Big news from F1! McLaren have poached Torro Rosso's technical director, James Key. He's seen by many as the heir to Adrian Newey so that's a huge win for McLaren. He's also officially got the TD title and has full control over McLaren's car development rather than have the roles split as they did previously.
I think if they continue to make strong appointments like this and hold onto Alonso they are looking good for 2019 as a top running team.
Ooh interesting. I’m assuming he’s going to have at least six months in the garden first though, so targeting 2020 might be better for McLaren if they can hold on to Alonso until then.
It sounds like a deal has been done for him to start immediately, I'm guessing Lando Norris goes into the RBR young driver programme. Sainz might head in the opposite direction, McLaren are said to rate him.
F1 journo Joe Saward, who’s usually good with these things, reckons it’s possibly been negotiated down to six months, so he might start in October. It’d be highly unusual for a TD to move between two competitive teams in the middle of the season. https://www.motorsportweek.com/joeblogsf1/id/00279
Good luck to McLaren though, it’s always sad to see historic teams languishing at the back of the grid. Ditto Williams, although the problem there is going to be a little more difficult to move out of the team.
Mr. Ace, I wasn't referring specifically to Mr. T's statements, whatever they were, just that people engaging in and supporting identity politics cannot reasonably be surprised when some white people then decide to do the same.
r.
I happen.
The.
I find the vast majority of SeanT’s posts to be provocative and thought provoking contributions to the site. Yes, he can sometimes overstep the mark, particularly when he’s been drinking, but which of us can’t?
So far I’ve not seen any meaningful rebuttal of his central point last night which is that identity politics, rather than breaking down barriers, is actually begetting identity politics in every direction. It’s also having a corrosive effect on public discourse and, increasingly, people are ceasing to be treated as individuals and judged and filtered more by category.
Rather than engage on this more posters seem interested in shouting “racist” at him, and shutting him down, just because he happened to mention pride in his own ethnicity rather than deal With that point. I find it utterly moronic, that too easily leads to a toxic ‘are you one or us or one of them?’ orthodoxy, and it’s the sign of someone weak in their own arguments and more interested in signalling than debate when they are argue for closure and censure rather than rebut the central argument.
Why do you have a problem with people who do not believe these things?
No, and no. But it is a fact that during at least 500 of those 600 years the UK was an overwhelming White place, notwithstanding an ethnic minority of perhaps 1-2% and some immigrants making a disproportionately large contribution, and I think that fact causes problems on both sides of the argument today in a much more multiethnic and multicultural society.
I expect SeanT wasn’t being entirely serious anyway and resorting to hyperbole to illustrate how easily identity politics can work the other way too.
So we're now down to the "he didn't really mean it" defence? Just a bit of fun?
My advice is to stop digging.
No. I just think you’ve risen to the bait and ended up shooting down a straw man.
But of course you love this, as do many others of your ilk, as it gives you a heaven sent change to parade your anti-racist credentials.
You're doing it again - ad hominem, mind-reading nonsense. Aka vice signalling.
I wonder how many would be in the intersection of a Venn diagram of those thinking seant's white power guff is just a bit of provocative fun and those who think the term 'gammon' is a vile, racist slur?
This site has worked because it's been interesting and challenging. SeanT is undeniably interesting. He isn't a racist; he's just provocative, often with tongue firmly in cheek and three bottles of wine empty.
His drunken nightime posts that aim abuse at whole groups in society based solely upon on their identity are offensive, and I don't really care whether you find them interesting or not. Otherwise let's have a good debate.
Offensive is in the eye of the beholder. There’s plenty I find offensive about how groups in society are categorised but i don’t expect everyone else to care about that.
In a free society we usually all offended by something at least some of the time.
Here is a mildly interesting comment by the French Minister for Europe saying she thinks if Britain changes its mind it can stay in the EU on the old terms.
That'd be the terms before Cameron's renegotiation? No formal opt out of ever closer union etc. (for whatever that was worth)
Cameron was an idiot he could have negotiated associate status, something Verhofstadt said he would support, then he decided to be a gift horse dentist.
Mr. Ace, I wasn't referring specifically to Mr. T's statements, whatever they were, just that people engaging in and supporting identity politics cannot reasonably be surprised when some white people then decide to do the same.
Identity politics is dumb. Doing/believing stupid things is not the sole preserve of any one race.
Explaining something is not the same as suggesting it is (or is not) morally acceptable. You may be aware I've been banging on about the risks of the far right rising in this country for some time now. That's because I'm concerned about it happening and the dire consequences that would ensue (we're already seeing however.
Indeed, it was
I know it’s not a popular view among the audience here, but the best way of avoiding the Steve Bannons and Nigel Farages gaining a hold on British politics is for everyone else to come together to implement the Brexit vote. By all means argue for re-admission to the EU in future, but the will of the people being seen to be ignored is a very dangerous thing if it is allowed to happen.
The best way to avoid such racist and sexist views becoming mainstream is to challenge them, and ideally not publish the more extreme stuff. Too many here tolerate SeanT as some sort of site yurodivy.
I find the vast majority of SeanT’s posts to be provocative and thought provoking contributions to the site. Yes, he can sometimes overstep the mark, particularly when he’s been drinking, but which of us can’t?
So far I’ve not seen any meaningful rebuttal of his central point last night which is that identity politics, rather than breaking down barriers, is actually begetting identity politics in every direction. It’s also having a corrosive effect on public discourse and, increasingly, people are ceasing to be treated as individuals and judged and filtered more by category...
His 'central point' - which was quite well buried under a deal of tendentious guff - was about the growth of white identity politics in the US. As I pointed out last night in response, white identity has been a central element of US politics since there was a United States.
Good. At least you concede there now was a central point which was of real interest.
I wonder how many would be in the intersection of a Venn diagram of those thinking seant's white power guff is just a bit of provocative fun and those who think the term 'gammon' is a vile, racist slur?
Mr. Ace, I wasn't referring specifically to Mr. T's statements, whatever they were, just that people engaging in and supporting identity politics cannot reasonably be surprised when some white people then decide to do the same.
Identity politics is dumb. Doing/believing stupid things is not the sole preserve of any one race.
Explaining something is not the same as suggesting it is (or is not) morally acceptable. You may be aware I've been banging on about the risks of the far right rising in this country for some time now. That's because I'm concerned about it happening and the dire consequences that would ensue (we're already seeing however.
Indeed, it was
I know it’s not a popular view among the audience here, but the best way of avoiding the Steve Bannons and Nigel Farages gaining a hold on British politics is for everyone else to come together to implement the Brexit vote. By all means argue for re-admission to the EU in future, but the will of the people being seen to be ignored is a very dangerous thing if it is allowed to happen.
The best way to avoid such racist and sexist views becoming mainstream is to challenge them, and ideally not publish the more extreme stuff. Too many here tolerate SeanT as some sort of site yurodivy.
I find the vast majority of SeanT’s posts to be provocative and thought provoking contributions to the site. Yes, he can sometimes overstep the mark, particularly when he’s been drinking, but which of us can’t?
So far I’ve not seen any meaningful rebuttal of his central point last night which is that identity politics, rather than breaking down barriers, is actually begetting identity politics in every direction. It’s also having a corrosive effect on public discourse and, increasingly, people are ceasing to be treated as individuals and judged and filtered more by category...
His 'central point' - which was quite well buried under a deal of tendentious guff - was about the growth of white identity politics in the US. As I pointed out last night in response, white identity has been a central element of US politics since there was a United States.
The interesting question is not: "why are a load of alienated poor white people voting for anti-immigrant populism?" The interesting question is: "why are a load of pretty affluent well-integrated white people voting for anti-immigrant populism?"
And on the R4 prog it is absolutely required listening for PB as right now it is dealing with eg. news reports mentioning or not mentioning attackers' racial origins.
English middle class twaddle the whole lot of it. race has nothing to do with it, it's all about religion
Mr. Max, hmm. I think he was the chap who did a good job at Lotus (when Raikkonen and Grosjean got many podium finishes), although maybe that was Allison...
Mr. Ace, I wasn't referring specifically to Mr. T's statements, whatever they were, just that people engaging in and supporting identity politics cannot reasonably be surprised when some white people then decide to do the same.
Identity politics is dumb. Doing/believing stupid things is not the sole preserve of any one race.
Explaining something is not the same as suggesting it is (or is not) morally acceptable. You may be aware I've been banging on about the risks of the far right rising in this country for some time now. That's because I'm concerned about it happening and the dire consequences that would ensue (we're already seeing however.
Indeed, it was
I know it’s not a popular view among the audience here, but the best way of avoiding the Steve Bannons and Nigel Farages gaining a hold on British politics is for everyone else to come together to implement the Brexit vote. By all means argue for re-admission to the EU in future, but the will of the people being seen to be ignored is a very dangerous thing if it is allowed to happen.
The best way to avoid such racist and sexist views becoming mainstream is to challenge them, and ideally not publish the more extreme stuff. Too many here tolerate SeanT as some sort of site yurodivy.
I find the vast majority of SeanT’s posts to be provocative and thought provoking contributions to the site. Yes, he can sometimes overstep the mark, particularly when he’s been drinking, but which of us can’t?
So far I’ve not seen any meaningful rebuttal of his central point last night which is that identity politics, rather than breaking down barriers, is actually begetting identity politics in every direction. It’s also having a corrosive effect on public discourse and, increasingly, people are ceasing to be treated as individuals and judged and filtered more by category...
His 'central point' - which was quite well buried under a deal of tendentious guff - was about the growth of white identity politics in the US. As I pointed out last night in response, white identity has been a central element of US politics since there was a United States.
The interesting question is not: "why are a load of alienated poor white people voting for anti-immigrant populism?" The interesting question is: "why are a load of pretty affluent well-integrated white people voting for anti-immigrant populism?"
My initial angle on that would be they value what they have at the moment as quite special and fear it too could be subject to radical change.
They also fear that they too might be next for quotas and affirmative action that might not necessarily be in their favour.
Mr. Ace, I wasn't referring specifically to Mr. T's statements, whatever they were, just that people engaging in and supporting identity politics cannot reasonably be surprised when some white people then decide to do the same.
Identity politics is dumb. Doing/believing stupid things is not the sole preserve of any one race.
Explaining something is not the same as suggesting it is (or is not) morally acceptable. You may be aware I've been banging on about the risks of the far right rising in this country for some time now. That's because I'm concerned about it happening and the dire consequences that would ensue (we're already seeing however.
Indeed, it was
I know it’s not a popular view among the audience here, but the best way of avoiding the Steve Bannons and Nigel Farages gaining a hold on British politics is for everyone else to come together to implement the Brexit vote. By all means argue for re-admission to the EU in future, but the will of the people being seen to be ignored is a very dangerous thing if it is allowed to happen.
The best way to avoid such racist and sexist views becoming mainstream is to challenge them, and ideally not publish the more extreme stuff. Too many here tolerate SeanT as some sort of site yurodivy.
I find the vast majority of SeanT’s posts to be provocative and thought provoking contributions to the site. Yes, he can sometimes overstep the mark, particularly when he’s been drinking, but which of us can’t?
So far I’ve not seen any meaningful rebuttal of his central point last night which is that identity politics, rather than breaking down barriers, is actually begetting identity politics in every direction. It’s also having a corrosive effect on public discourse and, increasingly, people are ceasing to be treated as individuals and judged and filtered more by category...
His 'central point' - which was quite well buried under a deal of tendentious guff - was about the growth of white identity politics in the US. As I pointed out last night in response, white identity has been a central element of US politics since there was a United States.
Good. At least you concede there now was a central point which was of real interest.
That’s progress.
A point which I rebutted last night. Spare me your condescension.
I wonder how many would be in the intersection of a Venn diagram of those thinking seant's white power guff is just a bit of provocative fun and those who think the term 'gammon' is a vile, racist slur?
I wonder how many would be in the intersection of a Venn diagram of those thinking seant's white power guff is just a bit of provocative fun and those who think the term 'gammon' is a vile, racist slur?
Maybe just one big circle would do it.
The big question is, is gammon a color?
I believe Farrow & Ball are to include it in their new Brexit colour chart.
I wonder how many would be in the intersection of a Venn diagram of those thinking seant's white power guff is just a bit of provocative fun and those who think the term 'gammon' is a vile, racist slur?
Mr. Ace, I wasn't referring specifically to Mr. T's statements, whatever they were, just that people engaging in and supporting identity politics cannot reasonably be surprised when some white people then decide to do the same.
Identity politics is dumb. Doing/believing stupid things is not the sole preserve of any one race.
Explaining something is not the same as suggesting it is (or is not) morally acceptable. You may be aware I've been banging on about the risks of the far right rising in this country for some time now. That's because I'm concerned about it happening and the dire consequences that would ensue (we're already seeing however.
Indeed, it was
I know it’s not a popular view among the audience here, but the best way of avoiding the Steve Bannons and Nigel Farages gaining a hold on British politics is for everyone else to come together to implement the Brexit vote. By all means argue for re-admission to the EU in future, but the will of the people being seen to be ignored is a very dangerous thing if it is allowed to happen.
The best way to avoid such racist and sexist views becoming mainstream is to challenge them, and ideally not publish the more extreme stuff. Too many here tolerate SeanT as some sort of site yurodivy.
I find the vast majority of SeanT’s posts to be provocative and thought provoking contributions to the site. Yes, he can sometimes overstep the mark, particularly when he’s been drinking, but which of us can’t?
So far I’ve not seen any meaningful rebuttal of his central point last night which is that identity politics, rather than breaking down barriers, is actually begetting identity politics in every direction. It’s also having a corrosive effect on public discourse and, increasingly, people are ceasing to be treated as individuals and judged and filtered more by category...
His 'central point' - which was quite well buried under a deal of tendentious guff - was about the growth of white identity politics in the US. As I pointed out last night in response, white identity has been a central element of US politics since there was a United States.
Good. At least you concede there now was a central point which was of real interest.
That’s progress.
A point which I rebutted last night. Spare me your condescension.
In your head, maybe.
Shame those thoughts never made it to paper. I’m sure they would have been powerful.
There's a line from a Boomtown Rats song that comes to mind today:
"You know most killing is committed at 90 degrees When it's too hot to feel when it's too hot to think"
I went out before 6 this morning with the last remnants of the cool overnight - yet the smells in the city get you down, the fly tipped rubbish with the flies already swarming and the stale smells of sour food and the unpleasant sweetness of the first joint of the morning hanging in the air.
Then there's the stench of stale old debate with the usual old suspects determined to have their say and shoot down anyone who disagrees with them or even those who do but not strongly enough. Perhaps it's good Parliament is on holiday for a while.
Death is on my mind this morning - not mine so much. Mortality figures are always worth a look. 40-45,000 people die in England and Wales every month. In March this year, 51,000 people died probably as a consequence of the late cold spell. A month with more than 50,000 dead is unusual.
In July and August fewer people die normally often a tad under 40,000. It will be interesting to see the July 2018 numbers when they come out. Anecdotally, I have heard from a friend in the undertaking business it is the busiest summer he has ever known. I have also heard Council and Hospital Registration Departments are dealing with a spike in demand for registering deaths so let's see. The June 2018 figures were average.
It is interesting to see people and work places adapt or try to. Oddly enough, the standard British response to unusual weather is Coward-esque, we continue to go out in the midday sun but a male colleague of mine wore shorts to the office yesterday and that sparked more debate than any World Cup nonsense or Netflix crap.
MY question is should a man wear shorts to work ? Female colleagues have said a tailored short on the knee with a collared shirt looks perfectly fine in summer (no socks). As I have the body of a Greek God (admittedly not one of the better known ones), I can carry off such a look.
Mr. Max, hmm. I think he was the chap who did a good job at Lotus (when Raikkonen and Grosjean got many podium finishes), although maybe that was Allison...
Anyway, a good move, as you indicate.
I think that was James Allison, he's at Ferrari now iirc.
Just because something is difficult doesn't mean it's not worth doing.
Fine. But a) that's not happening at all and possibly is really physically difficult at Dover, and b) if we are going to that then we need more time, lots more time.
The Brexiteers have been fully exposed. They either had absolutely no idea how intertwined UK economy has become in 40 years of EU/EC membership, or, they just lied through their teeth.
Just because something is difficult doesn't mean it's not worth doing.
Fine. But a) that's not happening at all and possibly is really physically difficult at Dover, and b) if we are going to that then we need more time, lots more time.
The Brexiteers have been fully exposed. They either had absolutely no idea how intertwined UK economy has become in 40 years of EU/EC membership, or, they just lied through their teeth.
how narrow minded
the Europhiles have been lying through their teeth for the last 40 years and you wont let the opposition do the same thing
Just because something is difficult doesn't mean it's not worth doing.
In the short term, the main change would be an increase in the amount of trade handled by other posts in addition to Dover, and a bit more inventory and warehouse management.
The UK imports about 30% of its food from the EU. If the rules of that game change a bit then so will the supply chains for perishables (I’d expect more domestic production and imports from the RoW) and the price but no-one is going to go short of food. Even direct from the EU you’re talking delays of hours, not weeks, which can be planned for and managed.
It’s a risk of bureaucracy; it’s not an economic blockade. FWIW I think Dover needs a major upgrade anyway as operation stack has been run multiple times in recent years, usually when the French were on strike.
MY question is should a man wear shorts to work ? Female colleagues have said a tailored short on the knee with a collared shirt looks perfectly fine in summer (no socks). As I have the body of a Greek God (admittedly not one of the better known ones), I can carry off such a look.
Could you ? Should you ? Would you ?
There was a guy at my work called "scary Gareth".
He wore speedos in the summer. Sometimes, but not always, a t-shirt too. Sensitive to the concerns of others, when he was in communal areas he wore a trench-coat on top.
"MY question is should a man wear shorts to work ?"
My subjective view is 'Never'. Women can, of course, go naked if they wish. As this is social media, I should insist that my subjective view is fact, and that contrary views should be banned.
Mr. Ace, I wasn't referring specifically to Mr. T's statements, whatever they were, just that people engaging in and supporting identity politics cannot reasonably be surprised when some white people then decide to do the same.
Identity politics is dumb. Doing/believing stupid things is not the sole preserve of any one race.
Explaining something is not the same as suggesting it is (or is not) morally acceptable. You may be aware I've been banging on about the risks of the far right rising in this country for some time now. That's because I'm concerned about it happening and the dire consequences that would ensue (we're already seeing however.
Indeed, it was
I know it’s not a popular view among the audience here, but the best way of avoiding the Steve Bannons and Nigel Farages gaining a hold on British politics is for everyone else to come together to implement the Brexit vote. By all means argue for re-admission to the EU in future, but the will of the people being seen to be ignored is a very dangerous thing if it is allowed to happen.
The best way to avoid such racist and sexist views becoming mainstream is to challenge them, and ideally not publish the more extreme stuff. Too many here tolerate SeanT as some sort of site yurodivy.
I find the vast majority of SeanT’s posts to be provocative and thought provoking contributions to the site. Yes, he can sometimes overstep the mark, particularly when he’s been drinking, but which of us can’t?
So far I’ve not seen any meaningful rebuttal of his central point last night which is that identity politics, rather than breaking down barriers, is actually begetting identity politics in every direction. It’s also having a corrosive effect on public discourse and, increasingly, people are ceasing to be treated as individuals and judged and filtered more by category...
His 'central point' - which was quite well buried under a deal of tendentious guff - was about the growth of white identity politics in the US. As I pointed out last night in response, white identity has been a central element of US politics since there was a United States.
The idea that identity politics is A ) a new thing B ) an invention of the left is one of the most tedious arguments of modern times.
What people are actually objecting too is the historically marginalised identities (blacks, gays etc) organising and fighting back.
MY question is should a man wear shorts to work ? Female colleagues have said a tailored short on the knee with a collared shirt looks perfectly fine in summer (no socks). As I have the body of a Greek God (admittedly not one of the better known ones), I can carry off such a look.
Could you ? Should you ? Would you ?
There was a guy at my work called "scary Gareth".
He wore speedos in the summer. Sometimes, but not always, a t-shirt too. Sensitive to the concerns of others, when he was in communal areas he wore a trench-coat on top.
Compared to that, shorts are fine.
I’ve got an architect here who wears socks and sandals with a very loud shirt and a full suit.
Such fashion crimes are so extreme they almost drive me to fascism.
I know it’s not a popular view among the audience here, but the best way of avoiding the Steve Bannons and Nigel Farages gaining a hold on British politics is for everyone else to come together to implement the Brexit vote. By all means argue for re-admission to the EU in future, but the will of the people being seen to be ignored is a very dangerous thing if it is allowed to happen.
The best way to avoid such racist and sexist views becoming mainstream is to challenge them, and ideally not publish the more extreme stuff. Too many here tolerate SeanT as some sort of site yurodivy.
I find the vast majority of SeanT’s posts to be provocative and thought provoking contributions to the site. Yes, he can sometimes overstep the mark, particularly when he’s been drinking, but which of us can’t?
So far I’ve not seen any meaningful rebuttal of his central point last night which is that identity politics, rather than breaking down barriers, is actually begetting identity politics in every direction. It’s also having a corrosive effect on public discourse and, increasingly, people are ceasing to be treated as individuals and judged and filtered more by category...
His 'central point' - which was quite well buried under a deal of tendentious guff - was about the growth of white identity politics in the US. As I pointed out last night in response, white identity has been a central element of US politics since there was a United States.
The interesting question is not: "why are a load of alienated poor white people voting for anti-immigrant populism?" The interesting question is: "why are a load of pretty affluent well-integrated white people voting for anti-immigrant populism?"
Because they've done well, they'd much rather have immigrants as a scapegoat than have any kind of real shake-up. Notice how all the right-wingers who used to be obsessed with welfare dependency never talk about it any more? It's because it was only ever a misdirection tactic, and they've now found a more effective one
The current negotiation with the EU (lots of detail, a need for grit) is ideally suited for Gordon Brown.
In charge of negotiations - possibly, for those reasons.
In charge of the government - no. Not even if Hell freezes over.
We're all in danger of forgetting just how bad Brown was. May's hardly a good PM, but so far as I know she has not yet been accused of assaulting Philip Hammond.
Here is a mildly interesting comment by the French Minister for Europe saying she thinks if Britain changes its mind it can stay in the EU on the old terms.
They are all Labour members cursing three Jewish newspapers for calling them antisemitic.
NOW FOR THE PUNCHLINE
Most of them blame it on an international Jewish conspiracy to discredit Corbyn and promote Zionism.
Um, no they aren't. Most of the comments are about the French Minister, and the ones spilling over on Labour cover the usual spectrum from problem-what-problem to you're-all-maniacs. One can go mad trying to analyse below-the-line comment columns, which is why I don't usually bother, and only looked because you raised it.
Just because something is difficult doesn't mean it's not worth doing.
Fine. But a) that's not happening at all and possibly is really physically difficult at Dover, and b) if we are going to that then we need more time, lots more time.
The Brexiteers have been fully exposed. They either had absolutely no idea how intertwined UK economy has become in 40 years of EU/EC membership, or, they just lied through their teeth.
For most Brexiteers the degree of that intertwinement was a central argument to leave. Evidence that it’s worse than they thought will simply lead them to double-down on their original decision, not revisit it.
I think that’s a different point of course from realising just how difficult it would be to unintertwine the UK from it, where I do admit a number of Brexiteers were far too optimistic.
I begin to realise I work with a surprisingly boring group of people (sartorially at least). The notion of "scary Gareth" is a tad too much even on a day like this.
I have to confess I know Lycra isn't my friend - it seems others have yet to make that journey of self-discovery.
Here is a mildly interesting comment by the French Minister for Europe saying she thinks if Britain changes its mind it can stay in the EU on the old terms.
They are all Labour members cursing three Jewish newspapers for calling them antisemitic.
NOW FOR THE PUNCHLINE
Most of them blame it on an international Jewish conspiracy to discredit Corbyn and promote Zionism.
Um, no they aren't. Most of the comments are about the French Minister, and the ones spilling over on Labour cover the usual spectrum from problem-what-problem to you're-all-maniacs. One can go mad trying to analyse below-the-line comment columns, which is why I don't usually bother, and only looked because you raised it.
I know it’s not a popular view among the audience here, but the best way of avoiding the Steve Bannons and Nigel Farages gaining a hold on British politics is for everyone else to come together to implement the Brexit vote. By all means argue for re-admission to the EU in future, but the will of the people being seen to be ignored is a very dangerous thing if it is allowed to happen.
The best way to avoid such racist and sexist views becoming mainstream is to challenge them, and ideally not publish the more extreme stuff. Too many here tolerate SeanT as some sort of site yurodivy.
I find the vast majority of SeanT’s posts to be provocative and thought provoking contributions to the site. Yes, he can sometimes overstep the mark, particularly when he’s been drinking, but which of us can’t?
So far I’ve not seen any meaningful rebuttal of his central point last night which is that identity politics, rather than breaking down barriers, is actually begetting identity politics in every direction. It’s also having a corrosive effect on public discourse and, increasingly, people are ceasing to be treated as individuals and judged and filtered more by category...
His 'central point' - which was quite well buried under a deal of tendentious guff - was about the growth of white identity politics in the US. As I pointed out last night in response, white identity has been a central element of US politics since there was a United States.
The interesting question is not: "why are a load of alienated poor white people voting for anti-immigrant populism?" The interesting question is: "why are a load of pretty affluent well-integrated white people voting for anti-immigrant populism?"
Because they've done well, they'd much rather have immigrants as a scapegoat than have any kind of real shake-up. Notice how all the right-wingers who used to be obsessed with welfare dependency never talk about it any more? It's because it was only ever a misdirection tactic, and they've now found a more effective one
From a right wing perspective, addressing welfare dependency and moving people into work has been a singular success of the Government over the last 8 years.
Mr. Ace, I wasn't referring specifically to Mr. T's statements, whatever they were, just that people engaging in and supporting identity politics cannot reasonably be surprised when some white people then decide to do the same.
Identity politics is dumb. Doing/believing stupid things is not the sole preserve of any one race.
Explaining something is not the same as suggesting it is (or is not) morally acceptable. You may be aware I've been banging on about the risks of the far right rising in this country for some time now. That's because I'm concerned about it happening and the dire consequences that would ensue (we're already seeing however.
Indeed, it was
I know it’s not a popular view among the audience here, but the best way of avoiding the Steve Bannons and Nigel Farages gaining a hold on British politics is for everyone else to come together to implement the Brexit vote. By all means argue for re-admission to the EU in future, but the will of the people being seen to be ignored is a very dangerous thing if it is allowed to happen.
The best way to avoid such racist and sexist views becoming mainstream is to challenge them, and ideally not publish the more extreme stuff. Too many here tolerate SeanT as some sort of site yurodivy.
I find the vast majority of SeanT’s posts to be provocative and thought provoking contributions to the site. Yes, he can sometimes overstep the mark, particularly when he’s been drinking, but which of us can’t?
So far I’ve not seen any meaningful rebuttal of his central point last night which is that identity politics, rather than breaking down barriers, is actually begetting identity politics in every direction. It’s also having a corrosive effect on public discourse and, increasingly, people are ceasing to be treated as individuals and judged and filtered more by category...
His 'central point' - which was quite well buried under a deal of tendentious guff - was about the growth of white identity politics in the US. As I pointed out last night in response, white identity has been a central element of US politics since there was a United States.
The idea that identity politics is A ) a new thing B ) an invention of the left is one of the most tedious arguments of modern times.
What people are actually objecting too is the historically marginalised identities (blacks, gays etc) organising and fighting back.
You think Whites are still fighting against blacks and gays?
Just because something is difficult doesn't mean it's not worth doing.
Fine. But a) that's not happening at all and possibly is really physically difficult at Dover, and b) if we are going to that then we need more time, lots more time.
The Brexiteers have been fully exposed. They either had absolutely no idea how intertwined UK economy has become in 40 years of EU/EC membership, or, they just lied through their teeth.
For most Brexiteers the degree of that intertwinement was a central argument to leave. Evidence that it’s worse than they thought will simply lead them to double-down on their original decision, not revisit it.
I think that’s a different point of course from realising just how difficult it would be to unintertwine the UK from it, where I do admit a number of Brexiteers were far too optimistic.
Yes, funny how the Remain campaign never went with the “We’re so intertwined with the EU already that it’s impossible to actually leave in practice” argument at the time of the referendum. It would have gone down about as well as Stuart Rose’s observation on the first day of the campaign that Brexit would lead to higher wages.
Yes, funny how the Remain campaign never went with the “We’re so intertwined with the EU already that it’s impossible to actually leave in practice” argument at the time of the referendum.
Because that's not true.
They did go with "leaving will be very difficult and painful", which was rubbished by Brexiteers as Project fear, despite being wholly accurate, if understated.
I am white. I am proudly British, English, proudly WHITE, a proud inheritor of the Enlightenment and universal suffrage and the Industrial Revolution and liberal democracy and the internet and feminism and the rest, and everything else we white people did, which is basically everything of value for the last 600 years. WE DID THIS.
I am proudly British, English but profoundly MIXED RACE. Does that mean i'm not a proud inheritor of the Enlightenment and universal suffrage and the Industrial Revolution and liberal democracy and the internet and feminism and the rest?
you are a keyboard racist and the fact that nobody has called you out on your crap is a shame upon this site.
Well said.
It's odd how little Sean knows in his rabid racism and nationalism. Take Brunel: someone voted one of Britain's greatest people. He was a man with 'Kingdom' in his name was half-French, and got his initial opportunities from his French father.
Churchill, also widely seen as one of Britain's greatest, was half American.
In his own area of literature, in 2017 Japan-born Kazuo Ishiguro won the Nobel Prize for the UK last year. Tomas Lindahl won on chemistry a year or so earlier, and he was born in Sweden.
Our own Queen has roots that he might consider dangerously Germanic.
Now, going back 600 years any achievements in Britain were probably by 'whites' (as we'd judge them) because there were so few people of colour about. But immigration was occurring. For instance, he might also like to look at Britain's great cathedrals, some of which were built by Middle Eastern craftsmen brought over for their skills. Indeed, masonry is an area where people could travel extensively around the known world to where the work could be found.
Indeed, his own argument about the 'industrial revolution' ignores quite how lucky the UK was: we have extensive coal deposits, and just at the time when it was starting, our greatest rival decided to have a revolution and caused a large outflux of wealthy people and ideas.
If Britain has been successful over the last 600 years, it is because we have not only developed our own skills, but we have also taken in the best ideas and people from around the world. We have never been insular.
This does not mean we let our doors open to anyone to come in; but it does mean that Sean's racist claptrap is not only wrong, but also harmful to the country. Any country needs new ideas thrown into the great melting pot, and I fail to see how the colour of their skin matters.
Just because something is difficult doesn't mean it's not worth doing.
Fine. But a) that's not happening at all and possibly is really physically difficult at Dover, and b) if we are going to that then we need more time, lots more time.
The Brexiteers have been fully exposed. They either had absolutely no idea how intertwined UK economy has become in 40 years of EU/EC membership, or, they just lied through their teeth.
The Mayor of Calais has purchased 170 hectares of land and he is proposing to have both UK and French customs, both ways in this area. No border in Dover. They all know Dover is the problem and they together have proposed a solution. Do not forget Calais is a major unemployment area in France and 100's of jobs and they will be the gold plated oublic jobs so beloved of the French to them is a positive.
Also with this 2 min thing. Every truck has to turn up 1hour before departure. In France this means they have the time to scan 100% of lorries for migrants. They could also do the customs checks during this hour, just a question of man power.
Just because something is difficult doesn't mean it's not worth doing.
Fine. But a) that's not happening at all and possibly is really physically difficult at Dover, and b) if we are going to that then we need more time, lots more time.
The Brexiteers have been fully exposed. They either had absolutely no idea how intertwined UK economy has become in 40 years of EU/EC membership, or, they just lied through their teeth.
For most Brexiteers the degree of that intertwinement was a central argument to leave. Evidence that it’s worse than they thought will simply lead them to double-down on their original decision, not revisit it.
I think that’s a different point of course from realising just how difficult it would be to unintertwine the UK from it, where I do admit a number of Brexiteers were far too optimistic.
Yes, funny how the Remain campaign never went with the “We’re so intertwined with the EU already that it’s impossible to actually leave in practice” argument at the time of the referendum. It would have gone down about as well as Stuart Rose’s observation on the first day of the campaign that Brexit would lead to higher wages.
There was a lot of talk about Brexit being pointlessly disruptive. All of it has been abundantly borne out by events.
This is another of the good Mr Gove's reforms, and even by his standards a bad one.
A few years ago Gove allowed Russell Group universities to recruit as many domestic students as they liked - previously numbers had been capped and shared out among universities. This meant that in order to maximise income from tuition fees, Russell Group universities now started to make much lower offers and take people who hadn't got the officially required grades anyway.
Unfortunately, for two reasons this was a bad idea. First, the amount of staffing and expenditure on capital resources (lecture halls, libraries, study rooms etc) didn't keep pace. Instead, a lot of money was sunk into refurbishing halls of residence to bring them up to hotel standards of comfort and into what I can only describe as vanity projects (Aberystwyth's infamous Mauritius campus springs to mind). This meant that teaching accommodation was desperately cramped and a high proportion of teaching had to be done by postgraduate students, who are usually untrained and frequently find out what they are teaching too late to do any preparation for it. Second, the actual model of the Russell Group used to be around research. This has due to the explosion of student numbers had to be dialled back, which has negative consequences for things like pharma.
It has also left fearsome competition for the majority of universities not in the Russell Group to pick up the rest - Oxford Brookes saw its applications drop 67% in just two years. In a way it's understandable due to the snob value of the degrees (would you rather have Bristol or UWE on your CV?) and it has led these in a race to the bottom to try and get as many as they can.
The irony is in terms of quality of teaching and amount of resources available non-Russell Group universities tended to offer much better quality undergraduate degrees. But that got overlooked.
So there is a mess looming here, with three possible solutions:
1) Reinstate the cap. Might be unpopular with the Russell Group as they will see their income fall.
2) Abandon any idea of a cap, and charge the market rate for tuition fees. So charge £30,000 a year to do History at the proper university in Oxford where you get a decent degree, and £5,000 for Oxford University itself where you get a rubbish one.* I have a feeling after last year this would be politically about as acceptable as privatising the NHS.
3) Lift the cap for non-Russell group universities, and have a tight cap for Russell Group BUT also say that only Russell Group can teach postgrads and they can recruit as many as they like.
Educationally 3 is the smart one. However, we come back to that snob value. I think it would be unpopular to say that only a few undergraduates could attend Russell Group universities especially as their intake would likely be dominated by the private sector.
That seems a roundabout way of saying the report is on a symptom of our university system being epically screwed. Could get nasty in a few years.
Mr. Ace, I wasn't referring specifically to Mr. T's statements, whatever they were, just that people engaging in and supporting identity politics cannot reasonably be surprised when some white people then decide to do the same.
Identity politics is dumb. Doing/believing stupid things is not the sole preserve of any one race.
Explaining something is not the same as suggesting it is (or is not) morally acceptable. You may be aware I've been banging on about the risks of the far right rising in this country for some time now. That's because I'm concerned about it happening and the dire consequences that would ensue (we're already seeing however.
Indeed, it was
I know it’s not a popular view among the audience here, but the best way of avoiding the Steve Bannons and Nigel Farages gaining a hold on British politics is for everyone else to come together to implement the Brexit vote. By all means argue for re-admission to the EU in future, but the will of the people being seen to be ignored is a very dangerous thing if it is allowed to happen.
The best way to avoid such racist and sexist views becoming mainstream is to challenge them, and ideally not publish the more extreme stuff. Too many here tolerate SeanT as some sort of site yurodivy.
I find the vast majority of SeanT’s posts to be provocative and thought provoking contributions to the site. Yes, he can sometimes overstep the mark, particularly when he’s been drinking, but which of us can’t?
So far I’ve not seen any meaningful rebuttal of his central point last night which is that identity politics, rather than breaking down barriers, is actually begetting identity politics in every direction. It’s also having a corrosive effect on public discourse and, increasingly, people are ceasing to be treated as individuals and judged and filtered more by category...
His 'central point' - which was quite well buried under a deal of tendentious guff - was about the growth of white identity politics in the US. As I pointed out last night in response, white identity has been a central element of US politics since there was a United States.
The idea that identity politics is A ) a new thing B ) an invention of the left is one of the most tedious arguments of modern times.
What people are actually objecting too is the historically marginalised identities (blacks, gays etc) organising and fighting back.
You think Whites are still fighting against blacks and gays?
Not to ruin the doom porn but it is worth pointing out that Dover is not the only entry point for the UK. If there are massive queues, I suspect a lot of the traffic will divert to other ports. We might even see an increase in air freight.
Not to ruin the doom porn but it is worth pointing out that Dover is not the only entry point for the UK. If there are massive queues, I suspect a lot of the traffic will divert to other ports. We might even see an increase in air freight.
And Immingham is just sitting there twiddling its thumbs is it? Have you seen the expected impact on Immingham? Similarly we are not exactly overloaded with spare airport capacity.
r5L asked today if people were fans of the heatwave.
Does it really make any difference if you are or not ? It's happening and there isn't much one can do about it.
Much the same with Brexit, unless you're actually in parliament or the Government it's uncontrollable, like the weather.
You think either of those are in control of this process?
If the Government decided it was going to abandon Brexit or call for a second referendum then it could. So certainly they are incontrol of *some* of the process. Obviously Barnier is probably the single individual most in control (One could argue Merkel or Varadkhar I suppose too). Each MP has 1/650th of a say on any vote put to parliament, so a tiny degree of onfluence - and they can propose amendments if they so wish... my point is it's more control over the process than you or I - even if the sum total of Parliament and Government is a small degree of partial control. The average man on the street has zero control over Brexit, much like the heatwave.
r5L asked today if people were fans of the heatwave.
Does it really make any difference if you are or not ? It's happening and there isn't much one can do about it.
Much the same with Brexit, unless you're actually in parliament or the Government it's uncontrollable, like the weather.
You think either of those are in control of this process?
If the Government decided it was going to abandon Brexit or call for a second referendum then it could. So certainly they are incontrol of *some* of the process. Obviously Barnier is probably the single individual most in control (One could argue Merkel or Varadkhar I suppose too). Each MP has 1/650th of a say on any vote put to parliament, so a tiny degree of onfluence - and they can propose amendments if they so wish... my point is it's more control over the process than you or I - even if the sum total of Parliament and Government is a small degree of partial control. The average man on the street has zero control over Brexit, much like the heatwave.
Tell that to all those furiously tweeting in the Great Brexit Wars. Heroes all.
r5L asked today if people were fans of the heatwave.
Does it really make any difference if you are or not ? It's happening and there isn't much one can do about it.
Much the same with Brexit, unless you're actually in parliament or the Government it's uncontrollable, like the weather.
You think either of those are in control of this process?
If the Government decided it was going to abandon Brexit or call for a second referendum then it could. So certainly they are incontrol of *some* of the process. Obviously Barnier is probably the single individual most in control (One could argue Merkel or Varadkhar I suppose too). Each MP has 1/650th of a say on any vote put to parliament, so a tiny degree of onfluence - and they can propose amendments if they so wish... my point is it's more control over the process than you or I - even if the sum total of Parliament and Government is a small degree of partial control. The average man on the street has zero control over Brexit, much like the heatwave.
My doubt wasn't so much about whether they could control matters, at least to some degree. It was about whether in practice they are in control.
r5L asked today if people were fans of the heatwave.
Does it really make any difference if you are or not ? It's happening and there isn't much one can do about it.
Much the same with Brexit, unless you're actually in parliament or the Government it's uncontrollable, like the weather.
You think either of those are in control of this process?
If the Government decided it was going to abandon Brexit or call for a second referendum then it could. So certainly they are incontrol of *some* of the process. Obviously Barnier is probably the single individual most in control (One could argue Merkel or Varadkhar I suppose too). Each MP has 1/650th of a say on any vote put to parliament, so a tiny degree of onfluence - and they can propose amendments if they so wish... my point is it's more control over the process than you or I - even if the sum total of Parliament and Government is a small degree of partial control. The average man on the street has zero control over Brexit, much like the heatwave.
My doubt wasn't so much about whether they could control matters, at least to some degree. It was about whether in practice they are in control.
At present, events do have that Guns-of-August, fin de siecle vibe. A lot of people _think_ they're in control of events, but complexity begets unpredictable outcomes.
So there is a mess looming here, with three possible solutions:
1) Reinstate the cap. Might be unpopular with the Russell Group as they will see their income fall.
2) Abandon any idea of a cap, and charge the market rate for tuition fees. So charge £30,000 a year to do History at the proper university in Oxford where you get a decent degree, and £5,000 for Oxford University itself where you get a rubbish one.* I have a feeling after last year this would be politically about as acceptable as privatising the NHS.
3) Lift the cap for non-Russell group universities, and have a tight cap for Russell Group BUT also say that only Russell Group can teach postgrads and they can recruit as many as they like.
Educationally 3 is the smart one. However, we come back to that snob value. I think it would be unpopular to say that only a few undergraduates could attend Russell Group universities especially as their intake would likely be dominated by the private sector.
That seems a roundabout way of saying the report is on a symptom of our university system being epically screwed. Could get nasty in a few years.
*Before Mortimer takes umbrage, I'm teasing here!
Point (3) misses the new reality which is that high fees have allowed traditionally weak establishments to build up world class research. For instance, Wolverhampton is probably the best place for WW1 history.
The real problem is the snob value attached by employers to certain universities (Oxbridge and their own alma mater, usually). Come to think of it, even if (say) geography is better taught at Cambridge than Brighton, if you are recruiting trainee accountants, who cares?
And there's the rub. A lot of employers are probably saying that Oxford has better graduates because it admits better people, and the three years they spend there is largely immaterial.
@Nigelb Speaking of US politics, have you heard about Kavanaugh’s poor polling compared to many past SCOTUS nominees? Not that it may matter after all, but still pretty striking when compared with Gorsuch only a year ago especially. After the Ryan Bounds nomination getting withdrawn by the Trump admin some Dems think there’s a chance Kavanaugh could be blocked, I think that’s unlikely though. Seems like more Dems are starting to side eye #ResistanceHero Neal Katyal for his endorsement Gorsuch last year combined with his defending of Kavanaugh on twitter.
So there is a mess looming here, with three possible solutions:
1) Reinstate the cap. Might be unpopular with the Russell Group as they will see their income fall.
2) Abandon any idea of a cap, and charge the market rate for tuition fees. So charge £30,000 a year to do History at the proper university in Oxford where you get a decent degree, and £5,000 for Oxford University itself where you get a rubbish one.* I have a feeling after last year this would be politically about as acceptable as privatising the NHS.
3) Lift the cap for non-Russell group universities, and have a tight cap for Russell Group BUT also say that only Russell Group can teach postgrads and they can recruit as many as they like.
Educationally 3 is the smart one. However, we come back to that snob value. I think it would be unpopular to say that only a few undergraduates could attend Russell Group universities especially as their intake would likely be dominated by the private sector.
That seems a roundabout way of saying the report is on a symptom of our university system being epically screwed. Could get nasty in a few years.
*Before Mortimer takes umbrage, I'm teasing here!
what about we have institutions which do research and others which do vocational teaching and they can charge different fees.
we could call one type universities and the other polytechnics.
we could also impose the death penalty on any politician who says a degree guarantees you a high income.
Not to ruin the doom porn but it is worth pointing out that Dover is not the only entry point for the UK. If there are massive queues, I suspect a lot of the traffic will divert to other ports. We might even see an increase in air freight.
And Immingham is just sitting there twiddling its thumbs is it? Have you seen the expected impact on Immingham? Similarly we are not exactly overloaded with spare airport capacity.
Seems Immingham and the northern ports are rubbing their hands looking to increase their business. As the article says why does freight destined for north of Milton Keynes come through Dover. All those Londoners should support this less traffic on the M25 and the motorways out of London. They maybe able to see the countryside once in a while.
The current negotiation with the EU (lots of detail, a need for grit) is ideally suited for Gordon Brown.
Wot? No Thatcher? So what is the bloody point of this then?
You want to put a dead person in charge?
For Leavers, that is not a rhetorical question. At this moment, there are pb posters setting up Ouija boards to get spirit guidance from the Leaderene.
So there is a mess looming here, with three possible solutions:
1) Reinstate the cap. Might be unpopular with the Russell Group as they will see their income fall.
2) Abandon any idea of a cap, and charge the market rate for tuition fees. So charge £30,000 a year to do History at the proper university in Oxford where you get a decent degree, and £5,000 for Oxford University itself where you get a rubbish one.* I have a feeling after last year this would be politically about as acceptable as privatising the NHS.
3) Lift the cap for non-Russell group universities, and have a tight cap for Russell Group BUT also say that only Russell Group can teach postgrads and they can recruit as many as they like.
Educationally 3 is the smart one. However, we come back to that snob value. I think it would be unpopular to say that only a few undergraduates could attend Russell Group universities especially as their intake would likely be dominated by the private sector.
That seems a roundabout way of saying the report is on a symptom of our university system being epically screwed. Could get nasty in a few years.
*Before Mortimer takes umbrage, I'm teasing here!
Point (3) misses the new reality which is that high fees have allowed traditionally weak establishments to build up world class research. For instance, Wolverhampton is probably the best place for WW1 history.
The real problem is the snob value attached by employers to certain universities (Oxbridge and their own alma mater, usually). Come to think of it, even if (say) geography is better taught at Cambridge than Brighton, if you are recruiting trainee accountants, who cares?
And there's the rub. A lot of employers are probably saying that Oxford has better graduates because it admits better people, and the three years they spend there is largely immaterial.
Wolverhampton is a special case because it considers itself a local university and most definitely considers research secondary to teaching. Did it even put in to the last REF?
Your last two sentences are true - but they should not be. In many ways it shows a very 1960s muddle over the role of universities. Are they centres of research and scholarship, which also act as finishing schools for young gentlemen (sic)? Or are they places primarily geared to education to ensure an upskilling of the workforce?
My solution would see those questions resolved by having two streams - one dedicated to education, one to research (which is not easy). Of course, it will never happen.
Not to ruin the doom porn but it is worth pointing out that Dover is not the only entry point for the UK. If there are massive queues, I suspect a lot of the traffic will divert to other ports. We might even see an increase in air freight.
And Immingham is just sitting there twiddling its thumbs is it? Have you seen the expected impact on Immingham? Similarly we are not exactly overloaded with spare airport capacity.
Seems Immingham and the northern ports are rubbing their hands looking to increase their business. As the article says why does freight destined for north of Milton Keynes come through Dover. All those Londoners should support this less traffic on the M25 and the motorways out of London. They maybe able to see the countryside once in a while.
yup
and since much of what goes in and out goes via Rotterdam shipping direct makes more sense.
So there is a mess looming here, with three possible solutions:
1) Reinstate the cap. Might be unpopular with the Russell Group as they will see their income fall.
2) Abandon any idea of a cap, and charge the market rate for tuition fees. So charge £30,000 a year to do History at the proper university in Oxford where you get a decent degree, and £5,000 for Oxford University itself where you get a rubbish one.* I have a feeling after last year this would be politically about as acceptable as privatising the NHS.
3) Lift the cap for non-Russell group universities, and have a tight cap for Russell Group BUT also say that only Russell Group can teach postgrads and they can recruit as many as they like.
Educationally 3 is the smart one. However, we come back to that snob value. I think it would be unpopular to say that only a few undergraduates could attend Russell Group universities especially as their intake would likely be dominated by the private sector.
That seems a roundabout way of saying the report is on a symptom of our university system being epically screwed. Could get nasty in a few years.
*Before Mortimer takes umbrage, I'm teasing here!
what about we have institutions which do research and others which do vocational teaching and they can charge different fees.
we could call one type universities and the other polytechnics.
we could also impose the death penalty on any politician who says a degree guarantees you a high income.
Well, that was sort of what I was proposing. The only comment I would make is I think 'vocational' is an unhelpful additional word. It implies certain subjects are better taught by researchers and in my experience that isn't an accurate assumption.
So there is a mess looming here, with three possible solutions:
1) Reinstate the cap. Might be unpopular with the Russell Group as they will see their income fall.
2) Abandon any idea of a cap, and charge the market rate for tuition fees. So charge £30,000 a year to do History at the proper university in Oxford where you get a decent degree, and £5,000 for Oxford University itself where you get a rubbish one.* I have a feeling after last year this would be politically about as acceptable as privatising the NHS.
3) Lift the cap for non-Russell group universities, and have a tight cap for Russell Group BUT also say that only Russell Group can teach postgrads and they can recruit as many as they like.
Educationally 3 is the smart one. However, we come back to that snob value. I think it would be unpopular to say that only a few undergraduates could attend Russell Group universities especially as their intake would likely be dominated by the private sector.
That seems a roundabout way of saying the report is on a symptom of our university system being epically screwed. Could get nasty in a few years.
*Before Mortimer takes umbrage, I'm teasing here!
Point (3) misses the new reality which is that high fees have allowed traditionally weak establishments to build up world class research. For instance, Wolverhampton is probably the best place for WW1 history.
The real problem is the snob value attached by employers to certain universities (Oxbridge and their own alma mater, usually). Come to think of it, even if (say) geography is better taught at Cambridge than Brighton, if you are recruiting trainee accountants, who cares?
And there's the rub. A lot of employers are probably saying that Oxford has better graduates because it admits better people, and the three years they spend there is largely immaterial.
Wolverhampton is a special case because it considers itself a local university and most definitely considers research secondary to teaching. Did it even put in to the last REF?
Your last two sentences are true - but they should not be. In many ways it shows a very 1960s muddle over the role of universities. Are they centres of research and scholarship, which also act as finishing schools for young gentlemen (sic)? Or are they places primarily geared to education to ensure an upskilling of the workforce?
My solution would see those questions resolved by having two streams - one dedicated to education, one to research (which is not easy). Of course, it will never happen.
you shouldn't have two streams. you should have two paths which criss cross and feed off each other
So there is a mess looming here, with three possible solutions:
1) Reinstate the cap. Might be unpopular with the Russell Group as they will see their income fall.
2) Abandon any idea of a cap, and charge the market rate for tuition fees. So charge £30,000 a year to do History at the proper university in Oxford where you get a decent degree, and £5,000 for Oxford University itself where you get a rubbish one.* I have a feeling after last year this would be politically about as acceptable as privatising the NHS.
3) Lift the cap for non-Russell group universities, and have a tight cap for Russell Group BUT also say that only Russell Group can teach postgrads and they can recruit as many as they like.
Educationally 3 is the smart one. However, we come back to that snob value. I think it would be unpopular to say that only a few undergraduates could attend Russell Group universities especially as their intake would likely be dominated by the private sector.
That seems a roundabout way of saying the report is on a symptom of our university system being epically screwed. Could get nasty in a few years.
*Before Mortimer takes umbrage, I'm teasing here!
Point (3) misses the new reality which is that high fees have allowed traditionally weak establishments to build up world class research. For instance, Wolverhampton is probably the best place for WW1 history.
The real problem is the snob value attached by employers to certain universities (Oxbridge and their own alma mater, usually). Come to think of it, even if (say) geography is better taught at Cambridge than Brighton, if you are recruiting trainee accountants, who cares?
And there's the rub. A lot of employers are probably saying that Oxford has better graduates because it admits better people, and the three years they spend there is largely immaterial.
Wolverhampton is a special case because it considers itself a local university and most definitely considers research secondary to teaching. Did it even put in to the last REF?
Your last two sentences are true - but they should not be. In many ways it shows a very 1960s muddle over the role of universities. Are they centres of research and scholarship, which also act as finishing schools for young gentlemen (sic)? Or are they places primarily geared to education to ensure an upskilling of the workforce?
My solution would see those questions resolved by having two streams - one dedicated to education, one to research (which is not easy). Of course, it will never happen.
you shouldn't have two streams. you should have two paths which criss cross and feed off each other
Streams criss cross and feed each other in deltas.
So there is a mess looming here, with three possible solutions:
That seems a roundabout way of saying the report is on a symptom of our university system being epically screwed. Could get nasty in a few years.
*Before Mortimer takes umbrage, I'm teasing here!
Point (3) misses the new reality which is that high fees have allowed traditionally weak establishments to build up world class research. For instance, Wolverhampton is probably the best place for WW1 history.
The real problem is the snob value attached by employers to certain universities (Oxbridge and their own alma mater, usually). Come to think of it, even if (say) geography is better taught at Cambridge than Brighton, if you are recruiting trainee accountants, who cares?
And there's the rub. A lot of employers are probably saying that Oxford has better graduates because it admits better people, and the three years they spend there is largely immaterial.
Wolverhampton is a special case because it considers itself a local university and most definitely considers research secondary to teaching. Did it even put in to the last REF?
Your last two sentences are true - but they should not be. In many ways it shows a very 1960s muddle over the role of universities. Are they centres of research and scholarship, which also act as finishing schools for young gentlemen (sic)? Or are they places primarily geared to education to ensure an upskilling of the workforce?
My solution would see those questions resolved by having two streams - one dedicated to education, one to research (which is not easy). Of course, it will never happen.
Not least as in science/engineering; the two are much too intertwined. The purpose of universities in subject to rapid change, and any particular 'resolution' imposed by government is likely to prove wrong.
One of the arguable benefits of the deeply problematic undergraduate fee system is that is enables diversity, competition and evolution. Of course it can all go horribly wrong, but I would back a less directed, pluralistic system against a government designed bifurcated one.
Expanded and better funded technical colleges might be a sensible nudge to the system.
Whether Labour are just being incredibly careless and complacent or whether Corbyn really is a closet Nazi, it is quite clear that this goes way, way beyond Livingstone making stupid remarks on Zionism or a shadow equalities minister calling for ethnic cleansing. This is now a systemic issue that implicates the entire Labour movement.
And unfortunately for Labour it has come (1) at the moment people are fed up with Brexit and (2) at the start of the silly season when the papers are looking for stuff to fill column inches.
I've been told before that there are not many Jews in this country. That is of course true. But if people get it in their heads that Labour are racist (and potentially criminals in light of other events) it's going to hurt them badly. Look at what happened to Major's government.
So far , outside minor examples, it has not hurt them. Whether or not their qualified definition really is better or not, it is very poor politics to continually stoke this story in the way they have however.
It’s probably poor politics from the perspective of you or I. But from the Corbynista PoV, probably not. It likely leads to the removal from the party of people they don’t like, they’ve written off the Jewish vote which they don’t like, it attracts voters from a larger group and it is entirely in line with Corbyn’s world view in which distaste for Israel (as racist oppressors) and Jews (as capitalist oppressors) loom large. So it gets the job done for them.
And many Labour supporters/voters are so convinced that being Labour they cannot be racist they will ignore all evidence to the contrary.
I find it deeply shocking and immensely sad that a minority community feels that it has no future in this country if the main opposition party becomes the government. Britain in 2018. Shameful.
Social media allows us to pick an identity and surround ourselves with it in a manner unbound even by space. The good thing is, if you mess with space, you mess with time. The daft ideas we're constructing in our echo chambers will fade and be forgotten in a decade. At some point we'll either completely regress to the state of a child until we become stillborn, or we'll start growing again when we choose to become time-biased.
Whether Labour are just being incredibly careless and complacent or whether Corbyn really is a closet Nazi, it is quite clear that this goes way, way beyond Livingstone making stupid remarks on Zionism or a shadow equalities minister calling for ethnic cleansing. This is now a systemic issue that implicates the entire Labour movement.
And unfortunately for Labour it has come (1) at the moment people are fed up with Brexit and (2) at the start of the silly season when the papers are looking for stuff to fill column inches.
I've been told before that there are not many Jews in this country. That is of course true. But if people get it in their heads that Labour are racist (and potentially criminals in light of other events) it's going to hurt them badly. Look at what happened to Major's government.
So far , outside minor examples, it has not hurt them. Whether or not their qualified definition really is better or not, it is very poor politics to continually stoke this story in the way they have however.
It’s probably poor politics from the perspective of you or I. But from the Corbynista PoV, probably not. It likely leads to the removal from the party of people they don’t like, they’ve written off the Jewish vote which they don’t like, it attracts voters from a larger group and it is entirely in line with Corbyn’s world view in which distaste for Israel (as racist oppressors) and Jews (as capitalist oppressors) loom large. So it gets the job done for them.
And many Labour supporters/voters are so convinced that being Labour they cannot be racist they will ignore all evidence to the contrary.
I find it deeply shocking and immensely sad that a minority community feels that it has no future in this country if the main opposition party becomes the government. Britain in 2018. Shameful.
Anyway have work to do so have a good day all.
I think anti-Semitism is one reason why Labour are doing no better than level-pegging with the Conservatives.
Comments
https://www.motorsportweek.com/joeblogsf1/id/00279
Good luck to McLaren though, it’s always sad to see historic teams languishing at the back of the grid. Ditto Williams, although the problem there is going to be a little more difficult to move out of the team.
Aka vice signalling.
Maybe just one big circle would do it.
In a free society we usually all offended by something at least some of the time.
Here is a mildly interesting comment by the French Minister for Europe saying she thinks if Britain changes its mind it can stay in the EU on the old terms.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2018/jul/26/brexit-not-too-late-for-uk-to-change-its-mind-and-stay-in-eu-on-same-terms-says-french-minister-politics-live?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter
And what are the comments on?
They are all Labour members cursing three Jewish newspapers for calling them antisemitic.
NOW FOR THE PUNCHLINE
Most of them blame it on an international Jewish conspiracy to discredit Corbyn and promote Zionism.
The queues are being deliberately engineered by the EU?
https://twitter.com/PickardJE/status/1022396737451945984
That’s progress.
The electoral strategy has an extended history in modern US politics:
https://www.thenation.com/article/exclusive-lee-atwaters-infamous-1981-interview-southern-strategy/
Over here - I'm not so sure why.
No Surrender
Tiocfaidh ar La
Anyway, a good move, as you indicate.
They also fear that they too might be next for quotas and affirmative action that might not necessarily be in their favour.
Spare me your condescension.
Just because something is difficult doesn't mean it's not worth doing.
https://fanwithamovieyammer.files.wordpress.com/2013/12/colonel-blimp.jpg
Shame those thoughts never made it to paper. I’m sure they would have been powerful.
https://twitter.com/Andrew_Adonis/status/1022363850849640448
Qualified staff, tarmac, buildings, computing capacity, etc all appear by magic then?
There's a line from a Boomtown Rats song that comes to mind today:
"You know most killing is committed at 90 degrees
When it's too hot to feel when it's too hot to think"
I went out before 6 this morning with the last remnants of the cool overnight - yet the smells in the city get you down, the fly tipped rubbish with the flies already swarming and the stale smells of sour food and the unpleasant sweetness of the first joint of the morning hanging in the air.
Then there's the stench of stale old debate with the usual old suspects determined to have their say and shoot down anyone who disagrees with them or even those who do but not strongly enough. Perhaps it's good Parliament is on holiday for a while.
Death is on my mind this morning - not mine so much. Mortality figures are always worth a look. 40-45,000 people die in England and Wales every month. In March this year, 51,000 people died probably as a consequence of the late cold spell. A month with more than 50,000 dead is unusual.
In July and August fewer people die normally often a tad under 40,000. It will be interesting to see the July 2018 numbers when they come out. Anecdotally, I have heard from a friend in the undertaking business it is the busiest summer he has ever known. I have also heard Council and Hospital Registration Departments are dealing with a spike in demand for registering deaths so let's see. The June 2018 figures were average.
It is interesting to see people and work places adapt or try to. Oddly enough, the standard British response to unusual weather is Coward-esque, we continue to go out in the midday sun but a male colleague of mine wore shorts to the office yesterday and that sparked more debate than any World Cup nonsense or Netflix crap.
MY question is should a man wear shorts to work ? Female colleagues have said a tailored short on the knee with a collared shirt looks perfectly fine in summer (no socks). As I have the body of a Greek God (admittedly not one of the better known ones), I can carry off such a look.
Could you ? Should you ? Would you ?
The Brexiteers have been fully exposed. They either had absolutely no idea how intertwined UK economy has become in 40 years of EU/EC membership, or, they just lied through their teeth.
https://twitter.com/tlc_uk/status/1022398869756436480
the Europhiles have been lying through their teeth for the last 40 years and you wont let the opposition do the same thing
tsk, sad
The UK imports about 30% of its food from the EU. If the rules of that game change a bit then so will the supply chains for perishables (I’d expect more domestic production and imports from the RoW) and the price but no-one is going to go short of food. Even direct from the EU you’re talking delays of hours, not weeks, which can be planned for and managed.
It’s a risk of bureaucracy; it’s not an economic blockade. FWIW I think Dover needs a major upgrade anyway as operation stack has been run multiple times in recent years, usually when the French were on strike.
For bonus points, how do you do the above without planning permission in 9 months without impacting the current capacity...
He wore speedos in the summer. Sometimes, but not always, a t-shirt too. Sensitive to the concerns of others, when he was in communal areas he wore a trench-coat on top.
Compared to that, shorts are fine.
https://twitter.com/philipjcowley/status/1022401682129469440
The current negotiation with the EU (lots of detail, a need for grit) is ideally suited for Gordon Brown.
"MY question is should a man wear shorts to work ?"
My subjective view is 'Never'. Women can, of course, go naked if they wish. As this is social media, I should insist that my subjective view is fact, and that contrary views should be banned.
A ) a new thing
B ) an invention of the left
is one of the most tedious arguments of modern times.
What people are actually objecting too is the historically marginalised identities (blacks, gays etc) organising and fighting back.
Such fashion crimes are so extreme they almost drive me to fascism.
In charge of the government - no. Not even if Hell freezes over.
We're all in danger of forgetting just how bad Brown was. May's hardly a good PM, but so far as I know she has not yet been accused of assaulting Philip Hammond.
I think that’s a different point of course from realising just how difficult it would be to unintertwine the UK from it, where I do admit a number of Brexiteers were far too optimistic.
I have to confess I know Lycra isn't my friend - it seems others have yet to make that journey of self-discovery.
If it's any help, even I have worn shorts to work, although obviously not Speedos!
The earlier ones though...
They did go with "leaving will be very difficult and painful", which was rubbished by Brexiteers as Project fear, despite being wholly accurate, if understated.
Also with this 2 min thing. Every truck has to turn up 1hour before departure. In France this means they have the time to scan 100% of lorries for migrants. They could also do the customs checks during this hour, just a question of man power.
Of course there is absolutely no discrimination against gay or black people these days.
Huge rise in unconditional university offers for students
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-44954154
This is another of the good Mr Gove's reforms, and even by his standards a bad one.
A few years ago Gove allowed Russell Group universities to recruit as many domestic students as they liked - previously numbers had been capped and shared out among universities. This meant that in order to maximise income from tuition fees, Russell Group universities now started to make much lower offers and take people who hadn't got the officially required grades anyway.
Unfortunately, for two reasons this was a bad idea. First, the amount of staffing and expenditure on capital resources (lecture halls, libraries, study rooms etc) didn't keep pace. Instead, a lot of money was sunk into refurbishing halls of residence to bring them up to hotel standards of comfort and into what I can only describe as vanity projects (Aberystwyth's infamous Mauritius campus springs to mind). This meant that teaching accommodation was desperately cramped and a high proportion of teaching had to be done by postgraduate students, who are usually untrained and frequently find out what they are teaching too late to do any preparation for it. Second, the actual model of the Russell Group used to be around research. This has due to the explosion of student numbers had to be dialled back, which has negative consequences for things like pharma.
It has also left fearsome competition for the majority of universities not in the Russell Group to pick up the rest - Oxford Brookes saw its applications drop 67% in just two years. In a way it's understandable due to the snob value of the degrees (would you rather have Bristol or UWE on your CV?) and it has led these in a race to the bottom to try and get as many as they can.
The irony is in terms of quality of teaching and amount of resources available non-Russell Group universities tended to offer much better quality undergraduate degrees. But that got overlooked.
1) Reinstate the cap. Might be unpopular with the Russell Group as they will see their income fall.
2) Abandon any idea of a cap, and charge the market rate for tuition fees. So charge £30,000 a year to do History at the proper university in Oxford where you get a decent degree, and £5,000 for Oxford University itself where you get a rubbish one.* I have a feeling after last year this would be politically about as acceptable as privatising the NHS.
3) Lift the cap for non-Russell group universities, and have a tight cap for Russell Group BUT also say that only Russell Group can teach postgrads and they can recruit as many as they like.
Educationally 3 is the smart one. However, we come back to that snob value. I think it would be unpopular to say that only a few undergraduates could attend Russell Group universities especially as their intake would likely be dominated by the private sector.
That seems a roundabout way of saying the report is on a symptom of our university system being epically screwed. Could get nasty in a few years.
*Before Mortimer takes umbrage, I'm teasing here!
Does it really make any difference if you are or not ? It's happening and there isn't much one can do about it.
Much the same with Brexit, unless you're actually in parliament or the Government it's uncontrollable, like the weather.
The average man on the street has zero control over Brexit, much like the heatwave.
The real problem is the snob value attached by employers to certain universities (Oxbridge and their own alma mater, usually). Come to think of it, even if (say) geography is better taught at Cambridge than Brighton, if you are recruiting trainee accountants, who cares?
And there's the rub. A lot of employers are probably saying that Oxford has better graduates because it admits better people, and the three years they spend there is largely immaterial.
https://www.pressgazette.co.uk/bbc-lawyers-will-ask-permission-to-appeal-sir-cliff-richard-privacy-ruling-in-high-court-over-police-raid-footage/
Please can the appellate court add a zero to Sir Cliff’s damages award?
we could call one type universities and the other polytechnics.
we could also impose the death penalty on any politician who says a degree guarantees you a high income.
Seems Immingham and the northern ports are rubbing their hands looking to increase their business. As the article says why does freight destined for north of Milton Keynes come through Dover.
All those Londoners should support this less traffic on the M25 and the motorways out of London. They maybe able to see the countryside once in a while.
Your last two sentences are true - but they should not be. In many ways it shows a very 1960s muddle over the role of universities. Are they centres of research and scholarship, which also act as finishing schools for young gentlemen (sic)? Or are they places primarily geared to education to ensure an upskilling of the workforce?
My solution would see those questions resolved by having two streams - one dedicated to education, one to research (which is not easy). Of course, it will never happen.
and since much of what goes in and out goes via Rotterdam shipping direct makes more sense.
In fact, I like that metaphor.
The purpose of universities in subject to rapid change, and any particular 'resolution' imposed by government is likely to prove wrong.
One of the arguable benefits of the deeply problematic undergraduate fee system is that is enables diversity, competition and evolution. Of course it can all go horribly wrong, but I would back a less directed, pluralistic system against a government designed bifurcated one.
Expanded and better funded technical colleges might be a sensible nudge to the system.
And many Labour supporters/voters are so convinced that being Labour they cannot be racist they will ignore all evidence to the contrary.
I find it deeply shocking and immensely sad that a minority community feels that it has no future in this country if the main opposition party becomes the government. Britain in 2018. Shameful.
Anyway have work to do so have a good day all.