Ban Private Schools
They perpetuate the gross inequalities in the UK; this can only be addressed if they are erased completely.
The two other alternatives which might be more palatable to our politicians are taxing the life out of those that can afford private education (almost impossible), or paying teachers in state education more than those employed privately to drain public schools of their best resource. We do this in many other public sectors to attract the best talent, so why not in education?
Abolish the Monarchy.
Antiquated, expensive and utterly pointless, as well as perpetuating the idea that status and prestige are a privilege of birth.
Abolish the honour system
Not only is this system open to abuse, but we are an international laughing stock, giving out orders for an Empire that has long ceased to exist.
Roll out London Living Wage nationally
The very idea that anybody should be forced to live on 5.73 an hour should be abhorrant to any UK citizen.
Ensure that no person, financial institution or business can borrow money more than they could possibly ever pay back.
The idea that some financial institutions were borrowing up to 50 times against their assets is ridiculous, in what is clearly a doomed strategy.
Equally, 125% mortgages?!
Our guest writer is Peter Carrol
35 Responses to “Ban private schools”
Ban private schools | Left Foot Forward | Drakz Free Online Service
[…] more from the original source: Ban private schools | Left Foot Forward Share and […]
Smudge
I would take this all seriously if I didn’t think this was a spoof website. Is this Life on Mars? Are we still stuck in the seventies. Surely no sane person thinks like this?
Will you only be content when every single person in the country is living in the gutter (other than the Metropolitan Labour ruling elite of course).
James
No wonder this blog is becoming a laughing stock with articles like this. Student politics of the 70s making a comeback?
Labour are suddenly discovering inequality exists in the society they have run for the last 13 years and start hand wringing about it. A little late in the day for this isnt it?
You’re Totally Bonkers.
Progressive manifesto ideas – have your say | Left Foot Forward
[…] Peter Carrol has called for the London Living Wage to be rolled out nationally outlining that the “idea that anybody should be forced to live on £5.73 an hour should be abhorrent to any UK citizen.” […]
Tim Worstall
Leaving aside entirely the question of whether these are good or bad ideas how about an examination of the ignorance being shown here?
“The idea that some financial institutions were borrowing up to 50 times against their assets is ridiculous,”
There’s not a single financial institution on the planet that has ever done something so blindingly, ludicrously, stupid.
When a bank borrows it is called a liability to the bank. When a bank lends it is called an asset of the bank. What you’re suggesting then is that banks were borrowing 50 times what they were lending out. Since you have to pay interest on what you borrow and only get interest on what you lend, clearly, anyone who did this would be bankrupt in about 3 minutes.
What you mean is that some financial institutions (Lehmann Brothers for example) were borrowing up to 50 times their capital base or equity. They increased their liabilities so as to be able to increase their assets (and yes, liabilities must equal assets at the end of every day, this is what the overnight markets are about).
But if you don’t know the difference between equity and an asset in a financial company then you probably shouldn’t be commenting upon what financial companies should or should not be doing.
“The very idea that anybody should be forced to live on 5.73 an hour should be abhorrant to any UK citizen.”
No one is. You might have noted that we have a system which increases the income of the low paid if we, the society at large, think such incomes should be increased. Known as the welfare state, it’s been around for quite a long time.
“Roll out London Living Wage nationally”
Err, you have noted that living costs in London are higher than anywhere else in the country? And that the whole point of the “London Living Wage” is to take account of this? That specifically and distinctly, the national minimum wage is not enough for a living wage for London alone? That the whole point of the basic campaign is that wages in London have to be higher than they are elsewhere in the country?
As that tax dodger who used to own The Guardian said, comment is free but do come along now, facts are sacred aren’t they?