Stopharage wrote:

The country is in a mess because Blair decided to believe all that Cool Brittania bollocks and waste all our money on canapes for Noel Gallagher. I'm sure that's what Boris said yesterday.

Money on canapes is never wasted

The understanding bit of that is the problem of learning by rote.

Beano, whilst I get that, I like political debates.  If someone can tell me why Candidate A is the best man for the job, that's a lot more helpful than saying 'this is the answer' It might be, but what if no one is offering that?

Certainly, measures to push hoarders into investment could do with a re-exam.

Like, if a going issue is capital owners being trembling wee bitches about actually using that for owt of worth to the rest of mankind. Confiscation is fucking dumb, but if benefits careerists are supposed to be getting off their asses or whatever, so should under-deployed wealth. We're all in this together, motherfuckers.

Stopharage wrote:

Sasukekun wrote:

Yes people may just be able to look up something on Google when they're out and about, but there's a difference between knowing how to look something up and actually knowing and understanding something.

That's the problem with learning by rote. My friend was in a RE meeting with Gove's No. 2 in Education and he was blabbering on about how it was important that students were able to remember particular sections of the bible (and other texts). There was absolutely no talk by him of how critical analysis or understanding of the text itself would be important; the onus was on being able to recount the text itself. Utter madness. It will lead to an automaton approach to education - students will be able to recount bits of info but lack the skills to critique or analyse.

Cheers for that. You and Tin explained something I didn't know. Helps me understand things for myself.

I'd guess it's a reaction to the education system found in countries like China.

Diluted Dante wrote:

Learning by rote is clearly fucking balls. The Tories are shit. But Then so are Labour. And the Lib Dems burned their principles for the coalition. So who exactly do we vote for?

 

I'm not a huge fan of Labour, but they're clearly the lesser of two evils. Having said that, if the Greens could get to even 3rd party status (not impossible considering the state of the Lib Dems) that'd be a positive.

I_R wrote:

I was going to say, we wouldn't be in this mess if it wasn't for the whole New Labour project. Thanks Tony.

This is such Tory propaganda bullshit and I can't believe that Labour haven't been more effective in shutting it down. Here's a chart showing the deficit back to 1946. You'll notice that up until 2008 when the banks were bailed out in a rescue package supported by the Tories, the deficit under Labour was roughly equivalent to, and if anything slightly lower than, what it was under the last five years of the Tories. I don't remember the Conservatives worrying about the size of the deficit back then.

Diluted Dante wrote:

Beano, whilst I get that, I like political debates.  If someone can tell me why Candidate A is the best man for the job, that's a lot more helpful than saying 'this is the answer' It might be, but what if no one is offering that?

Not the same as telling you who I vote for. I am up for saying why X is better than Y whilst not telling you why I would vote for Z.

Example, hypothetically lets say I told you the Libs were the better party at the last election provided they got a majority: doesn't mean I told you who I voted for. You might guess that I would've voted labour. However what if my one guiding principle in voting was the abolition of ID card proposals and only one party promised that ever; you wouldn't know I voted for the least likely party unless I had told you.

Yossarian wrote:

This is such Tory propaganda bullshit and I can't believe that Labour haven't been more effective in shutting it down. Here's a chart showing the deficit back to 1946. You'll notice that up until 2008 when the banks were bailed out in a rescue package supported by the Tories, the deficit under Labour was roughly equivalent to, and if anything slightly lower than, what it was under the last five years of the Tories. I don't remember the Conservatives worrying about the size of the deficit back then.

Let us not forget though that it was the relaxing of regulations for banks and financial institutions that led to the banking crisis, and that was done by Labour.

beano wrote:

Not the same as telling you who I vote for. I am up for saying why X is better than Y whilst not telling you why I would vote for Z. Example, hypothetically lets say I told you the Libs were the better party at the last election provided they got a majority: doesn't mean I told you who I voted for. You might guess that I would've voted labour. However what if my one guiding principle in voting was the abolition of ID card proposals and only one party promised that ever; you wouldn't know I voted for the least likely party unless I had told you.

I was thinking a little more locally. Like vote for Mark Hendricks because of these reasons.

WorKid wrote:

The Greens are fucking insane. Don't get me started on them nutcases.

Please do start.

They just need more policies beyond 'green policies'.

Someone establish the Not Fucking Feckless Halfwit Party, you may have my vote.

They do. They have policies regarding workers rights for example.

WorKid wrote:

For starters, their aim is zero growth.

Which is bad because?

I like everything brooks is saying in this thread