Mr. Fett, an understandable error but I just had a new OS installed on an old one.
I just need to sell more books (my expenses, as it were, are very low). I'm hoping 1-4 short stories I'll have out in the next year or so will help to function as advertisements to attract people to my full-size books. There's also a small chance the second Sir Edric comedy will be bundled with the first as a traditionally published book, which would be splendid.
Edited extra bit: incidentally, thanks for your advice and the sentiment behind it.
No problem - good luck with it all. Fantasy isn't my thing but I am told that the books are very good. I still think it might be worth your investigating whether you can knock something off your utilities bills, at the least.
Ho ho. We all know who is panicking, and it ain't Yes Scotland.
No, you're too utterly complacent to panic.
If you think the Nats are complacent you are hopelessly, scarily wrong. They are the most determined electoral fighting force on these islands.
I think you are misplacing "determined" for noisy and blustering.
Either way this mornings poll indicates that again the majority of Scots are not swayed. NO will win come 18th September.
And to paraphrase .... it's suddenly gone quiet over there ....
It's not wise to underestimate your opponent.
That goes for both sides.
You are the one calling our opponents complacent, not me.
1) I'm calling the likes of Stuart Dickson and MalcG complacent. Intelligent Yes supporters such as Carnyx do not exhibit the same folly. I realise that the 'you' in my reply above made it unclear which 'you' I meant.
2) You are assuming that I am a No'er. Whilst I think it's a shame if Scotland leaves, I also think it would be a shame for Scotland to be kept in if they want to go. My main wish is for us all to remain friends afterwards. And that's why I get annoyed by the attitude of some on here.
No further comment required. I won't even highlight the bit about the Clegg-Farage debate.
"Barely register" is not the same as "not register". The debates coincide with a movement to UKIP in the EU Parliament polling, and a marked boost in Mr Farage's personal numbers (YouGov).
Using an unrounded comparison month over month, NO is essentially unchanged, YES slips 2 points, undecided makes up the difference +3
Basing Indy on oil looks like good fun.
Sheikh Ahmed-Zaki Yamani, the veteran Saudi oil minister, saw the writing on the wall long ago. "Thirty years from now there will be a huge amount of oil - and no buyers. Oil will be left in the ground. The Stone Age came to an end, not because we had a lack of stones, and the oil age will come to an end not because we have a lack of oil," he told The Telegraph in 2000. Wise old owl.
Hope you sell the little cottage soon .... but where do the staff live presently ?
I have no idea where or how the staff manage, Lutterworth does have a Morrison's though - you can see it from the Waitrose car park.
Your staff live away from your estate ?!? .... Shocking .... little wonder they traverse over to Morrison's !!
BTW do your old "winning here placards" come with the house or are they counted as integral antique fixtures and fittings and part of the grade II listing ?
Hmm. Weird log-in mini-issue of late, whereby the main article appears twice. Not a problem really (reloading or clicking to the main site then the specific article resolves it).
Mr. Fett, might I suggest giving the Sir Edric's Temple sample a look? It's fantasy but (hopefully) the sort of thing even those not usually into it might enjoy (one of my beta readers really isn't in fantasy).
Someone has to pay for higher education. At a time when fewer than half the population goes into higher education, it seems appropriate that the cost should be borne at least in part by those that benefit most from that higher education: the students. If they don't in fact benefit particularly from their higher education, perhaps they and we should rethink whether they should be doing it at all in the first place.
Agree to an extent but fees are now too high - they will act as a disincentive to poorer children so need to come down.
Labour wanted 50% of teenagers to go to higher education or further education. Not only did they fail to meet that target, but they had no basis of why that target - and not 40%, or 60% - was the magic number.
It also leads to the utterly fallacious idea that in order to get on, you need a degree. Whilst that is true for some occupations (e.g. law, medicine, architecture), for others it is not. I, for instance, am a pleb who ain't got no degree, yet ah'm doing very well, yes siree.
Fees is just one problem caused by increasing the number of students so massively.
I think the great untold story is the Americanisation of our education system. Everyone goes to university, teaching in modules, devalued A-levels, and so on. It does not help that the implementation was cocked up. Nor that innumerate politicians thought the graduate earnings premium would be unaffected by increasing the number of graduates.
I can see why you do spend time - the DNVs from last time are a sizable chunk and obviously regarded as fertile territory. But if they can't be bothered and they're in a safe seat, that's understandable. If they're can't be bothered and in a marginal, they're genuinely not bothered and probably won't do next time.
I'm in a safe Labour seat and I've never been canvassed but always vote even though it's pointless. I never vote Tory, I'd feel dirty somehow (even though I now many Tory people and they are fine), I can't vote Labour with Ed (son of Brown) in charge and my last vote, LDs are splintered. It will probably be LD or Ukip (if they keep getting insulted for being non-mainstream - I can be perverse at times).
So do you convince many DNVs? Or do they merely indulge in that British tactic of being polite to your face?
Someone has to pay for higher education. At a time when fewer than half the population goes into higher education, it seems appropriate that the cost should be borne at least in part by those that benefit most from that higher education: the students. If they don't in fact benefit particularly from their higher education, perhaps they and we should rethink whether they should be doing it at all in the first place.
It is indeed a fact that Great Britain was Greatest when only the sons of the rich attended university (and there were only two or three of them in England and a handful in Scotland and none in Wales or Ireland). It is at least arguable that allowing university education to the sons of the poor and daughters of anyone led to national decline. Perhaps UKIP could address this.
Someone has to pay for higher education. At a time when fewer than half the population goes into higher education, it seems appropriate that the cost should be borne at least in part by those that benefit most from that higher education: the students. If they don't in fact benefit particularly from their higher education, perhaps they and we should rethink whether they should be doing it at all in the first place.
Your staff live away from your estate ?!? .... Shocking .... little wonder they traverse over to Morrison's !!
BTW do your old "winning here placards" come with the house or are they counted as integral antique fixtures and fittings and part of the grade II listing ?
I may donate them to Lutterworth museum - to sit along side pictures of the first British Jet engine.
Student loans: what a ticking bomb this is. The majority of ordinary middle and working class graduates are going to be enslaved by debt for most of their working lives. God knows how they will be able to afford to have families etc.
...
From boom to bust in under a decade under Gordon and Labour.
Now who do you think should be blamed for condemning our children and grandchildren to a lifetime of 'debt enslavery'?
Once more you have accidentally forgotten the role of the global financial crisis in your rush to blame Labour, and nor have you gone back to the indebtedness of the previous Conservative administration, though what any of this has to do with student loans is unclear.
The global financial crisis did not occur independently of government economic policy and fiscal management.
Between 1998 and 2002, Gordon Brown as Chancellor allowed household debt to rise at an average of 10% per annum. From 2000 to 2006, he allowed the net financing requirement of central government to rise from a surplus of -£14.3 bn to £52.3 billion. And this was both before the global crisis, part cause of it and a major contributor to the severity with which it hit the UK relative to other countries.
And who was responsible for regulation of the financial sector? Who introduced the tripartite regulation by Treasury, FSA and Bank of England, which like the three slips in the Ancient Mariner's cricket team "stoppeth one in three"?
I am not saying that Gordon Brown was alone in mis-managing public and household finances but he was not blameless.
And as to the connection between public finances and student loans, there is a limited supply of credit in any economy. If government maxes out on its credit card then it no longer has the market confidence to enable it to finance all its programmes. The inevitable consequence is that discretionary funding requirements, like university education, have to be shifted away from government to user. The fact that students have to take out loans is a direct consequence of there being "no [government] money (or credit lines) left".
Someone has to pay for higher education. At a time when fewer than half the population goes into higher education, it seems appropriate that the cost should be borne at least in part by those that benefit most from that higher education: the students. If they don't in fact benefit particularly from their higher education, perhaps they and we should rethink whether they should be doing it at all in the first place.
It is indeed a fact that Great Britain was Greatest when only the sons of the rich attended university (and there were only two or three of them in England and a handful in Scotland and none in Wales or Ireland). It is at least arguable that allowing university education to the sons of the poor and daughters of anyone led to national decline. Perhaps UKIP could address this.
The country went downhill when we gave up India and the Empire in general.
We should restore the British Empire, for a safe and secure society which I assure you will last for ten thousand years.
I put myself forward as the next Viceroy of India.
Someone has to pay for higher education. At a time when fewer than half the population goes into higher education, it seems appropriate that the cost should be borne at least in part by those that benefit most from that higher education: the students. If they don't in fact benefit particularly from their higher education, perhaps they and we should rethink whether they should be doing it at all in the first place.
Hard to argue with any of that.
Indeed: Higher Education needs paying for, it's going to come from 'us' collective one way or the other, and it makes sense that those which directly benefit from it pay their fair share for it.
Your staff live away from your estate ?!? .... Shocking .... little wonder they traverse over to Morrison's !!
BTW do your old "winning here placards" come with the house or are they counted as integral antique fixtures and fittings and part of the grade II listing ?
I may donate them to Lutterworth museum - to sit along side pictures of the first British Jet engine.
Very public spirited of you.
However should we now take it that your next estate is unlikely to be fertile "winning here" territory or is it that you are to boost the economy by investing in new devious diamond demonstrations of yellow peril triumphalism ?!?
Student loans: what a ticking bomb this is. The majority of ordinary middle and working class graduates are going to be enslaved by debt for most of their working lives. God knows how they will be able to afford to have families etc.
...
From boom to bust in under a decade under Gordon and Labour.
Now who do you think should be blamed for condemning our children and grandchildren to a lifetime of 'debt enslavery'?
Once more you have accidentally forgotten the role of the global financial crisis in your rush to blame Labour, and nor have you gone back to the indebtedness of the previous Conservative administration, though what any of this has to do with student loans is unclear.
The global financial crisis did not occur independently of government economic policy and fiscal management.
Between 1998 and 2002, Gordon Brown as Chancellor allowed household debt to rise at an average of 10% per annum. From 2000 to 2006, he allowed the net financing requirement of central government to rise from a surplus of -£14.3 bn to £52.3 billion. And this was both before the global crisis, part cause of it and a major contributor to the severity with which it hit the UK relative to other countries.
And who was responsible for regulation of the financial sector? Who introduced the tripartite regulation by Treasury, FSA and Bank of England, which like the three slips in the Ancient Mariner's cricket team "stoppeth one in three"?
I am not saying that Gordon Brown was alone in mis-managing public and household finances but he was not blameless.
And as to the connection between public finances and student loans, there is a limited supply of credit in any economy. If government maxes out on its credit card then it no longer has the market confidence to enable it to finance all its programmes. The inevitable consequence is that discretionary funding requirements, like university education, have to be shifted away from government to user. The fact that students have to take out loans is a direct consequence of there being "no [government] money (or credit lines) left".
What is prudent for a household and what is prudent for a government are not necessarily the same thing. Still, I do like the way you pick and choose your statistics. If OGH ran the site better you and you alone would be permitted to do this...
It is in fact very easy to argue with that because, as a very rich childless man, Antifrank has a gigantic blind spot when it comes to family policy and family subsidies. Basically, he thinks families should be raised at the market rate with no subsidies - so families are only for the rich.
I fundamentally disagree - good parents are important to the economy as they raise the children who will pay the taxes in the next age. I understand that Antifrank doesn't need these people - he will have a gold-plated pension and/or a mortgage free inner London house to cash in. But he is a rare fish with his own private pond - most of us swim in the stream.
Someone has to pay for higher education. At a time when fewer than half the population goes into higher education, it seems appropriate that the cost should be borne at least in part by those that benefit most from that higher education: the students. If they don't in fact benefit particularly from their higher education, perhaps they and we should rethink whether they should be doing it at all in the first place.
Hard to argue with any of that.
Indeed: Higher Education needs paying for, it's going to come from 'us' collective one way or the other, and it makes sense that those which directly benefit from it pay their fair share for it.
What proportion of students came from C2DE parentage before fees came in and what now?
Student loans: what a ticking bomb this is. The majority of ordinary middle and working class graduates are going to be enslaved by debt for most of their working lives. God knows how they will be able to afford to have families etc.
...
From boom to bust in under a decade under Gordon and Labour.
Now who do you think should be blamed for condemning our children and grandchildren to a lifetime of 'debt enslavery'?
Once more you have accidentally forgotten the role of the global financial crisis in your rush to blame Labour, and nor have you gone back to the indebtedness of the previous Conservative administration, though what any of this has to do with student loans is unclear.
The global financial crisis did not occur independently of government economic policy and fiscal management.
Between 1998 and 2002, Gordon Brown as Chancellor allowed household debt to rise at an average of 10% per annum. From 2000 to 2006, he allowed the net financing requirement of central government to rise from a surplus of -£14.3 bn to £52.3 billion. And this was both before the global crisis and part cause of it.
And who was responsible for regulation of the financial sector? Who introduced the tripartite regulation by Treasury, FSA and Bank of England, which like the three slips in the Ancient Mariner's cricket team "stoppeth one in three"?
I am not saying that Gordon Brown was alone in mis-managing public and household finances but he was not blameless.
And as to the connection between public finances and student loans, there is a limited supply of credit in any economy. If government maxes out on its credit card then it no longer has the market confidence to enable it to finance all its programmes. The inevitable consequence is that discretionary funding requirements, like university education, have to be shifted away from government to user. The fact that students have to take out loans is a direct consequence of there being "no money (or credit lines) left".
There are numerous other items of discretionary spend that could be adjusted before we touch uni fees. Overseas aid, quangos, HOC champagne bills ....
It's usually a Conservative principle to protect and encourage future generations. This government is soulless.
Someone has to pay for higher education. At a time when fewer than half the population goes into higher education, it seems appropriate that the cost should be borne at least in part by those that benefit most from that higher education: the students. If they don't in fact benefit particularly from their higher education, perhaps they and we should rethink whether they should be doing it at all in the first place.
It is indeed a fact that Great Britain was Greatest when only the sons of the rich attended university (and there were only two or three of them in England and a handful in Scotland and none in Wales or Ireland). It is at least arguable that allowing university education to the sons of the poor and daughters of anyone led to national decline. Perhaps UKIP could address this.
The country went downhill when we gave up India and the Empire in general.
We should restore the British Empire, for a safe and secure society which I assure you will last for ten thousand years.
I put myself forward as the next Viceroy of India.
Sorry old chap but I've pencilled in the soon to be Viscount Hersham for that role, not least because of his deep and current knowledge of the railways and its clear historical and present day importance to the Indian sub continent.
I can see why you do spend time - the DNVs from last time are a sizable chunk and obviously regarded as fertile territory. But if they can't be bothered and they're in a safe seat, that's understandable. If they're can't be bothered and in a marginal, they're genuinely not bothered and probably won't do next time.
So do you convince many DNVs? Or do they merely indulge in that British tactic of being polite to your face?
There are at least two types of DNV. Regular Labour voters who abstained last time because they thought we were worn out (which had at least a grain of truth in it) but couldn't bear to vote Tory, and people who just don't care about politics and think we all suck. The former are back in large numbers and visiting them does encourage them. The latter still don't care and i spend zero seconds trying to persuade them.
But mainly we canvass to identify potential support and waverers, to concentrate on them on polling day. The Tories don't have the manpower so rely on direct mail - but that depends on ancient canvass data and Experian-type demography to guess what sort of people they're writing to. It's hit and miss (our CP chair got a nice letter from Cameron thanking her for her presumed support, as did our chief CLP fund-raiser), and talking to people is a lot more effective if you have the people to do it.
Someone has to pay for higher education. At a time when fewer than half the population goes into higher education, it seems appropriate that the cost should be borne at least in part by those that benefit most from that higher education: the students. If they don't in fact benefit particularly from their higher education, perhaps they and we should rethink whether they should be doing it at all in the first place.
It is indeed a fact that Great Britain was Greatest when only the sons of the rich attended university (and there were only two or three of them in England and a handful in Scotland and none in Wales or Ireland). It is at least arguable that allowing university education to the sons of the poor and daughters of anyone led to national decline. Perhaps UKIP could address this.
The country went downhill when we gave up India and the Empire in general.
We should restore the British Empire, for a safe and secure society which I assure you will last for ten thousand years.
I put myself forward as the next Viceroy of India.
Sorry old chap but I've pencilled in the soon to be Viscount Hersham for that role, not least because of his deep and current knowledge of the railways and its clear historical and present day importance to the Indian sub continent.
JohnO is never going to live that journey down is he?
I blame the naughty Neil who kept on encouraging JohnO to stay for one more drink, when he wanted to leave at 10pm, he left closer to midnight.
Alanbrooke [9.36am] Whilst my heart agrees with your last word, my head notices that all politicians are facing an electorate with a higher proportion of childless voters - at least amongst white people - than ever. My generation (I'm an OAP on Sunday) dislikes its grandchildren more than any previous one. It's all disguised racism, alas.
I can see why you do spend time - the DNVs from last time are a sizable chunk and obviously regarded as fertile territory. But if they can't be bothered and they're in a safe seat, that's understandable. If they're can't be bothered and in a marginal, they're genuinely not bothered and probably won't do next time.
So do you convince many DNVs? Or do they merely indulge in that British tactic of being polite to your face?
There are at least two types of DNV. Regular Labour voters who abstained last time because they thought we were worn out (which had at least a grain of truth in it) but couldn't bear to vote Tory, and people who just don't care about politics and think we all suck. The former are back in large numbers and visiting them does encourage them. The latter still don't care and i spend zero seconds trying to persuade them.
But mainly we canvass to identify potential support and waverers, to concentrate on them on polling day. The Tories don't have the manpower so rely on direct mail - but that depends on ancient canvass data and Experian-type demography to guess what sort of people they're writing to. It's hit and miss (our CP chair got a nice letter from Cameron thanking her for her presumed support, as did our chief CLP fund-raiser), and talking to people is a lot more effective if you have the people to do it.
If Labour were worn out in 2010, what do you tell them to convince them that Labour is somehow revitalised, fresh and new?
Someone has to pay for higher education. At a time when fewer than half the population goes into higher education, it seems appropriate that the cost should be borne at least in part by those that benefit most from that higher education: the students. If they don't in fact benefit particularly from their higher education, perhaps they and we should rethink whether they should be doing it at all in the first place.
Hard to argue with any of that.
Indeed: Higher Education needs paying for, it's going to come from 'us' collective one way or the other, and it makes sense that those which directly benefit from it pay their fair share for it.
What proportion of students came from C2DE parentage before fees came in and what now?
You could ask the same question of the time before Labour shut down Grammar Schools - family background and wealth is not really relevant unless the family discourage/prevent a youngster from studying and achieving their ambitions.
The OECD report, on continuously failing Welsh Education under Labour, shows how years of lack of ambition, false exam grades and poor teaching standards, and even inverse snobbery at home and at school work against the ambitious child from an under -educated family.
It is in fact very easy to argue with that because, as a very rich childless man, Antifrank has a gigantic blind spot when it comes to family policy and family subsidies. Basically, he thinks families should be raised at the market rate with no subsidies - so families are only for the rich.
I fundamentally disagree - good parents are important to the economy as they raise the children who will pay the taxes in the next age. I understand that Antifrank doesn't need these people - he will have a gold-plated pension and/or a mortgage free inner London house to cash in. But he is a rare fish with his own private po most of us swim in the stream.
I'm resigned to the fact that posters on here decide that my personal circumstances are in some way relevant to any political topic they choose to raise. But I'd prefer that you didn't put words in my mouth, especially words that I completely disagree with.
I certainly don't think that families should be raised at the market rate with no subsidies. I don't even think that those going through higher education should get no subsidies. Even at current tuition fee rates, students are substantially subsidised.
What I do take issue with is disguised subsidies to the middle classes which are essentially at the expense of those that really need them. The middle classes are shameless in squawking on the rare occasions that their interests are scrutinised. That doesn't mean that they should remain featherbedded.
If we really wanted to help young people from lower income backgrounds, we would make it easier for those in deprived areas to move to areas with more jobs (and provide incentives for them to do so), and offer employers greater subsidies to help address youth unemployment - getting young people into the habit of working is the single best way of breaking the cycle of worklessness.
It is in fact very easy to argue with that because, as a very rich childless man, Antifrank has a gigantic blind spot when it comes to family policy and family subsidies. Basically, he thinks families should be raised at the market rate with no subsidies - so families are only for the rich.
I fundamentally disagree - good parents are important to the economy as they raise the children who will pay the taxes in the next age. I understand that Antifrank doesn't need these people - he will have a gold-plated pension and/or a mortgage free inner London house to cash in. But he is a rare fish with his own private po most of us swim in the stream.
I'm resigned to the fact that posters on here decide that my personal circumstances are in some way relevant to any political topic they choose to raise. But I'd prefer that you didn't put words in my mouth, especially words that I completely disagree with.
I certainly don't think that families should be raised at the market rate with no subsidies. I don't even think that those going through higher education should get no subsidies. Even at current tuition fee rates, students are substantially subsidised.
What I do take issue with is disguised subsidies to the middle classes which are essentially at the expense of those that really need them. The middle classes are shameless in squawking on the rare occasions that their interests are scrutinised. That doesn't mean that they should remain featherbedded.
If we really wanted to help young people from lower income backgrounds, we would make it easier for those in deprived areas to move to areas with more jobs (and provide incentives for them to do so), and offer employers greater subsidies to help address youth unemployment - getting young people into the habit of working is the single best way of breaking the cycle of worklessness.
Labour wanted 50% of teenagers to go to higher education or further education. Not only did they fail to meet that target, but they had no basis of why that target - and not 40%, or 60% - was the magic number.
It also leads to the utterly fallacious idea that in order to get on, you need a degree. Whilst that is true for some occupations (e.g. law, medicine, architecture), for others it is not. I, for instance, am a pleb who ain't got no degree, yet ah'm doing very well, yes siree.
Fees is just one problem caused by increasing the number of students so massively.
Yet governments need to plan for the future shape of the economy, not how it worked for people of your generation. The reality is that global competition is a lot stronger than it was 20 years ago. And one of the main things that multinationals look at when they're placing a new site is the talent level of the local labour force. This was a huge part of Ireland's success during the original Celtic Tiger period. There is still a huge income premium associated with getting a degree from a good university. And the competition is going to get even greater as we compete not just with the labour pools of other country, but also against machines, with automation expected to replace more than 50% of jobs. The bulk of the ones that survive will be the ones which require creative thinking and problem solving that computers can't do, and generally this is the sort of stuff that universities teach better than anyone else.
The 50% is not a magic number, it's just an ambitious target to drive up higher education. The problem has come in in that, to meet this number, we have expanded university education via adding courses of lower quality than previously existed. This is what needs to now be focused on: making sure universities teach the precise skills and knowledge needed for the business world of 2050.
The other main argument against high levels of higher education is the elitist one that the majority of British people aren't capable of studying at that level. While this might be true, that's just an indictment of pre-university child development, particularly for those on lower incomes. If you go to wealthy towns in the home counties the vast majority of kids go on to decent university places, so there's no reason while the potential isn't there for the rest of the country. It's just that, elsewhere, both schools and parenting tend to be extremely variable.
Someone has to pay for higher education. At a time when fewer than half the population goes into higher education, it seems appropriate that the cost should be borne at least in part by those that benefit most from that higher education: the students. If they don't in fact benefit particularly from their higher education, perhaps they and we should rethink whether they should be doing it at all in the first place.
It is indeed a fact that Great Britain was Greatest when only the sons of the rich attended university (and there were only two or three of them in England and a handful in Scotland and none in Wales or Ireland). It is at least arguable that allowing university education to the sons of the poor and daughters of anyone led to national decline. Perhaps UKIP could address this.
The country went downhill when we gave up India and the Empire in general.
We should restore the British Empire, for a safe and secure society which I assure you will last for ten thousand years.
I put myself forward as the next Viceroy of India.
Sorry old chap but I've pencilled in the soon to be Viscount Hersham for that role, not least because of his deep and current knowledge of the railways and its clear historical and present day importance to the Indian sub continent.
JohnO is never going to live that journey down is he?
I blame the naughty Neil who kept on encouraging JohnO to stay for one more drink, when he wanted to leave at 10pm, he left closer to midnight.
Live it down ???
I think JohnO should have a TV series devoted to "Unexpected Railway Journeys" - somewhat like Michael Portillo's show but with gravitas, humour and serendipity.
Someone has to pay for higher education. At a time when fewer than half the population goes into higher education, it seems appropriate that the cost should be borne at least in part by those that benefit most from that higher education: the students. If they don't in fact benefit particularly from their higher education, perhaps they and we should rethink whether they should be doing it at all in the first place.
Hard to argue with any of that.
Indeed: Higher Education needs paying for, it's going to come from 'us' collective one way or the other, and it makes sense that those which directly benefit from it pay their fair share for it.
What proportion of students came from C2DE parentage before fees came in and what now?
You could ask the same question of the time before Labour shut down Grammar Schools - family background and wealth is not really relevant unless the family discourage/prevent a youngster from studying and achieving their ambitions.
The OECD report, on continuously failing Welsh Education under Labour, shows how years of lack of ambition, false exam grades and poor teaching standards, and even inverse snobbery at home and at school work against the ambitious child from an under -educated family.
I note no-one has answered my question. I wonder why...
Someone has to pay for higher education. At a time when fewer than half the population goes into higher education, it seems appropriate that the cost should be borne at least in part by those that benefit most from that higher education: the students. If they don't in fact benefit particularly from their higher education, perhaps they and we should rethink whether they should be doing it at all in the first place.
Hard to argue with any of that.
Indeed: Higher Education needs paying for, it's going to come from 'us' collective one way or the other, and it makes sense that those which directly benefit from it pay their fair share for it.
What proportion of students came from C2DE parentage before fees came in and what now?
You could ask the same question of the time before Labour shut down Grammar Schools - family background and wealth is not really relevant unless the family discourage/prevent a youngster from studying and achieving their ambitions.
The OECD report, on continuously failing Welsh Education under Labour, shows how years of lack of ambition, false exam grades and poor teaching standards, and even inverse snobbery at home and at school work against the ambitious child from an under -educated family.
I note no-one has answered my question. I wonder why...
Largely because you could do the research for yourself. If, once you have done so, you have a point to make, make it. Preferably without gratuitously traducing other posters.
It is in fact very easy to argue with that because, as a very rich childless man, Antifrank has a gigantic blind spot when it comes to family policy and family subsidies. Basically, he thinks families should be raised at the market rate with no subsidies - so families are only for the rich.
I fundamentally disagree - good parents are important to the economy as they raise the children who will pay the taxes in the next age. I understand that Antifrank doesn't need these people - he will have a gold-plated pension and/or a mortgage free inner London house to cash in. But he is a rare fish with his own private po most of us swim in the stream.
I'm resigned to the fact that posters on here decide that my personal circumstances are in some way relevant to any political topic they choose to raise. But I'd prefer that you didn't put words in my mouth, especially words that I completely disagree with.
I certainly don't think that families should be raised at the market rate with no subsidies. I don't even think that those going through higher education should get no subsidies. Even at current tuition fee rates, students are substantially subsidised.
What I do take issue with is disguised subsidies to the middle classes which are essentially at the expense of those that really need them. The middle classes are shameless in squawking on the rare occasions that their interests are scrutinised. That doesn't mean that they should remain featherbedded.
If we really wanted to help young people from lower income backgrounds, we would make it easier for those in deprived areas to move to areas with more jobs (and provide incentives for them to do so), and offer employers greater subsidies to help address youth unemployment - getting young people into the habit of working is the single best way of breaking the cycle of worklessness.
Define middle class.
The former upper class who have just endured a period of Labour economic policy.
I seem to be restored to Diplomacy, no cheating, just caused some confusion when my son set up an account and joined another game. This gave the impression of multiple identities, but not in the PB games.
Surely 'cheating' in diplomacy is a contradiction in terms?
Student loans: what a ticking bomb this is. The majority of ordinary middle and working class graduates are going to be enslaved by debt for most of their working lives. God knows how they will be able to afford to have families etc.
Enslaved by debt which only has to be paid if you're on a good salary, where payments are capped at a certain share of your income, and get written off if you haven't paid them back at a certain point? The cost of a degree is also less than the wage premium you get for getting one, so I'm struggling to see your point.
The main problem for the new system is that the write-offs are perhaps too generous, and could be a cost for the government.
"Scots and English are the same people, with different accents. Why pretend otherwise? Why are unionists so scared to talk about what unites us? 5 CommentsChris Deerin 12 April 2014"
I think the great untold story is the Americanisation of our education system. Everyone goes to university, teaching in modules, devalued A-levels, and so on. It does not help that the implementation was cocked up. Nor that innumerate politicians thought the graduate earnings premium would be unaffected by increasing the number of graduates.
I have seen some terrible graduates In my industry (software engineering) over the last twenty years. In fact, the best software engineer IME are people who've graduated in subjects like physics and maths, with a second string of biology and, strangely, geography. Software engineering graduates are some way down the list.
Some examples: *) People not being able to describe their final-year projects, completed a matter of months before. One did not even know what his project had been. *) A guy who could not explain what a compiler was, even at a high level. *) *Two* guys (well, a guy and a girl) who could not create a simple linked-list, even conceptually on a white board. *) Someone who could not describe even basic software development methodology (e.g. waterfall) *) A guy who could not add up in binary. And no, it was not nerves.
And so on.
Their CV's all had the right buzz words, and they had done the 'right' sort of modules. None of these people had been served well by their degree course.
One of the hardest things I ever had to do was try to pick which graduates to interview from CVs. Which is something to tell all our kids: when it comes to being more noticeable than your competitors at graduate level, work experience matters.
O/T - I've taken advantage of Bet365's relegation treble of Cardiff, Sunderland and Norwich at 10/3
Other bookies are offering less than 2/1
I think after their Fulham game, Norwich are doomed, they played Liverpool, Man United, Chelsea and Arsenal.
Luis Suarez has alone scored something like 279 goals in 5 matches against Norwich (Okay, it's something like 11 in 5 matches, including 2 hat-tricks and one 4 goal match)
Ho ho. We all know who is panicking, and it ain't Yes Scotland.
No, you're too utterly complacent to panic.
If you think the Nats are complacent you are hopelessly, scarily wrong. They are the most determined electoral fighting force on these islands.
I think you are misplacing "determined" for noisy and blustering.
Either way this mornings poll indicates that again the majority of Scots are not swayed. NO will win come 18th September.
And to paraphrase .... it's suddenly gone quiet over there ....
It's not wise to underestimate your opponent.
That goes for both sides.
You are the one calling our opponents complacent, not me.
1) I'm calling the likes of Stuart Dickson and MalcG complacent. Intelligent Yes supporters such as Carnyx do not exhibit the same folly. I realise that the 'you' in my reply above made it unclear which 'you' I meant.
2) You are assuming that I am a No'er. Whilst I think it's a shame if Scotland leaves, I also think it would be a shame for Scotland to be kept in if they want to go. My main wish is for us all to remain friends afterwards. And that's why I get annoyed by the attitude of some on here.
In what way am I compacent? I think that there is a good chance that NO could win this. I and my colleagues will be fighting every inch of the road to 10 pm on the 18th of September. We will not relax until the polling stations close.
Antifrank [9.46am] All of us are the same boat, old bean. And, for example, in a discussion about housing our personal circumstances do have a degree of relevance. More generally, those who feel abused can always leave the site.
But what is fair? Was it fair of me to go through university on an industrial scholarship which didn't increase my income but certainly did my father's? Was it fair of him to complain that I had it too easy - he'd had to get his degree at night school? Was it fair of his mother to complain of him adopting me (and my sister) because she knew that such babies were the spawn of the devil? (It did at least get him to buy her a house before he bought one for his own family?)
This is a political website and activists and partisans behave like my granny - they care far more for effectiveness than they do for fairness. For example, the subtext of Nick Palmer's recent post is: "the Tories waste their own money - why trust them with yours?"
Might I implore OGH to send out a search party forthwith to determine the location of YES PBers who have inexplicably gone AWOL after the publication of the latest Survation poll.
Whilst a period of justified quiet from them is welcome, indeed necessary from time to time, surely we must be cognisant that these delicate flowers require the company of other deluded plants to maintain the illusion that the YES campaign is week by week sailing seamlessly on to victory.
O/T - I've taken advantage of Bet365's relegation treble of Cardiff, Sunderland and Norwich at 10/3
Other bookies are offering less than 2/1
I think after their Fulham game, Norwich are doomed, they played Liverpool, Man United, Chelsea and Arsenal.
Luis Suarez has alone scored something like 279 goals in 5 matches against Norwich (Okay, it's something like 11 in 5 matches, including 2 hat-tricks and one 4 goal match)
One of the hardest things I ever had to do was try to pick which graduates to interview from CVs. Which is something to tell all our kids: when it comes to being more noticeable than your competitors at graduate level, work experience matters.
I'm glad I'm no longer doing that sort of thing.
Indeed. But the problem with this is that kids from poorer backgrounds can't afford to offer themselves for free to employers during their summer holidays, as they often have to work in more basic jobs that actually pay a wage to get themselves through university. In addition, they don't have the family connections to get places at the best companies. This is why Nick Clegg was absolutely right to complain about work experience practices and why David Cameron, once again, was completely oblivious to the real world, preferring to live in a "of course I help my mates" mentality.
I also agree with your points about courses like software engineering. It's important to recognise, however, that it's because these courses are generally new, and thus of lower quality compared to more established courses. There's nothing inherently wrong with doing software engineering over physics - in fact, if you could make them of similar quality, it would probably be better to have more people doing the former.
Yet governments need to plan for the future shape of the economy, not how it worked for people of your generation. The reality is that global competition is a lot stronger than it was 20 years ago. And one of the main things that multinationals look at when they're placing a new site is the talent level of the local labour force. This was a huge part of Ireland's success during the original Celtic Tiger period. There is still a huge income premium associated with getting a degree from a good university. And the competition is going to get even greater as we compete not just with the labour pools of other country, but also against machines, with automation expected to replace more than 50% of jobs. The bulk of the ones that survive will be the ones which require creative thinking and problem solving that computers can't do, and generally this is the sort of stuff that universities teach better than anyone else.
The 50% is not a magic number, it's just an ambitious target to drive up higher education. The problem has come in in that, to meet this number, we have expanded university education via adding courses of lower quality than previously existed. This is what needs to now be focused on: making sure universities teach the precise skills and knowledge needed for the business world of 2050.
(sadly snipped for length)
Very good points. The number of 'good' universities is well below the number of universities; a useless degree from a useless university or college does no-one any good (you can have useless degree from good unis, and good degrees from otherwise useless unis).
I'm also unsure that universities on the whole teach creative thinking and problem solving. Then again, it's not my industry.
Where I really agree is that we need a skilled workforce; however, that means technical colleges as well as universities. But the problem is that qualifications from institutions other than universities are seen as being distinctly second class.
Take my nephew, who is 16. He is doing A-levels, but his talents lie more in the practical than the rigorously academic. When he is 18 he will probably go to a technical college and come out very skilled - he is already. Yet he will always be looked down on by those who have 'degrees'.
Also, not everyone is suited for FE. We need to ensure schools give these people the skills they need, and not forget about them. But that's probably so obvious it doesn't need saying.
Might I implore OGH to send out a search party forthwith to determine the location of YES PBers who have inexplicably gone AWOL after the publication of the latest Survation poll.
Whilst a period of justified quiet from them is welcome, indeed necessary from time to time, surely we must be cognisant that these delicate flowers require the company of other deluded plants to maintain the illusion that the YES campaign is week by week sailing seamlessly on to victory.
MoE stuff Jack. Yes -2 and No -1.
- "It would leave a referendum result of 56 per cent No to 44 per cent Yes if the undecideds were stripped out."
Since the principal contest at the 2015GE will be between Labour and Conservative candidates one needs to double the proportion of Labour voters who were formerly Conservative voters to properly compare their impact to that of the 2010 Lib Dems.
This is because these swing voters count twice in the electoral arithmetic, being a vote lost fro the Conservatives and a vote gained by Labour at the same time.
Thus, with your figures from Populus, one should not compare 18.1 with 4.9 (about 3.7 times as large), but 18.1 with 9.8 (about 1.85 times as large). I'd argue that the direct switchers from the Conservatives make up an important part of Miliband's electoral coalition at present.
As I have shown previously with figures from ICM, there have been times in this Parliament when the swing voters between the Conservatives and Labour have been more important for creating the Labour lead than the Lib Dem to Labour swing voters - it's just that Miliband has currently lost some of these back to the Tories.
Thus you are completely wrong to say that there hasn't been much movement between Con & Lab - it's still where most of the electoral action is.
"Scots and English are the same people, with different accents. Why pretend otherwise? Why are unionists so scared to talk about what unites us? 5 CommentsChris Deerin 12 April 2014"
Unionist cites piece by Unionist explaining why the Union is attractive to Unionists. Not that interesting.
'Irish and English are the same people, with different accents.'
Where I really agree is that we need a skilled workforce; however, that means technical colleges as well as universities. But the problem is that qualifications from institutions other than universities are seen as being distinctly second class.
Take my nephew, who is 16. He is doing A-levels, but his talents lie more in the practical than the rigorously academic. When he is 18 he will probably go to a technical college and come out very skilled - he is already. Yet he will always be looked down on by those who have 'degrees'.
Also, not everyone is suited for FE. We need to ensure schools give these people the skills they need, and not forget about them. But that's probably so obvious it doesn't need saying.
Whether places are called "universities" or "technical colleges" is ultimately a matter of semantics. I certainly agree that we need a lot more vocational elements to our further education. But where I would worry is when we get this mentality that we need to be happy with people just training in the basic vocational jobs we think of that worked a few decades ago. Take being a car mechanic, for instance. That worked fine in the past, but in the future cars will likely be driven by computers and run on a variety of power trains with complicated battery technology. Thus the mechanics of the future will have to know a lot about electronic engineering and chemical engineering, which will almost certainly take high quality classroom experience.
The fact that the Lib Dems, who came in 2nd place in 2010, are priced as long as 66/1 indicates how they are likely to perform in seats they do not already hold. I can imagine that their list of 2nd places will be much, much shorter in 2015.
"Scots and English are the same people, with different accents. Why pretend otherwise? Why are unionists so scared to talk about what unites us? 5 CommentsChris Deerin 12 April 2014"
Unionist cites piece by Unionist explaining why the Union is attractive to Unionists. Not that interesting.
'Irish and English are the same people, with different accents.'
Discuss.
England cricket selectors have thought so for quite some time.
Whilst some of the value has gone from the Indy turnout market my McARSE is determinedly forthright in the higher echelons turnout model - presently projected at 79%, where there is still to be made a very decent return for under a six month tie up.
"...making sure universities teach the precise skills and knowledge needed for the business world of 2050. "
Might I respectfully suggest that universities which teach skills required by businesses are not in fact doing the job of a university, a polytechnics or a further education college possibly, but not a university.
Secondly, universities seldom have the staff with the knowledge or experience to understand what specific skills are required by businesses and in any case in some areas those skills change so frequently it will be impossible for a uni course to keep up (Mr. Jessop's field of software engineering is a classic example of changing requirements and methodologies).
"Scots and English are the same people, with different accents. Why pretend otherwise? Why are unionists so scared to talk about what unites us? 5 CommentsChris Deerin 12 April 2014"
Unionist cites piece by Unionist explaining why the Union is attractive to Unionists. Not that interesting.
'Irish and English are the same people, with different accents.'
Might I implore OGH to send out a search party forthwith to determine the location of YES PBers who have inexplicably gone AWOL after the publication of the latest Survation poll.
Whilst a period of justified quiet from them is welcome, indeed necessary from time to time, surely we must be cognisant that these delicate flowers require the company of other deluded plants to maintain the illusion that the YES campaign is week by week sailing seamlessly on to victory.
MoE stuff Jack. Yes -2 and No -1.
- "It would leave a referendum result of 56 per cent No to 44 per cent Yes if the undecideds were stripped out."
"Scots and English are the same people, with different accents. Why pretend otherwise? Why are unionists so scared to talk about what unites us? 5 CommentsChris Deerin 12 April 2014"
Unionist cites piece by Unionist explaining why the Union is attractive to Unionists. Not that interesting.
'Irish and English are the same people, with different accents.'
Discuss.
England cricket selectors have thought so for quite some time.
The internationalist outlook of English cricket selectors is a heartwarming thing.
"Scots and English are the same people, with different accents. Why pretend otherwise? Why are unionists so scared to talk about what unites us? 5 CommentsChris Deerin 12 April 2014"
Unionist cites piece by Unionist explaining why the Union is attractive to Unionists. Not that interesting.
'Irish and English are the same people, with different accents.'
Discuss.
Indeed.
It is always fascinating to see what Unionists think is a good angle. They invariably go for things that appeal to their core voters. They haven't got a clue what kind of things appeal to the vast numbers of undecided and wavering voters who will decide the outcome of this referendum. In fact, they don't even seem to know who this key group of voters are. The Scottish electorate and its voting behaviour is a total mystery to them.
"Scots and English are the same people, with different accents. Why pretend otherwise? Why are unionists so scared to talk about what unites us? 5 CommentsChris Deerin 12 April 2014"
Unionist cites piece by Unionist explaining why the Union is attractive to Unionists. Not that interesting.
'Irish and English are the same people, with different accents.'
Discuss.
I would welcome the ROI back into the fold anytime.
"Scots and English are the same people, with different accents. Why pretend otherwise? Why are unionists so scared to talk about what unites us? 5 CommentsChris Deerin 12 April 2014"
Unionist cites piece by Unionist explaining why the Union is attractive to Unionists. Not that interesting.
'Irish and English are the same people, with different accents.'
Discuss.
England cricket selectors have thought so for quite some time.
The internationalist outlook of English cricket selectors is a heartwarming thing.
It should be a source of great national pride for Scots everywhere, that the England captain that annoyed the Aussies the most, was a Scotsman*
I also agree with your points about courses like software engineering. It's important to recognise, however, that it's because these courses are generally new, and thus of lower quality compared to more established courses. There's nothing inherently wrong with doing software engineering over physics - in fact, if you could make them of similar quality, it would probably be better to have more people doing the former.
To my knowledge, no firm I have ever worked for has offered unpaid work experience (aside from the day-long get-to-see-the-industry ones). Whether year-long or just summer, they get good rates. One firm even paid accommodation expenses on top. (*)
One problem was that such places sometimes went to children of staff members. Leaving that aside, we sometimes had problems finding people wanting placements even on those terms. They were small (50-500) people companies, in a non-sexy part of the industry - consumer electronics. If we'd been a games company we'd have been overrun.
I think the problem with software engineering is that it is a vast subject, and even the fundamentals are very widespread. How deep down do you go into data algorithms? Do you teach low-level coding, or high level? Do you concentrate just on programming, or the larger software development process? Which languages? Java? C? Modula 2? Assembler? How about web design?
Skimming over any of these can leave fundamental gaps in their knowledge, yet covering everything is rather unlikely for all but the brightest students.
A firm I know has done a deal with a Eastern European university, and that uni has tailored its degree course towards that firm's requirement. The firm has also started a spin-off company in that country to employ those graduates. The firm tried to do this in the UK, and the universities either refused, or wanted a vast payment.
From the uni's point of view, by tying themselves up with a company in the industry, they are teaching their students exactly what the industry needs. The firm gets students with the right skills, which UK unis are not churning out.
(*) There was a funny story where, near the end of a summer placement, a student was found sleeping under his desk two days before he was due to leave. He'd mucked up the dates with the bedsit he'd been renting and, instead of telling anyone, had moved into the office. He was found on the first night by the security guard. Oh, how we laughed ...
Whilst some of the value has gone from the Indy turnout market my McARSE is determinedly forthright in the higher echelons turnout model - presently projected at 79%, where there is still to be made a very decent return for under a six month tie up.
"Scots and English are the same people, with different accents. Why pretend otherwise? Why are unionists so scared to talk about what unites us? 5 CommentsChris Deerin 12 April 2014"
Unionist cites piece by Unionist explaining why the Union is attractive to Unionists. Not that interesting.
'Irish and English are the same people, with different accents.'
Strangely we're just getting into the season where groups of Union flag waving folk march through the streets labouring under the delusion that some of their countrymen are different (and inferior) people.
"...making sure universities teach the precise skills and knowledge needed for the business world of 2050. "
Might I respectfully suggest that universities which teach skills required by businesses are not in fact doing the job of a university, a polytechnics or a further education college possibly, but not a university.
Secondly, universities seldom have the staff with the knowledge or experience to understand what specific skills are required by businesses and in any case in some areas those skills change so frequently it will be impossible for a uni course to keep up (Mr. Jessop's field of software engineering is a classic example of changing requirements and methodologies).
A strong performance in the 3Rs and a culture of hard work and grit at school will be all that is needed for further education and the workplace.
Antifrank [9.46am] This is a political website and activists and partisans behave like my granny - they care far more for effectiveness than they do for fairness. For example, the subtext of Nick Palmer's recent post is: "the Tories waste their own money - why trust them with yours?"
My messages aren't devoid of subtexts, but I hadn't thought of that one! TBF I think it's an inherent problem of direct mail, especially with dated voter ID - I'm sure I've sent stuff to people in the past who chucked it in the bin with a merry laugh. Given their local shortage of able-bodied volunteers and plentiful supply of cash, the Tory strategy is the best available to them, but it's just not very good. Phone canvassing also works up to a point for cash-rich parties, but the shift to frequently-changing mobiles is making that harder than it used to be.
Where I really agree is that we need a skilled workforce; however, that means technical colleges as well as universities. But the problem is that qualifications from institutions other than universities are seen as being distinctly second class.
Take my nephew, who is 16. He is doing A-levels, but his talents lie more in the practical than the rigorously academic. When he is 18 he will probably go to a technical college and come out very skilled - he is already. Yet he will always be looked down on by those who have 'degrees'.
Also, not everyone is suited for FE. We need to ensure schools give these people the skills they need, and not forget about them. But that's probably so obvious it doesn't need saying.
Whether places are called "universities" or "technical colleges" is ultimately a matter of semantics. I certainly agree that we need a lot more vocational elements to our further education. But where I would worry is when we get this mentality that we need to be happy with people just training in the basic vocational jobs we think of that worked a few decades ago. Take being a car mechanic, for instance. That worked fine in the past, but in the future cars will likely be driven by computers and run on a variety of power trains with complicated battery technology. Thus the mechanics of the future will have to know a lot about electronic engineering and chemical engineering, which will almost certainly take high quality classroom experience.
I partly agree, but the mechanics example is a poor one. They will not need to know electronic or chemical engineering, because the car's systems will be massively complex, and the risks of doing so large. They will need to be able to connect diagnostic computers and swap out black boxes, along with the traditional oil changes are the like. They will also need to use car-tuning software and the like. But I very much doubt they'll be getting out their chemistry set.
This is probably why HurstLlama had such trouble getting the problems with the car he was borrowing fixed, as he mentioned the other day.
Antifrank [9.46am] All of us are the same boat, old bean. And, for example, in a discussion about housing our personal circumstances do have a degree of relevance. More generally, those who feel abused can always leave the site.
But what is fair? Was it fair of me to go through university on an industrial scholarship which didn't increase my income but certainly did my father's? Was it fair of him to complain that I had it too easy - he'd had to get his degree at night school? Was it fair of his mother to complain of him adopting me (and my sister) because she knew that such babies were the spawn of the devil? (It did at least get him to buy her a house before he bought one for his own family?)
This is a political website and activists and partisans behave like my granny - they care far more for effectiveness than they do for fairness. For example, the subtext of Nick Palmer's recent post is: "the Tories waste their own money - why trust them with yours?"
Oh I don't care particularly about that kind of ad hominem. It's a bit pointless really - I'm just an anonymous bloke off the internet, so it's hardly as if checking my privilege is going to transform the argument about who should pay tuitiion fees.
I got more irritated when Nick Palmer likened me to a BNP supporter for no better reason than the fact that he doesn't like my argument. The more so because when I justified my views, he had no further response to make.
"Scots and English are the same people, with different accents. Why pretend otherwise? Why are unionists so scared to talk about what unites us? 5 CommentsChris Deerin 12 April 2014"
Unionist cites piece by Unionist explaining why the Union is attractive to Unionists. Not that interesting.
'Irish and English are the same people, with different accents.'
Discuss.
England cricket selectors have thought so for quite some time.
The internationalist outlook of English cricket selectors is a heartwarming thing.
It should be a source of great national pride for Scots everywhere, that the England captain that annoyed the Aussies the most, was a Scotsman*
*Well a Scotsman born in Bombay.
The ROI football team - have been more than happy to field English and Scots - they paved the way for the England cricket team.
"Scots and English are the same people, with different accents. Why pretend otherwise? Why are unionists so scared to talk about what unites us? 5 CommentsChris Deerin 12 April 2014"
Unionist cites piece by Unionist explaining why the Union is attractive to Unionists. Not that interesting.
'Irish and English are the same people, with different accents.'
Strangely we're just getting into the season where groups of Union flag waving folk march through the streets labouring under the delusion that some of their countrymen are different (and inferior) people.
It's strange that you denigrate flag wavers since you worship the most prominent vulgariser and political exploiter of the St Andrew's cross.
"Scots and English are the same people, with different accents. Why pretend otherwise? Why are unionists so scared to talk about what unites us? 5 CommentsChris Deerin 12 April 2014"
Unionist cites piece by Unionist explaining why the Union is attractive to Unionists. Not that interesting.
'Irish and English are the same people, with different accents.'
Strangely we're just getting into the season where groups of flag waving folk march through the streets labouring under the delusion that some of their countrymen are different (and inferior) people.
"Following efforts to encourage more people to ‘tick the Irish box,’ supported by a number of Irish groups in Scotland, an increase of nearly 5000 people with Irish ethnicity was recorded in 2011 compared with the 2001 figure. Today, 54,090 people, or 1 per cent of the population of Scotland, identify as having Irish ethnic identity"
I also agree with your points about courses like software engineering. It's important to recognise, however, that it's because these courses are generally new, and thus of lower quality compared to more established courses. There's nothing inherently wrong with doing software engineering over physics - in fact, if you could make them of similar quality, it would probably be better to have more people doing the former.
(snip ..)
I think the problem with software engineering is that it is a vast subject, and even the fundamentals are very widespread. How deep down do you go into data algorithms? Do you teach low-level coding, or high level? Do you concentrate just on programming, or the larger software development process? Which languages? Java? C? Modula 2? Assembler? How about web design?
Skimming over any of these can leave fundamental gaps in their knowledge, yet covering everything is rather unlikely for all but the brightest students.
A firm I know has done a deal with a Eastern European university, and that uni has tailored its degree course towards that firm's requirement. The firm has also started a spin-off company in that country to employ those graduates. The firm tried to do this in the UK, and the universities either refused, or wanted a vast payment.
From the uni's point of view, by tying themselves up with a company in the industry, they are teaching their students exactly what the industry needs. The firm gets students with the right skills, which UK unis are not churning out.
(snip...) ...
JJ, the problem is that most (if not all) fresher Software Eng/Comp Sci students have very little idea what part of the industry they want to work in and only really get a view of work at the actual code-face (as opposed to the academic world) when they take their first job. Almost by necessity (the company/uni tie in an exception), SoftEng/CompSci courses need to be a broad brush. This isn't really a problem so long as companies who take on graduates have good graduate programmes/mentoring.
I look back at how I was when I graduated to the sort of work I'm now doing almost 20 years later and blush.
That said, personally I would ensure all courses teach C/C++ and drill home the importance of good memory management. Kids are too lazy these days and expect garbage collection! Mummy, what does Null Pointer mean?
Whilst some of the value has gone from the Indy turnout market my McARSE is determinedly forthright in the higher echelons turnout model - presently projected at 79%, where there is still to be made a very decent return for under a six month tie up.
Agreed. And that should terrify Unionists.
Quite the reverse IMHO.
The McARSE projection factors in a turnout model that over 75% favours a NO vote by 2:1 points
Whilst some of the value has gone from the Indy turnout market my McARSE is determinedly forthright in the higher echelons turnout model - presently projected at 79%, where there is still to be made a very decent return for under a six month tie up.
Agreed. And that should terrify Unionists.
Quite the reverse IMHO.
The McARSE projection factors in a turnout model that over 75% favours a NO vote by 2:1 points
Student loans: what a ticking bomb this is. The majority of ordinary middle and working class graduates are going to be enslaved by debt for most of their working lives. God knows how they will be able to afford to have families etc.
Repayments look very manageable:
"You only make repayments when your income is over £21,000 a year. … Each month you pay back 9% of any income over £21,000."
I can remember having a conversation with a mate in about 2003. It was when we were in what felt like a recession, in terms of the climate at work, and this prompted a conversation about house prices. My mate's hypothesis, which I tended to agree with intellectually, was that the effect of sending CSE candidates to university and hanging a loan round their neck would be bearish for house prices over the next 10 years. FTBs coming through would be so festooned with debt from degrees that did not augment their earning skint that they'd be unable to buy FT homeowners' homes off them.
Observationally it would appear that he was right about the near extinction of the UK FTB. But of course he had not appreciated in 2003 what was going to be the true driver of London (hence roUK) house prices over the next 10 years.
The question is whether the ticking time bomb has gone off with a trivial phut or whether it is still ticking.
"Scots and English are the same people, with different accents. Why pretend otherwise? Why are unionists so scared to talk about what unites us? 5 CommentsChris Deerin 12 April 2014"
Unionist cites piece by Unionist explaining why the Union is attractive to Unionists. Not that interesting.
'Irish and English are the same people, with different accents.'
Strangely we're just getting into the season where groups of Union flag waving folk march through the streets labouring under the delusion that some of their countrymen are different (and inferior) people.
It's strange that you denigrate flag wavers since you worship the most prominent vulgariser and political exploiter of the St Andrew's cross.
At least you acknowledge the difference between ethnic and political exploitation, though I fear you'd excuse anything as long as it's draped in the Union flag e.g. a party akin, by your own description, to racists and fascists.
Antifrank [9.46am] All of us are the same boat, old bean. And, for example, in a discussion about housing our personal circumstances do have a degree of relevance. More generally, those who feel abused can always leave the site.
But what is fair? Was it fair of me to go through university on an industrial scholarship which didn't increase my income but certainly did my father's? Was it fair of him to complain that I had it too easy - he'd had to get his degree at night school? Was it fair of his mother to complain of him adopting me (and my sister) because she knew that such babies were the spawn of the devil? (It did at least get him to buy her a house before he bought one for his own family?)
This is a political website and activists and partisans behave like my granny - they care far more for effectiveness than they do for fairness. For example, the subtext of Nick Palmer's recent post is: "the Tories waste their own money - why trust them with yours?"
Oh I don't care particularly about that kind of ad hominem. It's a bit pointless really - I'm just an anonymous bloke off the internet, so it's hardly as if checking my privilege is going to transform the argument about who should pay tuitiion fees.
I got more irritated when Nick Palmer likened me to a BNP supporter for no better reason than the fact that he doesn't like my argument. The more so because when I justified my views, he had no further response to make.
Many of us have been dealing with similar smears on this website for years. Rather than deal with difficult arguments about sensitive topics, left-wingers like to just smear their opponents as racists and xenophobes. For example, when I say there has not been enough attention on non-violent extreme views among a large chunk of the Muslim community, I am called an Islamophobe, no matter how many times I make clear I think a moderate Islam is perfectly compatible with democracy, and that many Muslims are welcome additions to this country.
Where I really agree is that we need a skilled workforce; however, that means technical colleges as well as universities. But the problem is that qualifications from institutions other than universities are seen as being distinctly second class.
Take my nephew, who is 16. He is doing A-levels, but his talents lie more in the practical than the rigorously academic. When he is 18 he will probably go to a technical college and come out very skilled - he is already. Yet he will always be looked down on by those who have 'degrees'.
Also, not everyone is suited for FE. We need to ensure schools give these people the skills they need, and not forget about them. But that's probably so obvious it doesn't need saying.
Whether places are called "universities" or "technical colleges" is ultimately a matter of semantics. I certainly agree that we need a lot more vocational elements to our further education. But where I would worry is when we get this mentality that we need to be happy with people just training in the basic vocational jobs we think of that worked a few decades ago. Take being a car mechanic, for instance. That worked fine in the past, but in the future cars will likely be driven by computers and run on a variety of power trains with complicated battery technology. Thus the mechanics of the future will have to know a lot about electronic engineering and chemical engineering, which will almost certainly take high quality classroom experience.
I partly agree, but the mechanics example is a poor one. They will not need to know electronic or chemical engineering, because the car's systems will be massively complex, and the risks of doing so large. They will need to be able to connect diagnostic computers and swap out black boxes, along with the traditional oil changes are the like. They will also need to use car-tuning software and the like. But I very much doubt they'll be getting out their chemistry set.
This is probably why HurstLlama had such trouble getting the problems with the car he was borrowing fixed, as he mentioned the other day.
I actually suspect that, without significant improvement in knowledge of these things, the local garage might die out, as car repair shifts back to the manufacturers.
"Scots and English are the same people, with different accents. Why pretend otherwise? Why are unionists so scared to talk about what unites us? 5 CommentsChris Deerin 12 April 2014"
Unionist cites piece by Unionist explaining why the Union is attractive to Unionists. Not that interesting.
'Irish and English are the same people, with different accents.'
Strangely we're just getting into the season where groups of Union flag waving folk march through the streets labouring under the delusion that some of their countrymen are different (and inferior) people.
It's strange that you denigrate flag wavers since you worship the most prominent vulgariser and political exploiter of the St Andrew's cross.
At least you acknowledge the difference between ethnic and political exploitation, though I fear you'd excuse anything as long as it's draped in the Union flag e.g. a party akin, by your own description, to racists and fascists.
I suggest you alter your flag waving avatar. That glorious flag doesn't belong to your political faction.
"Scots and English are the same people, with different accents. Why pretend otherwise? Why are unionists so scared to talk about what unites us? 5 CommentsChris Deerin 12 April 2014"
Unionist cites piece by Unionist explaining why the Union is attractive to Unionists. Not that interesting.
'Irish and English are the same people, with different accents.'
Strangely we're just getting into the season where groups of Union flag waving folk march through the streets labouring under the delusion that some of their countrymen are different (and inferior) people.
The vulgarity of the British Nationalists knows no bounds. Mind you, the more they wrap themselves in the flag, the deeper they dig the hole they are in.
The fact that the Orange Order, the BNP and the SDL are campaigning on the same side at the Labour Party has not gone unnoticed in parts of the country with high numbers of swing voters.
Thanks to the PB Golfing Brains Trust for their overnight steers in the direction of the US Masters.
I've opted for a decent nibble in favour of Ian Poulter each way, five places, and widely available @ 66/1
Ian Poulter has sadly, been dressing down for months now, and is beginning to look almost like all the rest. Where is the old Poulter, who's slacks were so dazzling that one needed to wear sunglasses to get a proper peep at?
Yes, I agree with much of that. We need more business involvement in designing university courses, and we also need to do a much MUCH better job of communicating information about the structure of the business world to undergraduates. It's amazing how little they know, and career counsellors have usually not ever lived in the business world so can't help them.
I also increasingly think we need to have a much better system for people to go back to uni in their late 20s once they've experienced the business work force a bit. Maybe you could have two years of generic coverage up front, with another year of specialisation about four years later.
Also from the Polling Observatory piece linked to below, some important observations about how public opinion moves:
"Those who make a habit of following political stories on newspaper front pages – or via highly charged political Twitter feeds easily forget that most voters are paying little to no attention to the events which are filling their days. Even major political set-pieces like the budget, Prime Minister’s Questions, or the Clegg-Farage debates barely register with many voters. Indeed, most of the population are at work during PMQs, unable to tune in to a television or a politics live blog, while the vast majority had much more interest in the latest goings on in Albert Square or Coronation Street than the duelling rhetoric of Nigel and Nick. Even economic news, which is of more immediate interest to many voters, tends to trickle down as a gradual process of diffusion, either in a general sense among the public that things are getting better or worse for the country or more directly as people feel better about the pounds in their pocket, and more eager to spend them. In practice, the fallout from political events is usually slow and sluggish, as it takes a long time for voters to notice and respond to things which are a long way from their everyday concerns.
No further comment required. I won't even highlight the bit about the Clegg-Farage debate.
Agree that trying to draw conclusions from small poll movements on a daily basis is a waste of time. Too small a sample
But have to say, you called that debate wrong. It was 4th in the Populus end of week poll of News stories the public had noticed.
JJ, the problem is that most (if not all) fresher Software Eng/Comp Sci students have very little idea what part of the industry they want to work in and only really get a view of work at the actual code-face (as opposed to the academic world) when they take their first job. Almost by necessity (the company/uni tie in an exception), SoftEng/CompSci courses need to be a broad brush. This isn't really a problem so long as companies who take on graduates have good graduate programmes/mentoring.
I look back at how I was when I graduated to the sort of work I'm now doing almost 20 years later and blush.
That said, personally I would ensure all courses teach C/C++ and drill home the importance of good memory management. Kids are too lazy these days and expect garbage collection! Mummy, what does Null Pointer mean?
I'd go further and teach assembler as well. Preferably ARM. ;-) Even if there are abstraction layers between the assembler and the work they'll be doing in industry, knowing the way those abstraction layers work can be vital. And to learn assembler, you need to learn the underlying system and how to use it efficiently and to best effect. At the very least, they should be able to write a simple device driver in a language such as C, or twiddle some GPIOs or an I2C bus.
The Null pointer example you cite is very good, and Null pointers catch even experienced programmers out. Ahem.
But that would be of little use to someone who, after graduating, goes onto program a large international company's website and in the first six months just changes the colour of one button. Yes, this happened, and she sent me a link to show me the fruit of her endeavours ...
I did loads of graduate mentoring. The problem is that a small firm cannot afford to teach skills the university should be teaching, especially when there is an already steep learning curve to get to know the company's processes and technology. It'd be like a newspaper having to teach it's graduate journalists the difference between verbs and nouns.
Perhaps the solution is to split soft eng / comp sci into different, more focussed degrees. Then again, even today I get people thinking that I work in I.T. when I say I'm a software engineer...
Whilst some of the value has gone from the Indy turnout market my McARSE is determinedly forthright in the higher echelons turnout model - presently projected at 79%, where there is still to be made a very decent return for under a six month tie up.
Agreed. And that should terrify Unionists.
Quite the reverse IMHO.
The McARSE projection factors in a turnout model that over 75% favours a NO vote by 2:1 points
You really are a treat. Keep up the good work!
One aims to please.
I consider it my unbounded duty to ensure my fellow countrymen, however politically deluded they might be, are not short of a smile. Especially so those that are riding for a terrible and damaging fall.
"Scots and English are the same people, with different accents. Why pretend otherwise? Why are unionists so scared to talk about what unites us? 5 CommentsChris Deerin 12 April 2014"
Unionist cites piece by Unionist explaining why the Union is attractive to Unionists. Not that interesting.
'Irish and English are the same people, with different accents.'
Strangely we're just getting into the season where groups of Union flag waving folk march through the streets labouring under the delusion that some of their countrymen are different (and inferior) people.
The vulgarity of the British Nationalists knows no bounds. Mind you, the more they wrap themselves in the flag, the deeper they dig the hole they are in.
The fact that the Orange Order, the BNP and the SDL are campaigning on the same side at the Labour Party has not gone unnoticed in parts of the country with high numbers of swing voters.
So 1690 bad, 1314 good ? So difficult to keep up..
I suggest you alter your flag waving avatar. That glorious flag doesn't belong to your political faction.
I'm not as vexillologically obsessed as you sunset imperialists, the flag belongs to anyone who wants to use it. Seems to be the 'I'm a proud Scot but' brigade that are keenest to wrap themselves in the saltire.
The fact that the Orange Order, the BNP and the SDL are campaigning on the same side at the Labour Party has not gone unnoticed in parts of the country with high numbers of swing voters.
Strangely Bettertogether are pretending not to notice.
Take your car to a main dealer for a P0120 fault code and pay £160+ to have the MAF sensor "fixed".... Or take it to a mech. and have him sort out the wiring plug for a permanent repair for a few quid. Dealerships employ techs not mechs. (the code says the air temp sensor is faulty, but the problem is often due to the plug)
I partly agree, but the mechanics example is a poor one. They will not need to know electronic or chemical engineering, because the car's systems will be massively complex, and the risks of doing so large. They will need to be able to connect diagnostic computers and swap out black boxes, along with the traditional oil changes are the like. They will also need to use car-tuning software and the like. But I very much doubt they'll be getting out their chemistry set.
This is probably why HurstLlama had such trouble getting the problems with the car he was borrowing fixed, as he mentioned the other day.
I actually suspect that, without significant improvement in knowledge of these things, the local garage might die out, as car repair shifts back to the manufacturers.
Actually, I think the cost of equipment will kill local garages. You need hardware to plug into a car to interrogate its systems, and software to tell you what it says. Manufacturers generally do not give this out for free (I believe one hot hatch manufacturer at least has released some code to allow people to tune their cars).
Then you need to buy the replacement black boxes: when my dad's Jeep had problems a few years back, all they did to fix it was remove one electronics box and replace it with another. It was a half-hour job, including test.
As cars get more complex, it will become increasingly hard for non-aligned repair shops to deal with them. But perhaps I'm being too negative.
JJ, the problem is that most (if not all) fresher Software Eng/Comp Sci students have very little idea what part of the industry they want to work in and only really get a view of work at the actual code-face (as opposed to the academic world) when they take their first job. Almost by necessity (the company/uni tie in an exception), SoftEng/CompSci courses need to be a broad brush. This isn't really a problem so long as companies who take on graduates have good graduate programmes/mentoring.
I look back at how I was when I graduated to the sort of work I'm now doing almost 20 years later and blush.
That said, personally I would ensure all courses teach C/C++ and drill home the importance of good memory management. Kids are too lazy these days and expect garbage collection! Mummy, what does Null Pointer mean?
(snip)
I did loads of graduate mentoring. The problem is that a small firm cannot afford to teach skills the university should be teaching, especially when there is an already steep learning curve to get to know the company's processes and technology. It'd be like a newspaper having to teach it's graduate journalists the difference between verbs and nouns.
Perhaps the solution is to split soft eng / comp sci into different, more focussed degrees. Then again, even today I get people thinking that I work in I.T. when I say I'm a software engineer...
Perhaps not every company can or should recruit graduates.
But overall I agree with the thrust that more actual coding skills need to be taught at uni. But I think the rot sets in much earlier. For example, much of the 1st year on my course was spent teaching maths that should already have been expected (with the exception perhaps of discrete mathematics).
An aside, I was having a clear-out of some stuff yesterday and came across a report i'd submitted for a digital image processing assignment way back in my 2nd year. We'd been asked to take 2 images and by applying a series of transforms produce a new composite. All written in C. We had to submit a printout of the source code and the final binary on disk (which was still attached to the report). I got a good mark for that one too.
Comments
I'm hopeful we will see the Ipsos-Mori today or tomorrow.
2) You are assuming that I am a No'er. Whilst I think it's a shame if Scotland leaves, I also think it would be a shame for Scotland to be kept in if they want to go. My main wish is for us all to remain friends afterwards. And that's why I get annoyed by the attitude of some on here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Parliament_election,_2014_(United_Kingdom)#2014
Sheikh Ahmed-Zaki Yamani, the veteran Saudi oil minister, saw the writing on the wall long ago. "Thirty years from now there will be a huge amount of oil - and no buyers. Oil will be left in the ground. The Stone Age came to an end, not because we had a lack of stones, and the oil age will come to an end not because we have a lack of oil," he told The Telegraph in 2000. Wise old owl.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comment/ambroseevans_pritchard/10755598/Global-solar-dominance-in-sight-as-science-trumps-fossil-fuels.html
BTW do your old "winning here placards" come with the house or are they counted as integral antique fixtures and fittings and part of the grade II listing ?
What proportion of students were from C2DE parents prior to fees and what now?
Mr. Fett, might I suggest giving the Sir Edric's Temple sample a look? It's fantasy but (hopefully) the sort of thing even those not usually into it might enjoy (one of my beta readers really isn't in fantasy).
I can see why you do spend time - the DNVs from last time are a sizable chunk and obviously regarded as fertile territory. But if they can't be bothered and they're in a safe seat, that's understandable. If they're can't be bothered and in a marginal, they're genuinely not bothered and probably won't do next time.
I'm in a safe Labour seat and I've never been canvassed but always vote even though it's pointless. I never vote Tory, I'd feel dirty somehow (even though I now many Tory people and they are fine), I can't vote Labour with Ed (son of Brown) in charge and my last vote, LDs are splintered. It will probably be LD or Ukip (if they keep getting insulted for being non-mainstream - I can be perverse at times).
So do you convince many DNVs? Or do they merely indulge in that British tactic of being polite to your face?
Between 1998 and 2002, Gordon Brown as Chancellor allowed household debt to rise at an average of 10% per annum. From 2000 to 2006, he allowed the net financing requirement of central government to rise from a surplus of -£14.3 bn to £52.3 billion. And this was both before the global crisis, part cause of it and a major contributor to the severity with which it hit the UK relative to other countries.
And who was responsible for regulation of the financial sector? Who introduced the tripartite regulation by Treasury, FSA and Bank of England, which like the three slips in the Ancient Mariner's cricket team "stoppeth one in three"?
I am not saying that Gordon Brown was alone in mis-managing public and household finances but he was not blameless.
And as to the connection between public finances and student loans, there is a limited supply of credit in any economy. If government maxes out on its credit card then it no longer has the market confidence to enable it to finance all its programmes. The inevitable consequence is that discretionary funding requirements, like university education, have to be shifted away from government to user. The fact that students have to take out loans is a direct consequence of there being "no [government] money (or credit lines) left".
By the Power of Greyskull
They are making a new He-Man: Masters of the Universe film.
http://www.denofgeek.com/movies/masters-of-the-universe/30061/kick-ass-2-director-to-make-new-masters-of-the-universe-film
We should restore the British Empire, for a safe and secure society which I assure you will last for ten thousand years.
I put myself forward as the next Viceroy of India.
However should we now take it that your next estate is unlikely to be fertile "winning here" territory or is it that you are to boost the economy by investing in new devious diamond demonstrations of yellow peril triumphalism ?!?
It is in fact very easy to argue with that because, as a very rich childless man, Antifrank has a gigantic blind spot when it comes to family policy and family subsidies. Basically, he thinks families should be raised at the market rate with no subsidies - so families are only for the rich.
I fundamentally disagree - good parents are important to the economy as they raise the children who will pay the taxes in the next age. I understand that Antifrank doesn't need these people - he will have a gold-plated pension and/or a mortgage free inner London house to cash in. But he is a rare fish with his own private pond - most of us swim in the stream.
It's usually a Conservative principle to protect and encourage future generations. This government is soulless.
But mainly we canvass to identify potential support and waverers, to concentrate on them on polling day. The Tories don't have the manpower so rely on direct mail - but that depends on ancient canvass data and Experian-type demography to guess what sort of people they're writing to. It's hit and miss (our CP chair got a nice letter from Cameron thanking her for her presumed support, as did our chief CLP fund-raiser), and talking to people is a lot more effective if you have the people to do it.
I blame the naughty Neil who kept on encouraging JohnO to stay for one more drink, when he wanted to leave at 10pm, he left closer to midnight.
The OECD report, on continuously failing Welsh Education under Labour, shows how years of lack of ambition, false exam grades and poor teaching standards, and even inverse snobbery at home and at school work against the ambitious child from an under -educated family.
I certainly don't think that families should be raised at the market rate with no subsidies. I don't even think that those going through higher education should get no subsidies. Even at current tuition fee rates, students are substantially subsidised.
What I do take issue with is disguised subsidies to the middle classes which are essentially at the expense of those that really need them. The middle classes are shameless in squawking on the rare occasions that their interests are scrutinised. That doesn't mean that they should remain featherbedded.
If we really wanted to help young people from lower income backgrounds, we would make it easier for those in deprived areas to move to areas with more jobs (and provide incentives for them to do so), and offer employers greater subsidies to help address youth unemployment - getting young people into the habit of working is the single best way of breaking the cycle of worklessness.
The 50% is not a magic number, it's just an ambitious target to drive up higher education. The problem has come in in that, to meet this number, we have expanded university education via adding courses of lower quality than previously existed. This is what needs to now be focused on: making sure universities teach the precise skills and knowledge needed for the business world of 2050.
The other main argument against high levels of higher education is the elitist one that the majority of British people aren't capable of studying at that level. While this might be true, that's just an indictment of pre-university child development, particularly for those on lower incomes. If you go to wealthy towns in the home counties the vast majority of kids go on to decent university places, so there's no reason while the potential isn't there for the rest of the country. It's just that, elsewhere, both schools and parenting tend to be extremely variable.
I think JohnO should have a TV series devoted to "Unexpected Railway Journeys" - somewhat like Michael Portillo's show but with gravitas, humour and serendipity.
The main problem for the new system is that the write-offs are perhaps too generous, and could be a cost for the government.
http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/9181991/the-british-clan/
"Scots and English are the same people, with different accents. Why pretend otherwise?
Why are unionists so scared to talk about what unites us?
5 CommentsChris Deerin 12 April 2014"
Some examples:
*) People not being able to describe their final-year projects, completed a matter of months before. One did not even know what his project had been.
*) A guy who could not explain what a compiler was, even at a high level.
*) *Two* guys (well, a guy and a girl) who could not create a simple linked-list, even conceptually on a white board.
*) Someone who could not describe even basic software development methodology (e.g. waterfall)
*) A guy who could not add up in binary. And no, it was not nerves.
And so on.
Their CV's all had the right buzz words, and they had done the 'right' sort of modules. None of these people had been served well by their degree course.
One of the hardest things I ever had to do was try to pick which graduates to interview from CVs. Which is something to tell all our kids: when it comes to being more noticeable than your competitors at graduate level, work experience matters.
I'm glad I'm no longer doing that sort of thing.
O/T - I've taken advantage of Bet365's relegation treble of Cardiff, Sunderland and Norwich at 10/3
Other bookies are offering less than 2/1
I think after their Fulham game, Norwich are doomed, they played Liverpool, Man United, Chelsea and Arsenal.
Luis Suarez has alone scored something like 279 goals in 5 matches against Norwich (Okay, it's something like 11 in 5 matches, including 2 hat-tricks and one 4 goal match)
http://www.oddschecker.com/football/english/premier-league/relegation-treble
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/independence-blow-alex-salmond-record-3394387
But what is fair? Was it fair of me to go through university on an industrial scholarship which didn't increase my income but certainly did my father's? Was it fair of him to complain that I had it too easy - he'd had to get his degree at night school? Was it fair of his mother to complain of him adopting me (and my sister) because she knew that such babies were the spawn of the devil? (It did at least get him to buy her a house before he bought one for his own family?)
This is a political website and activists and partisans behave like my granny - they care far more for effectiveness than they do for fairness. For example, the subtext of Nick Palmer's recent post is: "the Tories waste their own money - why trust them with yours?"
Whilst a period of justified quiet from them is welcome, indeed necessary from time to time, surely we must be cognisant that these delicate flowers require the company of other deluded plants to maintain the illusion that the YES campaign is week by week sailing seamlessly on to victory.
Yes 3/1 (various)
No 2/7 (various)
Ladbrokes - YES percentage
44%+ 10/11
44%- 10/11
Turnout - BetVictor
65%+ 4/11
60-64% 7/1
59%- 11/4
I also agree with your points about courses like software engineering. It's important to recognise, however, that it's because these courses are generally new, and thus of lower quality compared to more established courses. There's nothing inherently wrong with doing software engineering over physics - in fact, if you could make them of similar quality, it would probably be better to have more people doing the former.
I'm also unsure that universities on the whole teach creative thinking and problem solving. Then again, it's not my industry.
Where I really agree is that we need a skilled workforce; however, that means technical colleges as well as universities. But the problem is that qualifications from institutions other than universities are seen as being distinctly second class.
Take my nephew, who is 16. He is doing A-levels, but his talents lie more in the practical than the rigorously academic. When he is 18 he will probably go to a technical college and come out very skilled - he is already. Yet he will always be looked down on by those who have 'degrees'.
Also, not everyone is suited for FE. We need to ensure schools give these people the skills they need, and not forget about them. But that's probably so obvious it doesn't need saying.
- "It would leave a referendum result of 56 per cent No to 44 per cent Yes if the undecideds were stripped out."
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/independence-blow-alex-salmond-record-3394387
This is because these swing voters count twice in the electoral arithmetic, being a vote lost fro the Conservatives and a vote gained by Labour at the same time.
Thus, with your figures from Populus, one should not compare 18.1 with 4.9 (about 3.7 times as large), but 18.1 with 9.8 (about 1.85 times as large). I'd argue that the direct switchers from the Conservatives make up an important part of Miliband's electoral coalition at present.
As I have shown previously with figures from ICM, there have been times in this Parliament when the swing voters between the Conservatives and Labour have been more important for creating the Labour lead than the Lib Dem to Labour swing voters - it's just that Miliband has currently lost some of these back to the Tories.
Thus you are completely wrong to say that there hasn't been much movement between Con & Lab - it's still where most of the electoral action is.
'Irish and English are the same people, with different accents.'
Discuss.
Best prices:
Con 1/10 (Lad, WH)
UKIP 20/1 (PP)
Lab 25/1 (PP)
LD 66/1 (PP)
The fact that the Lib Dems, who came in 2nd place in 2010, are priced as long as 66/1 indicates how they are likely to perform in seats they do not already hold. I can imagine that their list of 2nd places will be much, much shorter in 2015.
Might I respectfully suggest that universities which teach skills required by businesses are not in fact doing the job of a university, a polytechnics or a further education college possibly, but not a university.
Secondly, universities seldom have the staff with the knowledge or experience to understand what specific skills are required by businesses and in any case in some areas those skills change so frequently it will be impossible for a uni course to keep up (Mr. Jessop's field of software engineering is a classic example of changing requirements and methodologies).
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/05/science/05cnd-brits.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
But of course that is not a viable option for YES.
It is always fascinating to see what Unionists think is a good angle. They invariably go for things that appeal to their core voters. They haven't got a clue what kind of things appeal to the vast numbers of undecided and wavering voters who will decide the outcome of this referendum. In fact, they don't even seem to know who this key group of voters are. The Scottish electorate and its voting behaviour is a total mystery to them.
*Well a Scotsman born in Bombay.
One problem was that such places sometimes went to children of staff members. Leaving that aside, we sometimes had problems finding people wanting placements even on those terms. They were small (50-500) people companies, in a non-sexy part of the industry - consumer electronics. If we'd been a games company we'd have been overrun.
I think the problem with software engineering is that it is a vast subject, and even the fundamentals are very widespread. How deep down do you go into data algorithms? Do you teach low-level coding, or high level? Do you concentrate just on programming, or the larger software development process? Which languages? Java? C? Modula 2? Assembler? How about web design?
Skimming over any of these can leave fundamental gaps in their knowledge, yet covering everything is rather unlikely for all but the brightest students.
A firm I know has done a deal with a Eastern European university, and that uni has tailored its degree course towards that firm's requirement. The firm has also started a spin-off company in that country to employ those graduates. The firm tried to do this in the UK, and the universities either refused, or wanted a vast payment.
From the uni's point of view, by tying themselves up with a company in the industry, they are teaching their students exactly what the industry needs. The firm gets students with the right skills, which UK unis are not churning out.
(*) There was a funny story where, near the end of a summer placement, a student was found sleeping under his desk two days before he was due to leave. He'd mucked up the dates with the bedsit he'd been renting and, instead of telling anyone, had moved into the office. He was found on the first night by the security guard. Oh, how we laughed ...
Strangely we're just getting into the season where groups of Union flag waving folk march through the streets labouring under the delusion that some of their countrymen are different (and inferior) people.
This is probably why HurstLlama had such trouble getting the problems with the car he was borrowing fixed, as he mentioned the other day.
I got more irritated when Nick Palmer likened me to a BNP supporter for no better reason than the fact that he doesn't like my argument. The more so because when I justified my views, he had no further response to make.
http://www.theirishvoice.com/uploads/1/0/4/4/10442324/oct_2013.pdf
"Following efforts to encourage more people to
‘tick the Irish box,’ supported by a number of Irish
groups in Scotland, an increase of nearly 5000
people with Irish ethnicity was recorded in 2011
compared with the 2001 figure. Today, 54,090
people, or 1 per cent of the population of Scotland,
identify as having Irish ethnic identity"
Almost by necessity (the company/uni tie in an exception), SoftEng/CompSci courses need to be a broad brush. This isn't really a problem so long as companies who take on graduates have good graduate programmes/mentoring.
I look back at how I was when I graduated to the sort of work I'm now doing almost 20 years later and blush.
That said, personally I would ensure all courses teach C/C++ and drill home the importance of good memory management. Kids are too lazy these days and expect garbage collection!
Mummy, what does Null Pointer mean?
The McARSE projection factors in a turnout model that over 75% favours a NO vote by 2:1 points
Computer diagnostics are good at telling the "what", A proper mechanic can tell you the "why". ;-)
Observationally it would appear that he was right about the near extinction of the UK FTB. But of course he had not appreciated in 2003 what was going to be the true driver of London (hence roUK) house prices over the next 10 years.
The question is whether the ticking time bomb has gone off with a trivial phut or whether it is still ticking.
Forget your worries. Forget even your politics, for four days of, we hope, sublime golf at it's best.
I've opted for a decent nibble in favour of Ian Poulter each way, five places, and widely available @ 66/1
My masters e/w 4 - Rose (40), Dubisson (130). Stenson (40) and Oleson (180)
The fact that the Orange Order, the BNP and the SDL are campaigning on the same side at the Labour Party has not gone unnoticed in parts of the country with high numbers of swing voters.
May come in the top ten.
Yes, I agree with much of that. We need more business involvement in designing university courses, and we also need to do a much MUCH better job of communicating information about the structure of the business world to undergraduates. It's amazing how little they know, and career counsellors have usually not ever lived in the business world so can't help them.
I also increasingly think we need to have a much better system for people to go back to uni in their late 20s once they've experienced the business work force a bit. Maybe you could have two years of generic coverage up front, with another year of specialisation about four years later.
But have to say, you called that debate wrong. It was 4th in the Populus end of week poll of News stories the public had noticed.
The Null pointer example you cite is very good, and Null pointers catch even experienced programmers out. Ahem.
But that would be of little use to someone who, after graduating, goes onto program a large international company's website and in the first six months just changes the colour of one button. Yes, this happened, and she sent me a link to show me the fruit of her endeavours ...
I did loads of graduate mentoring. The problem is that a small firm cannot afford to teach skills the university should be teaching, especially when there is an already steep learning curve to get to know the company's processes and technology. It'd be like a newspaper having to teach it's graduate journalists the difference between verbs and nouns.
Perhaps the solution is to split soft eng / comp sci into different, more focussed degrees. Then again, even today I get people thinking that I work in I.T. when I say I'm a software engineer...
I consider it my unbounded duty to ensure my fellow countrymen, however politically deluded they might be, are not short of a smile. Especially so those that are riding for a terrible and damaging fall.
Time for a panelbase ?
Take your car to a main dealer for a P0120 fault code and pay £160+ to have the MAF sensor "fixed".... Or take it to a mech. and have him sort out the wiring plug for a permanent repair for a few quid.
Dealerships employ techs not mechs.
(the code says the air temp sensor is faulty, but the problem is often due to the plug)
Maybe the wave the SNP rode over London telling Scotland it wouldn't have a currency union has finally broken on the shore?
There's only so much outrage even Alex Salmond can body surf on in Scotland.....
Then you need to buy the replacement black boxes: when my dad's Jeep had problems a few years back, all they did to fix it was remove one electronics box and replace it with another. It was a half-hour job, including test.
As cars get more complex, it will become increasingly hard for non-aligned repair shops to deal with them. But perhaps I'm being too negative.
But overall I agree with the thrust that more actual coding skills need to be taught at uni.
But I think the rot sets in much earlier. For example, much of the 1st year on my course was spent teaching maths that should already have been expected (with the exception perhaps of discrete mathematics).
An aside, I was having a clear-out of some stuff yesterday and came across a report i'd submitted for a digital image processing assignment way back in my 2nd year. We'd been asked to take 2 images and by applying a series of transforms produce a new composite. All written in C. We had to submit a printout of the source code and the final binary on disk (which was still attached to the report). I got a good mark for that one too.