Indeed if these traitors like Gary Neville, Gary Lineker and Prince Charles don't like it here in Great Boris, perhaps they should consider b*****ing off.
Great my student loan is only inflating by 7% now, thanks Tories
It's not a debt, just a capped graduate tax. Unless you're super well paid you're never "paying it off" anyway.
I’m paying it,
There’s no doubt I was lucky to attend uni when I did, I.e. before the current fees and loans system.
That said we have decisions to make about higher education. If you as a country wish to send 50% of kids to uni, someone has to pay. It is unpalatable to many to make it out of general taxation. So you either have a graduate tax, or some kind of loan. The loans we have are, as described, a capped graduate tax. I understand why you resent the increase in interest rates. It must feel like you are getting a raw deal. But you did get your degree, which has presumably aided your career, so you are earning more than you might have done. I’d also note almost everywhere in the world funds uni in similar ways. American TV shows are endlessly on about the college fund, as an example of families budgeting to pay for it. I don’t think we want to turn back the clock and restrict uni to 5 to 10% of the population, so it’s got to be paid for somehow.
Does it? Well yes but does it need to be paid for explicitly? If higher education is a public good and if it does increase earnings and general prosperity, then tax revenue will increase organically.
In terms of party politics, it might suit the government to turn the current system into an explicit graduate tax. One trouble for the government with the current system is that all (or almost all) recent graduates have a huge debt hanging over them.
The point which is often missed by those who say, well, only the well off have to repay their loans, is that even those below the threshold still have this debt, and this might cause them to resent the Conservative government which imposed the system. And because they are not repaying it, the amount owed goes up and up. So if I were Boris, I'd want to fix George Osborne's error in rejecting the proposed graduate tax in 2010.
The latest from Alastair Meeks, who IIRC left the site partly because he was assailed for being too zealously anti-Brexit. He still is, but critical of the EU too. As always, a smooth read.
An excellent article. Did you hint at him being critical of the EU just to lure in readers from Hartlepool? He's spot on as he always was. A pity the powers that be thought it a good idea to replace his twice weekly headers with 'Tarts I Met In Tblisi' and similar..
Great my student loan is only inflating by 7% now, thanks Tories
It's not a debt, just a capped graduate tax. Unless you're super well paid you're never "paying it off" anyway.
I’m paying it,
There’s no doubt I was lucky to attend uni when I did, I.e. before the current fees and loans system.
That said we have decisions to make about higher education. If you as a country wish to send 50% of kids to uni, someone has to pay. It is unpalatable to many to make it out of general taxation. So you either have a graduate tax, or some kind of loan. The loans we have are, as described, a capped graduate tax. I understand why you resent the increase in interest rates. It must feel like you are getting a raw deal. But you did get your degree, which has presumably aided your career, so you are earning more than you might have done. I’d also note almost everywhere in the world funds uni in similar ways. American TV shows are endlessly on about the college fund, as an example of families budgeting to pay for it. I don’t think we want to turn back the clock and restrict uni to 5 to 10% of the population, so it’s got to be paid for somehow.
My next policy.
Cut number of people going to uni by half and make the remainder free
Not keen. You are almost treading in HY territory here. Let the top 5% go to University and keep it free, I believe is in his manifesto.
Genuine question. Can someone explain to me why Alex Davies has been jailed for 8 1/2 years? Looking at the reports it states he was a member of a banned fascist group and held shocking prejudices. I would presume a sentence of that length would require someone to be committing or plotting major acts of violence?
Great my student loan is only inflating by 7% now, thanks Tories
It's not a debt, just a capped graduate tax. Unless you're super well paid you're never "paying it off" anyway.
Yes but it is unfair to put students in a position of not knowing what to do re their debt because they have no idea what they will earn. Should they pay it off or leave it. It is an impossible dilemma if they have some savings. Don't pay any off because you will never have to, or pay it off now because later you will be paying off the loan plus loan shark levels of interest.
My son paid his off immediately from the money he made in the city during his summer breaks from Uni (He was head hunted). He is now doing his PhD. He is either going to make a fortune (then it will be the right decision) or stay an academic (then it will be the wrong decision). My daughter now has that dilemma. She is unlikely to be a high earner, but who knows, and she does have savings so could pay off at least 1 year of debt.
So which fecking thread are we doing now? On pigeons - yes of course you have seen the same one twice. On couples arguing, I’ve been married 17 years and we rarely argue. It’s partly because we are not that argumentative. My wife’s sister is much more likely to blow her top, rage for a few minutes, then it’s all over. My wife tends to bottle it up inside. Everyone’s different. Mostly works for us. On swingback, every election is different. Some might hear similarities to others, as now could be either 1992 or 1997, but that’s just similarities, and it’s hard to say which of those two will be closest. It could be 2010 too. And the sun is shining, her maj made it to and past the jubilee and I have cricket later. A good day.
Many happy returns to @OldKingCole and his royal consort.
Today I’m going to the wedding of my first cousin once removed.
You know you've made it in your career when you can write an opinion piece of the FT basically off having a nice meal in a trendy London restaurant, provide essentially no data to support your views and get away with.
My jealousy aside, I think his point is correct and surprising, Brexit has defused a lot of the immigration debate, and he is right that many Brexiteers predicted this. Probably a good idea for remainers to admit where we've been wrong... might even encourage a few Brexiteers to do the same.
You know you've made it in your career when you can write an opinion piece of the FT basically off having a nice meal in a trendy London restaurant, provide essentially no data to support your views and get away with.
My jealousy aside, I think his point is correct and surprising, Brexit has defused a lot of the immigration debate, and he is right that many Brexiteers predicted this. Probably a good idea for remainers to admit where we've been wrong... might even encourage a few Brexiteers to do the same.
I'm not sure Brexiteers are particularly happy about continued high levels of migration. There may be a sense of 'well at least now I can do something about it' though.
The latest from Alastair Meeks, who IIRC left the site partly because he was assailed for being too zealously anti-Brexit. He still is, but critical of the EU too. As always, a smooth read.
That’s not the true reason he left the site, Nick.
Correct. It was because there was an ignoramous trolling around and he'd had enough..
Not really, he was really quite out of order at the end. He seemed to believe that his partners live was endangered by Brexit preventing medication getting through. There was never any prospect of that. He became rather abusive.
Everything he said about the EU was correct and has since been proven to be and I guess he just got bored with being called TRAITOR! and worse.
You know you've made it in your career when you can write an opinion piece of the FT basically off having a nice meal in a trendy London restaurant, provide essentially no data to support your views and get away with.
My jealousy aside, I think his point is correct and surprising, Brexit has defused a lot of the immigration debate, and he is right that many Brexiteers predicted this. Probably a good idea for remainers to admit where we've been wrong... might even encourage a few Brexiteers to do the same.
The immigration debate was never an issue in London - where people voted remain.
I suspect if you went to a different area that voted for Brexit - the immigration debate will still be going on.
Now we all know that the issue isn't actually immigration it's about lack of opportunities but now Levelling up is effectively cancelled it's not going to reappear once Bozo runs out of other excuses.
Great my student loan is only inflating by 7% now, thanks Tories
It's not a debt, just a capped graduate tax. Unless you're super well paid you're never "paying it off" anyway.
I’m paying it,
There’s no doubt I was lucky to attend uni when I did, I.e. before the current fees and loans system.
That said we have decisions to make about higher education. If you as a country wish to send 50% of kids to uni, someone has to pay. It is unpalatable to many to make it out of general taxation. So you either have a graduate tax, or some kind of loan. The loans we have are, as described, a capped graduate tax. I understand why you resent the increase in interest rates. It must feel like you are getting a raw deal. But you did get your degree, which has presumably aided your career, so you are earning more than you might have done. I’d also note almost everywhere in the world funds uni in similar ways. American TV shows are endlessly on about the college fund, as an example of families budgeting to pay for it. I don’t think we want to turn back the clock and restrict uni to 5 to 10% of the population, so it’s got to be paid for somehow.
Does it? Well yes but does it need to be paid for explicitly? If higher education is a public good and if it does increase earnings and general prosperity, then tax revenue will increase organically.
In terms of party politics, it might suit the government to turn the current system into an explicit graduate tax. One trouble for the government with the current system is that all (or almost all) recent graduates have a huge debt hanging over them.
The point which is often missed by those who say, well, only the well off have to repay their loans, is that even those below the threshold still have this debt, and this might cause them to resent the Conservative government which imposed the system. And because they are not repaying it, the amount owed goes up and up. So if I were Boris, I'd want to fix George Osborne's error in rejecting the proposed graduate tax in 2010.
It isn't a debt, and it's really quite disappointing that a couple of decades into the system people are still mischaracterising it as such.
Great my student loan is only inflating by 7% now, thanks Tories
It's not a debt, just a capped graduate tax. Unless you're super well paid you're never "paying it off" anyway.
Yes but it is unfair to put students in a position of not knowing what to do re their debt because they have no idea what they will earn. Should they pay it off or leave it. It is an impossible dilemma if they have some savings. Don't pay any off because you will never have to, or pay it off now because later you will be paying off the loan plus loan shark levels of interest.
My son paid his off immediately from the money he made in the city during his summer breaks from Uni (He was head hunted). He is now doing his PhD. He is either going to make a fortune (then it will be the right decision) or stay an academic (then it will be the wrong decision). My daughter now has that dilemma. She is unlikely to be a high earner, but who knows, and she does have savings so could pay off at least 1 year of debt.
Morning all.
That first paragraph seem strange.
None of us knows what we will earn, and we are all in that position. For all we know we could be in a wheelchair after a road accident, or have a brain injury. That's just life.
The level of repayment is related to level of earnings precisely in order to be "fair", is it not? Would it better to have fixed levels of repayment regardless of earnings?
I'll strongly agree on the levels of interest, which desperately require to be addressed.
Great my student loan is only inflating by 7% now, thanks Tories
It's not a debt, just a capped graduate tax. Unless you're super well paid you're never "paying it off" anyway.
I’m paying it,
There’s no doubt I was lucky to attend uni when I did, I.e. before the current fees and loans system.
That said we have decisions to make about higher education. If you as a country wish to send 50% of kids to uni, someone has to pay. It is unpalatable to many to make it out of general taxation. So you either have a graduate tax, or some kind of loan. The loans we have are, as described, a capped graduate tax. I understand why you resent the increase in interest rates. It must feel like you are getting a raw deal. But you did get your degree, which has presumably aided your career, so you are earning more than you might have done. I’d also note almost everywhere in the world funds uni in similar ways. American TV shows are endlessly on about the college fund, as an example of families budgeting to pay for it. I don’t think we want to turn back the clock and restrict uni to 5 to 10% of the population, so it’s got to be paid for somehow.
My next policy.
Cut number of people going to uni by half and make the remainder free
You know you've made it in your career when you can write an opinion piece of the FT basically off having a nice meal in a trendy London restaurant, provide essentially no data to support your views and get away with.
My jealousy aside, I think his point is correct and surprising, Brexit has defused a lot of the immigration debate, and he is right that many Brexiteers predicted this. Probably a good idea for remainers to admit where we've been wrong... might even encourage a few Brexiteers to do the same.
I'm not sure Brexiteers are particularly happy about continued high levels of migration. There may be a sense of 'well at least now I can do something about it' though.
This could be driven by other problems becoming more pressing... but definitely immigration as number 1 problem has fallen since Brexit.
Also the UK govt made a surprisingly liberal decision to welcome Hong Kong people here - which I think was very popular? And the public have also expressed in various ways their support for Ukranian migration too...
You know you've made it in your career when you can write an opinion piece of the FT basically off having a nice meal in a trendy London restaurant, provide essentially no data to support your views and get away with.
My jealousy aside, I think his point is correct and surprising, Brexit has defused a lot of the immigration debate, and he is right that many Brexiteers predicted this. Probably a good idea for remainers to admit where we've been wrong... might even encourage a few Brexiteers to do the same.
His point is not surprising, and probably not correct, although I can only see the section in the tweet. Schadenfreude is unbecoming but the point predicted in advance of the vote was that limiting EU immigration would mean increasing it from elsewhere, and more bluntly, that limiting the number of European White Christians would mean increasing the numbers of BAME Christians, Hindus and Muslims, and so anyone supporting Brexit for racist reasons was shooting themselves in the foot.
The latest from Alastair Meeks, who IIRC left the site partly because he was assailed for being too zealously anti-Brexit. He still is, but critical of the EU too. As always, a smooth read.
That’s not the true reason he left the site, Nick.
Correct. It was because there was an ignoramous trolling around and he'd had enough..
Not really, he was really quite out of order at the end. He seemed to believe that his partners live was endangered by Brexit preventing medication getting through. There was never any prospect of that. He became rather abusive.
Everything he said about the EU was correct and has since been proven to be and I guess he just got bored with being called TRAITOR! and worse.
It was worse than that and was a very unedifying spat between posters which became far too personal
This is why I think the monarchy may be in trouble when Charles becomes King. He's either not as careful as the Queen, or he doesn't agree that he should be so neutral as to be beyond suspicion.
And realistically, the man has led such an incredibly unusual life - there is going to be some issue where he is way out of touch with the public... eventually this will cause a pretty big controversy.
He's never going to learn to shut his mouth, is he?
This is very simple. It doesn't matter what HMG policy is or what party is in charge: you shut your mouth and never express an opinion.
If you do, you politicise the monarchy and that threatens it.
It's amazing he still hasn't learnt this in 70 years.
The latest from Alastair Meeks, who IIRC left the site partly because he was assailed for being too zealously anti-Brexit. He still is, but critical of the EU too. As always, a smooth read.
That’s not the true reason he left the site, Nick.
Correct. It was because there was an ignoramous trolling around and he'd had enough..
Not really, he was really quite out of order at the end. He seemed to believe that his partners live was endangered by Brexit preventing medication getting through. There was never any prospect of that. He became rather abusive.
Everything he said about the EU was correct and has since been proven to be and I guess he just got bored with being called TRAITOR! and worse.
They scumbag thickos are still at it. I got called a traitor this past week on here. They can't help themselves.
The latest from Alastair Meeks, who IIRC left the site partly because he was assailed for being too zealously anti-Brexit. He still is, but critical of the EU too. As always, a smooth read.
That’s not the true reason he left the site, Nick.
Correct. It was because there was an ignoramous trolling around and he'd had enough..
Not really, he was really quite out of order at the end. He seemed to believe that his partners live was endangered by Brexit preventing medication getting through. There was never any prospect of that. He became rather abusive.
He became quite deranged at the end. Accusing Brexiteer PB-ers of “trying to murder” his partner
Great my student loan is only inflating by 7% now, thanks Tories
It's not a debt, just a capped graduate tax. Unless you're super well paid you're never "paying it off" anyway.
I’m paying it,
There’s no doubt I was lucky to attend uni when I did, I.e. before the current fees and loans system.
That said we have decisions to make about higher education. If you as a country wish to send 50% of kids to uni, someone has to pay. It is unpalatable to many to make it out of general taxation. So you either have a graduate tax, or some kind of loan. The loans we have are, as described, a capped graduate tax. I understand why you resent the increase in interest rates. It must feel like you are getting a raw deal. But you did get your degree, which has presumably aided your career, so you are earning more than you might have done. I’d also note almost everywhere in the world funds uni in similar ways. American TV shows are endlessly on about the college fund, as an example of families budgeting to pay for it. I don’t think we want to turn back the clock and restrict uni to 5 to 10% of the population, so it’s got to be paid for somehow.
My next policy.
Cut number of people going to uni by half and make the remainder free
Good idea. The situation in the 80s/90s.
It was very much the case in 1961 when I left grammar school
Great my student loan is only inflating by 7% now, thanks Tories
It's not a debt, just a capped graduate tax. Unless you're super well paid you're never "paying it off" anyway.
I’m paying it,
There’s no doubt I was lucky to attend uni when I did, I.e. before the current fees and loans system.
That said we have decisions to make about higher education. If you as a country wish to send 50% of kids to uni, someone has to pay. It is unpalatable to many to make it out of general taxation. So you either have a graduate tax, or some kind of loan. The loans we have are, as described, a capped graduate tax. I understand why you resent the increase in interest rates. It must feel like you are getting a raw deal. But you did get your degree, which has presumably aided your career, so you are earning more than you might have done. I’d also note almost everywhere in the world funds uni in similar ways. American TV shows are endlessly on about the college fund, as an example of families budgeting to pay for it. I don’t think we want to turn back the clock and restrict uni to 5 to 10% of the population, so it’s got to be paid for somehow.
My next policy.
Cut number of people going to uni by half and make the remainder free
Good idea. The situation in the 80s/90s.
What measure are you using to decide the the ideal number of students? Or is it just "this is how it was when I was young so that's how it should be" (which is unfortunately the approach a lot of people use when deciding such things)?
Great my student loan is only inflating by 7% now, thanks Tories
It's not a debt, just a capped graduate tax. Unless you're super well paid you're never "paying it off" anyway.
I’m paying it,
There’s no doubt I was lucky to attend uni when I did, I.e. before the current fees and loans system.
That said we have decisions to make about higher education. If you as a country wish to send 50% of kids to uni, someone has to pay. It is unpalatable to many to make it out of general taxation. So you either have a graduate tax, or some kind of loan. The loans we have are, as described, a capped graduate tax. I understand why you resent the increase in interest rates. It must feel like you are getting a raw deal. But you did get your degree, which has presumably aided your career, so you are earning more than you might have done. I’d also note almost everywhere in the world funds uni in similar ways. American TV shows are endlessly on about the college fund, as an example of families budgeting to pay for it. I don’t think we want to turn back the clock and restrict uni to 5 to 10% of the population, so it’s got to be paid for somehow.
Does it? Well yes but does it need to be paid for explicitly? If higher education is a public good and if it does increase earnings and general prosperity, then tax revenue will increase organically.
In terms of party politics, it might suit the government to turn the current system into an explicit graduate tax. One trouble for the government with the current system is that all (or almost all) recent graduates have a huge debt hanging over them.
The point which is often missed by those who say, well, only the well off have to repay their loans, is that even those below the threshold still have this debt, and this might cause them to resent the Conservative government which imposed the system. And because they are not repaying it, the amount owed goes up and up. So if I were Boris, I'd want to fix George Osborne's error in rejecting the proposed graduate tax in 2010.
It isn't a debt, and it's really quite disappointing that a couple of decades into the system people are still mischaracterising it as such.
It’s at least a quasi-debt. You are lent money, and have an obligation to pay interest on the (possibly accumulating) loan. Unless you have the money to pay of the principal and accumulate interest. The fact that there are rules limiting how much you can be obliged to pay as a percentage of your income, and a (long) time limit on the obligation to continue paying also gives it some aspects of a tax.
You know you've made it in your career when you can write an opinion piece of the FT basically off having a nice meal in a trendy London restaurant, provide essentially no data to support your views and get away with.
My jealousy aside, I think his point is correct and surprising, Brexit has defused a lot of the immigration debate, and he is right that many Brexiteers predicted this. Probably a good idea for remainers to admit where we've been wrong... might even encourage a few Brexiteers to do the same.
I'm not sure Brexiteers are particularly happy about continued high levels of migration. There may be a sense of 'well at least now I can do something about it' though.
This could be driven by other problems becoming more pressing... but definitely immigration as number 1 problem has fallen since Brexit.
Also the UK govt made a surprisingly liberal decision to welcome Hong Kong people here - which I think was very popular? And the public have also expressed in various ways their support for Ukranian migration too...
The thing about Hong Kong and Ukraine is that there is ultimately an assumption that the cultural differences are not insurmountable and the numbers are of course finite. ME/Africa is rather different.
This is why I think the monarchy may be in trouble when Charles becomes King. He's either not as careful as the Queen, or he doesn't agree that he should be so neutral as to be beyond suspicion.
And realistically, the man has led such an incredibly unusual life - there is going to be some issue where he is way out of touch with the public... eventually this will cause a pretty big controversy.
He's never going to learn to shut his mouth, is he?
This is very simple. It doesn't matter what HMG policy is or what party is in charge: you shut your mouth and never express an opinion.
If you do, you politicise the monarchy and that threatens it.
It's amazing he still hasn't learnt this in 70 years.
He interfered in the foxhunting debate a few years ago by saying he would consider leaving the country if it was banned. The reason the Queen is so popular is that she never gets involved in political debates.
It does look like he has survived and that the rebels shot their bolt too early. Still deeply suspicious that he triggered that himself.
You mean
Dear Sir Graham
Please add this to your collection of 53 letters to make the 54th saying I have no confidence in myself.
Yours in confidence Boris
Hilarious though that would be it is more likely that he got 5 or more allies to put in letters which were not to be triggered until after the Jubilee but before anything else happened such as some rather awkward bye elections or the Privileges Committee investigation. When you look at the masterful way the election of himself as leader, with the removal of any more difficult candidates against him, he has some form in this.
It is a bit more underhand but similar to what John Major did with his put up or shut up efforts. Eventually, the never ending speculation about a challenge becomes more damaging than the challenge itself.
You know you've made it in your career when you can write an opinion piece of the FT basically off having a nice meal in a trendy London restaurant, provide essentially no data to support your views and get away with.
My jealousy aside, I think his point is correct and surprising, Brexit has defused a lot of the immigration debate, and he is right that many Brexiteers predicted this. Probably a good idea for remainers to admit where we've been wrong... might even encourage a few Brexiteers to do the same.
I'm not sure Brexiteers are particularly happy about continued high levels of migration. There may be a sense of 'well at least now I can do something about it' though.
The country is relaxed about immigration, including Brexiteers. It is higher than it ever has been.
This is why I think the monarchy may be in trouble when Charles becomes King. He's either not as careful as the Queen, or he doesn't agree that he should be so neutral as to be beyond suspicion.
And realistically, the man has led such an incredibly unusual life - there is going to be some issue where he is way out of touch with the public... eventually this will cause a pretty big controversy.
He's never going to learn to shut his mouth, is he?
This is very simple. It doesn't matter what HMG policy is or what party is in charge: you shut your mouth and never express an opinion.
If you do, you politicise the monarchy and that threatens it.
It's amazing he still hasn't learnt this in 70 years.
He interfered in the foxhunting debate a few years ago by saying he would consider leaving the country if it was banned. The reason the Queen is so popular is that she never gets involved in political debates.
Great my student loan is only inflating by 7% now, thanks Tories
It's not a debt, just a capped graduate tax. Unless you're super well paid you're never "paying it off" anyway.
I’m paying it,
There’s no doubt I was lucky to attend uni when I did, I.e. before the current fees and loans system.
That said we have decisions to make about higher education. If you as a country wish to send 50% of kids to uni, someone has to pay. It is unpalatable to many to make it out of general taxation. So you either have a graduate tax, or some kind of loan. The loans we have are, as described, a capped graduate tax. I understand why you resent the increase in interest rates. It must feel like you are getting a raw deal. But you did get your degree, which has presumably aided your career, so you are earning more than you might have done. I’d also note almost everywhere in the world funds uni in similar ways. American TV shows are endlessly on about the college fund, as an example of families budgeting to pay for it. I don’t think we want to turn back the clock and restrict uni to 5 to 10% of the population, so it’s got to be paid for somehow.
Does it? Well yes but does it need to be paid for explicitly? If higher education is a public good and if it does increase earnings and general prosperity, then tax revenue will increase organically.
In terms of party politics, it might suit the government to turn the current system into an explicit graduate tax. One trouble for the government with the current system is that all (or almost all) recent graduates have a huge debt hanging over them.
The point which is often missed by those who say, well, only the well off have to repay their loans, is that even those below the threshold still have this debt, and this might cause them to resent the Conservative government which imposed the system. And because they are not repaying it, the amount owed goes up and up. So if I were Boris, I'd want to fix George Osborne's error in rejecting the proposed graduate tax in 2010.
It isn't a debt, and it's really quite disappointing that a couple of decades into the system people are still mischaracterising it as such.
It’s at least a quasi-debt. You are lent money, and have an obligation to pay interest on the (possibly accumulating) loan. Unless you have the money to pay of the principal and accumulate interest. The fact that there are rules limiting how much you can be obliged to pay as a percentage of your income, and a (long) time limit on the obligation to continue paying also gives it some aspects of a tax.
The government thinks it is a debt, at least if you do not repay your loan. For instance:-
It might be argued that it is not a debt if a graduate earns too little but the point made earlier is that it looks and feels like a debt so will likely turn people against the government. For narrow party political reasons, Boris should change this.
You know you've made it in your career when you can write an opinion piece of the FT basically off having a nice meal in a trendy London restaurant, provide essentially no data to support your views and get away with.
My jealousy aside, I think his point is correct and surprising, Brexit has defused a lot of the immigration debate, and he is right that many Brexiteers predicted this. Probably a good idea for remainers to admit where we've been wrong... might even encourage a few Brexiteers to do the same.
I'm not sure Brexiteers are particularly happy about continued high levels of migration. There may be a sense of 'well at least now I can do something about it' though.
This could be driven by other problems becoming more pressing... but definitely immigration as number 1 problem has fallen since Brexit.
Also the UK govt made a surprisingly liberal decision to welcome Hong Kong people here - which I think was very popular? And the public have also expressed in various ways their support for Ukranian migration too...
Hmm. The numbers from HK are well below government forecasts.
Here's an article on Hong Kongers in the UK. Very much vox pop style. Having to cook seems to be a recurring aspect of culture shock. However. Can't help feeling we missed the boat here. Vancouver remains the destination of choice.
Great my student loan is only inflating by 7% now, thanks Tories
It's not a debt, just a capped graduate tax. Unless you're super well paid you're never "paying it off" anyway.
I’m paying it,
There’s no doubt I was lucky to attend uni when I did, I.e. before the current fees and loans system.
That said we have decisions to make about higher education. If you as a country wish to send 50% of kids to uni, someone has to pay. It is unpalatable to many to make it out of general taxation. So you either have a graduate tax, or some kind of loan. The loans we have are, as described, a capped graduate tax. I understand why you resent the increase in interest rates. It must feel like you are getting a raw deal. But you did get your degree, which has presumably aided your career, so you are earning more than you might have done. I’d also note almost everywhere in the world funds uni in similar ways. American TV shows are endlessly on about the college fund, as an example of families budgeting to pay for it. I don’t think we want to turn back the clock and restrict uni to 5 to 10% of the population, so it’s got to be paid for somehow.
My next policy.
Cut number of people going to uni by half and make the remainder free
Good idea. The situation in the 80s/90s.
It might be a good idea if it was the brightest half, going to the best unis.
Under this government (and here I mean system, rather than party) we can be 100% sure it would be the richest cohort going to posh finishing school style unis.
Great my student loan is only inflating by 7% now, thanks Tories
It's not a debt, just a capped graduate tax. Unless you're super well paid you're never "paying it off" anyway.
I’m paying it,
There’s no doubt I was lucky to attend uni when I did, I.e. before the current fees and loans system.
That said we have decisions to make about higher education. If you as a country wish to send 50% of kids to uni, someone has to pay. It is unpalatable to many to make it out of general taxation. So you either have a graduate tax, or some kind of loan. The loans we have are, as described, a capped graduate tax. I understand why you resent the increase in interest rates. It must feel like you are getting a raw deal. But you did get your degree, which has presumably aided your career, so you are earning more than you might have done. I’d also note almost everywhere in the world funds uni in similar ways. American TV shows are endlessly on about the college fund, as an example of families budgeting to pay for it. I don’t think we want to turn back the clock and restrict uni to 5 to 10% of the population, so it’s got to be paid for somehow.
Does it? Well yes but does it need to be paid for explicitly? If higher education is a public good and if it does increase earnings and general prosperity, then tax revenue will increase organically.
In terms of party politics, it might suit the government to turn the current system into an explicit graduate tax. One trouble for the government with the current system is that all (or almost all) recent graduates have a huge debt hanging over them.
The point which is often missed by those who say, well, only the well off have to repay their loans, is that even those below the threshold still have this debt, and this might cause them to resent the Conservative government which imposed the system. And because they are not repaying it, the amount owed goes up and up. So if I were Boris, I'd want to fix George Osborne's error in rejecting the proposed graduate tax in 2010.
It isn't a debt, and it's really quite disappointing that a couple of decades into the system people are still mischaracterising it as such.
It’s at least a quasi-debt. You are lent money, and have an obligation to pay interest on the (possibly accumulating) loan. Unless you have the money to pay of the principal and accumulate interest. The fact that there are rules limiting how much you can be obliged to pay as a percentage of your income, and a (long) time limit on the obligation to continue paying also gives it some aspects of a tax.
The government thinks it is a debt, at least if you do not repay your loan. For instance:-
Although TBF the Student Loan Company are so incompetent they would probably sue in the wrong court, on the wrong day, and put documentation in with their names in the wrong place so the court would rule they owed the debt to the defendant.
Kevin O'Connor, their long-serving Head of Repayments, was not known as Kevin O'Cockup for no reason.
I know it well! A famously beautiful corner of Old Tbilisi.
And yes I am still here. Having a glass of Tainandali on the left bank (about 2 miles from there)
That’s a sulphur Bath you can see there (which looks like a mosque). Known to Tolstoy, Pushkin and Dumas
Just found this about it.. “ While people continue to espouse the curative properties of the sulfur baths, we can only vouch for their powers to relieve stress, loosen up sore muscles and help poach the hangover out of you. It is the latter attribute that inspired the local chef Tekuna Gachechiladze to open a restaurant last year that might not cure erectile disorders, but is definitely designed to nurture alcohol-stricken bodies back to life.” https://culinarybackstreets.com/cities-category/tbilisi/2017/khasheria/
The latest from Alastair Meeks, who IIRC left the site partly because he was assailed for being too zealously anti-Brexit. He still is, but critical of the EU too. As always, a smooth read.
That’s not the true reason he left the site, Nick.
Correct. It was because there was an ignoramous trolling around and he'd had enough..
Not really, he was really quite out of order at the end. He seemed to believe that his partners live was endangered by Brexit preventing medication getting through. There was never any prospect of that. He became rather abusive.
Everything he said about the EU was correct and has since been proven to be and I guess he just got bored with being called TRAITOR! and worse.
It's easy to see his final comments and why he left. It looks to me like he took irrational personal offence to another poster's perfectly valid position - certainly at the end he was throwing more abuse than he was receiving.
LibDems taking a usually rock-solid Tory ward in Sevenoaks Council in a by-election on Thurs night only heightened fears already triggered by May's elections. What's new is some grassroots Brexiteer Tories are as fed up as Remainers. https://twitter.com/paulwaugh/status/1535561511929794562
This is why I think the monarchy may be in trouble when Charles becomes King. He's either not as careful as the Queen, or he doesn't agree that he should be so neutral as to be beyond suspicion.
And realistically, the man has led such an incredibly unusual life - there is going to be some issue where he is way out of touch with the public... eventually this will cause a pretty big controversy.
He's never going to learn to shut his mouth, is he?
This is very simple. It doesn't matter what HMG policy is or what party is in charge: you shut your mouth and never express an opinion.
If you do, you politicise the monarchy and that threatens it.
It's amazing he still hasn't learnt this in 70 years.
He interfered in the foxhunting debate a few years ago by saying he would consider leaving the country if it was banned. The reason the Queen is so popular is that she never gets involved in political debates.
Yes, I agree with him on Rwanda, and disagree on foxhunting, but basically the job descrpition specifies not expressing an opinion. I think he'd be much happier as a newspaper columnist, full of interesting and controversial ideas. Being like that and unable to express any of them sounds like a nightmare.
This is why I think the monarchy may be in trouble when Charles becomes King. He's either not as careful as the Queen, or he doesn't agree that he should be so neutral as to be beyond suspicion.
And realistically, the man has led such an incredibly unusual life - there is going to be some issue where he is way out of touch with the public... eventually this will cause a pretty big controversy.
He's never going to learn to shut his mouth, is he?
This is very simple. It doesn't matter what HMG policy is or what party is in charge: you shut your mouth and never express an opinion.
If you do, you politicise the monarchy and that threatens it.
It's amazing he still hasn't learnt this in 70 years.
He interfered in the foxhunting debate a few years ago by saying he would consider leaving the country if it was banned. The reason the Queen is so popular is that she never gets involved in political debates.
Is he too thick to understand this, just can't help himself, or both?
This is why I think the monarchy may be in trouble when Charles becomes King. He's either not as careful as the Queen, or he doesn't agree that he should be so neutral as to be beyond suspicion.
And realistically, the man has led such an incredibly unusual life - there is going to be some issue where he is way out of touch with the public... eventually this will cause a pretty big controversy.
He's never going to learn to shut his mouth, is he?
This is very simple. It doesn't matter what HMG policy is or what party is in charge: you shut your mouth and never express an opinion.
If you do, you politicise the monarchy and that threatens it.
It's amazing he still hasn't learnt this in 70 years.
He interfered in the foxhunting debate a few years ago by saying he would consider leaving the country if it was banned. The reason the Queen is so popular is that she never gets involved in political debates.
Yes, I agree with him on Rwanda, and disagree on foxhunting, but basically the job descrpition specifies not expressing an opinion. I think he'd be much happier as a newspaper columnist, full of interesting and controversial ideas. Being like that and unable to express any of them sounds like a nightmare.
If it's such a "nightmare", he can walk away any time he likes.
This is why I think the monarchy may be in trouble when Charles becomes King. He's either not as careful as the Queen, or he doesn't agree that he should be so neutral as to be beyond suspicion.
And realistically, the man has led such an incredibly unusual life - there is going to be some issue where he is way out of touch with the public... eventually this will cause a pretty big controversy.
He's never going to learn to shut his mouth, is he?
This is very simple. It doesn't matter what HMG policy is or what party is in charge: you shut your mouth and never express an opinion.
If you do, you politicise the monarchy and that threatens it.
It's amazing he still hasn't learnt this in 70 years.
He interfered in the foxhunting debate a few years ago by saying he would consider leaving the country if it was banned. The reason the Queen is so popular is that she never gets involved in political debates.
Yes, I agree with him on Rwanda, and disagree on foxhunting, but basically the job descrpition specifies not expressing an opinion. I think he'd be much happier as a newspaper columnist, full of interesting and controversial ideas. Being like that and unable to express any of them sounds like a nightmare.
Well, of course you do - but bear in mind that works both ways: he might express an opinion you don't like about something you hold strong views on.
What ends up happening is that he'll end up politicising opposition against him from all sides.
If he can't take the heat then he should just abdicate/resign from the line. His Uncle did and so has his 2nd son (effectively) and no-one would begrudge him for it.
You know you've made it in your career when you can write an opinion piece of the FT basically off having a nice meal in a trendy London restaurant, provide essentially no data to support your views and get away with.
My jealousy aside, I think his point is correct and surprising, Brexit has defused a lot of the immigration debate, and he is right that many Brexiteers predicted this. Probably a good idea for remainers to admit where we've been wrong... might even encourage a few Brexiteers to do the same.
I'm not sure Brexiteers are particularly happy about continued high levels of migration. There may be a sense of 'well at least now I can do something about it' though.
This could be driven by other problems becoming more pressing... but definitely immigration as number 1 problem has fallen since Brexit.
Also the UK govt made a surprisingly liberal decision to welcome Hong Kong people here - which I think was very popular? And the public have also expressed in various ways their support for Ukranian migration too...
I wish I were as optimistic as you, but lurking in the background is, I think, still a distinction between the "right kind of immigrants" and the "wrong kind of immigrants". It wouldn't take much for the Daily Mail etc. to fuel such a distinction in the future (more likely under a Labour government), but they are laying off for the moment.
LibDems taking a usually rock-solid Tory ward in Sevenoaks Council in a by-election on Thurs night only heightened fears already triggered by May's elections. What's new is some grassroots Brexiteer Tories are as fed up as Remainers. https://twitter.com/paulwaugh/status/1535561511929794562
You know you've made it in your career when you can write an opinion piece of the FT basically off having a nice meal in a trendy London restaurant, provide essentially no data to support your views and get away with.
My jealousy aside, I think his point is correct and surprising, Brexit has defused a lot of the immigration debate, and he is right that many Brexiteers predicted this. Probably a good idea for remainers to admit where we've been wrong... might even encourage a few Brexiteers to do the same.
His point is not surprising, and probably not correct, although I can only see the section in the tweet. Schadenfreude is unbecoming but the point predicted in advance of the vote was that limiting EU immigration would mean increasing it from elsewhere, and more bluntly, that limiting the number of European White Christians would mean increasing the numbers of BAME Christians, Hindus and Muslims, and so anyone supporting Brexit for racist reasons was shooting themselves in the foot.
How I remember it is... many Brexiteers argued before the vote that removing FoM from Europe would give space for more migration from outside Europe... and they used this to persuade minority communities in UK that Brexit would be a good idea... And remain argued no -> it wouldn't work like that... but it kinda has done right?
If only Charlie had said people should think very carefully about sending refugees to Rwanda, everything would be copacetic.
Or - easy compromise - he'd suggested sending Johnson and Patel to Rwanda. 99% of the country would support him in that. And he can ignore Hyufd and the 209 Tory MPs who might object.
If Johnson sticks around for the next two years then we're in for a really unpleasant time. These 'red meat' policies are only going to increase, turning this once great country into a cesspit of hate.
I know that a lot of you Conservatives on here agree about this, for which I'm grateful.
Good morning
We are doing our best supporting the 148 to remedy the problem
It's the next 32 you need to be working on, and they are steadfast in their support for BigDog.
I am not convinced, especially as 65 plus grassroots chairs are about to demand his resignation and Welsh conservatives about to declare independence from the party
New leader for Conference
In my opinion the previous “lose a vote of confidence this badly and you are soon out” doesn’t apply here.
Lady Thatcher’s end had 2 key differences, she was wedded to community charge and wouldn’t U turn on it, and it was good old days of strong cabinets not cheerleaders, so big beasts rebelled, resigning from cabinet and those that remained telling her it’s over night before she withdrew from race she was in - none of that applies to this scenario.
The Sir John Major actually wasn’t soon removed by his party or gone within a year, don’t know how people can claim he was - it was soon so close to a General Election territory, like it is in this instance another vonc didn’t happen, many who fancied taking over wouldn’t have had much time as PM before possibly losing the election so much preferred waiting for a post election leadership race before beginning their era - very much like in this instance, so good reason why a Penny or Wally riding over the hill to save Tory’s from this purgatory before the general election isn’t going to happen now is it?
Theresa May, especially after losing the DUP over her deal, was a sitting duck for ERG vote strikes and pressure in a way Boris simply isn’t. The real pressure that led to her going was it was impossible for her to go on without passing the Brexit she was strapped to, again doesn’t apply here.
Anyone talking up Boris going soon is actually missing the bigger picture here - the Conservative Party has allowed itself to be hijacked by vacuous populism like the GOP in America. What is Johnsonism - especially fiscally - Is it even the good old winning Conservatism brand? Anyone thinking once Johnson goes all this mess instantly unwinds might be kidding themselves. Do Tory successors stick rigidly to Boris’s hard Brexit deal? Can Boris promises be achieved if they stop borrowing, taxing and spending? Can Johnsonsism even be achieved with high tax and borrowing for big spending, or does governing not work simple quick as that?
Completely agree with this. What I am not really seeing in the Conservative party is any serious alternative policy proposals. Frankly, the idea of cancellation of fuel duty pushed on here is more substantive than anything from anyone in the party itself whether in the cabinet or out of it. And where have all the centre right think tanks gone? The Conservative party needs a serious think about what it is for and what kind of society it actually wants. I seriously doubt that they can have that conversation in office.
This is why I think the monarchy may be in trouble when Charles becomes King. He's either not as careful as the Queen, or he doesn't agree that he should be so neutral as to be beyond suspicion.
And realistically, the man has led such an incredibly unusual life - there is going to be some issue where he is way out of touch with the public... eventually this will cause a pretty big controversy.
He's never going to learn to shut his mouth, is he?
This is very simple. It doesn't matter what HMG policy is or what party is in charge: you shut your mouth and never express an opinion.
If you do, you politicise the monarchy and that threatens it.
It's amazing he still hasn't learnt this in 70 years.
He interfered in the foxhunting debate a few years ago by saying he would consider leaving the country if it was banned. The reason the Queen is so popular is that she never gets involved in political debates.
Yes, I agree with him on Rwanda, and disagree on foxhunting, but basically the job descrpition specifies not expressing an opinion. I think he'd be much happier as a newspaper columnist, full of interesting and controversial ideas. Being like that and unable to express any of them sounds like a nightmare.
Well, of course you do - but bear in mind that works both ways: he might express an opinion you don't like about something you hold strong views on.
What ends up happening is that he'll end up politicising opposition against him from all sides.
If he can't take the heat then he should just abdicate/resign from the line. His Uncle did and so has his 2nd son (effectively) and no-one would begrudge him for it.
Yep. The one thing that could seriously menace the monarchy is a monarch getting political. Doesn’t matter whether its from the Left or Right
It might just be OK on fluffy issues like the environment, tho even there its better not (eg I have no idea if the Queen is Green, my Guess is Yes, but she’s brilliantly inscrutable who knows)
But expressing a view on.a wildly contentious subject like immigration? Grrr
Shut the fuck up, Charles. I hope the government is telling him that in no uncertain terms, and I hope that any government - left or right - would do the same in the future
You know you've made it in your career when you can write an opinion piece of the FT basically off having a nice meal in a trendy London restaurant, provide essentially no data to support your views and get away with.
My jealousy aside, I think his point is correct and surprising, Brexit has defused a lot of the immigration debate, and he is right that many Brexiteers predicted this. Probably a good idea for remainers to admit where we've been wrong... might even encourage a few Brexiteers to do the same.
I'm not sure Brexiteers are particularly happy about continued high levels of migration. There may be a sense of 'well at least now I can do something about it' though.
This could be driven by other problems becoming more pressing... but definitely immigration as number 1 problem has fallen since Brexit.
Also the UK govt made a surprisingly liberal decision to welcome Hong Kong people here - which I think was very popular? And the public have also expressed in various ways their support for Ukranian migration too...
I wish I were as optimistic as you, but lurking in the background is, I think, still a distinction between the "right kind of immigrants" and the "wrong kind of immigrants". It wouldn't take much for the Daily Mail etc. to fuel such a distinction in the future (more likely under a Labour government), but they are laying off for the moment.
What I am sensing is 'wrong sort' of immigrants seems to be moving further and further away from UK... Ukraine, Hong Kong apparently okay... Eastern Europe wasn't seen as the right sort even 10 years ago...
The immigration debate for many is more emotional than rational... which is why I am persuaded that the sense of feeling in control may be more important than actually having lower numbers...
Great my student loan is only inflating by 7% now, thanks Tories
It's not a debt, just a capped graduate tax. Unless you're super well paid you're never "paying it off" anyway.
Yes but it is unfair to put students in a position of not knowing what to do re their debt because they have no idea what they will earn. Should they pay it off or leave it. It is an impossible dilemma if they have some savings. Don't pay any off because you will never have to, or pay it off now because later you will be paying off the loan plus loan shark levels of interest.
My son paid his off immediately from the money he made in the city during his summer breaks from Uni (He was head hunted). He is now doing his PhD. He is either going to make a fortune (then it will be the right decision) or stay an academic (then it will be the wrong decision). My daughter now has that dilemma. She is unlikely to be a high earner, but who knows, and she does have savings so could pay off at least 1 year of debt.
Morning all.
That first paragraph seem strange.
None of us knows what we will earn, and we are all in that position. For all we know we could be in a wheelchair after a road accident, or have a brain injury. That's just life.
The level of repayment is related to level of earnings precisely in order to be "fair", is it not? Would it better to have fixed levels of repayment regardless of earnings?
I'll strongly agree on the levels of interest, which desperately require to be addressed.
Oh sorry, badly worded by me. I should have made clear it is only because of the level of interest I find this unfair. I don't mind being in an unknown position re earnings if the level of interest is fair, but it is unfair to have a ridiculously high rate of interest that you may or may not pay depending upon unknown future prospects.
Great my student loan is only inflating by 7% now, thanks Tories
It's not a debt, just a capped graduate tax. Unless you're super well paid you're never "paying it off" anyway.
I’m paying it,
There’s no doubt I was lucky to attend uni when I did, I.e. before the current fees and loans system.
That said we have decisions to make about higher education. If you as a country wish to send 50% of kids to uni, someone has to pay. It is unpalatable to many to make it out of general taxation. So you either have a graduate tax, or some kind of loan. The loans we have are, as described, a capped graduate tax. I understand why you resent the increase in interest rates. It must feel like you are getting a raw deal. But you did get your degree, which has presumably aided your career, so you are earning more than you might have done. I’d also note almost everywhere in the world funds uni in similar ways. American TV shows are endlessly on about the college fund, as an example of families budgeting to pay for it. I don’t think we want to turn back the clock and restrict uni to 5 to 10% of the population, so it’s got to be paid for somehow.
Does it? Well yes but does it need to be paid for explicitly? If higher education is a public good and if it does increase earnings and general prosperity, then tax revenue will increase organically.
In terms of party politics, it might suit the government to turn the current system into an explicit graduate tax. One trouble for the government with the current system is that all (or almost all) recent graduates have a huge debt hanging over them.
The point which is often missed by those who say, well, only the well off have to repay their loans, is that even those below the threshold still have this debt, and this might cause them to resent the Conservative government which imposed the system. And because they are not repaying it, the amount owed goes up and up. So if I were Boris, I'd want to fix George Osborne's error in rejecting the proposed graduate tax in 2010.
It isn't a debt, and it's really quite disappointing that a couple of decades into the system people are still mischaracterising it as such.
It’s at least a quasi-debt. You are lent money, and have an obligation to pay interest on the (possibly accumulating) loan. Unless you have the money to pay of the principal and accumulate interest. The fact that there are rules limiting how much you can be obliged to pay as a percentage of your income, and a (long) time limit on the obligation to continue paying also gives it some aspects of a tax.
The amount you pay depends on your salary, not on the amount "owed".
Payments are made through PAYE.
After a fixed period the amount "owed" disappears.
Great my student loan is only inflating by 7% now, thanks Tories
It's not a debt, just a capped graduate tax. Unless you're super well paid you're never "paying it off" anyway.
Yes but it is unfair to put students in a position of not knowing what to do re their debt because they have no idea what they will earn. Should they pay it off or leave it. It is an impossible dilemma if they have some savings. Don't pay any off because you will never have to, or pay it off now because later you will be paying off the loan plus loan shark levels of interest.
My son paid his off immediately from the money he made in the city during his summer breaks from Uni (He was head hunted). He is now doing his PhD. He is either going to make a fortune (then it will be the right decision) or stay an academic (then it will be the wrong decision). My daughter now has that dilemma. She is unlikely to be a high earner, but who knows, and she does have savings so could pay off at least 1 year of debt.
You're right, it is a dilemma. When the interest rate was more moderate the balance was very much more tipped in favour of not paying it off and using those savings for a deposit on a house instead. With the current interest rate it seems bizarre to keep debt that is probably twice as expensive as any mortgage but then there is the possible write off. The other problem with the interest rate is that the debt capitalises quite fast. My daughter, who has inherited our dislike of debt, had been voluntarily paying extra but found she was simply stopping the capital from increasing. If you are going to pay it off you really need to do it quickly, not in 5 years time.
Great my student loan is only inflating by 7% now, thanks Tories
It's not a debt, just a capped graduate tax. Unless you're super well paid you're never "paying it off" anyway.
I’m paying it,
There’s no doubt I was lucky to attend uni when I did, I.e. before the current fees and loans system.
That said we have decisions to make about higher education. If you as a country wish to send 50% of kids to uni, someone has to pay. It is unpalatable to many to make it out of general taxation. So you either have a graduate tax, or some kind of loan. The loans we have are, as described, a capped graduate tax. I understand why you resent the increase in interest rates. It must feel like you are getting a raw deal. But you did get your degree, which has presumably aided your career, so you are earning more than you might have done. I’d also note almost everywhere in the world funds uni in similar ways. American TV shows are endlessly on about the college fund, as an example of families budgeting to pay for it. I don’t think we want to turn back the clock and restrict uni to 5 to 10% of the population, so it’s got to be paid for somehow.
Does it? Well yes but does it need to be paid for explicitly? If higher education is a public good and if it does increase earnings and general prosperity, then tax revenue will increase organically.
In terms of party politics, it might suit the government to turn the current system into an explicit graduate tax. One trouble for the government with the current system is that all (or almost all) recent graduates have a huge debt hanging over them.
The point which is often missed by those who say, well, only the well off have to repay their loans, is that even those below the threshold still have this debt, and this might cause them to resent the Conservative government which imposed the system. And because they are not repaying it, the amount owed goes up and up. So if I were Boris, I'd want to fix George Osborne's error in rejecting the proposed graduate tax in 2010.
It isn't a debt, and it's really quite disappointing that a couple of decades into the system people are still mischaracterising it as such.
It’s at least a quasi-debt. You are lent money, and have an obligation to pay interest on the (possibly accumulating) loan. Unless you have the money to pay of the principal and accumulate interest. The fact that there are rules limiting how much you can be obliged to pay as a percentage of your income, and a (long) time limit on the obligation to continue paying also gives it some aspects of a tax.
The amount you pay depends on your salary, not on the amount "owed".
Payments are made through PAYE.
After a fixed period the amount "owed" disappears.
It's not a debt.
It is if you do end up paying of and with criminal levels of interest.
This is why I think the monarchy may be in trouble when Charles becomes King. He's either not as careful as the Queen, or he doesn't agree that he should be so neutral as to be beyond suspicion.
And realistically, the man has led such an incredibly unusual life - there is going to be some issue where he is way out of touch with the public... eventually this will cause a pretty big controversy.
He's never going to learn to shut his mouth, is he?
This is very simple. It doesn't matter what HMG policy is or what party is in charge: you shut your mouth and never express an opinion.
If you do, you politicise the monarchy and that threatens it.
It's amazing he still hasn't learnt this in 70 years.
He interfered in the foxhunting debate a few years ago by saying he would consider leaving the country if it was banned. The reason the Queen is so popular is that she never gets involved in political debates.
Yes, I agree with him on Rwanda, and disagree on foxhunting, but basically the job descrpition specifies not expressing an opinion. I think he'd be much happier as a newspaper columnist, full of interesting and controversial ideas. Being like that and unable to express any of them sounds like a nightmare.
Well, of course you do - but bear in mind that works both ways: he might express an opinion you don't like about something you hold strong views on.
What ends up happening is that he'll end up politicising opposition against him from all sides.
If he can't take the heat then he should just abdicate/resign from the line. His Uncle did and so has his 2nd son (effectively) and no-one would begrudge him for it.
Yep. The one thing that could seriously menace the monarchy is a monarch getting political. Doesn’t matter whether its from the Left or Right
It might just be OK on fluffy issues like the environment, tho even there its better not (eg I have no idea if the Queen is Green, my Guess is Yes, but she’s brilliantly inscrutable who knows)
But expressing a view on.a wildly contentious subject like immigration? Grrr
Shut the fuck up, Charles. I hope the government is telling him that in no uncertain terms, and I hope that any government - left or right - would do the same in the future
Yes I agree. However. We've only reached this point because we've had 70 years of a Monarch who didn't express any opinions. There's no rule to say they can't. Nor any mechanism to stop them spouting off whenever, wherever and whatever they like. It's a fundamental feature of Monarchy that the Monarch is the Monarch whether anyone likes them or not. And Monarchists need to consider whether they are content with that.
You know you've made it in your career when you can write an opinion piece of the FT basically off having a nice meal in a trendy London restaurant, provide essentially no data to support your views and get away with.
My jealousy aside, I think his point is correct and surprising, Brexit has defused a lot of the immigration debate, and he is right that many Brexiteers predicted this. Probably a good idea for remainers to admit where we've been wrong... might even encourage a few Brexiteers to do the same.
His point is not surprising, and probably not correct, although I can only see the section in the tweet. Schadenfreude is unbecoming but the point predicted in advance of the vote was that limiting EU immigration would mean increasing it from elsewhere, and more bluntly, that limiting the number of European White Christians would mean increasing the numbers of BAME Christians, Hindus and Muslims, and so anyone supporting Brexit for racist reasons was shooting themselves in the foot.
How I remember it is... many Brexiteers argued before the vote that removing FoM from Europe would give space for more migration from outside Europe... and they used this to persuade minority communities in UK that Brexit would be a good idea... And remain argued no -> it wouldn't work like that... but it kinda has done right?
The mistake Brexiters always make is that they portray the propensity of migrants to move to nearby countries as a function of racial preference as opposed to the natural consequences of geography. People move shorter distances because that's simply easier than moving longer distances. They wilfully misunderstand this because it gives them an excellent line in pretending that Remainers are "racist" because they "only want white European migration". It's a political attack borne of their own desire to deflect the claims of racism against their side of the argument. It shows that they are stung by such criticism, in part because it's not nice to be accused of racism when you aren't, and in part because they were happy to harness the votes of the minority of racists who were certainly fellow travellers in 2016 and don't want to talk about it. The accusations about Remainer racism are not really in earnest. They know that we know know that they know it's just a political game, but they carry on anyway because explaining all of the above is a bit too waffly to hit home, even though it's true. The Remainer racism argument is essentially chaff, meant to remove racism as a talking point from the whole debate by swamping it with poor quality analysis.
The latest from Alastair Meeks, who IIRC left the site partly because he was assailed for being too zealously anti-Brexit. He still is, but critical of the EU too. As always, a smooth read.
Yes, excellent as always from Mr Meeks. And it is absolutely easy to draw from it both his general case that of course we should be in the EU, and also the other case that, obviously, we were right to leave.
Though of course no-one thinks we should have left in the way we did.
That is a good article. It tries to be reasonably fair, which is good.
However, the real picture is far more complicated: trade falls with the EU have been driven by lower imports, not exports, which is the exact opposite you might expect. It's more of an issue with agri-food exports by British SMEs, and large companies have found a way to deal with it. Professional services firms are looking to other markets.
The point is that fully reversing it wouldn't lead to anything even vaguely transformational in our economic performance. For that, we can blame our government for its poor energy planning, sclerotic approach to decision-making on both de-regulation and investment, and its moronic attempts to tax Britain into prosperity:
"A year on from the end of the Brexit transition period, shifts in goods trade between the UK and EU have surprised most commentators. Trade with the EU has fallen by around 20% compared with that with non-EU countries. But the fall has been driven by lower imports from the EU, with limited evidence that the value of UK exports to the EU has yet been affected by Brexit. This is despite the fact that the UK didn’t impose new customs checks on goods imports from the EU until the start of this year, while UK exporters to the EU have faced these requirements since 1 January 2021.
While the UK’s exports to the EU have not collapsed, they might now be lower than if the UK had stayed in the EU. The reality is that an across-the-board ‘Brexit effect’ on UK-EU trade is not apparent in the latest numbers. That said, there does appear to have been a drag on UK exports in sectors where EU trade barriers are particularly high, such as agri-food. Meanwhile, data on UK services trade also points to a degree of refocusing from EU to non-EU markets."
This is why I think the monarchy may be in trouble when Charles becomes King. He's either not as careful as the Queen, or he doesn't agree that he should be so neutral as to be beyond suspicion.
And realistically, the man has led such an incredibly unusual life - there is going to be some issue where he is way out of touch with the public... eventually this will cause a pretty big controversy.
He's never going to learn to shut his mouth, is he?
This is very simple. It doesn't matter what HMG policy is or what party is in charge: you shut your mouth and never express an opinion.
If you do, you politicise the monarchy and that threatens it.
It's amazing he still hasn't learnt this in 70 years.
He interfered in the foxhunting debate a few years ago by saying he would consider leaving the country if it was banned. The reason the Queen is so popular is that she never gets involved in political debates.
Yes, I agree with him on Rwanda, and disagree on foxhunting, but basically the job descrpition specifies not expressing an opinion. I think he'd be much happier as a newspaper columnist, full of interesting and controversial ideas. Being like that and unable to express any of them sounds like a nightmare.
Well, of course you do - but bear in mind that works both ways: he might express an opinion you don't like about something you hold strong views on.
What ends up happening is that he'll end up politicising opposition against him from all sides.
If he can't take the heat then he should just abdicate/resign from the line. His Uncle did and so has his 2nd son (effectively) and no-one would begrudge him for it.
He is the Monarch which means that he can do or say whatever he d*mn well likes and there is very little anyone can do about.
Absolutely true. And thirty two loyalists are not going to change their minds anytime soon.
The question is -- *are* they loyalists, or are they simply MPs who don't currently see a convincingly better alternative? The former won't change their minds, but the latter could well be persuadable at some point, given a combination of time in which events do not come to Boris's rescue, plus some figure emerging as a clearer alternative leader who polls well. The benefit of this confidence vote, I think, is that it's demonstrated to any ambitious would-be-leader that the discontent is not limited to 30 or 40, but that already 148 would vote against even with no obvious successor. That seems like a pretty firm foundation to try to build on.
I agree.
There has also been an assumption that the payroll vote was 100% loyal and the backbenchers all voted “bin him”…
Given it is a secret ballot why not professes support and the vote how you want?
🧨🧨 NEW. Leaked Treasury memo concedes Boris Johnson’s plan to cut civil service risks ‘adverse impacts’ on frontline services - my latest with @eirnolsoe@FT /1 https://on.ft.com/3xEpuu0
So @BorisJohnson said this week the decision to “prune back” Whitehall departments could be achieved “without harming the public services they deliver” — but no-one agrees with that. Not insiders or experts. /2
People who’s jobs are at risk think that cutting jobs is a bad idea?
This is why I think the monarchy may be in trouble when Charles becomes King. He's either not as careful as the Queen, or he doesn't agree that he should be so neutral as to be beyond suspicion.
And realistically, the man has led such an incredibly unusual life - there is going to be some issue where he is way out of touch with the public... eventually this will cause a pretty big controversy.
He's never going to learn to shut his mouth, is he?
This is very simple. It doesn't matter what HMG policy is or what party is in charge: you shut your mouth and never express an opinion.
If you do, you politicise the monarchy and that threatens it.
It's amazing he still hasn't learnt this in 70 years.
He interfered in the foxhunting debate a few years ago by saying he would consider leaving the country if it was banned. The reason the Queen is so popular is that she never gets involved in political debates.
Yes, I agree with him on Rwanda, and disagree on foxhunting, but basically the job descrpition specifies not expressing an opinion. I think he'd be much happier as a newspaper columnist, full of interesting and controversial ideas. Being like that and unable to express any of them sounds like a nightmare.
Well, of course you do - but bear in mind that works both ways: he might express an opinion you don't like about something you hold strong views on.
What ends up happening is that he'll end up politicising opposition against him from all sides.
If he can't take the heat then he should just abdicate/resign from the line. His Uncle did and so has his 2nd son (effectively) and no-one would begrudge him for it.
He is the Monarch which means that he can do or say whatever he d*mn well likes and there is very little anyone can do about.
That is precisely what annoys so many people.
It mainly annoys me because (a) some people give his opinions weight and (b) I regard him as totally and utterly stupid.
🧨🧨 NEW. Leaked Treasury memo concedes Boris Johnson’s plan to cut civil service risks ‘adverse impacts’ on frontline services - my latest with @eirnolsoe@FT /1 https://on.ft.com/3xEpuu0
So @BorisJohnson said this week the decision to “prune back” Whitehall departments could be achieved “without harming the public services they deliver” — but no-one agrees with that. Not insiders or experts. /2
People who’s jobs are at risk think that cutting jobs is a bad idea?
This is why I think the monarchy may be in trouble when Charles becomes King. He's either not as careful as the Queen, or he doesn't agree that he should be so neutral as to be beyond suspicion.
And realistically, the man has led such an incredibly unusual life - there is going to be some issue where he is way out of touch with the public... eventually this will cause a pretty big controversy.
He's never going to learn to shut his mouth, is he?
This is very simple. It doesn't matter what HMG policy is or what party is in charge: you shut your mouth and never express an opinion.
If you do, you politicise the monarchy and that threatens it.
It's amazing he still hasn't learnt this in 70 years.
He interfered in the foxhunting debate a few years ago by saying he would consider leaving the country if it was banned. The reason the Queen is so popular is that she never gets involved in political debates.
Yes, I agree with him on Rwanda, and disagree on foxhunting, but basically the job descrpition specifies not expressing an opinion. I think he'd be much happier as a newspaper columnist, full of interesting and controversial ideas. Being like that and unable to express any of them sounds like a nightmare.
Well, of course you do - but bear in mind that works both ways: he might express an opinion you don't like about something you hold strong views on.
What ends up happening is that he'll end up politicising opposition against him from all sides.
If he can't take the heat then he should just abdicate/resign from the line. His Uncle did and so has his 2nd son (effectively) and no-one would begrudge him for it.
Yep. The one thing that could seriously menace the monarchy is a monarch getting political. Doesn’t matter whether its from the Left or Right
It might just be OK on fluffy issues like the environment, tho even there its better not (eg I have no idea if the Queen is Green, my Guess is Yes, but she’s brilliantly inscrutable who knows)
But expressing a view on.a wildly contentious subject like immigration? Grrr
Shut the fuck up, Charles. I hope the government is telling him that in no uncertain terms, and I hope that any government - left or right - would do the same in the future
Yes I agree. However. We've only reached this point because we've had 70 years of a Monarch who didn't express any opinions. There's no rule to say they can't. Nor any mechanism to stop them spouting off whenever, wherever and whatever they like. It's a fundamental feature of Monarchy that the Monarch is the Monarch whether anyone likes them or not. And Monarchists need to consider whether they are content with that.
Having a constitution based on conventions is vulnerable to bad-faith actors who choose not to follow them. This is a central pillar in my argument against having a monarchy. The oft-made argument "but imagine President Boris" is easily trumped with "imagine King Boris".
The latest from Alastair Meeks, who IIRC left the site partly because he was assailed for being too zealously anti-Brexit. He still is, but critical of the EU too. As always, a smooth read.
This is why I think the monarchy may be in trouble when Charles becomes King. He's either not as careful as the Queen, or he doesn't agree that he should be so neutral as to be beyond suspicion.
And realistically, the man has led such an incredibly unusual life - there is going to be some issue where he is way out of touch with the public... eventually this will cause a pretty big controversy.
He's never going to learn to shut his mouth, is he?
This is very simple. It doesn't matter what HMG policy is or what party is in charge: you shut your mouth and never express an opinion.
If you do, you politicise the monarchy and that threatens it.
It's amazing he still hasn't learnt this in 70 years.
He interfered in the foxhunting debate a few years ago by saying he would consider leaving the country if it was banned. The reason the Queen is so popular is that she never gets involved in political debates.
Yes, I agree with him on Rwanda, and disagree on foxhunting, but basically the job descrpition specifies not expressing an opinion. I think he'd be much happier as a newspaper columnist, full of interesting and controversial ideas. Being like that and unable to express any of them sounds like a nightmare.
Well, of course you do - but bear in mind that works both ways: he might express an opinion you don't like about something you hold strong views on.
What ends up happening is that he'll end up politicising opposition against him from all sides.
If he can't take the heat then he should just abdicate/resign from the line. His Uncle did and so has his 2nd son (effectively) and no-one would begrudge him for it.
He is the Monarch which means that he can do or say whatever he d*mn well likes and there is very little anyone can do about.
That is precisely what annoys so many people.
Monarchy works, and I think works very well, but there are rules. Very clear rules.
King George V was a bit slow but reformed during his reign and became very popular, George VI and QEII were brilliant. Edward VII learned to grow up once Victoria died.
But Edward VIII (David) was a complete prat who would have destroyed the monarchy had he stayed. Other disastrous monarchs include George IV, Charles I and James II.
What's Charles III?
He needs to be exceptional to manage the transition from his mother. I'm not sure he is.
This is why I think the monarchy may be in trouble when Charles becomes King. He's either not as careful as the Queen, or he doesn't agree that he should be so neutral as to be beyond suspicion.
And realistically, the man has led such an incredibly unusual life - there is going to be some issue where he is way out of touch with the public... eventually this will cause a pretty big controversy.
He's never going to learn to shut his mouth, is he?
This is very simple. It doesn't matter what HMG policy is or what party is in charge: you shut your mouth and never express an opinion.
If you do, you politicise the monarchy and that threatens it.
It's amazing he still hasn't learnt this in 70 years.
He interfered in the foxhunting debate a few years ago by saying he would consider leaving the country if it was banned. The reason the Queen is so popular is that she never gets involved in political debates.
Yes, I agree with him on Rwanda, and disagree on foxhunting, but basically the job descrpition specifies not expressing an opinion. I think he'd be much happier as a newspaper columnist, full of interesting and controversial ideas. Being like that and unable to express any of them sounds like a nightmare.
Well, of course you do - but bear in mind that works both ways: he might express an opinion you don't like about something you hold strong views on.
What ends up happening is that he'll end up politicising opposition against him from all sides.
If he can't take the heat then he should just abdicate/resign from the line. His Uncle did and so has his 2nd son (effectively) and no-one would begrudge him for it.
I’m pretty sure he can take the heat, and will continue to as he makes more such interventions. It’s perhaps monarchists who can’t, having no other experience of monarchy other than the current incumbent.
It’s not particularly wise - but where is it written that all monarchs are wise ?
🧨🧨 NEW. Leaked Treasury memo concedes Boris Johnson’s plan to cut civil service risks ‘adverse impacts’ on frontline services - my latest with @eirnolsoe@FT /1 https://on.ft.com/3xEpuu0
So @BorisJohnson said this week the decision to “prune back” Whitehall departments could be achieved “without harming the public services they deliver” — but no-one agrees with that. Not insiders or experts. /2
People who’s jobs are at risk think that cutting jobs is a bad idea?
I can think of a great many civil servants whose jobs could be cut to the great benefit of the rest of us.
You know you've made it in your career when you can write an opinion piece of the FT basically off having a nice meal in a trendy London restaurant, provide essentially no data to support your views and get away with.
My jealousy aside, I think his point is correct and surprising, Brexit has defused a lot of the immigration debate, and he is right that many Brexiteers predicted this. Probably a good idea for remainers to admit where we've been wrong... might even encourage a few Brexiteers to do the same.
I'm not sure Brexiteers are particularly happy about continued high levels of migration. There may be a sense of 'well at least now I can do something about it' though.
This could be driven by other problems becoming more pressing... but definitely immigration as number 1 problem has fallen since Brexit.
Also the UK govt made a surprisingly liberal decision to welcome Hong Kong people here - which I think was very popular? And the public have also expressed in various ways their support for Ukranian migration too...
I wish I were as optimistic as you, but lurking in the background is, I think, still a distinction between the "right kind of immigrants" and the "wrong kind of immigrants". It wouldn't take much for the Daily Mail etc. to fuel such a distinction in the future (more likely under a Labour government), but they are laying off for the moment.
What I am sensing is 'wrong sort' of immigrants seems to be moving further and further away from UK... Ukraine, Hong Kong apparently okay... Eastern Europe wasn't seen as the right sort even 10 years ago...
The immigration debate for many is more emotional than rational... which is why I am persuaded that the sense of feeling in control may be more important than actually having lower numbers...
I think it’s probably simple why people are more relaxed about immigration. Generally Leave voting areas have low immigration. So people in those areas think ‘Great, the shutters have come down, yay Brexit’, cos there’s still no immigrants there, or not in any great number.
And Remainia has always had higher immigration, so people there generally continue to be unfazed by it.
That’s very broad brushstrokes, an exception that springs to mind is that the city of Wakefield voted Leave and has a lot of immigrants in the city (but outlying areas like where I live are still high-90% White British), but it might be a reason. Plus, as someone else said, the Mail and everyone are laying off it.
I know it well! A famously beautiful corner of Old Tbilisi.
And yes I am still here. Having a glass of Tainandali on the left bank (about 2 miles from there)
That’s a sulphur Bath you can see there (which looks like a mosque). Known to Tolstoy, Pushkin and Dumas
It is more than 40 years since I was in Tblisi. I remember an extremely impressive theatre, a bit like the Albert Hall, where we saw the Tblisi ballet, that it was extremely lush and green and a school we went to which was studying Burns (bizarrely). I am pretty sure we went to the sulphur baths too but my recollection is that they sounded a lot more exciting than they were.
Of course, in those days, wandering around unaccompanied was rather discouraged.
This is why I think the monarchy may be in trouble when Charles becomes King. He's either not as careful as the Queen, or he doesn't agree that he should be so neutral as to be beyond suspicion.
And realistically, the man has led such an incredibly unusual life - there is going to be some issue where he is way out of touch with the public... eventually this will cause a pretty big controversy.
He's never going to learn to shut his mouth, is he?
This is very simple. It doesn't matter what HMG policy is or what party is in charge: you shut your mouth and never express an opinion.
If you do, you politicise the monarchy and that threatens it.
It's amazing he still hasn't learnt this in 70 years.
He interfered in the foxhunting debate a few years ago by saying he would consider leaving the country if it was banned. The reason the Queen is so popular is that she never gets involved in political debates.
Yes, I agree with him on Rwanda, and disagree on foxhunting, but basically the job descrpition specifies not expressing an opinion. I think he'd be much happier as a newspaper columnist, full of interesting and controversial ideas. Being like that and unable to express any of them sounds like a nightmare.
Well, of course you do - but bear in mind that works both ways: he might express an opinion you don't like about something you hold strong views on.
What ends up happening is that he'll end up politicising opposition against him from all sides.
If he can't take the heat then he should just abdicate/resign from the line. His Uncle did and so has his 2nd son (effectively) and no-one would begrudge him for it.
Yep. The one thing that could seriously menace the monarchy is a monarch getting political. Doesn’t matter whether its from the Left or Right
It might just be OK on fluffy issues like the environment, tho even there its better not (eg I have no idea if the Queen is Green, my Guess is Yes, but she’s brilliantly inscrutable who knows)
But expressing a view on.a wildly contentious subject like immigration? Grrr
Shut the fuck up, Charles. I hope the government is telling him that in no uncertain terms, and I hope that any government - left or right - would do the same in the future
Yes I agree. However. We've only reached this point because we've had 70 years of a Monarch who didn't express any opinions. There's no rule to say they can't. Nor any mechanism to stop them spouting off whenever, wherever and whatever they like. It's a fundamental feature of Monarchy that the Monarch is the Monarch whether anyone likes them or not. And Monarchists need to consider whether they are content with that.
We had a Revolution and a Decapitation to enforce this rule, then a Glorious Revolution and various new precedents since then. The monarch does not interfere with daily politics
A private opinion expressed privately to courtiers or prime ministers, fine. Not “private opinions” which you then magically leak to the media and which you then do not deny. And on immigration??
Great my student loan is only inflating by 7% now, thanks Tories
It's not a debt, just a capped graduate tax. Unless you're super well paid you're never "paying it off" anyway.
I’m paying it,
There’s no doubt I was lucky to attend uni when I did, I.e. before the current fees and loans system.
That said we have decisions to make about higher education. If you as a country wish to send 50% of kids to uni, someone has to pay. It is unpalatable to many to make it out of general taxation. So you either have a graduate tax, or some kind of loan. The loans we have are, as described, a capped graduate tax. I understand why you resent the increase in interest rates. It must feel like you are getting a raw deal. But you did get your degree, which has presumably aided your career, so you are earning more than you might have done. I’d also note almost everywhere in the world funds uni in similar ways. American TV shows are endlessly on about the college fund, as an example of families budgeting to pay for it. I don’t think we want to turn back the clock and restrict uni to 5 to 10% of the population, so it’s got to be paid for somehow.
My next policy.
Cut number of people going to uni by half and make the remainder free
You don’t believe the education is important? Most people seem to regard increasing educational standards as a good thing. The number of poor quality courses is not a high as parts of the media like to sugggest ‘David Beckham studies’ etc.
Either the teaching is getting better every year or something is going on. Awards of firsts and upper seconds are increasing rapidly across the system.
You can plot on a graph when everyone going to Oxford and Cambridge will be a first. Not many years to go iirc.
The unkind suggest this is connected with student fees. The students are spending massive sums on their courses. The customer gets what the customer needs
This is why I think the monarchy may be in trouble when Charles becomes King. He's either not as careful as the Queen, or he doesn't agree that he should be so neutral as to be beyond suspicion.
And realistically, the man has led such an incredibly unusual life - there is going to be some issue where he is way out of touch with the public... eventually this will cause a pretty big controversy.
He's never going to learn to shut his mouth, is he?
This is very simple. It doesn't matter what HMG policy is or what party is in charge: you shut your mouth and never express an opinion.
If you do, you politicise the monarchy and that threatens it.
It's amazing he still hasn't learnt this in 70 years.
He interfered in the foxhunting debate a few years ago by saying he would consider leaving the country if it was banned. The reason the Queen is so popular is that she never gets involved in political debates.
Yes, I agree with him on Rwanda, and disagree on foxhunting, but basically the job descrpition specifies not expressing an opinion. I think he'd be much happier as a newspaper columnist, full of interesting and controversial ideas. Being like that and unable to express any of them sounds like a nightmare.
Well, of course you do - but bear in mind that works both ways: he might express an opinion you don't like about something you hold strong views on.
What ends up happening is that he'll end up politicising opposition against him from all sides.
If he can't take the heat then he should just abdicate/resign from the line. His Uncle did and so has his 2nd son (effectively) and no-one would begrudge him for it.
He is the Monarch which means that he can do or say whatever he d*mn well likes and there is very little anyone can do about.
That is precisely what annoys so many people.
Monarchy works, and I think works very well, but there are rules. Very clear rules.
King George V was a bit slow but reformed during his reign and became very popular, George VI and QEII were brilliant. Edward VII learned to grow up once Victoria died.
But Edward VIII (David) was a complete prat who would have destroyed the monarchy had he stayed. Other disastrous monarchs include George IV, Charles I and James II.
What's Charles III?
He needs to be exceptional to manage the transition from his mother. I'm not sure he is.
What are these very clear rules? I'm not clear about them. Where are they written and what are the sanctions? Or are they merely conventions?
This is why I think the monarchy may be in trouble when Charles becomes King. He's either not as careful as the Queen, or he doesn't agree that he should be so neutral as to be beyond suspicion.
And realistically, the man has led such an incredibly unusual life - there is going to be some issue where he is way out of touch with the public... eventually this will cause a pretty big controversy.
He's never going to learn to shut his mouth, is he?
This is very simple. It doesn't matter what HMG policy is or what party is in charge: you shut your mouth and never express an opinion.
If you do, you politicise the monarchy and that threatens it.
It's amazing he still hasn't learnt this in 70 years.
He interfered in the foxhunting debate a few years ago by saying he would consider leaving the country if it was banned. The reason the Queen is so popular is that she never gets involved in political debates.
Yes, I agree with him on Rwanda, and disagree on foxhunting, but basically the job descrpition specifies not expressing an opinion. I think he'd be much happier as a newspaper columnist, full of interesting and controversial ideas. Being like that and unable to express any of them sounds like a nightmare.
Well, of course you do - but bear in mind that works both ways: he might express an opinion you don't like about something you hold strong views on.
What ends up happening is that he'll end up politicising opposition against him from all sides.
If he can't take the heat then he should just abdicate/resign from the line. His Uncle did and so has his 2nd son (effectively) and no-one would begrudge him for it.
He is the Monarch which means that he can do or say whatever he d*mn well likes and there is very little anyone can do about.
That is precisely what annoys so many people.
It mainly annoys me because (a) some people give his opinions weight and (b) I regard him as totally and utterly stupid.
The latest from Alastair Meeks, who IIRC left the site partly because he was assailed for being too zealously anti-Brexit. He still is, but critical of the EU too. As always, a smooth read.
That’s not the true reason he left the site, Nick.
Correct. It was because there was an ignoramous trolling around and he'd had enough..
Not really, he was really quite out of order at the end. He seemed to believe that his partners live was endangered by Brexit preventing medication getting through. There was never any prospect of that. He became rather abusive.
Everything he said about the EU was correct and has since been proven to be and I guess he just got bored with being called TRAITOR! and worse.
It's easy to see his final comments and why he left. It looks to me like he took irrational personal offence to another poster's perfectly valid position - certainly at the end he was throwing more abuse than he was receiving.
No he wasn't. And the poster in question felt he didn't want to back down (which was entirely his prerogative) despite the obvious personal offence he was causing.
A lesson well learned in life is to know when to stfu.
I was involved in a District Council by-election last Thursday (9th June) in a Ward comprising six widespread rural villages. The Conservative held the seat with 42% of the vote, an Independent scored 38% and Labour 20%. The Conservative share fell by 4% but Labour's by 6%; the Independent's increased by 10% (though it was a different Independent than in 2019). The Conservative campaign was strictly on local issues. How much impact "partygate" and other National issues had on the voting is a matter of conjecture. The turnout was 29.4%.
Great my student loan is only inflating by 7% now, thanks Tories
It's not a debt, just a capped graduate tax. Unless you're super well paid you're never "paying it off" anyway.
I’m paying it,
There’s no doubt I was lucky to attend uni when I did, I.e. before the current fees and loans system.
That said we have decisions to make about higher education. If you as a country wish to send 50% of kids to uni, someone has to pay. It is unpalatable to many to make it out of general taxation. So you either have a graduate tax, or some kind of loan. The loans we have are, as described, a capped graduate tax. I understand why you resent the increase in interest rates. It must feel like you are getting a raw deal. But you did get your degree, which has presumably aided your career, so you are earning more than you might have done. I’d also note almost everywhere in the world funds uni in similar ways. American TV shows are endlessly on about the college fund, as an example of families budgeting to pay for it. I don’t think we want to turn back the clock and restrict uni to 5 to 10% of the population, so it’s got to be paid for somehow.
My next policy.
Cut number of people going to uni by half and make the remainder free
You don’t believe the education is important? Most people seem to regard increasing educational standards as a good thing. The number of poor quality courses is not a high as parts of the media like to sugggest ‘David Beckham studies’ etc.
Either the teaching is getting better every year or something is going on. Awards of firsts and upper seconds are increasing rapidly across the system.
You can plot on a graph when everyone going to Oxford and Cambridge will be a first. Not many years to go iirc.
The unkind suggest this is connected with student fees. The students are spending massive sums on their courses. The customer gets what the customer needs
There are a lot of reasons for grade inflation. On my course one of the biggest is the increase of coursework over exams. Secondly the use of semesters with exams twice a year, rather than more pressurised once only. And then there is adjustments, made to ensure consistency between years, so if grades did go down, there is pressure to ‘scale’ marks back up. And yes there is pressure to give more and more top grades. No easy answers.
I know it well! A famously beautiful corner of Old Tbilisi.
And yes I am still here. Having a glass of Tainandali on the left bank (about 2 miles from there)
That’s a sulphur Bath you can see there (which looks like a mosque). Known to Tolstoy, Pushkin and Dumas
It is more than 40 years since I was in Tblisi. I remember an extremely impressive theatre, a bit like the Albert Hall, where we saw the Tblisi ballet, that it was extremely lush and green and a school we went to which was studying Burns (bizarrely). I am pretty sure we went to the sulphur baths too but my recollection is that they sounded a lot more exciting than they were.
Of course, in those days, wandering around unaccompanied was rather discouraged.
It’s an absolutely magical city. It is especially magical now, according to my new Mingrelian friend Dachi, because it is full of “young Russian girls” fleeing Putin (usually with their boyfriends, TBF) and they “all wear tiny shorts”
I am sitting on a street full of bars which are frequented at night by people from across Asia. Lebanon, Saudi, Dubai, Pakistan, Mongolia, India, Russia, Belarus, you name it. Tbilisi is perhaps becoming what Beirut was in the 70s. The Asian place where people from more conservative or problematic Asian countries come to party
This is why I think the monarchy may be in trouble when Charles becomes King. He's either not as careful as the Queen, or he doesn't agree that he should be so neutral as to be beyond suspicion.
And realistically, the man has led such an incredibly unusual life - there is going to be some issue where he is way out of touch with the public... eventually this will cause a pretty big controversy.
He's never going to learn to shut his mouth, is he?
This is very simple. It doesn't matter what HMG policy is or what party is in charge: you shut your mouth and never express an opinion.
If you do, you politicise the monarchy and that threatens it.
It's amazing he still hasn't learnt this in 70 years.
He interfered in the foxhunting debate a few years ago by saying he would consider leaving the country if it was banned. The reason the Queen is so popular is that she never gets involved in political debates.
Yes, I agree with him on Rwanda, and disagree on foxhunting, but basically the job descrpition specifies not expressing an opinion. I think he'd be much happier as a newspaper columnist, full of interesting and controversial ideas. Being like that and unable to express any of them sounds like a nightmare.
Well, of course you do - but bear in mind that works both ways: he might express an opinion you don't like about something you hold strong views on.
What ends up happening is that he'll end up politicising opposition against him from all sides.
If he can't take the heat then he should just abdicate/resign from the line. His Uncle did and so has his 2nd son (effectively) and no-one would begrudge him for it.
He is the Monarch which means that he can do or say whatever he d*mn well likes and there is very little anyone can do about.
That is precisely what annoys so many people.
Monarchy works, and I think works very well, but there are rules. Very clear rules.
King George V was a bit slow but reformed during his reign and became very popular, George VI and QEII were brilliant. Edward VII learned to grow up once Victoria died.
But Edward VIII (David) was a complete prat who would have destroyed the monarchy had he stayed. Other disastrous monarchs include George IV, Charles I and James II.
What's Charles III?
He needs to be exceptional to manage the transition from his mother. I'm not sure he is.
What are these very clear rules? I'm not clear about them. Where are they written and what are the sanctions? Or are they merely conventions?
🧨🧨 NEW. Leaked Treasury memo concedes Boris Johnson’s plan to cut civil service risks ‘adverse impacts’ on frontline services - my latest with @eirnolsoe@FT /1 https://on.ft.com/3xEpuu0
So @BorisJohnson said this week the decision to “prune back” Whitehall departments could be achieved “without harming the public services they deliver” — but no-one agrees with that. Not insiders or experts. /2
People who’s jobs are at risk think that cutting jobs is a bad idea?
I can think of a great many civil servants whose jobs could be cut to the great benefit of the rest of us.
🧨🧨 NEW. Leaked Treasury memo concedes Boris Johnson’s plan to cut civil service risks ‘adverse impacts’ on frontline services - my latest with @eirnolsoe@FT /1 https://on.ft.com/3xEpuu0
So @BorisJohnson said this week the decision to “prune back” Whitehall departments could be achieved “without harming the public services they deliver” — but no-one agrees with that. Not insiders or experts. /2
People who’s jobs are at risk think that cutting jobs is a bad idea?
I can think of a great many civil servants whose jobs could be cut to the great benefit of the rest of us.
*Bias alert as a civil servant*. My experience so far isn't that departments are inherently opposed to the idea of cutting back on personnel but that they want clear instruction from the government about where they should cut. The main problem is that ministers won't accept that if departments cut staff it means they can't do everything they used to do. In my department the vast majority of staff work in customer facing roles. To achieve the required number of cuts it would mean either dialling back on service commitments (shouldn't happen) or doing things like mandating digital only contact (should happen but requires short term pain). It's no use pointing to culture war baiting jobs like diversity officers because even if those roles exist they make up a tiny proportion of the staff in a department.
Great my student loan is only inflating by 7% now, thanks Tories
It's not a debt, just a capped graduate tax. Unless you're super well paid you're never "paying it off" anyway.
I’m paying it,
There’s no doubt I was lucky to attend uni when I did, I.e. before the current fees and loans system.
That said we have decisions to make about higher education. If you as a country wish to send 50% of kids to uni, someone has to pay. It is unpalatable to many to make it out of general taxation. So you either have a graduate tax, or some kind of loan. The loans we have are, as described, a capped graduate tax. I understand why you resent the increase in interest rates. It must feel like you are getting a raw deal. But you did get your degree, which has presumably aided your career, so you are earning more than you might have done. I’d also note almost everywhere in the world funds uni in similar ways. American TV shows are endlessly on about the college fund, as an example of families budgeting to pay for it. I don’t think we want to turn back the clock and restrict uni to 5 to 10% of the population, so it’s got to be paid for somehow.
My next policy.
Cut number of people going to uni by half and make the remainder free
You don’t believe the education is important? Most people seem to regard increasing educational standards as a good thing. The number of poor quality courses is not a high as parts of the media like to sugggest ‘David Beckham studies’ etc.
Either the teaching is getting better every year or something is going on. Awards of firsts and upper seconds are increasing rapidly across the system.
You can plot on a graph when everyone going to Oxford and Cambridge will be a first. Not many years to go iirc.
The unkind suggest this is connected with student fees. The students are spending massive sums on their courses. The customer gets what the customer needs
I think there is a possibility the teaching is actually getting better. Bear in mind until Thatcher lecturers had life tenure and many of them merely went through the motions on teaching and research - Hugh Trevor-Roper published one book in his whole academic career and still got a chair at Oxford. And even when I went 20 years ago it was not uncommon for lecturers to have no training in teaching - heck, even my own first contract forgot to say how many hours' teaching I was doing, it just emphasised my research. And that was at Aberystwyth, not even the Russell Group.
As against that, many lecturers do no actual lecturing, leaving it to their PhD students, who are not trained.
The other thing that might be worth remembering though is the way students are now remorselessly drilled at schools to game the systems and pass exams. Our education system is pretty rubbish at telling you what somebody's knowledge of a subject is, but it will tell you whether they're good at exams or not. And that's got much worse since Gove's changes to the system.
And finally, it's entirely possible you're correct and the system is geared towards avoiding failure. I well remember I had to justify failing a student. Fortunately that was made easier in one case because he forgot to delete the adverts when copying off the internet. Apparently he was insecure about the size of something.
Great my student loan is only inflating by 7% now, thanks Tories
It's not a debt, just a capped graduate tax. Unless you're super well paid you're never "paying it off" anyway.
I’m paying it,
There’s no doubt I was lucky to attend uni when I did, I.e. before the current fees and loans system.
That said we have decisions to make about higher education. If you as a country wish to send 50% of kids to uni, someone has to pay. It is unpalatable to many to make it out of general taxation. So you either have a graduate tax, or some kind of loan. The loans we have are, as described, a capped graduate tax. I understand why you resent the increase in interest rates. It must feel like you are getting a raw deal. But you did get your degree, which has presumably aided your career, so you are earning more than you might have done. I’d also note almost everywhere in the world funds uni in similar ways. American TV shows are endlessly on about the college fund, as an example of families budgeting to pay for it. I don’t think we want to turn back the clock and restrict uni to 5 to 10% of the population, so it’s got to be paid for somehow.
My next policy.
Cut number of people going to uni by half and make the remainder free
You don’t believe the education is important? Most people seem to regard increasing educational standards as a good thing. The number of poor quality courses is not a high as parts of the media like to sugggest ‘David Beckham studies’ etc.
Either the teaching is getting better every year or something is going on. Awards of firsts and upper seconds are increasing rapidly across the system.
You can plot on a graph when everyone going to Oxford and Cambridge will be a first. Not many years to go iirc.
The unkind suggest this is connected with student fees. The students are spending massive sums on their courses. The customer gets what the customer needs
There are a lot of reasons for grade inflation. On my course one of the biggest is the increase of coursework over exams. Secondly the use of semesters with exams twice a year, rather than more pressurised once only. And then there is adjustments, made to ensure consistency between years, so if grades did go down, there is pressure to ‘scale’ marks back up. And yes there is pressure to give more and more top grades. No easy answers.
For many subjects, with all the aids available to do your work for you, the only reasonably objective test for how good you are is the old fashioned exam room with no aids whatsoever except a pen.
(I am of an age when 100% of my degree was based on nine 3 hour papers in a week in the heat of summer at the end of the final year, in days when at a top university firsts were rarities.)
🧨🧨 NEW. Leaked Treasury memo concedes Boris Johnson’s plan to cut civil service risks ‘adverse impacts’ on frontline services - my latest with @eirnolsoe@FT /1 https://on.ft.com/3xEpuu0
So @BorisJohnson said this week the decision to “prune back” Whitehall departments could be achieved “without harming the public services they deliver” — but no-one agrees with that. Not insiders or experts. /2
People who’s jobs are at risk think that cutting jobs is a bad idea?
I can think of a great many civil servants whose jobs could be cut to the great benefit of the rest of us.
*Bias alert as a civil servant*. My experience so far isn't that departments are inherently opposed to the idea of cutting back on personnel but that they want clear instruction from the government about where they should cut. The main problem is that ministers won't accept that if departments cut staff it means they can't do everything they used to do. In my department the vast majority of staff work in customer facing roles. To achieve the required number of cuts it would mean either dialling back on service commitments (shouldn't happen) or doing things like mandating digital only contact (should happen but requires short term pain). It's no use pointing to culture war baiting jobs like diversity officers because even if those roles exist they make up a tiny proportion of the staff in a department.
*Bias alert as a public sector worker in a customer facing role*
We could axe the entire DfE and it's hard to see how things could be worse in education than they are now. And I mean that quite seriously. what I can clearly see is that there is an issue with people creating work for each other to justify their jobs, because they want to hang on to a cushy number.
Which would be less of a problem if they didn't then all start pulling in different directions and putting more pressure on staff in the front line with extra work to prove they were doing something useful.
At the same time, I do take your point. Politicians should be leading by making policy, not Daily Mail headlines, and there is no way we could manage without administrators at all. Whether we have enough of the right ones or they are doing the right things may be a different question.
If HMs private remarks were leaked, people would be attacking the leaker.
Charles does not get that level of protection and deference. The interesting question is whether that will continue once he become HM.
She would say she had 'questions' about it, for example.
She just has far better judgement.
She is far better protected, and if something were to leak people like yourself would think twice about attacking HM in the way Charles has been attacked.
I wonder if HM George VII will get that deference.
Anybody who thinks Charles is going to moderate his behaviour when he finally gets to wear his mother's bridal veil is fucking kidding themselves. He's had a completely fucked up life that was equal parts opulence, indulgence and duty. He's waited an entire lifetime for it and he knows he's only going to be able to do it for a relatively short time.
He's going to stick his nose into all sorts when he is king.
🧨🧨 NEW. Leaked Treasury memo concedes Boris Johnson’s plan to cut civil service risks ‘adverse impacts’ on frontline services - my latest with @eirnolsoe@FT /1 https://on.ft.com/3xEpuu0
So @BorisJohnson said this week the decision to “prune back” Whitehall departments could be achieved “without harming the public services they deliver” — but no-one agrees with that. Not insiders or experts. /2
People who’s jobs are at risk think that cutting jobs is a bad idea?
I can think of a great many civil servants whose jobs could be cut to the great benefit of the rest of us.
I'll have what that idiot is smoking. If the article in any way reflects the headline, it's total fucking nonsense and lies from start to finish and the person who wrote it should suffer the fate of first David Irving and then Captain James Sawyer in Lieutenant Hornblower (possibly without the stabbing to death at the finish). Gove's reforms were the ultimate capitulation to the special interest blobs in Whitehall ahead of experts. That's why they've been an unmitigated catastrophe.
What's more alarming is that there are people who genuinely seem to believe this rubbish.
Comments
In terms of party politics, it might suit the government to turn the current system into an explicit graduate tax. One trouble for the government with the current system is that all (or almost all) recent graduates have a huge debt hanging over them.
The point which is often missed by those who say, well, only the well off have to repay their loans, is that even those below the threshold still have this debt, and this might cause them to resent the Conservative government which imposed the system. And because they are not repaying it, the amount owed goes up and up. So if I were Boris, I'd want to fix George Osborne's error in rejecting the proposed graduate tax in 2010.
Good morning, everyone.
F1: Perez is available at 5 (5.25 with boost), third the odds top 2 each way, to top third practice.
Probably value.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/11/section/11
@JohnRentoul
Janan Ganesh is back in London, and writing about an unexpected effect of Brexit
https://ft.com/content/d3472b3a-9d31-40ab-8cf4-0b957f071a8d
https://twitter.com/JohnRentoul/status/1535523268853112833
My son paid his off immediately from the money he made in the city during his summer breaks from Uni (He was head hunted). He is now doing his PhD. He is either going to make a fortune (then it will be the right decision) or stay an academic (then it will be the wrong decision). My daughter now has that dilemma. She is unlikely to be a high earner, but who knows, and she does have savings so could pay off at least 1 year of debt.
Today I’m going to the wedding of my first cousin once removed.
My jealousy aside, I think his point is correct and surprising, Brexit has defused a lot of the immigration debate, and he is right that many Brexiteers predicted this. Probably a good idea for remainers to admit where we've been wrong... might even encourage a few Brexiteers to do the same.
I suspect if you went to a different area that voted for Brexit - the immigration debate will still be going on.
Now we all know that the issue isn't actually immigration it's about lack of opportunities but now Levelling up is effectively cancelled it's not going to reappear once Bozo runs out of other excuses.
That first paragraph seem strange.
None of us knows what we will earn, and we are all in that position. For all we know we could be in a wheelchair after a road accident, or have a brain injury. That's just life.
The level of repayment is related to level of earnings precisely in order to be "fair", is it not? Would it better to have fixed levels of repayment regardless of earnings?
I'll strongly agree on the levels of interest, which desperately require to be addressed.
@_restaurant_bot
Culinarium Khasheria; 23 Abano St, T'bilisi, Georgia google.com/maps/place/?q=…
https://twitter.com/_restaurant_bot/status/1535552950839410688?s=21&t=dV286FCNPG5KRQYT_tCtTw
This could be driven by other problems becoming more pressing... but definitely immigration as number 1 problem has fallen since Brexit.
Also the UK govt made a surprisingly liberal decision to welcome Hong Kong people here - which I think was very popular? And the public have also expressed in various ways their support for Ukranian migration too...
This is very simple. It doesn't matter what HMG policy is or what party is in charge: you shut your mouth and never express an opinion.
If you do, you politicise the monarchy and that threatens it.
It's amazing he still hasn't learnt this in 70 years.
Or is it just "this is how it was when I was young so that's how it should be" (which is unfortunately the approach a lot of people use when deciding such things)?
You are lent money, and have an obligation to pay interest on the (possibly accumulating) loan. Unless you have the money to pay of the principal and accumulate interest.
The fact that there are rules limiting how much you can be obliged to pay as a percentage of your income, and a (long) time limit on the obligation to continue paying also gives it some aspects of a tax.
It is a bit more underhand but similar to what John Major did with his put up or shut up efforts. Eventually, the never ending speculation about a challenge becomes more damaging than the challenge itself.
Mobilise the party grassroots for their own confidence vote in the PM
https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/tory-rebels-oust-boris-johnson-double-by-election-1681095
https://www.ft.com/content/f2d72f42-af5f-4922-8fcb-f50a32f37afc
And yes I am still here. Having a glass of Tainandali on the left bank (about 2 miles from there)
That’s a sulphur Bath you can see there (which looks like a mosque). Known to Tolstoy, Pushkin and Dumas
By law, you must repay your loan in line with the loan contract and regulations. If you don’t make repayments, SLC have the right to take legal action to recover your debt. This means SLC can get a court order to make you repay the total debt plus interest and penalties in a single payment.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/student-loans-a-guide-to-terms-and-conditions/student-loans-a-guide-to-terms-and-conditions-2022-to-2023
It might be argued that it is not a debt if a graduate earns too little but the point made earlier is that it looks and feels like a debt so will likely turn people against the government. For narrow party political reasons, Boris should change this.
Here's an article on Hong Kongers in the UK. Very much vox pop style. Having to cook seems to be a recurring aspect of culture shock. However. Can't help feeling we missed the boat here. Vancouver remains the destination of choice.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2022-03-18/moving-to-u-k-from-hong-kong-migrants-still-coming-to-terms-with-new-lives
Under this government (and here I mean system, rather than party) we can be 100% sure it would be the richest cohort going to posh finishing school style unis.
Which would be an extremely bad idea.
Kevin O'Connor, their long-serving Head of Repayments, was not known as Kevin O'Cockup for no reason.
“ While people continue to espouse the curative properties of the sulfur baths, we can only vouch for their powers to relieve stress, loosen up sore muscles and help poach the hangover out of you. It is the latter attribute that inspired the local chef Tekuna Gachechiladze to open a restaurant last year that might not cure erectile disorders, but is definitely designed to nurture alcohol-stricken bodies back to life.”
https://culinarybackstreets.com/cities-category/tbilisi/2017/khasheria/
What's new is some grassroots Brexiteer Tories are as fed up as Remainers.
https://twitter.com/paulwaugh/status/1535561511929794562
What ends up happening is that he'll end up politicising opposition against him from all sides.
If he can't take the heat then he should just abdicate/resign from the line. His Uncle did and so has his 2nd son (effectively) and no-one would begrudge him for it.
Sweden & Denmark push for Ukraine becoming only a "potential candidate" at June 23-24 EU summit over anti-corruption requirements
https://twitter.com/EuromaidanPress/status/1535346272684605440
It might just be OK on fluffy issues like the environment, tho even there its better not (eg I have no idea if the Queen is Green, my Guess is Yes, but she’s brilliantly inscrutable who knows)
But expressing a view on.a wildly contentious subject like immigration? Grrr
Shut the fuck up, Charles. I hope the government is telling him that in no uncertain terms, and I hope that any government - left or right - would do the same in the future
The immigration debate for many is more emotional than rational... which is why I am persuaded that the sense of feeling in control may be more important than actually having lower numbers...
Payments are made through PAYE.
After a fixed period the amount "owed" disappears.
It's not a debt.
The other problem with the interest rate is that the debt capitalises quite fast. My daughter, who has inherited our dislike of debt, had been voluntarily paying extra but found she was simply stopping the capital from increasing. If you are going to pay it off you really need to do it quickly, not in 5 years time.
However. We've only reached this point because we've had 70 years of a Monarch who didn't express any opinions.
There's no rule to say they can't. Nor any mechanism to stop them spouting off whenever, wherever and whatever they like.
It's a fundamental feature of Monarchy that the Monarch is the Monarch whether anyone likes them or not.
And Monarchists need to consider whether they are content with that.
They wilfully misunderstand this because it gives them an excellent line in pretending that Remainers are "racist" because they "only want white European migration". It's a political attack borne of their own desire to deflect the claims of racism against their side of the argument. It shows that they are stung by such criticism, in part because it's not nice to be accused of racism when you aren't, and in part because they were happy to harness the votes of the minority of racists who were certainly fellow travellers in 2016 and don't want to talk about it.
The accusations about Remainer racism are not really in earnest. They know that we know know that they know it's just a political game, but they carry on anyway because explaining all of the above is a bit too waffly to hit home, even though it's true.
The Remainer racism argument is essentially chaff, meant to remove racism as a talking point from the whole debate by swamping it with poor quality analysis.
However, the real picture is far more complicated: trade falls with the EU have been driven by lower imports, not exports, which is the exact opposite you might expect. It's more of an issue with agri-food exports by British SMEs, and large companies have found a way to deal with it. Professional services firms are looking to other markets.
The point is that fully reversing it wouldn't lead to anything even vaguely transformational in our economic performance. For that, we can blame our government for its poor energy planning, sclerotic approach to decision-making on both de-regulation and investment, and its moronic attempts to tax Britain into prosperity:
"A year on from the end of the Brexit transition period, shifts in goods trade between the UK and EU have surprised most commentators. Trade with the EU has fallen by around 20% compared with that with non-EU countries. But the fall has been driven by lower imports from the EU, with limited evidence that the value of UK exports to the EU has yet been affected by Brexit. This is despite the fact that the UK didn’t impose new customs checks on goods imports from the EU until the start of this year, while UK exporters to the EU have faced these requirements since 1 January 2021.
While the UK’s exports to the EU have not collapsed, they might now be lower than if the UK had stayed in the EU. The reality is that an across-the-board ‘Brexit effect’ on UK-EU trade is not apparent in the latest numbers. That said, there does appear to have been a drag on UK exports in sectors where EU trade barriers are particularly high, such as agri-food. Meanwhile, data on UK services trade also points to a degree of refocusing from EU to non-EU markets."
https://www.ey.com/en_uk/growth/ey-item-club/how-the-uk-economic-recovery-can-overcome-the-current-headwinds
That is precisely what annoys so many people.
There has also been an assumption that the payroll vote was 100% loyal and the backbenchers all voted “bin him”…
Given it is a secret ballot why not professes support and the vote how you want?
King George V was a bit slow but reformed during his reign and became very popular, George VI and QEII were brilliant. Edward VII learned to grow up once Victoria died.
But Edward VIII (David) was a complete prat who would have destroyed the monarchy had he stayed. Other disastrous monarchs include George IV, Charles I and James II.
What's Charles III?
He needs to be exceptional to manage the transition from his mother. I'm not sure he is.
HM uses brilliantly judicious phrases like, "recollections may vary".
Charles would have used the vernacular.
It’s perhaps monarchists who can’t, having no other experience of monarchy other than the current incumbent.
It’s not particularly wise - but where is it written that all monarchs are wise ?
And Remainia has always had higher immigration, so people there generally continue to be unfazed by it.
That’s very broad brushstrokes, an exception that springs to mind is that the city of Wakefield voted Leave and has a lot of immigrants in the city (but outlying areas like where I live are still high-90% White British), but it might be a reason. Plus, as someone else said, the Mail and everyone are laying off it.
Of course, in those days, wandering around unaccompanied was rather discouraged.
A private opinion expressed privately to courtiers or prime ministers, fine. Not “private opinions” which you then magically leak to the media and which you then do not deny. And on immigration??
Shut the F up, Chuck
You can plot on a graph when everyone going to Oxford and Cambridge will be a first. Not many years to go iirc.
The unkind suggest this is connected with student fees. The students are spending massive sums on their courses. The customer gets what the customer needs
I'm not clear about them. Where are they written and what are the sanctions?
Or are they merely conventions?
Oh sorry Charles???
A lesson well learned in life is to know when to stfu.
Charles does not get that level of protection and deference. The interesting question is whether that will continue once he become HM.
And yes there is pressure to give more and more top grades.
No easy answers.
I am sitting on a street full of bars which are frequented at night by people from across Asia. Lebanon, Saudi, Dubai, Pakistan, Mongolia, India, Russia, Belarus, you name it. Tbilisi is perhaps becoming what Beirut was in the 70s. The Asian place where people from more conservative or problematic Asian countries come to party
She just has far better judgement.
He did not do that so that means he wants these opinions out there. It is foolish in the extreme
Gove’s school reforms were a triumph. But little by little they have been undone by Whitehall
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/06/09/tories-descend-chaos-blob-taking-back-control/ (£££)
As against that, many lecturers do no actual lecturing, leaving it to their PhD students, who are not trained.
The other thing that might be worth remembering though is the way students are now remorselessly drilled at schools to game the systems and pass exams. Our education system is pretty rubbish at telling you what somebody's knowledge of a subject is, but it will tell you whether they're good at exams or not. And that's got much worse since Gove's changes to the system.
And finally, it's entirely possible you're correct and the system is geared towards avoiding failure. I well remember I had to justify failing a student. Fortunately that was made easier in one case because he forgot to delete the adverts when copying off the internet. Apparently he was insecure about the size of something.
(I am of an age when 100% of my degree was based on nine 3 hour papers in a week in the heat of summer at the end of the final year, in days when at a top university firsts were rarities.)
We could axe the entire DfE and it's hard to see how things could be worse in education than they are now. And I mean that quite seriously. what I can clearly see is that there is an issue with people creating work for each other to justify their jobs, because they want to hang on to a cushy number.
Which would be less of a problem if they didn't then all start pulling in different directions and putting more pressure on staff in the front line with extra work to prove they were doing something useful.
At the same time, I do take your point. Politicians should be leading by making policy, not Daily Mail headlines, and there is no way we could manage without administrators at all. Whether we have enough of the right ones or they are doing the right things may be a different question.
I wonder if HM George VII will get that deference.
He's going to stick his nose into all sorts when he is king.
What's more alarming is that there are people who genuinely seem to believe this rubbish.