Intense discussions are taking place at Westminster that could lead to the emergence of a new centrist party consisting of six or more disaffected anti-Brexit Labour MPs along with the involvement of some Conservatives and the backing of the Liberal Democrats.
Labour MPs reported that some of those involved had lobbied backbench colleagues they thought were sympathetic as to how they could “make the shift” away from a tribal loyalty to the party.
They really do think we're really dumb, don't they?
I thought you might have been in favour of a new Centrist Party??
I'm not opposed to the idea of a realignment in our politics. I find the endless bleating of cowardly MPs who have been talking about doing it for years tiresome and am not at all convinced that this time they mean it, particularly when their loyalties still appear to be to their existing brands and so any attempt to work with former Tories/Labour will fail very quickly, given they are not united in ideology, only by momentary circumstance, and their hatred of their former opponents remains.
IMO the realignment happened in 2016.
The day someone was elected who was on the side of the Many rather than the few, unlike all leaders and PMs since at least Thatcher
I don’t think the EU would ever offer us terms to rejoin that could pass a popular referendum in the UK. It’s a political project and it’ll be standard terms, and a debate on QMV weightings and MEPs, or nothing. That means a commitment to join both the Euro and Schengen and, by then, taxation, social union, eurozone chancellor, European army. Everything.
Of course, it’s possible a Lab/LD majority could force through the treaty and necessary parliamentary legislation with just a GE mandate, but i suggest that would be “brave”.
If Brexit happens, I don't think the UK will rejoin either, but England will.
Intense discussions are taking place at Westminster that could lead to the emergence of a new centrist party consisting of six or more disaffected anti-Brexit Labour MPs along with the involvement of some Conservatives and the backing of the Liberal Democrats.
Labour MPs reported that some of those involved had lobbied backbench colleagues they thought were sympathetic as to how they could “make the shift” away from a tribal loyalty to the party.
They really do think we're really dumb, don't they?
I thought you might have been in favour of a new Centrist Party??
I'm not opposed to the idea of a realignment in our politics. I find the endless bleating of cowardly MPs who have been talking about doing it for years tiresome and am not at all convinced that this time they mean it, particularly when their loyalties still appear to be to their existing brands and so any attempt to work with former Tories/Labour will fail very quickly, given they are not united in ideology, only by momentary circumstance, and their hatred of their former opponents remains.
IMO the realignment happened in 2016.
The day someone was elected who was on the side of the Many rather than the few, unlike all leaders and PMs since at least Thatcher
I think it is rather insulting to suggest no party leaders and PMs have cared about the many. It also seems very unlikely since getting the support of as many of the many as possible is how leaders and PMs stay in post.
Regardless, even if your premise was correct that is not a realignment, it's still tribal loyalty to one party and tribal loyalty to another, and that utter hatred of another party means one can never leave a party which is not the same as it used to be.
Neo Liberals are on the side of a system that benefits the few, Some might shout it less loudly but nevertheless that is what they support
All teachers will remember your promotion of someone who had shown she was arrogant, stupid and completely incompetent by her many and crass failures at OFQUAL to head up OFSTED and destroy that as well.
I don’t think the EU would ever offer us terms to rejoin that could pass a popular referendum in the UK. It’s a political project and it’ll be standard terms, and a debate on QMV weightings and MEPs, or nothing. That means a commitment to join both the Euro and Schengen and, by then, taxation, social union, eurozone chancellor, European army. Everything.
Of course, it’s possible a Lab/LD majority could force through the treaty and necessary parliamentary legislation with just a GE mandate, but i suggest that would be “brave”.
If Brexit happens, I don't think the UK will rejoin either, but England will.
Intense discussions are taking place at Westminster that could lead to the emergence of a new centrist party consisting of six or more disaffected anti-Brexit Labour MPs along with the involvement of some Conservatives and the backing of the Liberal Democrats.
Labour MPs reported that some of those involved had lobbied backbench colleagues they thought were sympathetic as to how they could “make the shift” away from a tribal loyalty to the party.
They really do think we're really dumb, don't they?
I thought you might have been in favour of a new Centrist Party??
I'm not opposed to the idea of a realignment in our politics. I find the endless bleating of cowardly MPs who have been talking about doing it for years tiresome and am not at all convinced that this time they mean it, particularly when their loyalties still appear to be to their existing brands and so any attempt to work with former Tories/Labour will fail very quickly, given they are not united in ideology, only by momentary circumstance, and their hatred of their former opponents remains.
IMO the realignment happened in 2016.
The day someone was elected who was on the side of the Many rather than the few, unlike all leaders and PMs since at least Thatcher
I think it is rather insulting to suggest no party leaders and PMs have cared about the many. It also seems very unlikely since getting the support of as many of the many as possible is how leaders and PMs stay in post.
Regardless, even if your premise was correct that is not a realignment, it's still tribal loyalty to one party and tribal loyalty to another, and that utter hatred of another party means one can never leave a party which is not the same as it used to be.
I don’t think the EU would ever offer us terms to rejoin that could pass a popular referendum in the UK. It’s a political project and it’ll be standard terms, and a debate on QMV weightings and MEPs, or nothing. That means a commitment to join both the Euro and Schengen and, by then, taxation, social union, eurozone chancellor, European army. Everything.
Of course, it’s possible a Lab/LD majority could force through the treaty and necessary parliamentary legislation with just a GE mandate, but i suggest that would be “brave”.
If Brexit happens, I don't think the UK will rejoin either, but England will.
And, you’ll be very pleased about it too.
Much as he would about a lottery win - and that's far more likely even if he's not buying a ticket.
Next thing you know we'll be quoting Terry Christian as an oracle.
Terry Christian has the right idea, those who voted for Brexit should be the first to feel the pain in any redundancy campaign. All that social media content or even outspoken Brexit chatter at work should influence who gets the chop first!
We aren't at the job losses stage yet. But when we are I don't think they will come in a way that allows reprisals against leavers. Not that such reprisals should be taken of course.
I disagree, people who support Brexit seem to think rules or bad luck in life are the property of others. If redundancies are a consequence of Brexit those who supported it should feel the pain.
I cannot believe in this day and age the pure indifference to how the economy will be afflicted by No Deal Brexit. Those who support wrecking the economy for no reason should feel the brunt. People will become homeless or will not afford to feed themselves because of this stupidity. It is not reasonable to load al this pain on the population!
And if massive youth unemployment in Italy or Spain is the consequence of being in the EU and in the Euro? This sort of argument is useless. All actions, and non actions, have consequences some of which are good and some bad.
Indeed. But you still have to choose. And it is those choices that define us.
IF May gets her/a deal through parliament then my belief is that the likes of Boles, Soubry, Grieve, Woolaston etc are going to find it a challenge to stay inside the Tory tent.
There is going to be electoral gold in threatening to turn the ratchet in the UK's favour against the 'bullying' EU and every GE will play out against a backdrop of where your loyalties lie.
There is next to zero chance of any future Tory leader supporting re-joining leaves Labour in an awful position if trying to decide whether it supports re-joining or not and all the internal problems that would bring for the party.
And even if they do decide on some half-way house then why would a voter opt for that when they have the full fat versions at either end with the Tories or LD's?
And that's before we start with the possibility of Scotland leaving the union which would be the final dagger in Labour hearts as their only realistic chance of a coalition government would slip beneath the waves.
Getting a deal through, or not, is absolutely crucial to both parties future.
I am not so sure about that.
The only force against it is the Tory Party membership. But let's see what happens there. Parties can change surprisingly quickly.
I don’t think the EU would ever offer us terms to rejoin that could pass a popular referendum in the UK. It’s a political project and it’ll be standard terms, and a debate on QMV weightings and MEPs, or nothing. That means a commitment to join both the Euro and Schengen and, by then, taxation, social union, eurozone chancellor, European army. Everything.
Of course, it’s possible a Lab/LD majority could force through the treaty and necessary parliamentary legislation with just a GE mandate, but i suggest that would be “brave”.
Yes, it would be far simpler to simply stay in, but those are a bunch of straw men that you are putting up. Euro Army is optional and actually HMS QE needs european escorts any way, the choice is Schengen or CTA, and joining the Euro is effectively optional with no obligation to make progress at all.
I am sure that we will rejoin, initially EFTA before the whole shebang.
The thing that made me laugh about the "searing" editorial in the Irish Independent is :
"Ireland has stood by the EU and should not be made to pay the price for another member storming out. We saddled our future generations with debt to protect the euro when the dam threatened to burst a decade ago. Small nations within the EU will be watching closely to see how we are treated."
Past behaviour really is a good predictor of future behaviour in the case of the EU.
The EU has stood by Ireland in their demands for a backstop.
But you could equally turn it around, and say that by insisting on the backstop, the EU has abrogated its responsibilities to Spain and Portugal.
Guess what, the real world is complex, and the EU has to juggle the demands and desires of countries with different wants and needs.
Too late now Nicky. Compromise with the ERG is impossible, they are a cult quite prepared to destroy their party and their country if necessary. You can be for them or against them but there is no middle ground.
May and the equally useless Barclay are fooling no one . This is just running down the clock and pretending to negotiate .
Of course the BBC continue to peddle the narrative of May , the great fighter who keeps getting knocked down but channels her inner boadecia !
I expect the EU will throw her under a bus next week and big up Corbyns plan even more as a way of breaking the impasse.
Her pathetic attempts to suggest there’s a majority for her latest Unicorn fell to pieces last night.
She must go down as the most spineless and clueless PM of recent times . Her survival is simply a case of no one else wanting the job otherwise she would have been shown the door after the last election .
Too late now Nicky. Compromise with the ERG is impossible, they are a cult quite prepared to destroy their party and their country if necessary. You can be for them or against them but there is no middle ground.
Except May is now committed to the same goal as the ERG. If she weren't, she would not be spending all her time delaying and chasing unicorns. The party is hurt either way, and she's decided this way hurts it the least.
@The_Taxman - I know one leave voter who's been wanting redundancy for years. Personally, I wouldn't mind it too much as I'm living with my parents and don't have a mortgage.
The most egregious is Gove - all the more so because he is often held up as a powerful intellect and thinker. Nobody could say that about Davis, Raab or Corbyn.
I don’t think you can say that about Gove. He put an intellectual case for Leave, has been honest about its compromises, has backed May’s deal as a fair balance and has been the only one to develop positive (and better) post Brexit policies with a sensible plan to get there, in agriculture and fisheries.
More than one person has said that had this referendum not been called, or only very narrowly lost, Gove would have been likely to become the next Tory leader after Cameron, run a GE campaign on a Brexit platform, worked out a policy and strategy to implement it, run a referendum to endorse it, and then led us out via a practical negotiated exit settlement in the 2020s.
But, his hand was forced. He felt he had to fight or Brexit would be killed off by the referendum forever. He did us a favour with Boris but severely damaged himself in the process. And, we are now where we are with May.
On the basis of that, I think you should resist any temptation to become an alt history author...
It’s exactly what the Deputy Editor of this site said publicly on here at the time, and Tim Shipman has indicated.
IF May gets her/a deal through parliament then my belief is that the likes of Boles, Soubry, Grieve, Woolaston etc are going to find it a challenge to stay inside the Tory tent.
There is going to be electoral gold in threatening to turn the ratchet in the UK's favour against the 'bullying' EU and every GE will play out against a backdrop of where your loyalties lie.
There is next to zero chance of any future Tory leader supporting re-joining leaves Labour in an awful position if trying to decide whether it supports re-joining or not and all the internal problems that would bring for the party.
And even if they do decide on some half-way house then why would a voter opt for that when they have the full fat versions at either end with the Tories or LD's?
And that's before we start with the possibility of Scotland leaving the union which would be the final dagger in Labour hearts as their only realistic chance of a coalition government would slip beneath the waves.
Getting a deal through, or not, is absolutely crucial to both parties future.
I am not so sure about that.
The only force against it is the Tory Party membership. But let's see what happens there. Parties can change surprisingly quickly.
I don’t think the EU would ever offer us terms to rejoin that could pass a popular referendum in the UK. It’s a political project and it’ll be standard terms, and a debate on QMV weightings and MEPs, or nothing. That means a commitment to join both the Euro and Schengen and, by then, taxation, social union, eurozone chancellor, European army. Everything.
Of course, it’s possible a Lab/LD majority could force through the treaty and necessary parliamentary legislation with just a GE mandate, but i suggest that would be “brave”.
Yes, it would be far simpler to simply stay in, but those are a bunch of straw men that you are putting up. Euro Army is optional and actually HMS QE needs european escorts any way, the choice is Schengen or CTA, and joining the Euro is effectively optional with no obligation to make progress at all.
I am sure that we will rejoin, initially EFTA before the whole shebang.
Not a straw man at all. The EU will develop in our absence, all of that is its declares intent and a rejoin negotiation wouldn't get going until, at the earliest, about 2023.
By then, the offer on the table would be standard terms.
The thing that made me laugh about the "searing" editorial in the Irish Independent is :
"Ireland has stood by the EU and should not be made to pay the price for another member storming out. We saddled our future generations with debt to protect the euro when the dam threatened to burst a decade ago. Small nations within the EU will be watching closely to see how we are treated."
Past behaviour really is a good predictor of future behaviour in the case of the EU.
The EU has stood by Ireland in their demands for a backstop.
But you could equally turn it around, and say that by insisting on the backstop, the EU has abrogated its responsibilities to Spain and Portugal.
Guess what, the real world is complex, and the EU has to juggle the demands and desires of countries with different wants and needs.
My son was doing a piece on the effects of the US/ China tariff war for his economics class and found your piece on it really helpful. Are you still doing these? I haven’t seen a new one for a while.
If he really believed the opposite of what he was saying in public then he's a hypocritical scumbag who deserves no sympathy. But actually I think he, and a lot of other leavers, really did believe that the EU would fold if the UK voted to leave. There is a certain group in the population who are very anglocentric, probably do not travel abroad much and certainly do not understand foreigners (Gove is known to hate flying) and find it hard to imagine themselves on the other side of a negotiation process and so do not understand where their interlocutors are coming from. I think Gove is one such person.
That is very plausible.
Or perhaps what truly drove his desire to Leave was the event in his early life to which he often makes reference - the ruination of his Father's fishing business at the hands of restrictive EU regulation.
Intellectuals are not always cool and rational. They can be consumed with unruly passions. There are many examples of this (Satre, Kubrick, Simon Schama) and it could be that Gove is another.
Weirdly, I think he's wrong about the fishing. The thing that did for the GB fishing fleet was the increased availability of refrigerated trucks and storage and a much-improved road network. Why operate lots of little boats when you can get one humungeous factory ship, land it in one place, then truck the results safely across land? People forget that the road and rail network used to be so bad that moving stuff intra-GB by sea was a viable option. If this was his geas binding him to Leave, he's going to be sorely disappointed.
There was a report on BBC a day or so making that very point. A wholesale fish buyer was talking about loading the fish on to lorries and getting them from Peterhead to France in a day or so. No way is that possible by sea.
IF May gets her/a deal through parliament then my belief is that the likes of Boles, Soubry, Grieve, Woolaston etc are going to find it a challenge to stay inside the Tory tent.
There is going to be electoral gold in threatening to turn the ratchet in the UK's favour against the 'bullying' EU and every GE will play out against a backdrop of where your loyalties lie.
There is next to zero chance of any future Tory leader supporting re-joining leaves Labour in an awful position if trying to decide whether it supports re-joining or not and all the internal problems that would bring for the party.
And even if they do decide on some half-way house then why would a voter opt for that when they have the full fat versions at either end with the Tories or LD's?
And that's before we start with the possibility of Scotland leaving the union which would be the final dagger in Labour hearts as their only realistic chance of a coalition government would slip beneath the waves.
Getting a deal through, or not, is absolutely crucial to both parties future.
I am not so sure about that.
The only force against it is the Tory Party membership. But let's see what happens there. Parties can change surprisingly quickly.
I don’t think the EU would ever offer us terms to rejoin that could pass a popular referendum in the UK. It’s a political project and it’ll be standard terms, and a debate on QMV weightings and MEPs, or nothing. That means a commitment to join both the Euro and Schengen and, by then, taxation, social union, eurozone chancellor, European army. Everything.
Of course, it’s possible a Lab/LD majority could force through the treaty and necessary parliamentary legislation with just a GE mandate, but i suggest that would be “brave”.
Yes, it would be far simpler to simply stay in, but those are a bunch of straw men that you are putting up. Euro Army is optional and actually HMS QE needs european escorts any way, the choice is Schengen or CTA, and joining the Euro is effectively optional with no obligation to make progress at all.
I am sure that we will rejoin, initially EFTA before the whole shebang.
Not a straw man at all. The EU will develop in our absence, all of that is its declares intent and a rejoin negotiation wouldn't get going until, at the earliest, about 2023.
By then, the offer on the table would be standard terms.
Standard terms includes the CTA, opting out of a Euro military, and defacto opting out of the Euro. Though all these things have their merits that we should consider.
The thing that made me laugh about the "searing" editorial in the Irish Independent is :
"Ireland has stood by the EU and should not be made to pay the price for another member storming out. We saddled our future generations with debt to protect the euro when the dam threatened to burst a decade ago. Small nations within the EU will be watching closely to see how we are treated."
Past behaviour really is a good predictor of future behaviour in the case of the EU.
The EU has stood by Ireland in their demands for a backstop.
But you could equally turn it around, and say that by insisting on the backstop, the EU has abrogated its responsibilities to Spain and Portugal.
Guess what, the real world is complex, and the EU has to juggle the demands and desires of countries with different wants and needs.
My son was doing a piece on the effects of the US/ China tariff war for his economics class and found your piece on it really helpful. Are you still doing these? I haven’t seen a new one for a while.
I've started a new business, so I haven't been making videos.
May and the equally useless Barclay are fooling no one . This is just running down the clock and pretending to negotiate .
Of course the BBC continue to peddle the narrative of May , the great fighter who keeps getting knocked down but channels her inner boadecia !
I expect the EU will throw her under a bus next week and big up Corbyns plan even more as a way of breaking the impasse.
Her pathetic attempts to suggest there’s a majority for her latest Unicorn fell to pieces last night.
She must go down as the most spineless and clueless PM of recent times . Her survival is simply a case of no one else wanting the job otherwise she would have been shown the door after the last election .
That and the fact that the Tory Party could not survive a leadship contest intact.
Terry Christian has the right idea, those who voted for Brexit should be the first to feel the pain in any redundancy campaign. All that social media content or even outspoken Brexit chatter at work should influence who gets the chop first!
We aren't at the job losses stage yet. But when we are I don't think they will come in a way that allows reprisals against leavers. Not that such reprisals should be taken of course.
I disagree, people who support Brexit seem to think rules or bad luck in life are the property of others. If redundancies are a consequence of Brexit those who supported it should feel the pain.
I cannot believe in this day and age the pure indifference to how the economy will be afflicted by No Deal Brexit. Those who support wrecking the economy for no reason should feel the brunt. People will become homeless or will not afford to feed themselves because of this stupidity. It is not reasonable to load al this pain on the population!
And if massive youth unemployment in Italy or Spain is the consequence of being in the EU and in the Euro? This sort of argument is useless. All actions, and non actions, have consequences some of which are good and some bad.
Indeed. But you still have to choose. And it is those choices that define us.
(Sorry. Got a bit "Call the Midwife" there... )
"It's not who you are underneath, it's what you do that defines you."
Another boy who cried wolf. I'll believe it when I see it.
If we counted every time a bunch of MPs were on the cusp of starting a new party this new party would have several thousand MPs by now. Umunna alone would account for about 20 of them.
IF May gets her/a deal through parliament then my belief is that the likes of Boles, Soubry, Grieve, Woolaston etc are going to find it a challenge to stay inside the Tory tent.
There is going to be electoral gold in threatening to turn the ratchet in the UK's favour against the 'bullying' EU and every GE will play out against a backdrop of where your loyalties lie.
There is next to zero chance of any future Tory leader supporting re-joining leaves Labour in an awful position if trying to decide whether it supports re-joining or not and all the internal problems that would bring for the party.
And even if they do decide on some half-way house then why would a voter opt for that when they have the full fat versions at either end with the Tories or LD's?
And that's before we start with the possibility of Scotland leaving the union which would be the final dagger in Labour hearts as their only realistic chance of a coalition government would slip beneath the waves.
Getting a deal through, or not, is absolutely crucial to both parties future.
I am not so sure about that.
The only force against it is the Tory Party membership. But let's see what happens there. Parties can change surprisingly quickly.
.
Of course, it’s possible a Lab/LD majority could force through the treaty and necessary parliamentary legislation with just a GE mandate, but i suggest that would be “brave”.
Yes, it would be far simpler to simply stay in, but those are a bunch of straw men that you are putting up. Euro Army is optional and actually HMS QE needs european escorts any way, the choice is Schengen or CTA, and joining the Euro is effectively optional with no obligation to make progress at all.
I am sure that we will rejoin, initially EFTA before the whole shebang.
Not a straw man at all. The EU will develop in our absence, all of that is its declares intent and a rejoin negotiation wouldn't get going until, at the earliest, about 2023.
By then, the offer on the table would be standard terms.
I think we could get back in on much the same terms if that is what we wanted. But our current terms represent the negative whining in the corner mode that we have pursued so far. We'll be much more positive about the whole project when we go back in. We'll be looking to rejoin as much more mainstream members. There's is a huge chunk of very pro-EU feeling now which never existed before. It might not be having much effect in the current parliament, but that won't last forever.
If he really believed the opposite of what he was saying in public then he's a hypocritical scumbag who deserves no sympathy. But actually I think he, and a lot of other leavers, really did believe that the EU would fold if the UK voted to leave. There is a certain group in the population who are very anglocentric, probably do not travel abroad much and certainly do not understand foreigners (Gove is known to hate flying) and find it hard to imagine themselves on the other side of a negotiation process and so do not understand where their interlocutors are coming from. I think Gove is one such person.
That is very plausible.
Or perhaps what truly drove his desire to Leave was the event in his early life to which he often makes reference - the ruination of his Father's fishing business at the hands of restrictive EU regulation.
Intellectuals are not always cool and rational. They can be consumed with unruly passions. There are many examples of this (Satre, Kubrick, Simon Schama) and it could be that Gove is another.
Weirdly, I think he's wrong about the fishing. The thing that did for the GB fishing fleet was the increased availability of refrigerated trucks and storage and a much-improved road network. Why operate lots of little boats when you can get one humungeous factory ship, land it in one place, then truck the results safely across land? People forget that the road and rail network used to be so bad that moving stuff intra-GB by sea was a viable option. If this was his geas binding him to Leave, he's going to be sorely disappointed.
There was a report on BBC a day or so making that very point. A wholesale fish buyer was talking about loading the fish on to lorries and getting them from Peterhead to France in a day or so. No way is that possible by sea.
Smarter to land the fish in Normandy direct.
Quicker to unload and turn around in Peterhead and transport by lorry to France... Remember boats are slower than lorries and you need to travel to the fishing areas...
The thing that made me laugh about the "searing" editorial in the Irish Independent is :
"Ireland has stood by the EU and should not be made to pay the price for another member storming out. We saddled our future generations with debt to protect the euro when the dam threatened to burst a decade ago. Small nations within the EU will be watching closely to see how we are treated."
Past behaviour really is a good predictor of future behaviour in the case of the EU.
The EU has stood by Ireland in their demands for a backstop.
But you could equally turn it around, and say that by insisting on the backstop, the EU has abrogated its responsibilities to Spain and Portugal.
Guess what, the real world is complex, and the EU has to juggle the demands and desires of countries with different wants and needs.
Yes - and it throws small countries under the bus when it suits.
The thing that made me laugh about the "searing" editorial in the Irish Independent is :
"Ireland has stood by the EU and should not be made to pay the price for another member storming out. We saddled our future generations with debt to protect the euro when the dam threatened to burst a decade ago. Small nations within the EU will be watching closely to see how we are treated."
Past behaviour really is a good predictor of future behaviour in the case of the EU.
The EU has stood by Ireland in their demands for a backstop.
But you could equally turn it around, and say that by insisting on the backstop, the EU has abrogated its responsibilities to Spain and Portugal.
Guess what, the real world is complex, and the EU has to juggle the demands and desires of countries with different wants and needs.
My son was doing a piece on the effects of the US/ China tariff war for his economics class and found your piece on it really helpful. Are you still doing these? I haven’t seen a new one for a while.
I've started a new business, so I haven't been making videos.
Terry Christian has the right idea, those who voted for Brexit should be the first to feel the pain in any redundancy campaign. All that social media content or even outspoken Brexit chatter at work should influence who gets the chop first!
We aren't at the job losses stage yet. But when we are I don't think they will come in a way that allows reprisals against leavers. Not that such reprisals should be taken of course.
I disagree, people who support Brexit seem to think rules or bad luck in life are the property of others. If redundancies are a consequence of Brexit those who supported it should feel the pain.
I cannot believe in this day and age the pure indifference to how the economy will be afflicted by No Deal Brexit. Those who support wrecking the economy for no reason should feel the brunt. People will become homeless or will not afford to feed themselves because of this stupidity. It is not reasonable to load al this pain on the population!
And if massive youth unemployment in Italy or Spain is the consequence of being in the EU and in the Euro? This sort of argument is useless. All actions, and non actions, have consequences some of which are good and some bad.
Membership of the Euro is a different question, the UK is not and has never been a member of the Euro. Unemployment in Italy and Spain or even Greece are an internal matter and should not be conflated with the trading prospects of the UK currently or post Brexit.
Unemployment in those countries has nothing to do with the Euro and EU economic policy?
The thing that made me laugh about the "searing" editorial in the Irish Independent is :
"Ireland has stood by the EU and should not be made to pay the price for another member storming out. We saddled our future generations with debt to protect the euro when the dam threatened to burst a decade ago. Small nations within the EU will be watching closely to see how we are treated."
Past behaviour really is a good predictor of future behaviour in the case of the EU.
The EU has stood by Ireland in their demands for a backstop.
But you could equally turn it around, and say that by insisting on the backstop, the EU has abrogated its responsibilities to Spain and Portugal.
Guess what, the real world is complex, and the EU has to juggle the demands and desires of countries with different wants and needs.
My son was doing a piece on the effects of the US/ China tariff war for his economics class and found your piece on it really helpful. Are you still doing these? I haven’t seen a new one for a while.
I've started a new business, so I haven't been making videos.
The thing that made me laugh about the "searing" editorial in the Irish Independent is :
"Ireland has stood by the EU and should not be made to pay the price for another member storming out. We saddled our future generations with debt to protect the euro when the dam threatened to burst a decade ago. Small nations within the EU will be watching closely to see how we are treated."
Past behaviour really is a good predictor of future behaviour in the case of the EU.
The EU has stood by Ireland in their demands for a backstop.
But you could equally turn it around, and say that by insisting on the backstop, the EU has abrogated its responsibilities to Spain and Portugal.
Guess what, the real world is complex, and the EU has to juggle the demands and desires of countries with different wants and needs.
Yes - and it throws small countries under the bus when it suits.
The power of a union is in solidarity, making it possible for small states to stand up against larger hegemonic neighbours. One can argue with Irelands stance, but you cannot fault the EU for sticking by the decisions of the sovereign government of Ireland.
Terry Christian has the right idea, those who voted for Brexit should be the first to feel the pain in any redundancy campaign. All that social media content or even outspoken Brexit chatter at work should influence who gets the chop first!
We aren't at the job losses stage yet. But when we are I don't think they will come in a way that allows reprisals against leavers. Not that such reprisals should be taken of course.
I disagree, people who support Brexit seem to think rules or bad luck in life are the property of others. If redundancies are a consequence of Brexit those who supported it should feel the pain.
I cannot believe in this day and age the pure indifference to how the economy will be afflicted by No Deal Brexit. Those who support wrecking the economy for no reason should feel the brunt. People will become homeless or will not afford to feed themselves because of this stupidity. It is not reasonable to load al this pain on the population!
And if massive youth unemployment in Italy or Spain is the consequence of being in the EU and in the Euro? This sort of argument is useless. All actions, and non actions, have consequences some of which are good and some bad.
Membership of the Euro is a different question, the UK is not and has never been a member of the Euro. Unemployment in Italy and Spain or even Greece are an internal matter and should not be conflated with the trading prospects of the UK currently or post Brexit.
Unemployment in those countries has nothing to do with the Euro and EU economic policy?
hmmmmmmmm
Spain's unemployment rate followed a similar pattern before the Euro and is falling steeply.
Terry Christian has the right idea, those who voted for Brexit should be the first to feel the pain in any redundancy campaign. All that social media content or even outspoken Brexit chatter at work should influence who gets the chop first!
We aren't at the job losses stage yet. But when we are I don't think they will come in a way that allows reprisals against leavers. Not that such reprisals should be taken of course.
I disagree, people who support Brexit seem to think rules or bad luck in life are the property of others. If redundancies are a consequence of Brexit those who supported it should feel the pain.
I cannot believe in this day and age the pure indifference to how the economy will be afflicted by No Deal Brexit. Those who support wrecking the economy for no reason should feel the brunt. People will become homeless or will not afford to feed themselves because of this stupidity. It is not reasonable to load al this pain on the population!
And if massive youth unemployment in Italy or Spain is the consequence of being in the EU and in the Euro? This sort of argument is useless. All actions, and non actions, have consequences some of which are good and some bad.
Membership of the Euro is a different question, the UK is not and has never been a member of the Euro. Unemployment in Italy and Spain or even Greece are an internal matter and should not be conflated with the trading prospects of the UK currently or post Brexit.
Unemployment in those countries has nothing to do with the Euro and EU economic policy?
hmmmmmmmm
I suspect it has more to do with being in the Euro than anything else. I have always been against the UK joining the Euro. Again, I don't think you understand the construct of the EU if you think it is EU economic policy that is causing Unemployment in the said countries. EU membership is a formal agreement of principles and rules that hold the member states together to develop a single market, that in the long run has comparable economic depth across it. I accept that this is a very long run project! Any EU economic policy is not that powerful at the moment. Euro currency policy is another question...
Terry Christian has the right idea, those who voted for Brexit should be the first to feel the pain in any redundancy campaign. All that social media content or even outspoken Brexit chatter at work should influence who gets the chop first!
We aren't at the job losses stage yet. But when we are I don't think they will come in a way that allows reprisals against leavers. Not that such reprisals should be taken of course.
I disagree, people who support Brexit seem to think rules or bad luck in life are the property of others. If redundancies are a consequence of Brexit those who supported it should feel the pain.
I cannot believe in this day and age the pure indifference to how the economy will be afflicted by No Deal Brexit. Those who support wrecking the economy for no reason should feel the brunt. People will become homeless or will not afford to feed themselves because of this stupidity. It is not reasonable to load al this pain on the population!
And if massive youth unemployment in Italy or Spain is the consequence of being in the EU and in the Euro? This sort of argument is useless. All actions, and non actions, have consequences some of which are good and some bad.
Membership of the Euro is a different question, the UK is not and has never been a member of the Euro. Unemployment in Italy and Spain or even Greece are an internal matter and should not be conflated with the trading prospects of the UK currently or post Brexit.
Unemployment in those countries has nothing to do with the Euro and EU economic policy?
hmmmmmmmm
The question is : have employment and unemployment trends been worse in the EU and the Eurozone than in other advanced economies with similar demographics and social systems?
Terry Christian has the right idea, those who voted for Brexit should be the first to feel the pain in any redundancy campaign. All that social media content or even outspoken Brexit chatter at work should influence who gets the chop first!
We aren't at the job losses stage yet. But when we are I don't think they will come in a way that allows reprisals against leavers. Not that such reprisals should be taken of course.
I disagree, people who support Brexit seem to think rules or bad luck in life are the property of others. If redundancies are a consequence of Brexit those who supported it should feel the pain.
I cannot believe in this day and age the pure indifference to how the economy will be afflicted by No Deal Brexit. Those who support wrecking the economy for no reason should feel the brunt. People will become homeless or will not afford to feed themselves because of this stupidity. It is not reasonable to load al this pain on the population!
Could we adopt this policy for other political decisions? Eg if Labour forms the next government and imposes a 20% wealth tax (as suggested in today's Times) it should be levied on Labour voters first.
After all, if a Corbyn-led Labour government would be as bad for the economy as some of us believe, it would only be right, would it not, for the costs of it to be borne by those who voted for it?
Diane Abbott's tweet is very badly worded and should lose the first sentence which makes it look like Abbott is the one who lied.
Hard to believe she had an oxbridge education.
George W. Bush went to both Yale and Harvard.
Well we all know they are second rate institutions ;-)
Dominic Cummings got a first at Oxford. And even Boris got a second. Tristram Hunt got a first at Cambridge. Hardly a suggestion that Oxbridge is a haven of quality.
Terry Christian has the right idea, those who voted for Brexit should be the first to feel the pain in any redundancy campaign. All that social media content or even outspoken Brexit chatter at work should influence who gets the chop first!
We aren't at the job losses stage yet. But when we are I don't think they will come in a way that allows reprisals against leavers. Not that such reprisals should be taken of course.
I disagree, people who support Brexit seem to think rules or bad luck in life are the property of others. If redundancies are a consequence of Brexit those who supported it should feel the pain.
I cannot believe in this day and age the pure indifference to how the economy will be afflicted by No Deal Brexit. Those who support wrecking the economy for no reason should feel the brunt. People will become homeless or will not afford to feed themselves because of this stupidity. It is not reasonable to load al this pain on the population!
Could we adopt this policy for other political decisions? Eg if Labour forms the next government and imposes a 20% wealth tax (as suggested in today's Times) it should be levied on Labour voters first.
After all, if a Corbyn-led Labour government would be as bad for the economy as some of us believe, it would only be right, would it not, for the costs of it to be borne by those who voted for it?
That would involve the electorate recognising that they are sentient adults who should take responsibility for their own decisions. I’m afraid that it won’t catch on.
Diane Abbott's tweet is very badly worded and should lose the first sentence which makes it look like Abbott is the one who lied.
Hard to believe she had an oxbridge education.
George W. Bush went to both Yale and Harvard.
Neil Hamilton went to Cambridge (and Aberystwyth).
Given his career pathway, whilst he did not scale the heights (or even the middles) he has managed to maintain a steady earnings over many years in a remarkably unforgiving profession. I dislike him but he has survived blows that would have flattened others.
Diane Abbott's tweet is very badly worded and should lose the first sentence which makes it look like Abbott is the one who lied.
Hard to believe she had an oxbridge education.
George W. Bush went to both Yale and Harvard.
Neil Hamilton went to Cambridge (and Aberystwyth).
Given his career pathway, whilst he did not scale the heights (or even the middles) he has managed to maintain a steady earnings over many years in a remarkably unforgiving profession. I dislike him but he has survived blows that would have flattened others.
Diane Abbott's tweet is very badly worded and should lose the first sentence which makes it look like Abbott is the one who lied.
Hard to believe she had an oxbridge education.
George W. Bush went to both Yale and Harvard.
Neil Hamilton went to Cambridge (and Aberystwyth).
Given his career pathway, whilst he did not scale the heights (or even the middles) he has managed to maintain a steady earnings over many years in a remarkably unforgiving profession. I dislike him but he has survived blows that would have flattened others.
Like Stephen Kinnock, Neil has a wife who is orders of magnitude more canny and intelligent than him.
Christine Hamilton didn’t go to Cambridge (or Aberystwyth). Improbably enough, she studied sociology at York.
Terry Christian has the right idea, those who voted for Brexit should be the first to feel the pain in any redundancy campaign. All that social media content or even outspoken Brexit chatter at work should influence who gets the chop first!
We aren't at the job losses stage yet. But when we are I don't think they will come in a way that allows reprisals against leavers. Not that such reprisals should be taken of course.
I disagree, people who support Brexit seem to think rules or bad luck in life are the property of others. If redundancies are a consequence of Brexit those who supported it should feel the pain.
I cannot believe in this day and age the pure indifference to how the economy will be afflicted by No Deal Brexit. Those who support wrecking the economy for no reason should feel the brunt. People will become homeless or will not afford to feed themselves because of this stupidity. It is not reasonable to load al this pain on the population!
Could we adopt this policy for other political decisions? Eg if Labour forms the next government and imposes a 20% wealth tax (as suggested in today's Times) it should be levied on Labour voters first.
After all, if a Corbyn-led Labour government would be as bad for the economy as some of us believe, it would only be right, would it not, for the costs of it to be borne by those who voted for it?
The sad thing about a Corbyn Government is the rich will find ways to get around the wealth tax. Like in Venezuela the poor will be the ones to suffer.
The issue as a consequence of Brexit with the resulting divergence with our nearest developed markets will be lowering our fundamental ability to grow in the future. The contempt for those who will lose their jobs by those who persist in advocating No Deal and the like seems perverse to say the least. I find it distasteful the way decent jobs and hard working people are going to be thrown to the wolves for Brexit and yet the very ills that caused the EU referendum result will remain and intensify as European immigrants are replaced with those from elsewhere in the world, the economic disparities in the UK will in all likelihood get worse and we will have suffered a diminution in economic power and influence for no reason.
Diane Abbott's tweet is very badly worded and should lose the first sentence which makes it look like Abbott is the one who lied.
Hard to believe she had an oxbridge education.
George W. Bush went to both Yale and Harvard.
Well we all know they are second rate institutions ;-)
Dominic Cummings got a first at Oxford. And even Boris got a second. Tristram Hunt got a first at Cambridge. Hardly a suggestion that Oxbridge is a haven of quality.
Are firsts at Oxford and Cambridge quite what they used to be? I have my doubts. How comparable is David Cameron's first in PPE in the late 1980s to that obtained by Harold Wilson fifty years earlier? I am struck by how few appear to end up with Thirds there nowadays - yet not so long ago it seemed pretty common. David Dimbleby got a Third in PPE in late 1950s - Jeremy Thorpe in Jurisprudence earlier in same decade. Edward Boyle emerged with a Third in History the late 1940s. Going back further Thirds were awarded to Barbara Castle - PPE - in early 30s , and Alec Douglas-Home - History - in the 1920s. Are today's students so much brighter , or is the explanation again to be found in grade inflation? Edit - Just remebered that Stanley Baldwin also ended up with a Third at Cambridge in late 19th century.
Terry Christian has the right idea, those who voted for Brexit should be the first to feel the pain in any redundancy campaign. All that social media content or even outspoken Brexit chatter at work should influence who gets the chop first!
We aren't at the job losses stage yet. But when we are I don't think they will come in a way that allows reprisals against leavers. Not that such reprisals should be taken of course.
I disagree, people who support Brexit seem to think rules or bad luck in life are the property of others. If redundancies are a consequence of Brexit those who supported it should feel the pain.
I cannot believe in this day and age the pure indifference to how the economy will be afflicted by No Deal Brexit. Those who support wrecking the economy for no reason should feel the brunt. People will become homeless or will not afford to feed themselves because of this stupidity. It is not reasonable to load al this pain on the population!
Could we adopt this policy for other political decisions? Eg if Labour forms the next government and imposes a 20% wealth tax (as suggested in today's Times) it should be levied on Labour voters first.
After all, if a Corbyn-led Labour government would be as bad for the economy as some of us believe, it would only be right, would it not, for the costs of it to be borne by those who voted for it?
The sad thing about a Corbyn Government is the rich will find ways to get around the wealth tax. Like in Venezuela the poor will be the ones to suffer.
The issue as a consequence of Brexit with the resulting divergence with our nearest developed markets will be lowering our fundamental ability to grow in the future. The contempt for those who will lose their jobs by those who persist in advocating No Deal and the like seems perverse to say the least. I find it distasteful the way decent jobs and hard working people are going to be thrown to the wolves for Brexit and yet the very ills that caused the EU referendum result will remain and intensify as European immigrants are replaced with those from elsewhere in the world, the economic disparities in the UK will in all likelihood get worse and we will have suffered a diminution in economic power and influence for no reason.
You say we are going to lose the ability to grow and there will be job losses and then you say we need more immigration.
Terry Christian has the right idea, those who voted for Brexit should be the first to feel the pain in any redundancy campaign. All that social media content or even outspoken Brexit chatter at work should influence who gets the chop first!
We aren't at the job losses stage yet. But when we are I don't think they will come in a way that allows reprisals against leavers. Not that such reprisals should be taken of course.
I disagree, people who support Brexit seem to think rules or bad luck in life are the property of others. If redundancies are a consequence of Brexit those who supported it should feel the pain.
I cannot believe in this day and age the pure indifference to how the economy will be afflicted by No Deal Brexit. Those who support wrecking the economy for no reason should feel the brunt. People will become homeless or will not afford to feed themselves because of this stupidity. It is not reasonable to load al this pain on the population!
Could we adopt this policy for other political decisions? Eg if Labour forms the next government and imposes a 20% wealth tax (as suggested in today's Times) it should be levied on Labour voters first.
After all, if a Corbyn-led Labour government would be as bad for the economy as some of us believe, it would only be right, would it not, for the costs of it to be borne by those who voted for it?
The sad thing about a Corbyn Government is the rich will find ways to get around the wealth tax. Like in Venezuela the poor will be the ones to suffer.
The issue as a consequence of Brexit with the resulting divergence with our nearest developed markets will be lowering our fundamental ability to grow in the future. The contempt for those who will lose their jobs by those who persist in advocating No Deal and the like seems perverse to say the least. I find it distasteful the way decent jobs and hard working people are going to be thrown to the wolves for Brexit and yet the very ills that caused the EU referendum result will remain and intensify as European immigrants are replaced with those from elsewhere in the world, the economic disparities in the UK will in all likelihood get worse and we will have suffered a diminution in economic power and influence for no reason.
You say we are going to lose the ability to grow and there will be job losses and then you say we need more immigration.
Diane Abbott's tweet is very badly worded and should lose the first sentence which makes it look like Abbott is the one who lied.
It is a direct quote from the author of the article, not her words.
Yes I know that but my point remains. The first sentence should go because it is unnecessary and gives the false impression it is Abbot who lied. Most people will not follow the link for the full context.
Diane Abbott's tweet is very badly worded and should lose the first sentence which makes it look like Abbott is the one who lied.
Hard to believe she had an oxbridge education.
George W. Bush went to both Yale and Harvard.
Well we all know they are second rate institutions ;-)
Dominic Cummings got a first at Oxford. And even Boris got a second. Tristram Hunt got a first at Cambridge. Hardly a suggestion that Oxbridge is a haven of quality.
Are firsts at Oxford and Cambridge quite what they used to be? I have my doubts. How comparable is David Cameron's first in PPE in the late 1980s to that obtained by Harold Wilson fifty years earlier? I am struck by how few appear to end up with Thirds there nowadays - yet not so long ago it seemed pretty common. David Dimbleby got a Third in PPE in late 1950s - Jeremy Thorpe in Jurisprudence earlier in same decade. Edward Boyle emerged with a Third in History the late 1940s. Going back further Thirds were awarded to Barbara Castle - PPE - in early 30s , and Alec Douglas-Home - History - in the 1920s. Are today's students so much brighter , or is the explanation again to be found in grade inflation? Edit - Just remebered that Stanley Baldwin also ended up with a Third at Cambridge in late 19th century.
Perhaps more that, starting around 1980, they started strongly to discourage the practice of the gentleman’s third....
Diane Abbott's tweet is very badly worded and should lose the first sentence which makes it look like Abbott is the one who lied.
Hard to believe she had an oxbridge education.
George W. Bush went to both Yale and Harvard.
Well we all know they are second rate institutions ;-)
Dominic Cummings got a first at Oxford. And even Boris got a second. Tristram Hunt got a first at Cambridge. Hardly a suggestion that Oxbridge is a haven of quality.
Are firsts at Oxford and Cambridge quite what they used to be? I have my doubts. How comparable is David Cameron's first in PPE in the late 1980s to that obtained by Harold Wilson fifty years earlier? I am struck by how few appear to end up with Thirds there nowadays - yet not so long ago it seemed pretty common. David Dimbleby got a Third in PPE in late 1950s - Jeremy Thorpe in Jurisprudence earlier in same decade. Edward Boyle emerged with a Third in History the late 1940s. Going back further Thirds were awarded to Barbara Castle - PPE - in early 30s , and Alec Douglas-Home - History - in the 1920s. Are today's students so much brighter , or is the explanation again to be found in grade inflation? Edit - Just remebered that Stanley Baldwin also ended up with a Third at Cambridge in late 19th century.
I think it depends on how you classify the individual who obtained the first. Harold Wilson was described as being very gifted and exceptional where as Cameron may have been very gifted. The distinction is slight but the intellectual difference might be comparing chalk and cheese! Wilson continued a lifelong interest in academia either directly or indirectly whereas Cameron did not seem to fit into that groove. Intelligence does not always partner good judgement!
Diane Abbott's tweet is very badly worded and should lose the first sentence which makes it look like Abbott is the one who lied.
Hard to believe she had an oxbridge education.
George W. Bush went to both Yale and Harvard.
Well we all know they are second rate institutions ;-)
Dominic Cummings got a first at Oxford. And even Boris got a second. Tristram Hunt got a first at Cambridge. Hardly a suggestion that Oxbridge is a haven of quality.
Are firsts at Oxford and Cambridge quite what they used to be? I have my doubts. How comparable is David Cameron's first in PPE in the late 1980s to that obtained by Harold Wilson fifty years earlier? I am struck by how few appear to end up with Thirds there nowadays - yet not so long ago it seemed pretty common. David Dimbleby got a Third in PPE in late 1950s - Jeremy Thorpe in Jurisprudence earlier in same decade. Edward Boyle emerged with a Third in History the late 1940s. Going back further Thirds were awarded to Barbara Castle - PPE - in early 30s , and Alec Douglas-Home - History - in the 1920s. Are today's students so much brighter , or is the explanation again to be found in grade inflation? Edit - Just remebered that Stanley Baldwin also ended up with a Third at Cambridge in late 19th century.
Perhaps more that, starting around 1980, they started strongly to discourage the practice of the gentleman’s third....
So it no longer became acceptable to simply swan around and have a good time - and be content with a Third?
Diane Abbott's tweet is very badly worded and should lose the first sentence which makes it look like Abbott is the one who lied.
It is a direct quote from the author of the article, not her words.
Yes I know that but my point remains. The first sentence should go because it is unnecessary and gives the false impression it is Abbot who lied. Most people will not follow the link for the full context.
I'm normally happy to laugh at Abbot for being an idiot, but in this instance the quote is surrounded by quotation marks. It is pretty clearly a quote and doesn't need someone to follow the link.
Diane Abbott's tweet is very badly worded and should lose the first sentence which makes it look like Abbott is the one who lied.
Hard to believe she had an oxbridge education.
George W. Bush went to both Yale and Harvard.
Well we all know they are second rate institutions ;-)
Dominic Cummings got a first at Oxford. And even Boris got a second. Tristram Hunt got a first at Cambridge. Hardly a suggestion that Oxbridge is a haven of quality.
Are firsts at Oxford and Cambridge quite what they used to be? I have my doubts. How comparable is David Cameron's first in PPE in the late 1980s to that obtained by Harold Wilson fifty years earlier? I am struck by how few appear to end up with Thirds there nowadays - yet not so long ago it seemed pretty common. David Dimbleby got a Third in PPE in late 1950s - Jeremy Thorpe in Jurisprudence earlier in same decade. Edward Boyle emerged with a Third in History the late 1940s. Going back further Thirds were awarded to Barbara Castle - PPE - in early 30s , and Alec Douglas-Home - History - in the 1920s. Are today's students so much brighter , or is the explanation again to be found in grade inflation? Edit - Just remebered that Stanley Baldwin also ended up with a Third at Cambridge in late 19th century.
I think it depends on how you classify the individual who obtained the first. Harold Wilson was described as being very gifted and exceptional where as Cameron may have been very gifted. The distinction is slight but the intellectual difference might be comparing chalk and cheese! Wilson continued a lifelong interest in academia either directly or indirectly whereas Cameron did not seem to fit into that groove. Intelligence does not always partner good judgement!
A few years ago I had an email exchange with Polly Toynbee of the Guardian. I challenged her assertion that Gordon Brown was the most intelligent of our postwar PMs by presenting the example of Harold Wilson. She did not exactly refute my suggestion , but did say that after Wilson became a senior politician he ceased to read widely - whereas Brown did not. I remain unconvinced by that.
The thing that made me laugh about the "searing" editorial in the Irish Independent is :
"Ireland has stood by the EU and should not be made to pay the price for another member storming out. We saddled our future generations with debt to protect the euro when the dam threatened to burst a decade ago. Small nations within the EU will be watching closely to see how we are treated."
Past behaviour really is a good predictor of future behaviour in the case of the EU.
The EU has stood by Ireland in their demands for a backstop.
But you could equally turn it around, and say that by insisting on the backstop, the EU has abrogated its responsibilities to Spain and Portugal.
Guess what, the real world is complex, and the EU has to juggle the demands and desires of countries with different wants and needs.
The EU has backed Ireland wholeheartedly because its political interests and those of Ireland wholly align. They align because Ireland made a calculated policy choice to stand full square behind EU principles of the integrity of its customs union and single market in relation to the NI border, and the EU sees this as a very effective tool to fulfil its political objectives over Brexit.
The idea the Irish tail is waging the EU dog might be rather sweet but it doesn't reflect reality.
Diane Abbott's tweet is very badly worded and should lose the first sentence which makes it look like Abbott is the one who lied.
Hard to believe she had an oxbridge education.
George W. Bush went to both Yale and Harvard.
Well we all know they are second rate institutions ;-)
Dominic Cummings got a first at Oxford. And even Boris got a second. Tristram Hunt got a first at Cambridge. Hardly a suggestion that Oxbridge is a haven of quality.
Are firsts at Oxford and Cambridge quite what they used to be? I have my doubts. How comparable is David Cameron's first in PPE in the late 1980s to that obtained by Harold Wilson fifty years earlier? I am struck by how few appear to end up with Thirds there nowadays - yet not so long ago it seemed pretty common. David Dimbleby got a Third in PPE in late 1950s - Jeremy Thorpe in Jurisprudence earlier in same decade. Edward Boyle emerged with a Third in History the late 1940s. Going back further Thirds were awarded to Barbara Castle - PPE - in early 30s , and Alec Douglas-Home - History - in the 1920s. Are today's students so much brighter , or is the explanation again to be found in grade inflation? Edit - Just remebered that Stanley Baldwin also ended up with a Third at Cambridge in late 19th century.
I think it depends on how you classify the individual who obtained the first. Harold Wilson was described as being very gifted and exceptional where as Cameron may have been very gifted. The distinction is slight but the intellectual difference might be comparing chalk and cheese! Wilson continued a lifelong interest in academia either directly or indirectly whereas Cameron did not seem to fit into that groove. Intelligence does not always partner good judgement!
Jim Hacker Got a Third from the LSE, which he wore with some pride and goaded Sir Humphrey with - any bachelor's degree is pretty straightforward though in reality - why we think a 1st in PPE or pretty much anything else makes anyone intellectually special is ridiculous.
Oxford used to award fourth class degrees (apparently as prized as firsts) until the late 1960s or early 70s. Frank Bough was one such recipient.
We were always secretly hoping someone got a 2:2 or a third class degree at Bristol, just so we could mock them by saying they got a "Desmond" or a "Douglas".
Terry Christian has the right idea, those who voted for Brexit should be the first to feel the pain in any redundancy campaign. All that social media content or even outspoken Brexit chatter at work should influence who gets the chop first!
We aren't at the job losses stage yet. But when we are I don't think they will come in a way that allows reprisals against leavers. Not that such reprisals should be taken of course.
I disagree, people who support Brexit seem to think rules or bad luck in life are the property of others. If redundancies are a consequence of Brexit those who supported it should feel the pain.
I cannot believe in this day and age the pure indifference to how the economy will be afflicted by No Deal Brexit. Those who support wrecking the economy for no reason should feel the brunt. People will become homeless or will not afford to feed themselves because of this stupidity. It is not reasonable to load al this pain on the population!
Could we adopt this policy for other political decisions? Eg if Labour forms the next government and imposes a 20% wealth tax (as suggested in today's Times) it should be levied on Labour voters first.
After all, if a Corbyn-led Labour government would be as bad for the economy as some of us believe, it would only be right, would it not, for the costs of it to be borne by those who voted for it?
You say we are going to lose the ability to grow and there will be job losses and then you say we need more immigration.
Your arguments are illogical.
There is no inconsistency at all and I have explained this to you at least once if not twice.
Even in a recession you can find it hard to fill all types of jobs usually at the lower end of the spectrum but not exclusively, It can range from cleaners, agricultural workers and care home workers to skilled or professionals like doctors, nurses and laboratory staff or many other professions. There is always a basic need for some services or products such as in the NHS and the UK for whatever reason does not have a supply of the necessary experienced, qualified or experienced to fill these jobs.
The problem with Brexit is workers in Car plants like Ford, Nissan or Toyota will if they close be put out of work and do you expect someone with years of experience in manufacturing to gladly go into the fields or wipe peoples arses for a living? I think calling you obtuse is the most reasonable opinion I can bestow upon you.
Diane Abbott's tweet is very badly worded and should lose the first sentence which makes it look like Abbott is the one who lied.
It is a direct quote from the author of the article, not her words.
Yes I know that but my point remains. The first sentence should go because it is unnecessary and gives the false impression it is Abbot who lied. Most people will not follow the link for the full context.
I'm normally happy to laugh at Abbot for being an idiot, but in this instance the quote is surrounded by quotation marks. It is pretty clearly a quote and doesn't need someone to follow the link.
And if it were a quote from Abbot herself, which it is not, it might still have quotation marks. The quote is not needed and should not be there, or else the "I" should be replaced.
Diane Abbott's tweet is very badly worded and should lose the first sentence which makes it look like Abbott is the one who lied.
Hard to believe she had an oxbridge education.
George W. Bush went to both Yale and Harvard.
Well we all know they are second rate institutions ;-)
Dominic Cummings got a first at Oxford. And even Boris got a second. Tristram Hunt got a first at Cambridge. Hardly a suggestion that Oxbridge is a haven of quality.
Are firsts at Oxford and Cambridge quite what they used to be? I have my doubts. How comparable is David Cameron's first in PPE in the late 1980s to that obtained by Harold Wilson fifty years earlier? I am struck by how few appear to end up with Thirds there nowadays - yet not so long ago it seemed pretty common. David Dimbleby got a Third in PPE in late 1950s - Jeremy Thorpe in Jurisprudence earlier in same decade. Edward Boyle emerged with a Third in History the late 1940s. Going back further Thirds were awarded to Barbara Castle - PPE - in early 30s , and Alec Douglas-Home - History - in the 1920s. Are today's students so much brighter , or is the explanation again to be found in grade inflation? Edit - Just remebered that Stanley Baldwin also ended up with a Third at Cambridge in late 19th century.
I think it depends on how you classify the individual who obtained the first. Harold Wilson was described as being very gifted and exceptional where as Cameron may have been very gifted. The distinction is slight but the intellectual difference might be comparing chalk and cheese! Wilson continued a lifelong interest in academia either directly or indirectly whereas Cameron did not seem to fit into that groove. Intelligence does not always partner good judgement!
I was a 2:1 but slap bang between a 2:1 and a first at 65%.
My strategy was highly numeric: I'd put all my effort into the exams and projects that'd give me the most credits for the least effort, although I wasn't as bad as some who looked to get just 59% and then get upgraded by performing well at the viva.
Diane Abbott's tweet is very badly worded and should lose the first sentence which makes it look like Abbott is the one who lied.
It is a direct quote from the author of the article, not her words.
Yes I know that but my point remains. The first sentence should go because it is unnecessary and gives the false impression it is Abbot who lied. Most people will not follow the link for the full context.
I'm normally happy to laugh at Abbot for being an idiot, but in this instance the quote is surrounded by quotation marks. It is pretty clearly a quote and doesn't need someone to follow the link.
And if it were a quote from Abbot herself, which it is not, it might still have quotation marks. The quote is not needed and should not be there, or else the "I" should be replaced.
No people don't normally put their own words into quotation marks in Tweets. Especially not when they've but their own words outside of the quotation marks.
Oxford used to award fourth class degrees (apparently as prized as firsts) until the late 1960s or early 70s. Frank Bough was one such recipient.
We were always secretly hoping someone got a 2:2 or a third class degree at Bristol, just so we could mock them by saying they got a "Desmond" or a "Douglas".
Yet until the mid to late 1980s a 2:2 was the 'normal' degree. People were pleased to end up with a 2:1 - yet now feel they have wasted their time if awarded anything less! Grade inflation pretty clearly.
I don't think Wilson was viewed as exceptional in his schooldays - good but not brilliant. Moreover he won an Exhibition to Oxford - rather than a Scholarship. Unlike Keith Joseph and Brian Walden he did not become a Fellow of All Souls.
Diane Abbott's tweet is very badly worded and should lose the first sentence which makes it look like Abbott is the one who lied.
Hard to believe she had an oxbridge education.
George W. Bush went to both Yale and Harvard.
Well we all know they are second rate institutions ;-)
Dominic Cummings got a first at Oxford. And even Boris got a second. Tristram Hunt got a first at Cambridge. Hardly a suggestion that Oxbridge is a haven of quality.
Are firsts at Oxford and Cambridge quite what they used to be? I have my doubts. How comparable is David Cameron's first in PPE in the late 1980s to that obtained by Harold Wilson fifty years earlier? I am struck by how few appear to end up with Thirds there nowadays - yet not so long ago it seemed pretty common. David Dimbleby got a Third in PPE in late 1950s - Jeremy Thorpe in Jurisprudence earlier in same decade. Edward Boyle emerged with a Third in History the late 1940s. Going back further Thirds were awarded to Barbara Castle - PPE - in early 30s , and Alec Douglas-Home - History - in the 1920s. Are today's students so much brighter , or is the explanation again to be found in grade inflation? Edit - Just remebered that Stanley Baldwin also ended up with a Third at Cambridge in late 19th century.
I think it depends on how you classify the individual who obtained the first. Harold Wilson was described as being very gifted and exceptional where as Cameron may have been very gifted. The distinction is slight but the intellectual difference might be comparing chalk and cheese! Wilson continued a lifelong interest in academia either directly or indirectly whereas Cameron did not seem to fit into that groove. Intelligence does not always partner good judgement!
Jim Hacker Got a Third from the LSE, which he wore with some pride and goaded Sir Humphrey with - any bachelor's degree is pretty straightforward though in reality - why we think a 1st in PPE or pretty much anything else makes anyone intellectually special is ridiculous.
I can confirm that a first in PPE does not make the holder intellectually special. Just read my inane posts on PB for confirmation!
I disagree, people who support Brexit seem to think rules or bad luck in life are the property of others. If redundancies are a consequence of Brexit those who supported it should feel the pain.
stupidity. It is not reasonable to load al this pain on the population!
Could we adopt this policy for other political decisions? Eg if Labour forms the next government and imposes a 20% wealth tax (as suggested in today's Times) it should be levied on Labour voters first.
After all, if a Corbyn-led Labour government would be as bad for the economy as some of us believe, it would only be right, would it not, for the costs of it to be borne by those who voted for it?
You say we are going to lose the ability to grow and there will be job losses and then you say we need more immigration.
Your arguments are illogical.
There is no inconsistency at all and I have explained this to you at least once if not twice.
Even in a recession you can find it hard to fill all types of jobs usually at the lower end of the spectrum but not exclusively, It can range from cleaners, agricultural workers and care home workers to skilled or professionals like doctors, nurses and laboratory staff or many other professions. There is always a basic need for some services or products such as in the NHS and the UK for whatever reason does not have a supply of the necessary experienced, qualified or experienced to fill these jobs.
The problem with Brexit is workers in Car plants like Ford, Nissan or Toyota will if they close be put out of work and do you expect someone with years of experience in manufacturing to gladly go into the fields or wipe peoples arses for a living? I think calling you obtuse is the most reasonable opinion I can bestow upon you.
Maybe will we allow some skilled/non skilled labour in where we have shortages, we will not allow unlimited unskilled immigration like after the GFC where we had queues round the corner for shelf stacking jobs at Aldi.
Most car workers at Ford, Nissan and Toyota are not skilled manufacturing jobs. They are hard work, repetitive assembly jobs. Put the component on, turn round pick another up and the next car is there put it on again, repeat until piss break. You can not talk to you mates and you do this for a long shift.
Oxford used to award fourth class degrees (apparently as prized as firsts) until the late 1960s or early 70s. Frank Bough was one such recipient.
We were always secretly hoping someone got a 2:2 or a third class degree at Bristol, just so we could mock them by saying they got a "Desmond" or a "Douglas".
Yet until the mid to late 1980s a 2:2 was the 'normal' degree. People were pleased to end up with a 2:1 - yet now feel they have wasted their time if awarded anything less! Grade inflation pretty clearly.
Two of my close friends got 2:2s and now have good careers but they really struggled upon graduating and had to do it the hard way. They didn't qualify for all the usual schemes.
No two ways about it, at university they were lazy. It isn't hard to get a 2:1 if you're intelligent and put some basic effort in, but they don't come automatically.
Diane Abbott's tweet is very badly worded and should lose the first sentence which makes it look like Abbott is the one who lied.
Hard to believe she had an oxbridge education.
George W. Bush went to both Yale and Harvard.
Well we all know they are second rate institutions ;-)
Dominic Cummings got a first at Oxford. And even Boris got a second. Tristram Hunt got a first at Cambridge. Hardly a suggestion that Oxbridge is a haven of quality.
Are firsts at Oxford and Cambridge quite what they used to be? I have my doubts. How comparable is David Cameron's first in PPE in the late 1980s to that obtained by Harold Wilson fifty years earlier? I am struck by how few appear to end up with Thirds there nowadays - yet not so long ago it seemed pretty common. David Dimbleby got a Third in PPE in late 1950s - Jeremy Thorpe in Jurisprudence earlier in same decade. Edward Boyle emerged with a Third in History theDouglas-Home - History - in the 1920s. Are today's students so much brighter , or is the explanation again to be found in grade inflation? Edit - Just remebered that Stanley Baldwin also ended up with a Third at Cambridge in late 19th century.
I think it depends on how you classify the individual who obtained the first. Harold Wilson was described as being very gifted and exceptional where as Cameron may have been very gifted. The distinction is slight but the intellectual difference might be comparing chalk and cheese! Wilson continued a lifelong interest in academia either directly or indirectly whereas Cameron did not seem to fit into that groove. Intelligence does not always partner good judgement!
A few years ago I had an email exchange with Polly Toynbee of the Guardian. I challenged her assertion that Gordon Brown was the most intelligent of our postwar PMs by presenting the example of Harold Wilson. She did not exactly refute my suggestion , but did say that after Wilson became a senior politician he ceased to read widely - whereas Brown did not. I remain unconvinced by that.
Diane Abbott's tweet is very badly worded and should lose the first sentence which makes it look like Abbott is the one who lied.
Hard to believe she had an oxbridge education.
George W. Bush went to both Yale and Harvard.
Well we all know they are second rate institutions ;-)
Dominic Cummings got a first at Oxford. And even Boris got a second. Tristram Hunt got a first at Cambridge. Hardly a suggestion that Oxbridge is a haven of quality.
Are firsts at Oxford and Cambridge quite what they used to be? I have my doubts. How comparable is David Cameron's first in PPE in the late 1980s to that obtained by Harold Wilson fifty years earlier? I am struck by how few appear to end up with Thirds there nowadays - yet not so long ago it seemed pretty common. David Dimbleby got a Third in PPE in late 1950s - Jeremy Thorpe in Jurisprudence earlier in same decade. Edward Boyle emerged with a Third in History the late 1940s. Going back further Thirds were awarded to Barbara Castle - PPE - in early 30s , and Alec Douglas-Home - History - in the 1920s. Are today's students so much brighter , or is the explanation again to be found in grade inflation? Edit - Just remebered that Stanley Baldwin also ended up with a Third at Cambridge in late 19th century.
I think it depends on how you classify the individual who obtained the first. Harold Wilson was described as being very gifted and exceptional where as Cameron may have been very gifted. The distinction is slight but the intellectual difference might be comparing chalk and cheese! Wilson continued a lifelong interest in academia either directly or indirectly whereas Cameron did not seem to fit into that groove. Intelligence does not always partner good judgement!
I was a 2:1 but slap bang between a 2:1 and a first at 65%.
My strategy was highly numeric: I'd put all my effort into the exams and projects that'd give me the most credits for the least effort, although I wasn't as bad as some who looked to get just 59% and then get upgraded by performing well at the viva.
That sounds like a good approach.
My strategy was just to see it through to the end!
Diane Abbott's tweet is very badly worded and should lose the first sentence which makes it look like Abbott is the one who lied.
Hard to believe she had an oxbridge education.
George W. Bush went to both Yale and Harvard.
Well we all know they are second rate institutions ;-)
Dominic Cummings got a first at Oxford. And even Boris got a second. Tristram Hunt got a first at Cambridge. Hardly a suggestion that Oxbridge is a haven of quality.
with a Third in History the late 1940s. Going back further Thirds were awarded to Barbara Castle - PPE - in early 30s , and Alec Douglas-Home - History - in the 1920s. Are today's students so much brighter , or is the explanation again to be found in grade inflation? Edit - Just remebered that Stanley Baldwin also ended up with a Third at Cambridge in late 19th century.
I think it depends on how you classify the individual who obtained the first. Harold Wilson was described as being very gifted and exceptional where as Cameron may have been very gifted. The distinction is slight but the intellectual difference might be comparing chalk and cheese! Wilson continued a lifelong interest in academia either directly or indirectly whereas Cameron did not seem to fit into that groove. Intelligence does not always partner good judgement!
Jim Hacker Got a Third from the LSE, which he wore with some pride and goaded Sir Humphrey with - any bachelor's degree is pretty straightforward though in reality - why we think a 1st in PPE or pretty much anything else makes anyone intellectually special is ridiculous.
I can confirm that a first in PPE does not make the holder intellectually special. Just read my inane posts on PB for confirmation!
By your day , had 'doing the minimum necessary to ensure a Third' ceased to be an option?
Diane Abbott's tweet is very badly worded and should lose the first sentence which makes it look like Abbott is the one who lied.
Hard to believe she had an oxbridge education.
George W. Bush went to both Yale and Harvard.
Well we all know they are second rate institutions ;-)
ity.
Are firsts at Oxford and Cambridge quite what they used to be? I have my doubts. How comparable is David Cameron's first in PPE in the late 1980s to that obtained by Harold Wilson fifty years earlier? I am struck by how few appear to end up with Thirds there nowadays - yet not so long ago it seemed pretty common. David Dimbleby got a Third in PPE in late 1950s - Jeremy Thorpe in Jurisprudence earlier in same decade. Edward Boyle emerged with a Third in History the late 1940s. Going back further Thirds were awarded to Barbara Castle - PPE - in early 30s , and Alec Douglas-Home - History - in the 1920s. Are today's students so much brighter , or is the explanation again to be found in grade inflation? Edit - Just remebered that Stanley Baldwin also ended up with a Third at Cambridge in late 19th century.
I think it depends on how you classify the individual who obtained the first. Harold Wilson was described as being very gifted and exceptional where as Cameron may have been very gifted. The distinction is slight but the intellectual difference might be comparing chalk and cheese! Wilson continued a lifelong interest in academia either directly or indirectly whereas Cameron did not seem to fit into that groove. Intelligence does not always partner good judgement!
Jim Hacker Got a Third from the LSE, which he wore with some pride and goaded Sir Humphrey with - any bachelor's degree is pretty straightforward though in reality - why we think a 1st in PPE or pretty much anything else makes anyone intellectually special is ridiculous.
You have to try pretty darn hard to get a third these days.
I know one guy who did (Ugandan royalty, or as good as) and he spent every day partying and as far as I remember never went to a single lecture.
Diane Abbott's tweet is very badly worded and should lose the first sentence which makes it look like Abbott is the one who lied.
Hard to believe she had an oxbridge education.
George W. Bush went to both Yale and Harvard.
Well we all know they are second rate institutions ;-)
Dominic Cummings got a first at Oxford. And even Boris got a second. Tristram Hunt got a first at Cambridge. Hardly a suggestion that Oxbridge is a haven of quality.
with a Third in History the late 1940s. Going back further Thirds were awarded to Barbara Castle - PPE - in early 30s , and Alec Douglas-Home - History - in the 1920s. Are today's students so much brighter , or is the explanation again to be found in grade inflation? Edit - Just remebered that Stanley Baldwin also ended up with a Third at Cambridge in late 19th century.
I think it depends on how you classify the individual who obtained the first. Harold Wilson was described as being very gifted and exceptional where as Cameron may have been very gifted. The distinction is slight but the intellectual difference might be comparing chalk and cheese! Wilson continued a lifelong interest in academia either directly or indirectly whereas Cameron did not seem to fit into that groove. Intelligence does not always partner good judgement!
Jim Hacker Got a Third from the LSE, which he wore with some pride and goaded Sir Humphrey with - any bachelor's degree is pretty straightforward though in reality - why we think a 1st in PPE or pretty much anything else makes anyone intellectually special is ridiculous.
I can confirm that a first in PPE does not make the holder intellectually special. Just read my inane posts on PB for confirmation!
By your day , had 'doing the minimum necessary to ensure a Third' ceased to be an option?
Students don't enrol with the OU just to do the minimum necessary.
Oxford used to award fourth class degrees (apparently as prized as firsts) until the late 1960s or early 70s. Frank Bough was one such recipient.
We were always secretly hoping someone got a 2:2 or a third class degree at Bristol, just so we could mock them by saying they got a "Desmond" or a "Douglas".
Yet until the mid to late 1980s a 2:2 was the 'normal' degree. People were pleased to end up with a 2:1 - yet now feel they have wasted their time if awarded anything less! Grade inflation pretty clearly.
Two of my close friends got 2:2s and now have good careers but they really struggled upon graduating and had to do it the hard way. They didn't qualify for all the usual schemes.
No two ways about it, at university they were lazy. It isn't hard to get a 2:1 if you're intelligent and put some basic effort in, but they don't come automatically.
It was pretty difficult to get a 2:1 back in the 60s and 70s - and Firsts were seen as being almost impossible. I recall the shock in 1975 when a guy did manage a First in History - it had not happened in the preceding ten years!
Diane Abbott's tweet is very badly worded and should lose the first sentence which makes it look like Abbott is the one who lied.
Hard to believe she had an oxbridge education.
George W. Bush went to both Yale and Harvard.
Well we all know they are second rate institutions ;-)
of quality.
Edit - Just remebered that Stanley Baldwin also ended up with a Third at Cambridge in late 19th century.
I think it depends on how you classify the individual who obtained the first. Harold Wilson was described as being very gifted and exceptional where as Cameron may have been very gifted. The distinction is slight but the intellectual difference might be comparing chalk and cheese! Wilson continued a lifelong interest in academia either directly or indirectly whereas Cameron did not seem to fit into that groove. Intelligence does not always partner good judgement!
I was a 2:1 but slap bang between a 2:1 and a first at 65%.
My strategy was highly numeric: I'd put all my effort into the exams and projects that'd give me the most credits for the least effort, although I wasn't as bad as some who looked to get just 59% and then get upgraded by performing well at the viva.
That sounds like a good approach.
My strategy was just to see it through to the end!
I had a recurring nightmare for about 7 years after I graduated that I failed my degree. I'd be in the exam rooms for my finals and couldn't remember how to answer a single question.
That wasn't fun.
It happened because I only really pulled my socks up in the last 3-4 months in the lead up to my finals in my 3rd and 4th year, promptly forget most of the detail of what I'd learnt (i still understand all the principles about it) and felt guilty about the degree I'd been awarded.
Diane Abbott's tweet is very badly worded and should lose the first sentence which makes it look like Abbott is the one who lied.
Hard to believe she had an oxbridge education.
George W. Bush went to both Yale and Harvard.
Well we all know they are second rate institutions ;-)
Dominic Cummings got a first at Oxford. And even Boris got a second. Tristram Hunt got a first at Cambridge. Hardly a suggestion that Oxbridge is a haven of quality.
with a Third in History the late 1940s. Going back further Thirds were awarded to Barbara Castle - PPE - in early 30s , and Alec Douglas-Home - History - in the 1920s. Are today's students so much brighter , or is the explanation again to be found in grade inflation? Edit - Just remebered that Stanley Baldwin also ended up with a Third at Cambridge in late 19th century.
I think it depends on how you classify the individual who obtained the first. Harold Wilson was described as being very gifted and exceptional where as Cameron may have been very gifted. The distinction is slight but the intellectual difference might be comparing chalk and cheese! Wilson continued a lifelong interest in academia either directly or indirectly whereas Cameron did not seem to fit into that groove. Intelligence does not always partner good judgement!
Jim Hacker Got a Third from the LSE, which he wore with some pride and goaded Sir Humphrey with - any bachelor's degree is pretty straightforward though in reality - why we think a 1st in PPE or pretty much anything else makes anyone intellectually special is ridiculous.
I can confirm that a first in PPE does not make the holder intellectually special. Just read my inane posts on PB for confirmation!
By your day , had 'doing the minimum necessary to ensure a Third' ceased to be an option?
Students don't enrol with the OU just to do the minimum necessary.
I beg your pardon. And many congratulations too! I assumed you had been at Oxford.
Diane Abbott's tweet is very badly worded and should lose the first sentence which makes it look like Abbott is the one who lied.
Hard to believe she had an oxbridge education.
George W. Bush went to both Yale and Harvard.
Well we all know they are second rate institutions ;-)
Dominic Cummings got a first at Oxford. And even Boris got a second. Tristram Hunt got a first at Cambridge. Hardly a suggestion that Oxbridge is a haven of quality.
with a Third in History the late 1940s. Going back further Thirds were awarded to Barbara Castle - PPE - in early 30s , and Alec Douglas-Home - History - in the 1920s.century.
I think it depends on how you classify the individual who obtained the first. Harold Wilson was described as being very gifted and exceptional where as Cameron may have been very gifted. The distinction is slight but the intellectual difference might be comparing chalk and cheese! Wilson continued a lifelong interest in academia either directly or indirectly whereas Cameron did not seem to fit into that groove. Intelligence does not always partner good judgement!
Jim Hacker Got a Third from the LSE, which he wore with some pride and goaded Sir Humphrey with - any bachelor's degree is pretty straightforward though in reality - why we think a 1st in PPE or pretty much anything else makes anyone intellectually special is ridiculous.
I can confirm that a first in PPE does not make the holder intellectually special. Just read my inane posts on PB for confirmation!
By your day , had 'doing the minimum necessary to ensure a Third' ceased to be an option?
Students don't enrol with the OU just to do the minimum necessary.
I beg your pardon. And many congratulations too! I assumed you had been at Oxford.
Terry Christian has the right idea, those who voted for Brexit should be the first to feel the pain in any redundancy campaign. All that social media content or even outspoken Brexit chatter at work should influence who gets the chop first!
We aren't at the job losses stage yet. But when we are I don't think they will come in a way that allows reprisals against leavers. Not that such reprisals should be taken of course.
I disagree, people who support Brexit seem to think rules or bad luck in life are the property of others. If redundancies are a consequence of Brexit those who supported it should feel the pain.
I cannot believe in this day and age the pure indifference to how the economy will be afflicted by No Deal Brexit. Those who support wrecking the economy for no reason should feel the brunt. People will become homeless or will not afford to feed themselves because of this stupidity. It is not reasonable to load al this pain on the population!
And if massive youth unemployment in Italy or Spain is the consequence of being in the EU and in the Euro? This sort of argument is useless. All actions, and non actions, have consequences some of which are good and some bad.
Membership of the Euro is a different question, the UK is not and has never been a member of the Euro. Unemployment in Italy and Spain or even Greece are an internal matter and should not be conflated with the trading prospects of the UK currently or post Brexit.
Unemployment in those countries has nothing to do with the Euro and EU economic policy?
hmmmmmmmm
The question is : have employment and unemployment trends been worse in the EU and the Eurozone than in other advanced economies with similar demographics and social systems?
What was youth unemployment in the Southern States again?
I actually believe intellectually, IQ wise- the Neo Liberal, free market ideologues are the brightest amongst us...even genius type lefties like Michael Moore and Germaine Greer appear to start veering to the right as their intelligence and coherence takes hold...
that said....compassion ands stupidity are not conflictual.....
The thing that made me laugh about the "searing" editorial in the Irish Independent is :
"Ireland has stood by the EU and should not be made to pay the price for another member storming out. We saddled our future generations with debt to protect the euro when the dam threatened to burst a decade ago. Small nations within the EU will be watching closely to see how we are treated."
Past behaviour really is a good predictor of future behaviour in the case of the EU.
The EU has stood by Ireland in their demands for a backstop.
But you could equally turn it around, and say that by insisting on the backstop, the EU has abrogated its responsibilities to Spain and Portugal.
Guess what, the real world is complex, and the EU has to juggle the demands and desires of countries with different wants and needs.
Yes - and it throws small countries under the bus when it suits.
The power of a union is in solidarity, making it possible for small states to stand up against larger hegemonic neighbours. One can argue with Irelands stance, but you cannot fault the EU for sticking by the decisions of the sovereign government of Ireland.
Are you saying the EU has never thrown any country under the bus, none at all?
The thing that made me laugh about the "searing" editorial in the Irish Independent is :
"Ireland has stood by the EU and should not be made to pay the price for another member storming out. We saddled our future generations with debt to protect the euro when the dam threatened to burst a decade ago. Small nations within the EU will be watching closely to see how we are treated."
Past behaviour really is a good predictor of future behaviour in the case of the EU.
Bingo! The key point about Ireland and the backstop. Ireland can't afford a hard border, either by conceding on the backstop or because of No Deal. It can't afford the UK diverging from Ireland as that causes the hard border (Northern Ireland can afford it even less but no-one in mainland UK cares about them). If it goes no Deal, Ireland will probably have to partially derogate from the Single Market. For that reason, Ireland, backed by the EU, will absolutely not compromise the backstop.
Comments
If you cant see well what will it actually take.
All teachers will remember your promotion of someone who had shown she was arrogant, stupid and completely incompetent by her many and crass failures at OFQUAL to head up OFSTED and destroy that as well.
And we will not be kind.
Next thing you know we'll be quoting Terry Christian as an oracle.
(Sorry. Got a bit "Call the Midwife" there...
I am sure that we will rejoin, initially EFTA before the whole shebang.
But you could equally turn it around, and say that by insisting on the backstop, the EU has abrogated its responsibilities to Spain and Portugal.
Guess what, the real world is complex, and the EU has to juggle the demands and desires of countries with different wants and needs.
Of course the BBC continue to peddle the narrative of May , the great fighter who keeps getting knocked down but channels her inner boadecia !
I expect the EU will throw her under a bus next week and big up Corbyns plan even more as a way of breaking the impasse.
Her pathetic attempts to suggest there’s a majority for her latest Unicorn fell to pieces last night.
She must go down as the most spineless and clueless PM of recent times . Her survival is simply a case of no one else wanting the job otherwise she would have been shown the door after the last election .
By then, the offer on the table would be standard terms.
https://www.totalpolitics.com/articles/opinion/kevin-maguire-labour-split-latest-its-still-full-steam-ahead
I'm going to change the world*.
* Of auto insurance.
https://twitter.com/HackneyAbbott/status/1096423888626569216
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/02/15/britains-new-f-35-fighter-jets-fitted-super-boosted-ejector/
Too bleeding obvious to recruit lighter pilots, I suppose.
hmmmmmmmm
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/top-labour-mp-clive-lewis-13999361
Pause.
I'll get my coat.
https://tradingeconomics.com/spain/unemployment-rate
After all, if a Corbyn-led Labour government would be as bad for the economy as some of us believe, it would only be right, would it not, for the costs of it to be borne by those who voted for it?
Christine Hamilton didn’t go to Cambridge (or Aberystwyth). Improbably enough, she studied sociology at York.
The issue as a consequence of Brexit with the resulting divergence with our nearest developed markets will be lowering our fundamental ability to grow in the future. The contempt for those who will lose their jobs by those who persist in advocating No Deal and the like seems perverse to say the least. I find it distasteful the way decent jobs and hard working people are going to be thrown to the wolves for Brexit and yet the very ills that caused the EU referendum result will remain and intensify as European immigrants are replaced with those from elsewhere in the world, the economic disparities in the UK will in all likelihood get worse and we will have suffered a diminution in economic power and influence for no reason.
Edit - Just remebered that Stanley Baldwin also ended up with a Third at Cambridge in late 19th century.
Your arguments are illogical.
The idea the Irish tail is waging the EU dog might be rather sweet but it doesn't reflect reality.
Even in a recession you can find it hard to fill all types of jobs usually at the lower end of the spectrum but not exclusively, It can range from cleaners, agricultural workers and care home workers to skilled or professionals like doctors, nurses and laboratory staff or many other professions. There is always a basic need for some services or products such as in the NHS and the UK for whatever reason does not have a supply of the necessary experienced, qualified or experienced to fill these jobs.
The problem with Brexit is workers in Car plants like Ford, Nissan or Toyota will if they close be put out of work and do you expect someone with years of experience in manufacturing to gladly go into the fields or wipe peoples arses for a living? I think calling you obtuse is the most reasonable opinion I can bestow upon you.
My strategy was highly numeric: I'd put all my effort into the exams and projects that'd give me the most credits for the least effort, although I wasn't as bad as some who looked to get just 59% and then get upgraded by performing well at the viva.
This is a non-issue sorry.
Most car workers at Ford, Nissan and Toyota are not skilled manufacturing jobs. They are hard work, repetitive assembly jobs. Put the component on, turn round pick another up and the next car is there put it on again, repeat until piss break. You can not talk to you mates and you do this for a long shift.
No two ways about it, at university they were lazy. It isn't hard to get a 2:1 if you're intelligent and put some basic effort in, but they don't come automatically.
My strategy was just to see it through to the end!
I know one guy who did (Ugandan royalty, or as good as) and he spent every day partying and as far as I remember never went to a single lecture.
That wasn't fun.
It happened because I only really pulled my socks up in the last 3-4 months in the lead up to my finals in my 3rd and 4th year, promptly forget most of the detail of what I'd learnt (i still understand all the principles about it) and felt guilty about the degree I'd been awarded.
I actually believe intellectually, IQ wise- the Neo Liberal, free market ideologues are the brightest amongst us...even genius type lefties like Michael Moore and Germaine Greer appear to start veering to the right as their intelligence and coherence takes hold...
that said....compassion ands stupidity are not conflictual.....