Agree with Northern Monkey.

I think its disgusting that the Political Editor of the New Statesman is working in an alliance with the Conservatives to defeat the Labour candidate. Particularly when you look at Boris's comments on race, sexuality, the climate.

Who calls the shots in the New Statesman office? Has Kampfner commented on this? One would assume the NS wants a Labour victory or am I being naive?

Let's be honest Ken is the most popular candidate Labour can stand - he is probably the only Labour candidate who could win - and Martin Bright is defecting to the Tories.

[ Parent ]

We'll happily accept criticism if that parasite Martin Bright plays fair and does another hour long documentary examining the dodgy affairs of Boris Johnson and Darius Guppy and closely examines Boris' racism and homophobia just weeks before the election.

Fair?

[ Parent ]

[ Parent ]

Given the misrepresentation of Boris Johnson's article and the misuse of words taken out of context; combine that with the use of public money to attack opponents like Trevor Philips; and you say that 'Boris and friends stick to inventing smear campaigns'.

There are real problems with Ken Livingstone's term in office.  Instead of attacking the program on the basis that you have, why not actually answer the criticisms? 

Interesting that a few days after it was said that there was no substance in any of the criticisms, one of the team has now resigned. 

[ Parent ]

People are always telling me that behind that appearance of a buffoon is an acute intellectual mind. But I have yet to see any evidence of it. What you see of Johnson is what you get. As Churchill once said of Attlee: He has plenty to be modest about. Well the same could be said of Johnson, only the bluff exterior hides a bluff interior.

And, although Bright is a journalist , and we make some allowances for journalists, he still needs to abide by certain codes and standards; one of which is that the NS supports the Left in principle and we don't do things that would damage the cause. His questioning of Ken at his conference call seen on TV, was discourteous and uncalled for.

[ Parent ]

Ignorance is wonderful, especially when ignorance is the basis of argument and opinion.

Yes, private schools get a tax break of £100 million per annum.  But, they don't get other tax breaks that the commercial and public sector can take advantage of and they educate about 7% of the children of the UK.  And the parents who pay for their children's education privately also pay taxes (and because many of them can afford the £10,000 to £25,000 fees for each child that they educate privately, they are probably paying more in taxes that someone on average earnings). 

Some of those taxes are used to educate other children in the state sector; and some of the fees that they pay are used to subsidise other children at the private schools - through burseries and scholarships.

Private schools do use teachers trained in the public sector.  They also use teachers who are not trained in the public sector - and they also have the freedom to use people who are not trained as teachers but who are capable of teaching.

If we get into the 'public benefit' argument, we also have to discuss the benefits that each of the schools provides to local communities.  Facilities, even teaching facilities, are made available to local communities, schools and others.  These include access to sports grounds, swimming pools, theatres, workshops; the variety is extraordinary and very substantial.

No argument is simply about this lot are good, that lot are bad.  There are arguments to be had about education, but please, base argument on something tangible, rather than on prejudice and ignorance.

[ Parent ]