Mr. Jessop, cheers for that link. I'd heard of that but never seen it. The livery reminded me of almost graphical camouflage blocks sometimes used in modern armies (apparently it's harder to spot than the traditional splotches).
Edited extra bit: maybe a team should've used vanta black
Clearly the author has never walked along the river there.
The Riverside and the fine streets heading Nothwards from it remind me of Cambridge. Of course, there are parts of the town that are run-down, but that's true of anywhere.
Let's face it, 'bluntness' is only appreciated when it's in line with what the hearer agrees with. Anna Soubry is probably the bluntest speaker in British politics at the moment, though she doesn't get much thanks for it from the eurospectic Right, who are forever accusing her of betrayal and telling her to push of to the Lib Dems.
Clearly the author has never walked along the river there.
The Riverside and the fine streets heading Nothwards from it remind me of Cambridge. Of course, there are parts of the town that are run-down, but that's true of anywhere.
This is a vaguely interesting example of the application of the frustration lying behind the questions in the thread to business: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-43107500
Basically it was pretty obvious to investors who had the money and resources to do a proper analysis of Carillion's accounts from 2015 onwards that the company was heading towards the precipice. A simplistic reading of the accounts, however, painted a very different picture, a picture that the directors largely got away with trying to maintain even after liquidation when giving evidence to MPs.
What we will find is that the way that the accountants and auditors of the company reported matters was compliant with the incredibly complicated reporting standards which resulted in the accounts giving something less than a true and fair view of the company's position and prospects. These standards, which have developed to prevent misrepresentation, have themselves become a source of misunderstanding and deception for those who do not have the expertise to read carefully between the lines.
So in public life generally we see acceptable parameters of what can and cannot be said controlling what people can say to the point where many feel that simple and obvious truths cannot be said or addressed resulting in the underlying problems not being addressed.
I am with you until the last sentence. The truth is rarely pure and never simple, as Oscar Wilde put it. Things are typically the way they are for a complex mix of reasons. Simplistic solutions that ignore those reasons will usually cause a lot of damage while making those underlying problems worse.
The answer of course is to tackle those underlying problems in an informed and systematic way. We don't seem to be good at that.
That's fine. I support the right of people in a free society to hold different views. Even if they're tasteless, heretical views that clearly indicate such people are bedfellows of Satan.
Looks like right wing English nationalist loons have finally twigged that the Good Friday Agreement precludes the kind of extreme Brexit they crave. Therefore, the Good Friday Agreement has to go. And some people call them patriots :-D
Unfortunately it is that sort of argument which led to the execution of Erskine Childers because the British regarded him as a 'traitor'. I suppose because I am in favour of a united Ireland you would condemn me in the same way. Surprised to see you making such idiotic arguments.
Looks like right wing English nationalist loons have finally twigged that the Good Friday Agreement precludes the kind of extreme Brexit they crave. Therefore, the Good Friday Agreement has to go. And some people call them patriots :-D
Unfortunately it is that sort of argument which led to the execution of Erskine Childers because the British regarded him as a 'traitor'. I suppose because I am in favour of a united Ireland you would condemn me in the same way. Surprised to see you making such idiotic arguments.
Eh? It was the Irish Free State that executed Childers
Mr. Meeks, to be fair, the coalition deal is not done yet. We'll discover the state of things in just under a fortnight.
People getting excited about German politics miss the two essential points. Any conceivable government will be led by the CDU. The Chancellor will be Angela Merkel unless the CDU decide otherwise.
Looks like right wing English nationalist loons have finally twigged that the Good Friday Agreement precludes the kind of extreme Brexit they crave. Therefore, the Good Friday Agreement has to go. And some people call them patriots :-D
Unfortunately it is that sort of argument which led to the execution of Erskine Childers because the British regarded him as a 'traitor'. I suppose because I am in favour of a united Ireland you would condemn me in the same way. Surprised to see you making such idiotic arguments.
Eh? It was the Irish Free State that executed Childers
Under direct pressure from the British and particularly from Churchill who considered him a traitor.
"No man has done more harm or shown more genuine malice or endeavoured to bring a greater curse upon the common people of Ireland than this strange being, actuated by a deadly and malignant hatred for the land of his birth"
In fact one of Childer's arguments at the time of the 1920 negotiations was that he had a great affection for Britain but that it was soiling its own name by its actions over Ireland. Given that Churchill had previously praised Childers for his forewarning of the German naval threat it seems a particularly malicious action by him to work for his execution.
Let's face it, 'bluntness' is only appreciated when it's in line with what the hearer agrees with. Anna Soubry is probably the bluntest speaker in British politics at the moment, though she doesn't get much thanks for it from the eurospectic Right, who are forever accusing her of betrayal and telling her to push of to the Lib Dems.
I'd put Farage and Soubry into the same
Doesn't mind giving offence/Plain speaking quadrant
Boris Johnson and McDonnell into the
Doesn't mind giving offence/Beats around the bush
Theresa May into the
Beats around the bush/Goes out of way not to offend quadrant
Meeks' "golden quadrant" of plain speaking/Doesn't offend is a tricky one to identify politicians into
Clearly the author has never walked along the river there.
I have, including a few weeks ago (as part of my campaign along the Ouse Valley Way). Aside from a few hundred metres near the A6 bridge, it is a dump. It makes Northampton look salubrious.
Even where it has a potential gem - such as the riverside park to the east - it does not take advantage. And as for the decaying pyramid (apparently a swimming pool or somesuch) - whoever designed and commissioned it should be put atop a spike in front of it as a warning to future urban planners.
I don't know which party traditionally runs the town, but whichever it has, has let the population down. And I'm unsure how it can be fixed without wholesale demolition.
Which is a shame, as there are some very picturesque villages to the west and north.
Next time you are going to be here get in touch. I'll be delighted to show you round.
The author of the article is an Oxford academic who seeks to make assertions about a town based on the fact that he has to wait a few minutes when his bus stop at the bus station.
Having lived in both Oxford and Bedford I could show him parts of the former that are considerably worse.
Looks like right wing English nationalist loons have finally twigged that the Good Friday Agreement precludes the kind of extreme Brexit they crave. Therefore, the Good Friday Agreement has to go. And some people call them patriots :-D
Unfortunately it is that sort of argument which led to the execution of Erskine Childers because the British regarded him as a 'traitor'. I suppose because I am in favour of a united Ireland you would condemn me in the same way. Surprised to see you making such idiotic arguments.
Eh? It was the Irish Free State that executed Childers
"in the last ten days Stewart Jackson, Gavin Barwell and Sir Julian Brazier have informed the associations in Peterborough, Croydon Central, and Canterbury respectively that they do not intend to stand again for their former seats."
Would it be churlsih to suggest that has made the task of taking those seats back a little easier?
Looks like right wing English nationalist loons have finally twigged that the Good Friday Agreement precludes the kind of extreme Brexit they crave. Therefore, the Good Friday Agreement has to go. And some people call them patriots :-D
Unfortunately it is that sort of argument which led to the execution of Erskine Childers because the British regarded him as a 'traitor'. I suppose because I am in favour of a united Ireland you would condemn me in the same way. Surprised to see you making such idiotic arguments.
Eh? It was the Irish Free State that executed Childers
Presumably Richard's a de Valera-ite.
Broadly yes. Although my particular admiration has always been for Childers himself. I find his influence on pre WW1 British strategic thinking - and particularly his influence on Churchill - to be fascinating.
Looks like right wing English nationalist loons have finally twigged that the Good Friday Agreement precludes the kind of extreme Brexit they crave. Therefore, the Good Friday Agreement has to go. And some people call them patriots :-D
Unfortunately it is that sort of argument which led to the execution of Erskine Childers because the British regarded him as a 'traitor'. I suppose because I am in favour of a united Ireland you would condemn me in the same way. Surprised to see you making such idiotic arguments.
Nope, I would not condemn anyone who wants a united Ireland as a traitor. I merely question the patriotism of those who want to scrap the Good Friday Agreement because it is incompatible with the extreme form of Brexit they wish to inflict on the people of Britain and Ireland.
Looks like right wing English nationalist loons have finally twigged that the Good Friday Agreement precludes the kind of extreme Brexit they crave. Therefore, the Good Friday Agreement has to go. And some people call them patriots :-D
Although with the DUP and Sinn Fein having refused to share power for months the Good Friday Agreement has been effectively dead for almost a year anyway
The Good Friday Agreement covers a lot more than how the devolved government of Northern Ireland should be constituted.
Looks like right wing English nationalist loons have finally twigged that the Good Friday Agreement precludes the kind of extreme Brexit they crave. Therefore, the Good Friday Agreement has to go. And some people call them patriots :-D
Unfortunately it is that sort of argument which led to the execution of Erskine Childers because the British regarded him as a 'traitor'. I suppose because I am in favour of a united Ireland you would condemn me in the same way. Surprised to see you making such idiotic arguments.
Eh? It was the Irish Free State that executed Childers
Presumably Richard's a de Valera-ite.
Broadly yes. Although my particular admiration has always been for Childers himself. I find his influence on pre WW1 British strategic thinking - and particularly his influence on Churchill - to be fascinating.
Always more of a Cosgrave man myself. Considering the absolutely terrible situation he inherited, creating one of the very few functioning democracies of Europe in the 1930s was no mean feat (admittedly de Valera deserves some credit as well).
It's even more impressive when you consider how many other post-colonial states with - on paper - a better system than Ireland's did slide into dictatorship in one way or another as well, e.g. India under Indira Gandhi.
A much underrated man I think - not least, in Ireland.
Looks like right wing English nationalist loons have finally twigged that the Good Friday Agreement precludes the kind of extreme Brexit they crave. Therefore, the Good Friday Agreement has to go. And some people call them patriots :-D
What's been a revelation is that the hard core Brexiteer zealots, who have spent years muttering to themselves about every minute aspect of the EU, don't seem to have a clue about the process of leaving.
They had no idea about how the EU functioned and how international trade deals are put together, so why on earth would they know about how complex leaving would be? When you spend your days fantasising about buccaneering around the world and creating a low pay, low regulation, small state economy, you are not going to have much time left to deal with reality.
One thing that those who wish to tear up the Good Friday Agreement because it does not suit their extreme Brexit plans have yet to think about is how they are going to get any kind of trade deal with the US in the face of active hostility from the Irish American lobby.
This is a vaguely interesting example of the application of the frustration lying behind the questions in the thread to business: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-43107500
Basically it was pretty obvious to investors who had the money and resources to do a proper analysis of Carillion's accounts from 2015 onwards that the company was heading towards the precipice. A simplistic reading of the accounts, however, painted a very different picture, a picture that the directors largely got away with trying to maintain even after liquidation when giving evidence to MPs.
What we will find is that the way that the accountants and auditors of the company reported matters was compliant with the incredibly complicated reporting standards which resulted in the accounts giving something less than a true and fair view of the company's position and prospects. These standards, which have developed to prevent misrepresentation, have themselves become a source of misunderstanding and deception for those who do not have the expertise to read carefully between the lines.
So in public life generally we see acceptable parameters of what can and cannot be said controlling what people can say to the point where many feel that simple and obvious truths cannot be said or addressed resulting in the underlying problems not being addressed.
I am with you until the last sentence. The truth is rarely pure and never simple, as Oscar Wilde put it. Things are typically the way they are for a complex mix of reasons. Simplistic solutions that ignore those reasons will usually cause a lot of damage while making those underlying problems worse.
The answer of course is to tackle those underlying problems in an informed and systematic way. We don't seem to be good at that.
I am not saying that the truth (if there is a single truth) is pure or simple. I am saying that the rules we have for public engagement are inhibiting the search for that truth rather than assisting it. An informed and systematic approach is not helped if there are a lot of things that simply can't be said, even if saying them opens them to challenge and proves them wrong.
So Tories shaft students for yrs by tripling tuition fees to £9250 a yr, Saddle them with crippling debts of £50,000 & extortionate interest of 6% when rates are only 0.5% & then conduct a review into how much they’ve shafted them?
Bedford is considerably more prosperous than average AFAIK.
Stayed several times at the Hilton on the river.
Very nice venue for Breakfast
Is that the place where the judges used to stay with all the old law books in the bookcases? I was there for one night about three years ago. Lovely place. It has a swimming pool built in 1940 which Winston Churchill apparently swam in.
Yes that looks rather like a car they want to camouflage, rather than one they expect the TV audience to notice. There’s either a load of very new stuff on it, or a load of last year’s stuff they hope no-one notices. It’ll likely look very different by Australia.
Looks like right wing English nationalist loons have finally twigged that the Good Friday Agreement precludes the kind of extreme Brexit they crave. Therefore, the Good Friday Agreement has to go. And some people call them patriots :-D
Unfortunately it is that sort of argument which led to the execution of Erskine Childers because the British regarded him as a 'traitor'. I suppose because I am in favour of a united Ireland you would condemn me in the same way. Surprised to see you making such idiotic arguments.
Nope, I would not condemn anyone who wants a united Ireland as a traitor. I merely question the patriotism of those who want to scrap the Good Friday Agreement because it is incompatible with the extreme form of Brexit they wish to inflict on the people of Britain and Ireland.
Well, I am sure you know the old saying about Patriotism and Scoundrels?
Interesting, given the boundary reforms haven’t been finalised yet. Preparation for another quick election, trying to smoke out possible retirees, or something else?
Performance enhancing drugs... for curling. I've now heard everything.
It's not really that surprising - drugs help every form of physical activity.
Hell, players even drug themselves in purely mental sports like chess.
I was thinking about that this morning. Strength and stamina give no obvious advantage in curling (maybe for sweeping at the absolute margins) but something that helped you stay calm and your hand steady under pressure such as a beta blocker might. I vaguely recall a snooker player getting into trouble for the same thing.
So Tories shaft students for yrs by tripling tuition fees to £9250 a yr, Saddle them with crippling debts of £50,000 & extortionate interest of 6% when rates are only 0.5% & then conduct a review into how much they’ve shafted them?
Winner
But maybe not for the Tories if Corbyn can actually manage to hit the mark for once.
I would have thought that the best politicians would be both honest, blunt and diplomatic and careful with language at the same time. There is a subtle difference between not being afraid to offend and being gratuitiously offensive. Labour prime minister Jim Callaghan was a good example of that -blunt, plain talking but never offensive.
Compare that with the vile current shadow chancellor John McDonnell who talks of lynching female politicians, who says that ex Tory prime ministers should be assassinated.
I had to smile at the alleged preference among remainers for not causing offence. Are these the same remainers who have described leavers as "fascists", "racists" "stupid" and old people who dont really matter because they will soon die?
Interesting, given the boundary reforms haven’t been finalised yet. Preparation for another quick election, trying to smoke out possible retirees, or something else?
Perhaps they don't want to be caught out by a snap election, like Labour were in 2017.
That's fine. I support the right of people in a free society to hold different views. Even if they're tasteless, heretical views that clearly indicate such people are bedfellows of Satan.
Interesting, given the boundary reforms haven’t been finalised yet. Preparation for another quick election, trying to smoke out possible retirees, or something else?
Perhaps they don't want to be caught out by a snap election, like Labour were in 2017.
Yes, having to cobble together a Manifesto on no notice, having been caught by surprise on the election, then it crashing and burning did them -
Interesting, given the boundary reforms haven’t been finalised yet. Preparation for another quick election, trying to smoke out possible retirees, or something else?
Perhaps they don't want to be caught out by a snap election, like Labour were in 2017.
Interesting decision by Gavin Barwell. Does he really fancy another parliament in CCHQ? Or out of politics altogether?
Interesting, given the boundary reforms haven’t been finalised yet. Preparation for another quick election, trying to smoke out possible retirees, or something else?
Perhaps they don't want to be caught out by a snap election, like Labour were in 2017.
Yes, having to cobble together a Manifesto on no notice, having been caught by surprise on the election, then it crashing and burning did them -
My bad, that was the Tories.
Not next time though.
If labour was panicked into a moderate mainstream manifesto in 2017, presumably in 2022 we can expect Corbyn to draw up a hard left Corbynista manifesto. Or doesnt he have the guts or honesty?
Clearly the author has never walked along the river there.
I have, including a few weeks ago (as part of my campaign along the Ouse Valley Way). Aside from a few hundred metres near the A6 bridge, it is a dump. It makes Northampton look salubrious.
Even where it has a potential gem - such as the riverside park to the east - it does not take advantage. And as for the decaying pyramid (apparently a swimming pool or somesuch) - whoever designed and commissioned it should be put atop a spike in front of it as a warning to future urban planners.
I don't know which party traditionally runs the town, but whichever it has, has let the population down. And I'm unsure how it can be fixed without wholesale demolition.
Which is a shame, as there are some very picturesque villages to the west and north.
Next time you are going to be here get in touch. I'll be delighted to show you round.
The author of the article is an Oxford academic who seeks to make assertions about a town based on the fact that he has to wait a few minutes when his bus stop at the bus station.
Having lived in both Oxford and Bedford I could show him parts of the former that are considerably worse.
This is a vaguely interesting example of the application of the frustration lying behind the questions in the thread to business: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-43107500
Basically it was pretty obvious to investors who had the money and resources to do a proper analysis of Carillion's accounts from 2015 onwards that the company was heading towards the precipice. A simplistic reading of the accounts, however, painted a very different picture, a picture that the directors largely got away with trying to maintain even after liquidation when giving evidence to MPs.
What we will find is that the way that the accountants and auditors of the company reported matters was compliant with the incredibly complicated reporting standards which resulted in the accounts giving something less than a true and fair view of the company's position and prospects. These standards, which have developed to prevent misrepresentation, have themselves become a source of misunderstanding and deception for those who do not have the expertise to read carefully between the lines.
So in public life generally we see acceptable parameters of what can and cannot be said controlling what people can say to the point where many feel that simple and obvious truths cannot be said or addressed resulting in the underlying problems not being addressed.
I am with you until the last sentence. The truth is rarely pure and never simple, as Oscar Wilde put it. Things are typically the way they are for a complex mix of reasons. Simplistic solutions that ignore those reasons will usually cause a lot of damage while making those underlying problems worse.
The answer of course is to tackle those underlying problems in an informed and systematic way. We don't seem to be good at that.
I am not saying that the truth (if there is a single truth) is pure or simple. I am saying that the rules we have for public engagement are inhibiting the search for that truth rather than assisting it. An informed and systematic approach is not helped if there are a lot of things that simply can't be said, even if saying them opens them to challenge and proves them wrong.
Yes. However the more you open things to challenge and debate, the more muddied they become, even if it's potentially necessary to do so. Those wanting simplistic solutions aim to shut down the debate.
That's fine. I support the right of people in a free society to hold different views. Even if they're tasteless, heretical views that clearly indicate such people are bedfellows of Satan.
Mr. City, did I also forget that Labour opposed the Coalition increasing fees?
You have also forgotten of course that the Browne review was set up by Labour.
I have never quite understood why they thought a self-confessed perjurer was the best person to lead a review into HE funding, but I am not privy to the inner secrets of what passed for the minds of the last Labour government.
No party has clean hands on university funding, and they have all exploited it ruthlessly for partisan advantage. The notable exception are the Liberal Democrats who exploited it with skill and finesse for partisan disadvantage.
That's fine. I support the right of people in a free society to hold different views. Even if they're tasteless, heretical views that clearly indicate such people are bedfellows of Satan.
The new SPD leader, I think, has backed the coalition deal. We find out the result on 4 March, which I think is also the date of the Italian election.
This polling with AfD on 25% and SPD on 14% will have a real impact on the way SPD members see the value of a coalition with Merkel/CDU. CDU are only on 26% themselves.
That's fine. I support the right of people in a free society to hold different views. Even if they're tasteless, heretical views that clearly indicate such people are bedfellows of Satan.
Mr. City, did I also forget that Labour opposed the Coalition increasing fees?
Yes you forgot the Lib Dems also in opposition promising to scrap them. All the major parties in England have changed their position.
You’d expect parties to change their position on an issue over 20 years, particularly when the status quo is changing also.
And there’s a very big difference between changing your position between elections and giving voters a chance to reject your proposals - and changing your position AFTER an election and breaking your promises in office.
On the latter count I think Labour broke a 2001 promise and obviously the Lib Dems. I don’t think the Tories broke a promise on tuition fees.
I want a political leader who doesn't consider any subject off-limits, and does speak their mind, but does so reasonably, politely and respectfully.
Yes, that puts it well. I think we all more or less agree on this. The poll question wording is not ideal but it's got us discussing it anyway.
The real Trump question is perhaps more, "Do you prefer politicians who attack opponents bluntly, or politicians who put their case but don't attack others?" But that's loaded too. Really hard to get a balanced question.
Do you want politician who will tell you what you don't want to hear? Or do you want the pill to be sugar-coated?
That one is easy: voters will say in polls they want to hear straight, hard truths but will punish those who give them in the ballot box.
The new SPD leader, I think, has backed the coalition deal. We find out the result on 4 March, which I think is also the date of the Italian election.
This polling with AfD on 25% and SPD on 14% will have a real impact on the way SPD members see the value of a coalition with Merkel/CDU. CDU are only on 26% themselves.
Mr. Owls, if Labour does that, does it want to reduce student levels to pre-1997 rates or keep them at circa 50%? The latter would cost the taxpayer a very significant sum. If that's so, where's the money coming from?
Mr. Royale, mostly true, but worth remembering Cameron and Osborne spoke of austerity before office, not after.
That's fine. I support the right of people in a free society to hold different views. Even if they're tasteless, heretical views that clearly indicate such people are bedfellows of Satan.
I want a political leader who doesn't consider any subject off-limits, and does speak their mind, but does so reasonably, politely and respectfully.
Yes, that puts it well. I think we all more or less agree on this. The poll question wording is not ideal but it's got us discussing it anyway.
The real Trump question is perhaps more, "Do you prefer politicians who attack opponents bluntly, or politicians who put their case but don't attack others?" But that's loaded too. Really hard to get a balanced question.
Do you want politician who will tell you what you don't want to hear? Or do you want the pill to be sugar-coated?
That one is easy: voters will say in polls they want to hear straight, hard truths but will punish those who give them in the ballot box.
Not necessarily. Trump gave his supporters hard untruths.
@jeremycorbyn 3m3 minutes ago More .@Theresa_May voted to triple tuition fees and saddle students with an average £40,000 in debt.
There's no need to "review" that. Labour will scrap fees, bring back maintenance grants and make education free.
May really is absolutely crap at politics isn't she?
By half-agreeing with Labour that the system is broken, and then proposing some minor fudges, she's just about to move the Overton Window on HE funding firmly towards Jezza's position.
Mr. City, did I also forget that Labour opposed the Coalition increasing fees?
Yes you forgot the Lib Dems also in opposition promising to scrap them. All the major parties in England have changed their position.
You’d expect parties to change their position on an issue over 20 years, particularly when the status quo is changing also.
And there’s a very big difference between changing your position between elections and giving voters a chance to reject your proposals - and changing your position AFTER an election and breaking your promises in office.
On the latter count I think Labour broke a 2001 promise and obviously the Lib Dems. I don’t think the Tories broke a promise on tuition fees.
You are correct. In 2010 they said they would accept the Browne review.
It was a very stupid thing to say under the circumstances, but they did say it.
The new SPD leader, I think, has backed the coalition deal. We find out the result on 4 March, which I think is also the date of the Italian election.
This polling with AfD on 25% and SPD on 14% will have a real impact on the way SPD members see the value of a coalition with Merkel/CDU. CDU are only on 26% themselves.
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold.
Bleak. Very bleak.
The new (permanent) SPD leader was the flagbearer of the deal - a good communicator and a more authentic voice than Schulz - before she became leader.
I don't think focussing on East Germany - where the SPD lose votes to Die Linke (The Left which for those not familiar is exactly what it sounds like)- is that helpful.
The question for the CDU is "we'll back the deal, but is Merkel the right leader" and the question for the SPD is "do we want a disaster of an election now or in five years".
Bedford is considerably more prosperous than average AFAIK.
Stayed several times at the Hilton on the river.
Very nice venue for Breakfast
Is that the place where the judges used to stay with all the old law books in the bookcases? I was there for one night about three years ago. Lovely place. It has a swimming pool built in 1940 which Winston Churchill apparently swam in.
I can only hope the tuition fee review gets to how part-time students have been shafted, how the Government actually isn't much better off now the payment threshold is at £25k due to loans being written off and students untraceable (e.g. those who've moved abroad) and the idiocy of the Govt not getting money up front leaving the Students Loans Company to do the chasing / take the debt, rather than the Government.
I live in hope. It's a thoroughly awful system that's come in and I've long stopped defending Nick Clegg and co for their part in it.
So Tories shaft students for yrs by tripling tuition fees to £9250 a yr, Saddle them with crippling debts of £50,000 & extortionate interest of 6% when rates are only 0.5% & then conduct a review into how much they’ve shafted them?
Winner
My view is that the current student fees structure is politically unsustainable. But, Corbyn's policy is also financially and economically unsustainable.
Mr. Owls, if Labour does that, does it want to reduce student levels to pre-1997 rates or keep them at circa 50%? The latter would cost the taxpayer a very significant sum. If that's so, where's the money coming from?
Mr. Royale, mostly true, but worth remembering Cameron and Osborne spoke of austerity before office, not after.
The new SPD leader, I think, has backed the coalition deal. We find out the result on 4 March, which I think is also the date of the Italian election.
This polling with AfD on 25% and SPD on 14% will have a real impact on the way SPD members see the value of a coalition with Merkel/CDU. CDU are only on 26% themselves.
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold.
Bleak. Very bleak.
A part of the problem is very much on topic with this thread. When you exclude significant percentages of the population to the right in AfD and to the left with Die Linke you are left with too narrow a view of what the centre is to create a comfortable majority, let alone 2 potential majorities to give a choice.
In this country, thankfully, the vast majority of UKIP supporters are now back supporting other mainstream parties but this has happened, particularly in the Tory case, by some of their agenda being taken on board. This is how democracy should evolve and remain inclusive. Excluding large chunks who are beyond the pail ultimately leads to disaster.
I want a pol who's not afraid to speak my own particular version of the truth. But as long as they agree with absolutely everything I agree with, I suppose that's ok.
Mr. Owls, if Labour does that, does it want to reduce student levels to pre-1997 rates or keep them at circa 50%? The latter would cost the taxpayer a very significant sum. If that's so, where's the money coming from?
Mr. Royale, mostly true, but worth remembering Cameron and Osborne spoke of austerity before office, not after.
Mr Dancer
I would pay for it via a share transaction tax
Or maybe a PB Tory tax!!
Rubs off to Sainsburys
A share transaction tax to be imposed upon pension schemes too?
The new SPD leader, I think, has backed the coalition deal. We find out the result on 4 March, which I think is also the date of the Italian election.
This polling with AfD on 25% and SPD on 14% will have a real impact on the way SPD members see the value of a coalition with Merkel/CDU. CDU are only on 26% themselves.
This looks like an East German subsample. The full poll has the CDU on 33%, SPD on 19% and AfD on 14%.
That's fine. I support the right of people in a free society to hold different views. Even if they're tasteless, heretical views that clearly indicate such people are bedfellows of Satan.
I want a pol who's not afraid to speak my own particular version of the truth. But as long as they agree with absolutely everything I agree with, I suppose that's ok.
The closest I have got to that was Cameron. We differed somewhat on the EU but not on anything important.
I thought it said 'taxi.' I was a bit surprised because although there are fewer Tories about these days on this forum I was thinking that that there would be more than would fit in the average Taxi.
I'm not sure what the good Mr Owls is rubbing off on Sainsbury's either...
Any graduate (assuming employment) will be paying 20% IT, 12% NI, 9% repayments and probably 5% pension on any salary over 25k. A 41% tax without pension or 46% with it.
At over 45k, it would be 40% IT, 2% NI and 9% repayments. That's 51% tax without pension or 56% with it.
There is little prospect of this disappearing until they are well into their 50s. Out of that net income you'd be expected to pay high rents in London/SE and save for a deposit, which is very difficult.
That doesn't seem fair to me. It's no wonder the under 30s are turning to socialism: they are already paying socialist taxes without having any capital.
Mr. Owls, if Labour does that, does it want to reduce student levels to pre-1997 rates or keep them at circa 50%? The latter would cost the taxpayer a very significant sum. If that's so, where's the money coming from?
Mr. Royale, mostly true, but worth remembering Cameron and Osborne spoke of austerity before office, not after.
Yes, and they toned down the "age of austerity" talk before GE2010 because it was starting to hurt them in the polls.
I think Hodges has a point. They showed the front page on the Marr show.
...which aired almost 12 hours later. Presumably the BBC lawyers were working overnight to decide what they do and don’t show.
It’s interesting that Mr Henderson said he might be personally liable for repeating any libel, presumably if the BBC had an official ‘Front Pages’ Twitter feed then their lawyers would be all over anything controversial?
Any graduate (assuming employment) will be paying 20% IT, 12% NI, 9% repayments and probably 5% pension on any salary over 25k. A 41% tax without pension or 46% with it.
At over 45k, it would be 40% IT, 2% NI and 9% repayments. That's 51% tax without pension or 56% with it.
There is little prospect of this disappearing until they are well into their 50s. Out of that net income you'd be expected to pay high rents in London/SE and save for a deposit, which is very difficult.
That doesn't seem fair to me. It's no wonder the under 30s are turning to socialism: they are already paying socialist taxes without having any capital.
I seem to recall the figure being bandied about 20 years ago to justify the vast expansion in HE was that graduates earned around £400K (then) over a lifetime more than non graduates.
It clearly didn't seem to dawn on the proponents of such a huge expansion that expanding the supply of graduates would affect their "price" so to speak. All the rest is just chickens coming home to roost.
We have created a bloated HE sector and got the young to pay for it on tick, on the whopping con that it'll be worth it for them in the long run. It could never be, when all we have done is create a paper chase qualifications arms race for anyone unfortunate enough to be under about 40.
The new SPD leader, I think, has backed the coalition deal. We find out the result on 4 March, which I think is also the date of the Italian election.
This polling with AfD on 25% and SPD on 14% will have a real impact on the way SPD members see the value of a coalition with Merkel/CDU. CDU are only on 26% themselves.
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold.
Bleak. Very bleak.
The new (permanent) SPD leader was the flagbearer of the deal - a good communicator and a more authentic voice than Schulz - before she became leader.
I don't think focussing on East Germany - where the SPD lose votes to Die Linke (The Left which for those not familiar is exactly what it sounds like)- is that helpful.
The question for the CDU is "we'll back the deal, but is Merkel the right leader" and the question for the SPD is "do we want a disaster of an election now or in five years".
I don't follow why Die Linke is persona non grata. The online descriptions make them sound like a democratic Socialist party of Jeremy Corbyn, Seamus Milne, Jon Lansman and Dennis Skinner. They're not considered a threat to order and stability as a Communist party would be or as a racist hard-right party would be
Mr. Owls, if Labour does that, does it want to reduce student levels to pre-1997 rates or keep them at circa 50%? The latter would cost the taxpayer a very significant sum. If that's so, where's the money coming from?
Mr. Royale, mostly true, but worth remembering Cameron and Osborne spoke of austerity before office, not after.
Mr Dancer
I would pay for it via a share transaction tax
Or maybe a PB Tory tax!!
Rubs off to Sainsburys
I don't think that was Sainsbury's intention when they designed those ads
I think Hodges has a point. They showed the front page on the Marr show.
The BBC showed the front page on the Marr show; is the headline tweeter the BBC (even if Guido conflates them)?
No, he is doing it in a personal capacity.
I'd say that's an interesting question. It's a longstanding activity undertaken by BBC employees as a group who gain much of their cachet from their status as BBC employees and who mention that status in their Twitter bios. The BBC will have been well aware of this for some time and presumably has acquiesced in them carrying it out. You might try to argue that their Twitter presence is part of the BBC's devolved social media strategy and not a solely personal activity. The BBC gets some benefits from its employees being very visible on Twitter.
Mr. Owls, if Labour does that, does it want to reduce student levels to pre-1997 rates or keep them at circa 50%? The latter would cost the taxpayer a very significant sum. If that's so, where's the money coming from?
Mr. Royale, mostly true, but worth remembering Cameron and Osborne spoke of austerity before office, not after.
Mr Dancer
I would pay for it via a share transaction tax
Or maybe a PB Tory tax!!
Rubs off to Sainsburys
I don't think that was Sainsbury's intention when they designed those ads
Comments
Edited extra bit: maybe a team should've used vanta black
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/feb/18/halifax-burgeons-with-new-shoreditch-of-the-north-tagline
The answer of course is to tackle those underlying problems in an informed and systematic way. We don't seem to be good at that.
https://www.conservativehome.com/parliament/2018/01/exclusive-the-conservative-party-board-is-set-to-fire-the-starting-gun-for-candidate-selections-in-target-seats.html
It was the Irish Free State that executed Childers
I must be reading too much history...
"No man has done more harm or shown more genuine malice or endeavoured to bring a greater curse upon the common people of Ireland than this strange being, actuated by a deadly and malignant hatred for the land of his birth"
In fact one of Childer's arguments at the time of the 1920 negotiations was that he had a great affection for Britain but that it was soiling its own name by its actions over Ireland. Given that Churchill had previously praised Childers for his forewarning of the German naval threat it seems a particularly malicious action by him to work for his execution.
Doesn't mind giving offence/Plain speaking quadrant
Boris Johnson and McDonnell into the
Doesn't mind giving offence/Beats around the bush
Theresa May into the
Beats around the bush/Goes out of way not to offend quadrant
Meeks' "golden quadrant" of plain speaking/Doesn't offend is a tricky one to identify politicians into
Michael Gove/Frank Field maybe ?
The author of the article is an Oxford academic who seeks to make assertions about a town based on the fact that he has to wait a few minutes when his bus stop at the bus station.
Having lived in both Oxford and Bedford I could show him parts of the former that are considerably worse.
Would it be churlsih to suggest that has made the task of taking those seats back a little easier?
Hell, players even drug themselves in purely mental sports like chess.
It's even more impressive when you consider how many other post-colonial states with - on paper - a better system than Ireland's did slide into dictatorship in one way or another as well, e.g. India under Indira Gandhi.
A much underrated man I think - not least, in Ireland.
One thing that those who wish to tear up the Good Friday Agreement because it does not suit their extreme Brexit plans have yet to think about is how they are going to get any kind of trade deal with the US in the face of active hostility from the Irish American lobby.
Very nice venue for Breakfast
Winner
Compare that with the vile current shadow chancellor John McDonnell who talks of lynching female politicians, who says that ex Tory prime ministers should be assassinated.
I had to smile at the alleged preference among remainers for not causing offence. Are these the same remainers who have described leavers as "fascists", "racists" "stupid" and old people who dont really matter because they will soon die?
“Song 2” by Blur, is so named because it’s two minutes long - 1’59” on some CDs, always used to catch me out when I used to DJ two decades ago.
My bad, that was the Tories.
If labour was panicked into a moderate mainstream manifesto in 2017, presumably in 2022 we can expect Corbyn to draw up a hard left Corbynista manifesto. Or doesnt he have the guts or honesty?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BQaUs5J2wdI
I have never quite understood why they thought a self-confessed perjurer was the best person to lead a review into HE funding, but I am not privy to the inner secrets of what passed for the minds of the last Labour government.
No party has clean hands on university funding, and they have all exploited it ruthlessly for partisan advantage. The notable exception are the Liberal Democrats who exploited it with skill and finesse for partisan disadvantage.
Verified account
@jeremycorbyn
3m3 minutes ago
More
.@Theresa_May voted to triple tuition fees and saddle students with an average £40,000 in debt.
There's no need to "review" that. Labour will scrap fees, bring back maintenance grants and make education free.
And there’s a very big difference between changing your position between elections and giving voters a chance to reject your proposals - and changing your position AFTER an election and breaking your promises in office.
On the latter count I think Labour broke a 2001 promise and obviously the Lib Dems.
I don’t think the Tories broke a promise on tuition fees.
Bleak. Very bleak.
Mr. Royale, mostly true, but worth remembering Cameron and Osborne spoke of austerity before office, not after.
In any case as the Liberal Democrats will tell you it's not a proper pledge until he's been photographed carrying a placard!
By half-agreeing with Labour that the system is broken, and then proposing some minor fudges, she's just about to move the Overton Window on HE funding firmly towards Jezza's position.
It was a very stupid thing to say under the circumstances, but they did say it.
I don't think focussing on East Germany - where the SPD lose votes to Die Linke (The Left which for those not familiar is exactly what it sounds like)- is that helpful.
The question for the CDU is "we'll back the deal, but is Merkel the right leader" and the question for the SPD is "do we want a disaster of an election now or in five years".
I live in hope. It's a thoroughly awful system that's come in and I've long stopped defending Nick Clegg and co for their part in it.
I would pay for it via a share transaction tax
Or maybe a PB Tory tax!!
Rubs off to Sainsburys
In this country, thankfully, the vast majority of UKIP supporters are now back supporting other mainstream parties but this has happened, particularly in the Tory case, by some of their agenda being taken on board. This is how democracy should evolve and remain inclusive. Excluding large chunks who are beyond the pail ultimately leads to disaster.
https://order-order.com/2018/02/19/hodges-v-hendopolis/
https://m.bild.de/politik/inland/spd/vier-und-sechzig-prozent-finden-die-spd-unanstaendig-54844684.bildMobile.html
I'm not sure what the good Mr Owls is rubbing off on Sainsbury's either...
https://www.justinegreening.co.uk/news/higher-education-options
At over 45k, it would be 40% IT, 2% NI and 9% repayments. That's 51% tax without pension or 56% with it.
There is little prospect of this disappearing until they are well into their 50s. Out of that net income you'd be expected to pay high rents in London/SE and save for a deposit, which is very difficult.
That doesn't seem fair to me. It's no wonder the under 30s are turning to socialism: they are already paying socialist taxes without having any capital.
That, or more taxing of poor people to subsidise rich people.
'Overwhelmingly, all degrees cost students £9k per year in fees...'
It’s interesting that Mr Henderson said he might be personally liable for repeating any libel, presumably if the BBC had an official ‘Front Pages’ Twitter feed then their lawyers would be all over anything controversial?
It clearly didn't seem to dawn on the proponents of such a huge expansion that expanding the supply of graduates would affect their "price" so to speak. All the rest is just chickens coming home to roost.
We have created a bloated HE sector and got the young to pay for it on tick, on the whopping con that it'll be worth it for them in the long run. It could never be, when all we have done is create a paper chase qualifications arms race for anyone unfortunate enough to be under about 40.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Office_for_the_Protection_of_the_Constitution
As we saw with Sally Bercow posting on twitter can cost you a lot of money.
That would still be wrong, but it would be coherent.