as a buffer from people's memories of what the bitch had done. I would make the point that I've always found the concept of "What will they do for me?" to be a core fault. It may be idealistic but I'd like more people to think about the common good. I know that personally I would probably be better off under a Tory govenment but as someone who didn't suffer too bad personally last time but had to witness what they did to the NE and the rest of the country, I found it painful and wouldn't want a repeat.

how do you know. My ex GP, sadly passed away, was a Pakistani and a great bloke. Well the fact that after I posted a comment about how Muslim cultures could teach the west a thing or two about looking after elderly relatives which you dismissed so I posted a sarcy comment that all Muslims could be written off as worthless you agreed with it so I assumed they were all the same to you.

It pissed me off when I was a contractor when they brought IR35 in when to all intents and purposes MPs should be classified as such - they have semi-fixed term contracts and as such shouldn't get expenses or pensions etc - they should be self-employed at a decent rate then what they did with that money in terms of expenses and staff etc would be their own business. It would also hit those who rarely turn up.

I know it wouldn't really work but if I was in charge of the labour campaign I'd have huge posters of that Bullingdon club photo with a caption of "Do you really want these cunts?"

Same but Tory - the lack of a socialist candidate means I won't bother again.

I agree, but there are some pearlers in there. Aye, but personally I found only a couple a bit offensive, depending on how serious he was being. I prefer him to his jug-eared cunt of a son in any case. If he genuninely thought he was having a laugh with someone - as the latest one suggests - then I'd say they were all excusable (just about). Of course I guess theres an argument as to whether someone in his position should share a joke with people but I'd echo your comment about the idiot in waiting.

I think he's a parasite of the highest order but there's nothing wrong with the latest "gaffe" imo.

I think both attitudes reflect human nature to a degree. I can see how Brits in Spain or Pakistanis in England could "desperately" cling to a very localised culture where all their needs are met (religiously, socially etc) and feel no need to try. Then again as we all know other people are more outgoing in any new situation and would make the effort. Maybe its a bit presumtious to dicate to people that they should be more outgoing when its obviously a common human trait to be insular. I still feel overall that over time the answer is a dilution/mixing of culture that can only come with subsequent generations - as exampled by West Indian and probably India immigration over a longer period. That's one of the reasons I'm so opposed to faith/sectarian schools and also private education. I think for the good of future society, the more people are "forced" to mix the better.

I do actually think there is an issue with a lot of Pakistani immigrants making no effort and especially the ghettoisation of those in places like Blackburn and Leicester and I'd have no problem with attempts to change it. But again there are lots of immigrants who do make the effort - but people like LM treat them with equal contempt.

How does your perception of Muslim immigrants compare with British Emmigrants? Leaving aside the empire building days involving conquest, genocide and slavery, in the modern world do you think all of the Brits on the Costa del Sol have any respect for Spanish culture or want to integrate? Do you think they support Spain or England in the world cup? Do they bother with Spanish? Moving on to the middle east, ex-pats in the gulf states use the power of their needed skillsets to piss all over local culture - including demanding separate schools, places where they can drink alcohol and nightlife which offends many locals. Compared with those examples, I'd say Muslim immgrants are pretty integrated.

Good. They put us out the Cup in the 80's. Now for Hereford.... One of my life's ambitions is to buy the rights to that fucking goal to ensure it is never seen ever again on TV.

That's a very fair point which I accept - it's just that sometimes you seem to be saying they were so good there could just never be anyone better - which is why I sometimes feel the need to point out there were bad bits in a generally beneficial period.

I agree but I'd also add we need a goalscorer. Not a massive fan of Owen or Martins but, even with their injuries, they'd be a cut above what we currently have in attack. Definitely - Carroll and Lovenkrands have earned a chance but I'm not convinced they'd be good enough - jury obviously out on Best and jury in on Shola as being shit.

I still think we got relegated largely because of a piss poor midfield and that's what needs addressing - probably with 2 or 3 players especially if Smith does leave. I'd try and re-sign Beye as well.

As I said I think that's fine. If you see school life as more than just about actual education, I think another factor is the way selection and or sectarian schools can divide communities (used in the very narrow sense). I'm not saying this is necessarily a really bad thing but going to a primary school which was different to the "local" friends I had growing up was a bit of a pain sometimes. Then going to a senior school with only 3 lads from my class (who weren't mates anyway) was another division. Funnily enough the only mates I still have are the local kids I've known since I was virtually a toddler. Maybe stuff like that is character building and shouldn't be lost either but I think there's something quite good about the notion of sharing an entire life with a group of local kids - a "universally comprehensive" approach to education would support that.

In terms of schools yes - I think streaming within a school is fine as it allows for pupils to move up and down as they develop and also mix streams if they are better at a couple of subjects. I was at the back end of the 11 plus system (first time around) and though I passed I always thought it was wrong that kids who failed were "written off" at 11 and expected to at best get "junior" academic jobs but were mainly meant for manual labour. I think within a comprehensive system/school it allows kids who are "average" to still have a good chance. I also think bright kids aren't held back that much by "thickos" - the school I went to had just changed from grammar to comprehensive and I never felt restricted. Fair enough, principles are one thing but what about the fact that selection improves overall performance? Plus there are often opportunities to move to grammar schools after the 3rd and 5th year of post-primary education. A big factor in selection improving performance is that it also give schools a chance to reject any disruptive kids. That's fair enough but I think the kids should be dealt with properly (I don't knnow how) rather than just having a policy of sending them to a lesser school. As I said its the unselected ones I feel sorry for - I think that's why parents (especially middle class ones) are so desparate to get into what they think are better schools as they think missing out ends the kids chances. I think putting more effort into helping the average kids is better than just concentrating on the bright who as I said will tend to look after themselves. If things have changed and movement is possible then that's fine and a good improvement. Of course my ideal plan would be to abolish private education - if the rich and powerful had to use state education it would blossom within a couple of years.

Emmanuel college - not sure if its still going but it made the headlines a few years ago for having creationist science on the agenda (which was backed by fuckwit Blair).

In terms of schools yes - I think streaming within a school is fine as it allows for pupils to move up and down as they develop and also mix streams if they are better at a couple of subjects. I was at the back end of the 11 plus system (first time around) and though I passed I always thought it was wrong that kids who failed were "written off" at 11 and expected to at best get "junior" academic jobs but were mainly meant for manual labour. I think within a comprehensive system/school it allows kids who are "average" to still have a good chance. I also think bright kids aren't held back that much by "thickos" - the school I went to had just changed from grammar to comprehensive and I never felt restricted.

It was more about the fact that they went to church together (their only "date" of the week) and pretended to be a happy family that was wrong imo.

I would add that the school governors/priests who know that parents are doing it and welcome them anyway are complete twats.

Hardly fair like. You should blame the ridiculous selection procedures which in my mind border on 'racist'. But if you had a kid and the only good school around was a catholic one you might be tempted to feign a bit of piety. It's a dilemma and I wouldn't knock parents doing their best but I'd always be uneasy with the dishonesty and especially in explaining that dishonesty to the kids. If both sides can shrug their shoulders and say the end justifys the means then fair enough but it's a bit too cynical for me. It's not just catholics of course - I used to work with a lass who did it for a CofE school and even worse did the "piety" test while her and her husband had separated and were awaiting divorce.

Good. They put us out the Cup in the 80's. Funnily enough that's a good example of how I feel as well and that I think have what people would call petty or bitter grudges against almost every club we've played since about 1970.

Defintely - though I think there'd be outrage in England (and Scotland) as well. I know historically the education system in the UK has a lot to be grateful to the churches for but we should have moved on by now. The sad thing for me is that I thought that as a pupil at a Catholic school in the 70s, I could see a decrease in the religious influence even in the 7 years I was there and presumed it would continue. Unfotunately using it as a fiddle to re-introduce selection has meant its influence has returned. The people who suddenly "find God" when it comes to the application period should be shot.