CH Closed. COVID19

[loringa]

I think what one just has to remember with Mr Redshaw is that he is a zealot. He absolutely knows, like a Trump supporter in the USA, that everything he believes is right. He knows his parenting was done the right way; he knows independent schools are bad; he knows that there is a Jewish lobby acting against the best interests of the population; he knows that Mr Corbyn would have made a better PM than Mr Johnson with his well-thought through and properly funded policies. He also knows that wealth is inherently bad but obviously the 'rich' still need to pay for everything he wants for society.

Who, by the way, are the 'rich'? Am I rich; are you rich? What is the definition of 'rich' in the UK; I think the last Labour manifesto believed that an income of £80k pa meant one was 'rich' and presumably therefore to be obliged to pay for all those open-ended promises? Is that a combined income of £80k (presumably not as that could be made up of two basic-rate incomes which would still entitle the family in question to claim child benefit) or an individual's salary? Who knows, Mr Redshaw perhaps, or is it simply 'anyone who earns more than he does / did'?

Let us take a look at his statement about the current Tory cabinet. 'Make no mistake. Boris Johnson, Sajeed Javid, Liz Truss, Priti Patel, Dominic "Where is Dover?" Raab, these are all the swivel-eyed, small state, low tax, privatise everything, free market fruitcakes that might even have made Mrs Thatcher's hair stand on end'. Is this true? Where's the evidence? Of course they are to the right; that is because the nation overwhelmingly voted for a Tory government but that does not necessarily make them extremists; they just hold different views from him. The individual who appears to have most strongly held the views he ascribes to these individuals was, of course, a Socialist, at least in name, former chancellor and latterly PM, The Right Honourable Dr Gordon Brown.

I suspect that he is one of those reasonably comfortably off retirees with lots of time on his hands and probably nothing much better to do than write to newspapers and vent his spleen on fora like this. He is, as you say, rather boring but zealots usually are. They think they are contributing to debate but, in reality, they are simply proselytising.

BTW - note to Mr Redshaw: FDR died in April 1945; the Attlee Government was not elected until July 1945. FDR was a truly great man but his contribution to the post-war world was not made in the post-war world.

Final note - I, too, have plenty of time on my hands. I normally wouldn't bother with Mr Redshaw and his rants but I now have to fill my free-time with something other than Kindle and Netflix.

[Richard]

My experience in 1942 was untypical, but my answer to Pe.A’s question,

How big were the classrooms in your primary school?

is, “Close to 50,” for I presume you mean class sizes, not classroom dimensions. (Then state schools were called “Elementary,” “Central” and “Grammar.”)

The untypical circumstances in 1942 were as follows. I am speaking of a small town about 40 miles from London to which children were evacuated, because of the bombing. (I was such an evacuee.) So many additional children had to be taught in this town’s primary schools that the existing buildings quickly became full to bursting. Extra buildings were commandeered and new schools set up. I attended such a one. A large church hall was used and I remember it very clearly. It took over a year for the town’s education system to be normalised and I don’t know what the mechanism was for this normalisation. I don’t think any completely new schools were built.

As for the reason I was aware of class numbers at that early age, the explanation is very simple. My mother was very politically conscious (left wing) and she ensured that I shared her critical opinions. (It took years for me to evolve politically.)

[rockfreak]

rockfreak/redshaw really is becoming very boring. He seems to hate just about everybody and says so - again and again and again. Of course, he is entitled to free speech, but constantly reiterating the same old stuff actually stifles free speech, because it diverts, if not actually prevents, sensible and well-informed discussion by others. I also note from Google that he regularly writes to newspapers on exactly the same lines, but of course, their editors do have a choice as to whether to publish or not. I suggest that he is given his own site, which might be designated 'Redshaw's Rants', so that he can write whatever he wants and if anyone feels like replying they can do so on the same site - leaving the rest of us to discuss matters in a more meaningful way, which is what this Forum was originally intended to do.
David

You're right about the Guardian and Financial Times being able to choose which letters they publish. Why don't you have a go at getting letters published in them, bigging up the so-called advantages of boarding schools, and see whether they'll bite? As regards what is "meaningful" or not, I would have thought that the apartheid of private schooling where only seven percent can access these superior facilities is a pretty big subject in the scheme of things.

[sejintenej]

You're right about the Guardian and Financial Times being able to choose which letters they publish.

Been there, done that several times and even got on Page 1 of the FT and the FT last page as well (the latter thanks to CH, thank you very much!) . Even got hailed as a model on sports TV one night - had a spate of appearances around then.

Don't read the Manchester stuff; I don't know what they claim to Guard.

[rockfreak]

Loringa asks "What is considered rich these days? Singly or as a couple?" Well a few years ago the average salary for an individual was calculated at £23, 000 a year. Of course all sorts of other considerations come in. Rents these days can amount to fifty percent of your salary, as opposed to one fifth when I left home and found digs in the 1960s. And public transport (especially in the outlying areas) often hardly exists these days so nearly everyone needs a vehicle of some sort. The idea in the 60s was that if the rich paid more in tax (according to their means) the money could be used to subsidise essential costs for everyone else (housing, health, education, transport). After all, how is the boss helped if the workers are turning up late, sneezing or unable to spell or add up? This is called "demand side". You can impose all the so-called supply-side policies you like to enable businessmen to put goods in the shop window (low top rates of income tax, low corporation tax, tame trade unions) but suppose the workers don't have jobs, or are paid crap money, or are paying half of their money in rent to greedy landlords (rents deregulated by Nigel Lawson in the 1980s), or fear redundancy and having to wait five weeks for social security? Can you see my point? The goods in the shop window remain unsold.
This is what has gone wrong for the last ten years since Cameron and Osborne (privileged, out-of-touch public schoolboys) imposed an austerity which hit the worst off and made them less secure. It's remarkable when the very Tories who praise the system of capitalism completely fail to understand how it works.

[sejintenej]

Loringa asks "What is considered rich these days? Singly or as a couple?" Well a few years ago the average salary for an individual was calculated at £23, 000 a year. Of course all sorts of other considerations come in. Rents these days can amount to fifty percent of your salary, as opposed to one fifth when I left home and found digs in the 1960s.

You are b****** joking. My first UK job in 1961 I had a supplement because I could be sent abroad (it was in my contract). paid £430 per annum gross. I paid marginally over £6 a week (=£312 per annum) lodging or 72.6% of my gross salary before deductions. On a couple of occasions I was required to get to Wimbledon for lodging and tube to the City for courses and had to pay my own fares. I also had to pay for college for the professional exams (and pay for those) When I was moved to London there was no London weighting. When I retired I was getting 50K per annum gross and the government was taking a huge wadge of that
My wife had to work throughout our working life (OK after about 1980 I did get a reasonable salary after I took a cut to a different job and got a 33% raise after a month though all the travel did cost a bit despite most being covered by the company..)