I'm aware. If you can find me sources from centrist, or at least reliable outlets to back up what you are saying, I am open to reading into them in more depth. Saying 'economists have backed his policies' isn't really enough though. I've read about George Osbourne backing him regarding immigration, I've read about a lot of things, but only statistical evidence and clear intent are reliable enough to put things beyond further doubt.
Investing in what? Last I heard they wanted to take out a 250bn government investment bank. Where does that money come from? Don't just say the manifesto is fully costed.
You misunderstand. I said there has been ambiguity. There has only been real clarity recently, but what are Corbyn's negotiations plans, because everyone thinks he's going to get shafted? Especially if you consider what Macron was saying about UK leaving Europe.
Terry Posh is already a shoe-in, yes, but his family stands much more to gain from it than Ratchet Jones, because Ratchet Jones has to pull out all the stops to even be considered an application, and that's if she doesn't cave in to whatever her peers are doing before the age of 18 which is extremely unlikely.
Yes but Corbyn wants to do everything at _all_ levels. Did you not see their manifesto? They couldn't have listed more things if they tried, but the truth is, they cannot cater to EVERYONE, and costed or not, there is no way they can guarantee the funds nor resources to facilitate these promises which are looking pretty empty.
May's a total numpty, but the fact of the matter is, she doesn't have to prove herself. She is following out the democratic wishes of the nation, whilst Labour have been extremely ambiguous about the intent regarding Europe. They have simultaneously been for and against the idea throughout the party. Furthermore, Labour have flipped between being Remain and Brexit camp since 2015, if not sooner. It's as though they've been trying to figure out which types of voters they want to secure.
May's a total numpty, but the fact of the matter is, she doesn't have to prove herself. She is following out the democratic wishes of the nation, whilst Labour have been extremely ambiguous about the intent regarding Europe. They have simultaneously been for and against the idea throughout the party. Furthermore, Labour have flipped between being Remain and Brexit camp since 2015, if not sooner. It's as though they've been trying to figure out which types of voters they want to secure.
Yes but you will still see more entries granted to those who come from privileged schooling backgrounds rather than those from the council estates. The focus should therefore be for those who are living in less fortunate circumstance, and granting them more fortuitous opportunities at an early stage in development.
i think you're mixing up the smartest w/ the richest? unless you're trying to infer the richest are always the smartest
free education means the poorest should have the same chance
No, I'm saying that Terry Posh who goes to the best school in England is going to be a shoe-in for Oxford in most cases, whilst Ratchet Jones who grew up on the council estates, smoking at the age of 12, is probably going to have a much harder time. The focus shouldn't be about the fees because loans aren't the end of the world. Reducing the fees is more of a middle-class concern, and Labour's historical ethos has been to safeguard the working class.
corbyn wants to invest in education at _all_ levels so theoretically rachet jones should be more educated and have a bigger chance at 12 than she would now
may became PM because no one in her party wanted to. her campaign has been a total disaster. polls failed to predict brexit and trump, and even then they're showing corbyn is going to overtake her soon....
jeremy's won leadership twice, gaining more the second time
Yes but you will still see more entries granted to those who come from privileged schooling backgrounds rather than those from the council estates. The focus should therefore be for those who are living in less fortunate circumstance, and granting them more fortuitous opportunities at an early stage in development.
i think you're mixing up the smartest w/ the richest? unless you're trying to infer the richest are always the smartest
free education means the poorest should have the same chance
No, I'm saying that Terry Posh who goes to the best school in England is going to be a shoe-in for Oxford in most cases, whilst Ratchet Jones who grew up on the council estates, smoking at the age of 12, is probably going to have a much harder time. The focus shouldn't be about the fees because loans aren't the end of the world. Reducing the fees is more of a middle-class concern, and Labour's historical ethos has been to safeguard the working class.
Yes but you will still see more entries granted to those who come from privileged schooling backgrounds rather than those from the council estates. The focus should therefore be for those who are living in less fortunate circumstance, and granting them more fortuitous opportunities at an early stage in development.
i think you're mixing up the smartest w/ the richest? unless you're trying to infer the richest are always the smartest
free education means the poorest should have the same chance