It's probably a good idea to remember that some of these local by-elections are in wards with very small electorates, whereas others are pretty big like the one in Doncaster which has nearly 10,000 electors. Obviously the big ones are a more reliable guide to what might be happening nationally, whereas the small ones can be very heavily influenced by personal votes.
Terrible UKIP night, unsurprisingly, but beneficiaries seem to vary. Spectacular LibDem gain in Norfolk, Labour gaining votes but not seats, weak Tory results, some results hard to read as Independents come and go. No very clear picture overall so far tbh.
Well it was us until we started wrecking it all in the 90s.
We currently have 42% of 25-64 year olds with tertiary qualifications. France has 32%. Germany has 27%. Italy has 17%. What benefits are we as a country or the graduates themselves gaining from such high levels of tertiary qualification? It is idiotic and costs a fortune for no national benefit.
Canada, USA, Japan and South Korea all have higher numbers.
The problem is the pisspoor nature of many courses and institutions not the innate stupidity of Britons.
Canada, USA, Japan and South Korea all are outside the EU.
“Every man thinks meanly of himself for not having been a soldier, or not having been at sea.” Samuel Johnson
On the other hand my father was one of the last to do National Service and he hated it. Mind you, he was in the RAF and posted to Khormaksar where his responsibilities in that fly blown hole was to supervise the positioning of drip trays under Shackletons from whence they would occasionally be stolen by the locals or hamadryas baboons.
Not sure it is necessary to make it military service, but certainly given a choice between British, French and Norwegian trainees when I was working offshore I would always chose the French or Norwegians because they had done national service and had the ability to actually think and act as well as being willing to get their hands dirty. British graduates were almost entirely an utter waste of time and effort unless they had done some other manual job first.
I worked as a dishwasher in a hotel for two years of weekends and holidays. It probably taught be more than my six weeks as an intern at an investment bank.
“Those born in the late 50s or early 60s are likely to have made a lot of money on their house, have a final salary pension, and a completely free higher education (for the lucky few who went to university). That's largesse compared with younger generations.”
Agree on the first point, in some parts of the country.
Not so on the second - many of this generation have pensions which are based on contributions rather than defined benefits, unless they are in the public sector. So very dependant on the performance of the economy. Private employers started moving out of final salary pensions some time ago.
On your third point, the key words are “the lucky few”.
Certainly better off than many. But not quite the largesse that was being described. It is not this generation which has benefited from the triple lock, fuel allowances and free TV licences etc etc.
And if you have family you are having to help them with university costs, housing etc.
Exactly, barely 10% went to university 50 years ago and of course if you reduce pensioners' assets you in turn reduce the amount their grandchildren will inherit to help with deposits to get on the property ladder, university costs etc
And we should go back to 10% going to university again.
Well, now you're raising the interesting question about whether - say - computer programming is best taught through a computer sciences degree or in some other way.
I think there will be increasingly few low skill jobs available in the developed world, and we need to think creatively about the best way to deliver education, rather than assume that giving everyone three years subsidised drinking between 18 and 21 is the best way.
Well it was us until we started wrecking it all in the 90s.
We currently have 42% of 25-64 year olds with tertiary qualifications. France has 32%. Germany has 27%. Italy has 17%. What benefits are we as a country or the graduates themselves gaining from such high levels of tertiary qualification? It is idiotic and costs a fortune for no national benefit.
Canada, USA, Japan and South Korea all have higher numbers.
The problem is the pisspoor nature of many courses and institutions not the innate stupidity of Britons.
Canada, USA, Japan and South Korea all are outside the EU.
“Every man thinks meanly of himself for not having been a soldier, or not having been at sea.” Samuel Johnson
On the other hand my father was one of the last to do National Service and he hated it. Mind you, he was in the RAF and posted to Khormaksar where his responsibilities in that fly blown hole was to supervise the positioning of drip trays under Shackletons from whence they would occasionally be stolen by the locals or hamadryas baboons.
What the Shackletons
Infuriatingly unreliable four (and occasionally six) engined maritime patrol aircraft.
The last ones were only retired in 1991. Astonishing for what was - in effect - a WW2 era plane.
(Of course, the B52 is only a few years younger, and that's slated to keep flying for decades.)
“Those born in the late 50s or early 60s are likely to have made a lot of money on their house, have a final salary pension, and a completely free higher education (for the lucky few who went to university). That's largesse compared with younger generations.”
Agree on the first point, in some parts of the country.
Not so on the second - many of this generation have pensions which are based on contributions rather than defined benefits, unless they are in the public sector. So very dependant on the performance of the economy. Private employers started moving out of final salary pensions some time ago.
On your third point, the key words are “the lucky few”.
Certainly better off than many. But not quite the largesse that was being described. It is not this generation which has benefited from the triple lock, fuel allowances and free TV licences etc etc.
And if you have family you are having to help them with university costs, housing etc.
Exactly, barely 10% went to university 50 years ago and of course if you reduce pensioners' assets you in turn reduce the amount their grandchildren will inherit to help with deposits to get on the property ladder, university costs etc
And we should go back to 10% going to university again.
Well, now you're raising the interesting question about whether - say - computer programming is best taught through a computer sciences degree or in some other way.
I think there will be increasingly few low skill jobs available in the developed world, and we need to think creatively about the best way to deliver education, rather than assume that giving everyone three years subsidised drinking between 18 and 21 is the best way.
Actually there are plenty of low skill jobs, in agriculture, catering and social care. It is just that Britons do not want to do them.
It is intermediate education jobs that are disappearing.
You could as easily say that the English language, common law, the first past the post electoral system and not being conquered by a neighbouring country for at least 235 years, makes the British more American than European.
While the three examples given of our difference from the USA are ones I certainly appreciate, it does seem people can easily make the opposite argument by selecting different things. It seems pretty reasonable that we might be very foreign from either option in some things, and very close in others - how is one to entirely judge overall foreigness in that case?
When I first visited the US it was by far the most foreign place I’d ever been to. All the points of reference were different. Even something as mundane as tipping - just totally different. I understand how it all works a lot better now, but it is still the only country I go to where I feel European.
My experience has been exactly the opposite and I feel far more at home in North America than I do anywhere in continental Europe.
I always find these "where do you feel most comfortable questions" a bit bollocks.
I feel a lot more comfortable in Paris, than in the English countryside. But I feel more comfortable yet in Manhattan.
“Those born in the late 50s or early 60s are likely to have made a lot of money on their house, have a final salary pension, and a completely free higher education (for the lucky few who went to university). That's largesse compared with younger generations.”
Agree on the first point, in some parts of the country.
Not so on the second - many of this generation have pensions which are based on contributions rather than defined benefits, unless they are in the public sector. So very dependant on the performance of the economy. Private employers started moving out of final salary pensions some time ago.
On your third point, the key words are “the lucky few”.
Certainly better off than many. But not quite the largesse that was being described. It is not this generation which has benefited from the triple lock, fuel allowances and free TV licences etc etc.
And if you have family you are having to help them with university costs, housing etc.
Exactly, barely 10% went to university 50 years ago and of course if you reduce pensioners' assets you in turn reduce the amount their grandchildren will inherit to help with deposits to get on the property ladder, university costs etc
And we should go back to 10% going to university again.
lower than many developing countries and far lower than every developed country.
Liberal bucaneering Britain for the few, not the many.
We are doing absolutely no favours turning out large numbers of graduates with worthless degrees, devaluing the whole process and at the same time racking up vast amounts of debt for them. We have used the increase in University entrants simply as a means to delay having to find jobs for them whilst filling their heads with false hope about the value of the education they are getting. They are no more fit for employment the day they leave University than they were the day the started.
That is an argument to improve our sub par universities up to rest of world standards, rather than to not educate our youngsters for the modern world.
Name an economically succesful developed country where only 10% are educated to degree level.
Even China, India and SouthSAfrica have more than 101 educatedeto tertiary level:
Well it was us until we started wrecking it all in the 90s.
We currently have 42% of 25-64 year olds with tertiary qualifications. France has 32%. Germany has 27%. Italy has 17%. What benefits are we as a country or the graduates themselves gaining from such high levels of tertiary qualification? It is idiotic and costs a fortune for no national benefit.
Canada, USA, Japan and South Korea all have higher numbers.
The problem is the pisspoor nature of many courses and institutions not the innate stupidity of Britons.
Canada, USA, Japan and South Korea all are outside the EU.
Well it was us until we started wrecking it all in the 90s.
We currently have 42% of 25-64 year olds with tertiary qualifications. France has 32%. Germany has 27%. Italy has 17%. What benefits are we as a country or the graduates themselves gaining from such high levels of tertiary qualification? It is idiotic and costs a fortune for no national benefit.
Canada, USA, Japan and South Korea all have higher numbers.
The problem is the pisspoor nature of many courses and institutions not the innate stupidity of Britons.
Canada, USA, Japan and South Korea all are outside the EU.
You could as easily say that the English language, common law, the first past the post electoral system and not being conquered by a neighbouring country for at least 235 years, makes the British more American than European.
While the three examples given of our difference from the USA are ones I certainly appreciate, it does seem people can easily make the opposite argument by selecting different things. It seems pretty reasonable that we might be very foreign from either option in some things, and very close in others - how is one to entirely judge overall foreigness in that case?
When I first visited the US it was by far the most foreign place I’d ever been to. All the points of reference were different. Even something as mundane as tipping - just totally different. I understand how it all works a lot better now, but it is still the only country I go to where I feel European.
My experience has been exactly the opposite and I feel far more at home in North America than I do anywhere in continental Europe.
I always find these "where do you feel most comfortable questions" a bit bollocks.
I feel a lot more comfortable in Paris, than in the English countryside. But I feel more comfortable yet in Manhattan.
Well it was us until we started wrecking it all in the 90s.
We currently have 42% of 25-64 year olds with tertiary qualifications. France has 32%. Germany has 27%. Italy has 17%. What benefits are we as a country or the graduates themselves gaining from such high levels of tertiary qualification? It is idiotic and costs a fortune for no national benefit.
Canada, USA, Japan and South Korea all have higher numbers.
The problem is the pisspoor nature of many courses and institutions not the innate stupidity of Britons.
Those pisspoor institutions exist because we had to rebrand FE colleges and Polys as Universities to satisfy the aims of getting 50% of the youth into University. Get rid of the idiotic target and give school leavers real choice about what they do and things would be far better.
Based on your arguments I assume you consider Germany practically a third world country because only 27% of its population have a tertiary qualification.
Well it was us until we started wrecking it all in the 90s.
We currently have 42% of 25-64 year olds with tertiary qualifications. France has 32%. Germany has 27%. Italy has 17%. What benefits are we as a country or the graduates themselves gaining from such high levels of tertiary qualification? It is idiotic and costs a fortune for no national benefit.
Canada, USA, Japan and South Korea all have higher numbers.
The problem is the pisspoor nature of many courses and institutions not the innate stupidity of Britons.
Canada, USA, Japan and South Korea all are outside the EU.
“Those born in the late 50s or early 60s are likely to have made a lot of money on their house, have a final salary pension, and a completely free higher education (for the lucky few who went to university). That's largesse compared with younger generations.”
Agree on the first point, in some parts of the country.
Not so on the second - many of this generation have pensions which are based on contributions rather than defined benefits, unless they are in the public sector. So very dependant on the performance of the economy. Private employers started moving out of final salary pensions some time ago.
On your third point, the key words are “the lucky few”.
Certainly better off than many. But not quite the largesse that was being described. It is not this generation which has benefited from the triple lock, fuel allowances and free TV licences etc etc.
And if you have family you are having to help them with university costs, housing etc.
Exactly, barely 10% went to university 50 years ago and of course if you reduce pensioners' assets you in turn reduce the amount their grandchildren will inherit to help with deposits to get on the property ladder, university costs etc
And we should go back to 10% going to university again.
Well, now you're raising the interesting question about whether - say - computer programming is best taught through a computer sciences degree or in some other way.
I think there will be increasingly few low skill jobs available in the developed world, and we need to think creatively about the best way to deliver education, rather than assume that giving everyone three years subsidised drinking between 18 and 21 is the best way.
Actually there are plenty of low skill jobs, in agriculture, catering and social care. It is just that Britons do not want to do them.
It is intermediate education jobs that are disappearing.
perhaps we should start paying in booze for these jobs
You could as easily say that the English language, common law, the first past the post electoral system and not being conquered by a neighbouring country for at least 235 years, makes the British more American than European.
While the three examples given of our difference from the USA are ones I certainly appreciate, it does seem people can easily make the opposite argument by selecting different things. It seems pretty reasonable that we might be very foreign from either option in some things, and very close in others - how is one to entirely judge overall foreigness in that case?
When I first visited the US it was by far the most foreign place I’d ever been to. All the points of reference were different. Even something as mundane as tipping - just totally different. I understand how it all works a lot better now, but it is still the only country I go to where I feel European.
My experience has been exactly the opposite and I feel far more at home in North America than I do anywhere in continental Europe.
I always find these "where do you feel most comfortable questions" a bit bollocks.
I feel a lot more comfortable in Paris, than in the English countryside. But I feel more comfortable yet in Manhattan.
Mid West USA very different to East Coast USA.
The most alien place I've ever been was rural Japan. Nobody spoke English, all the signs were in Japanese, and it was pre-smartphones so you were completely reliant on a phrase book.
It was astonishing being somewhere where you had no ability to communicate or to understand what was going on around you.
We absolutely loved it, but boy were we glad to get to Hong Kong (Kowloon!) which felt terribly familiar after Japan.
Well it was us until we started wrecking it all in the 90s.
We currently have 42% of 25-64 year olds with tertiary qualifications. France has 32%. Germany has 27%. Italy has 17%. What benefits are we as a country or the graduates themselves gaining from such high levels of tertiary qualification? It is idiotic and costs a fortune for no national benefit.
Canada, USA, Japan and South Korea all have higher numbers.
The problem is the pisspoor nature of many courses and institutions not the innate stupidity of Britons.
Those pisspoor institutions exist because we had to rebrand FE colleges and Polys as Universities to satisfy the aims of getting 50% of the youth into University. Get rid of the idiotic target and give school leavers real choice about what they do and things would be far better.
Based on your arguments I assume you consider Germany practically a third world country because only 27% of its population have a tertiary qualification.
27% is nearly three times your suggested 10%. Many more Germans have excellent technical education short of tertiary study.
Well it was us until we started wrecking it all in the 90s.
We currently have 42% of 25-64 year olds with tertiary qualifications. France has 32%. Germany has 27%. Italy has 17%. What benefits are we as a country or the graduates themselves gaining from such high levels of tertiary qualification? It is idiotic and costs a fortune for no national benefit.
Canada, USA, Japan and South Korea all have higher numbers.
The problem is the pisspoor nature of many courses and institutions not the innate stupidity of Britons.
Those pisspoor institutions exist because we had to rebrand FE colleges and Polys as Universities to satisfy the aims of getting 50% of the youth into University. Get rid of the idiotic target and give school leavers real choice about what they do and things would be far better.
Based on your arguments I assume you consider Germany practically a third world country because only 27% of its population have a tertiary qualification.
27% is nearly three times your suggested 10%. Many more Germans have excellent technical education short of tertiary study.
Which is what we should be concentrating on instead of pushing all school leavers off to University. There is nothing wrong at all with having 10% attending university if the education and training the other 90% get is correctly tailored to help both themselves and the country. The moronic target we have now of 50% - nearly twice that of Germany and 3 times that of Italy is doing no one any favours at all.
Well it was us until we started wrecking it all in the 90s.
We currently have 42% of 25-64 year olds with tertiary qualifications. France has 32%. Germany has 27%. Italy has 17%. What benefits are we as a country or the graduates themselves gaining from such high levels of tertiary qualification? It is idiotic and costs a fortune for no national benefit.
Theodore Dalrymple writes about this quite often. He points out that producing large number of graduates without enough jobs to satisfy them is a recipe for social unrest, and that many of the revolutions in places like Central America were caused by this phenomenon, (not by working-class unrest as many assume).
Well it was us until we started wrecking it all in the 90s.
We currently have 42% of 25-64 year olds with tertiary qualifications. France has 32%. Germany has 27%. Italy has 17%. What benefits are we as a country or the graduates themselves gaining from such high levels of tertiary qualification? It is idiotic and costs a fortune for no national benefit.
Canada, USA, Japan and South Korea all have higher numbers.
The problem is the pisspoor nature of many courses and institutions not the innate stupidity of Britons.
Those pisspoor institutions exist because we had to rebrand FE colleges and Polys as Universities to satisfy the aims of getting 50% of the youth into University. Get rid of the idiotic target and give school leavers real choice about what they do and things would be far better.
Based on your arguments I assume you consider Germany practically a third world country because only 27% of its population have a tertiary qualification.
27% is nearly three times your suggested 10%. Many more Germans have excellent technical education short of tertiary study.
Which is what we should be concentrating on instead of pushing all school leavers off to University. There is nothing wrong at all with having 10% attending university if the education and training the other 90% get is correctly tailored to help both themselves and the country. The moronic target we have now of 50% - nearly twice that of Germany and 3 times that of Italy is doing no one any favours at all.
Italy is not a great economy to copy, and Germany has a far larger manufactng and engineering sector. We are much closer to the OECD average.
Perhaps you are right though and Britons are much thicker than other nationalities. Doesn't bode well for the future global Britain if so...
You could as easily say that the English language, common law, the first past the post electoral system and not being conquered by a neighbouring country for at least 235 years, makes the British more American than European.
While the three examples given of our difference from the USA are ones I certainly appreciate, it does seem people can easily make the opposite argument by selecting different things. It seems pretty reasonable that we might be very foreign from either option in some things, and very close in others - how is one to entirely judge overall foreigness in that case?
When I first visited the US it was by far the most foreign place I’d ever been to. All the points of reference were different. Even something as mundane as tipping - just totally different. I understand how it all works a lot better now, but it is still the only country I go to where I feel European.
My experience has been exactly the opposite and I feel far more at home in North America than I do anywhere in continental Europe.
I always find these "where do you feel most comfortable questions" a bit bollocks.
I feel a lot more comfortable in Paris, than in the English countryside. But I feel more comfortable yet in Manhattan.
Mid West USA very different to East Coast USA.
The most alien place I've ever been was rural Japan. Nobody spoke English, all the signs were in Japanese, and it was pre-smartphones so you were completely reliant on a phrase book.
It was astonishing being somewhere where you had no ability to communicate or to understand what was going on around you.
We absolutely loved it, but boy were we glad to get to Hong Kong (Kowloon!) which felt terribly familiar after Japan.
Very much so. Taiwan in the early 90s was similar. Utterly bizarre to be functionally illiterate. Was taught the characterst get the bus first day at work. Got the correct one but in the wrong direction. Ended in some paddy fields. Waited for it to go back. 2 hours late.
You could as easily say that the English language, common law, the first past the post electoral system and not being conquered by a neighbouring country for at least 235 years, makes the British more American than European.
While the three examples given of our difference from the USA are ones I certainly appreciate, it does seem people can easily make the opposite argument by selecting different things. It seems pretty reasonable that we might be very foreign from either option in some things, and very close in others - how is one to entirely judge overall foreigness in that case?
When I first visited the US it was by far the most foreign place I’d ever been to. All the points of reference were different. Even something as mundane as tipping - just totally different. I understand how it all works a lot better now, but it is still the only country I go to where I feel European.
My experience has been exactly the opposite and I feel far more at home in North America than I do anywhere in continental Europe.
I always find these "where do you feel most comfortable questions" a bit bollocks.
I feel a lot more comfortable in Paris, than in the English countryside. But I feel more comfortable yet in Manhattan.
Mid West USA very different to East Coast USA.
Really? Midwest USA has Chicago, which feels a lot to me like a northern industrial place that's reinvented itself. A bit like Leeds or Manchester.
You could say the same thing about Europe though. Stockholm or Copenhagen feel very familiar. Bucharest or Naples feels like a different world.
You could as easily say that the English language, common law, the first past the post electoral system and not being conquered by a neighbouring country for at least 235 years, makes the British more American than European.
While the three examples given of our difference from the USA are ones I certainly appreciate, it does seem people can easily make the opposite argument by selecting different things. It seems pretty reasonable that we might be very foreign from either option in some things, and very close in others - how is one to entirely judge overall foreigness in that case?
When I first visited the US it was by far the most foreign place I’d ever been to. All the points of reference were different. Even something as mundane as tipping - just totally different. I understand how it all works a lot better now, but it is still the only country I go to where I feel European.
My experience has been exactly the opposite and I feel far more at home in North America than I do anywhere in continental Europe.
I always find these "where do you feel most comfortable questions" a bit bollocks.
I feel a lot more comfortable in Paris, than in the English countryside. But I feel more comfortable yet in Manhattan.
Mid West USA very different to East Coast USA.
Really? Midwest USA has Chicago, which feels a lot to me like a northern industrial place that's reinvented itself. A bit like Leeds or Manchester.
You could say the same thing about Europe though. Stockholm or Copenhagen feel very familiar. Bucharest or Naples feels like a different world.
Chicago is probably very untypical of the rest of the Mid West. I was there a few months ago although only for two nights. Funny how much you can see in a short time like that. I feel as if I know the city pretty well.
Well it was us until we started wrecking it all in the 90s.
We currently have 42% of 25-64 year olds with tertiary qualifications. France has 32%. Germany has 27%. Italy has 17%. What benefits are we as a country or the graduates themselves gaining from such high levels of tertiary qualification? It is idiotic and costs a fortune for no national benefit.
Canada, USA, Japan and South Korea all have higher numbers.
The problem is the pisspoor nature of many courses and institutions not the innate stupidity of Britons.
Those pisspoor institutions exist because we had to rebrand FE colleges and Polys as Universities to satisfy the aims of getting 50% of the youth into University. Get rid of the idiotic target and give school leavers real choice about what they do and things would be far better.
Based on your arguments I assume you consider Germany practically a third world country because only 27% of its population have a tertiary qualification.
27% is nearly three times your suggested 10%. Many more Germans have excellent technical education short of tertiary study.
Which is what we should be concentrating on instead of pushing all school leavers off to University. There is nothing wrong at all with having 10% attending university if the education and training the other 90% get is correctly tailored to help both themselves and the country. The moronic target we have now of 50% - nearly twice that of Germany and 3 times that of Italy is doing no one any favours at all.
Italy is not a great economy to copy, and Germany has a far larger manufactng and engineering sector. We are much closer to the OECD average.
Perhaps you are right though and Britons are much thicker than other nationalities. Doesn't bode well for the future global Britain if so...
The point is not whether Brits are thicker than other nationalities - they conspicuously are not - it's that offering degrees that do not lead to better paid jobs is a curse, not a gift. Education is meant to be the ultimate ladder up for the poor, not an indulgence sandwiched between gap year and hobby job for middle-class dilletantes.
I did my Erasmus year at Université d'Aix-Marseille I and thought it was wonderful. This may have been due to the change in climate from my normal undergraduate studies at Durham...
£400,000+ unpaid tax over 5 years and she was not a national presenter. The BBC are taking the mickey with these salaries
She was poached from ITV after which the BBC's viewing figures rose. Surely this is how markets are supposed to work. The question is why the BBC insisted on paying her (and other presenters) via personal service companies.
I feel a lot more comfortable in Paris, than in the English countryside. But I feel more comfortable yet in Manhattan.
+1. It depends partly what you're doing, too. Shopping in Europe feels more familiar than the US, as the supermarkets are pretty similar to the UK. Going to a play feels more familiar in the US even if you're fluent in another language.
The by-election yet to be declared in Doncaster is possibly the most interesting simply because it has the most voters, around 10,850 at the last election in 2017. It's a two-horse race between Labour and an Independent.
Well it was us until we started wrecking it all in the 90s.
W
Canada, USA, Japan and South Korea all have higher numbers.
The problem is the pisspoor nature of many courses and institutions not the innate stupidity of Britons.
Those pisspoor institutions exist because we had to rebrand FE colleges and Polys as Universities to satisfy the aims of getting 50% of the youth into University. Get rid of the idiotic target and give school leavers real choice about what they do and things would be far better.
Based on your arguments I assume you consider Germany practically a third world country because only 27% of its population have a tertiary qualification.
27% is nearly three times your suggested 10%. Many more Germans have excellent technical education short of tertiary study.
Which is what we should be concentrating on instead of pushing all school leavers off to University. There is nothing wrong at all with having 10% attending university if the education and training the other 90% get is correctly tailored to help both themselves and the country. The moronic target we have now of 50% - nearly twice that of Germany and 3 times that of Italy is doing no one any favours at all.
Italy is not a great economy to copy, and Germany has a far larger manufactng and engineering sector. We are much closer to the OECD average.
Perhaps you are right though and Britons are much thicker than other nationalities. Doesn't bode well for the future global Britain if so...
The point is not whether Brits are thicker than other nationalities - they conspicuously are not - it's that offering degrees that do not lead to better paid jobs is a curse, not a gift. Education is meant to be the ultimate ladder up for the poor, not an indulgence sandwiched between gap year and hobby job for middle-class dilletantes.
The answer perhaps is to get our second tier universities up to scratch, rather than to stop educating Britons to the levels of our competitors.
The answer perhaps is to get our second tier universities up to scratch, rather than to stop educating Britons to the levels of our competitors.
The problem is partly reputation. A side effect of massive fees is that the Dance Department at the University of Hastings can now attract world class researchers. The trouble is that HR departments do not look at the research rankings and still insist on hiring from the traditional top three -- Oxford, Cambridge and the recruiter's own alma mata. That prejudice must be broken before Britain can reach its full potential.
Well it was us until we started wrecking it all in the 90s.
We currently have 42% of 25-64 year olds with tertiary qualifications. France has 32%. Germany has 27%. Italy has 17%. What benefits are we as a country or the graduates themselves gaining from such high levels of tertiary qualification? It is idiotic and costs a fortune for no national benefit.
Canada, USA, Japan and South Korea all have higher numbers.
The problem is the pisspoor nature of many courses and institutions not the innate stupidity of Britons.
Canada, USA, Japan and South Korea all are outside the EU.
Did you study geography at Uni?
No, I did BSc Biochemistry, then a PhD.
I don't think that was the kind of question which required an answer.
The answer perhaps is to get our second tier universities up to scratch, rather than to stop educating Britons to the levels of our competitors.
The problem is partly reputation. A side effect of massive fees is that the Dance Department at the University of Hastings can now attract world class researchers. The trouble is that HR departments do not look at the research rankings and still insist on hiring from the traditional top three -- Oxford, Cambridge and the recruiter's own alma mata. That prejudice must be broken before Britain can reach its full potential.
Morning all,
In my experience of working in HE, HR gets very little say on recruitment. They organize the process, do the advert, receive the application forms, tracked down referees, provide the room for the interviews etc. But a panel of 4 or maybe more people makes decisions. HR is one person on the panel and in my experience simply provided guidance on the law, institutional rules etc and answered candidates questions about stuff like pensions.
Australia didn't have the best day of cricket they've ever played, did they? Martin Guptil seems to have forgotten his middle names are not Viv and Richards.
On America versus Europe. I am a big Americaphile. I have family connections in the United States and certainly could live there for a longer period. But I am European, not American. We are a European country, I believe, not just in geography, but in a shared history and culture.
The answer perhaps is to get our second tier universities up to scratch, rather than to stop educating Britons to the levels of our competitors.
The problem is partly reputation. A side effect of massive fees is that the Dance Department at the University of Hastings can now attract world class researchers. The trouble is that HR departments do not look at the research rankings and still insist on hiring from the traditional top three -- Oxford, Cambridge and the recruiter's own alma mata. That prejudice must be broken before Britain can reach its full potential.
Morning all,
In my experience of working in HE, HR gets very little say on recruitment. They organize the process, do the advert, receive the application forms, tracked down referees, provide the room for the interviews etc. But a panel of 4 or maybe more people makes decisions. HR is one person on the panel and in my experience simply provided guidance on the law, institutional rules etc and answered candidates questions about stuff like pensions.
Non-HR recruiters are subject to the same prejudices. Then there is the question of who applies in the first place: in the old days of the milk round, some employers would visit only the oldest universities.
On America versus Europe. I am a big Americaphile. I have family connections in the United States and certainly could live there for a longer period. But I am European, not American. We are a European country, I believe, not just in geography, but in a shared history and culture.
I had five years at High School in the USA. The common language and familiarity from TV and film masks a gulf in culture and attitudes. I am far more closer to Europeans in terms of culture too.
Australia is better though, as it has had far more post war European migration.
On America versus Europe. I am a big Americaphile. I have family connections in the United States and certainly could live there for a longer period. But I am European, not American. We are a European country, I believe, not just in geography, but in a shared history and culture.
Our “problem” is we are both European and connected to the wider world far more than many other European countries are. Someone last night posted a tweet ( I think) from somebody saying the US was very foreign and universal healthcare, “real” football, and no guns, made us European. Fair enough. But there again, the common law, the English language, and cricket would pull us in the other direction.
And I suspect it is so in many of our minds on many levels. To me aspects of the US are downright weird, but so is France. (Have to say though had I pitched up in Australia aged 20 I doubt I’d have ever left - it really does feel quite like home with sunshine!)
On America versus Europe. I am a big Americaphile. I have family connections in the United States and certainly could live there for a longer period. But I am European, not American. We are a European country, I believe, not just in geography, but in a shared history and culture.
I had five years at High School in the USA. The common language and familiarity from TV and film masks a gulf in culture and attitudes. I am far more closer to Europeans in terms of culture too.
Australia is better though, as it has had far more post war European migration.
I vaguely recall Michael Grade talking about bringing daytime television to BBC1, and commenting about having to sit through the American soaps before being shown Neighbours, with street cricket in its opening titles. The rest is broadcasting history.
Australia didn't have the best day of cricket they've ever played, did they? Martin Guptil seems to have forgotten his middle names are not Viv and Richards.
243 in 20 overs? Its not that long ago that would have been an ok 50 over score. Just incredible. It will be interesting to see how close Australia get. They are off to a good start.
On America versus Europe. I am a big Americaphile. I have family connections in the United States and certainly could live there for a longer period. But I am European, not American. We are a European country, I believe, not just in geography, but in a shared history and culture.
Our “problem” is we are both European and connected to the wider world far more than many other European countries are. Someone last night posted a tweet ( I think) from somebody saying the US was very foreign and universal healthcare, “real” football, and no guns, made us European. Fair enough. But there again, the common law, the English language, and cricket would pull us in the other direction.
And I suspect it is so in many of our minds on many levels. To me aspects of the US are downright weird, but so is France. (Have to say though had I pitched up in Australia aged 20 I doubt I’d have ever left - it really does feel quite like home with sunshine!)
Good points. I am curious about an attachment to a common law in "common" with the US and other places. Several people here mention it. Most European countries have decent legal systems, as does Scotland with a legal system originating in 16th century French jurisprudence. Don't most people accept the law is what it is?
On America versus Europe. I am a big Americaphile. I have family connections in the United States and certainly could live there for a longer period. But I am European, not American. We are a European country, I believe, not just in geography, but in a shared history and culture.
I had five years at High School in the USA. The common language and familiarity from TV and film masks a gulf in culture and attitudes. I am far more closer to Europeans in terms of culture too.
Australia is better though, as it has had far more post war European migration.
Australia has America's car culture and Britain's work ethic. Recently it has become seriously multicultural. I know as many Chinese Australians as Anglo Saxon ones.
Comments
https://twitter.com/ALDC/status/964285861180342272
https://twitter.com/Matt_Severn/status/964286606080389120
A. No, because these are local by-elections not nationwide general elections.
For example only low turnouts of 20 - 30% and limited
resources can be focussed in single wards or Divisions.
I think there will be increasingly few low skill jobs available in the developed world, and we need to think creatively about the best way to deliver education, rather than assume that giving everyone three years subsidised drinking between 18 and 21 is the best way.
(Of course, the B52 is only a few years younger, and that's slated to keep flying for decades.)
It is intermediate education jobs that are disappearing.
I feel a lot more comfortable in Paris, than in the English countryside. But I feel more comfortable yet in Manhattan.
Based on your arguments I assume you consider Germany practically a third world country because only 27% of its population have a tertiary qualification.
It was astonishing being somewhere where you had no ability to communicate or to understand what was going on around you.
We absolutely loved it, but boy were we glad to get to Hong Kong (Kowloon!) which felt terribly familiar after Japan.
Epsom & Ewell BC, Ruxley:
Res 37.2
Con 31.8
Lab 24.7
LD 6.3
Falkirk UA, Bonnybridge & Larbert:
SNP 38.6
Con 32.4
Lab 24.2
Green 3.7
UKIP 1.0
Halton UA, Halton Castle:
Lab 70.3
Ind 17.9
Con 11.8
North East Derbyshire DC, Grassmoor:
Lab 49
Con 39
LD 11.9
North Norfolk DC, Worstead:
LD: 72.7
Con: 16.9
Lab: 10.4
Teignbridge DC, Chudleigh:
LD: 41.0
Con: 40.3
Lab: 18.7
Teignbridge DC, Dawlish Central & North East:
LD 70.6
Con 29.4
Tendring DC, St Paul's:
Con: 39.5
Ind: 16.7
Ind: 14.0
Lab: 11.9
LD: 8.3
UKIP: 7.4
Green: 2.1
West Oxfordshire DC, Carterton South:
Con 62.9
LD 23.7
Lab 13.5
York UA, Holgate:
Lab 50.0
LD 32.3
Con 11.0
Grn 6.7
https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/964287600973492224
Perhaps you are right though and Britons are much thicker than other nationalities. Doesn't bode well for the future global Britain if so...
You could say the same thing about Europe though. Stockholm or Copenhagen feel very familiar. Bucharest or Naples feels like a different world.
Lab 40.83%
Con 40.75%
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_next_United_Kingdom_general_election#2018
Infratest dimap:
CDU/CSU 33%
SPD 16%
AfD 15%
GRÜNE 13%
LINKE 11%
FDP 9%
Others 3%
https://www.wahlrecht.de/umfragen/
He then copped out, and went for national citizen service instead.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christa_Ackroyd#Taxation_case
http://www.doncaster.gov.uk/services/the-council-democracy/local-elections-2017
The problem is partly reputation. A side effect of massive fees is that the Dance Department at the University of Hastings can now attract world class researchers. The trouble is that HR departments do not look at the research rankings and still insist on hiring from the traditional top three -- Oxford, Cambridge and the recruiter's own alma mata. That prejudice must be broken before Britain can reach its full potential.
In my experience of working in HE, HR gets very little say on recruitment. They organize the process, do the advert, receive the application forms, tracked down referees, provide the room for the interviews etc. But a panel of 4 or maybe more people makes decisions. HR is one person on the panel and in my experience simply provided guidance on the law, institutional rules etc and answered candidates questions about stuff like pensions.
https://www.buzzfeed.com/alexspence/the-tory-housing-minister-was-in-a-private-facebook-group?utm_term=.xv2yrQeR8#.gp0VgX8z1
Australia is better though, as it has had far more post war European migration.
And I suspect it is so in many of our minds on many levels. To me aspects of the US are downright weird, but so is France. (Have to say though had I pitched up in Australia aged 20 I doubt I’d have ever left - it really does feel quite like home with sunshine!)
https://twitter.com/robfordmancs/status/964226578250166272
F1: Williams unveil their 2018 car.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/43079279
First test starts in 10 days.
NEW THREAD