With Corbyn I cannot get past his appeasement of terrorists. Forget his absurd economic and financial posturing, his tokenism, his fundamental disloyalty and his flip-flopping, and remember he has described the IRA, Hezbollah and Hamas as friends. A party that elects him leader deserves to lose heavy. And it will.
Corbyn will ensure entrenched Tory rule and, with the Tories, will enable the SNP to win its independence referendum. He will be the most destructive figure left-wing politics in this country has ever produced, cheered on by the deluded, the wicked and the stupid beyond hope. With his election Labour will finally and totally have abandoned the poor and the disadvantaged. But as long as a few people feel that little bit better about themselves, who cares, eh?
So are you for Corbyn or against?
On balance, it's a No.
I'm lucky. His election will make no material difference to my life. The Tories look after people like me.
Just don't get sick, old or unlucky and you'll be fine for a while. It's the kids who have the most to worry about.
I'm worried that my kids will need to pay the interest on the debt incurred to fund the current account deficit.
That's a direct reduction in their standard of living in order to fund us living above our means.
There's more of an argument to borrow for infrastructure investment, but current spending: we should recognise it for what it is.
With the increase in tuition fees I think the Tories have done quite a lot to load the next generation with debt.
And those students are investing in themselves, so it is very reasonable that they should pay. I was educated at one of the best universities in the world at the cost of people far less well off than me. On the basis of that education (plus some luck) I've had an interesting and profitable career. That's simply not just.
There is a case for the government subsidising courses - let's say STEM or certain vocational courses - where there are positive externalities. But PPE or law? Let them pay for themselves.
The people who I feel sorry for are those that do weak degrees and weak institutions because they wrongly believe that a university degree is more important than the quality of that degree. *They* are the ones who will struggle to get a return on their investment (although that's why the government will write it off).
That's why I'd completely free up universities to charge what they like, combining with generous targeted subsidies for specific courses and national scholarships so that the brightest kids can study what they like where they like regardless of means
The only possible hope is wipe-out in next year's elections. That still leaves time to change for 2020. With the right leader and programme the Tories are very beatable. Sadly, right now it seems that Labour is not that interested in such a notion. It will need a few more jolts to change that.
Well, it's a thought SO. But I wonder - have the Labour base already priced in catastrophe at next year's elections to the leadership result? Let's face it, the odds of them holding even half the local and Holyrood seats in Scotland they have at present are not good (as in about 5000-1) and Wales is gradually drifting away too as we have seen in the Euro and General elections in the last 18 months (and while Carwyn Jones himself remains liked, his government is most certainly not).
So I am wondering if they will shrug and say, 'yeah, whatever, Miliband's fault for being naff, Corbyn will win us them back given another year' even if they lose every seat they hold. The only one that might make a difference in that case is defeat in the London mayoral election - and if Jowell is the candidate, surely Corbyn's supporters would take that as proof Labour isn't left wing enough?
In the 2002 local elections an IDS led Tory party topped the poll and gained 238 seats whilst Tony Blair led Labour lost 334. Could Corbyn repeat that?
The seats fought in 2012 will be up for election in 2016. Here were the results in England and Wales last time around:
Labour did well in that cycle and were polling well at the time in the wake of the Omnishambles budget (the April 2012 ICM, for example, had the Conservatives on 33, Labour on 41).
Unless polling changes very sharply in the next few months, it looks more likely than not that Labour will be losing seats in 2016. Not the best start for the new leader, whoever he or she might be.
A Labour lead of 7% over the Tories does look a challenge, just to stand still....
With Corbyn I cannot get past his appeasement of terrorists. Forget his absurd economic and financial posturing, his tokenism, his fundamental disloyalty and his flip-flopping, and remember he has described the IRA, Hezbollah and Hamas as friends. A party that elects him leader deserves to lose heavy. And it will.
Corbyn will ensure entrenched Tory rule and, with the Tories, will enable the SNP to win its independence referendum. He will be the most destructive figure left-wing politics in this country has ever produced, cheered on by the deluded, the wicked and the stupid beyond hope. With his election Labour will finally and totally have abandoned the poor and the disadvantaged. But as long as a few people feel that little bit better about themselves, who cares, eh?
What a load of absolute nonsense. Just accept you are an orange book libdem and move on. You are being either very thick or wilfully ignorant by completely ignoring the actual facts on the ground here.
So if you don't like Corbyn, you're a LibDem? Is that what you're saying? Good grief!
No, I'm going on SO's many other pronouncements, which seem to condemn any and all left of centre policies, whilst claiming to be a man of the centre-left. I think he wants to think he's on the right (left) side but understands that Tories look out for people like him. I thought they looked out for people like me, too, as a pretty comfortable self-employed southerner (though I do not share their vindictive and petty vision of a impoverished and atomised society that cultivates and reinforces all the worst aspects of human nature, hence why I am firmly against them and everything they stand for), but people like me are actually going to be hammered with big tax rises, so I don't even have that selfish impulse to follow
Building an election-winning coalition on the back of people who didn't vote last time is going to be difficult.
These were not just people who didn't vote Tory or Labour or Lib Dem. They didn't vote Green or UKIP either. So if they didn't protest vote last time, why should they next time?
Some might argue that only the combination of the passion of a protest vote with the meaningfulness of a party of government will bring them out. Ignoring the inherent contradiction there, which the Lib Dems amply demonstrated the consequences of from 2010-5, even if it does tap into the 35% of voters who didn't turn out in 2001, 2005, 2010 and 2015 (many of whom may not even be registered by 2020), there's nothing to say it won't push votes out at the other end: trading those who want a party of protest for those who want a party of government.
PM Corbyn is not a possibility unless the Conservatives do something incomprehensibly stupid.
Belfast East indicates that the meaningfulness of the vote is important where in the background of the low, low turnout across NI, it had a significantly higher turnout than any other seat (bar Fermanagh for different reasons but not unrelated).
A "traditional" Labour Party will undoubtedly do better at getting non-voters to turn out than the Greens or Kippers ever will.
Wildly off topic and taken from my twitter feed, but this is shaping up to be a pretty spectacular example of Hollywood rewriting history to suit its audience:
That's right up there with U-571. (In fairness I should point out that the director claims that the trailer gives a misleading impression of how the film portrays the subject, but you do have to wonder who put the trailer together then.)
There's a really important point being obscured that a lot of gay men could do with learning. Gay rights, by and large, were not initially fought for by professional "respectable" men like me (who now have largely taken over the campaign groups like Stonewall). They were fought for by the screaming queens, the trannies, all the people who didn't and couldn't fit into polite society. If Hollywood is pretending otherwise, it's a really serious historical mistake.
Or a really silly historical rewrite.
I find it difficult to watch supposedly historical films, especially those that try to pass themselves off as documentaries. I spend most of my time grumbling about the way they distort the past or otherwise mislead people. Most annoying of all is the time I then have to spend unravelling the misconceptions (genuine conversation with a Year 8 re the Princes in the Tower after that appalling mini-series The White Queen two years ago: 'but sir, it was Margaret Beaufort who did it, why isn't she on the list of suspects'?).
I can see why this would be particularly annoying from your point of view. But I think the best thing that can be done is to note the error and ensure it is loudly and publicly rebutted as the person you highlight is doing. This is simply because screenwriters consider themselves artists and get tetchy if told they have a duty to be historically accurate, saying that it would 'compromise their integrity.'
Although she should have been on the list of suspects, partly because of that very series (i.e. to test popular beliefs), and partly because the notion that some member of the Lancastrian / Tudor House did it should be taken seriously.
Corbyn is the silly answer to the silly question; Who would you most like to be leader of the Labour party Kendall Burnham Cooper or Corbyn?
I too would go for Corbyn. The rest willl go down to inglorious defeat because they aren't up to it.
Corbyn will too but at least he has a few unfashionable ideas that deserve exploring. For example his unwillingness to countenance Israels behaviour in the simpering way most other politicians do.
A strong and powerful voice from within the UK could actually make a difference. The Middle East is the most dangerous part of the world and has at its heart one of the great unresolved injustices. Someone in the West needs to speak up for the Palestinian cause
That alone makes the £3 ticket price good value
????????????
Most deaths in the Middle East are Arabs killing other Arabs.
That's an impressively sensible comment. May wind up the base, but I reckon she's right
It's so sensible that it begs the question why she's in UKIP to start with. Support for membership of the EU is not, I believe, mandatory for membership of any of the major parties.
As a senior kipper, people listen to what she says, and its because of people like her in the kippers that Cameron felt it necessary to hold the referendum. As a member of the Conservative awkward squad no one would care less what she said and her influence on policy would be close to zero.
I find it difficult to watch supposedly historical films, especially those that try to pass themselves off as documentaries. I spend most of my time grumbling about the way they distort the past or otherwise mislead people. Most annoying of all is the time I then have to spend unravelling the misconceptions (genuine conversation with a Year 8 re the Princes in the Tower after that appalling mini-series The White Queen two years ago: 'but sir, it was Margaret Beaufort who did it, why isn't she on the list of suspects'?).
I can see why this would be particularly annoying from your point of view. But I think the best thing that can be done is to note the error and ensure it is loudly and publicly rebutted as the person you highlight is doing. This is simply because screenwriters consider themselves artists and get tetchy if told they have a duty to be historically accurate, saying that it would 'compromise their integrity.'
I felt the same about mistakes in the films 'Senna' and 'Rush' : the first was particularly bad because it was meant to be a documentary. Most of the worst changes were probably put in to increase drama or dilate time.
However: films and books act as an introduction to a topic or time for people who might not know much about it. This was the case for me with the 'White Queen' series; I had not read much about that period, and (although heavily inaccurate in places) the series got me reading further into those particular wars.
I write stories (at a very amateur level), and am currently trying to write a historical novel - I was taking a photograph for my notes when I had my slip. I have researched it fairly well, dug into archives (and paid people to do so for me). The research is great fun.
But it is hard to fit all the facts into any meaningful narrative that would have drama. Basically, I am having to change things. To an expert these changes would be noticeable and perhaps annoying; but the purpose is to write a story based firmly around real historical events that capture the feel of the period and, hopefully, would be enjoyable to read. I would be in heaven if people learnt something without even realising it.
I've even considered writing an appendix stating where I have taken liberties, but that feels like it would turn it from a story into a quasi-historical piece.
For all IDS's manifold faults he was not an apologist for terrorists who were declared enemies of Britain. That alone puts Corbyn way beyond him in unelectability
He wasn't an apologist for any terrorists, he just promoted dialogue as a way forward, and was proven correct about this (if you are talking about the IRA).
The Tories, at present, are the best vehicle for achieving what I want for this country. That's a purely practical assessment, and should that cease to be the case then I will no longer support them. I would be very happy with an Orange Book/Cameroon government without the right or the left of that grouping - but it's not possible.
Brave Charles
not too many Heathites around at the moment.
I might be tempted by Selsdon man, but I'm not a Heathite. He lacked the courage of his convictions*.
Economically dry and socially liberal, tempered with a good sense of what is practically possible (which is where you fall down) seems like a very pragmatic position
Bernard Cornwell usually put, in the back of the book, a quick look at what he changed and why in his historical novels (not read one for a while, mind).
But it is hard to fit all the facts into any meaningful narrative that would have drama. Basically, I am having to change things. To an expert these changes would be noticeable and perhaps annoying; but the purpose is to write a story based firmly around real historical events that capture the feel of the period and, hopefully, would be enjoyable to read. I would be in heaven if people learnt something without even realising it.
I've even considered writing an appendix stating where I have taken liberties, but that feels like it would turn it from a story into a quasi-historical piece.
Although that is the approach of by far the best historical novelist writing at present, Bernard Cornwell (OK, he can't write as elegantly as Gregory, but he is far better at things like characterisation and plot than she is, and far more honest about his own training/knowledge/experience). So you do have a good precedent if you go down that route.
With Corbyn I cannot get past his appeasement of terrorists. Forget his absurd economic and financial posturing, his tokenism, his fundamental disloyalty and his flip-flopping, and remember he has described the IRA, Hezbollah and Hamas as friends. A party that elects him leader deserves to lose heavy. And it will.
Corbyn will ensure entrenched Tory rule and, with the Tories, will enable the SNP to win its independ and the disadvantaged. But as long as a few people feel that little bit better about themselves, who cares, eh?
So are you for Corbyn or against?
On balance, it's a No.
I'm lucky. His election will make no material difference to my life. The Tories look after people like me.
Just don't get sick, old or unlucky and you'll be fine for a while. It's the kids who have the most to worry about.
I'm worried that my kids will need to p, but current spending: we should recognise it for what it is.
With the increase in tuition fees I think the Tories have done quite a lot to load the next generation with debt.
And those students are investing in themselves, so it is very reasonable that they should pay. I was educated at one of the best universities in the world at the cost of people far less well off than me. On the basis of that education (plus some luck) I've had an interesting and profitable career. That's simply not just.
There is a case for the government subsidising courses - let's say STEM or certain vocational courses - where there are positive externalities. But PPE or law? Let them pay for themselves.
The people who I feel sorry for are those that do weak degrees and weak institutions because they wrongly believe that a university degree is more important than the quality of that degree. *They* are the ones who will struggle to get a return on their investment (although that's why the government will write it off).
That's why I'd completely free up universities to charge what they like, combining with generous targeted subsidies for specific courses and national scholarships so that the brightest kids can study what they like where they like regardless of means
Except of course they're not.
The fees system is close to the point where not only will we be taxing the young, but the total bill for fees will still get lumped back on the taxpayer.
If you're so zippideedooda on fees perhaps you'd like pay your own back in to the public purse.
The deal in the past was free education and if you succeeded you got hit with a higher tax rate. Now you get hit with two of them.
Corbyn is the silly answer to the silly question; Who would you most like to be leader of the Labour party Kendall Burnham Cooper or Corbyn?
I too would go for Corbyn. The rest willl go down to inglorious defeat because they aren't up to it.
Corbyn will too but at least he has a few unfashionable ideas that deserve exploring. For example his unwillingness to countenance Israels behaviour in the simpering way most other politicians do.
A strong and powerful voice from within the UK could actually make a difference. The Middle East is the most dangerous part of the world and has at its heart one of the great unresolved injustices. Someone in the West needs to speak up for the Palestinian cause
That alone makes the £3 ticket price good value
I'm intrigued: do you have a vote or not? If not, why not? You're clearly aligned to Labour in many ways and agree that "the £3 ticket price [is] good value" but also say "I too would go for Corbyn" (my italics), indicating that you can't.
Ref the Middle East, what, precisely, is the Palestinian cause that needs speaking up for? Because there are many answers to that question: some honourable, some foolish and some genocidal.
Although she should have been on the list of suspects, partly because of that very series (i.e. to test popular beliefs), and partly because the notion that some member of the Lancastrian / Tudor House did it should be taken seriously.
Henry VII was on the list, along with Buckingham and Brackenbury. But there is no realistic or plausible way Margaret Beaufort could be implicated. Gregory's reasoning was in effect (1) she was a Catholic and therefore evil and (2) her son was the next heir so she had a strong motive. The first is daft and the second is wrong (at least 15 men, not including women, had a better claim to the throne than Henry - if indeed he had a claim at all). So I decided she wasn't worth including.
I've even considered writing an appendix stating where I have taken liberties, but that feels like it would turn it from a story into a quasi-historical piece.
I'd include an end-note along those lines. IIRC, Ronald Welch did those quite well. Not detailing everything, but highlighting the key differences
The Tories, at present, are the best vehicle for achieving what I want for this country. That's a purely practical assessment, and should that cease to be the case then I will no longer support them. I would be very happy with an Orange Book/Cameroon government without the right or the left of that grouping - but it's not possible.
Brave Charles
not too many Heathites around at the moment.
I might be tempted by Selsdon man, but I'm not a Heathite. He lacked the courage of his convictions*.
Economically dry and socially liberal, tempered with a good sense of what is practically possible (which is where you fall down) seems like a very pragmatic position
* I mean philosophical, of course
LOL
I think it's more a question of I have the courage of convications and you don't. See breaking up RBS, tax reform etc..
Like all establishment bods you are afraid of change.
For all IDS's manifold faults he was not an apologist for terrorists who were declared enemies of Britain. That alone puts Corbyn way beyond him in unelectability
He wasn't an apologist for any terrorists, he just promoted dialogue as a way forward, and was proven correct about this (if you are talking about the IRA).
In another time, would you have been so sanguine about inviting Hitler for tea and a "dialogue" - whilst the Luftwaffe was still raining down bombs in the Blitz?
For all IDS's manifold faults he was not an apologist for terrorists who were declared enemies of Britain. That alone puts Corbyn way beyond him in unelectability
He wasn't an apologist for any terrorists, he just promoted dialogue as a way forward, and was proven correct about this (if you are talking about the IRA).
Yeah, good luck with that one. And justifying his friends in Hamas and Hezbollah.
Some of us were there in the 80s and remember that any enemy of the British state and/or the US was a friend to the Bennite left.
Labour's candidates and membership lean to the left at present following a second defeat, much as the Tories did after 2001. Corbyn will certainly come top on first preferences, if he does lose it will be narrowly on preferences to Burnham or Cooper.
However, as the Tory experience showed, after they lost the 2005 election too their membership elected the centrist Cameron even having elected IDS the previous election, eventually after being out of power long enough even activists will hold their noses for a centrist candidate, hence Blair became leader after 4 election defeats for Labour, Cameron after 3 defeats for the Tories. However, 2 election defeats is not enough for the base yet to concede defeat, with the '1 more heave strategy' still enough to see them elect a leader more to their tastes.
One thing Labour do have going for them is Cameron will not be there in 2020, if he was, as Blair was in 2005 for the Tories, I think it would be a matter of limiting the damage. Yet without him at the helm they may still have a chance
The parallels here are overstated. The Conservative base reluctantly chose IDS over the madly Europhile Clarke because that was the only option they had. Virtually any other credible leadershi candidate would have been chosen, had they been on the ballot.
With Labour, they are not just choosing Corbyn over a mild Blairite in Kendall, but over the party's Brownite middle in Burnham and Cooper. And doing so enthusiastically.
Not necessarily, IDS would probably have beaten Portillo too (and Portillo, while a social liberal, was still a Thatcherite on economics and a eurosceptic) and while Davis may have beaten IDS he was a fellow rightwinger anyway.
Portillo would have beaten IDS, and both him and Davis were (and still are!) In the sensible mainstream. Portillo's liberal social views and Davis' liberal civil rights views show they are thoughtful men and not ideologues.
This is interesting. In 2001, apparently Tory MPs voted tactically to prevent Portillo being on the ballot paper put to party members. It was nearly a Clarke vs Portillo contest, with IDS eliminated. "By a single vote Portillo was eliminated from the contest. It later transpired that he had been the victim of tactical voting.[citation needed]" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservative_Party_(UK)_leadership_election,_2001
IDS supporters voted tactically for Clarke not the other way round. It was almost an almighty f**k up, and came within a whisker of relegating IDS from the final 2.
For what it's worth, my take on that alternate history is here:
That's why I'd completely free up universities to charge what they like, combining with generous targeted subsidies for specific courses and national scholarships so that the brightest kids can study what they like where they like regardless of means
Except of course they're not.
The fees system is close to the point where not only will we be taxing the young, but the total bill for fees will still get lumped back on the taxpayer.
If you're so zippideedooda on fees perhaps you'd like pay your own back in to the public purse.
The deal in the past was free education and if you succeeded you got hit with a higher tax rate. Now you get hit with two of them.
We support three universities relatively significantly, and I give my time to another. None of them happen to be my alma mater, but they haven't asked yet (beyond £100 p.a. which I pay just to get them off the phone!) So I'm doing my bit...
But the current system is, shall we say, sub-optimal. I haven't delved into the detail, but I suspect that there is a strong correlation between (a) people who can't pay back their fees and (b) courses which add little value to their personal prospects. Those are courses that shouldn't be happening in the scale that they are
@TheWhiteRabbit mentioned learning new things re yogis. I had a rare lateral thought moment re Yogi Bear.
Yogi's name was similar to that of contemporary baseball star Yogi Berra, who was known for his amusing quotes, such as "half the lies they tell about me aren't true." Berra sued Hanna-Barbera for defamation, but their management claimed that the similarity of the names was just a coincidence.
Well, there you go. It may be three minutes to midnight, but I have fulfilled my quota of one new thing to learn today...
Well done, grasshopper
I'm confused. When and where in the conversation did Yogi Bear and Pat Pending get mentioned? It sounds like a fun conversation, but I can't find the start of it and I'm sort-of jumping in in the middle. (I know what a yogi is, by the way, but that's not the point)
With Corbyn I cannot get past his appeasement of terrorists. Forget his absurd economic and financial posturing, his tokenism, his fundamental disloyalty and his flip-flopping, and remember he has described the IRA, Hezbollah and Hamas as friends. A party that elects him leader deserves to lose heavy. And it will.
Corbyn will ensure entrenched Tory rule and, with the Tories, will enable the SNP to win its independence referendum. He will be the most destructive figure left-wing politics in this country has ever produced, cheered on by the deluded, the wicked and the stupid beyond hope. With his election Labour will finally and totally have abandoned the poor and the disadvantaged. But as long as a few people feel that little bit better about themselves, who cares, eh?
So are you for Corbyn or against?
On balance, it's a No.
I'm lucky. His election will make no material difference to my life. The Tories look after people like me.
Just don't get sick, old or unlucky and you'll be fine for a while. It's the kids who have the most to worry about.
I'm worried that my kids will need to pay the interest on the debt incurred to fund the current account deficit.
That's a direct reduction in their standard of living in order to fund us living above our means.
There's more of an argument to borrow for infrastructure investment, but current spending: we should recognise it for what it is.
With the increase in tuition fees I think the Tories have done quite a lot to load the next generation with debt.
And those students are investing in themselves, so it is very reasonable that they should pay. I was educated at one of the best universities in the world at the cost of people far less well off than me. On the basis of that education (plus some luck) I've had an interesting and profitable career. That's simply not just.
There is nothing special about university education. It's increasingly necessary in the modern world. It should be prioritised. These students are no more investing in themselves than secondary students.
The Tories, at present, are the best vehicle for achieving what I want for this country. That's a purely practical assessment, and should that cease to be the case then I will no longer support them. I would be very happy with an Orange Book/Cameroon government without the right or the left of that grouping - but it's not possible.
Brave Charles
not too many Heathites around at the moment.
I might be tempted by Selsdon man, but I'm not a Heathite. He lacked the courage of his convictions*.
Economically dry and socially liberal, tempered with a good sense of what is practically possible (which is where you fall down) seems like a very pragmatic position
* I mean philosophical, of course
LOL
I think it's more a question of I have the courage of convications and you don't. See breaking up RBS, tax reform etc..
Like all establishment bods you are afraid of change.
On RBS they have basically run down the investment bank and substantially withdrawn from international engagements. Williams & Glyn is coming out, albeit delayed. It's a question of timing: when a patient is on life support it's probably not the best moment for major surgery in my view
Tax reform would be a good thing. That's an area that Osborne has disappointed. Some of his moves - on tax avoidance for instance - are good. And I hope he goes ahead with the merger of NIC and IT.
But there are higher priorities - fixing tax credits, for instance - so I can see why it is better to address problems a few at a time
Most deaths in the Middle East are Arabs killing other Arabs."
The thing I like about your posts is that they're always funny. I mean laugh out loud funny.
In this instance I can't see the joke so In case you're being serious as an Irishman you of all people should understand how injustices escalate but who but the most insensitive would say "????? but it's Irishmen killing Irishmen"
@TheWhiteRabbit mentioned learning new things re yogis. I had a rare lateral thought moment re Yogi Bear.
Yogi's name was similar to that of contemporary baseball star Yogi Berra, who was known for his amusing quotes, such as "half the lies they tell about me aren't true." Berra sued Hanna-Barbera for defamation, but their management claimed that the similarity of the names was just a coincidence.
Eh?!? I thought the copying of the name from Yogi Berra to Yogi Bear was the whole point! How would it be defamation anyway? Flattery, more like!
That's why I'd completely free up universities to charge what they like, combining with generous targeted subsidies for specific courses and national scholarships so that the brightest kids can study what they like where they like regardless of means
Except of course they're not.
The fees system is close to the point where not only will we be taxing the young, but the total bill for fees will still get lumped back on the taxpayer.
If you're so zippideedooda on fees perhaps you'd like pay your own back in to the public purse.
The deal in the past was free education and if you succeeded you got hit with a higher tax rate. Now you get hit with two of them.
We support three universities relatively significantly, and I give my time to another. None of them happen to be my alma mater, but they haven't asked yet (beyond £100 p.a. which I pay just to get them off the phone!) So I'm doing my bit...
But the current system is, shall we say, sub-optimal. I haven't delved into the detail, but I suspect that there is a strong correlation between (a) people who can't pay back their fees and (b) courses which add little value to their personal prospects. Those are courses that shouldn't be happening in the scale that they are
a. If the people can't pay back their taxes then the bill gets dumped on the taxpayer and does in any event when the graduates reach 50. All Willetts has done is kick thew bill down the road and pretend it's a loan. So this is still a tax.
b. If you can predict what adds value, then you're doing better than most academeics and wasting your time in banking. In my experience most grads ( and the current lot are ultra conservative compared to previous years ) are all fairly sensible. imo they are better judges on where they'll succeed and should be given a chance.
Bernard Cornwell usually put, in the back of the book, a quick look at what he changed and why in his historical novels (not read one for a while, mind).
I can actually type with two hands today, which is an improvement! Looking back at the photos I was very lucky.
ydoethur and your good self both pointed out Cornwell, and I was thinking of going a little more in depth than that.
As an example of a typical problem that must bedevil an historical novelist: sources show there is a man who was working in 1808 aged 52. Other sources indicate a man of the same name doing the same work, connected to the same people, twenty years later. The work is heavy in a harsh area, and it is hard to think it might be the same man (although for various reasons it would be a big coincidence for it to be someone else of the same name).
It is possible that it is a son, but as he is only an incidental character I've decided he was an elderly man, which conveniently fits in with the book's plot. I could try to go to births and deaths records to sort it out, but it doesn't seem worth it for such a minor point. Yet it is a liberty that is niggling at me.
I'm tired of people, not just in the media, continually using left and right, it's lazy and most times means nothing. People "on the left" try to use it as a badge of honour, as if indicating a sense of caring and social responsibility, everyone else is a racist child eater. And those "on the right" like to see themselves as responsible and hardworking, and that all others are lazy and feckless.
It's time people grew up and became less tribal, I'm grateful for Corbyn, perhaps he's right after all.
Most deaths in the Middle East are Arabs killing other Arabs."
The thing I like about your posts is that they're always funny. I mean laugh out loud funny.
In this instance I can't see the joke so In case you're being serious as an Irishman you of all people should understand how injustices escalate but who but the most insensitive would say "????? but it's Irishmen killing Irishmen"
the 70s 80s 90s etc usually were Irishmen murdering Irishmen, but hiding behind some bullshit reason as to why that was justified.
There is nothing special about university education. It's increasingly necessary in the modern world. It should be prioritised. These students are no more investing in themselves than secondary students.
Bollocks.
University education is not right for everyone. People should be encouraged to do what is right for their own development. For some people that will mean academic study. For others vocational academics (e.g. law or engineering). Other people would be better off with practical (i.e. polytechnic based) courses that teach them skills that are relevant for a specific career.
We need to get away from the obsession that 50% of kids need to go to university, even if the course is pointless. In 2013 ONS commented:
the percentage of graduates working in non-graduate roles has risen, particularly since the 2008/09 recession. This suggests the increasing supply of graduates and the possible decrease in demand for them has had an effect on the type of job they are doing.
That's why I'd completely free up universities to charge what they like, combining with generous targeted subsidies for specific courses and national scholarships so that the brightest kids can study what they like where they like regardless of means
Except of course they're not.
The fees system is close to the point where not only will we be taxing the young, but the total bill for fees will still get lumped back on the taxpayer.
If you're so zippideedooda on fees perhaps you'd like pay your own back in to the public purse.
The deal in the past was free education and if you succeeded you got hit with a higher tax rate. Now you get hit with two of them.
We support three universities relatively significantly, and I give my time to another. None of them happen to be my alma mater, but they haven't asked yet (beyond £100 p.a. which I pay just to get them off the phone!) So I'm doing my bit...
But the current system is, shall we say, sub-optimal. I haven't delved into the detail, but I suspect that there is a strong correlation between (a) people who can't pay back their fees and (b) courses which add little value to their personal prospects. Those are courses that shouldn't be happening in the scale that they are
a. If the people can't pay back their taxes then the bill gets dumped on the taxpayer and does in any event when the graduates reach 50. All Willetts has done is kick thew bill down the road and pretend it's a loan. So this is still a tax.
b. If you can predict what adds value, then you're doing better than most academeics and wasting your time in banking. In my experience most grads ( and the current lot are ultra conservative compared to previous years ) are all fairly sensible. imo they are better judges on where they'll succeed and should be given a chance.
Wildly off topic and taken from my twitter feed, but this is shaping up to be a pretty spectacular example of Hollywood rewriting history to suit its audience:
That's right up there with U-571. (In fairness I should point out that the director claims that the trailer gives a misleading impression of how the film portrays the subject, but you do have to wonder who put the trailer together then.)
<\blockquote> I think trailers should get their own awards, as they are I understand put together by marketers not really the filmmakers. People film entirely new scenes for them, put things out of order and stitch lines together to create conversations and plots that are entirely unlike the actual film, and when it works they can make a bad film seem great, which is quite an achievement. Conversely, the trailer for mad max was the worst I have ever seen, made the movie look awful, and I understand it's actually quite good.
On this film, it's not the sort of inaccuracy that I would really care about, but given the subject matter being portrayed it's pretty ballsy and shameless to make that type of change.
I'm tired of people, not just in the media, continually using left and right, it's lazy and most times means nothing. People "on the left" try to use it as a badge of honour, as if indicating a sense of caring and social responsibility, everyone else is a racist child eater. And those "on the right" like to see themselves as responsible and hardworking, and that all others are lazy and feckless.
You need only look at the Kids Co fiasco to demonstrate what a superficial society we've become, attention seekers dazzling politicians whilst purporting to care for "ve kids" and making good money from hard pressed taxpayers. Long serving civil servants have proven to be far wiser than naive politicians.
I'm desperate for Corbyn to win for many reasons, first of all because it will jettison those ghastly identikit apparatchiks in the Labour Party and mostly because I want to see the govt show some humility when dealing with the opposition. I don't like Corbyn's politics but plenty clearly do, let's show some respect for each other.
It's time people grew up and became less tribal, I'm grateful for Corbyn, perhaps he's right after all.
No, he is totally and utterly wrong in just about every way, and has been his entire political life. He describes murderers, anti-semites and anti-gay women-haters as friends. He is a loathesome figure who will hasten the break-up of the UK, ensure entrenched elites stay in place and leave the fate of the poor and disadvantaged to be decided by market forces. He represents everything that a party of the centre left serious about winning power to change society should not be. As those who back him will discover over the coming years.
I'm willing to bet, though, that after 9 months of painful hand-wringing on here, you'd *still* vote for Corbyn-Labour in 2020. Reluctantly, of course, and with many misgivings, but they are still better than the heartless baby-eating Tories. You'll probably justify it on the basis that it's the only way to save the Union.
It's not a binary choice once Corbyn is electrd. I'd have no interest in voting Labour to stop the Tories. As in 2010, both would be as bad as each other and so unsupportable. Unlike you, Chas, I don't support a "team" in politics.
I don't support a team either.
The Tories, at present, are the best vehicle for achieving what I want for this country. That's a purely practical assessment, and should that cease to be the case then I will no longer support them. I would be very happy with an Orange Book/Cameroon government without the right or the left of that grouping - but it's not possible.
There is nothing special about university education. It's increasingly necessary in the modern world. It should be prioritised. These students are no more investing in themselves than secondary students.
Bollocks.
University education is not right for everyone. People should be encouraged to do what is right for their own development. For some people that will mean academic study. For others vocational academics (e.g. law or engineering). Other people would be better off with practical (i.e. polytechnic based) courses that teach them skills that are relevant for a specific career.
We need to get away from the obsession that 50% of kids need to go to university, even if the course is pointless. In 2013 ONS commented:
the percentage of graduates working in non-graduate roles has risen, particularly since the 2008/09 recession. This suggests the increasing supply of graduates and the possible decrease in demand for them has had an effect on the type of job they are doing.
That was 47% of recent graduates in non-graduate roles.
Is that a productive investment for them, or the best use of 3 years of their time?
You're point is irrelevant. I didn't say it should be compulsory, just encouraged and free for those who want it. There is still inertia out there that university is "not for people like me". Nothing about that precludes other forms of further education that should be equally encouraged.
The Tories, at present, are the best vehicle for achieving what I want for this country. That's a purely practical assessment, and should that cease to be the case then I will no longer support them. I would be very happy with an Orange Book/Cameroon government without the right or the left of that grouping - but it's not possible.
Brave Charles
not too many Heathites around at the moment.
I might be tempted by Selsdon man, but I'm not a Heathite. He lacked the courage of his convictions*.
Economically dry and socially liberal, tempered with a good sense of what is practically possible (which is where you fall down) seems like a very pragmatic position
* I mean philosophical, of course
LOL
I think it's more a question of I have the courage of convications and you don't. See breaking up RBS, tax reform etc..
Like all establishment bods you are afraid of change.
On RBS they have basically run down the investment bank and substantially withdrawn from international engagements. Williams & Glyn is coming out, albeit delayed. It's a question of timing: when a patient is on life support it's probably not the best moment for major surgery in my view
Tax reform would be a good thing. That's an area that Osborne has disappointed. Some of his moves - on tax avoidance for instance - are good. And I hope he goes ahead with the merger of NIC and IT.
But there are higher priorities - fixing tax credits, for instance - so I can see why it is better to address problems a few at a time
I love your posts Charles they're all PP and no E.
Presenting W&G as if it's somehow signifiicant is always your first line of defence. That's not the issue as you well know. if I remember my PIMS correctly a concentrated market where a few large players dominate is something nudging cartel conditions. Thats where UK banking is today in retail and CF. The " challenger banks" while growing still have small market shares. We're still in the position where the 4 largest banks have a greater market share today than they did in 2007. That's not capitalism it's corporatism, much as HMG let TSB get bought out ( so how long do you give L&G ? )
As for priorities, the priority is to rebalance the economy not dispute the division of spoils on the current cake, and has been since 2010 which is why I criticise GO as he has done next to bugger all on the issue, preferring to dick about like GB on throwing gifts to his favoured chums.
Your comments on tax reform just made me laugh - WW1 4 years, WW2 5 Years, Osborne tax reforms - ooh don't rush him !
Wildly off topic and taken from my twitter feed, but this is shaping up to be a pretty spectacular example of Hollywood rewriting history to suit its audience:
That's right up there with U-571. (In fairness I should point out that the director claims that the trailer gives a misleading impression of how the film portrays the subject, but you do have to wonder who put the trailer together then.)
There's a really important point being obscured that a lot of gay men could do with learning. Gay rights, by and large, were not initially fought for by professional "respectable" men like me (who now have largely taken over the campaign groups like Stonewall). They were fought for by the screaming queens, the trannies, all the people who didn't and couldn't fit into polite society. If Hollywood is pretending otherwise, it's a really serious historical mistake.
Or a really silly historical rewrite.
I find it difficult to watch supposedly historical films, especially those that try to pass themselves off as documentaries. I spend most of my time grumbling about the way they distort the past or otherwise mislead people. Most annoying of all is the time I then have to spend unravelling the misconceptions (genuine conversation with a Year 8 re the Princes in the Tower after that appalling mini-series The White Queen two years ago: 'but sir, it was Margaret Beaufort who did it, why isn't she on the list of suspects'?).
I can see why this would be particularly annoying from your point of view. But I think the best thing that can be done is to note the error and ensure it is loudly and publicly rebutted as the person you highlight is doing. This is simply because screenwriters consider themselves artists and get tetchy if told they have a duty to be historically accurate, saying that it would 'compromise their integrity.'
The important thing for them is to tell a good story which is fair enough - though if it is purporting to be realistic either in claim or with very 'realistic' tone that is another matter - it's like I say with a lot of movies and TV shows, we want real human drama/humour etc, only simpler to understand, less ambiguous, cut out the dull bits, and make sure it's only portrayed by sexy people. Real life but sexier is a good mission statement, historical vandalism just needs constant challenging to in some way compensate .
That's why I'd completely free up universities to charge what they like, combining with generous targeted subsidies for specific courses and national scholarships so that the brightest kids can study what they like where they like regardless of means
Except of course they're not.
The fees system is close to the point where not only will we be taxing the young, but the total bill for fees will still get lumped back on the taxpayer.
If you're so zippideedooda on fees perhaps you'd like pay your own back in to the public purse.
The deal in the past was free education and if you succeeded you got hit with a higher tax rate. Now you get hit with two of them.
We support three universities relatively significantly, and I give my time to another. None of them happen to be my alma mater, but they haven't asked yet (beyond £100 p.a. which I pay just to get them off the phone!) So I'm doing my bit...
But the current system is, shall we say, sub-optimal. I haven't delved into the detail, but I suspect that there is a strong correlation between (a) people who can't pay back their fees and (b) courses which add little value to their personal prospects. Those are courses that shouldn't be happening in the scale that they are
a. If the people can't pay back their taxes then the bill gets dumped on the taxpayer and does in any event when the graduates reach 50. All Willetts has done is kick thew bill down the road and pretend it's a loan. So this is still a tax.
b. If you can predict what adds value, then you're doing better than most academeics and wasting your time in banking. In my experience most grads ( and the current lot are ultra conservative compared to previous years ) are all fairly sensible. imo they are better judges on where they'll succeed and should be given a chance.
So you agree with me. Good.
LOL
I'm now going to have to add remedial english comprehension to your list :-)
But it is hard to fit all the facts into any meaningful narrative that would have drama. Basically, I am having to change things. To an expert these changes would be noticeable and perhaps annoying; but the purpose is to write a story based firmly around real historical events that capture the feel of the period and, hopefully, would be enjoyable to read. I would be in heaven if people learnt something without even realising it.
I've even considered writing an appendix stating where I have taken liberties, but that feels like it would turn it from a story into a quasi-historical piece.
Although that is the approach of by far the best historical novelist writing at present, Bernard Cornwell (OK, he can't write as elegantly as Gregory, but he is far better at things like characterisation and plot than she is, and far more honest about his own training/knowledge/experience). So you do have a good precedent if you go down that route.
Dr. Kathryn Warner has some hilarious reviews of wretched historical novels, on her Edward II Blog. She has some very harsh things to say about Phillippa Gregory and Alison Weir. (as an aside, I did actually enjoy the White Queen and the Boleyn Inheritance, but they 're not accurate).
The "best" writer is Emily Purdy. Not only did she write a book depicting a lesbian affair between Katherine Howard and Ann of Cleves, she has another portraying Piers Gaveston as a pagan rent boy, from a peasant background, whose mother was burned as a witch. Edward I would surely have chosen him as his son's companion!
Although she should have been on the list of suspects, partly because of that very series (i.e. to test popular beliefs), and partly because the notion that some member of the Lancastrian / Tudor House did it should be taken seriously.
Henry VII was on the list, along with Buckingham and Brackenbury. But there is no realistic or plausible way Margaret Beaufort could be implicated. Gregory's reasoning was in effect (1) she was a Catholic and therefore evil and (2) her son was the next heir so she had a strong motive. The first is daft and the second is wrong (at least 15 men, not including women, had a better claim to the throne than Henry - if indeed he had a claim at all). So I decided she wasn't worth including.
I'd agree with your reasons for deciding it wasn't her (and indeed, for arguing that it's pretty laughable to even consider it). However, popular culture thinks otherwise so that'd be why I would - though of course your student brought her up anyway.
It's a bit like a talk I want to last year by an ex-copper who reckons that he's worked out that Jack the Ripper was a German sailor (sort of: he also argues that the several murders have been wrongly attributed, either to him when they weren't or vice versa). He included the Duke of Clarence and Sir William Gull as 'suspects' in the talk simply to demonstrate the absurdity of the assertions. That said, he asked for suspects from the audience, knowing that in all probability someone would put them forward.
Re talking to terrorists etc. of course it happens, eventually despite protestations. Sometimes it is the only way out. But it's a question of timing, of whether all sides are ready and willing and if it is right in the circumstances. Rigidly insisting on an automatic position of speaking to people would not be more moral, if it involved expecting dialogue when one side and their positioning effectively makes dialogue impossible.
This is an exact repeat of the Blair era. Cameron and Osborne, Osborne in particular, is relentlessly focussed on the centre ground in the same way that Blair was. The need to differentiate drives the opposing party to the extremes which alienates their natural supporters but make their more extreme supporters louder and more dominant in their organisation.
One of the consistent delusions of politics is that it is a mistake to look like a pale version of your opponent and that what is required is more of the policies and stance that the electorate rejected the last time. 2001 and 2005 were both good examples and now we have had 2010 and 2015. It seems that Labour have yet to learn that lesson. They have not yet found their David Cameron (or Blair), someone who can drag their party back to relevance ignoring the siren calls of the one more heave brigade.
The second thing required is the natural weakening over time of the dominant party. Cameron's departure (surely still one of the most underrated politicians since the war) is such an opportunity as is the Tories persistent desire to risk ruin by EU obsessions. But Labour need a centrist, relevant, electable voice to take advantage of these opportunities. Corbyn is clearly not that and nor, in my opinion, is Burnham. This election has clearly come much too soon for Kendall. Cooper has a lot of growing to do in terms of speaking, presence and wit but she is their only chance.
As an example of a typical problem that must bedevil an historical novelist: sources show there is a man who was working in 1808 aged 52. Other sources indicate a man of the same name doing the same work, connected to the same people, twenty years later. The work is heavy in a harsh area, and it is hard to think it might be the same man (although for various reasons it would be a big coincidence for it to be someone else of the same name).
It is possible that it is a son, but as he is only an incidental character I've decided he was an elderly man, which conveniently fits in with the book's plot. I could try to go to births and deaths records to sort it out, but it doesn't seem worth it for such a minor point. Yet it is a liberty that is niggling at me.
I can see the issue. But actually, in default of other evidence, I would assume it is the same man for the simple reason that people who did manual labour tended not to retire as long as they could still work because otherwise they would have no money. And if he could do heavy work at 52, that indicates he had a pretty formidable constitution anyway (many people doing heavy work, e.g. puddling in an iron works, didn't make it to their 30s). A paternalistic landlord might occasionally put an elderly labourer on lighter duties - e.g. hoeing radishes in the kitchen garden for a few pennies - but there weren't so many of them. (Out of curiosity, and if you don't mind my asking, what work was he doing?)
So your conclusion, convenient or not, seems perfectly valid to me.
There is nothing special about university education. It's increasingly necessary in the modern world. It should be prioritised. These students are no more investing in themselves than secondary students.
Bollocks.
University education is not right for everyone. People should be encouraged to do what is right for their own development. For some people that will mean academic study. For others vocational academics (e.g. law or engineering). Other people would be better off with practical (i.e. polytechnic based) courses that teach them skills that are relevant for a specific career.
We need to get away from the obsession that 50% of kids need to go to university, even if the course is pointless. In 2013 ONS commented:
the percentage of graduates working in non-graduate roles has risen, particularly since the 2008/09 recession. This suggests the increasing supply of graduates and the possible decrease in demand for them has had an effect on the type of job they are doing.
That was 47% of recent graduates in non-graduate roles.
Is that a productive investment for them, or the best use of 3 years of their time?
You're point is irrelevant. I didn't say it should be compulsory, just encouraged and free for those who want it. There is still inertia out there that university is "not for people like me". Nothing about that precludes other forms of further education that should be equally encouraged.
Why if something adds no value to society and, arguably has negative value to the participant (opportunity cost of 3 years at university rather than in work) should it be subsidised?
The important thing for them is to tell a good story which is fair enough - though if it is purporting to be realistic either in claim or with very 'realistic' tone that is another matter - it's like I say with a lot of movies and TV shows, we want real human drama/humour etc, only simpler to understand, less ambiguous, cut out the dull bits, and make sure it's only portrayed by sexy people. Real life but sexier is a good mission statement, historical vandalism just needs constant challenging to in some way compensate .
Morris Dancer mentioned her in a conversation about this some months ago. At first, when he described her novels I assumed he was winding me up. I was even more appalled when I found he wasn't...
I love your posts Charles they're all PP and no E.
Presenting W&G as if it's somehow signifiicant is always your first line of defence. That's not the issue as you well know. if I remember my PIMS correctly a concentrated market where a few large players dominate is something nudging cartel conditions. Thats where UK banking is today in retail and CF. The " challenger banks" while growing still have small market shares. We're still in the position where the 4 largest banks have a greater market share today than they did in 2007. That's not capitalism it's corporatism, much as HMG let TSB get bought out ( so how long do you give L&G ? )
As for priorities, the priority is to rebalance the economy not dispute the division of spoils on the current cake, and has been since 2010 which is why I criticise GO as he has done next to bugger all on the issue, preferring to dick about like GB on throwing gifts to his favoured chums.
Your comments on tax reform just made me laugh - WW1 4 years, WW2 5 Years, Osborne tax reforms - ooh don't rush him !
A little unfair to blame the current government for Lloyds / HBOS!
Challenger banks will take time to build. But I don't think you fully appreciate how parlous the condition of the mismanaged banks was over the last 5 years. We are only just beginning to get towards better ground
Re talking to terrorists etc. of course it happens, eventually despite protestations. Sometimes it is the only way out. But it's a question of timing, of whether all sides are ready and willing and if it is right in the circumstances. Rigidly insisting on an automatic position of speaking to people would not be more moral, if it involved expecting dialogue when one side and their positioning effectively makes dialogue impossible.
There's a time for war and a time for peace. Talking to people who are only prepared to settle for unwarranted demands (like the IRA in the 80s) is pointless. Conceding their demands (which is what Corbyn advocated) is immoral.
I'd agree with your reasons for deciding it wasn't her (and indeed, for arguing that it's pretty laughable to even consider it). However, popular culture thinks otherwise so that'd be why I would - though of course your student brought her up anyway.
It's a bit like a talk I want to last year by an ex-copper who reckons that he's worked out that Jack the Ripper was a German sailor (sort of: he also argues that the several murders have been wrongly attributed, either to him when they weren't or vice versa). He included the Duke of Clarence and Sir William Gull as 'suspects' in the talk simply to demonstrate the absurdity of the assertions. That said, he asked for suspects from the audience, knowing that in all probability someone would put them forward.
Jack the Ripper is another classic. If I see one more book claiming to offer 'definitive proof' of who he was I shall probably cause raised eyebrows by buying it and stamping on it in public!
There is nothing special about university education. It's increasingly necessary in the modern world. It should be prioritised. These students are no more investing in themselves than secondary students.
Bollocks.
University education is not right for everyone. People should be encouraged to do what is right for their own development. For some people that will mean academic study. For others vocational academics (e.g. law or engineering). Other people would be better off with practical (i.e. polytechnic based) courses that teach them skills that are relevant for a specific career.
We need to get away from the obsession that 50% of kids need to go to university, even if the course is pointless. In 2013 ONS commented:
the percentage of graduates working in non-graduate roles has risen, particularly since the 2008/09 recession. This suggests the increasing supply of graduates and the possible decrease in demand for them has had an effect on the type of job they are doing.
That was 47% of recent graduates in non-graduate roles.
Is that a productive investment for them, or the best use of 3 years of their time?
You're point is irrelevant. I didn't say it should be compulsory, just encouraged and free for those who want it. There is still inertia out there that university is "not for people like me". Nothing about that precludes other forms of further education that should be equally encouraged.
Why if something adds no value to society and, arguably has negative value to the participant (opportunity cost of 3 years at university rather than in work) should it be subsidised?
There is nothing special about university education. It's increasingly necessary in the modern world. It should be prioritised. These students are no more investing in themselves than secondary students.
Bollocks.
University education is not right for everyone. People should be encouraged to do what is right for their own development. For some people that will mean academic study. For others vocational academics (e.g. law or engineering). Other people would be better off with practical (i.e. polytechnic based) courses that teach them skills that are relevant for a specific career.
We need to get away from the obsession that 50% of kids need to go to university, even if the course is pointless. In 2013 ONS commented:
the percentage of graduates working in non-graduate roles has risen, particularly since the 2008/09 recession. This suggests the increasing supply of graduates and the possible decrease in demand for them has had an effect on the type of job they are doing.
That was 47% of recent graduates in non-graduate roles.
Is that a productive investment for them, or the best use of 3 years of their time?
You're point is irrelevant. I didn't say it should be compulsory, just encouraged and free for those who want it. There is still inertia out there that university is "not for people like me". Nothing about that precludes other forms of further education that should be equally encouraged.
Why if something adds no value to society and, arguably has negative value to the participant (opportunity cost of 3 years at university rather than in work) should it be subsidised?
"You really believe that people will be listening to a 70's Marxist rust bucket let alone taking them seriously ?"
Of course not but they will listen to a British leader of the opposition or British Prime minister
Well, perhaps. But I don't think they listened to Tony Blair. Remember that 'Yo Blair' conversation where he offered to go to Syria over the Lebanese/Israeli war because if he didn't achieve anything it wouldn't actually matter?
David Herdson The fact that the CLP's voted marginally for Corbyn is a reflection only of the poor state of the present leadership contest and says nothing at all about what the 2020 intake will be.
If Chuka had stayed the course he would be sailing through this contest- and what would that say? Ed Jarvis, the same possibly because people like his back story.
Liz Kendell is getting so little traction because she is bonkers. And the membership were fed up of robotic types like Burnham and Cooper- but in all likelihood are probably going to pick one of them on second preferences.
Corbyn is a breath of fresh air that will likely fizzle out. The Tory party leadership election will also benefit from a Corbynesque injection of enthusiasm.
There is nothing special about university education. It's increasingly necessary in the modern world. It should be prioritised. These students are no more investing in themselves than secondary students.
Bollocks.
University education is not right for everyone. People should be encouraged to do what is right for their own development. For some people that will mean academic study. For others vocational academics (e.g. law or engineering). Other people would be better off with practical (i.e. polytechnic based) courses that teach them skills that are relevant for a specific career.
We need to get away from the obsession that 50% of kids need to go to university, even if the course is pointless. In 2013 ONS commented:
the percentage of graduates working in non-graduate roles has risen, particularly since the 2008/09 recession. This suggests the increasing supply of graduates and the possible decrease in demand for them has had an effect on the type of job they are doing.
That was 47% of recent graduates in non-graduate roles.
Is that a productive investment for them, or the best use of 3 years of their time?
You're point is irrelevant. I didn't say it should be compulsory, just encouraged and free for those who want it. There is still inertia out there that university is "not for people like me". Nothing about that precludes other forms of further education that should be equally encouraged.
It should be encouraged not for those who want it, but for those who could get the most out of it, regardless of background. The needs of the country should also be considered.
The problem is that degrees are seen as being a must-have, and you are somehow a failure if you do not have one. We need to remove that idea, and give better vocational routes for the majority.
a. If the people can't pay back their taxes then the bill gets dumped on the taxpayer and does in any event when the graduates reach 50. All Willetts has done is kick thew bill down the road and pretend it's a loan. So this is still a tax.
b. If you can predict what adds value, then you're doing better than most academeics and wasting your time in banking. In my experience most grads ( and the current lot are ultra conservative compared to previous years ) are all fairly sensible. imo they are better judges on where they'll succeed and should be given a chance.
So you agree with me. Good.
LOL
I'm now going to have to add remedial english comprehension to your list :-)
a. the current system is, effectively, a tax with an additional contribution from those people who earn enough.
b. most grads are best are selecting the most appropriate courses, and so I'd free them to make that choice. And I'd free institutions to set their own price.
I don't see many areas of disagreement.
Where we may part ways is that I see value in ensuring the brightest can study what they like regardless of cost. So I'd have a generous system of scholarships.
And then I'd also look at subjects that the government wants to encourage - medicine, STEM, etc - and subsidise those. You may disagree that it would be a good use of taxpayers' money, but I don't think that's a fundamental point of principle
There is nothing special about university education. It's increasingly necessary in the modern world. It should be prioritised. These students are no more investing in themselves than secondary students.
Bollocks.
University education is not right for everyone. People should be encouraged to do what is right for their own development. For some people that will mean academic study. For others vocational academics (e.g. law or engineering). Other people would be better off with practical (i.e. polytechnic based) courses that teach them skills that are relevant for a specific career.
We need to get away from the obsession that 50% of kids need to go to university, even if the course is pointless. In 2013 ONS commented:
the percentage of graduates working in non-graduate roles has risen, particularly since the 2008/09 recession. This suggests the increasing supply of graduates and the possible decrease in demand for them has had an effect on the type of job they are doing.
That was 47% of recent graduates in non-graduate roles.
Is that a productive investment for them, or the best use of 3 years of their time?
You're point is irrelevant. I didn't say it should be compulsory, just encouraged and free for those who want it. There is still inertia out there that university is "not for people like me". Nothing about that precludes other forms of further education that should be equally encouraged.
Why if something adds no value to society and, arguably has negative value to the participant (opportunity cost of 3 years at university rather than in work) should it be subsidised?
In that case, you need to get rid of the following other degrees (among others):
English Literature, Philosophy, Anthropology, History, Economy, Politics, Art...
(I suspect Economics has a strongly negative value for the country, so that would be first to go).
Again, this is more a sign of how far the Establishment voters have collectively moved to the Right, if opposing cuts to poor people's incomes is now "left-wing". One of the welfare rebels was Gerald Kaufman, who in the 1980s was on the Right of the party.
As far as a large chunk of the usually-pragmatic grassroots are concerned, it's the leadership who have moved away from us, not us who have moved to the left.
The voters are conspicuously moving to the right at the moment, as can be seen with the strong support even in working class circles for the Benefit Cap and the Two Child limit. It might be more accurate to say that the population is drifting right at the moment and the labour grassroots are either stationary or reacting against that drift.
On welfare cuts yes, on rail renationalisation and a higher top rate of tax for the rich the public is moving left
Re talking to terrorists etc. of course it happens, eventually despite protestations. Sometimes it is the only way out. But it's a question of timing, of whether all sides are ready and willing and if it is right in the circumstances. Rigidly insisting on an automatic position of speaking to people would not be more moral, if it involved expecting dialogue when one side and their positioning effectively makes dialogue impossible.
I'd be stronger and say it is immoral if it encourages terrorists to continue their efforts for longer in the belief that we are weak. The first approach always needs to come from the terrorists when they realise that they can't achieve their aims by violence and fear.
Again, this is more a sign of how far the Establishment voters have collectively moved to the Right, if opposing cuts to poor people's incomes is now "left-wing". One of the welfare rebels was Gerald Kaufman, who in the 1980s was on the Right of the party.
As far as a large chunk of the usually-pragmatic grassroots are concerned, it's the leadership who have moved away from us, not us who have moved to the left.
The voters are conspicuously moving to the right at the moment, as can be seen with the strong support even in working class circles for the Benefit Cap and the Two Child limit. It might be more accurate to say that the population is drifting right at the moment and the labour grassroots are either stationary or reacting against that drift.
On welfare cuts yes, on rail renationalisation and a higher top rate of tax for the rich the public is moving left
Suzanne Evans is the most impressive UKIPper by far, more so than Carswell IMHO. AIUI she was responsible for their 2015 manifesto, which was massively more professionally than their comedic 2010 one.
Having her as leader would lance many of the PR problems the party has.
I am not religious but that comment is spot on. She has demonstrated yet again that she is well worth listening to.
There is nothing special about university education. It's increasingly necessary in the modern world. It should be prioritised. These students are no more investing in themselves than secondary students.
Bollocks.
University education is not right for everyone. People should be encouraged to do what is right for their own development. For some people that will mean academic study. For others vocational academics (e.g. law or engineering). Other people would be better off with practical (i.e. polytechnic based) courses that teach them skills that are relevant for a specific career.
We need to get away from the obsession that 50% of kids need to go to university, even if the course is pointless. In 2013 ONS commented:
the percentage of graduates working in non-graduate roles has risen, particularly since the 2008/09 recession. This suggests the increasing supply of graduates and the possible decrease in demand for them has had an effect on the type of job they are doing.
That was 47% of recent graduates in non-graduate roles.
Is that a productive investment for them, or the best use of 3 years of their time?
You're point is irrelevant. I didn't say it should be compulsory, just encouraged and free for those who want it. There is still inertia out there that university is "not for people like me". Nothing about that precludes other forms of further education that should be equally encouraged.
Why if something adds no value to society and, arguably has negative value to the participant (opportunity cost of 3 years at university rather than in work) should it be subsidised?
There is nothing special about university education. It's increasingly necessary in the modern world. It should be prioritised. These students are no more investing in themselves than secondary students.
Bollocks.
University education is not right for everyone. People should be encouraged to do what is right for their own development. For some people that will mean academic study. For others vocational academics (e.g. law or engineering). Other people would be better off with practical (i.e. polytechnic based) courses that teach them skills that are relevant for a specific career.
We need to get away from the obsession that 50% of kids need to go to university, even if the course is pointless. In 2013 ONS commented:
the percentage of graduates working in non-graduate roles has risen, particularly since the 2008/09 recession. This suggests the increasing supply of graduates and the possible decrease in demand for them has had an effect on the type of job they are doing.
That was 47% of recent graduates in non-graduate roles.
Is that a productive investment for them, or the best use of 3 years of their time?
You're point is irrelevant. I didn't say it should be compulsory, just encouraged and free for those who want it. There is still inertia out there that university is "not for people like me". Nothing about that precludes other forms of further education that should be equally encouraged.
Why if something adds no value to society and, arguably has negative value to the participant (opportunity cost of 3 years at university rather than in work) should it be subsidised?
If I didn't need to earn a living, I would have liked to be an archaeologist!
Thank you to whoever posted the Brian Wilson article. Brilliant use of sarcasm.
The comments are disturbing though. Let's start with:
Brian Wilson, like many columnists, have been painting Jeremy Corbyn out to be some kind of left-wing loony completely out of step with public opinion. Totally wrong. We are all a lot more left-leaning than me might imagine. Take a look at these charts from recent polls. You'll be amazed to find that most of the British public AGREE with Jeremy's politics.
As Wilson himself said, those whom the gods wish to destroy, they first make mad.
There is a case for the government subsidising courses - let's say STEM or certain vocational courses - where there are positive externalities. But PPE or law? Let them pay for themselves.
The people who I feel sorry for are those that do weak degrees and weak institutions because they wrongly believe that a university degree is more important than the quality of that degree. *They* are the ones who will struggle to get a return on their investment (although that's why the government will write it off).
That's why I'd completely free up universities to charge what they like, combining with generous targeted subsidies for specific courses and national scholarships so that the brightest kids can study what they like where they like regardless of means
UKIP policy is no fees in the STEM subjects.
You didn't have a profitable career just because of luck and the university you attended, the fact you went to one of the best in the world suggests a certain amount of intelligence and aptitude. Blair's ridiculous aspiration of 50% going to uni has diluted the importance of a good degree, we all know people in their 20s with a 2:2 in a worthless subject, saddled with debt and no obvious drive to build a career for themselves, it's as if the degree itself was the be all and end all rather than a platform.
Labour's candidates and membership lean to the left at present following a second defeat, much as the Tories did after the 2001 election. Corbyn will certainly come top on first preferences, if he does lose it will be narrowly on preferences to Burnham or Cooper.
However, as the Tory experience showed, after they lost the 2005 election too their membership elected the centrist Cameron even having elected IDS the previous election, eventually after being out of power long enough even activists will hold their noses for a centrist candidate, hence Blair became leader after 4 election defeats for Labour, Cameron after 3 defeats for the Tories. However, 2 election defeats is not enough for the base yet to concede defeat, with the '1 more heave strategy' still enough to see them elect a leader more to their tastes.
One thing Labour do have going for them is Cameron will not be there in 2020, if he was, as Blair was still in 2005 for the Tories, I think it would be a matter of limiting the damage. Yet without him at the helm they may still have a chance
The parallels here are overstated. The Conservative base reluctantly chose IDS over the madly Europhile Clarke because that was the only option they had. Virtually any other credible leadershi candidate would have been chosen, had they been on the ballot.
With Labour, they are not just choosing Corbyn over a mild Blairite in Kendall, but over the party's Brownite middle in Burnham and Cooper. And doing so enthusiastically.
Not necessarily, IDS would probably have beaten Portillo too (and Portillo, while a social liberal, was still a Thatcherite on economics and a eurosceptic) and while Davis may have beaten IDS he was a fellow rightwinger anyway.
Portillo would have beaten IDS, and both him and Davis were (and still are!) In the sensible mainstream. Portillo's liberal social views and Davis' liberal civil rights views show they are thoughtful men and not ideologues.
No Portillo would not have beaten IDS. Indeed, Portillo's private polling at the time showed him doing little better than Clarke. Davis was a traditionalist, social conservative, on issues like drugs and homosexuality, Portillo took a more liberal line than Davis at the time
Rather bizarrely Scottish Labour were struggling to get 100 folks along to the leadership hustings - Corbyn is already attracting many times that figure. The political commentators seem to think SLAB should be leading left, however, the party on the ground under the influence of John McT are fighting Blairism's last stand alongside Liz Kendall.
There is nothing special about university education. It's increasingly necessary in the modern world. It should be prioritised. These students are no more investing in themselves than secondary students.
Bollocks.
University education is not right for everyone. People should be encouraged to do what is right for their own development. For some people that will mean academic study. For others vocational academics (e.g. law or engineering). Other people would be better off with practical (i.e. polytechnic based) courses that teach them skills that are relevant for a specific career.
We need to get away from the obsession that 50% of kids need to go to university, even if the course is pointless. In 2013 ONS commented:
the percentage of graduates working in non-graduate roles has risen, particularly since the 2008/09 recession. This suggests the increasing supply of graduates and the possible decrease in demand for them has had an effect on the type of job they are doing.
That was 47% of recent graduates in non-graduate roles.
Is that a productive investment for them, or the best use of 3 years of their time?
You're point is irrelevant. I didn't say it should be compulsory, just encouraged and free for those who want it. There is still inertia out there that university is "not for people like me". Nothing about that precludes other forms of further education that should be equally encouraged.
It should be encouraged not for those who want it, but for those who could get the most out of it, regardless of background. The needs of the country should also be considered.
The problem is that degrees are seen as being a must-have, and you are somehow a failure if you do not have one. We need to remove that idea, and give better vocational routes for the majority.
Note: I do not have a degree ...
IMO the risk is still on the downside. People deciding that uni is not for people like them. We should do everything we can to get people who could do it, to do it.
I personally would like to see a growth of mature students. With careers getting longer we need to find ways to support people who want to retrain.
I'd agree with your reasons for deciding it wasn't her (and indeed, for arguing that it's pretty laughable to even consider it). However, popular culture thinks otherwise so that'd be why I would - though of course your student brought her up anyway.
It's a bit like a talk I want to last year by an ex-copper who reckons that he's worked out that Jack the Ripper was a German sailor (sort of: he also argues that the several murders have been wrongly attributed, either to him when they weren't or vice versa). He included the Duke of Clarence and Sir William Gull as 'suspects' in the talk simply to demonstrate the absurdity of the assertions. That said, he asked for suspects from the audience, knowing that in all probability someone would put them forward.
Jack the Ripper is another classic. If I see one more book claiming to offer 'definitive proof' of who he was I shall probably cause raised eyebrows by buying it and stamping on it in public!
I've seen a portrait of Jack the Ripper, wearing his Masonic regalia.
You didn't have a profitable career just because of luck and the university you attended, the fact you went to one of the best in the world suggests a certain amount of intelligence and aptitude.
Sometimes, little things can be easiest to get wrong. Bows were loosed or shot, for example. They weren't fired, because firearms didn't exist (and there was, quite literally, no fire). I've probably missed that once or twice but I try and get things like that right [I don't write historical fiction but when you've clearly nicked a lot/been inspired by history there are certain things you want to be plausible].
With Corbyn I cannot get past his appeasement of terrorists. Forget his absurd economic and financial posturing, his tokenism, his fundamental disloyalty and his flip-flopping, and remember he has described the IRA, Hezbollah and Hamas as friends. A party that elects him leader deserves to lose heavy. And it will.
Corbyn will ensure entrenched Tory rule and, with the Tories, will enable the SNP to win its independence referendum. He will be the most destructive figure left-wing politics in this country has ever produced, cheered on by the deluded, the wicked and the stupid beyond hope. With his election Labour will finally and totally have abandoned the poor and the disadvantaged. But as long as a few people feel that little bit better about themselves, who cares, eh?
Actually, yougov has shown Corbyn has a net positive rating in Scotland, a net negative in England, a Corbyn led Labour could well start to eat back into SNP support in the Central Belt, he is the leader the SNP most fear. Even with the Tory majority the latest polls have NO still ahead in an indyref 2 anyway
There is a case for the government subsidising courses - let's say STEM or certain vocational courses - where there are positive externalities. But PPE or law? Let them pay for themselves.
The people who I feel sorry for are those that do weak degrees and weak institutions because they wrongly believe that a university degree is more important than the quality of that degree. *They* are the ones who will struggle to get a return on their investment (although that's why the government will write it off).
That's why I'd completely free up universities to charge what they like, combining with generous targeted subsidies for specific courses and national scholarships so that the brightest kids can study what they like where they like regardless of means
UKIP policy is no fees in the STEM subjects.
You didn't have a profitable career just because of luck and the university you attended, the fact you went to one of the best in the world suggests a certain amount of intelligence and aptitude. Blair's ridiculous aspiration of 50% going to uni has diluted the importance of a good degree, we all know people in their 20s with a 2:2 in a worthless subject, saddled with debt and no obvious drive to build a career for themselves, it's as if the degree itself was the be all and end all rather than a platform.
Although I must admit I have a law degree, I think the STEM/other distinction can go too far.
We don't ask people in general to pursue "worthy" careers. If big city lawyers (which is a subset of course) make plenty of dosh without much social good then we tax them and they can pay for schools. And we have lawyers to help support more "socially valuable" careers.
Whilst there's a case for graduating fees to take account of current shortages, I don't think we can reasonably aim for a long term moulding of careers.
Sometimes, little things can be easiest to get wrong. Bows were loosed or shot, for example. They weren't fired, because firearms didn't exist (and there was, quite literally, no fire). I've probably missed that once or twice but I try and get things like that right [I don't write historical fiction but when you've clearly nicked a lot/been inspired by history there are certain things you want to be plausible].
The Lord of the Rings films, of course, got that completely wrong. Along with other little things like Tolkien's subtexts and large chunks of the plot.
When was the last time that a politician so visibly diminished in an election campaign as Andy Burnham has? He might yet win but he looks much less credible as a leader than he did when the leadership election began.
Portillo started the 2001 Tory race with over 100 nominations, he ended up third. Davis had almost the same in 2005 but after his conference speech collapsed. David Miliband was the overwhelming favourite in 2010 in terms of MPs declarations and early polls before he was overtaken by Ed. Burnham has not diminished as much as those 3 and he only became frontrunner when the previous frontrunner, Chuka Umunna pulled out
On topic, thank you Mr Herdson for a thought-provoking and alarming article. It should be emailed to every Labour member who is thinking of voting Corbyn so they can feel good about themselves for three years before getting someone who can win elections in.
What is really worrying is the stage we are at in the electoral cycle. At this point, having just been brutally hammered in an election by an unpopular government for being too left-wing, Labour should have worked out that moving further left would be pure self-indulgence and instead be looking to return to power in at least the medium term by electing somebody voters will listen to. Given that they have the recent example of Iain Duncan Smith to ponder, they have no excuse to be moving left, yet on these very threads we have seen people who are demonstrably sane and decent talking about doing just that.
The damage they are doing to Labour's political credibility is immense. Is there any sign of hope for Labour that anyone can see?
The only possible hope is wipe-out in next year's elections. That still leaves time to change for 2020. With the right leader and programme the Tories are very beatable. Sadly, right now it seems that Labour is not that interested in such a notion. It will need a few more jolts to change that.
I think you are right. The open question is can the Labour party such as it is today survive that process. The level of poison that appears to be building between the moderates and the Corbynite is astonishing to an outsider, can the party survive in its current form if Corbyn comes a close second (especially if it is as a result of Kendall withdrawing "Blairite Conspiracy") or if they bomb in next years elections and the MPs decide to ditch him ("Establishment Stitch-up")
Of course it will, as the Blairites will not link up with Farron's LDs and are unlikely to cross the floor to Cameron
Labour's candidates and membership lean to the left at present following a second defeat, much as the Tories did after the 2001 election. Corbyn will certainly come top on first preferences, if he does lose it will be narrowly on preferences to Burnham or Cooper.
However, as the Tory experience showed, after they lost the 2005 election too their membership elected the centrist Cameron even having elected IDS the previous election, eventually after being out of power long enough even activists will hold their noses for a centrist candidate, hence Blair became leader after 4 election defeats for Labour, Cameron after 3 defeats for the Tories. However, 2 election defeats is not enough for the base yet to concede defeat, with the '1 more heave strategy' still enough to see them elect a leader more to their tastes.
One thing Labour do have going for them is Cameron will not be there in 2020, if he was, as Blair was still in 2005 for the Tories, I think it would be a matter of limiting the damage. Yet without him at the helm they may still have a chance
The parallels here are overstated. The Conservative base reluctantly chose IDS over the madly Europhile Clarke because that was the only option they had. Virtually any other credible leadershi candidate would have been chosen, had they been on the ballot.
With Labour, they are not just choosing Corbyn over a mild Blairite in Kendall, but over the party's Brownite middle in Burnham and Cooper. And doing so enthusiastically.
Not necessarily, IDS would probably have beaten Portillo too (and Portillo, while a social liberal, was still a Thatcherite on economics and a eurosceptic) and while Davis may have beaten IDS he was a fellow rightwinger anyway.
Portillo would have beaten IDS, and both him and Davis were (and still are!) In the sensible mainstream. Portillo's liberal social views and Davis' liberal civil rights views show they are thoughtful men and not ideologues.
This is interesting. In 2001, apparently Tory MPs voted tactically to prevent Portillo being on the ballot paper put to party members. It was nearly a Clarke vs Portillo contest, with IDS eliminated. "By a single vote Portillo was eliminated from the contest. It later transpired that he had been the victim of tactical voting.[citation needed]" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservative_Party_(UK)_leadership_election,_2001
Portillo may have won that contest, yes, but then Burnham or Cooper would like have beaten Kendall with few problems too
When was the last time that a politician so visibly diminished in an election campaign as Andy Burnham has? He might yet win but he looks much less credible as a leader than he did when the leadership election began.
Portillo started the 2001 Tory race with over 100 nominations, he ended up third. Davis had almost the same in 2005 but after his conference speech collapsed. David Miliband was the overwhelming favourite in 2010 in terms of MPs declarations and early polls before he was overtaken by Ed. Burnham has not diminished as much as those 3 and he only became frontrunner when the previous frontrunner, Chuka Umunna pulled out
I was watching come of the contemporary coverage of Cameron's win. It seems Davis' speech was only poor by comparison, rather than in absolute.
An interesting thread and a broader argument within the party and without which seems to ignore two rather basic points.
1. Many people seem fixated on the narrative of the now - what people (allegedly) think now is all they will ever think and to suggest they thought something different before or might think something different in the future is Guaranteed To Lose. Nonsense - condition people with There Is No Alternative and of course the now has backing by the electorate. Easy to get support when nothing else is on offer.
2. This left/right nonsense. Our entire political spectrum is right wing now. Someone earlier pointed out that Kaufman - the man on the right - is now Kaufman - the man on the left - because right is now all there is on offer. The current parliamentary Labour party is mainly right wing, and I don't mean on the right of the party I mean right wing. They interviewed David Owen about the prospect of a new SDP split, and he pointed out to a surprised interviewer that Corbyn is positioned a long way to the right of the SDP. This is the "hard left" - the policies of the conservative German government. The policies of every Conservative government pre-Thatcher. No deficit and the lowest corporation tax in the G7. Outrageously investing in skills and training and industry as business keeps demanding.
And with respect to TINA fans, even the right are retrenching leftwards. Osborne dumped his economic targets at the budget and adopted ours. Boris has been banging the drum for higher wages - that a person on his living wage can't afford to rent anywhere in London now is clearly a problem regardless of political colours. We have to do something about wages and housing and bills because if we don't then people won't be able to afford to live and that means no money to buy goods and services with and thats the end of capitalism.
Corbyn will win, and I think he'll win in the first round. We have 4 candidates. One is attracting ever larger crowds at his round Britain meetings as he talks about his detailed and costed vision for the future. He's responsible for a flood of new members (and no, they aren't all infiltrators...). One has a cabal of supporters and offers radical options in the other direction but appears to have pissed off more people than supporters. One believes whatever you tell him to believe no he doesn't yes he does well maybe lets think about it. And the other whose name I have forgotten has said nothing of note at any point on any topic. People aren't flocking to support him because he's the obvious candidate to win, its because he's saying the things that people say and politicians don't. Like Farage does.
The only possible hope is wipe-out in next year's elections. That still leaves time to change for 2020. With the right leader and programme the Tories are very beatable. Sadly, right now it seems that Labour is not that interested in such a notion. It will need a few more jolts to change that.
Well, it's a thought SO. But I wonder - have the Labour base already priced in catastrophe at next year's elections to the leadership result? Let's face it, the odds of them holding even half the local and Holyrood seats in Scotland they have at present are not good (as in about 5000-1) and Wales is gradually drifting away too as we have seen in the Euro and General elections in the last 18 months (and while Carwyn Jones himself remains liked, his government is most certainly not).
So I am wondering if they will shrug and say, 'yeah, whatever, Miliband's fault for being naff, Corbyn will win us them back given another year' even if they lose every seat they hold. The only one that might make a difference in that case is defeat in the London mayoral election - and if Jowell is the candidate, surely Corbyn's supporters would take that as proof Labour isn't left wing enough?
Unless Corbyn and Macintosh lead them, SLab are unlikely to make significant gains in Scotland (though if the SNP press indyref too they may benefit from Tory and LD tactical voting). In Wales though Labour will win, they were still comfortably ahead of the Tories and Plaid in 2015, even with Tory gains
IMO the risk is still on the downside. People deciding that uni is not for people like them. We should do everything we can to get people who could do it, to do it.
I personally would like to see a growth of mature students. With careers getting longer we need to find ways to support people who want to retrain.
We should not have people thinking university is not for the likes of them, but we should have people thinking if university is the right thing for their future. And if they decide not, to have a good alternative set out if they so wish.
The problem is really that latter clause: the alternatives are poor or unfairly derided (HND = Have No Degree).
I think UKIP were the only party to particularly address this in England at the last GE, although it got rather hidden behind their grammar school obsession.
I agree with your second paragraph, although my mother-in-law is perhaps taking it to extremes. She was forced to lave school at ?!4? to look after the family shop, and only started an art degree in her sixties. She's done a masters, and is now doing a doctorate!
The only possible hope is wipe-out in next year's elections. That still leaves time to change for 2020. With the right leader and programme the Tories are very beatable. Sadly, right now it seems that Labour is not that interested in such a notion. It will need a few more jolts to change that.
Well, it's a thought SO. But I wonder - have the Labour base already priced in catastrophe at next year's elections to the leadership result? Let's face it, the odds of them holding even half the local and Holyrood seats in Scotland they have at present are not good (as in about 5000-1) and Wales is gradually drifting away too as we have seen in the Euro and General elections in the last 18 months (and while Carwyn Jones himself remains liked, his government is most certainly not).
So I am wondering if they will shrug and say, 'yeah, whatever, Miliband's fault for being naff, Corbyn will win us them back given another year' even if they lose every seat they hold. The only one that might make a difference in that case is defeat in the London mayoral election - and if Jowell is the candidate, surely Corbyn's supporters would take that as proof Labour isn't left wing enough?
In the 2002 local elections an IDS led Tory party topped the poll and gained 238 seats whilst Tony Blair led Labour lost 334. Could Corbyn repeat that?
Quite possibly, Foot's Labour made major local election gains in the early eighties, as indeed did Kinnock and Hague as well as IDS. However, winning local elections is not the same as winning a general election, especially when starting from a low base
The only possible hope is wipe-out in next year's elections. That still leaves time to change for 2020. With the right leader and programme the Tories are very beatable. Sadly, right now it seems that Labour is not that interested in such a notion. It will need a few more jolts to change that.
Well, it's a thought SO. But I wonder - have the Labour base already priced in catastrophe at next year's elections to the leadership result? Let's face it, the odds of them holding even half the local and Holyrood seats in Scotland they have at present are not good (as in about 5000-1) and Wales is gradually drifting away too as we have seen in the Euro and General elections in the last 18 months (and while Carwyn Jones himself remains liked, his government is most certainly not).
So I am wondering if they will shrug and say, 'yeah, whatever, Miliband's fault for being naff, Corbyn will win us them back given another year' even if they lose every seat they hold. The only one that might make a difference in that case is defeat in the London mayoral election - and if Jowell is the candidate, surely Corbyn's supporters would take that as proof Labour isn't left wing enough?
In the 2002 local elections an IDS led Tory party topped the poll and gained 238 seats whilst Tony Blair led Labour lost 334. Could Corbyn repeat that?
Revisionist Tories forget, or whitewash, that IDS was actually quite successful at the ballot box.
Though it was the Tories third place in the Brent East by-election in September 2003 which did for IDS
Mr. Doethur, not well-versed enough to comment much (although they completely cocked up Denethor), but others who know better agree with that assessment, particularly on Aragorn.
There is nothing special about university education. It's increasingly necessary in the modern world. It should be prioritised. These students are no more investing in themselves than secondary students.
Bollocks.
University education is not right for everyone. People should be encouraged to do what is right for their own development. For some people that will mean academic study. For others vocational academics (e.g. law or engineering). Other people would be better off with practical (i.e. polytechnic based) courses that teach them skills that are relevant for a specific career.
We need to get away from the obsession that 50% of kids need to go to university, even if the course is pointless. In 2013 ONS commented:
the percentage of graduates working in non-graduate roles has risen, particularly since the 2008/09 recession. This suggests the increasing supply of graduates and the possible decrease in demand for them has had an effect on the type of job they are doing.
That was 47% of recent graduates in non-graduate roles.
Is that a productive investment for them, or the best use of 3 years of their time?
You're point is irrelevant. I didn't say it should be compulsory, just encouraged and free for those who want it. There is still inertia out there that university is "not for people like me". Nothing about that precludes other forms of further education that should be equally encouraged.
Why if something adds no value to society and, arguably has negative value to the participant (opportunity cost of 3 years at university rather than in work) should it be subsidised?
True, but I know some archaelogists and they do important work even on relatively low pay (sometimes including surveys for commercial organisations). Indeed, iron age remains were recently found near where I am presently based, previously undiscovered
Sometimes, little things can be easiest to get wrong. Bows were loosed or shot, for example. They weren't fired, because firearms didn't exist (and there was, quite literally, no fire). I've probably missed that once or twice but I try and get things like that right [I don't write historical fiction but when you've clearly nicked a lot/been inspired by history there are certain things you want to be plausible].
The Lord of the Rings films, of course, got that completely wrong. Along with other little things like Tolkien's subtexts and large chunks of the plot.
Hollywood Tactics are one of my betes noir. Actually, I thought the Battle of Helm's Deep and the initial charge of the Rohirrim at Minas Tirith were well done. But, the arrival of the Ghost Army was horrendously bad. It made all the efforts of the defenders and the Rohirrim totally pointless. And don't get me started on the portrayal of Denethor, or the ghastly cut and paste job of Sam's and Frodo's journey through Mordor, or the ridiculous final battle outside the Black Gate.
Comments
There is a case for the government subsidising courses - let's say STEM or certain vocational courses - where there are positive externalities. But PPE or law? Let them pay for themselves.
The people who I feel sorry for are those that do weak degrees and weak institutions because they wrongly believe that a university degree is more important than the quality of that degree. *They* are the ones who will struggle to get a return on their investment (although that's why the government will write it off).
That's why I'd completely free up universities to charge what they like, combining with generous targeted subsidies for specific courses and national scholarships so that the brightest kids can study what they like where they like regardless of means
A "traditional" Labour Party will undoubtedly do better at getting non-voters to turn out than the Greens or Kippers ever will.
Most deaths in the Middle East are Arabs killing other Arabs.
Personally I think both of these are too short but Boris Johnson is especially so.
However: films and books act as an introduction to a topic or time for people who might not know much about it. This was the case for me with the 'White Queen' series; I had not read much about that period, and (although heavily inaccurate in places) the series got me reading further into those particular wars.
I write stories (at a very amateur level), and am currently trying to write a historical novel - I was taking a photograph for my notes when I had my slip. I have researched it fairly well, dug into archives (and paid people to do so for me). The research is great fun.
But it is hard to fit all the facts into any meaningful narrative that would have drama. Basically, I am having to change things. To an expert these changes would be noticeable and perhaps annoying; but the purpose is to write a story based firmly around real historical events that capture the feel of the period and, hopefully, would be enjoyable to read. I would be in heaven if people learnt something without even realising it.
I've even considered writing an appendix stating where I have taken liberties, but that feels like it would turn it from a story into a quasi-historical piece.
Economically dry and socially liberal, tempered with a good sense of what is practically possible (which is where you fall down) seems like a very pragmatic position
* I mean philosophical, of course
Bernard Cornwell usually put, in the back of the book, a quick look at what he changed and why in his historical novels (not read one for a while, mind).
Maybe he is?!
PRAISE HIM!!!
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/11791237/calais-migrants-open-secret-channel-tunnel-door-to-britain.html
The fees system is close to the point where not only will we be taxing the young, but the total bill for fees will still get lumped back on the taxpayer.
If you're so zippideedooda on fees perhaps you'd like pay your own back in to the public purse.
The deal in the past was free education and if you succeeded you got hit with a higher tax rate. Now you get hit with two of them.
Ref the Middle East, what, precisely, is the Palestinian cause that needs speaking up for? Because there are many answers to that question: some honourable, some foolish and some genocidal.
I think it's more a question of I have the courage of convications and you don't. See breaking up RBS, tax reform etc..
Like all establishment bods you are afraid of change.
Some of us were there in the 80s and remember that any enemy of the British state and/or the US was a friend to the Bennite left.
http://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=361152
But the current system is, shall we say, sub-optimal. I haven't delved into the detail, but I suspect that there is a strong correlation between (a) people who can't pay back their fees and (b) courses which add little value to their personal prospects. Those are courses that shouldn't be happening in the scale that they are
http://m.scotsman.com/news/brian-wilson-a-grotesque-rewriting-of-history-1-3852761
Tax reform would be a good thing. That's an area that Osborne has disappointed. Some of his moves - on tax avoidance for instance - are good. And I hope he goes ahead with the merger of NIC and IT.
But there are higher priorities - fixing tax credits, for instance - so I can see why it is better to address problems a few at a time
'A strong and powerful voice from within the UK could actually make a difference.'
You really believe that people will be listening to a 70's Marxist rust bucket let alone taking them seriously ?
"????????????
Most deaths in the Middle East are Arabs killing other Arabs."
The thing I like about your posts is that they're always funny. I mean laugh out loud funny.
In this instance I can't see the joke so In case you're being serious as an Irishman you of all people should understand how injustices escalate but who but the most insensitive would say "????? but it's Irishmen killing Irishmen"
b. If you can predict what adds value, then you're doing better than most academeics and wasting your time in banking. In my experience most grads ( and the current lot are ultra conservative compared to previous years ) are all fairly sensible. imo they are better judges on where they'll succeed and should be given a chance.
ydoethur and your good self both pointed out Cornwell, and I was thinking of going a little more in depth than that.
As an example of a typical problem that must bedevil an historical novelist: sources show there is a man who was working in 1808 aged 52. Other sources indicate a man of the same name doing the same work, connected to the same people, twenty years later. The work is heavy in a harsh area, and it is hard to think it might be the same man (although for various reasons it would be a big coincidence for it to be someone else of the same name).
It is possible that it is a son, but as he is only an incidental character I've decided he was an elderly man, which conveniently fits in with the book's plot. I could try to go to births and deaths records to sort it out, but it doesn't seem worth it for such a minor point. Yet it is a liberty that is niggling at me.
"Brave Charles
not too many Heathites around at the moment."
You're back on song!
University education is not right for everyone. People should be encouraged to do what is right for their own development. For some people that will mean academic study. For others vocational academics (e.g. law or engineering). Other people would be better off with practical (i.e. polytechnic based) courses that teach them skills that are relevant for a specific career.
We need to get away from the obsession that 50% of kids need to go to university, even if the course is pointless. In 2013 ONS commented:
the percentage of graduates working in non-graduate roles has risen, particularly since the 2008/09 recession. This suggests the increasing supply of graduates and the possible decrease in demand for them has had an effect on the type of job they are doing.
http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/lmac/graduates-in-the-labour-market/2013/sty-graduates-in-the-labour-market.html
That was 47% of recent graduates in non-graduate roles.
Is that a productive investment for them, or the best use of 3 years of their time?
"I'm intrigued: do you have a vote or not?"
No I don't have a vote. I'm not a member of the Labour Party or a trade unionist and I wont even be paying my £3. I'm an 'armchair general'!
Truth is It's very unlikely I'd even vote Labour in it's present incarnation
Presenting W&G as if it's somehow signifiicant is always your first line of defence. That's not the issue as you well know. if I remember my PIMS correctly a concentrated market where a few large players dominate is something nudging cartel conditions. Thats where UK banking is today in retail and CF. The " challenger banks" while growing still have small market shares.
We're still in the position where the 4 largest banks have a greater market share today than they did in 2007. That's not capitalism it's corporatism, much as HMG let TSB get bought out ( so how long do you give L&G ? )
As for priorities, the priority is to rebalance the economy not dispute the division of spoils on the current cake, and has been since 2010 which is why I criticise GO as he has done next to bugger all on the issue, preferring to dick about like GB on throwing gifts to his favoured chums.
Your comments on tax reform just made me laugh - WW1 4 years, WW2 5 Years, Osborne tax reforms - ooh don't rush him !
I'm now going to have to add remedial english comprehension to your list :-)
The "best" writer is Emily Purdy. Not only did she write a book depicting a lesbian affair between Katherine Howard and Ann of Cleves, she has another portraying Piers Gaveston as a pagan rent boy, from a peasant background, whose mother was burned as a witch. Edward I would surely have chosen him as his son's companion!
It's a bit like a talk I want to last year by an ex-copper who reckons that he's worked out that Jack the Ripper was a German sailor (sort of: he also argues that the several murders have been wrongly attributed, either to him when they weren't or vice versa). He included the Duke of Clarence and Sir William Gull as 'suspects' in the talk simply to demonstrate the absurdity of the assertions. That said, he asked for suspects from the audience, knowing that in all probability someone would put them forward.
One of the consistent delusions of politics is that it is a mistake to look like a pale version of your opponent and that what is required is more of the policies and stance that the electorate rejected the last time. 2001 and 2005 were both good examples and now we have had 2010 and 2015. It seems that Labour have yet to learn that lesson. They have not yet found their David Cameron (or Blair), someone who can drag their party back to relevance ignoring the siren calls of the one more heave brigade.
The second thing required is the natural weakening over time of the dominant party. Cameron's departure (surely still one of the most underrated politicians since the war) is such an opportunity as is the Tories persistent desire to risk ruin by EU obsessions. But Labour need a centrist, relevant, electable voice to take advantage of these opportunities. Corbyn is clearly not that and nor, in my opinion, is Burnham. This election has clearly come much too soon for Kendall. Cooper has a lot of growing to do in terms of speaking, presence and wit but she is their only chance.
So your conclusion, convenient or not, seems perfectly valid to me.
Of course, there is an alternative explanation: Matthew Parris and Norman Tebbitt could both paedophiles covering up for one of their own.
Challenger banks will take time to build. But I don't think you fully appreciate how parlous the condition of the mismanaged banks was over the last 5 years. We are only just beginning to get towards better ground
"You really believe that people will be listening to a 70's Marxist rust bucket let alone taking them seriously ?"
Of course not but they will listen to a British leader of the opposition or British Prime minister
And Corbyn makes Blair look...
The fact that the CLP's voted marginally for Corbyn is a reflection only of the poor state of the present leadership contest and says nothing at all about what the 2020 intake will be.
If Chuka had stayed the course he would be sailing through this contest- and what would that say? Ed Jarvis, the same possibly because people like his back story.
Liz Kendell is getting so little traction because she is bonkers. And the membership were fed up of robotic types like Burnham and Cooper- but in all likelihood are probably going to pick one of them on second preferences.
Corbyn is a breath of fresh air that will likely fizzle out. The Tory party leadership election will also benefit from a Corbynesque injection of enthusiasm.
The problem is that degrees are seen as being a must-have, and you are somehow a failure if you do not have one. We need to remove that idea, and give better vocational routes for the majority.
Note: I do not have a degree ...
b. most grads are best are selecting the most appropriate courses, and so I'd free them to make that choice. And I'd free institutions to set their own price.
I don't see many areas of disagreement.
Where we may part ways is that I see value in ensuring the brightest can study what they like regardless of cost. So I'd have a generous system of scholarships.
And then I'd also look at subjects that the government wants to encourage - medicine, STEM, etc - and subsidise those. You may disagree that it would be a good use of taxpayers' money, but I don't think that's a fundamental point of principle
I reckon my comprehensions pretty good
English Literature, Philosophy, Anthropology, History, Economy, Politics, Art...
(I suspect Economics has a strongly negative value for the country, so that would be first to go).
Nick Clegg did one useful thing in his career.
The comments are disturbing though. Let's start with: As Wilson himself said, those whom the gods wish to destroy, they first make mad.
There is a case for the government subsidising courses - let's say STEM or certain vocational courses - where there are positive externalities. But PPE or law? Let them pay for themselves.
The people who I feel sorry for are those that do weak degrees and weak institutions because they wrongly believe that a university degree is more important than the quality of that degree. *They* are the ones who will struggle to get a return on their investment (although that's why the government will write it off).
That's why I'd completely free up universities to charge what they like, combining with generous targeted subsidies for specific courses and national scholarships so that the brightest kids can study what they like where they like regardless of means
UKIP policy is no fees in the STEM subjects.
You didn't have a profitable career just because of luck and the university you attended, the fact you went to one of the best in the world suggests a certain amount of intelligence and aptitude. Blair's ridiculous aspiration of 50% going to uni has diluted the importance of a good degree, we all know people in their 20s with a 2:2 in a worthless subject, saddled with debt and no obvious drive to build a career for themselves, it's as if the degree itself was the be all and end all rather than a platform.
I've set up a Political Betting league on the free fantasy league game from the premier league.
http://fantasy.premierleague.com/
The code to join this private league is 1336513-316355
You can join up anonymously if you wish by choosing first and second names as I did - scrap and heap...
http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/13582474.Corbyn_rally_in_Glasgow_sells_out/
Rather bizarrely Scottish Labour were struggling to get 100 folks along to the leadership hustings - Corbyn is already attracting many times that figure. The political commentators seem to think SLAB should be leading left, however, the party on the ground under the influence of John McT are fighting Blairism's last stand alongside Liz Kendall.
I personally would like to see a growth of mature students. With careers getting longer we need to find ways to support people who want to retrain.
Sometimes, little things can be easiest to get wrong. Bows were loosed or shot, for example. They weren't fired, because firearms didn't exist (and there was, quite literally, no fire). I've probably missed that once or twice but I try and get things like that right [I don't write historical fiction but when you've clearly nicked a lot/been inspired by history there are certain things you want to be plausible].
You didn't have a profitable career just because of luck and the university you attended, the fact you went to one of the best in the world suggests a certain amount of intelligence and aptitude. Blair's ridiculous aspiration of 50% going to uni has diluted the importance of a good degree, we all know people in their 20s with a 2:2 in a worthless subject, saddled with debt and no obvious drive to build a career for themselves, it's as if the degree itself was the be all and end all rather than a platform.
Although I must admit I have a law degree, I think the STEM/other distinction can go too far.
We don't ask people in general to pursue "worthy" careers. If big city lawyers (which is a subset of course) make plenty of dosh without much social good then we tax them and they can pay for schools. And we have lawyers to help support more "socially valuable" careers.
Whilst there's a case for graduating fees to take account of current shortages, I don't think we can reasonably aim for a long term moulding of careers.
An interesting thread and a broader argument within the party and without which seems to ignore two rather basic points.
1. Many people seem fixated on the narrative of the now - what people (allegedly) think now is all they will ever think and to suggest they thought something different before or might think something different in the future is Guaranteed To Lose. Nonsense - condition people with There Is No Alternative and of course the now has backing by the electorate. Easy to get support when nothing else is on offer.
2. This left/right nonsense. Our entire political spectrum is right wing now. Someone earlier pointed out that Kaufman - the man on the right - is now Kaufman - the man on the left - because right is now all there is on offer. The current parliamentary Labour party is mainly right wing, and I don't mean on the right of the party I mean right wing. They interviewed David Owen about the prospect of a new SDP split, and he pointed out to a surprised interviewer that Corbyn is positioned a long way to the right of the SDP.
This is the "hard left" - the policies of the conservative German government. The policies of every Conservative government pre-Thatcher. No deficit and the lowest corporation tax in the G7. Outrageously investing in skills and training and industry as business keeps demanding.
And with respect to TINA fans, even the right are retrenching leftwards. Osborne dumped his economic targets at the budget and adopted ours. Boris has been banging the drum for higher wages - that a person on his living wage can't afford to rent anywhere in London now is clearly a problem regardless of political colours. We have to do something about wages and housing and bills because if we don't then people won't be able to afford to live and that means no money to buy goods and services with and thats the end of capitalism.
Corbyn will win, and I think he'll win in the first round. We have 4 candidates. One is attracting ever larger crowds at his round Britain meetings as he talks about his detailed and costed vision for the future. He's responsible for a flood of new members (and no, they aren't all infiltrators...). One has a cabal of supporters and offers radical options in the other direction but appears to have pissed off more people than supporters. One believes whatever you tell him to believe no he doesn't yes he does well maybe lets think about it. And the other whose name I have forgotten has said nothing of note at any point on any topic. People aren't flocking to support him because he's the obvious candidate to win, its because he's saying the things that people say and politicians don't. Like Farage does.
The problem is really that latter clause: the alternatives are poor or unfairly derided (HND = Have No Degree).
I think UKIP were the only party to particularly address this in England at the last GE, although it got rather hidden behind their grammar school obsession.
I agree with your second paragraph, although my mother-in-law is perhaps taking it to extremes. She was forced to lave school at ?!4? to look after the family shop, and only started an art degree in her sixties. She's done a masters, and is now doing a doctorate!