On topic is Boris a dumb blonde? I don't think so, I think he is actually pretty clever.
He's also untrustworthy, intellectually dishonest, lazy, self centred, conceited, unserious, unreliable, incapable of loyalty or generating much in the way of loyalty and not a suitable person to be PM. But he's not dumb.
He would also be wide open to exactly the same sort of attack that JC has been subject to. I’m not that interested in how justified or not the attacks would be, but that the effect would be to take the heat off Corbyn.
On topic is Boris a dumb blonde? I don't think so, I think he is actually pretty clever.
He's also untrustworthy, intellectually dishonest, lazy, self centred, conceited, unserious, unreliable, incapable of loyalty or generating much in the way of loyalty and not a suitable person to be PM. But he's not dumb.
We have to give TSE, or whoever, kudos for the headline however, which is so terrible it's almost genius.
Regarding Boris, I'd suggest he is quick and very clever, but not particularly intelligent.
Maybe you and I and people like us who benefited hugely from the previous settlement need to realise that for others it was not anywhere near as it good as it was for us and ask ourselves why that was.
This is a good question that deserves a full answer. I will seek to address it when I get a bit of time. For now, it’s worth noting that if no one talks to the middle-aged woman about how plausible her imagined alternatives are, she may make poor choices. No one has been making the case for solid stability in Britain for many years.
On your other question, no that’s not a correct statement of my position. Immigration is a subject where it’s easy to frighten people by working on their basest instincts rather than have a measured discussion and the Leave campaign consciously opted to frighten people.
Thank you for your clarification. I look forward to your answer.
...
Men as well as women have midlife crises. They rarely end well either.
Oh I am sure. But middle aged men do not find themselves invisible and undervalued in the way that women of the same age do. It is often their prime, when they reach the commanding heights of their career and are listened to, sought out etc. Look at any profession or company and see how many women in their 50’s who have families are in positions of power.
It is not just a mid-life crisis for women. It is about feeling useless and un or undervalued at precisely the time when they have a great deal to contribute beyond what they do already while at the same time being expected - as usual - to keep the whole bloody show on the road, usually for little reward.
Well, perhaps to some extent - but I wonder if you are generalising from 'men at the top' to 'all men' jere? Plenty of middle aged men find themsleves invisible and undervalued.
I was having a conversatoin with my mother-inn-law and sister-in-law recently in which they were complaining about poor service in a restaurant and saying it wouldn't happen if they were men. They then related stories about eating with very senior and well-connected men in which they received very good service. I told them they would be very disappointed if they ate with me - middle-of-the-road middle-aged men are just as likely to get terrible service as middle-aged women.
Maybe you and I and people like us who benefited hugely from the previous settlement need to realise that for others it was not anywhere near as it good as it was for us and ask ourselves why that was.
This is a good question that deserves a full answer. I will seek to address it when I get a bit of time. For now, it’s worth noting that if no one talks to the middle-aged woman about how plausible her imagined alternatives are, she may make poor choices. No one has been making the case for solid stability in Britain for many years.
On your other question, no that’s not a correct statement of my position. Immigration is a subject where it’s easy to frighten people by working on their basest instincts rather than have a measured discussion and the Leave campaign consciously opted to frighten people.
Thank you for your clarification. I look forward to your answer.
For now, I will tease you a bit. A man preaching the virtues of solid stability to a middle aged woman who has been relied on but ignored for years is.... well, brave.
The point about middle aged women is that they become invisible, often despite being wise, comfortable in their own skin at last and beautiful. They need to fight to be heard and, even then, are often patronised or described in insulting terms: “harridan”, “bossy”, “nagging”. They are relied on but not valued.
And rather more than you might expect are not just content with the “deep deep peace of the double bed” but would like to enjoy once more the “hurly burly of the chaise longue”.
Men as well as women have midlife crises. They rarely end well either.
Oh I am sure. But middle aged men do not find themselves invisible and undervalued in the way that women of the same age do. It is often their prime, when they reach the commanding heights of their career and are listened to, sought out etc. Look at any profession or company and see how many women in their 50’s who have families are in positions of power.
It is not just a mid-life crisis for women. It is about feeling useless and un or undervalued at precisely the time when they have a great deal to contribute beyond what they do already while at the same time being expected - as usual - to keep the whole bloody show on the road, usually for little reward.
However men, especially moderately successful men, come up against it when they retire. Being a former director of whatever, even quite a big company, counts for very little in the golf club, Probus or whatever. Women however seem to acquire a new lease on life.
A Better Brexit group of 40 Tory MPs close to Michael Gove plan to threaten to oppose a no-deal departure.
Given that Gove regrets the way Vote Leave campaigned and that he ended up ending Dave's Premiership I suspect it won't be long before Gove will be publicly supporting BINO.
The Chequers Deal is not BINO.
As Sky's Economics Editor has pointed out, the Chequers deal is closer to a hard/no deal Brexit than to a soft Brexit.
It's just that May is so piss-poor at politics, both sides are rinsing it now.
That is a very good point. Once again, as at every stage of May's premiership, there is no leadership, no vision, no attempt to persuade. Why has she not been out there batting for her Chequers deal at every opportunity, explaining why in her view it is a good compromise for the country and in our interests?
Her idea of leadership is to make a one off speech and refer back to it from time to time as if we all walked about with a copy of it in our back pockets for reference. She has absolutely no idea how to do politics. Having explained how I think the Tory rules are supposed to operate how the hell did the party end up with a choice between her and Leadsom? Is it a nanny fixation?
You say May is not a politician. But she managed to go to the top of the greasy pole!
She does not have a personal supporters club. Maybe that's why she became PM. And stays there as other groups cancel each other out.
Like The Patrician in Discworld ?
I think he had other skills such as being the best assassin of his generation. One of my favourite characters.
He failed his stealth class because the teacher didn’t think he’d ever turned up...
The prospect of not having new Pratchetts to read is a cloud on what I (somewhat optimistically arithmetically) still like to think of as my middle years.
10 MPs....they aren't going to jump ship with such small numbers, even if they did have a backbone, which they don't.
Mandelson and Watson are both Labour Party men. It seems more believable they were plotting for a post-Corbyn world than starting a new party. What I would ask myself were I able to read the paywalled Times story about something that happened a month ago, is why am I reading it now?
Britain is obviously a worse place than it was three years ago and is getting worse, more divided, more unhappy, more extreme politics, lower long term growth, more isolated. There is no light on the horizon and none can be expected for years. But there we are.
.
Maybe you and I and people like us who benefited hugely from the previous settlement need to realise that for others it was not anywhere near as it good as it was for us and ask ourselves why that was.
This is a good question that deserves a full answer. I will seek to address it when I get a bit of time. For now, it’s worth noting that if no one talks to the middle-aged woman about how plausible her imagined alternatives are, she may make poor choices. No one has been making the case for solid stability in Britain for many years.
On your other question, no that’s not a correct statement of my position. Immigration is a subject where it’s easy to frighten people by working on their basest instincts rather than have a measured discussion and the Leave campaign consciously opted to frighten people.
Thank you for your clarification. I look forward to your answer.
For now, I will tease you a bit. A man preaching the virtues of solid stability to a middle aged woman who has been relied on but ignored for years is.... well, brave.
The point about middle aged women is that they become invisible, often despite being wise, comfortable in their own skin at last and beautiful. They need to fight to be heard and, even then, are often patronised or described in insulting terms: “harridan”, “bossy”, “nagging”. They are relied on but not valued.
And rather more than you might expect are not just content with the “deep deep peace of the double bed” but would like to enjoy once more the “hurly burly of the chaise longue”.
What started as an analogy is veering off in a direction all of its own, there.
Back to the analogy - it doesn't really work since it's the young who overwhelmingly are disadvantaged by the current economic settlement, yet they were the least enthusiastic supporters of Brexit, whereas the archetypal Home Counties pensioner with a good pension and free benefits was the strongest supporter.
Nevertheless you certainly have a point about the more disadvantaged and overlooked taking the opportunity of the referendum to kick out at the established way of things. The twin tragedy of Brexit is that the "remedy" offers nothing by way of cure, and that a PM who came to office appearing to understand the problem has proved incapable of coming up with anything by way of an answer.
A Better Brexit group of 40 Tory MPs close to Michael Gove plan to threaten to oppose a no-deal departure.
Given that Gove regrets the way Vote Leave campaigned and that he ended up ending Dave's Premiership I suspect it won't be long before Gove will be publicly supporting BINO.
The Chequers Deal is not BINO.
As Sky's Economics Editor has pointed out, the Chequers deal is closer to a hard/no deal Brexit than to a soft Brexit.
It's just that May is so piss-poor at politics, both sides are rinsing it now.
That is a very good point. Once again, as at every stage of May's premiership, there is no leadership, no vision, no attempt to persuade. Why has she not been out there batting for her Chequers deal at every opportunity, explaining why in her view it is a good compromise for the country and in our interests?
Her idea of leadership is to make a one off speech and refer back to it from time to time as if we all walked about with a copy of it in our back pockets for reference. She has absolutely no idea how to do politics. Having explained how I think the Tory rules are supposed to operate how the hell did the party end up with a choice between her and Leadsom? Is it a nanny fixation?
You say May is not a politician. But she managed to go to the top of the greasy pole!
She does not have a personal supporters club. Maybe that's why she became PM. And stays there as other groups cancel each other out.
Like The Patrician in Discworld ?
I think he had other skills such as being the best assassin of his generation. One of my favourite characters.
He failed his stealth class because the teacher didn’t think he’d ever turned up...
The prospect of not having new Pratchetts to read is a cloud on what I (somewhat optimistically arithmetically) still like to think of as my middle years.
Gaiman isn’t the same, is he!
No, I am struggling through Norse Mythology at the moment. It's ok. But it's not Pratchett.
Before someone pops up and asks again why I am still in the party and seeking election under the Labour banner its simple. The alternative is a Tory government whose engage in repeated bouts of dog whistle racism (Are you thinking what we're thinking?) and do all they can to shit on the disabled. Its hardly like the Tories are a bastion of goodness.
Yet the entire Labour party cheered when Gordon Brown ranted about "British Jobs For British Workers" like a BNP street thug.
As to the disabled this is from 1997:
' Rebel Labour MPs have reacted angrily to a leaked memo which shows the government is considering cuts to disability and sickness benefits. '
' Prime Minister Tony Blair has defended the proposed cuts in disabled benefits, which threaten to cause the largest backbench revolt since Labour came to power. More than 60 Labour MPs remain set to vote against the Welfare Reform and Pensions Bill when it returns to the Commons on Thursday.
They are deeply concerned about the effect on disabled people of plans to means-test and restrict access to incapacity benefit.
Several major charities previously resigned from a government advisory panel in protest at the cuts. '
' More than one million claimants are to lose benefits of £23.30 a week in a clampdown by Tony Blair on welfare abuse.
The Prime Minister's advisers have drawn up plans to scrap the disability premium, paid to about 1.1 million people, as part of a strategy to save £2 billion in the welfare budget. '
OT, but the crisis in the Catholic Church just appears to have got 10 times worse. Pope Francis knew 5 years ago of the sex abuse dossier on Cardinal who resigned recently but removed the restrictions placed on him by previous Pope.
10 MPs....they aren't going to jump ship with such small numbers, even if they did have a backbone, which they don't.
Mandelson and Watson are both Labour Party men. It seems more believable they were plotting for a post-Corbyn world than starting a new party. What I would ask myself were I able to read the paywalled Times story about something that happened a month ago, is why am I reading it now?
The trouble for some of the younger and ambitious ones is that the time it will take to get the Labour Party into that post-Corbyn world, go through the turmoil that will involve with their membership, and then rebuild sufficient public credibility to get back into office via FPTnP may be longer than their career horizons. People on the cusp of their 40s are looking for a quicker fix.
One point often made by some remain voters (and I write as a remain voter) is that the average leave voter was less well educated than the average remain voter. Ignoring for the moment the extent to which this is due to the different cohorts involved, I wonder why this suprises anyone? If you are well educated then you are much more likely to be fluent in a European language, you are much more likely to have skills that make you employable in other European countries and you are less likely to find people from those countries competing for your jobs. As an example I can’t remember the last time that we were inundated with applicants for a Physics teaching post from the EU (or indeed the UK come to that). So for the well educated the EU represents a huge range of possibilities with little downside.
For those who are not fluent (and probably hated their French lessons at school) the jobs market of the EU is largely closed to them: there are jobs that are can be performed in English but they tend to require other high level qualifications. On the contrary they think that there is a pool of well educated, fairly fluent speakers of English who are happy to work here for lower wages than they will. This last bit is contentious (to say the least) but I think that we can agree that the perception that it is true swayed a lot of votes.
In summary: less well educated people were more likely to vote leave not because they were stupid but because for them the Free Movement of the EU has not worked as well as it has for those of us who are well educated; they have seen few of the advantages and more of the disadvantages.
On topic is Boris a dumb blonde? I don't think so, I think he is actually pretty clever.
He's also untrustworthy, intellectually dishonest, lazy, self centred, conceited, unserious, unreliable, incapable of loyalty or generating much in the way of loyalty and not a suitable person to be PM. But he's not dumb.
We have to give TSE, or whoever, kudos for the headline however, which is so terrible it's almost genius.
Regarding Boris, I'd suggest he is quick and very clever, but not particularly intelligent.
In most dictionaries clever is the first synonym for intelligent so I am not sure I understand what you mean by that.
If you mean that he is witty but not a particularly deep thinker I agree.
You sought to engage in spectacular whataboutery when I pointed out the decisive groups in the referendum were pensioners, who are more affluent than ever (not just absolutely but relatively), and affluent reactionaries. Then you tied yourself up in knots.
Just as the French Revolution didn’t happen because peasants were starving, Brexit was essentially driven by people who felt rich enough to indulge their prejudices.
The middle classes were the big winners from the French Revolution as they got property on the cheap that was confiscated from the aristocracy and the Church. Who will be the winners from Brexit? Bureaucrats will do well from the extra barriers and red tape. Hedge fund managers can profit from the uncertainty. It looks like workers may enjoy a short term buyer's market as immigrant workers turn away from the UK, during the lag before business offshores. Any others?
And following this theme, the big losers from Brexit will be those that depend on welfare or are employed by the state, as well as anyone invested in business in the UK.
One point often made by some remain voters (and I write as a remain voter) is that the average leave voter was less well educated than the average remain voter. Ignoring for the moment the extent to which this is due to the different cohorts involved, I wonder why this suprises anyone? If you are well educated then you are much more likely to be fluent in a European language, you are much more likely to have skills that make you employable in other European countries and you are less likely to find people from those countries competing for your jobs. As an example I can’t remember the last time that we were inundated with applicants for a Physics teaching post from the EU (or indeed the UK come to that). So for the well educated the EU represents a huge range of possibilities with little downside.
For those who are not fluent (and probably hated their French lessons at school) the jobs market of the EU is largely closed to them: there are jobs that are can be performed in English but they tend to require other high level qualifications. On the contrary they think that there is a pool of well educated, fairly fluent speakers of English who are happy to work here for lower wages than they will. This last bit is contentious (to say the least) but I think that we can agree that the perception that it is true swayed a lot of votes.
In summary: less well educated people were more likely to vote leave not because they were stupid but because for them the Free Movement of the EU has not worked as well as it has for those of us who are well educated; they have seen few of the advantages and more of the disadvantages.
No, its because they were all xenophobes. Alastair has told us so at least 200 times so it must be true.
7th september Cable to announce resignation.Next LD leader betting 8/11 Swinson 2-1 Moran.
Hard to believe the favourite is worse than Cable, they are in some state.
Swinson is OK, perhaps a little over-earnest and excessively bought into soft left identity politics. And she is Scottish. Of the MPs, if the contest comes at the right time, I think Moran could be the better choice, save for her current lack of experience. If Cable's announced resignation is a couple of years off, as has been rumoured, there is betting value in backing Moran, at those odds.
On topic is Boris a dumb blonde? I don't think so, I think he is actually pretty clever.
He's also untrustworthy, intellectually dishonest, lazy, self centred, conceited, unserious, unreliable, incapable of loyalty or generating much in the way of loyalty and not a suitable person to be PM. But he's not dumb.
We have to give TSE, or whoever, kudos for the headline however, which is so terrible it's almost genius.
Regarding Boris, I'd suggest he is quick and very clever, but not particularly intelligent.
In most dictionaries clever is the first synonym for intelligent so I am not sure I understand what you mean by that.
If you mean that he is witty but not a particularly deep thinker I agree.
In my youth I used to play a Dungeons and Dragons (don’t mock! I was a teenager who ended up reading Physics at University) and in that there was a distinction between intelligence and wisdom which I have found useful since.
Before someone pops up and asks again why I am still in the party and seeking election under the Labour banner its simple. The alternative is a Tory government whose engage in repeated bouts of dog whistle racism (Are you thinking what we're thinking?) and do all they can to shit on the disabled. Its hardly like the Tories are a bastion of goodness.
Yet the entire Labour party cheered when Gordon Brown ranted about "British Jobs For British Workers" like a BNP street thug.
As to the disabled this is from 1997:
' Rebel Labour MPs have reacted angrily to a leaked memo which shows the government is considering cuts to disability and sickness benefits. '
' Prime Minister Tony Blair has defended the proposed cuts in disabled benefits, which threaten to cause the largest backbench revolt since Labour came to power. More than 60 Labour MPs remain set to vote against the Welfare Reform and Pensions Bill when it returns to the Commons on Thursday.
They are deeply concerned about the effect on disabled people of plans to means-test and restrict access to incapacity benefit.
Several major charities previously resigned from a government advisory panel in protest at the cuts. '
' More than one million claimants are to lose benefits of £23.30 a week in a clampdown by Tony Blair on welfare abuse.
The Prime Minister's advisers have drawn up plans to scrap the disability premium, paid to about 1.1 million people, as part of a strategy to save £2 billion in the welfare budget. '
Is the question, why is Tony Blair hated and despised?
Yet Labour politicians were quite happy with Blair until he looked like an election loser.
You are confusing yourself with Thatcher. Blair was despised ever since the Iraq war.
Not despised enough to remove him from the leadership for another four years.
But, at the bottom of that Telegraph article is the following:
"David Willetts, the shadow Work and Pensions Secretary, said: "We have been warning for years about the spiralling costs of incapacity benefit, with people moving off unemployment benefit and on to disability benefits.
"Every few years Tony Blair suddenly discovers he needs to reform welfare, but he never does anything about it. Why should this time be any different?" "
Oh I am sure. But middle aged men do not find themselves invisible and undervalued in the way that women of the same age do. It is often their prime, when they reach the commanding heights of their career and are listened to, sought out etc. Look at any profession or company and see how many women in their 50’s who have families are in positions of power.
It is not just a mid-life crisis for women. It is about feeling useless and un or undervalued at precisely the time when they have a great deal to contribute beyond what they do already while at the same time being expected - as usual - to keep the whole bloody show on the road, usually for little reward.
Interesting discussion away from our usual preoccupations on PB. In the charity sector, incidentally, most of the senior executives who I know are women - it's interesting to speculate why.
I think it's probably true that many women between, say, 50 and 70, feel that they're healthy, capable and interested in romance at a time when it tends to be assumed that they've reached the age of Settling Down. I know of a couple of women in their early 60s who have burst into an extraordinary wealth of career opportunities and romantic liaisons who are utterly delighted by this turn of events. It's lovely to see, and in both cases a result of deliberately reigniting expectations after difficulties in earlier years, rather than settling for less. It's not only teenagers who need advice to be ambitious.
The same applies to men, but in career terms it's thought a bit less unusual. I've changed careers into senior jobs twice in my 60s - some people are mildly surprised but it's not thought especially rare. I've also deliberately explored interests that I actively rejected in the past (e.g. after early hay fever I've always been utterly urban and avoided the countryside) and that's surprising friends rather more.
One point often made by some remain voters (and I write as a remain voter) is that the average leave voter was less well educated than the average remain voter. Ignoring for the moment the extent to which this is due to the different cohorts involved, I wonder why this suprises anyone? If you are well educated then you are much more likely to be fluent in a European language, you are much more likely to have skills that make you employable in other European countries and you are less likely to find people from those countries competing for your jobs. As an example I can’t remember the last time that we were inundated with applicants for a Physics teaching post from the EU (or indeed the UK come to that). So for the well educated the EU represents a huge range of possibilities with little downside.
For those who are not fluent (and probably hated their French lessons at school) the jobs market of the EU is largely closed to them: there are jobs that are can be performed in English but they tend to require other high level qualifications. On the contrary they think that there is a pool of well educated, fairly fluent speakers of English who are happy to work here for lower wages than they will. This last bit is contentious (to say the least) but I think that we can agree that the perception that it is true swayed a lot of votes.
In summary: less well educated people were more likely to vote leave not because they were stupid but because for them the Free Movement of the EU has not worked as well as it has for those of us who are well educated; they have seen few of the advantages and more of the disadvantages.
That doesn’t explain why pensioners were so pro-Leave.
On topic is Boris a dumb blonde? I don't think so, I think he is actually pretty clever.
He's also untrustworthy, intellectually dishonest, lazy, self centred, conceited, unserious, unreliable, incapable of loyalty or generating much in the way of loyalty and not a suitable person to be PM. But he's not dumb.
We have to give TSE, or whoever, kudos for the headline however, which is so terrible it's almost genius.
Regarding Boris, I'd suggest he is quick and very clever, but not particularly intelligent.
In most dictionaries clever is the first synonym for intelligent so I am not sure I understand what you mean by that.
If you mean that he is witty but not a particularly deep thinker I agree.
Yes, that is pretty much what I mean. He is quick and clever in the sense that he always has a fast response to whatever is asked of him, is able to recall a wide range of information quickly, and has a good instinct for his own immediate self interest. But he isn't intelligent in the sense that he has thought through the issues in front of him, knows what he believes, and has any deeper intellectual commitment to doing the right thing or leaving the world a better place than he found it.
On topic is Boris a dumb blonde? I don't think so, I think he is actually pretty clever.
He's also untrustworthy, intellectually dishonest, lazy, self centred, conceited, unserious, unreliable, incapable of loyalty or generating much in the way of loyalty and not a suitable person to be PM. But he's not dumb.
We have to give TSE, or whoever, kudos for the headline however, which is so terrible it's almost genius.
Regarding Boris, I'd suggest he is quick and very clever, but not particularly intelligent.
In most dictionaries clever is the first synonym for intelligent so I am not sure I understand what you mean by that.
If you mean that he is witty but not a particularly deep thinker I agree.
In my youth I used to play a Dungeons and Dragons (don’t mock! I was a teenager who ended up reading Physics at University) and in that there was a distinction between intelligence and wisdom which I have found useful since.
Pratchett put it this way: “Wisdom comes from experience. Experience is often a result of lack of wisdom.”
7th september Cable to announce resignation.Next LD leader betting 8/11 Swinson 2-1 Moran.
Hard to believe the favourite is worse than Cable, they are in some state.
Swinson is OK, perhaps a little over-earnest and excessively bought into soft left identity politics. And she is Scottish. Of the MPs, if the contest comes at the right time, I think Moran could be the better choice, save for her current lack of experience. If Cable's announced resignation is a couple of years off, as has been rumoured, there is betting value in backing Moran, at those odds.
Or they might win half a dozen by-elections and broaden the talent pool....
(They might win half a dozen Labour defectors, but I'm not sure that would do the job!)
One point often made by some remain voters (and I write as a remain voter) is that the average leave voter was less well educated than the average remain voter. Ignoring for the moment the extent to which this is due to the different cohorts involved, I wonder why this suprises anyone? If you are well educated then you are much more likely to be fluent in a European language, you are much more likely to have skills that make you employable in other European countries and you are less likely to find people from those countries competing for your jobs. As an example I can’t remember the last time that we were inundated with applicants for a Physics teaching post from the EU (or indeed the UK come to that). So for the well educated the EU represents a huge range of possibilities with little downside.
For those who are not fluent (and probably hated their French lessons at school) the jobs market of the EU is largely closed to them: there are jobs that are can be performed in English but they tend to require other high level qualifications. On the contrary they think that there is a pool of well educated, fairly fluent speakers of English who are happy to work here for lower wages than they will. This last bit is contentious (to say the least) but I think that we can agree that the perception that it is true swayed a lot of votes.
In summary: less well educated people were more likely to vote leave not because they were stupid but because for them the Free Movement of the EU has not worked as well as it has for those of us who are well educated; they have seen few of the advantages and more of the disadvantages.
That doesn’t explain why pensioners were so pro-Leave.
Pensioners are less educated by dint of time; in years past it was far less common to get the opportunity to go to university and beyond.
One point often made by some remain voters (and I write as a remain voter) is that the average leave voter was less well educated than the average remain voter. Ignoring for the moment the extent to which this is due to the different cohorts involved, I wonder why this suprises anyone? If you are well educated then you are much more likely to be fluent in a European language, you are much more likely to have skills that make you employable in other European countries and you are less likely to find people from those countries competing for your jobs. As an example I can’t remember the last time that we were inundated with applicants for a Physics teaching post from the EU (or indeed the UK come to that). So for the well educated the EU represents a huge range of possibilities with little downside.
For those who are not fluent (and probably hated their French lessons at school) the jobs market of the EU is largely closed to them: there are jobs that are can be performed in English but they tend to require other high level qualifications. On the contrary they think that there is a pool of well educated, fairly fluent speakers of English who are happy to work here for lower wages than they will. This last bit is contentious (to say the least) but I think that we can agree that the perception that it is true swayed a lot of votes.
In summary: less well educated people were more likely to vote leave not because they were stupid but because for them the Free Movement of the EU has not worked as well as it has for those of us who are well educated; they have seen few of the advantages and more of the disadvantages.
That doesn’t explain why pensioners were so pro-Leave.
7th september Cable to announce resignation.Next LD leader betting 8/11 Swinson 2-1 Moran.
Hard to believe the favourite is worse than Cable, they are in some state.
Why is Swinson worse than Cable? Genuine question.
I just think she is useless, an empty windbag with no talent , principles etc. Typifies why the LD's have fallen so far a female Clegg, no substance , just self seeking shallow chancers.
7th september Cable to announce resignation.Next LD leader betting 8/11 Swinson 2-1 Moran.
Hard to believe the favourite is worse than Cable, they are in some state.
Why is Swinson worse than Cable? Genuine question.
I just think she is useless, an empty windbag with no talent , principles etc. Typifies why the LD's have fallen so far a female Clegg, no substance , just self seeking shallow chancers.
In fairness though Malcolm you think that of most politicians, especially those who are Scottish and not separatist.
7th september Cable to announce resignation.Next LD leader betting 8/11 Swinson 2-1 Moran.
Hard to believe the favourite is worse than Cable, they are in some state.
Swinson is OK, perhaps a little over-earnest and excessively bought into soft left identity politics. And she is Scottish. Of the MPs, if the contest comes at the right time, I think Moran could be the better choice, save for her current lack of experience. If Cable's announced resignation is a couple of years off, as has been rumoured, there is betting value in backing Moran, at those odds.
Or they might win half a dozen by-elections and broaden the talent pool....
(They might win half a dozen Labour defectors, but I'm not sure that would do the job!)
Of the unhappy Labour moderates, Creasy is the only one I would want. Streeting would be worth considering, but I know from personal experience that he's no liberal. The rest of them are only interested in their own careers and no better than the rag-tag of mostly-already-deselected Labour defectors that followed the (brave) Gang of Four into the SDP all those years ago.
7th september Cable to announce resignation.Next LD leader betting 8/11 Swinson 2-1 Moran.
Hard to believe the favourite is worse than Cable, they are in some state.
Why is Swinson worse than Cable? Genuine question.
I just think she is useless, an empty windbag with no talent , principles etc. Typifies why the LD's have fallen so far a female Clegg, no substance , just self seeking shallow chancers.
In fairness though Malcolm you think that of most politicians, especially those who are Scottish and not separatist.
As homework for Malcolm how about he identifies a list of non-SNP politicians that he likes?
One point often made by some remain voters (and I write as a remain voter) is that the average leave voter was less well educated than the average remain voter. Ignoring for the moment the extent to which this is due to the different cohorts involved, I wonder why this suprises anyone? If you are well educated then you are much more likely to be fluent in a European language, you are much more likely to have skills that make you employable in other European countries and you are less likely to find people from those countries competing for your jobs. As an example I can’t remember the last time that we were inundated with applicants for a Physics teaching post from the EU (or indeed the UK come to that). So for the well educated the EU represents a huge range of possibilities with little downside.
For those who are not fluent (and probably hated their French lessons at school) the jobs market of the EU is largely closed to them: there are jobs that are can be performed in English but they tend to require other high level qualifications. On the contrary they think that there is a pool of well educated, fairly fluent speakers of English who are happy to work here for lower wages than they will. This last bit is contentious (to say the least) but I think that we can agree that the perception that it is true swayed a lot of votes.
In summary: less well educated people were more likely to vote leave not because they were stupid but because for them the Free Movement of the EU has not worked as well as it has for those of us who are well educated; they have seen few of the advantages and more of the disadvantages.
That doesn’t explain why pensioners were so pro-Leave.
No, but I wasn’t really trying to.
The odd thing is that as the last referendum was some 40 years ago todays pensioners must have been among those who voted to join. Admittedly that was the common market, not the EU. Another difference is that the Tories were officially FOR last time, but significantly often AGAINST this.
7th september Cable to announce resignation.Next LD leader betting 8/11 Swinson 2-1 Moran.
Hard to believe the favourite is worse than Cable, they are in some state.
Why is Swinson worse than Cable? Genuine question.
I just think she is useless, an empty windbag with no talent , principles etc. Typifies why the LD's have fallen so far a female Clegg, no substance , just self seeking shallow chancers.
In fairness though Malcolm you think that of most politicians, especially those who are Scottish and not separatist.
In further fairness he thinks that of several who are Scottish and separatist as well!
7th september Cable to announce resignation.Next LD leader betting 8/11 Swinson 2-1 Moran.
Hard to believe the favourite is worse than Cable, they are in some state.
Why is Swinson worse than Cable? Genuine question.
I just think she is useless, an empty windbag with no talent , principles etc. Typifies why the LD's have fallen so far a female Clegg, no substance , just self seeking shallow chancers.
In fairness though Malcolm you think that of most politicians, especially those who are Scottish and not separatist.
In further fairness he thinks that of several who are Scottish and separatist as well!
And in further, further fairness quite a lot of times he has a point...
On topic is Boris a dumb blonde? I don't think so, I think he is actually pretty clever.
He's also untrustworthy, intellectually dishonest, lazy, self centred, conceited, unserious, unreliable, incapable of loyalty or generating much in the way of loyalty and not a suitable person to be PM. But he's not dumb.
We have to give TSE, or whoever, kudos for the headline however, which is so terrible it's almost genius.
Regarding Boris, I'd suggest he is quick and very clever, but not particularly intelligent.
In most dictionaries clever is the first synonym for intelligent so I am not sure I understand what you mean by that.
If you mean that he is witty but not a particularly deep thinker I agree.
Boris is Cameron redux. Not the lazy coincidence they are Eton and Oxford men but that both are charismatic front men with no deep interest in any policy one way or the other, so who would leave all that to individual ministers. Boris did so as Mayor; Cameron at Number 10 -- indeed it was leaked that, despite years of preparation in opposition, Cabinet was shocked to discover just what Lansley was doing to the NHS. Both had the knack of mastering a brief to answer questions (or write newspaper columns) but lacked the curiosity or drive to engage with the details or implications of policy -- whether Brexit or the garden bridge and the island airport.
One point often made by some remain voters (and I write as a remain voter) is that the average leave voter was less well educated than the average remain voter. Ignoring for the moment the extent to which this is due to the different cohorts involved, I wonder why this suprises anyone? If you are well educated then you are much more likely to be fluent in a European language, you are much more likely to have skills that make you employable in other European countries and you are less likely to find people from those countries competing for your jobs. As an example I can’t remember the last time that we were inundated with applicants for a Physics teaching post from the EU (or indeed the UK come to that). So for the well educated the EU represents a huge range of possibilities with little downside.
For those who are not fluent (and probably hated their French lessons at school) the jobs market of the EU is largely closed to them: there are jobs that are can be performed in English but they tend to require other high level qualifications. On the contrary they think that there is a pool of well educated, fairly fluent speakers of English who are happy to work here for lower wages than they will. This last bit is contentious (to say the least) but I think that we can agree that the perception that it is true swayed a lot of votes.
In summary: less well educated people were more likely to vote leave not because they were stupid but because for them the Free Movement of the EU has not worked as well as it has for those of us who are well educated; they have seen few of the advantages and more of the disadvantages.
That doesn’t explain why pensioners were so pro-Leave.
I think it does. Leave voters generally are disturbed by the modern world. I know that comes across as horribly patronising, but the modern world IS disturbing. The question is whether you reject it or deal with it. Rejection isn't a solution IMO. Brexit makes dealing with the modern world much, much harder.
Oh I am sure. But middle aged men do not find themselves invisible and undervalued in the way that women of the same age do. It is often their prime, when they reach the commanding heights of their career and are listened to, sought out etc. Look at any profession or company and see how many women in their 50’s who have families are in positions of power.
It is not just a mid-life crisis for women. It is about feeling useless and un or undervalued at precisely the time when they have a great deal to contribute beyond what they do already while at the same time being expected - as usual - to keep the whole bloody show on the road, usually for little reward.
Interesting discussion away from our usual preoccupations on PB. In the charity sector, incidentally, most of the senior executives who I know are women - it's interesting to speculate why.
I think it's probably true that many women between, say, 50 and 70, feel that they're healthy, capable and interested in romance at a time when it tends to be assumed that they've reached the age of Settling Down. I know of a couple of women in their early 60s who have burst into an extraordinary wealth of career opportunities and romantic liaisons who are utterly delighted by this turn of events. It's lovely to see, and in both cases a result of deliberately reigniting expectations after difficulties in earlier years, rather than settling for less. It's not only teenagers who need advice to be ambitious.
The same applies to men, but in career terms it's thought a bit less unusual. I've changed careers into senior jobs twice in my 60s - some people are mildly surprised but it's not thought especially rare. I've also deliberately explored interests that I actively rejected in the past (e.g. after early hay fever I've always been utterly urban and avoided the countryside) and that's surprising friends rather more.
Most readers will assume from that the addition of early 60s women to your range of interests...;)
7th september Cable to announce resignation.Next LD leader betting 8/11 Swinson 2-1 Moran.
Hard to believe the favourite is worse than Cable, they are in some state.
Why is Swinson worse than Cable? Genuine question.
I just think she is useless, an empty windbag with no talent , principles etc. Typifies why the LD's have fallen so far a female Clegg, no substance , just self seeking shallow chancers.
In fairness though Malcolm you think that of most politicians, especially those who are Scottish and not separatist.
In further fairness he thinks that of several who are Scottish and separatist as well!
And in further, further fairness quite a lot of times he has a point...
Given the evidence I have of his racing tipstering ability I’m inclined to take his opinion seriously.
On topic is Boris a dumb blonde? I don't think so, I think he is actually pretty clever.
He's also untrustworthy, intellectually dishonest, lazy, self centred, conceited, unserious, unreliable, incapable of loyalty or generating much in the way of loyalty and not a suitable person to be PM. But he's not dumb.
We have to give TSE, or whoever, kudos for the headline however, which is so terrible it's almost genius.
Regarding Boris, I'd suggest he is quick and very clever, but not particularly intelligent.
In most dictionaries clever is the first synonym for intelligent so I am not sure I understand what you mean by that.
If you mean that he is witty but not a particularly deep thinker I agree.
Boris is Cameron redux. Not the lazy coincidence they are Eton and Oxford men but that both are charismatic front men with no deep interest in any policy one way or the other, so who would leave all that to individual ministers. Boris did so as Mayor; Cameron at Number 10 -- indeed it was leaked that, despite years of preparation in opposition, Cabinet was shocked to discover just what Lansley was doing to the NHS. Both had the knack of mastering a brief to answer questions (or write newspaper columns) but lacked the curiosity or drive to engage with the details or implications of policy -- whether Brexit or the garden bridge and the island airport.
And we've done with Cameron.
Actually, having met him once, I think that's unfair to Cameron. There is lots of criticism you can throw at Cameron (who was essentially a liberal trying to survive in the modern Tory party, which eventually led to his downfall), but he did at heart have a set of values and did his best to pursue them. Boris on the other hand has no values or principles whatsoever other than pursuit of his own aggrandisement and self-gratification.
One point often made by some remain voters (and I write as a remain voter) is that the average leave voter was less well educated than the average remain voter. Ignoring for the moment the extent to which this is due to the different cohorts involved, I wonder why this suprises anyone? If you are well educated then you are much more likely to be fluent in a European language, you are much more likely to have skills that make you employable in other European countries and you are less likely to find people from those countries competing for your jobs. As an example I can’t remember the last time that we were inundated with applicants for a Physics teaching post from the EU (or indeed the UK come to that). So for the well educated the EU represents a huge range of possibilities with little downside.
For those who are not fluent (and probably hated their French lessons at school) the jobs market of the EU is largely closed to them: there are jobs that are can be performed in English but they tend to require other high level qualifications. On the contrary they think that there is a pool of well educated, fairly fluent speakers of English who are happy to work here for lower wages than they will. This last bit is contentious (to say the least) but I think that we can agree that the perception that it is true swayed a lot of votes.
In summary: less well educated people were more likely to vote leave not because they were stupid but because for them the Free Movement of the EU has not worked as well as it has for those of us who are well educated; they have seen few of the advantages and more of the disadvantages.
That doesn’t explain why pensioners were so pro-Leave.
Less flippantly, I was trying to articulate one reason for people to have voted as they did. I suspect most had multiple and conflicting motives: I know I did, with my concern for the democratic deficit of the EU and ‘ever closer union’ losing out - just - to worries about the chaos that might result and an unwillingness to be on the same side as Nigel Farage and George Galloway. Ironically perhaps it was the ‘xenophobic lies’ that swung my vote to remain in the end.
One point often made by some remain voters (and I write as a remain voter) is that the average leave voter was less well educated than the average remain voter. Ignoring for the moment the extent to which this is due to the different cohorts involved, I wonder why this suprises anyone? If you are well educated then you are much more likely to be fluent in a European language, you are much more likely to have skills that make you employable in other European countries and you are less likely to find people from those countries competing for your jobs. As an example I can’t remember the last time that we were inundated with applicants for a Physics teaching post from the EU (or indeed the UK come to that). So for the well educated the EU represents a huge range of possibilities with little downside.
For those who are not fluent (and probably hated their French lessons at school) the jobs market of the EU is largely closed to them: there are jobs that are can be performed in English but they tend to require other high level qualifications. On the contrary they think that there is a pool of well educated, fairly fluent speakers of English who are happy to work here for lower wages than they will. This last bit is contentious (to say the least) but I think that we can agree that the perception that it is true swayed a lot of votes.
In summary: less well educated people were more likely to vote leave not because they were stupid but because for them the Free Movement of the EU has not worked as well as it has for those of us who are well educated; they have seen few of the advantages and more of the disadvantages.
That doesn’t explain why pensioners were so pro-Leave.
Pensioners are less educated by dint of time; in years past it was far less common to get the opportunity to go to university and beyond.
0ood to see you think I am less educated even though I did actually vote remain
7th september Cable to announce resignation.Next LD leader betting 8/11 Swinson 2-1 Moran.
Hard to believe the favourite is worse than Cable, they are in some state.
Why is Swinson worse than Cable? Genuine question.
I just think she is useless, an empty windbag with no talent , principles etc. Typifies why the LD's have fallen so far a female Clegg, no substance , just self seeking shallow chancers.
In fairness though Malcolm you think that of most politicians, especially those who are Scottish and not separatist.
As homework for Malcolm how about he identifies a list of non-SNP politicians that he likes?
One point often made by some remain voters (and I write as a remain voter) is that the average leave voter was less well educated than the average remain voter. Ignoring for the moment the extent to which this is due to the different cohorts involved, I wonder why this suprises anyone? If you are well educated then you are much more likely to be fluent in a European language, you are much more likely to have skills that make you employable in other European countries and you are less likely to find people from those countries competing for your jobs. As an example I can’t remember the last time that we were inundated with applicants for a Physics teaching post from the EU (or indeed the UK come to that). So for the well educated the EU represents a huge range of possibilities with little downside.
For those who are not fluent (and probably hated their French lessons at school) the jobs market of the EU is largely closed to them: there are jobs that are can be performed in English but they tend to require other high level qualifications. On the contrary they think that there is a pool of well educated, fairly fluent speakers of English who are happy to work here for lower wages than they will. This last bit is contentious (to say the least) but I think that we can agree that the perception that it is true swayed a lot of votes.
In summary: less well educated people were more likely to vote leave not because they were stupid but because for them the Free Movement of the EU has not worked as well as it has for those of us who are well educated; they have seen few of the advantages and more of the disadvantages.
The puzzle is, what point this claim is meant to make. Do the less well educated have less of a stake in the state, less of a right to an opinion, are they less intelligent, are they some kind of untermenschen?
One point often made by some remain voters (and I write as a remain voter) is that the average leave voter was less well educated than the average remain voter. Ignoring for the moment the extent to which this is due to the different cohorts involved, I wonder why this suprises anyone? If you are well educated then you are much more likely to be fluent in a European language, you are much more likely to have skills that make you employable in other European countries and you are less likely to find people from those countries competing for your jobs. As an example I can’t remember the last time that we were inundated with applicants for a Physics teaching post from the EU (or indeed the UK come to that). So for the well educated the EU represents a huge range of possibilities with little downside.
For those who are not fluent (and probably hated their French lessons at school) the jobs market of the EU is largely closed to them: there are jobs that are can be performed in English but they tend to require other high level qualifications. On the contrary they think that there is a pool of well educated, fairly fluent speakers of English who are happy to work here for lower wages than they will. This last bit is contentious (to say the least) but I think that we can agree that the perception that it is true swayed a lot of votes.
In summary: less well educated people were more likely to vote leave not because they were stupid but because for them the Free Movement of the EU has not worked as well as it has for those of us who are well educated; they have seen few of the advantages and more of the disadvantages.
That doesn’t explain why pensioners were so pro-Leave.
I think it does. Leave voters generally are disturbed by the modern world. I know that comes across as horribly patronising, but the modern world IS disturbing. The question is whether you reject it or deal with it. Rejection isn't a solution IMO. Brexit makes dealing with the modern world much, much harder.
The world has probably, for the ‘average’ Western person, been “dsturbing' for the last couple of hundred year. Personally I (still) regard it as challenging, but as far as my wife and are concerned it’s more a matter of advsing our grandchildren than doing much about it themselves. Whether they take the advice........
Extra £30 for ESA, but I couldn't see anything about reforming how Maximus and DWP handle the medicals (ATOS dropped out of this work last year).
Too much banning and abolishing to be regarded as "positive" rather than "negative".
I don't see a lot of banning and abolishing in that list. I see a lot of money commitments and no priorities - these are the most important things to concentrate on.
One point often made by some remain voters (and I write as a remain voter) is that the average leave voter was less well educated than the average remain voter. Ignoring for the moment the extent to which this is due to the different cohorts involved, I wonder why this suprises anyone? If you are well educated then you are much more likely to be fluent in a European language, you are much more likely to have skills that make you employable in other European countries and you are less likely to find people from those countries competing for your jobs. As an example I can’t remember the last time that we were inundated with applicants for a Physics teaching post from the EU (or indeed the UK come to that). So for the well educated the EU represents a huge range of possibilities with little downside.
For those who are not fluent (and probably hated their French lessons at school) the jobs market of the EU is largely closed to them: there are jobs that are can be performed in English but they tend to require other high level qualifications. On the contrary they think that there is a pool of well educated, fairly fluent speakers of English who are happy to work here for lower wages than they will. This last bit is contentious (to say the least) but I think that we can agree that the perception that it is true swayed a lot of votes.
In summary: less well educated people were more likely to vote leave not because they were stupid but because for them the Free Movement of the EU has not worked as well as it has for those of us who are well educated; they have seen few of the advantages and more of the disadvantages.
That doesn’t explain why pensioners were so pro-Leave.
I think it does. Leave voters generally are disturbed by the modern world. I know that comes across as horribly patronising, but the modern world IS disturbing. The question is whether you reject it or deal with it. Rejection isn't a solution IMO. Brexit makes dealing with the modern world much, much harder.
The world has probably, for the ‘average’ Western person, been “dsturbing' for the last couple of hundred year. Personally I (still) regard it as challenging, but as far as my wife and are concerned it’s more a matter of advsing our grandchildren than doing much about it themselves. Whether they take the advice........
But surely older people, once they have settled into their ways and acccumulated enough understanding of the world as it is, always find the changes being promoted by the upcoming generation to be disturbing?
On topic is Boris a dumb blonde? I don't think so, I think he is actually pretty clever.
He's also untrustworthy, intellectually dishonest, lazy, self centred, conceited, unserious, unreliable, incapable of loyalty or generating much in the way of loyalty and not a suitable person to be PM. But he's not dumb.
We have to give TSE, or whoever, kudos for the headline however, which is so terrible it's almost genius.
Regarding Boris, I'd suggest he is quick and very clever, but not particularly intelligent.
Earlier on this week a former MP reminded me that when Boris ran in the election to be Rector of Edinburgh University his opponents used the slogan/pamphlets with ‘Practice safe X. Don't wake up with a dumb blond.’
Maybe you and I and people like us who benefited hugely from the previous settlement need to realise that for others it was not anywhere near as it good as it was for us and ask ourselves why that was.
This is a good question that deserves a full answer. I will seek to address it when I get a bit of time. For now, it’s worth noting that if no one talks to the middle-aged woman about how plausible her imagined alternatives are, she may make poor choices. No one has been making the case for solid stability in Britain for many years.
On your other question, no that’s not a correct statement of my position. Immigration is a subject where it’s easy to frighten people by working on their basest instincts rather than have a measured discussion and the Leave campaign consciously opted to frighten people.
Thank you for your clarification. I look forward to your answer.
For now, I will tease you a bit. A man preaching the virtues of solid stability to a middle aged woman who has been relied on but ignored for years is.... well, brave.
The point about middle aged women is that they become invisible, often despite being wise, comfortable in their own skin at last and beautiful. They need to fight to be heard and, even then, are often patronised or described in insulting terms: “harridan”, “bossy”, “nagging”. They are relied on but not valued.
And rather more than you might expect are not just content with the “deep deep peace of the double bed” but would like to enjoy once more the “hurly burly of the chaise longue”.
Men as well as women have midlife crises. They rarely end well either.
Oh I am sure. But middle aged men do not find themselves invisible and undervalued in the way that women of the same age do. It is often their prime, when they reach the commanding heights of their career and are listened to, sought out etc. Look at any profession or company and see how many women in their 50’s who have families are in positions of power.
It is not just a mid-life crisis for women. It is about feeling useless and un or undervalued at precisely the time when they have a great deal to contribute beyond what they do already while at the same time being expected - as usual - to keep the whole bloody show on the road, usually for little reward.
Teaching is, perhaps, an exception to that ? But I agree with your general point - and also that middle aged women tend to be the most interesting people to have a conversation with.
One point often made by some remain voters (and I write as a remain voter) is that the average leave voter was less well educated than the average remain voter. Ignoring for the moment the extent to which this is due to the different cohorts involved, I wonder why this suprises anyone? If you are well educated then you are much more likely to be fluent in a European language, you are much more likely to have skills that make you employable in other European countries and you are less likely to find people from those countries competing for your jobs. As an example I can’t remember the last time that we were inundated with applicants for a Physics teaching post from the EU (or indeed the UK come to that). So for the well educated the EU represents a huge range of possibilities with little downside.
For those who are not fluent (and probably hated their French lessons at school) the jobs market of the EU is largely closed to them: there are jobs that are can be performed in English but they tend to require other high level qualifications. On the contrary they think that there is a pool of well educated, fairly fluent speakers of English who are happy to work here for lower wages than they will. This last bit is contentious (to say the least) but I think that we can agree that the perception that it is true swayed a lot of votes.
In summary: less well educated people were more likely to vote leave not because they were stupid but because for them the Free Movement of the EU has not worked as well as it has for those of us who are well educated; they have seen few of the advantages and more of the disadvantages.
The puzzle is, what point this claim is meant to make. Do the less well educated have less of a stake in the state, less of a right to an opinion, are they less intelligent, are they some kind of untermenschen?
To be honest, Fysics's statement is simply one of the obvious. Quite clearly, people with less personal experience of Europe and for whom the benefits of integration are academic will be less pro-European than those for whom it opens doors and opportunity. None of this helps us get at what is the right choice for the country as a whole.
One point often made by some remain voters (and I write as a remain voter) is that the average leave voter was less well educated than the average remain voter. Ignoring for the moment the extent to which this is due to the different cohorts involved, I wonder why this suprises anyone? If you are well educated then you are much more likely to be fluent in a European language, you are much more likely to have skills that make you employable in other European countries and you are less likely to find people from those countries competing for your jobs. As an example I can’t remember the last time that we were inundated with applicants for a Physics teaching post from the EU (or indeed the UK come to that). So for the well educated the EU represents a huge range of possibilities with little downside.
For those who are not fluent (and probably hated their French lessons at school) the jobs market of the EU is largely closed to them: there are jobs that are can be performed in English but they tend to require other high level qualifications. On the contrary they think that there is a pool of well educated, fairly fluent speakers of English who are happy to work here for lower wages than they will. This last bit is contentious (to say the least) but I think that we can agree that the perception that it is true swayed a lot of votes.
In summary: less well educated people were more likely to vote leave not because they were stupid but because for them the Free Movement of the EU has not worked as well as it has for those of us who are well educated; they have seen few of the advantages and more of the disadvantages.
The puzzle is, what point this claim is meant to make. Do the less well educated have less of a stake in the state, less of a right to an opinion, are they less intelligent, are they some kind of untermenschen?
Quite the opposite: if what I have said is true then they voted logically in what they though were their own interests just as much as most remainers will have done. I wrote it because I was irritated with those who dismissed them because they were less well educated without thinking about why that made their votes logically correct for them.
For those who are not fluent (and probably hated their French lessons at school) the jobs market of the EU is largely closed to them: there are jobs that are can be performed in English but they tend to require other high level qualifications. On the contrary they think that there is a pool of well educated, fairly fluent speakers of English who are happy to work here for lower wages than they will. This last bit is contentious (to say the least) but I think that we can agree that the perception that it is true swayed a lot of votes.
In summary: less well educated people were more likely to vote leave not because they were stupid but because for them the Free Movement of the EU has not worked as well as it has for those of us who are well educated; they have seen few of the advantages and more of the disadvantages.
That doesn’t explain why pensioners were so pro-Leave.
I think it does. Leave voters generally are disturbed by the modern world. I know that comes across as horribly patronising, but the modern world IS disturbing. The question is whether you reject it or deal with it. Rejection isn't a solution IMO. Brexit makes dealing with the modern world much, much harder.
The world has probably, for the ‘average’ Western person, been “dsturbing' for the last couple of hundred year. Personally I (still) regard it as challenging, but as far as my wife and are concerned it’s more a matter of advsing our grandchildren than doing much about it themselves. Whether they take the advice........
But surely older people, once they have settled into their ways and acccumulated enough understanding of the world as it is, always find the changes being promoted by the upcoming generation to be disturbing?
It seems it is the younger person who is afraid of the change to leave the EU. Older people remember the time before we were in the EU and so are not afraid.
One point often made by some remain voters (and I write as a remain voter) is that the average leave voter was less well educated than the average remain voter. Ignoring for the moment the extent to which this is due to the different cohorts involved, I wonder why this suprises anyone? If you are well educated then you are much more likely to be fluent in a European language, you are much more likely to have skills that make you employable in other European countries and you are less likely to find people from those countries competing for your jobs. As an example I can’t remember the last time that we were inundated with applicants for a Physics teaching post from the EU (or indeed the UK come to that). So for the well educated the EU represents a huge range of possibilities with little downside.
For those who are not fluent (and probably hated their French lessons at school) the jobs market of the EU is largely closed to them: there are jobs that are can be performed in English but they tend to require other high level qualifications. On the contrary they think that there is a pool of well educated, fairly fluent speakers of English who are happy to work here for lower wages than they will. This last bit is contentious (to say the least) but I think that we can agree that the perception that it is true swayed a lot of votes.
In summary: less well educated people were more likely to vote leave not because they were stupid but because for them the Free Movement of the EU has not worked as well as it has for those of us who are well educated; they have seen few of the advantages and more of the disadvantages.
No, its because they were all xenophobes. Alastair has told us so at least 200 times so it must be true.
One point often made by some remain voters (and I write as a remain voter) is that the average leave voter was less well educated than the average remain voter. Ignoring for the moment the extent to which this is due to the different cohorts involved, I wonder why this suprises anyone? If you are well educated then you are much more likely to be fluent in a European language, you are much more likely to have skills that make you employable in other European countries and you are less likely to find people from those countries competing for your jobs. As an example I can’t remember the last time that we were inundated with applicants for a Physics teaching post from the EU (or indeed the UK come to that). So for the well educated the EU represents a huge range of possibilities with little downside.
For those who are not fluent (and probably hated their French lessons at school) the jobs market of the EU is largely closed to them: there are jobs that are can be performed in English but they tend to require other high level qualifications. On the contrary they think that there is a pool of well educated, fairly fluent speakers of English who are happy to work here for lower wages than they will. This last bit is contentious (to say the least) but I think that we can agree that the perception that it is true swayed a lot of votes.
In summary: less well educated people were more likely to vote leave not because they were stupid but because for them the Free Movement of the EU has not worked as well as it has for those of us who are well educated; they have seen few of the advantages and more of the disadvantages.
That doesn’t explain why pensioners were so pro-Leave.
I think it does. Leave voters generally are disturbed by the modern world. I know that comes across as horribly patronising, but the modern world IS disturbing. The question is whether you reject it or deal with it. Rejection isn't a solution IMO. Brexit makes dealing with the modern world much, much harder.
The world has probably, for the ‘average’ Western person, been “dsturbing' for the last couple of hundred year. Personally I (still) regard it as challenging, but as far as my wife and are concerned it’s more a matter of advsing our grandchildren than doing much about it themselves. Whether they take the advice........
I think what is different now is the perception that things used to be better for ordinary people.That perception has been a couple of decades in the making though.
One point often made by some remain voters (and I write as a remain voter) is that the average leave voter was less well educated than the average remain voter. Ignoring for the moment the extent to which this is due to the different cohorts involved, I wonder why this suprises anyone? If you are well educated then you are much more likely to be fluent in a European language, you are much more likely to have skills that make you employable in other European countries and you are less likely to find people from those countries competing for your jobs. As an example I can’t remember the last time that we were inundated with applicants for a Physics teaching post from the EU (or indeed the UK come to that). So for the well educated the EU represents a huge range of possibilities with little downside.
For those who are not fluent (and probably hated their French lessons at school) the jobs market of the EU is largely closed to them: there are jobs that are can be performed in English but they tend to require other high level qualifications. On the contrary they think that there is a pool of well educated, fairly fluent speakers of English who are happy to work here for lower wages than they will. This last bit is contentious (to say the least) but I think that we can agree that the perception that it is true swayed a lot of votes.
In summary: less well educated people were more likely to vote leave not because they were stupid but because for them the Free Movement of the EU has not worked as well as it has for those of us who are well educated; they have seen few of the advantages and more of the disadvantages.
The puzzle is, what point this claim is meant to make. Do the less well educated have less of a stake in the state, less of a right to an opinion, are they less intelligent, are they some kind of untermenschen?
Quite the opposite: if what I have said is true then they voted logically in what they though were their own interests just as much as most remainers will have done. I wrote it because I was irritated with those who dismissed them because they were less well educated without thinking about why that made their votes logically correct for them.
I was attacking the claim which you identify, that leave voters were less well educated, *not* what you were saying about the claim (which I agree with).
For those who are not fluent (and probably hated their French lessons at school) the jobs market of the EU is largely closed to them: there are jobs that are can be performed in English but they tend to require other high level qualifications. On the contrary they think that there is a pool of well educated, fairly fluent speakers of English who are happy to work here for lower wages than they will. This last bit is contentious (to say the least) but I think that we can agree that the perception that it is true swayed a lot of votes.
In summary: less well educated people were more likely to vote leave not because they were stupid but because for them the Free Movement of the EU has not worked as well as it has for those of us who are well educated; they have seen few of the advantages and more of the disadvantages.
The puzzle is, what point this claim is meant to make. Do the less well educated have less of a stake in the state, less of a right to an opinion, are they less intelligent, are they some kind of untermenschen?
There’s one point in Mr Teacher’s post that needs taking up. Too many British students have, over the past 40 or so years ‘dropped out’ of learning languages and in consequence have either not taken up opportunities abroad or only done so where they felt they could manage with English-and-a-smattering. I referred upthread to pharmacists; when smug retired people (like me) asked colleagues why they didn’t up sticks and go to parts of Europe where the pay was better the language was almost always the reason. Many of our European colleagues, not just language graduates, learn English to a much higher standard than we do any Western European language. Indeed there are tales about Aussies failing the new language tests while Europeans are passing them!
Watching the tributes to John McCain what a loss to the US he is and the contrast to the terrible President Trump
McCain wasn't regarded that way the last time he ran for president.
McCain's best shot at President was really 2000 not 2008. Had he won the South Carolina primary to add to his wins in New Hampshire and Michigan he would likely have beaten George W Bush for the GOP nomination and then beaten Gore in the general election.
He had no real chance of beating Obama though by 2008
Watching the tributes to John McCain what a loss to the US he is and the contrast to the terrible President Trump
McCain wasn't regarded that way the last time he ran for president.
There I disagree. He was regarded as less likely to be an effective president than Obama. This may have been true. There does not appear to have been any personal animus in either campaign and McCain actually defended Obama against the 'birther' movement.
I remain convinced that had he been facing Hilary he would have won in a landslide, and I know many Democrats privately thought so too.
One point often made by some remain voters (and I write as a remain voter) is that the average leave voter was less well educated than the average remain voter. Ignoring for the moment the extent to which this is due to the different cohorts involved, I wonder why this suprises anyone? If you are well educated then you are much more likely to be fluent in a European language, you are much more likely to have skills that make you employable in other European countries and you are less likely to find people from those countries competing for your jobs. As an example I can’t remember the last time that we were inundated with applicants for a Physics teaching post from the EU (or indeed the UK come to that). So for the well educated the EU represents a huge range of possibilities with little downside.
For those who are not fluent (and probably hated their French lessons at school) the jobs market of the EU is largely closed to them: there are jobs that are can be performed in English but they tend to require other high level qualifications. On the contrary they think that there is a pool of well educated, fairly fluent speakers of English who are happy to work here for lower wages than they will. This last bit is contentious (to say the least) but I think that we can agree that the perception that it is true swayed a lot of votes.
In summary: less well educated people were more likely to vote leave not because they were stupid but because for them the Free Movement of the EU has not worked as well as it has for those of us who are well educated; they have seen few of the advantages and more of the disadvantages.
That doesn’t explain why pensioners were so pro-Leave.
Pensioners are less educated by dint of time; in years past it was far less common to get the opportunity to go to university and beyond.
0ood to see you think I am less educated even though I did actually vote remain
No personal comment was intended, and of course there are very educated older people. But my family's experience is common - my parents (and grandparents) were from ordinary backgrounds, and the opportunity to go to university was never realistically on offer. Of my generation, I was the very first in my wider family to do so. Of my nephews and nieces, several of them have, although one can debate to what extent this was a wise decision for some of them. The bottom line is that, amongst older people, only the privileged or exceptionally talented got such a chance; amongst my cohort it was probably the more fortunate or able 30%, and nowadays it is a majority.
One point often made by some remain voters (and I write as a remain voter) is that the average leave voter was less well educated than the average remain voter. Ignoring for the moment the extent to which this is due to the different cohorts involved, I wonder why this suprises anyone? If you are well educated then you are much more likely to be fluent in a European language, you are much more likely to have skills that make you employable in other European countries and you are less likely to find people from those countries competing for your jobs. As an example I can’t remember the last time that we were inundated with applicants for a Physics teaching post from the EU (or indeed the UK come to that). So for the well educated the EU represents a huge range of possibilities with little downside.
For those who are not fluent (and probably hated their French lessons at school) the jobs market of the EU is largely closed to them: there are jobs that are can be performed in English but they tend to require other high level qualifications. On the contrary they think that there is a pool of well educated, fairly fluent speakers of English who are happy to work here for lower wages than they will. This last bit is contentious (to say the least) but I think that we can agree that the perception that it is true swayed a lot of votes.
In summary: less well educated people were more likely to vote leave not because they were stupid but because for them the Free Movement of the EU has not worked as well as it has for those of us who are well educated; they have seen few of the advantages and more of the disadvantages.
That doesn’t explain why pensioners were so pro-Leave.
I think it does. Leave voters generally are disturbed by the modern world. I know that comes across as horribly patronising, but the modern world IS disturbing. The question is whether you reject it or deal with it. Rejection isn't a solution IMO. Brexit makes dealing with the modern world much, much harder.
The world has probably, for the ‘average’ Western person, been “dsturbing' for the last couple of hundred year. Personally I (still) regard it as challenging, but as far as my wife and are concerned it’s more a matter of advsing our grandchildren than doing much about it themselves. Whether they take the advice........
I think what is different now is the perception that things used to be better for ordinary people.That perception has been a couple of decades in the making though.
One point often made by some remain voters (and I write as a remain voter) is that the average leave voter was less well educated than the average remain voter. Ignoring for the moment the extent to which this is due to the different cohorts involved, I wonder why this suprises anyone? If you are well educated then you are much more likely to be fluent in a European language, you are much more likely to have skills that make you employable in other European countries and you are less likely to find people from those countries competing for your jobs. As an example I can’t remember the last time that we were inundated with applicants for a Physics teaching post from the EU (or indeed the UK come to that). So for the well educated the EU represents a huge range of possibilities with little downside.
For those who are not fluent (and probably hated their French lessons at school) the jobs market of the EU is largely closed to them: there are jobs that are can be performed in English but they tend to require other high level qualifications. On the contrary they think that there is a pool of well educated, fairly fluent speakers of English who are happy to work here for lower wages than they will. This last bit is contentious (to say the least) but I think that we can agree that the perception that it is true swayed a lot of votes.
In summary: less well educated people were more likely to vote leave not because they were stupid but because for them the Free Movement of the EU has not worked as well as it has for those of us who are well educated; they have seen few of the advantages and more of the disadvantages.
That doesn’t explain why pensioners were so pro-Leave.
No, but I wasn’t really trying to.
The odd thing is that as the last referendum was some 40 years ago todays pensioners must have been among those who voted to join. Admittedly that was the common market, not the EU. Another difference is that the Tories were officially FOR last time, but significantly often AGAINST this.
In 1975 we were sold the "common market" not a political union. I seem to recall we were specifically told it would not be a political union.
One point often made by some remain voters (and I write as a remain voter) is that the average leave voter was less well educated than the average remain voter. Ignoring for the moment the extent to which this is due to the different cohorts involved, I wonder why this suprises anyone? If you are well educated then you are much more likely to be fluent in a European language, you are much more likely to have skills that make you employable in other European countries and you are less likely to find people from those countries competing for your jobs. As an example I can’t remember the last time that we were inundated with applicants for a Physics teaching post from the EU (or indeed the UK come to that). So for the well educated the EU represents a huge range of possibilities with little downside.
For those who are not fluent (and probably hated their French lessons at school) the jobs market of the EU is largely closed to them: there are jobs that are can be performed in English but they tend to require other high level qualifications. On the contrary they think that there is a pool of well educated, fairly fluent speakers of English who are happy to work here for lower wages than they will. This last bit is contentious (to say the least) but I think that we can agree that the perception that it is true swayed a lot of votes.
In summary: less well educated people were more likely to vote leave not because they were stupid but because for them the Free Movement of the EU has not worked as well as it has for those of us who are well educated; they have seen few of the advantages and more of the disadvantages.
That doesn’t explain why pensioners were so pro-Leave.
No, but I wasn’t really trying to.
The odd thing is that as the last referendum was some 40 years ago todays pensioners must have been among those who voted to join. Admittedly that was the common market, not the EU. Another difference is that the Tories were officially FOR last time, but significantly often AGAINST this.
In 1975 we were sold the "common market" not a political union. I seem to recall we were specifically told it would not be a political union.
That does rather depend on what contemporary commentary you choose to read.
One point often made by some remain voters (and I write as a remain voter) is that the average leave voter was less well educated than the average remain voter. Ignoring for the moment the extent to which this is due to the different cohorts involved, I wonder why this suprises anyone? If you are well educated then you are much more likely to be fluent in a European language, you are much more likely to have skills that make you employable in other European countries and you are less likely to find people from those countries competing for your jobs. As an example I can’t remember the last time that we were inundated with applicants for a Physics teaching post from the EU (or indeed the UK come to that). So for the well educated the EU represents a huge range of possibilities with little downside.
For those who are not fluent (and probably hated their French lessons at school) the jobs market of the EU is largely closed to them: there are jobs that are can be performed in English but they tend to require other high level qualifications. On the contrary they think that there is a pool of well educated, fairly fluent speakers of English who are happy to work here for lower wages than they will. This last bit is contentious (to say the least) but I think that we can agree that the perception that it is true swayed a lot of votes.
In summary: less well educated people were more likely to vote leave not because they were stupid but because for them the Free Movement of the EU has not worked as well as it has for those of us who are well educated; they have seen few of the advantages and more of the disadvantages.
That doesn’t explain why pensioners were so pro-Leave.
Pensioners are less educated by dint of time; in years past it was far less common to get the opportunity to go to university and beyond.
You think going to university and having a bit of paper makes younger people better able to make decisions than people who have had a life time of experience? Methinks the pensioners understand they have been stuffed by the university educated politicians and decided to poke the pompous sanctimonious know it all greedy gits in the eye.
One point often made by some remain voters (and I write as a remain voter) is that the average leave voter was less well educated than the average remain voter. Ignoring for the moment the extent to which this is due to the different cohorts involved, I wonder why this suprises anyone? If you are well educated then you are much more likely to be fluent in a European language, you are much more likely to have skills that make you employable in other European countries and you are less likely to find people from those countries competing for your jobs. As an example I can’t remember the last time that we were inundated with applicants for a Physics teaching post from the EU (or indeed the UK come to that). So for the well educated the EU represents a huge range of possibilities with little downside.
For those who are not fluent (and probably hated their French lessons at school) the jobs market of the EU is largely closed to them: there are jobs that are can be performed in English but they tend to require other high level qualifications. On the contrary they think that there is a pool of well educated, fairly fluent speakers of English who are happy to work here for lower wages than they will. This last bit is contentious (to say the least) but I think that we can agree that the perception that it is true swayed a lot of votes.
In summary: less well educated people were more likely to vote leave not because they were stupid but because for them the Free Movement of the EU has not worked as well as it has for those of us who are well educated; they have seen few of the advantages and more of the disadvantages.
That doesn’t explain why pensioners were so pro-Leave.
No, but I wasn’t really trying to.
The odd thing is that as the last referendum was some 40 years ago todays pensioners must have been among those who voted to join. Admittedly that was the common market, not the EU. Another difference is that the Tories were officially FOR last time, but significantly often AGAINST this.
In 1975 we were sold the "common market" not a political union. I seem to recall we were specifically told it would not be a political union.
One point often made by some remain voters (and I write as a remain voter) is that the average leave voter was less well educated than the average remain voter. Ignoring for the moment the extent to which this is due to the different cohorts involved, I wonder why this suprises anyone? If you are well educated then you are much more likely to be fluent in a European language, you are much more likely to have skills that make you employable in other European countries and you are less likely to find people from those countries competing for your jobs. As an example I can’t remember the last time that we were inundated with applicants for a Physics teaching post from the EU (or indeed the UK come to that). So for the well educated the EU represents a huge range of possibilities with little downside.
For those who are not fluent (and probably hated their French lessons at school) the jobs market of the EU is largely closed to them: there are jobs that are can be performed in English but they tend to require other high level qualifications. On the contrary they think that there is a pool of well educated, fairly fluent speakers of English who are happy to work here for lower wages than they will. This last bit is contentious (to say the least) but I think that we can agree that the perception that it is true swayed a lot of votes.
In summary: less well educated people were more likely to vote leave not because they were stupid but because for them the Free Movement of the EU has not worked as well as it has for those of us who are well educated; they have seen few of the advantages and more of the disadvantages.
The puzzle is, what point this claim is meant to make. Do the less well educated have less of a stake in the state, less of a right to an opinion, are they less intelligent, are they some kind of untermenschen?
To be honest, Fysics's statement is simply one of the obvious. Quite clearly, people with less personal experience of Europe and for whom the benefits of integration are academic will be less pro-European than those for whom it opens doors and opportunity. None of this helps us get at what is the right choice for the country as a whole.
I’m open to suggestions on that one. I think ignoring the result of the referendum is not one though.
You sought to engage in spectacular whataboutery when I pointed out the decisive groups in the referendum were pensioners, who are more affluent than ever (not just absolutely but relatively), and affluent reactionaries. Then you tied yourself up in knots.
Just as the French Revolution didn’t happen because peasants were starving, Brexit was essentially driven by people who felt rich enough to indulge their prejudices.
The middle classes were the big winners from the French Revolution as they got property on the cheap that was confiscated from the aristocracy and the Church. Who will be the winners from Brexit? Bureaucrats will do well from the extra barriers and red tape. Hedge fund managers can profit from the uncertainty. It looks like workers may enjoy a short term buyer's market as immigrant workers turn away from the UK, during the lag before business offshores. Any others?
And following this theme, the big losers from Brexit will be those that depend on welfare or are employed by the state, as well as anyone invested in business in the UK.
Not sure about that, Brexit got rid of Osborne and his 35% of GDP spending target.
It will likely be the City most hit by May's plan to only stay in the single market for goods but not services
One point often made by some remain voters (and I write as a remain voter) is that the average leave voter was less well educated than the average remain voter. Ignoring for the moment the extent to which this is due to the different cohorts involved, I wonder why this suprises anyone? If you are well educated then you are much more likely to be fluent in a European language, you are much more likely to have skills that make you employable in other European countries and you are less likely to find people from those countries competing for your jobs. As an example I can’t remember the last time that we were inundated with applicants for a Physics teaching post from the EU (or indeed the UK come to that). So for the well educated the EU represents a huge range of possibilities with little downside.
For those who are not fluent (and probably hated their French lessons at school) the jobs market of the EU is largely closed to them: there are jobs that are can be performed in English but they tend to require other high level qualifications. On the contrary they think that there is a pool of well educated, fairly fluent speakers of English who are happy to work here for lower wages than they will. This last bit is contentious (to say the least) but I think that we can agree that the perception that it is true swayed a lot of votes.
In summary: less well educated people were more likely to vote leave not because they were stupid but because for them the Free Movement of the EU has not worked as well as it has for those of us who are well educated; they have seen few of the advantages and more of the disadvantages.
The puzzle is, what point this claim is meant to make. Do the less well educated have less of a stake in the state, less of a right to an opinion, are they less intelligent, are they some kind of untermenschen?
Quite the opposite: if what I have said is true then they voted logically in what they though were their own interests just as much as most remainers will have done. I wrote it because I was irritated with those who dismissed them because they were less well educated without thinking about why that made their votes logically correct for them.
I was attacking the claim which you identify, that leave voters were less well educated, *not* what you were saying about the claim (which I agree with).
For those who are not fluent (and probably hated their French lessons at school) the jobs market of the EU is largely closed to them: there are jobs that are can be performed in English but they tend to require other high level qualifications. On the contrary they think that there is a pool of well educated, fairly fluent speakers of English who are happy to work here for lower wages than they will. This last bit is contentious (to say the least) but I think that we can agree that the perception that it is true swayed a lot of votes.
In summary: less well educated people were more likely to vote leave not because they were stupid but because for them the Free Movement of the EU has not worked as well as it has for those of us who are well educated; they have seen few of the advantages and more of the disadvantages.
That doesn’t explain why pensioners were so pro-Leave.
I think it does. Leave voters generally are disturbed by the modern world. I know that comes across as horribly patronising, but the modern world IS disturbing. The question is whether you reject it or deal with it. Rejection isn't a solution IMO. Brexit makes dealing with the modern world much, much harder.
The world has probably, for the ‘average’ Western person, been “dsturbing' for the last couple of hundred year. Personally I (still) regard it as challenging, but as far as my wife and are concerned it’s more a matter of advsing our grandchildren than doing much about it themselves. Whether they take the advice........
But surely older people, once they have settled into their ways and acccumulated enough understanding of the world as it is, always find the changes being promoted by the upcoming generation to be disturbing?
It seems it is the younger person who is afraid of the change to leave the EU. Older people remember the time before we were in the EU and so are not afraid.
But older people simply don't understand (or are immune from, being on secure fixed incomes, or safely overseas like so many PB leavers) the transitional costs, disruption and damage that will be involved in travelling from our current universe to one of the parellel ones that might have arisen from their youth.
Besides, if they really remembered the 1970s, they would recall our imperative to join.
Watching the tributes to John McCain what a loss to the US he is and the contrast to the terrible President Trump
McCain wasn't regarded that way the last time he ran for president.
I think he was. I remember him putting down a supporter who claimed that Obama wasn't patriotic. That's really rare in the middle of a campaign - political leaders tend to praise opponents only when they're retired or dead.
On topic is Boris a dumb blonde? I don't think so, I think he is actually pretty clever.
He's also untrustworthy, intellectually dishonest, lazy, self centred, conceited, unserious, unreliable, incapable of loyalty or generating much in the way of loyalty and not a suitable person to be PM. But he's not dumb.
We have to give TSE, or whoever, kudos for the headline however, which is so terrible it's almost genius.
Regarding Boris, I'd suggest he is quick and very clever, but not particularly intelligent.
Earlier on this week a former MP reminded me that when Boris ran in the election to be Rector of Edinburgh University his opponents used the slogan/pamphlets with ‘Practice safe X. Don't wake up with a dumb blond.’
Fortunately the current leadership rules look like an effective barrier method.
One point often made by some remain voters (and I write as a remain voter) is that the average leave voter was less well educated than the average remain voter. Ignoring for the moment the extent to which this is due to the different cohorts involved, I wonder why this suprises anyone? If you are well educated then you are much more likely to be fluent in a European language, you are much more likely to have skills that make you employable in other European countries and you are less likely to find people from those countries competing for your jobs. As an example I can’t remember the last time that we were inundated with applicants for a Physics teaching post from the EU (or indeed the UK come to that). So for the well educated the EU represents a huge range of possibilities with little downside.
For those who are not fluent (and probably hated their French lessons at school) the jobs market of the EU is largely closed to them: there are jobs that are can be performed in English but they tend to require other high level qualifications. On the contrary they think that there is a pool of well educated, fairly fluent speakers of English who are happy to work here for lower wages than they will. This last bit is contentious (to say the least) but I think that we can agree that the perception that it is true swayed a lot of votes.
In summary: less well educated people were more likely to vote leave not because they were stupid but because for them the Free Movement of the EU has not worked as well as it has for those of us who are well educated; they have seen few of the advantages and more of the disadvantages.
That doesn’t explain why pensioners were so pro-Leave.
Pensioners are less educated by dint of time; in years past it was far less common to get the opportunity to go to university and beyond.
You think going to university and having a bit of paper makes younger people better able to make decisions than people who have had a life time of experience? Methinks the pensioners understand they have been stuffed by the university educated politicians and decided to poke the pompous sanctimonious know it all greedy gits in the eye.
Not at all. The issue was why Remain voters, who are on average younger, are more educated. It's a simple matter of fact.
One point often made by some remain voters (and I write as a remain voter) is that the average leave voter was less well educated than the average remain voter. Ignoring for the moment the extent to which this is due to the different cohorts involved, I wonder why this suprises anyone? If you are well educated then you are much more likely to be fluent in a European language, you are much more likely to have skills that make you employable in other European countries and you are less likely to find people from those countries competing for your jobs. As an example I can’t remember the last time that we were inundated with applicants for a Physics teaching post from the EU (or indeed the UK come to that). So for the well educated the EU represents a huge range of possibilities with little downside.
For those who are not fluent (and probably hated their French lessons at school) the jobs market of the EU is largely closed to them: there are jobs that are can be performed in English but they tend to require other
That doesn’t explain why pensioners were so pro-Leave.
Pensioners are less educated by dint of time; in years past it was far less common to get the opportunity to go to university and beyond.
0ood to see you think I am less educated even though I did actually vote remain
No personal comment was intended, and of course there are very educated older people. But my family's experience is common - my parents (and grandparents) were from ordinary backgrounds, and the opportunity to go to university was never realistically on offer. Of my generation, I was the very first in my wider family to do so. Of my nephews and nieces, several of them have, although one can debate to what extent this was a wise decision for some of them. The bottom line is that, amongst older people, only the privileged or exceptionally talented got such a chance; amongst my cohort it was probably the more fortunate or able 30%, and nowadays it is a majority.
Any fool can get a degree nowadays, they give them out like sweeties , does not mean they are any smarter for sure. I would say today's generation know more but most of it unimportant. They are mostly woosies and snowflakes who cannot take the pressure and easily offended. Things are not improved since we started sending any tom, dick and henrietta to Uni.
One point often made by some remain voters (and I write as a remain voter)
That doesn’t explain why pensioners were so pro-Leave.
Pensioners are less educated by dint of time; in years past it was far less common to get the opportunity to go to university and beyond.
0ood to see you think I am less educated even though I did actually vote remain
No personal comment was intended, and of course there are very educated older people. But my family's experience is common - my parents (and grandparents) were from ordinary backgrounds, and the opportunity to go to university was never realistically on offer. Of my generation, I was the very first in my wider family to do so. Of my nephews and nieces, several of them have, although one can debate to what extent this was a wise decision for some of them. The bottom line is that, amongst older people, only the privileged or exceptionally talented got such a chance; amongst my cohort it was probably the more fortunate or able 30%, and nowadays it is a majority.
When I left school in 1960 University was free but only exceptional talent took up the places while there were a huge number of opportunities and apprentices to go into.
I never even thought of University but I worked in various jobs from shipbuilding to insurance to the police to retail and then a business partnership of over 35 years. I am retired and have travelled the world many times, have three children and four grandchildren and a lovely lady wife of 54 years.
I think far too much store is put on University, that it should be reduced to two years full time study, and that for the majority good quality apprenticeships and learning on the job is a path to a happy and content future
One point often made by some remain voters (and I write as a remain voter)
That doesn’t explain why pensioners were so pro-Leave.
Pensioners are less educated by dint of time; in years past it was far less common to get the opportunity to go to university and beyond.
0ood to see you think I am less educated even though I did actually vote remain
No personal comment was intended, and of course there are very educated older people. But my family's experience is common - my parents (and grandparents) were from ordinary backgrounds, and the opportunity to go to university was never realistically on offer. Of my generation, I was the very first in my wider family to do so. Of my nephews and nieces, several of them have, although one can debate to what extent this was a wise decision for some of them. The bottom line is that, amongst older people, only the privileged or exceptionally talented got such a chance; amongst my cohort it was probably the more fortunate or able 30%, and nowadays it is a majority.
When I left school in 1960 University was free but only exceptional talent took up the places while there were a huge number of opportunities and apprentices to go into.
I never even thought of University but I worked in various jobs from shipbuilding to insurance to the police to retail and then a business partnership of over 35 years. I am retired and have travelled the world many times, have three children and four grandchildren and a lovely lady wife of 54 years.
I think far too much store is put on University, that it should be reduced to two years full time study, and that for the majority good quality apprenticeships and learning on the job is a path to a happy and content future
I agree. Nevertheless the fact remains that for the younger generation it is almost an expectation for anyone with any ability at school, whereas as you work up the age scale it becomes less and less common.
One point often made by some remain voters (and I write as a remain voter)
That doesn’t explain why pensioners were so pro-Leave.
Pensioners are less educated by dint of time; in years past it was far less common to get the opportunity to go to university and beyond.
0ood to see you think I am less educated even though I did actually vote remain
No personal comment was intended, and of course there are very educated older people. But my family's experience is common - my parents (and grandparents) were from ordinary backgrounds, and the opportunity to go to university was never realistically on offer. Of my generation, I was the very first in my wider family to do so. Of my nephews and nieces, several of them have, although one can debate to what extent this was a wise decision for some of them. The bottom line is that, amongst older people, only the privileged or exceptionally talented got such a chance; amongst my cohort it was probably the more fortunate or able 30%, and nowadays it is a majority.
When I left school in 1960 University was free but only exceptional talent took up the places while there were a huge number of opportunities and apprentices to go into.
I never even thought of University but I worked in various jobs from shipbuilding to insurance to the police to retail and then a business partnership of over 35 years. I am retired and have travelled the world many times, have three children and four grandchildren and a lovely lady wife of 54 years.
I think far too much store is put on University, that it should be reduced to two years full time study, and that for the majority good quality apprenticeships and learning on the job is a path to a happy and content future
Afternoon G, I agree. Well overrated and a huge waste of money on unnecessary courses whilst we import people to do all the good trades etc. Since the 80's the country has been run by cretins.
One point often made by some remain voters (and I write as a remain voter) is that the average leave voter was less well educated than the average remain voter. Ignoring for the moment the extent to which this is due to the different cohorts involved, I wonder why this suprises anyone? If you are well educated then you are much more likely to be fluent in a European language, you are much more likely to have skills that make you employable in other European countries and you are less likely to find people from those countries competing for your jobs. As an example I can’t remember the last time that we were inundated with applicants for a Physics teaching post from the EU (or indeed the UK come to that). So for the well educated the EU represents a huge range of possibilities with little downside.
For those who are not fluent (and probably hated their French lessons at school) the jobs market of the EU is largely closed to them: there are jobs that are can be performed in English but they tend to require other
That doesn’t explain why pensioners were so pro-Leave.
Pensioners are less educated by dint of time; in years past it was far less common to get the opportunity to go to university and beyond.
0ood to see you think I am less educated even though I did actually vote remain
No personal comment was intended, and of course there are very educated older people. But my family's experience is common - my parents (and grandparents) were from ordinary backgrounds, and the opportunity to go to university was never realistically on offer. Of my generation, I was the very first in my wider family to do so. Of my nephews and nieces, several of them have, although one can debate to what extent this was a wise decision for some of them. The bottom line is that, amongst older people, only the privileged or exceptionally talented got such a chance; amongst my cohort it was probably the more fortunate or able 30%, and nowadays it is a majority.
Any fool can get a degree nowadays, they give them out like sweeties , does not mean they are any smarter for sure. I would say today's generation know more but most of it unimportant. They are mostly woosies and snowflakes who cannot take the pressure and easily offended. Things are not improved since we started sending any tom, dick and henrietta to Uni.
Well said Malc (in your own entertaining manner of course)
One point often made by some remain voters is that the leave voter was less well educated than the average remain voter. Ignoring for the moment the extent to which this is due to the different cohorts involved, I wonder why this suprises anyone? If you are well educated then you are much more likely to be fluent in a European language, you are much more likely to have skills that make you employable in other European countries and you are less likely to find people from those countries competing for your jobs. As an example I can’t remember the last time that we were inundated with applicants for a Physics teaching post from the EU (or indeed the UK come to that). So for the well educated the EU represents a huge range of possibilities with little downside.
For those who are not fluent (and probably hated their French lessons at school) the jobs market of the EU is largely closed to them: there are jobs that are can be performed in English but they tend to require other
That doesn’t explain why pensioners were so pro-Leave.
Pensioners are less educated by dint of time; in years past it was far less common to get the opportunity to go to university and beyond.
0ood to see you think I am less educated even though I did actually vote remain
No personal comment was intended, and of course there are very educated older people. But my family's experience is common - my parents (and grandparents) were from ordinary backgrounds, and the opportunity to go to university was never realistically on offer. Of my generation, I was the very first in my wider family to do so. Of my nephews and nieces, several of them have, although one can debate to what extent this was a wise decision for some of them. The bottom line is that, amongst older people, only the privileged or exceptionally talented got such a chance; amongst my cohort it was probably the more fortunate or able 30%, and nowadays it is a majority.
Any fool can get a degree nowadays, they give them out like sweeties , does not mean they are any smarter for sure. I would say today's generation know more but most of it unimportant. They are mostly woosies and snowflakes who cannot take the pressure and easily offended. Things are not improved since we started sending any tom, dick and henrietta to Uni.
Again, I agree. Blair's target of 50% of young people going to university was always a nonsense, and led directly into Labour itself betraying the promises it had made to students, well before the LibDems followed the same path. The correlation with voting Remain is with education, not intelligence.
And are you going to conduct the same exercise for every general election too?
No sirree
Funny that. Your vaunted concern for the poor ends when it stops being a prop to justify the reactionary prejudices of the affluent.
No, referendums are different to General Elections. It was the only time in modern history people could vote for change with a chance of it actually winning. The fact that UKIP got 1/8th of the vote and 1/650th of the representation in 2015 shows that.
“My hobbyhorse is much more important than every other policy that other people care about.”
Stop using the poor as a cloak for your own prejudices.
Worth remembering that what started this was my suggestion that people should empathise with each other rather than throw stones
One point often made by some remain voters (and I write as a remain voter)
That doesn’t explain why pensioners were so pro-Leave.
Pensioners are less educated by dint of time; in years past it was far less common to get the opportunity to go to university and beyond.
0ood to see you think I am less educated even though I did actually vote remain
No personal comment was intended, and of course there are very educated older people. But my family's experience is common - my parents (and grandparents) were from ordinary backgrounds, and the opportunity to go to university was never realistically on offer. Of my generation, I was the very first in my wider family to do so. Of my nephews and nieces, several of them have, although one can debate to what extent this was a wise decision for some of them. The bottom line is that, amongst older people, only the privileged or exceptionally talented got such a chance; amongst my cohort it was probably the more fortunate or able 30%, and nowadays it is a majority.
When I left school in 1960 University was free but only exceptional talent took up the places while there were a huge number of opportunities and apprentices to go into.
I never even thought of University but I worked in various jobs from shipbuilding to insurance to the police to retail and then a business partnership of over 35 years. I am retired and have travelled the world many times, have three children and four grandchildren and a lovely lady wife of 54 years.
I think far too much store is put on University, that it should be reduced to two years full time study, and that for the majority good quality apprenticeships and learning on the job is a path to a happy and content future
I agree. Nevertheless the fact remains that for the younger generation it is almost an expectation for anyone with any ability at school, whereas as you work up the age scale it becomes less and less common.
And in the days of high fees it is morally wrong to push everyone towards University
Indeed if we reversed back somewhat and reduced the obsession with University maybe some of the top courses in medical and sciences could be free
7th september Cable to announce resignation.Next LD leader betting 8/11 Swinson 2-1 Moran.
Hard to believe the favourite is worse than Cable, they are in some state.
Why is Swinson worse than Cable? Genuine question.
I just think she is useless, an empty windbag with no talent , principles etc. Typifies why the LD's have fallen so far a female Clegg, no substance , just self seeking shallow chancers.
In fairness though Malcolm you think that of most politicians, especially those who are Scottish and not separatist.
As homework for Malcolm how about he identifies a list of non-SNP politicians that he likes?
In Scotland they are rarer than hens teeth, all of them and including many SNP are useless. SNP are best of a bad bunch but I do not think they are anything special either, only that they alone really have an interest in Scotland. Outside Scotland there are very few who I would rate as anything decent , I like Ken Clark but apart from that there is a dearth of real political talent. If you go back there used to be big hitters in all parties but most nowadays are just PPE graduates in it for the money and the glory, few if any are in it to make the country a better place.
The puzzle is, what point this claim is meant to make
There’s one point in Mr Teacher’s post that needs taking up. Too many British students have, over the past 40 or so years ‘dropped out’ of learning languages and in consequence have either not taken up opportunities abroad or only done so where they felt they could manage with English-and-a-smattering. I referred upthread to pharmacists; when smug retired people (like me) asked colleagues why they didn’t up sticks and go to parts of Europe where the pay was better the language was almost always the reason. Many of our European colleagues, not just language graduates, learn English to a much higher standard than we do any Western European language. Indeed there are tales about Aussies failing the new language tests while Europeans are passing them!
It’s a real problem yes, made more difficult because:
We start teaching languages at 11, which is about 4 years too late. I’ve visited French primary schools to check up on Y12 students (first year of sixth form in old money) doing work experience and seen very young French schoolchildren eager to practise their English.
If we want to change that then leaving the EU isn’t going to help as we don’t have anything like the number of graduates willing to become MFL teachers and most primary school teachers here are not fluent in another European language (unlike much of the EU where fluency in English is almost a given for any graduate).
Then which language do we teach? French is actually a bit of a pig to learn, particularly given spelling rules that give English a run for its money. German is seen as too hard by many (although I am told it is actually not too bad). Spanish is problably one of the easiest, but won’t really help you get that dream job in Hamburg.
Perhaps the paradox is that because everyone else speaks English (or so it seems) we end up at a severe disadvantage. Shame we are not Dutch...
One point often made by some remain voters is that the leave voter was less well educated than the average remain voter. Ignoring for the moment the extent to which this is due to the For those who are not fluent (and probably hated their French lessons at school) the jobs market of the EU is largely closed to them: there are jobs that are can be performed in English but they tend to require other
That doesn’t explain why pensioners were so pro-Leave.
Pensioners are less educated by dint of time; in years past it was far less common to get the opportunity to go to university and beyond.
0ood to see you think I am less educated even though I did actually vote remain
No personal comment was intended, and of course there are very educated older people. But my family's experience is common - my parents (and grandparents) were from ordinary backgrounds, and the opportunity to go to university was never realistically on offer. Of my generation, I was the very first in my wider family to do so. Of my nephews and nieces, several of them have, although one can debate to what extent this was a wise decision for some of them. The bottom line is that, amongst older people, only the privileged or exceptionally talented got such a chance; amongst my cohort it was probably the more fortunate or able 30%, and nowadays it is a majority.
Any fool can get a degree nowadays, they give them out like sweeties , does not mean they are any smarter for sure. I would say today's generation know more but most of it unimportant. They are mostly woosies and snowflakes who cannot take the pressure and easily offended. Things are not improved since we started sending any tom, dick and henrietta to Uni.
Again, I agree. Blair's target of 50% of young people going to university was always a nonsense, and led directly into Labour itself betraying the promises it had made to students, well before the LibDems followed the same path. The correlation with voting Remain is with education, not intelligence.
40 years ago you did not need a degree to become an accountant, a stockbroker, a police officer, a nurse, a journalist, even a solicitor or primary school teacher. You largely do now
Britain is not at all prepared for a no deal and neither is the EU. Because the consequences would be so horrendous, it is still often thought that a way will be found to avoid it. On that rests the assumption that there will be something called an agreement in the end, even if it is an almighty fudge that leaves a lot to be resolved after Britain has left. Against that, you have to observe that there has been so much miscalculation about this already and the political context is so febrile that the wise man does not entirely rule out the very worst-case scenarios. So check the size and robustness of your kitchen table and have your family practise duck and cover.
For those who are not fluent (and probably hated their French lessons at school) the jobs market of the EU is largely closed to them: there are jobs that are can be performed in English but they tend to require other high level qualifications. On the contrary they think that there is a pool of well educated, fairly fluent speakers of English who are happy to work here for lower wages than they will. This last bit is contentious (to say the least) but I think that we can agree that the perception that it is true swayed a lot of votes.
In summary: less well educated people were more likely to vote leave not because they were stupid but because for them the Free Movement of the EU has not worked as well as it has for those of us who are well educated; they have seen few of the advantages and more of the disadvantages.
That doesn’t explain why pensioners were so pro-Leave.
I think it does. Leave voters generally are disturbed by the modern world. I know that comes across as horribly patronising, but the modern world IS disturbing. The question is whether you reject it or deal with it. Rejection isn't a solution IMO. Brexit makes dealing with the modern world much, much harder.
The world has probably, for the ‘average’ Western person, been “dsturbing' for the last couple of hundred year. Personally I (still) regard it as challenging, but as far as my wife and are concerned it’s more a matter of advsing our grandchildren than doing much about it themselves. Whether they take the advice........
But surely older people, once they have settled into their ways and acccumulated enough understanding of the world as it is, always find the changes being promoted by the upcoming generation to be disturbing?
It seems it is the younger person who is afraid of the change to leave the EU. Older people remember the time before we were in the EU and so are not afraid.
But older people simply don't understand (or are immune from, being on secure fixed incomes, or safely overseas like so many PB leavers) the transitional costs, disruption and damage that will be involved in travelling from our current universe to one of the parellel ones that might have arisen from their youth.
Besides, if they really remembered the 1970s, they would recall our imperative to join.
It was Thatcher wot sorted out the country not the European Economic Community.
Britain is not at all prepared for a no deal and neither is the EU. Because the consequences would be so horrendous, it is still often thought that a way will be found to avoid it. On that rests the assumption that there will be something called an agreement in the end, even if it is an almighty fudge that leaves a lot to be resolved after Britain has left. Against that, you have to observe that there has been so much miscalculation about this already and the political context is so febrile that the wise man does not entirely rule out the very worst-case scenarios. So check the size and robustness of your kitchen table and have your family practise duck and cover.
The head to head polling of Tory v Labour under different Labour Brexit positions we have had shows that while Labour would trail badly and lose votes to the LDs in significant numbers if it took a pro Brexit position it would actually poll slightly better with the current fudged Brexit position than a clear anti Brexit line
The head to head polling of Tory v Labour under different Brexit positions we have had shows that while Labour would trail badly and lose votes to the LDs in significant numbers if it took a pro Brexit position it eod actually poll slightly better with the current fudged Brexit position than a clear anti Brexit line
One point often made by some remain voters (and I write as a remain voter)
That doesn’t explain why pensioners were so pro-Leave.
Pensioners are less educated by dint of time; in years past it was far less common to get the opportunity to go to university and beyond.
0ood to see you think I am less educated even though I did actually vote remain
No personal comment was intended, and of course there are very educated older people. But my family's experience is common .
When I left school in 1960 University was free but only exceptional talent took up the places while there were a huge number of opportunities and apprentices to go into.
I never even thought of University but I worked in various jobs from shipbuilding to insurance to the police to retail and then a business partnership of over 35 years. I am retired and have travelled the world many times, have three children and four grandchildren and a lovely lady wife of 54 years.
I think far too much store is put on University, that it should be reduced to two years full time study, and that for the majority good quality apprenticeships and learning on the job is a path to a happy and content future
I agree. Nevertheless the fact remains that for the younger generation it is almost an expectation for anyone with any ability at school, whereas as you work up the age scale it becomes less and less common.
And in the days of high fees it is morally wrong to push everyone towards University
Indeed if we reversed back somewhat and reduced the obsession with University maybe some of the top courses in medical and sciences could be free
The world where university education was offered to, and funded for, the more academic minority was undoubtedly a better one, save for the greater difficulty for able but less privleiged pupils to get on the train. But the big gap is - and has always been - the lack of vocational opportunities for the able but less academic. Politicians since I was young have talked about this, generally pointing at European countries like Germany as to how to do things better, but (save for a half hearted stress upon apprenticeships) little has been done to orient out education system in such a direction.
One point often made by some remain voters is that the leave voter was less well educated than the average remain voter. Ignoring for the moment the extent to which this is due to the For those who are not fluent (and probably hated their French lessons at school) the jobs market of the EU is largely closed to them: there are jobs that are can be performed in English but they tend to require other
That doesn’t explain why pensioners were so pro-Leave.
Pensioners are less educated by dint of time; in years past it was far less common to get the opportunity to go to university and beyond.
0ood to see you think I am less educated even though I did actually vote remain
No personal comment was intended, and of course there are very educated older people. But my family's experience is common - my parents (and grandparents) were from ordinary backgrounds, and the opportunity to go to university was never realistically on offer. Of my generation, I was the very first in my wider family to do so. Of my nephews and nieces, several of them have, although one can debate to what extent this was a wise decision for some of them. The bottom line is that, amongst older people, only the privileged or exceptionally talented got such a chance; amongst my cohort it was probably the more fortunate or able 30%, and nowadays it is a majority.
Any fool can get a degree nowadays, they give them out like sweeties , does not mean they are any smarter for sure. I would say today's generation know more but most of it unimportant. They are mostly woosies and snowflakes who cannot take the pressure and easily offended. Things are not improved since we started sending any tom, dick and henrietta to Uni.
Again, I agree. Blair's target of 50% of young people going to university was always a nonsense, and led directly into Labour itself betraying the promises it had made to students, well before the LibDems followed the same path. The correlation with voting Remain is with education, not intelligence.
40 years ago you did not need a degree to become an accountant, a stockbroker, a police officer, a nurse, a journalist, even a solicitor or primary school teacher. You largely do now
In 1963 only 5% of people went to university, now it is over 40%.
The average IQ of eighteen year olds has hardly changed however.
Comments
Regarding Boris, I'd suggest he is quick and very clever, but not particularly intelligent.
I was having a conversatoin with my mother-inn-law and sister-in-law recently in which they were complaining about poor service in a restaurant and saying it wouldn't happen if they were men. They then related stories about eating with very senior and well-connected men in which they received very good service. I told them they would be very disappointed if they ate with me - middle-of-the-road middle-aged men are just as likely to get terrible service as middle-aged women.
Women however seem to acquire a new lease on life.
Back to the analogy - it doesn't really work since it's the young who overwhelmingly are disadvantaged by the current economic settlement, yet they were the least enthusiastic supporters of Brexit, whereas the archetypal Home Counties pensioner with a good pension and free benefits was the strongest supporter.
Nevertheless you certainly have a point about the more disadvantaged and overlooked taking the opportunity of the referendum to kick out at the established way of things. The twin tragedy of Brexit is that the "remedy" offers nothing by way of cure, and that a PM who came to office appearing to understand the problem has proved incapable of coming up with anything by way of an answer.
http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/news/2018/08/26/former-nuncio-pope-francis-knew-about-mccarrick-but-withdrew-sanctions/
One point often made by some remain voters (and I write as a remain voter) is that the average leave voter was less well educated than the average remain voter. Ignoring for the moment the extent to which this is due to the different cohorts involved, I wonder why this suprises anyone? If you are well educated then you are much more likely to be fluent in a European language, you are much more likely to have skills that make you employable in other European countries and you are less likely to find people from those countries competing for your jobs. As an example I can’t remember the last time that we were inundated with applicants for a Physics teaching post from the EU (or indeed the UK come to that). So for the well educated the EU represents a huge range of possibilities with little downside.
For those who are not fluent (and probably hated their French lessons at school) the jobs market of the EU is largely closed to them: there are jobs that are can be performed in English but they tend to require other high level qualifications. On the contrary they think that there is a pool of well educated, fairly fluent speakers of English who are happy to work here for lower wages than they will. This last bit is contentious (to say the least) but I think that we can agree that the perception that it is true swayed a lot of votes.
In summary: less well educated people were more likely to vote leave not because they were stupid but because for them the Free Movement of the EU has not worked as well as it has for those of us who are well educated; they have seen few of the advantages and more of the disadvantages.
If you mean that he is witty but not a particularly deep thinker I agree.
And following this theme, the big losers from Brexit will be those that depend on welfare or are employed by the state, as well as anyone invested in business in the UK.
Not sure if Swinson is an economic liberal or just a social liberal.
Too much banning and abolishing to be regarded as "positive" rather than "negative".
"David Willetts, the shadow Work and Pensions Secretary, said: "We have been warning for years about the spiralling costs of incapacity benefit, with people moving off unemployment benefit and on to disability benefits.
"Every few years Tony Blair suddenly discovers he needs to reform welfare, but he never does anything about it. Why should this time be any different?" "
I think it's probably true that many women between, say, 50 and 70, feel that they're healthy, capable and interested in romance at a time when it tends to be assumed that they've reached the age of Settling Down. I know of a couple of women in their early 60s who have burst into an extraordinary wealth of career opportunities and romantic liaisons who are utterly delighted by this turn of events. It's lovely to see, and in both cases a result of deliberately reigniting expectations after difficulties in earlier years, rather than settling for less. It's not only teenagers who need advice to be ambitious.
The same applies to men, but in career terms it's thought a bit less unusual. I've changed careers into senior jobs twice in my 60s - some people are mildly surprised but it's not thought especially rare. I've also deliberately explored interests that I actively rejected in the past (e.g. after early hay fever I've always been utterly urban and avoided the countryside) and that's surprising friends rather more.
How did yours go?
(They might win half a dozen Labour defectors, but I'm not sure that would do the job!)
And we've done with Cameron.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/arron-banks-join-tories-and-unseat-the-traitor-theresa-6gdc8kqdn
Personally I (still) regard it as challenging, but as far as my wife and are concerned it’s more a matter of advsing our grandchildren than doing much about it themselves.
Whether they take the advice........
Earlier on this week a former MP reminded me that when Boris ran in the election to be Rector of Edinburgh University his opponents used the slogan/pamphlets with ‘Practice safe X. Don't wake up with a dumb blond.’
But I agree with your general point - and also that middle aged women tend to be the most interesting people to have a conversation with.
It seems it is the younger person who is afraid of the change to leave the EU. Older people remember the time before we were in the EU and so are not afraid.
I referred upthread to pharmacists; when smug retired people (like me) asked colleagues why they didn’t up sticks and go to parts of Europe where the pay was better the language was almost always the reason. Many of our European colleagues, not just language graduates, learn English to a much higher standard than we do any Western European language. Indeed there are tales about Aussies failing the new language tests while Europeans are passing them!
He had no real chance of beating Obama though by 2008
I remain convinced that had he been facing Hilary he would have won in a landslide, and I know many Democrats privately thought so too.
In 1975 we were sold the "common market" not a political union. I seem to recall we were specifically told it would not be a political union.
https://vimeo.com/235789390
It will likely be the City most hit by May's plan to only stay in the single market for goods but not services
Besides, if they really remembered the 1970s, they would recall our imperative to join.
I never even thought of University but I worked in various jobs from shipbuilding to insurance to the police to retail and then a business partnership of over 35 years. I am retired and have travelled the world many times, have three children and four grandchildren and a lovely lady wife of 54 years.
I think far too much store is put on University, that it should be reduced to two years full time study, and that for the majority good quality apprenticeships and learning on the job is a path to a happy and content future
https://mainlymacro.blogspot.com/
I didn’t.
Indeed if we reversed back somewhat and reduced the obsession with University maybe some of the top courses in medical and sciences could be free
Outside Scotland there are very few who I would rate as anything decent , I like Ken Clark but apart from that there is a dearth of real political talent. If you go back there used to be big hitters in all parties but most nowadays are just PPE graduates in it for the money and the glory, few if any are in it to make the country a better place.
We start teaching languages at 11, which is about 4 years too late. I’ve visited French primary schools to check up on Y12 students (first year of sixth form in old money) doing work experience and seen very young French schoolchildren eager to practise their English.
If we want to change that then leaving the EU isn’t going to help as we don’t have anything like the number of graduates willing to become MFL teachers and most primary school teachers here are not fluent in another European language (unlike much of the EU where fluency in English is almost a given for any graduate).
Then which language do we teach? French is actually a bit of a pig to learn, particularly given spelling rules that give English a run for its money. German is seen as too hard by many (although I am told it is actually not too bad). Spanish is problably one of the easiest, but won’t really help you get that dream job in Hamburg.
Perhaps the paradox is that because everyone else speaks English (or so it seems) we end up at a severe disadvantage. Shame we are not Dutch...
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/aug/26/no-deal-brexit-may-be-unthinkable-but-that-doesnt-mean-it-cant-happen
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/corbyn-risks-losing-young-voters-if-labour-backs-leaving-the-eu-a3758201.html?ampI
In 1963 only 5% of people went to university, now it is over 40%.
The average IQ of eighteen year olds has hardly changed however.
Draw your own conclusions.