Pity there aren't any markets on next week's potentially really important political story - which Tory succeeds Andrew Tyrie on the TSC - though if the answer is "Nicky Morgan" I fear we're asking the wrong question.
F1: filling in the extra data I'm collecting this year (race-by-race points tallies). Bottas has more than halved the gap to Hamilton since Spain. Also intriguing to notice the graph lines. Vettel's is almost a straight line racking up points. Mercedes' drivers a little more stuttering here and there. Still very close though.
A thorough shambles. When she was asked who she wanted she couldn't name anyone else and started to row back in a "well if we must have him..." kind of way.
F1: Bottas is 17 on Ladbrokes for the title. I think that's too long and have put a smidgen on him. No each way available, though, that's just for the title.
F1: Bottas is 17 on Ladbrokes for the title. I think that's too long and have put a smidgen on him. No each way available, though, that's just for the title.
16 on Hills for those who would vaguely like to compare but can't be bothered to actually look.
A thorough shambles. When she was asked who she wanted she couldn't name anyone else and started to row back in a "well if we must have him..." kind of way.
Being thrust into the limelight within weeks of election is rough, but reading the interview I actually agree with her. The problem is not that he's not competent and sincere - he is clearly very highly regarded by the profession. But he is a classic establishment appointment in a situation where a very major issue is that the victims feel that the establishment has let them down - it's like appointing an admiral to assess the mutiny on the Bounty - and the clear need to make the victims feel they've been understood seems at risk. It is not obvious that he can communicate naturally with the victims, and that's absolutely essential unless we regard the issue as merely finding out which particular wire or panel was defective..
I do see the advatanges of having a judge, and he's perhaps the most suitable judge available. Perhaps the way forward is for him to appoint two assistants who are clearly not of the same type - one, perhaps, being one of the survivors who have expressed doubts but without joining the extreme political groups who have tried to latch onto the tragedy.
The Spectator is I suspect seeing it through political eyes in the same way as some of the critics. It's not actually in the first instance a political problem, though it may have political implications, and I've never blamed May for it. But we need to reach beyond the usual politician/judge circles in this sort of situaton, and the MP is right to raise that worry on behalf of her constituents.
A thorough shambles. When she was asked who she wanted she couldn't name anyone else and started to row back in a "well if we must have him..." kind of way.
Being thrust into the limelight within weeks of election is rough, but reading the interview I actually agree with her. The problem is not that he's not competent and sincere - he is clearly very highly regarded by the profession. But he is a classic establishment appointment in a situation where a very major issue is that the victims feel that the establishment has let them down - it's like appointing an admiral to assess the mutiny on the Bounty - and the clear need to make the victims feel they've been understood seems at risk. It is not obvious that he can communicate naturally with the victims, and that's absolutely essential unless we regard the issue as merely finding out which particular wire or panel was defective..
I do see the advatanges of having a judge, and he's perhaps the most suitable judge available. Perhaps the way forward is for him to appoint two assistants who are clearly not of the same type - one, perhaps, being one of the survivors who have expressed doubts but without joining the extreme political groups who have tried to latch onto the tragedy.
The Spectator is I suspect seeing it through political eyes in the same way as some of the critics. It's not actually in the first instance a political problem, though it may have political implications, and I've never blamed May for it. But we need to reach beyond the usual politician/judge circles in this sort of situaton, and the MP is right to raise that worry on behalf of her constituents.
Being put in charge of a hot potato enquiry is rather rougher than anything Ms Dent Coad is experiencing. And what other impartial arbiter is likely to volunteer for the job now should the judge step aside ?
I have my own doubts about the judge from the little I have heard, but the principal objection expressed against him so far is that his enquiry won't make sure that people are sent to prison. If there is a lack of understanding on his part, there's an even greater lack (however understandable) on the part of some of his critics.
@NickPalmer - Thanks for your detailed reply. In the first instance I think we need a technical enquiry. I don't want to sound like I don't care about the specifics of the victims, their circumstances and their treatment after the fire, but first and foremost we must find out what exactly has gone on.
I think it's far from clear how the fire started and spread through the building. You don't have to be an expert to realise that something went catastrophically wrong with the external cladding. What we need to know is, what part of the certification system has failed? Now it might turn out that the government has serious questions to answer about the regulation of this stuff. But for now, we desperately need to find out what's safe and what's not.
One of the residents criticized the ex judge because he was going to "do a Taylor" as in reference to the Taylor Report. Well that's what we need to begin with. After that the prosecutions - and I'm certain there will be many - related to this specific case can begin.
@NickPalmer - Thanks for your detailed reply. In the first instance I think we need a technical enquiry. I don't want to sound like I don't care about the specifics of the victims, their circumstances and their treatment after the fire, but first and foremost we must find out what exactly has gone on.
I think it's far from clear how the fire started and spread through the building. You don't have to be an expert to realise that something went catastrophically wrong with the external cladding. What we need to know is, what part of the certification system has failed? Now it might turn out that the government has serious questions to answer about the regulation of this stuff. But for now, we desperately need to find out what's safe and what's not.
One of the residents criticized the ex judge because he was going to "do a Taylor" as in reference to the Taylor Report. Well that's what we need to begin with. After that the prosecutions - and I'm certain there will be many - related to this specific case can begin.
There is already a completely separate criminal enquiry going on, with reportedly a hundred police involved. The one should not be prejudicing the other - and as you say, it is a matter of some urgency that we have some technical answers, as there are many similar buildings to worry about.
Reconciling the emotional demands for justice with the necessarily unemotional judicial process is always going to be difficult. Unless we are to start having 'people's courts' dispensing retribution, that is not going to change.
England comfortable win in the end. Test cricket will not get in the way of Wimbledon on Monday.
Delighted for Moeen. A very underrated cricketer. 2nd quickest to 2000 runs 100 wkts just 1 test match behind Tony Greig (once again very much underrated given Packer) and first 10 for today. Wonderful wonderful performance!
More earthquakes at Yellowstone in the last 2 weeks than on average in a year. One to keep a close eye on. Probably nothing will happen and it will calm down again.
Amazing stage in the Tour de France again. Horrifying crash for Richie Porte. Got to feel for Dan Martin. Froome looking solid but loss of Geraint Thomas might prove significant over the next 2 weeks. A fasincating Tour so far. A real pity that we've lost Sagan, Cav, Richie Porte and Geraint Thomas in the first 9 stages.
England comfortable win in the end. Test cricket will not get in the way of Wimbledon on Monday.
Both the England men and women have won their cricket matches today. One victory was comfortable and the other one much more squeaky!
Womens world cup well set up. Surprising how its morphed into 5 good sides and 3 also runs. Got to give England confidence the win today. Guaranteed win against WI so should get through to the last 4 with a min 5-2 record even with a defeat against NZ.
A thorough shambles. When she was asked who she wanted she couldn't name anyone else and started to row back in a "well if we must have him..." kind of way.
Being thrust into the limelight within weeks of election is rough, but reading the interview I actually agree with her. The problem is not that he's not competent and sincere - he is clearly very highly regarded by the profession. But he is a classic establishment appointment in a situation where a very major issue is that the victims feel that the establishment has let them down - it's like appointing an admiral to assess the mutiny on the Bounty - and the clear need to make the victims feel they've been understood seems at risk. It is not obvious that he can communicate naturally with the victims, and that's absolutely essential unless we regard the issue as merely finding out which particular wire or panel was defective..
I do see the advatanges of having a judge, and he's perhaps the most suitable judge available. Perhaps the way forward is for him to appoint two assistants who are clearly not of the same type - one, perhaps, being one of the survivors who have expressed doubts but without joining the extreme political groups who have tried to latch onto the tragedy.
The Spectator is I suspect seeing it through political eyes in the same way as some of the critics. It's not actually in the first instance a political problem, though it may have political implications, and I've never blamed May for it. But we need to reach beyond the usual politician/judge circles in this sort of situaton, and the MP is right to raise that worry on behalf of her constituents.
What utter rubbish. It's clear hat some of the residents and the associated hangers-on want is a pre-decided and prejudicial result. Anyone interested in getting to the truth of what happened, and justice, should be arguing against this.
You can sympathise with someone's situation without having to agree with them on other related matters.
"the clear need to make the victims feel they've been understood seems at risk"
What happens if some victims won't feel like they've been understood until they've got exactly what they want? Is there a limit to our desire to 'make victims feel they've been understood' ?
"But we need to reach beyond the usual politician/judge circles in this sort of situaton,"
Why?
Then there's another issue: I do wonder if Coad might be a little too close to the situation, given her current and previous roles, e.g. on the KCTMO and the planning and housing committees.
Mr. Hunchman, the supervolcano going off would be a less than perfect situation.
It is overdue, though.
If the supervolcano explodes TSE will write a thread header saying that it's TMay's fault and a clear sign that she needs to go.
williamglenn will say that it wouldn't have exploded if we'd stayed in the EU and that other really tedious one, forgotten his name, will say that it requires a second referendum to placate the volcano god.
Mr. Hunchman, the supervolcano going off would be a less than perfect situation.
It is overdue, though.
As I said the other day, could be anything from an imminent eruption to nothing for the next 10-100,000 years. Nobody knows. If it did go off in a full blown eruption, the impacts wouldn't bear thinking about - likely 90% of the population killed within a 500 mile radius over time, a nuclear winter with temperatures down 20C, mass crop failures and starvation worldwide and days of darkness across the whole of the northern hemisphere in particular. There's no point in worrying about it really, there is really nothing that anybody could do to prepare for such an event. We know one day it will happen. I just hope that it won't happen in our lifetimes, but that's being a tad greedy isn't it?
@NickPalmer - Thanks for your detailed reply. In the first instance I think we need a technical enquiry. I don't want to sound like I don't care about the specifics of the victims, their circumstances and their treatment after the fire, but first and foremost we must find out what exactly has gone on.
I think it's far from clear how the fire started and spread through the building. You don't have to be an expert to realise that something went catastrophically wrong with the external cladding. What we need to know is, what part of the certification system has failed? Now it might turn out that the government has serious questions to answer about the regulation of this stuff. But for now, we desperately need to find out what's safe and what's not.
One of the residents criticized the ex judge because he was going to "do a Taylor" as in reference to the Taylor Report. Well that's what we need to begin with. After that the prosecutions - and I'm certain there will be many - related to this specific case can begin.
There is already a completely separate criminal enquiry going on, with reportedly a hundred police involved. The one should not be prejudicing the other - and as you say, it is a matter of some urgency that we have some technical answers, as there are many similar buildings to worry about.
Reconciling the emotional demands for justice with the necessarily unemotional judicial process is always going to be difficult. Unless we are to start having 'people's courts' dispensing retribution, that is not going to change.
A criminal enquiry must follow due process for exactly this reason. It isn't clear to me what role a judge led enquiry would achieve at this stage, because there isn't any conclusive technical evidence. Similarly, it isn't clear how having 100 police officers on the case right now would make successful prosecutions more likely, because we don't really know why the fire occurred, and then spread.
I am not a lawyer but I think the evidence threshold for proving an individual has been negligent would be very high in this type of situation. I'd guess that the fire risk assessment would be a key document.
I've read about cases where fires have occured in private sector housing where a landlord has obviously been negligent (eg not serviced/ maintained a boiler which has caused a fire) and consequently sent to jail, but in cases like these cause and effect are much more closely linked.
Mr. Hunchman, the supervolcano going off would be a less than perfect situation.
It is overdue, though.
If the supervolcano explodes TSE will write a thread header saying that it's TMay's fault and a clear sign that she needs to go.
williamglenn will say that it wouldn't have exploded if we'd stayed in the EU and that other really tedious one, forgotten his name, will say that it requires a second referendum to placate the volcano god.
Those events are nothing as to the force of nature!
Mr. Hunchman, the supervolcano going off would be a less than perfect situation.
It is overdue, though.
As I said the other day, could be anything from an imminent eruption to nothing for the next 10-100,000 years. Nobody knows. If it did go off in a full blown eruption, the impacts wouldn't bear thinking about - likely 90% of the population killed within a 500 mile radius over time, a nuclear winter with temperatures down 20C, mass crop failures and starvation worldwide and days of darkness across the whole of the northern hemisphere in particular. There's no point in worrying about it really, there is really nothing that anybody could do to prepare for such an event. We know one day it will happen. I just hope that it won't happen in our lifetimes, but that's being a tad greedy isn't it?
Given there's a total solar eclipse passing just south of Yellowstone Park on 21st August, look out for the new-age barmies claiming that as a 'sign' of an imminent erruption.
(And if by pure coincidence there is an erruption at the time of the eclipse, remember you heard it here first!)
Mr. Hunchman, the supervolcano going off would be a less than perfect situation.
It is overdue, though.
Just watching the Austrian GP highlights. Not the most exciting race today. I just hope Lewis can keep his nose clean between now and the end of the season. So many potential points gone with the headrest and gearbox at Baku and Austria today.
@NickPalmer - Thanks for your detailed reply. In the first instance I think we need a technical enquiry. I don't want to sound like I don't care about the specifics of the victims, their circumstances and their treatment after the fire, but first and foremost we must find out what exactly has gone on.
I think it's far from clear how the fire started and spread through the building. You don't have to be an expert to realise that something went catastrophically wrong with the external cladding. What we need to know is, what part of the certification system has failed? Now it might turn out that the government has serious questions to answer about the regulation of this stuff. But for now, we desperately need to find out what's safe and what's not.
One of the residents criticized the ex judge because he was going to "do a Taylor" as in reference to the Taylor Report. Well that's what we need to begin with. After that the prosecutions - and I'm certain there will be many - related to this specific case can begin.
My view is that we should have a technical inquiry run by the AAIB, RAIB or the MAIB. These organisations are excellent at producing reports that get to the core of what happened and producing recommendations. They're also not interested in 'blaming', and mostly do not name people.
I'm concerned about the BRE and other industry organisations directing any such inquiry: they're all potentially involved in minor or major ways.
I'm also concerned that no-one appears to be in control of the investigation into what happened, and we're getting drip-fed official and unofficial information along with rumours. Someone needs to take control of the technical investigation.
The main inquiry into the personal (non-technical) side of things - the victims, and why people made the decisions they did - can follow later, as can any prosecutions.
But in the meantime, let's have an excellent technical investigation led by an uninvolved body.
"A criminal enquiry must follow due process for exactly this reason. It isn't clear to me what role a judge led enquiry would achieve at this stage, because there isn't any conclusive technical evidence. Similarly, it isn't clear how having 100 police officers on the case right now would make successful prosecutions more likely, because we don't really know why the fire occurred, and then spread.
I am not a lawyer but I think the evidence threshold for proving an individual has been negligent would be very high in this type of situation. I'd guess that the fire risk assessment would be a key document.
I've read about cases where fires have occured in private sector housing where a landlord has obviously been negligent (eg not serviced/ maintained a boiler which has caused a fire) and consequently sent to jail, but in cases like these cause and effect are much more closely linked."
Yes, we desperately need a technical enquiry. Search online for names like Sam Webb and Arnold Tarling. The first is an architect who took an active role after the Ronan Point collapse in 1968. The second is a fire expert who emerged after Grenfell.
They've pointed out for years to almost anyone who'll listen that crucial fire regulations have been ignored, watered down to near non-existence, not enforced, etc, etc. The judge should appoint such people as technical advisers to spot the bullshit and tell him what follow-on questions to ask the witnesses. That would make gripping TV viewing by BBC Parliament standards, with witnesses blustering and turning red in the face.
The witnesses, if they're from marketing departments, will be extremely good at obfuscation and being economical with the truth. They do it for a living!
At least one Youtube video on how to hire a tame 'fire expert' to self-certify the fire safety of a building that uses somewhat flammable materials in the cladding and insulation system has been taken down. Funny, that.
My guess as a construction expert but a non-lawyer is that criminal action might be impossible to prove unless, say, the fire breaks in the cavity were omitted. By and large, blame the 30-35 year 'bonfire of the regulations' for a situation in which responsibility is so diffuse and unclear.
Claims against various people for civil negligence seem likely to go ahead. But such disputes are usually settled privately out of court with no-one admitting liability. I doubt we'll learn much.
@JosiasJessop - I agree about RAIB, they are rather unfairly referred to by some in the industry as "Read About It Belatedly", but those interim reports are useful.
Then it would be the global crop failures that cause the difficulties. Prices simply redirect resources and consumption and thereby attenuate the deleterious effects.
Mr. Hunchman, the supervolcano going off would be a less than perfect situation.
It is overdue, though.
If the supervolcano explodes TSE will write a thread header saying that it's TMay's fault and a clear sign that she needs to go.
williamglenn will say that it wouldn't have exploded if we'd stayed in the EU and that other really tedious one, forgotten his name, will say that it requires a second referendum to placate the volcano god.
And GeoffM might well explain how it's a price worth paying for the potential benefits, which only an idiot would deny....
@NickPalmer - Thanks for your detailed reply. In the first instance I think we need a technical enquiry. I don't want to sound like I don't care about the specifics of the victims, their circumstances and their treatment after the fire, but first and foremost we must find out what exactly has gone on.
I think it's far from clear how the fire started and spread through the building. You don't have to be an expert to realise that something went catastrophically wrong with the external cladding. What we need to know is, what part of the certification system has failed? Now it might turn out that the government has serious questions to answer about the regulation of this stuff. But for now, we desperately need to find out what's safe and what's not.
One of the residents criticized the ex judge because he was going to "do a Taylor" as in reference to the Taylor Report. Well that's what we need to begin with. After that the prosecutions - and I'm certain there will be many - related to this specific case can begin.
There is already a completely separate criminal enquiry going on, with reportedly a hundred police involved. The one should not be prejudicing the other - and as you say, it is a matter of some urgency that we have some technical answers, as there are many similar buildings to worry about.
Reconciling the emotional demands for justice with the necessarily unemotional judicial process is always going to be difficult. Unless we are to start having 'people's courts' dispensing retribution, that is not going to change.
A criminal enquiry must follow due process for exactly this reason. It isn't clear to me what role a judge led enquiry would achieve at this stage, because there isn't any conclusive technical evidence. Similarly, it isn't clear how having 100 police officers on the case right now would make successful prosecutions more likely, because we don't really know why the fire occurred, and then spread....
Apart from anything else, there will be an enormous amount of documentation to secure.
I'd agree any potential case would be hugely complex and difficult, but without wishing to engage in prejudicial speculation, it's perfectly possible to conceive of possible avenues of investigation.
There are also 1.84 million UK students (I ignore the EU students for the moment, as our obligations to them are unclear at the moment). The source is the Universities UK website
The fees are £ 9,250 so that is an ongoing commitment of £ 17 bn a year.
Angela Rayner claims this will cost £ 9 bn a year, but that is only possible if (i) the number of people going to University is reduced by a factor of nearly half or (ii) the fees are set by the Government to be nearly half of what they are now.
If the Government sets the fees at a level significantly less than £ 9250, then I expect that will cause substantial redundancies in the University sector and to provoke almost all the Russell group universities (certainly Oxbridge) to become private.
There are also 1.84 million UK students (I ignore the EU students for the moment, as our obligations to them are unclear at the moment). The source is the Universities UK website
The fees are £ 9,250 so that is an ongoing commitment of £ 17 bn a year.
Angela Rayner claims this will cost £ 9 bn a year, but that is only possible if (i) the number of people going to University is reduced by a factor of nearly half or (ii) the fees are set by the Government to be nearly half of what they are now.
If the Government sets the fees at a level significantly less than £ 9250, then I expect that will cause substantial redundancies in the University sector and to provoke almost all the Russell group universities (certainly Oxbridge) to become private.
So it'd result in fewer poorer people going to university? How progressive.
There are also 1.84 million UK students (I ignore the EU students for the moment, as our obligations to them are unclear at the moment). The source is the Universities UK website
The fees are £ 9,250 so that is an ongoing commitment of £ 17 bn a year.
Angela Rayner claims this will cost £ 9 bn a year, but that is only possible if (i) the number of people going to University is reduced by a factor of nearly half or (ii) the fees are set by the Government to be nearly half of what they are now.
If the Government sets the fees at a level significantly less than £ 9250, then I expect that will cause substantial redundancies in the University sector and to provoke almost all the Russell group universities (certainly Oxbridge) to become private.
So it'd result in fewer poorer people going to university? How progressive.
Incurring a debt of £50 k to get a degree from a good university is cheap at the price. Incurring such a debt to get a degree from a poor university is money down the drain. I worry that too many students are doing the latter.
Yeah, but that's not how it works. It's not like there's a line by line vote on which programmes we wish to remain members of (although that would actually be quite sensible), instead there is a take-it-or-leave-it Bill.
There are also 1.84 million UK students (I ignore the EU students for the moment, as our obligations to them are unclear at the moment). The source is the Universities UK website
The fees are £ 9,250 so that is an ongoing commitment of £ 17 bn a year.
Angela Rayner claims this will cost £ 9 bn a year, but that is only possible if (i) the number of people going to University is reduced by a factor of nearly half or (ii) the fees are set by the Government to be nearly half of what they are now.
If the Government sets the fees at a level significantly less than £ 9250, then I expect that will cause substantial redundancies in the University sector and to provoke almost all the Russell group universities (certainly Oxbridge) to become private.
So it'd result in fewer poorer people going to university? How progressive.
I am not 100 per cent sure, because it is difficult to get any clarity from Labour's figures.
As far I can see, the cost is the number of UK students times the fees.
9 billion a year (Angela Rayner's figure) divided by £ 9250 gives 973,000 students.
Are Labour also re-introdicing maintenance grants?
There are also 1.84 million UK students (I ignore the EU students for the moment, as our obligations to them are unclear at the moment). The source is the Universities UK website
The fees are £ 9,250 so that is an ongoing commitment of £ 17 bn a year.
Angela Rayner claims this will cost £ 9 bn a year, but that is only possible if (i) the number of people going to University is reduced by a factor of nearly half or (ii) the fees are set by the Government to be nearly half of what they are now.
If the Government sets the fees at a level significantly less than £ 9250, then I expect that will cause substantial redundancies in the University sector and to provoke almost all the Russell group universities (certainly Oxbridge) to become private.
So it'd result in fewer poorer people going to university? How progressive.
How were these universities funded in the era prior to Top up fees and Student Loans being introduced? They did not feel obliged to go private then so why should it now be so different? I know that more people - often mistakenly - wish to apply for a University place compared with the 1970s & 1980s but why does that impose an obligation on the Universities to admit them?
There are also 1.84 million UK students (I ignore the EU students for the moment, as our obligations to them are unclear at the moment). The source is the Universities UK website
The fees are £ 9,250 so that is an ongoing commitment of £ 17 bn a year.
Angela Rayner claims this will cost £ 9 bn a year, but that is only possible if (i) the number of people going to University is reduced by a factor of nearly half or (ii) the fees are set by the Government to be nearly half of what they are now.
If the Government sets the fees at a level significantly less than £ 9250, then I expect that will cause substantial redundancies in the University sector and to provoke almost all the Russell group universities (certainly Oxbridge) to become private.
So it'd result in fewer poorer people going to university? How progressive.
How were these universities funded in the era prior to Top up fees and Student Loans being introduced? They did not feel obliged to go private then so why should it now be so different? I know that more people - often mistakenly - wish to apply for a University place compared with the 1970s & 1980s but why does that impose an obligation on the Universities to admit them?
You hit the nail on the head. In the 70's and 80's, 10-15% of young people went to university.
There are also 1.84 million UK students (I ignore the EU students for the moment, as our obligations to them are unclear at the moment). The source is the Universities UK website
The fees are £ 9,250 so that is an ongoing commitment of £ 17 bn a year.
Angela Rayner claims this will cost £ 9 bn a year, but that is only possible if (i) the number of people going to University is reduced by a factor of nearly half or (ii) the fees are set by the Government to be nearly half of what they are now.
If the Government sets the fees at a level significantly less than £ 9250, then I expect that will cause substantial redundancies in the University sector and to provoke almost all the Russell group universities (certainly Oxbridge) to become private.
So it'd result in fewer poorer people going to university? How progressive.
How were these universities funded in the era prior to Top up fees and Student Loans being introduced? They did not feel obliged to go private then so why should it now be so different? I know that more people - often mistakenly - wish to apply for a University place compared with the 1970s & 1980s but why does that impose an obligation on the Universities to admit them?
We do have the highest tuition fees in Europe, by a fair whack in most cases. Sweden manages free tuition. Why cannot we?
There are also 1.84 million UK students (I ignore the EU students for the moment, as our obligations to them are unclear at the moment). The source is the Universities UK website
The fees are £ 9,250 so that is an ongoing commitment of £ 17 bn a year.
Angela Rayner claims this will cost £ 9 bn a year, but that is only possible if (i) the number of people going to University is reduced by a factor of nearly half or (ii) the fees are set by the Government to be nearly half of what they are now.
If the Government sets the fees at a level significantly less than £ 9250, then I expect that will cause substantial redundancies in the University sector and to provoke almost all the Russell group universities (certainly Oxbridge) to become private.
So it'd result in fewer poorer people going to university? How progressive.
How were these universities funded in the era prior to Top up fees and Student Loans being introduced? They did not feel obliged to go private then so why should it now be so different? I know that more people - often mistakenly - wish to apply for a University place compared with the 1970s & 1980s but why does that impose an obligation on the Universities to admit them?
Universities have hired staff. They need to pay the staff. Hence, they need "bums on seats"
That is why Universities admit more students.
Of course, the Universities don't have to "admit them", but they will then have to sack some staff.
(Even under the present funding arrangement, Manchester University, Bangor University & Leicester University are presently firing staff).
If Labour haven't done their sums right, then University staff will be fired. In fact, if I understand Angela Rayner's figures right, this will tip significant numbers of universities into bankruptcy.
That is what happens if you don't get the numbers right.
There are also 1.84 million UK students (I ignore the EU students for the moment, as our obligations to them are unclear at the moment). The source is the Universities UK website
The fees are £ 9,250 so that is an ongoing commitment of £ 17 bn a year.
Angela Rayner claims this will cost £ 9 bn a year, but that is only possible if (i) the number of people going to University is reduced by a factor of nearly half or (ii) the fees are set by the Government to be nearly half of what they are now.
If the Government sets the fees at a level significantly less than £ 9250, then I expect that will cause substantial redundancies in the University sector and to provoke almost all the Russell group universities (certainly Oxbridge) to become private.
So it'd result in fewer poorer people going to university? How progressive.
How were these universities funded in the era prior to Top up fees and Student Loans being introduced? They did not feel obliged to go private then so why should it now be so different? I know that more people - often mistakenly - wish to apply for a University place compared with the 1970s & 1980s but why does that impose an obligation on the Universities to admit them?
We do have the highest tuition fees in Europe, by a fair whack in most cases. Sweden manages free tuition. Why cannot we?
There are also 1.84 million UK students (I ignore the EU students for the moment, as our obligations to them are unclear at the moment). The source is the Universities UK website
The fees are £ 9,250 so that is an ongoing commitment of £ 17 bn a year.
Angela Rayner claims this will cost £ 9 bn a year, but that is only possible if (i) the number of people going to University is reduced by a factor of nearly half or (ii) the fees are set by the Government to be nearly half of what they are now.
If the Government sets the fees at a level significantly less than £ 9250, then I expect that will cause substantial redundancies in the University sector and to provoke almost all the Russell group universities (certainly Oxbridge) to become private.
So it'd result in fewer poorer people going to university? How progressive.
How were these universities funded in the era prior to Top up fees and Student Loans being introduced? They did not feel obliged to go private then so why should it now be so different? I know that more people - often mistakenly - wish to apply for a University place compared with the 1970s & 1980s but why does that impose an obligation on the Universities to admit them?
We do have the highest tuition fees in Europe, by a fair whack in most cases. Sweden manages free tuition. Why cannot we?
There are also 1.84 million UK students (I ignore the EU students for the moment, as our obligations to them are unclear at the moment). The source is the Universities UK website
The fees are £ 9,250 so that is an ongoing commitment of £ 17 bn a year.
Angela Rayner claims this will cost £ 9 bn a year, but that is only possible if (i) the number of people going to University is reduced by a factor of nearly half or (ii) the fees are set by the Government to be nearly half of what they are now.
If the Government sets the fees at a level significantly less than £ 9250, then I expect that will cause substantial redundancies in the University sector and to provoke almost all the Russell group universities (certainly Oxbridge) to become private.
So it'd result in fewer poorer people going to university? How progressive.
How were these universities funded in the era prior to Top up fees and Student Loans being introduced? They did not feel obliged to go private then so why should it now be so different? I know that more people - often mistakenly - wish to apply for a University place compared with the 1970s & 1980s but why does that impose an obligation on the Universities to admit them?
We do have the highest tuition fees in Europe, by a fair whack in most cases. Sweden manages free tuition. Why cannot we?
There are also 1.84 million UK students (I ignore the EU students for the moment, as our obligations to them are unclear at the moment). The source is the Universities UK website
The fees are £ 9,250 so that is an ongoing commitment of £ 17 bn a year.
Angela Rayner claims this will cost £ 9 bn a year, but that is only possible if (i) the number of people going to University is reduced by a factor of nearly half or (ii) the fees are set by the Government to be nearly half of what they are now.
If the Government sets the fees at a level significantly less than £ 9250, then I expect that will cause substantial redundancies in the University sector and to provoke almost all the Russell group universities (certainly Oxbridge) to become private.
So it'd result in fewer poorer people going to university? How progressive.
How were these universities funded in the era prior to Top up fees and Student Loans being introduced? They did not feel obliged to go private then so why should it now be so different? I know that more people - often mistakenly - wish to apply for a University place compared with the 1970s & 1980s but why does that impose an obligation on the Universities to admit them?
You hit the nail on the head. In the 70's and 80's, 10-15% of young people went to university.
I was a student in the mid-1970s and unserstood that only circa 5% then went to University. Of course , in addition there were the Polytechnics which became Universities at the end of the 1980s , so including students from both types of institution perhaps took the figure close to 10%.
There are also 1.84 million UK students (I ignore the EU students for the moment, as our obligations to them are unclear at the moment). The source is the Universities UK website
The fees are £ 9,250 so that is an ongoing commitment of £ 17 bn a year.
Angela Rayner claims this will cost £ 9 bn a year, but that is only possible if (i) the number of people going to University is reduced by a factor of nearly half or (ii) the fees are set by the Government to be nearly half of what they are now.
If the Government sets the fees at a level significantly less than £ 9250, then I expect that will cause substantial redundancies in the University sector and to provoke almost all the Russell group universities (certainly Oxbridge) to become private.
So it'd result in fewer poorer people going to university? How progressive.
How were these universities funded in the era prior to Top up fees and Student Loans being introduced? They did not feel obliged to go private then so why should it now be so different? I know that more people - often mistakenly - wish to apply for a University place compared with the 1970s & 1980s but why does that impose an obligation on the Universities to admit them?
Universities have hired staff. They need to pay the staff. Hence, they need "bums on seats"
That is why Universities admit more students.
Of course, the Universities don't have to "admit them", but they will then have to sack some staff.
(Even under the present funding arrangement, Manchester University, Bangor University & Leicester University are presently firing staff).
If Labour haven't done their sums right, then University staff will be fired. In fact, if I understand Angela Rayner's figures right, this will tip significant numbers of universities into bankruptcy.
That is what happens if you don't get the numbers right.
One difficulty in the argument, is that the total graduate debt is around £100 billion at the moment, but will increase to over £200 billion quite quickly. Now, according to the repayment of 30%, with 70% which will never be repaid, while from September there will be a 6% interest on outstanding debt, that is a rather large problem. Not just for the individual graduates, but for the Exchequer.
I was a student in the mid-1970s and unserstood that only circa 5% then went to University. Of course , in addition there were the Polytechnics which became Universities at the end of the 1980s , so including students from both types of institution perhaps took the figure close to 10%.
Blair of course changed all this when he set the goal of 50 per cent going to University.
That substantially increased the cost, and hence the Labour Party introduced tuition fees.
That was still not enough money, so Labour set up the Browne Review on 9th Novemebr 2009. It was this review that recommended the removal of the cap on tuition fees.
All the significant decisions that have led to the present mess were taken by Labour (with the exception of Osborne's despicable decision to change the interest rate at which the student loans are charged).
Personally, I would like to return to 20 or 25 per cent going to University, with fully funded tuition fees and maintenance grants.
From where we are now, it is hard to see how to get there without a huge contraction of the University sector and substantial redundancies.
There has been more discussion on labour's mickey mouse spending over this weekend in the media and on here than anything at the GE.
The narrative and spotlight on labour's spending may see a change in some aspects of policy but it will draw out the truth of the billions and billions coming from labour's magic money forests
Yeah, but that's not how it works. It's not like there's a line by line vote on which programmes we wish to remain members of (although that would actually be quite sensible), instead there is a take-it-or-leave-it Bill.
I was a student in the mid-1970s and unserstood that only circa 5% then went to University. Of course , in addition there were the Polytechnics which became Universities at the end of the 1980s , so including students from both types of institution perhaps took the figure close to 10%.
Blair of course changed all this when he set the goal of 50 per cent going to University.
That substantially increased the cost, and hence the Labour Party introduced tuition fees.
That was still not enough money, so Labour set up the Browne Review on 9th Novemebr 2009. It was this review that recommended the removal of the cap on tuition fees.
All the significant decisions that have led to the present mess were taken by Labour (with the exception of Osborne's despicable decision to change the interest rate at which the student loans are charged).
Personally, I would like to return to 20 or 25 per cent going to University, with fully funded tuition fees and maintenance grants.
From where we are now, it is hard to see how to get there without a huge contraction of the University sector and substantial redundancies.
Even today I believe the figure is circa 40% - but I feel that is too high , and it really upsets me to think that many students from very modest backgrounds are incurring significant debts for a much devalued qualification.
The universities have no skin in the game - Trump came up with the idea that universities should guarantee 1/2 of the tuition fees borrowed - let the universities put their money up if they believe the worth of their tuition.
I was a student in the mid-1970s and unserstood that only circa 5% then went to University. Of course , in addition there were the Polytechnics which became Universities at the end of the 1980s , so including students from both types of institution perhaps took the figure close to 10%.
Blair of course changed all this when he set the goal of 50 per cent going to University.
That substantially increased the cost, and hence the Labour Party introduced tuition fees.
That was still not enough money, so Labour set up the Browne Review on 9th Novemebr 2009. It was this review that recommended the removal of the cap on tuition fees.
All the significant decisions that have led to the present mess were taken by Labour (with the exception of Osborne's despicable decision to change the interest rate at which the student loans are charged).
Personally, I would like to return to 20 or 25 per cent going to University, with fully funded tuition fees and maintenance grants.
From where we are now, it is hard to see how to get there without a huge contraction of the University sector and substantial redundancies.
Even today I believe the figure is circa 40% - but I feel that is too high , and it really upsets me to think that many students from very modest backgrounds are incurring significant debts for a much devalued qualification.
Part of the problem also seems to be an inflation in qualification requirements for certain jobs. I was talking to a friend about all the hoops teaching assistants have to jump through and it seemed a bit overkill to be honest.
Yeah, but that's not how it works. It's not like there's a line by line vote on which programmes we wish to remain members of (although that would actually be quite sensible), instead there is a take-it-or-leave-it Bill.
Which can't be amended? Are you sure?
Or threaten to amend, probably. If looks as if it will carry, the Government amends the bill.
I was a student in the mid-1970s and unserstood that only circa 5% then went to University. Of course , in addition there were the Polytechnics which became Universities at the end of the 1980s , so including students from both types of institution perhaps took the figure close to 10%.
Blair of course changed all this when he set the goal of 50 per cent going to University.
That substantially increased the cost, and hence the Labour Party introduced tuition fees.
That was still not enough money, so Labour set up the Browne Review on 9th Novemebr 2009. It was this review that recommended the removal of the cap on tuition fees.
All the significant decisions that have led to the present mess were taken by Labour (with the exception of Osborne's despicable decision to change the interest rate at which the student loans are charged).
Personally, I would like to return to 20 or 25 per cent going to University, with fully funded tuition fees and maintenance grants.
From where we are now, it is hard to see how to get there without a huge contraction of the University sector and substantial redundancies.
Even today I believe the figure is circa 40% - but I feel that is too high , and it really upsets me to think that many students from very modest backgrounds are incurring significant debts for a much devalued qualification.
Quite. I think the BBC website had a stat that now about 500k start a degree each year and in 1980 it was 68k. I think they also stated something like twice as many get a degree now as got 5 O levels in the 80's (or something similar).
Now some increase in degree level education was probably needed over the past 35 odd years, but the present set up is nuts, plain nuts, and probably contributing to disaffection amongst the young as they realise this confetti paper qualification arms race has one chief victim - them.
Yeah, but that's not how it works. It's not like there's a line by line vote on which programmes we wish to remain members of (although that would actually be quite sensible), instead there is a take-it-or-leave-it Bill.
Which can't be amended? Are you sure?
Can it be amended and yet remain consistent with the agreement we have with the EU?
There are also 1.84 million UK students (I ignore the EU students for the moment, as our obligations to them are unclear at the moment). The source is the Universities UK website
The fees are £ 9,250 so that is an ongoing commitment of £ 17 bn a year.
Angela Rayner claims this will cost £ 9 bn a year, but that is only possible if (i) the number of people going to University is reduced by a factor of nearly half or (ii) the fees are set by the Government to be nearly half of what they are now.
If the Government sets the fees at a level significantly less than £ 9250, then I expect that will cause substantial redundancies in the University sector and to provoke almost all the Russell group universities (certainly Oxbridge) to become private.
So it'd result in fewer poorer people going to university? How progressive.
How were these universities funded in the era prior to Top up fees and Student Loans being introduced? They did not feel obliged to go private then so why should it now be so different? I know that more people - often mistakenly - wish to apply for a University place compared with the 1970s & 1980s but why does that impose an obligation on the Universities to admit them?
We do have the highest tuition fees in Europe, by a fair whack in most cases. Sweden manages free tuition. Why cannot we?
Scrap Trident to pay for it.
It wouldn't anyway I'd think. Surely the numbers needed for the university cash are far too great?
There are also 1.84 million UK students (I ignore the EU students for the moment, as our obligations to them are unclear at the moment). The source is the Universities UK website
The fees are £ 9,250 so that is an ongoing commitment of £ 17 bn a year.
Angela Rayner claims this will cost £ 9 bn a year, but that is only possible if (i) the number of people going to University is reduced by a factor of nearly half or (ii) the fees are set by the Government to be nearly half of what they are now.
If the Government sets the fees at a level significantly less than £ 9250, then I expect that will cause substantial redundancies in the University sector and to provoke almost all the Russell group universities (certainly Oxbridge) to become private.
Certainly you should pay far more for a degree at a Russell Group uniiversity than a lower ranked university, especially if you are studying law, medicine, economics etc
I don't know if it is still true, but Bristol University had a history degree course with no lectures at all in the third year. So why not recognise that the actual teaching time could be one year with a fourth term, more lectures a week. And no examinations, who recruits a history graduate on the basis of his exam results.
Yeah, but that's not how it works. It's not like there's a line by line vote on which programmes we wish to remain members of (although that would actually be quite sensible), instead there is a take-it-or-leave-it Bill.
Which can't be amended? Are you sure?
Can it be amended and yet remain consistent with the agreement we have with the EU?
I have a strong suspicion we will stay in Euratom. None of Brexit makes much sense but attempting to replicate a perfectly good set of agreements with countries that have zero interest in going along with it is a particularly futile endeavour.
I have a strong suspicion we will stay in Euratom. None of Brexit makes much sense but attempting to replicate a perfectly good set of agreements with countries that have zero interest in going along with it is a particularly futile endeavour.
That's a bit "thin end of the wedgie" though.
It makes sense to stay in Euratom. What else makes sense?
Meanwhile...
@mrjamesob: Very cynical shift from 'Brexit will be brilliant' to 'Brexit will be bad but stupid people will go nuts if it's stopped' now under way.
I have a strong suspicion we will stay in Euratom. None of Brexit makes much sense but attempting to replicate a perfectly good set of agreements with countries that have zero interest in going along with it is a particularly futile endeavour.
That's a bit "thin end of the wedgie" though.
It makes sense to stay in Euratom. What else makes sense?
Meanwhile...
@mrjamesob: Very cynical shift from 'Brexit will be brilliant' to 'Brexit will be bad but stupid people will go nuts if it's stopped' now under way.
I have a strong suspicion we will stay in Euratom. None of Brexit makes much sense but attempting to replicate a perfectly good set of agreements with countries that have zero interest in going along with it is a particularly futile endeavour.
That's a bit "thin end of the wedgie" though.
It makes sense to stay in Euratom. What else makes sense?
Meanwhile...
@mrjamesob: Very cynical shift from 'Brexit will be brilliant' to 'Brexit will be bad but stupid people will go nuts if it's stopped' now under way.
Seriously, I don't know. David Davis still seems to think he will pull a rabbit out of a hat. He's not preparing for any outcome other than his stated expectation that there will be a comprehensive trade agreement before we leave in March 2019. That's certainly not going to happen.
If this is the start of a move to stay in or near to the EU Theresa will not survive beyond the Autumn. Indeed this could be the moment a new centre party is formed by a majority for remain. Where this leaves the Country I have no idea but if the government falls Corbyn will need to come out on his Brexit position and his tax and spend policies
I can just about read the image. It's an extraordinary admission by Mrs May: I can't do anything. I don't even know what I want to do, except we must Brexit and I don't trust my colleagues. Help me out, guys.
I haven't heard anything like it in a lifetime of following politics.
I can just about read the image. It's an extraordinary admission by Mrs May: I can't do anything. I don't even know what I want to do, except we must Brexit and I don't trust my colleagues. Help me out, guys.
I haven't heard anything like it in a lifetime of following politics.
I can just about read the image. It's an extraordinary admission by Mrs May: I can't do anything. I don't even know what I want to do, except we must Brexit and I don't trust my colleagues. Help me out, guys.
I haven't heard anything like it in a lifetime of following politics.
It is remarkable and says it all about the split in the conservative party between remain and leave. I have no idea where this is going and as a member I am utterly dismayed. Maybe she is attempting to get a majority from one side or the other in Parliament to deal with Brexit but it risks her being made to stand down.
Mind you this will now expose splits in labour.
I am leaning to the proposition to stay in right now but no idea how that can happen anyway
There seems to have been some concerted briefing of the press for tomorrow's papers that May is asking Corbyn for ideas and assistance in getting her policies through. Can that really have come from Number 10? It sounds pathetic, which I don't mean in the insulting way it's often said, but just embarrassing.
Also, the Government needs to make up its mind: is Corbyn a dangerous leftie who must be kept from power at all costs, even a DUP bung if needed, or a sensible fellow who can be reasonably asked for assistance? He can't possibly be both.
There seems to have been some concerted briefing of the press for tomorrow's papers that May is asking Corbyn for ideas and assistance in getting her policies through. Can that really have come from Number 10? It sounds pathetic, which I don't mean in the insulting way it's often said, but just embarrassing.
Also, the Government needs to make up its mind: is Corbyn a dangerous leftie who must be kept from power at all costs, even a DUP bung if needed, or a sensible fellow who can be reasonably asked for assistance? He can't possibly be both.
Can it possibly be a shot across the bows of "saboteurs" ?
"If you won't vote with me to get Brexit through, the other side will" ?
There seems to have been some concerted briefing of the press for tomorrow's papers that May is asking Corbyn for ideas and assistance in getting her policies through. Can that really have come from Number 10? It sounds pathetic, which I don't mean in the insulting way it's often said, but just embarrassing.
Also, the Government needs to make up its mind: is Corbyn a dangerous leftie who must be kept from power at all costs, even a DUP bung if needed, or a sensible fellow who can be reasonably asked for assistance? He can't possibly be both.
I give up Nick - it will be interesting how this plays out but I cannot see her lasting long now
There seems to have been some concerted briefing of the press for tomorrow's papers that May is asking Corbyn for ideas and assistance in getting her policies through. Can that really have come from Number 10? It sounds pathetic, which I don't mean in the insulting way it's often said, but just embarrassing.
Also, the Government needs to make up its mind: is Corbyn a dangerous leftie who must be kept from power at all costs, even a DUP bung if needed, or a sensible fellow who can be reasonably asked for assistance? He can't possibly be both.
Very well put Nick.
The whole thing seems completely bizarre to me, to the point I would suspect it as fake news except it seems to be in all the serious papers. How does asking Corbyn for help strengthen May's hand with plotters? And she can't seriously believe that Corbyn will offer anything other than suggest she resigns?
Could this be the beginning of the end? Odds on a 2nd 2017 GE anyone?
Comments
http://enormo-haddock.blogspot.co.uk/2017/07/austria-post-race-analysis-2017.html
It's going to me more interesting and balanced than whatever might lurk in the thread header here.
https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2017/07/watch-kensington-mps-bad-turn-sunday-politics/
Betting PostF1: Bottas is 17 on Ladbrokes for the title. I think that's too long and have put a smidgen on him. No each way available, though, that's just for the title.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-40549333
I do see the advatanges of having a judge, and he's perhaps the most suitable judge available. Perhaps the way forward is for him to appoint two assistants who are clearly not of the same type - one, perhaps, being one of the survivors who have expressed doubts but without joining the extreme political groups who have tried to latch onto the tragedy.
The Spectator is I suspect seeing it through political eyes in the same way as some of the critics. It's not actually in the first instance a political problem, though it may have political implications, and I've never blamed May for it. But we need to reach beyond the usual politician/judge circles in this sort of situaton, and the MP is right to raise that worry on behalf of her constituents.
I have my own doubts about the judge from the little I have heard, but the principal objection expressed against him so far is that his enquiry won't make sure that people are sent to prison. If there is a lack of understanding on his part, there's an even greater lack (however understandable) on the part of some of his critics.
I think it's far from clear how the fire started and spread through the building. You don't have to be an expert to realise that something went catastrophically wrong with the external cladding. What we need to know is, what part of the certification system has failed? Now it might turn out that the government has serious questions to answer about the regulation of this stuff. But for now, we desperately need to find out what's safe and what's not.
One of the residents criticized the ex judge because he was going to "do a Taylor" as in reference to the Taylor Report. Well that's what we need to begin with. After that the prosecutions - and I'm certain there will be many - related to this specific case can begin.
Reconciling the emotional demands for justice with the necessarily unemotional judicial process is always going to be difficult. Unless we are to start having 'people's courts' dispensing retribution, that is not going to change.
One victory was comfortable and the other one much more squeaky!
Amazing stage in the Tour de France again. Horrifying crash for Richie Porte. Got to feel for Dan Martin. Froome looking solid but loss of Geraint Thomas might prove significant over the next 2 weeks. A fasincating Tour so far. A real pity that we've lost Sagan, Cav, Richie Porte and Geraint Thomas in the first 9 stages.
It is overdue, though.
You can sympathise with someone's situation without having to agree with them on other related matters.
"the clear need to make the victims feel they've been understood seems at risk"
What happens if some victims won't feel like they've been understood until they've got exactly what they want? Is there a limit to our desire to 'make victims feel they've been understood' ?
"But we need to reach beyond the usual politician/judge circles in this sort of situaton,"
Why?
Then there's another issue: I do wonder if Coad might be a little too close to the situation, given her current and previous roles, e.g. on the KCTMO and the planning and housing committees.
williamglenn will say that it wouldn't have exploded if we'd stayed in the EU and that other really tedious one, forgotten his name, will say that it requires a second referendum to placate the volcano god.
I am not a lawyer but I think the evidence threshold for proving an individual has been negligent would be very high in this type of situation. I'd guess that the fire risk assessment would be a key document.
I've read about cases where fires have occured in private sector housing where a landlord has obviously been negligent (eg not serviced/ maintained a boiler which has caused a fire) and consequently sent to jail, but in cases like these cause and effect are much more closely linked.
(And if by pure coincidence there is an erruption at the time of the eclipse, remember you heard it here first!)
And I agree on the supervolcano.
They can get initial reports out quickly - the interim bulletin into the Croydon tram crash was produced a week later, and a second a little over three months later. These give a concise reporting of facts as they are currently known, something we're sadly lacking in the Grenfell Tower tragedy.
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/592265/IR012017_170220_Sandilands_Jn_IR2.pdf
Note the 'Urgent safety advice' section.
I'm concerned about the BRE and other industry organisations directing any such inquiry: they're all potentially involved in minor or major ways.
I'm also concerned that no-one appears to be in control of the investigation into what happened, and we're getting drip-fed official and unofficial information along with rumours. Someone needs to take control of the technical investigation.
The main inquiry into the personal (non-technical) side of things - the victims, and why people made the decisions they did - can follow later, as can any prosecutions.
But in the meantime, let's have an excellent technical investigation led by an uninvolved body.
"A criminal enquiry must follow due process for exactly this reason. It isn't clear to me what role a judge led enquiry would achieve at this stage, because there isn't any conclusive technical evidence. Similarly, it isn't clear how having 100 police officers on the case right now would make successful prosecutions more likely, because we don't really know why the fire occurred, and then spread.
I am not a lawyer but I think the evidence threshold for proving an individual has been negligent would be very high in this type of situation. I'd guess that the fire risk assessment would be a key document.
I've read about cases where fires have occured in private sector housing where a landlord has obviously been negligent (eg not serviced/ maintained a boiler which has caused a fire) and consequently sent to jail, but in cases like these cause and effect are much more closely linked."
Yes, we desperately need a technical enquiry. Search online for names like Sam Webb and Arnold Tarling. The first is an architect who took an active role after the Ronan Point collapse in 1968. The second is a fire expert who emerged after Grenfell.
They've pointed out for years to almost anyone who'll listen that crucial fire regulations have been ignored, watered down to near non-existence, not enforced, etc, etc. The judge should appoint such people as technical advisers to spot the bullshit and tell him what follow-on questions to ask the witnesses. That would make gripping TV viewing by BBC Parliament standards, with witnesses blustering and turning red in the face.
The witnesses, if they're from marketing departments, will be extremely good at obfuscation and being economical with the truth. They do it for a living!
At least one Youtube video on how to hire a tame 'fire expert' to self-certify the fire safety of a building that uses somewhat flammable materials in the cladding and insulation system has been taken down. Funny, that.
My guess as a construction expert but a non-lawyer is that criminal action might be impossible to prove unless, say, the fire breaks in the cavity were omitted. By and large, blame the 30-35 year 'bonfire of the regulations' for a situation in which responsibility is so diffuse and unclear.
Claims against various people for civil negligence seem likely to go ahead. But such disputes are usually settled privately out of court with no-one admitting liability. I doubt we'll learn much.
Though the price mechanism may cause some little local difficulty due to global crop failures.
I blame the Brexit.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/07/09/jeremy-corbyns-plan-cancel-student-debt-cost-100bn-says-angela/
quick, plant another magic money tree
I'd agree any potential case would be hugely complex and difficult, but without wishing to engage in prejudicial speculation, it's perfectly possible to conceive of possible avenues of investigation.
Oh, and it would be on top of the £10bn/year required to scrap tuition fees.
The fees are £ 9,250 so that is an ongoing commitment of £ 17 bn a year.
Angela Rayner claims this will cost £ 9 bn a year, but that is only possible if (i) the number of people going to University is reduced by a factor of nearly half or (ii) the fees are set by the Government to be nearly half of what they are now.
If the Government sets the fees at a level significantly less than £ 9250, then I expect that will cause substantial redundancies in the University sector and to provoke almost all the Russell group universities (certainly Oxbridge) to become private.
As far I can see, the cost is the number of UK students times the fees.
9 billion a year (Angela Rayner's figure) divided by £ 9250 gives 973,000 students.
Are Labour also re-introdicing maintenance grants?
For example, 400000 people in care homes times the typical fees of 35 k comes to £ 14 billion. Labour estimated £ 3 billion in the manifesto.
Ten billion underestimate here, 10 billion underestimate there -- and pretty soon you're talking a major crisis.
FWIW, I don't oppose any of Labour's plans. But, the first step to a successful policy is a sensible & realistic costing.
I have not seen anything to persuade me that any of Labour's costings are correct yet.
Scrap Trident to pay for it.
That is why Universities admit more students.
Of course, the Universities don't have to "admit them", but they will then have to sack some staff.
(Even under the present funding arrangement, Manchester University, Bangor University & Leicester University are presently firing staff).
If Labour haven't done their sums right, then University staff will be fired. In fact, if I understand Angela Rayner's figures right, this will tip significant numbers of universities into bankruptcy.
That is what happens if you don't get the numbers right.
You need to find substantially more than this.
That substantially increased the cost, and hence the Labour Party introduced tuition fees.
That was still not enough money, so Labour set up the Browne Review on 9th Novemebr 2009. It was this review that recommended the removal of the cap on tuition fees.
All the significant decisions that have led to the present mess were taken by Labour (with the exception of Osborne's despicable decision to change the interest rate at which the student loans are charged).
Personally, I would like to return to 20 or 25 per cent going to University, with fully funded tuition fees and maintenance grants.
From where we are now, it is hard to see how to get there without a huge contraction of the University sector and substantial redundancies.
The narrative and spotlight on labour's spending may see a change in some aspects of policy but it will draw out the truth of the billions and billions coming from labour's magic money forests
Now some increase in degree level education was probably needed over the past 35 odd years, but the present set up is nuts, plain nuts, and probably contributing to disaffection amongst the young as they realise this confetti paper qualification arms race has one chief victim - them.
It makes sense to stay in Euratom. What else makes sense?
Meanwhile...
@mrjamesob: Very cynical shift from 'Brexit will be brilliant' to 'Brexit will be bad but stupid people will go nuts if it's stopped' now under way.
I haven't heard anything like it in a lifetime of following politics.
Mind you this will now expose splits in labour.
I am leaning to the proposition to stay in right now but no idea how that can happen anyway
Also, the Government needs to make up its mind: is Corbyn a dangerous leftie who must be kept from power at all costs, even a DUP bung if needed, or a sensible fellow who can be reasonably asked for assistance? He can't possibly be both.
"If you won't vote with me to get Brexit through, the other side will" ?
Meanwhile, since any replacement for May is more likely to be more pragmatic and flexible on Brexit, what incentive does Labour have to help her out?
The whole thing seems completely bizarre to me, to the point I would suspect it as fake news except it seems to be in all the serious papers. How does asking Corbyn for help strengthen May's hand with plotters? And she can't seriously believe that Corbyn will offer anything other than suggest she resigns?
Could this be the beginning of the end? Odds on a 2nd 2017 GE anyone?