Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

The great switch off – politicalbetting.com

1356

Comments

  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 23,919

    We are like hobbits, a hate session for every meal.
    Second hatefast!
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 75,797
    Dura_Ace said:

    None of those qualities are traditionally rare in the upper echelons of US government. DJT just doesn't pretend to care about it.
    The drunkards usually have executive experience extending beyond bankrupting a couple of small nonprofits, though.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 59,259

    I've worked at Universities all my life, I know what they do. I suspect that Cardiff are about to announce job freezes, voluntary severance packages and a desire to lose a certain number of jobs. I think there is a media/twitter storm being blown up partly because the Unions are doing this and because there is an information vacuum at the moment. Pretty sure more will come out today.
    Let's hope you're right and it is just a few jobs

    I stand by my prediction that the Unis face a systemic crisis, it is not soluble, several will go under, maybe more than several

    And in the long run, eeesh
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 30,845
    Taz said:

    Is it if they bring along a family of economically inactive dependents who then need to be housed and have access to services we provide ?
    They pay for the accomodation already. Access to healthcare and primary and secondary education could be charged to the student,'s nation of origin.

    The dependents were cut because of immigration figures which were politically unacceptable. The baby was thrown out with the bathwater.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 26,141
    Good morning everyone.

    My photo quota for the day is our Editor's next staycation.

    Fishing on Ladybower Reservoir:


  • DriverDriver Posts: 5,560
    kinabalu said:

    Hasn't he also done an edict forbidding gender change from now on, ie it won't be possible to be trans in America?
    Not to my understanding - what he's done is order that passports (and possibly other documents) reflect sex registered at birth.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 30,845

    And ignore people who work at Universities not in Sh@t Street?
    I have inside information. I suspect either Cambridge is doing fine or you are a King of wishful thinking. I hate to admit this, but unless Government intervenes Leon is correct. The threat is existential.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 59,259

    They pay for the accomodation already. Access to healthcare and primary and secondary education could be charged to the student,'s nation of origin.

    The dependents were cut because of immigration figures which were politically unacceptable. The baby was thrown out with the bathwater.
    But the immigration figures were and are unacceptable, that is a hard fact. British people are unwilling to see their nation demographically transformed in a few short years, just to keep the Higher Education system going

    We have difficult choices to make. See the migration stats from the ONS. Another 5m people in ten years? More than half of London again?

    This is a one way road to a hard right government which will stop it, and beyond that, potentially a far right government. Alternatively, we can bite the bullet and bring immigration way down and honestly tell voters: this will hurt, but not as much as having Tommy Robinson as Prime Minister
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 18,416
    Leon said:

    Let's hope you're right and it is just a few jobs

    I stand by my prediction that the Unis face a systemic crisis, it is not soluble, several will go under, maybe more than several

    And in the long run, eeesh
    They will likely have a fair few Profs on six figures that are no longer that active. Always good to shake them out. It may be that they are looking at three figures job losses, but preferably by natural wastage, voluntary severance and retirements, job freezes etc.

    Lets see.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 39,758
    Leon said:

    But the immigration figures were and are unacceptable, that is a hard fact. British people are unwilling to see their nation demographically transformed in a few short years, just to keep the Higher Education system going

    We have difficult choices to make. See the migration stats from the ONS. Another 5m people in ten years? More than half of London again?

    This is a one way road to a hard right government which will stop it, and beyond that, potentially a far right government. Alternatively, we can bite the bullet and bring immigration way down and honestly tell voters: this will hurt, but not as much as having Tommy Robinson as Prime Minister
    Yup, people would rather the visa factory "universities" go under than take 5m extra immigrants. It's not that deep.
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 18,416
    edited January 28

    I have inside information. I suspect either Cambridge is doing fine or you are a King of wishful thinking. I hate to admit this, but unless Government intervenes Leon is correct. The threat is existential.
    My point is that my uni and Selebians are not in the situation you are implying is every university. We have inside information because we work at Unis.

    Clearly not all is rosy and I am not saying that. But I think things are being overblown right now (information vacuum allows a certain type of news story to grow - see also drones in NJ, although thats died off now, like all good flaps. I loved the people posting planes flying over and saying that they are not planes, but are disguised as planes...)
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 75,797
    Phil said:

    The current rules heavily tilt defined benefit pensions towards investing in the safest possible financial instruments - effectively gilts or the highest quality corporate bonds.

    This makes sense on at the individual fund level, but absolutely no sense whatsoever at the national level: Pension funds have the longest possible time horizons - they’re the ones who ought to be investing in national infrastructure & reaping the long term benefits.

    There’s been a weird double-think in much of the UK for the last few decades, where much talk is made of “growth” but at the same time every part of the system has been constrained to allow as little economic growth as possible. For economic growth to happen somebody, somewhere has to do the actual work: houses have to be built, roads maintained, computer programs have to be written, and so on & on. Preventing pension funds from funding that work helps nobody.

    (Economics types will recognise this as an example of the fallacy of composition that Keynes railed against.)
    The rules were set up primarily, I think, to force pension funds into funding government borrowing. It's been an issue for decades; it's encouraging that desperation is finally forcing them to take look at them.
    Desperate measures do carry a degree of extra risk though.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 13,804
    edited January 28

    Are you just talking about Wales then? Tough times everywhere, but its incorrect to say that no other University has any money.
    The university sector still has fantastic parts to it, both WRT job related (law, medicine, engineering) and more general education (Elamite cuneiform, Mongolian Nestorianism). But university is not a single sector, and giving it all the same name doesn't create a new reality.

    The sector of giving general education (Stuff Studies) to average performers (average IQ is 100) is not really any use to us or them. Either not at all or very locally would be the answer.

    But we still need tons of job related training. The local FE sector and other local provision is where most of this should happen, and it should stop being cinderella in the picture, and not cost £50,000.
  • eekeek Posts: 29,467

    They will likely have a fair few Profs on six figures that are no longer that active. Always good to shake them out. It may be that they are looking at three figures job losses, but preferably by natural wastage, voluntary severance and retirements, job freezes etc.

    Lets see.
    From what I hear whole departments are going including nursing.

    And if nursing isn’t covering costs that a real issue given that nurses now need degrees
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 24,000
    algarkirk said:

    This could be a nice little test case for how transparent, honest and open our Labour government is. If over this period deaths will slightly exceed births, then the 5M rise is entirely migration based - an average of 500K pa.

    Nearly all migration is under state control. It can't be done without state permission.

    The government could tell us that this projection is great, there are reasons, it is all carefully planned for, it happens because the state wants it to happen and is good for the UK in multitudinous ways which we will now list for you.

    If they do something else (and I think they will) we are being as deceived as we were under the Tories.

    I'm trying to think which radical reformist party will gain on account of the continuing state obfuscation but I have forgotten their name.
    It is an extrapolation of the past, not a government plan nor a forecast.

    I suspect it is in the right ballpark though, as the reality is we will have net immigration in the hundreds of thousands whatever party is in power, reform included. I doubt it will be close to the million we saw under the end of the Tories somewhere in the 300-600k range is likely, so 3-6m over a decade.

    We need to build more houses and associated infrastructure.
  • TazTaz Posts: 17,096
    Phil said:

    The current rules heavily tilt defined benefit pensions towards investing in the safest possible financial instruments - effectively gilts or the highest quality corporate bonds.

    This makes sense on at the individual fund level, but absolutely no sense whatsoever at the national level: Pension funds have the longest possible time horizons - they’re the ones who ought to be investing in national infrastructure & reaping the long term benefits.

    There’s been a weird double-think in much of the UK for the last few decades, where much talk is made of “growth” but at the same time every part of the system has been constrained to allow as little economic growth as possible. For economic growth to happen somebody, somewhere has to do the actual work: houses have to be built, roads maintained, computer programs have to be written, and so on & on. Preventing pension funds from funding that work helps nobody.

    (Economics types will recognise this as an example of the fallacy of composition that Keynes railed against.)
    True but the DB scheme I am in closed may years ago, is relatively small, has around 250 members (there was 1 for staff and one for works) and the age profile is skewed toward 50 plus.

    That schemed really should not be investing in illiquid assets or risky assets given the age profile of its members in my view.
  • DopermeanDopermean Posts: 877

    They pay for the accomodation already. Access to healthcare and primary and secondary education could be charged to the student,'s nation of origin.

    The dependents were cut because of immigration figures which were politically unacceptable. The baby was thrown out with the bathwater.
    So the govt is paying tuition fees up front in any case and then administering repayments, which have a large default level, and put off the able but financially cautious. They also have other sub-optimal results such as emigration to avoid loan repayments, avoiding career progression, high marginal deductions etc etc
    Why not scrap tuition fees and ration university places by ability?
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 30,845
    Leon said:

    But the immigration figures were and are unacceptable, that is a hard fact. British people are unwilling to see their nation demographically transformed in a few short years, just to keep the Higher Education system going

    We have difficult choices to make. See the migration stats from the ONS. Another 5m people in ten years? More than half of London again?

    This is a one way road to a hard right government which will stop it, and beyond that, potentially a far right government. Alternatively, we can bite the bullet and bring immigration way down and honestly tell voters: this will hurt, but not as much as having Tommy Robinson as Prime Minister
    You are unusually correct and immigration in current numbers are politically unacceptable (not to me when there is an economic benefit). The offset to that is UK universities close down. It is not a choice I would make but many many would.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 44,617

    We are like hobbits, a hate session for every meal.
    The hobbit allusion sounds interesting but escapes me ...?
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 39,758

    I have inside information. I suspect either Cambridge is doing fine or you are a King of wishful thinking. I hate to admit this, but unless Government intervenes Leon is correct. The threat is existential.
    I went to Cardiff Uni, it will be sad to see them go bankrupt but fundamentally they've been mismanaged for decades. I remember when they spent £200k on that weird pattern on the business school building, even then people were like wtf kind of money wasting is that.

    Let the market force them to downsize and cut the waste, a government bailout would be a mistake and will let wasteful universities across the country off the hook.
  • Alphabet_SoupAlphabet_Soup Posts: 3,556
    kamski said:


    It's New York, and the article makes a lot out of the striking differences between how black hosts and white hosts in those neighbourhoods advertise on Airbnb (and differences between black and white reviewers). How strongly those differences really support the conclusion is a bit open to question, but I think it's an interesting observation, and the article is not just about Airbnb and gentrification.
    I've felt uncomfortable with tourism since the day in 1978 when I wandered a few blocks away from the White House and found myself in an entirely black neighbourhood. They were all getting on with their lives, one way or another, while I was obviously there to gawp at them. With my white skin I might as well have been wearing a top hat and tails, smoking a cigar, fingering a horse whip. I don't regard a poor neighbourhood as a human zoo, carefully curated for my entertainment.

    But it's hard to avoid this with organised 'travel'. Countless times I've seen a row of bedraggled women standing all day behind makeshift trestle tables offering junk for sale - in a New Mexico Pueblo, in the mountains of Laos, and on Caribbean islands. Being a sociologist manqué it's what I tend to notice, more than the bog-standard G&Ts.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 38,325
    edited January 28
    algarkirk said:

    This could be a nice little test case for how transparent, honest and open our Labour government is. If over this period deaths will slightly exceed births, then the 5M rise is entirely migration based - an average of 500K pa.

    Nearly all migration is under state control. It can't be done without state permission.

    The government could tell us that this projection is great, there are reasons, it is all carefully planned for, it happens because the state wants it to happen and is good for the UK in multitudinous ways which we will now list for you.

    If they do something else (and I think they will) we are being as deceived as we were under the Tories.

    I'm trying to think which radical reformist party will gain on account of the continuing state obfuscation but I have forgotten their name.
    I would suggest that, after 25 years of very high levels of net immigration, that it seems quite plain that high levels of immigration do not boost the economy overall (even if individual sectors benefit). That 25 year period has seen much lower levels of economic growth than the preceding 25 years, when levels of net immigration were much lower.

    The economic case for high immigration seems totally unproven.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 13,804
    edited January 28

    It is an extrapolation of the past, not a government plan nor a forecast.

    I suspect it is in the right ballpark though, as the reality is we will have net immigration in the hundreds of thousands whatever party is in power, reform included. I doubt it will be close to the million we saw under the end of the Tories somewhere in the 300-600k range is likely, so 3-6m over a decade.

    We need to build more houses and associated infrastructure.
    This is all true I should think but makes no difference to my points. Among which is that governments not projections issue visas, and then pretend that it is somehow some other power driving the policy.
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 16,355
    Cookie said:

    On thread: I was running the line at a junior football match at the weekend. Leafy Cheshire against WWC Manchester. As linesman, I got to eavesdrop on both sets of conversations. The Cheshire conversation was about disappointment with Labour "most of us had just been hanging on until Labour got in, thinking things would improve, interest rates would come down, but it's just getting worse ... Reeves hasn't got a clue"; the Manchester conversation somewhat earthier and angrier, and focused on the Christmas party which had been cancelled because the venue had been turned into a hotel for illegal immigrants.

    Obviously these were just snippets. These are normal people mainly talking about their kids and football. But it was striking to hear politics discussed at all in the real world. I still find it slightly jarring to hear peoplebeing openly critical of Labour (aside from the Corbyn era). For my whole lifetime, my experience in real life has been that only people who know you very well are openly critical of the Labour Party lest people think they are Tories.

    You obviously had better weather than we did. I think all the conversations at the sideline last Sunday were on the topic of how terrible it was standing in freezing driving rain, how cold we were, whether anyone could feel their feet, and if the ref could end the game early as we were 5-0 up and the other team had stopped trying.
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 18,416
    eek said:

    From what I hear whole departments are going including nursing.

    And if nursing isn’t covering costs that a real issue given that nurses now need degrees
    It will be because they cannot recruit students to the course. There are other big providers of nursing education nearby (UWE is huge). Is what you hear from twitter? Thats just a rumour right now, but of course Uni's do close courses. We ended teacher training at Bath a decade ago. In our case if didn't fit with the University Brand (Science and Engineering). Worryingly pharmacy does really either, but we are part of Life Sciences.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 24,000
    Dopermean said:

    So the govt is paying tuition fees up front in any case and then administering repayments, which have a large default level, and put off the able but financially cautious. They also have other sub-optimal results such as emigration to avoid loan repayments, avoiding career progression, high marginal deductions etc etc
    Why not scrap tuition fees and ration university places by ability?
    Open up education properly instead, this is an area where the free market can deliver radical change.

    Simply allow any student to sit any exam from any university of their choice at cost plus reasonable margin. Where they learn the facts is up to them.

    Costs for taxpayers and students will plummet.
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 18,416
    eek said:

    From what I hear whole departments are going including nursing.

    And if nursing isn’t covering costs that a real issue given that nurses now need degrees
    And a second point is that a course like nursing is heavily placement dependent. They are not in a lecture theatre for 3/4 years, most of the training is in the clinic.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 75,797
    edited January 28
    Taz said:

    True but the DB scheme I am in closed may years ago, is relatively small, has around 250 members (there was 1 for staff and one for works) and the age profile is skewed toward 50 plus.

    That schemed really should not be investing in illiquid assets or risky assets given the age profile of its members in my view.
    Of course not.
    Does anything in the proposals compel that (I don't think so) ?

    The existing rules have basically forced large funds, with a horizon of many decades, to underperform the market, long term. That's good neither for the funds nor the economy.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 24,000
    algarkirk said:

    This is all true I should think but makes no difference to my point.
    It is the building of houses and infrastructure that will make a difference to the political popularity of the incumbants, not being either honest nor trying to deliver lower numbers.
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 18,416
    MaxPB said:

    I went to Cardiff Uni, it will be sad to see them go bankrupt but fundamentally they've been mismanaged for decades. I remember when they spent £200k on that weird pattern on the business school building, even then people were like wtf kind of money wasting is that.

    Let the market force them to downsize and cut the waste, a government bailout would be a mistake and will let wasteful universities across the country off the hook.
    " it will be sad to see them go bankrupt" thats an extrapolation worthy of the great seer himself. No-one is suggesting this.
  • Hardly indicative of an HE sector facing crisis.

    246,930 academic staff were employed at UK higher education providers on 1 December 2023, a rise of 3% on the previous year. 66% of academic staff were of UK nationality compared to 67% in 2022. 15% held EU nationalities and 18% held non-EU nationalities. Source: HESA.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 59,259
    edited January 28
    algarkirk said:

    The university sector still has fantastic parts to it, both WRT job related (law, medicine, engineering) and more general education (Elamite cuneiform, Mongolian Nestorianism). But university is not a single sector, and giving it all the same name doesn't create a new reality.

    The sector of giving general education (Stuff Studies) to average performers (average IQ is 100) is not really any use to us or them. Either not at all or very locally would be the answer.

    But we still need tons of job related training. The local FE sector and other local provision is where most of this should happen, and it should stop being cinderella in the picture, and not cost £50,000.
    Indeed. Higher Education at university level is wasted on most people, ie anyone with an IQ under 115 minimum. It's a brutal truth

    We encourage these kids to take on huge debts to get quite sketchy degrees and for what purpose? There aren't proper graduate jobs at the end, to justify the debt and the effort. On top of that the whole "student" experience is seriously degraded, with so many courses taught online, the social life lacking, and so forth

    We should go back to a uni system like we had before. For the top 10-20% of kids, but maybe we pay THEM to study. In the end this will surely happen anyway, which means horribly painful times for the HE sector

    Other kids can do shorter cheaper courses, apprenticeships, volunteer abroad, etc
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 30,845
    ...
    Dopermean said:

    So the govt is paying tuition fees up front in any case and then administering repayments, which have a large default level, and put off the able but financially cautious. They also have other sub-optimal results such as emigration to avoid loan repayments, avoiding career progression, high marginal deductions etc etc
    Why not scrap tuition fees and ration university places by ability?
    That, I suspect was why the Conservatives followed the policies they did. Turn the clock back to universities being exclusively for the wealthiest 7%. We don't want any of this positive social engineering caper.
  • Starmer has managed to put out the perfect post, encapsulating his government in eight words. Vacuous, lacking in any thought or policy to achieve the end. Believing that if you can talk yourself into a recession (or close to one), you can talk yourself out of one.

    Keir Starmer @Keir_Starmer

    With my government, Britain is open for business.

    8:01 am · 28 Jan 2025
    ·
    318.9K Views
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 23,919
    Carnyx said:

    The hobbit allusion sounds interesting but escapes me ...?
    Hobbits, a species in Tolkein's "Lord of the Rings" known for being short and cheerful, eat several meals during day, including "second breakfast".
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 18,416
    viewcode said:

    Hobbits, a species in Tolkein's "Lord of the Rings" known for being short and cheerful, eat several meals during day, including "second breakfast".
    I quite like second breakfast as a concept. Hasty one at home (cereal, toast) then a bacon or sausage baguette at work to set up the day. Not good for the waistline though
  • TazTaz Posts: 17,096
    Nigelb said:

    The rules were set up primarily, I think, to force pension funds into funding government borrowing. It's been an issue for decades; it's encouraging that desperation is finally forcing them to take look at them.
    Desperate measures do carry a degree of extra risk though.
    So what happens when that risk does not pay off ?

    The members of the scheme get reduced benefits presumably.

    Why should private defined schemes take that risk, especially when so many are now closed to new members and their age profile is far older than DC schemes.
  • DopermeanDopermean Posts: 877

    Open up education properly instead, this is an area where the free market can deliver radical change.

    Simply allow any student to sit any exam from any university of their choice at cost plus reasonable margin. Where they learn the facts is up to them.

    Costs for taxpayers and students will plummet.
    Though you have reduced the function of the Universities to exam boards which logically will lead to the collapse of the university sector leaving just the "premium brands" operating as enormous exam marking bureaucracies.
  • Starmer has managed to put out the perfect post, encapsulating his government in eight words. Vacuous, lacking in any thought or policy to achieve the end. Believing that if you can talk yourself into a recession (or close to one), you can talk yourself out of one.

    Keir Starmer @Keir_Starmer

    With my government, Britain is open for business.

    8:01 am · 28 Jan 2025
    ·
    318.9K Views

    With the previous government, were we closed for business?

    I am unclear on this whole open / closed thing...
  • ManOfGwentManOfGwent Posts: 147
    MaxPB said:

    I went to Cardiff Uni, it will be sad to see them go bankrupt but fundamentally they've been mismanaged for decades. I remember when they spent £200k on that weird pattern on the business school building, even then people were like wtf kind of money wasting is that.

    Let the market force them to downsize and cut the waste, a government bailout would be a mistake and will let wasteful universities across the country off the hook.
    I also went to Cardiff, undergraduate and Masters and also worked there for 4 years.

    It has always seemed unsustainable to me that in addition to Cardiff University, which has around 30k students and staff that, Cardiff also has Cardiff Met and the university of South Wales. All in a city of about 350, 000 people.

    However, as Cardiff is Wales' only Russel group uni I can't see the Welsh Assembly letting it go under. The others are more likely.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 126,466
    edited January 28

    ...

    That, I suspect was why the Conservatives followed the policies they did. Turn the clock back to universities being exclusively for the wealthiest 7%. We don't want any of this positive social engineering caper.
    150 years ago only the top 1% went to university never mind the top 7%, as the only universities were Oxford, Cambridge, Durham, Manchester, UCL, Kings London and St Andrews, Aberdeen, Glasgow and Edinburgh and Aberystwyth.

    Even most solicitors and accountants and bankers didn't have degrees let alone most nurses and middle managers like now. Degrees were only really needed if you wanted to be a barrister, doctor/surgeon or vicar/bishop or permanent secretary or academic or public school/grammar school teacher
  • LeonLeon Posts: 59,259
    Dopermean said:

    Though you have reduced the function of the Universities to exam boards which logically will lead to the collapse of the university sector leaving just the "premium brands" operating as enormous exam marking bureaucracies.
    In the end only the most prestigious unis will survive in the UK (and elsewhere). There will always be rich kids who want the proper uni experience, and can afford it (or are so bright the state will pay)

    So the top ten will be fine, Oxbridge, UCL, Imp, Edinburgh, etc

    After that I do not know
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 53,783

    I've felt uncomfortable with tourism since the day in 1978 when I wandered a few blocks away from the White House and found myself in an entirely black neighbourhood. They were all getting on with their lives, one way or another, while I was obviously there to gawp at them. With my white skin I might as well have been wearing a top hat and tails, smoking a cigar, fingering a horse whip. I don't regard a poor neighbourhood as a human zoo, carefully curated for my entertainment.

    But it's hard to avoid this with organised 'travel'. Countless times I've seen a row of bedraggled women standing all day behind makeshift trestle tables offering junk for sale - in a New Mexico Pueblo, in the mountains of Laos, and on Caribbean islands. Being a sociologist manqué it's what I tend to notice, more than the bog-standard G&Ts.
    Many years ago, on a trip to Nepal, the “with it” types were all visiting the locals houses and schools… as you say, like an exhibit.

    They then got upset with me and another person on the trip, who went with the guide, in the evenings, to the local bar and got hammered on rum with the locals. While they stayed at the hostel.
  • DriverDriver Posts: 5,560

    Starmer has managed to put out the perfect post, encapsulating his government in eight words. Vacuous, lacking in any thought or policy to achieve the end. Believing that if you can talk yourself into a recession (or close to one), you can talk yourself out of one.

    Keir Starmer @Keir_Starmer

    With my government, Britain is open for business.

    8:01 am · 28 Jan 2025
    ·
    318.9K Views

    Fails the political statement test, namely: would any party ever claim the opposite?

    (IIRC, the EdStone scored 0.5/6)
  • LeonLeon Posts: 59,259
    HYUFD said:

    150 years ago only the top 1% went to university never mind the top 7%, as the only universities were Oxford, Cambridge, Durham, Manchester, UCL, Kings London and St Andrews, Aberdeen, Glasgow and Edinburgh.

    Even most solicitors and accountants and bankers didn't have degrees let alone most nurses and middle managers like now
    Ideally we should go back to a time when you have to be Anglican Protestant, and you can get sent down for Atheism, like Shelley, or not sent down despite keeping a bear in your chambers, like Byron

    That's a proper university system, right there
  • TazTaz Posts: 17,096
    Nigelb said:

    Of course not.
    Does anything in the proposals compel that (I don't think so) ?

    The existing rules have basically forced large funds, with a horizon of many decades, to underperform the market, long term. That's good neither for the funds nor the economy.
    The devil will be in the detail, as always, in the past chancellors have spoken of accessing pension funds to pay for infrastructure and the like.

    A pension is a vehicle to fund someones retirement. First and foremost it must do that. If it helps the economy then all well and good but its priority should be fund growth to fund the retiree's retirement.

    The govt will bring forward the details in the spring. Depends what is meant by this.

    "With the right guardrails in place, the government’s proposals could help channel more funding into the economy, by enabling schemes to invest more widely and take on greater risk, while allowing for members to receive an uplift to pension benefits."
  • BattlebusBattlebus Posts: 623
    Coming back to the issue of babies and why the domestic population trying to have them in the UK is difficult, look at Household wealth statistics

    Median wealth (2022) was about £300K made up of property (40%), Private Pensions (35%), Net Wealth (14%) and Physical Wealth (10%). So if you want to save for a home, or a pension and you have some student debt, the chances of you being able to afford children means hard choices.

    Alternatively if you are a single mum on benefits, you are limited to 2 children (and a financial cap) if you go beyond that.

    So if you don't like migration you have to have some serious discussions about the child bearing barriers in the UK.

    https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/personalandhouseholdfinances/incomeandwealth/bulletins/totalwealthingreatbritain/april2020tomarch2022
  • LeonLeon Posts: 59,259

    Hardly indicative of an HE sector facing crisis.

    246,930 academic staff were employed at UK higher education providers on 1 December 2023, a rise of 3% on the previous year. 66% of academic staff were of UK nationality compared to 67% in 2022. 15% held EU nationalities and 18% held non-EU nationalities. Source: HESA.

    This is like saying "hardly indicative of a major threat to US tech" by pointing at the price of Nvidia stock maybe last Thursday evening
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 24,000
    Dopermean said:

    Though you have reduced the function of the Universities to exam boards which logically will lead to the collapse of the university sector leaving just the "premium brands" operating as enormous exam marking bureaucracies.
    No, I am suggesting separating out tuition, exams and research and giving students the opportunity to pick'n'mix rather than face a cartel closed shop menu.

    Yes the premium brands would end up dominating the exam sector. Tuition would change with far more done online but in person tuition would still be popular in university towns and cities across the country imo, but universities would have to actively compete on cost rather than just reputation.

    In most industries if we can achieve the same or better results for less money it is considered progress, it should be the same for learning. The current structure does not make economic sense for many students nor the taxpayer.
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 27,368

    ...

    That, I suspect was why the Conservatives followed the policies they did. Turn the clock back to universities being exclusively for the wealthiest 7%. We don't want any of this positive social engineering caper.
    There was no shortage of clever working class teenagers going to university from the 1970s onwards.

    The increase in students in recent decades has come from the thicker middle class teenagers.

    I'm not sure how getting them into £50k of debt in return for three years of 'making memories' is 'positive social engineering'.

    Let alone preparing them for an ever more challenging world.
  • TazTaz Posts: 17,096

    I've felt uncomfortable with tourism since the day in 1978 when I wandered a few blocks away from the White House and found myself in an entirely black neighbourhood. They were all getting on with their lives, one way or another, while I was obviously there to gawp at them. With my white skin I might as well have been wearing a top hat and tails, smoking a cigar, fingering a horse whip. I don't regard a poor neighbourhood as a human zoo, carefully curated for my entertainment.

    But it's hard to avoid this with organised 'travel'. Countless times I've seen a row of bedraggled women standing all day behind makeshift trestle tables offering junk for sale - in a New Mexico Pueblo, in the mountains of Laos, and on Caribbean islands. Being a sociologist manqué it's what I tend to notice, more than the bog-standard G&Ts.
    I did one of those organised coach tours of the West Coast of the US many years back with my Dad, more as company for him really. In LA they did organised tours of Compton and other gang areas, with former gang members leading it. Felt odd to me. True poverty tourism. Didn't go.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 13,804

    With the previous government, were we closed for business?

    I am unclear on this whole open / closed thing...
    Not having any meaning is the point. And the point of so much politics speak.

    An exercise: instead of allowing government to set the tests and decide the headlines and keep changing the subject, set them yourself. Here are three:

    How are the government getting on with London's airport capacity? When does work start on the third runway? (We are now in the 57th year since the Roskill Commission started work).

    How is the plan for small boats going? Numbers?

    How has the planning process been speeded up?
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 75,797
    edited January 28
    Taz said:

    So what happens when that risk does not pay off ?

    The members of the scheme get reduced benefits presumably.

    Why should private defined schemes take that risk, especially when so many are now closed to new members and their age profile is far older than DC schemes.
    They very probably shouldn't.
    But won't that remain entirely up to the fund's trustees ?

    The point is that the existing rules effectively mandate long term underperformance.
  • FeersumEnjineeyaFeersumEnjineeya Posts: 4,722
    edited January 28

    You obviously had better weather than we did. I think all the conversations at the sideline last Sunday were on the topic of how terrible it was standing in freezing driving rain, how cold we were, whether anyone could feel their feet, and if the ref could end the game early as we were 5-0 up and the other team had stopped trying.
    That rings true for me. Thank God those days are over. I'd almost managed to blot out the memories of endless hours stood in the freezing cold and pouring rain next to some godforsaken field on the edge of a disused industrial estate. That's if you were lucky. If unlucky, you'd be running the line having accidentally accepted the flag without thinking or having been finally shamed into the job. Then you'd be spending the next hour and a half also trying desperately to judge offsides and penalties on a pitch with barely discernable markings. Those of you with just daughters - consider yourselves blessed.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 44,516
    Driver said:

    Not to my understanding - what he's done is order that passports (and possibly other documents) reflect sex registered at birth.
    That's what I meant. Transgender no longer recognised officially.
  • BattlebusBattlebus Posts: 623
    Taz said:

    This time will be different to the last time, part 100.

    https://www.gov.uk/government/news/pension-reforms-to-go-further-to-unlock-billions-to-drive-growth-and-boost-working-peoples-pension-pots

    Working people and businesses are set to benefit from new rules that will give more flexibility over how occupational defined benefit pension schemes are managed, as the government continues to remove blockages that are inhibiting its growth agenda that will improve lives of working people across the UK.

    Hosting a meeting with leaders of Britain’s biggest businesses in the City of London today (Tuesday 28 January), the Prime Minister and the Chancellor will set out the details of changes and tell some of the country’s leading CEOs that Britain is back and open for business.

    At the roundtable, the PM and Chancellor will outline how restrictions will be lifted on how well-funded, occupational defined benefit pension funds that are performing well will be able to invest their surplus funds.

    This is nonsense. Defined benefits are 'defined'. If the fund makes a surplus either the company pays less to cover the funds shortfall (if it is still an internal one) or the outsourced fund takes the benefit of underwriting any shortfall. Pensioners rarely have DB pensions now. It's normally Defined Contributions.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 53,783
    Taz said:

    I did one of those organised coach tours of the West Coast of the US many years back with my Dad, more as company for him really. In LA they did organised tours of Compton and other gang areas, with former gang members leading it. Felt odd to me. True poverty tourism. Didn't go.
    The best version of this was a former UDA guy whose plan to cash in on post Troubles tourism in NI was to do tours of the former fun bits.

    In a Saracen APC.

    I heard that he got as far as looking at prices for the command vehicle version (the whole top opens as a series of hatches, so great for safari picture taking) before he was told NO.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 24,000
    Sean_F said:

    I would suggest that, after 25 years of very high levels of net immigration, that it seems quite plain that high levels of immigration do not boost the economy overall (even if individual sectors benefit). That 25 year period has seen much lower levels of economic growth than the preceding 25 years, when levels of net immigration were much lower.

    The economic case for high immigration seems totally unproven.
    What was the dependency ratio for the two blocks of 25 years......and what would the second block have looked like without immigration?
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 27,368

    Starmer has managed to put out the perfect post, encapsulating his government in eight words. Vacuous, lacking in any thought or policy to achieve the end. Believing that if you can talk yourself into a recession (or close to one), you can talk yourself out of one.

    Keir Starmer @Keir_Starmer

    With my government, Britain is open for business.

    8:01 am · 28 Jan 2025
    ·
    318.9K Views

    You can be 'open for business' as much as you want but if you don't produce or sell things other people want you don't get any customers.
  • theProletheProle Posts: 1,294
    Taz said:

    Looks like the forecast is 5 million, in round terms, net migration over that period with births and deaths being similar.

    Which makes it so easy to fix. Net Zero migration.

    It's not rocket science - it just needs doing. There will be economic consequences, but not nearly as severe as those caused by 5 million more people with nowhere to live.
  • FairlieredFairliered Posts: 5,467
    MaxPB said:

    I went to Cardiff Uni, it will be sad to see them go bankrupt but fundamentally they've been mismanaged for decades. I remember when they spent £200k on that weird pattern on the business school building, even then people were like wtf kind of money wasting is that.

    Let the market force them to downsize and cut the waste, a government bailout would be a mistake and will let wasteful universities across the country off the hook.
    If Labour want to lose more of their traditional voters to Reform, they will bail out Universities whilst letting industrial companies fail. However, if they don’t bail out failing Universities, they will risk losing their academic vote.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 53,783
    Leon said:

    Ideally we should go back to a time when you have to be Anglican Protestant, and you can get sent down for Atheism, like Shelley, or not sent down despite keeping a bear in your chambers, like Byron

    That's a proper university system, right there
    What if the bear is a heavy armed atheist radical?
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 24,000
    Nigelb said:

    They very probably shouldn't.
    But won't that remain entirely up to the fund's trustees ?

    The point is that the existing rules effectively mandate long term underperformance.
    Problems:

    We don't teach risk or investing so trustees often don't understand risk or investing.
    We assume investing in "safe" assets is "safe" rather than thinking of it as guaranteed underperformance.
    We bundle global equity trackers in the same "risky" group as we do the trustees buying shares in a start up or bubble.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 75,797
    Battlebus said:

    This is nonsense. Defined benefits are 'defined'. If the fund makes a surplus either the company pays less to cover the funds shortfall (if it is still an internal one) or the outsourced fund takes the benefit of underwriting any shortfall. Pensioners rarely have DB pensions now. It's normally Defined Contributions.
    Unless the system breaks down, of course.

    But one of the reasons UK companies have been so vulnerable to private equity asset stripping (which in the past has not infrequently played fast and loose with company pension fund surpluses) is that for a very long time our investment rules effectively made it easier for them to purchase UK company stock than they did for our domestic pension funds.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 79,060

    Problems:

    We don't teach risk or investing so trustees often don't understand risk or investing.
    We assume investing in "safe" assets is "safe" rather than thinking of it as guaranteed underperformance.
    We bundle global equity trackers in the same "risky" group as we do the trustees buying shares in a start up or bubble.
    Point 3 is quite comical. I'm 60% global trackers / 40 tech (Ho ho :D ). Global trackers by definition don't pick winners which is a rule for long term investing. Imo default funds for anyone under 55 should probably be 100% global trackers.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 13,804

    What if the bear is a heavy armed atheist radical?
    Atheist bears had to go to UCL. That's why it was created.
  • boulayboulay Posts: 6,034
    Leon said:

    Ideally we should go back to a time when you have to be Anglican Protestant, and you can get sent down for Atheism, like Shelley, or not sent down despite keeping a bear in your chambers, like Byron

    That's a proper university system, right there
    You do remember that our Alma mater was set up precisely as a reaction to those requirements you recommend.

    Signed,

    A godless heathen of Gower Street.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 54,903
    Taz said:

    So what happens when that risk does not pay off ?

    The members of the scheme get reduced benefits presumably.

    Why should private defined schemes take that risk, especially when so many are now closed to new members and their age profile is far older than DC schemes.
    As I said yesterday even by Rachel from accounts standards this is an unbelievably stupid idea. Does she really think that £160bn of surplus is sitting around doing nothing? Of course not. So where is it? Well, its invested in UK companies, foreign companies and gilts. So it is already a major source of our investment.

    The real problem is that since Brown changed the rules on dividends for pension funds less and less of UK funds are invested in UK quoted companies. But that is a consequence of tax policies, not a consequence of surplus funds lying around. If this "surplus" is removed by the supporting employer they might invest it or they might pay dividends with it. Who can say, but another part of the growth problem is that pension funds have driven UK companies to be cash cows rather than investing for future growth so it is a fair bet that the latter will be the most common.

    The issues are:
    (1) that UK pension funds are reluctant to invest in FTSE companies (roughly 10% of their holdings at present).
    (2) That unlike in the US UK funds seem more interested in dividends and squeezing cash out of companies than capital growth.
    (3) That this makes it more difficult than is ideal for startups and small companies to access capital in the UK.

    None of these problems are addressed by Reeves' proposals. Indeed some of them may become worse.
  • SelebianSelebian Posts: 9,186

    My point is that my uni and Selebians are not in the situation you are implying is every university. We have inside information because we work at Unis.

    Clearly not all is rosy and I am not saying that. But I think things are being overblown right now (information vacuum allows a certain type of news story to grow - see also drones in NJ, although thats died off now, like all good flaps. I loved the people posting planes flying over and saying that they are not planes, but are disguised as planes...)
    Some of the more student-dependent universities will be in potentially big trouble - it's really impossible to make the sums add up there for UK students and the overseas crackdown has limited that option.

    The research-heavy ones have some other options. Research funding doesn't cover full economic costs, but the problem of funding not adjusting to salaries is smaller - when applying for funding, you write the budget for the current and projected staff salaries. There's also - still - money to be made on CPD, conferences etc.

    I do expect to see some of the 'new' universities close or at least lose courses. The more research-intensive ones might just drop some - or even many - courses. And there may be some surprises of universities that fall in the latter category that have cocked up/over-indebted etc that do fold.
  • DriverDriver Posts: 5,560
    kinabalu said:

    That's what I meant. Transgender no longer recognised officially.
    There's a significant difference between "being trans in America" and "have the federal government recognise a person as trans on a passport".

    To take one example of a something that the federal government doesn't control, states will still be able to recognise trans on drivers licenses.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 43,616

    That rings true for me. Thank God those days are over. I'd almost managed to blot out the memories of endless hours stood in the freezing cold and pouring rain next to some godforsaken field on the edge of a disused industrial estate. That's if you were lucky. If unlucky, you'd be running the line having accidentally accepted the flag without thinking or having been finally shamed into the job. Then you'd be spending the next hour and a half also trying desperately to judge offsides and penalties on a pitch with barely discernable markings. Those of you with just daughters - consider yourselves blessed.
    I thought if you have kids then that is one of the joys of having them.

    Plus are you suggesting peoples' daughters are at home playing with their dolls
  • FairlieredFairliered Posts: 5,467
    Taz said:

    The devil will be in the detail, as always, in the past chancellors have spoken of accessing pension funds to pay for infrastructure and the like.

    A pension is a vehicle to fund someones retirement. First and foremost it must do that. If it helps the economy then all well and good but its priority should be fund growth to fund the retiree's retirement.

    The govt will bring forward the details in the spring. Depends what is meant by this.

    "With the right guardrails in place, the government’s proposals could help channel more funding into the economy, by enabling schemes to invest more widely and take on greater risk, while allowing for members to receive an uplift to pension benefits."
    The Government could take more risk with public sector DB schemes, but leave private sector DB schemes unchanged. If the public sector schemes fail, the Government will then have to decide whether they bail out their own employees.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 43,616
    Leon said:

    Ideally we should go back to a time when you have to be Anglican Protestant, and you can get sent down for Atheism, like Shelley, or not sent down despite keeping a bear in your chambers, like Byron

    That's a proper university system, right there
    We are at that time. The natural conclusion of the protestant movement is atheism, which is, generally, where we are today.

    Do away with everything that represents (but isn't actually) faith until you do away with the whole paraphernalia of the Church itself. So you just are on your own doing good things because you think you ought to.

    Religion has lost, by and large.
  • DavidL said:

    As I said yesterday even by Rachel from accounts standards this is an unbelievably stupid idea. Does she really think that £160bn of surplus is sitting around doing nothing? Of course not. So where is it? Well, its invested in UK companies, foreign companies and gilts. So it is already a major source of our investment.

    The real problem is that since Brown changed the rules on dividends for pension funds less and less of UK funds are invested in UK quoted companies. But that is a consequence of tax policies, not a consequence of surplus funds lying around. If this "surplus" is removed by the supporting employer they might invest it or they might pay dividends with it. Who can say, but another part of the growth problem is that pension funds have driven UK companies to be cash cows rather than investing for future growth so it is a fair bet that the latter will be the most common.

    The issues are:
    (1) that UK pension funds are reluctant to invest in FTSE companies (roughly 10% of their holdings at present).
    (2) That unlike in the US UK funds seem more interested in dividends and squeezing cash out of companies than capital growth.
    (3) That this makes it more difficult than is ideal for startups and small companies to access capital in the UK.

    None of these problems are addressed by Reeves' proposals. Indeed some of them may become worse.
    Can I please challenge you on this "Rachel from accounts" thing. It is open and petty misogyny - you would not have referred to "Kwazi from Accounts" or "Rishi from Accounts" or "Gordon from Accounts"

    She is the Chancellor of the Exchequer and she's a woman. Feel free to consider that she is doing a poor job - that's fair. But "Rachel from accounts" is attacking her for her crime of being a woman. Please stop. You are better than than even if so many Tories and right wing commentators are not.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 59,259
    TOPPING said:

    I thought if you have kids then that is one of the joys of having them.

    Plus are you suggesting peoples' daughters are at home playing with their dolls
    It's one of the joys of having them IN RETROSPECT

    When I was a parent to a young child, my experience was always: I hate parenting, I love *having parented*

  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 126,466
    Battlebus said:

    Coming back to the issue of babies and why the domestic population trying to have them in the UK is difficult, look at Household wealth statistics

    Median wealth (2022) was about £300K made up of property (40%), Private Pensions (35%), Net Wealth (14%) and Physical Wealth (10%). So if you want to save for a home, or a pension and you have some student debt, the chances of you being able to afford children means hard choices.

    Alternatively if you are a single mum on benefits, you are limited to 2 children (and a financial cap) if you go beyond that.

    So if you don't like migration you have to have some serious discussions about the child bearing barriers in the UK.

    https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/personalandhouseholdfinances/incomeandwealth/bulletins/totalwealthingreatbritain/april2020tomarch2022

    Yes as VP Vance the Pope and Meloni say we need to have more babies, that means more child support for mothers too and child benefit.

    Though at the moment we have immigration increasing our population not even stabilising it despite below replacement level birthrates
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 30,845
    HYUFD said:

    150 years ago only the top 1% went to university never mind the top 7%, as the only universities were Oxford, Cambridge, Durham, Manchester, UCL, Kings London and St Andrews, Aberdeen, Glasgow and Edinburgh and Aberystwyth.

    Even most solicitors and accountants and bankers didn't have degrees let alone most nurses and middle managers like now. Degrees were only really needed if you wanted to be a barrister, doctor/surgeon or vicar/bishop or permanent secretary or academic or public school/grammar school teacher
    Do you want to return to the top 1%? Of course you do, so long as your children will find themselves in that 1%.
  • SelebianSelebian Posts: 9,186
    edited January 28

    That rings true for me. Thank God those days are over. I'd almost managed to blot out the memories of endless hours stood in the freezing cold and pouring rain next to some godforsaken field on the edge of a disused industrial estate. That's if you were lucky. If unlucky, you'd be running the line having accidentally accepted the flag without thinking or having been finally shamed into the job. Then you'd be spending the next hour and a half also trying desperately to judge offsides and penalties on a pitch with barely discernable markings. Those of you with just daughters - consider yourselves blessed.
    The trick is to get more involved - I did about three weeks of standing in the cold watching my lad at reception year training sessions, then asked whether they needed any help. Actually running around with the kids was much better. Being coach to my lad's team over the last couple of years has been a joy.

    ETA: We have a couple of girls in the team and there's also a local girls-only football club, so passing on only your X chromosome doesn't save you!
  • eekeek Posts: 29,467

    Can I please challenge you on this "Rachel from accounts" thing. It is open and petty misogyny - you would not have referred to "Kwazi from Accounts" or "Rishi from Accounts" or "Gordon from Accounts"

    She is the Chancellor of the Exchequer and she's a woman. Feel free to consider that she is doing a poor job - that's fair. But "Rachel from accounts" is attacking her for her crime of being a woman. Please stop. You are better than than even if so many Tories and right wing commentators are not.
    It wouldn't be so bad if Rachel had actually worked in accounts.

    Her career seems to have been Bank of England economist followed by something connected to Customer Service in Halifax while campaigning to be the local MP.
  • SelebianSelebian Posts: 9,186
    edited January 28

    Open up education properly instead, this is an area where the free market can deliver radical change.

    Simply allow any student to sit any exam from any university of their choice at cost plus reasonable margin. Where they learn the facts is up to them.

    Costs for taxpayers and students will plummet.
    Could work for some courses, but for others - many of the sciences - there are important practical assessments (and learning). Coursework is also still a major part and useful - you can get a much better feel science ability from a dissertation than from a simple exam of facts. Those could, of course, still just be submitted anywhere and marked, but cheating would become more of a problem. I've had a couple of cases where it's been obvious that the dissertation could not have been the work of the student I've been meeting with over 4 months and, having raised suspicions, it was possible to pin down the wrongdoing (most recent was an AI effort, complete with a suite of non-existent papers in the references; the earlier one was a recycled dissertation from another university).

    ETA: Both of those detectable anyway, I guess, but I don't normally do things like checking references exist unless I'm suspicious. The recycled one didn't flag up strongly using our software as it had at least been partially reworded. The tell was the identical structure and findings.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 56,022
    Pulpstar said:

    Lol, we comment at work now about we're old enough to be various new starters parents and grandparents.
    A kid going for his legal first drink in the pub tonight, was born in 2007. :open_mouth:

    His parent could legally have been born in 1991, and his grandparent in 1977.
  • TazTaz Posts: 17,096

    The best version of this was a former UDA guy whose plan to cash in on post Troubles tourism in NI was to do tours of the former fun bits.

    In a Saracen APC.

    I heard that he got as far as looking at prices for the command vehicle version (the whole top opens as a series of hatches, so great for safari picture taking) before he was told NO.
    Sounds like the sort of thing Dura would do :smiley:
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 54,903
    Leon said:

    It's one of the joys of having them IN RETROSPECT

    When I was a parent to a young child, my experience was always: I hate parenting, I love *having parented*

    I loved it although there were some serious bumps along the road. I find young children in particular delightful and hilarious. I am so looking forward to my first grandchild being born next month so I get to do some of that again.
  • Sandpit said:

    A kid going for his legal first drink in the pub tonight, was born in 2007. :open_mouth:

    His parent could legally have been born in 1991, and his grandparent in 1977.
    Thanks to marrying some-one quite a bit older than myself, and acquiring a step-son only ten years younger than me, I am now 63 with 2 great-granddaughters.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 54,903

    Can I please challenge you on this "Rachel from accounts" thing. It is open and petty misogyny - you would not have referred to "Kwazi from Accounts" or "Rishi from Accounts" or "Gordon from Accounts"

    She is the Chancellor of the Exchequer and she's a woman. Feel free to consider that she is doing a poor job - that's fair. But "Rachel from accounts" is attacking her for her crime of being a woman. Please stop. You are better than than even if so many Tories and right wing commentators are not.
    Ok. I take the point. I did not mean it in a misogynistic way, its more a reflection on her CV as she has narrated it but I accept it could be seen that way.
  • Latest YouGov Westminster voting intention (26-27 Jan)

    Lab: 27% (+1 from 20-21 Jan)
    Ref: 23% (-1)
    Con: 22% (=)
    Lib Dem: 14% (=)
    Green: 9% (=)
    SNP: 3% (=)


    https://yougov.co.uk/politics/articles/51477-voting-intention-lab-27-ref-23-con-22-26-27-jan-2025
  • squareroot2squareroot2 Posts: 6,990
    HYUFD said:

    Which given UK birthrate is well below replacement level is entirely down to immigration
    And it's going to cause a lot of trouble going forward.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 65,005
    DavidL said:

    I loved it although there were some serious bumps along the road. I find young children in particular delightful and hilarious. I am so looking forward to my first grandchild being born next month so I get to do some of that again.
    This standing on cold wet football pitches as a parent - is this a modern thing?

    I played cub and scout football at the local pitch most Saturdays through many winters in 1970s and there wasn't a single parent there in support.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 56,022
    Nigelb said:

    Insofar as the 'poorer' and 'majority black' correlate, yes.
    There might have been a very interesting paper to be written about the central point, given further research, but this wan't it.
    There’s definitely no funding for anyone who might write an academic paper, especially in the US, that suggests that the real societal problem is actually income and social class, rather than race.
  • Selebian said:

    The trick is to get more involved - I did about three weeks of standing in the cold watching my lad at reception year training sessions, then asked whether they needed any help. Actually running around with the kids was much better. Being coach to my lad's team over the last couple of years has been a joy.

    ETA: We have a couple of girls in the team and there's also a local girls-only football club, so passing on only your X chromosome doesn't save you!
    :smile:

    It didn't help that I was never particular interested in football myself, but my lad was keen to play and I thought it'd be good for him physically and socially. No, I'm more the indoors type, and I did rather enjoy running a chess club at my lad's school. It's almost magical seeing them grasp the concepts of the game and start to think strategically. I did used to help out on outings as well, making sure none of the kids got lost or fell in ponds, etc.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 59,259
    BORING POLL KLAXON


    YouGov
    @YouGov
    ·
    49m
    Latest YouGov Westminster voting intention (26-27 Jan)

    Lab: 27% (+1 from 20-21 Jan)
    Ref: 23% (-1)
    Con: 22% (=)
    Lib Dem: 14% (=)
    Green: 9% (=)
    SNP: 3% (=)
  • Immigration for the win/in your face France.

    Immigration to push UK population above France

    Number of people living in Britain is projected to hit 72.5m by 2032, entirely fuelled by a 4.9m increase in net migration


    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/01/28/immigration-to-push-uk-population-above-france/
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 44,617
    viewcode said:

    Hobbits, a species in Tolkein's "Lord of the Rings" known for being short and cheerful, eat several meals during day, including "second breakfast".
    Thank you! It is a very long time since I read LotR ...
  • MJWMJW Posts: 2,005
    On topic, I can't see the WFA cut being much of an issue at the next election for two reasons - firstly rises in pensions under the triple lock will wipe out any losses or 'hardship' incurred. This is the toughest bit for the government - when people feel they've 'lost' something they were long told they deserved, even if it had become a bit of an absurdity, without the subsequent gains they get elsewhere. Each year it becomes less of a pressing issue and slips into "Oh, I didn't like it but the sky hasn't fallen in" territory.

    Secondly, are the Tories really going to go into the next election promising to restore a payment to wealthier pensioners that was a Brown accountancy trick to alleviate pensioner poverty without uprating? One that hasn't changed since 2001 - when it really was sizeable enough to make a big difference.

    No, thought not.

    Reform might well, but that may depend on whether they want to be seen as a credible government and have limited money for more important pet policies, or whether repeat their 2024 manifesto and its attempt to make Jeremy Corbyn look like a fiscal conservative.
  • FlatlanderFlatlander Posts: 4,870
    MattW said:

    Good morning everyone.

    My photo quota for the day is our Editor's next staycation.

    Fishing on Ladybower Reservoir:


    What could possibly go wrong?


  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 30,845
    edited January 28

    There was no shortage of clever working class teenagers going to university from the 1970s onwards.

    The increase in students in recent decades has come from the thicker middle class teenagers.

    I'm not sure how getting them into £50k of debt in return for three years of 'making memories' is 'positive social engineering'.

    Let alone preparing them for an ever more challenging world.
    You Conservatives of a certain shade (don't forget it was the enlightened John Major who amalgamated universities and polytechnics) are desperate for the majority to do modern apprenticeships and Boris Johnson to read Classics at Oxford.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 13,804

    This standing on cold wet football pitches as a parent - is this a modern thing?

    I played cub and scout football at the local pitch most Saturdays through many winters in 1970s and there wasn't a single parent there in support.
    Yes. A massive culture change; a mixture of helicoptering, safeguarding, anxiously wanting to be part of your child's life, etc. As a child of the 1950s/60s, it would never have crossed my father's mind to have the smallest interest in whether, where and with whom I was doing any sport of any sort. That would seen really odd now, but it was fine and I still thinks it was fine.
This discussion has been closed.