Really shocking story in the ST today about Franchise colleges and the hundreds of millions that have been stolen for non existent students from Romania in the main signing on to get student loans and, of course, grants which are then shared between the colleges, the lead Universities and the providers of the students.
The scale of it is almost beyond belief. Those involved in both the franchise colleges and indeed in the Universities have surely acted illegally and dishonestly. Hundreds of them really need to go to jail and the franchise colleges involved need to be closed. What this does to a sector already struggling, god alone knows.
"Leaked government figures show that the number of Romanian nationals living in the UK applying for a student loan increased from 5,000 in 2015-16 to 84,000 in 2023-24, suggesting 15 per cent of the Romanian population in Britain was paid a student loan last year."
We are being taken for fools and a corrupt public sector is just looking the other way.
BTW, that 15% suggests that there are currently 560k Romanians living in the UK. I mean, how?
What will happen to Democratic candidates’ accounts as we approach the US midterms?
The "titans of free speech" who had the nerve to come to Europe and lecture us. It is just sickening to observe the maga hypocrisy.
And yes, the mid-terms are going to be a nail biter when it comes to the prospects for constitutional democracy vs authoritarianism in the US. I think it is 50/50 between overriding and supreme court decision and tanking the midterms as the definitive moment. I mean ignoring court orders on deportation due process is bad enough. But I think the other two will be the flash point for a serious crisis in America.
A thread I have planned is that the crisis could come much sooner than the mid terms.
With special elections/defection it is possible the Dems take control of the House this year.
I would like to believe this but with the Democrats even less popular than the Republicans right now, I'm doubtful.
Unpopular for being supine.
Those speaking out like Bernie and AOC are getting vast support.
AOC would be a great president, assuming that there are further US elections.
What would make her a good president ?
I'm no fan at all of AOC but she couldn't possibly be as bad as this one. Even if she can be just as arrogant she is at least possessed of a functioning brain.
A more potentially immediate question is what we make of the VP, given Trump's age. I can't judge whether he's seriously unhinged or merely a politician who adjusts his message to suit the moment. What do others make of him?
As my attempt at a serious answer, I think that philosophically and politically he has a narrow base to his views, and he treats it as an intellectual citadel from which to defend and attack, and not as a centre from which to engage and explore.
And I think he has an exaggerated Trump-like view of America the Dominant (which is untrue), and seems to share something of Trump's callous disregard of weaker human beings, which is in line with a belief in ""the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must". It will perhaps be a shock when he discovers that he is out of line with what is actually out there.
I don't know what his attitude is to expert advisers, or if - unlike Trump - he is temperamentally capable of accepting that other people may know better about their knowledge domains, and it is better to have those around him than a parade of empty-headed yes-men.
That makes him fragile and defensive to challenge, and he operates from his strong assumptions about others rather than read the background and ask them what they actually think. His sharp disagreements are characterised by responses of fear and contempt, not of engagement and wanting to collaborate / learn. He has a megaphone but also needs an ear trumpet.
Given that he is a creature of Peter Thiel, that makes it very very awkward for anyone.
This piece is his explanation of his philosophical journey to Catholicism, which is instructive. He is very clear about what he has rejected, but I don't think see that he has explored what he has professed - especially around the social and human vales and obligations. That is the hole at his centre.
Not quite as cheap as @Eabhal has found it but, yes, some positive news re: fuel prices with oil still below $70 a barrel. Whether that has the political or economic impact it once did I'm less certain but it should mitigate inflation to an extent. We used to be able to track Conservative VI and petrol prices quite closely in the dim and distant.
To be fair to Kemi Badenoch, she inherited a Conservative Party which had just endured its worst ever defeat - worse, I'd argue, than the losses of 1945 or 1997. The actions of previous Prime Ministers had left the Party exposed to an existential threat from a populist party on the "right" (Reform aren't by any serious measure a right wing party but if you lie down with dogs you'll get up with fleas as a wise man once said.)
Another maxim is "to thine own self be true" and let's be honest, past iterations of the Conservative Party proved both popular and successful. Whether you call it "traditional" or "One Nation", there was once a strand of Conservative thinking which aligned with middle class urban and suburban Britain while maintaining its Tory rural roots and that electoral combination was often unbeatable.
You could argue that Britain has gone - perhaps - but political parties, to survive, must move with the times. If I were advising the Conservatives, I think I'd tell them to talk less and listen more.
The trad or One Nation Britain you mention may have gone; has it? The rural, urban, suburban middle class One Nation vote was indeed the backbone of Tory support. I was brought up in it and voted that way in GEs until 2024, when I voted Labour. I voted Labour because it was the nearest thing available.
One Nation Toryism at its best combined these three elements, though of course very imperfectly:
Both public and private sectors were at heart service of the community as a whole; and at the same time the private sector could make a lot of money. The public sector was highly respected.
Equality of outcomes was not important, but working towards equality of opportunity, while impossible to achieve, was always a target.
Honesty and honour was built into the dealings of institutions as a norm not the exception. Spivs were a sideshow, not the crowd running the whole programme.
I don't think this set of aims and ideals is either impossible or unimportant. If the Tories stood for them I would vote for them.
You're not wrong - the Conservatives were once the party of aspiration and people like to aspire to something better if not for themselves then for their families and communities.
Why did the Conservatives turn so completely away from these basic One Nation principles? @HYUFD may argue they haven't but last year suggested they had (and I'd also argue the LDs and even the Greens were the repository of those votes in some areas. Look at Chichester and explain a 30% swing to the LDs.
Was it an inevitable consequence of Brexit or a kneejerk response to Faragist populism? I have no idea but Johnson took the Party in a new and different direction which won him an election but lost the Party its soul.
Johnson spent hugely, welcomed immigrants was socially liberal. Apart from Brexit Boris was One Nation, certainly more than Thatcher was.
Even Kemi won on a more One Nation platform than Jenrick offered which was basically Farage lite
'One Nation' is phrase that simply means 'go away and let the left run the Tories'. There is no actual ideological thread or tradition that connects Benjamin Disraeli with David Gauke or Anna Soubry.
There's a nuance at work here - social conservatism now sits within Labour and Reform. The modern Conservative brand is socially liberal but economically conservative if we interpret that to mean low taxes, sound public finances and a small State.
Take the key issue of the day for many - immigration. There's an economic argument for immigration (not in terms of an "open door" but for controlled legal migration to cover shortages in key working areas, provide specialisms and a tertiary argument around training and upskilling) but the immigration argument has become cultural whether it's framed in religious terms, national identity terms or cultural cohesion terms.
As a result, the Conservatives are on the wrong side of a significant strand of public opinion which seems to want not only a much harsher line on migration but is looking to see voluntary (or perhaps non-voluntary) repatriation especially of illegal migrants but in some cases legal migrants as well.
Rather than bump the rest of the field up can't they just reallocate Hamilton, Leclerc and Gasley's original points tally to Max?
F1 has become as authentic as the Kent Walton wrestling on World of Sport.
Verstappen gains zero points from this. The plank's always had to be a certain thickness to stop cars running dangerously low. it's a tedious technicality, but not the first time this has happened.
Really shocking story in the ST today about Franchise colleges and the hundreds of millions that have been stolen for non existent students from Romania in the main signing on to get student loans and, of course, grants which are then shared between the colleges, the lead Universities and the providers of the students.
The scale of it is almost beyond belief. Those involved in both the franchise colleges and indeed in the Universities have surely acted illegally and dishonestly. Hundreds of them really need to go to jail and the franchise colleges involved need to be closed. What this does to a sector already struggling, god alone knows.
Glen O'Hara @gsoh31.bsky.social · 3h This article is a hit job, and an extremely misleading one. Fraud is very serous and must be rooted out, but franchising *in total* is less than 1% of university teaching income, and it's presented like it's a key part of the burgeoning debt stock. (1/2)
Glen O'Hara @gsoh31.bsky.social · 3h The *real* scandal is that the whole system is set up as incentives for this sort of behaviour. And getting the OfS to intervene! Reader, I laughed, if bitterly. Take a look at the real (and growing) problem - cloud on the horizon that's getting bigger. (2/2)
What will happen to Democratic candidates’ accounts as we approach the US midterms?
The "titans of free speech" who had the nerve to come to Europe and lecture us. It is just sickening to observe the maga hypocrisy.
And yes, the mid-terms are going to be a nail biter when it comes to the prospects for constitutional democracy vs authoritarianism in the US. I think it is 50/50 between overriding and supreme court decision and tanking the midterms as the definitive moment. I mean ignoring court orders on deportation due process is bad enough. But I think the other two will be the flash point for a serious crisis in America.
A thread I have planned is that the crisis could come much sooner than the mid terms.
With special elections/defection it is possible the Dems take control of the House this year.
I would like to believe this but with the Democrats even less popular than the Republicans right now, I'm doubtful.
Unpopular for being supine.
Those speaking out like Bernie and AOC are getting vast support.
AOC would be a great president, assuming that there are further US elections.
What would make her a good president ?
I'm no fan at all of AOC but she couldn't possibly be as bad as this one. Even if she can be just as arrogant she is at least possessed of a functioning brain.
I know little of her aside from the more superficial stuff. I don’t think the ‘she can’t be any worse’ argument cuts it really. She could easily.
The Dems need to look outside of DC and outside of coastal liberalism for their next candidate
Why?
In normal times, picking a candidate to eke out a few more swing voters in swing states might make sense. These times aren't normal, and Republicans lost the right to complain about the other lot's candidate choice when they fell in behind DJT.
It always makes sense to chose a candidate who can connect with swing voters in swing states.
And the DC Dems will forever be tainted with supporting an 82 year old senile man as presidential candidate.
You are gaslighting again.
Other than four years what is the difference between a senile 82 year old and a senile 78 year old?
The 78 year old still has enough marbles left to be vindictive...
I would argue the other way.
Trump imagines Rosie O'Donnell has hidden his diapers out of spite so he has to s*** the bed. He then spends the morning plotting his revenge against Rosie O'Donnell. And all because Trump forgot to ask his carer to replace the last soiled diaper with a fresh one.
Can someone fill me in as to who the f is this Rosie O'Donnell people keep going on about?
When we say the Democratic Party leadership is supine, here's what is hard for a British person to understand.
A politic party in the UK has a leader and the general expectation is that party electees broadly at least try to speak in the terms laid out by that leader, else it is branded disloyalty.
Without a president or presidential candidate, the leadership of a US party is much more diffuse, leaders in the house and senate, not necessarily with the same scope, party donors and men in grey suit types. How does a coherent Democratic Party line possibly emerge in all this, in short, how does opposition crystallise within the US political system?
They hold their primary next year, row in behind them and spend the next few years hammering Trump along the party line.
If they could pull it off, it could reap huge rewards but it would involve a lot of people subordinating their ambition to an individual. Many of those highly ambitious people might well lose their chance at the top job because of it. I imagine a lot of potential Dem candidates are instead thinking of keeping their powder dry for the bloodletting that will be their Primary in 2028. Instead, they need to put all that powder together and attack the GOP using it for the next four years.
Run the Primary now, get it all out, and then hammer the Republicans over anything and everything.
Primary timelines are determined (in part) by state laws, aren’t they? They can’t just decide to run the primary early.
What will happen to Democratic candidates’ accounts as we approach the US midterms?
The "titans of free speech" who had the nerve to come to Europe and lecture us. It is just sickening to observe the maga hypocrisy.
And yes, the mid-terms are going to be a nail biter when it comes to the prospects for constitutional democracy vs authoritarianism in the US. I think it is 50/50 between overriding and supreme court decision and tanking the midterms as the definitive moment. I mean ignoring court orders on deportation due process is bad enough. But I think the other two will be the flash point for a serious crisis in America.
A thread I have planned is that the crisis could come much sooner than the mid terms.
With special elections/defection it is possible the Dems take control of the House this year.
I would like to believe this but with the Democrats even less popular than the Republicans right now, I'm doubtful.
Unpopular for being supine.
Those speaking out like Bernie and AOC are getting vast support.
AOC would be a great president, assuming that there are further US elections.
What would make her a good president ?
I'm no fan at all of AOC but she couldn't possibly be as bad as this one. Even if she can be just as arrogant she is at least possessed of a functioning brain.
A more potentially immediate question is what we make of the VP, given Trump's age. I can't judge whether he's seriously unhinged or merely a politician who adjusts his message to suit the moment. What do others make of him?
As my attempt at a serious answer, I think that philosophically and politically he has a narrow base to his views, and he treats it as an intellectual citadel from which to defend and attack, and not as a centre from which to engage and explore.
And I think he has an exaggerated Trump-like view of America the Dominant (which is untrue), and seems to share something of Trump's callous disregard of weaker human beings, which is in line with a belief in ""the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must". It will perhaps be a shock when he discovers that he is out of line with what is actually out there.
I don't know what his attitude is to expert advisers, or if - unlike Trump - he is temperamentally capable of accepting that other people may know better about their knowledge domains, and it is better to have those around him than a parade of empty-headed yes-men.
That makes him fragile and defensive to challenge, and he operates from his strong assumptions about others rather than read the background and ask them what they actually think. His sharp disagreements are characterised by responses of fear and contempt, not of engagement and wanting to collaborate / learn. He has a megaphone but also needs an ear trumpet.
Given that he is a creature of Peter Thiel, that makes it very very awkward for anyone.
This piece is his explanation of his philosophical journey to Catholicism, which is instructive. He is very clear about what he has rejected, but I don't think see that he has explored what he has professed - especially around the social and human vales and obligations. That is the hole at his centre.
“The strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must” is actually a very stupid outlook. Because there will always come a time when you need allies and supporters (as Athens ultimately did).
Unlike the Greeks, the Romans were good diplomats who always left something on the table, for their clients.
Though that only matters if you forsee a time when you need allies and supporters. It's pretty clear that Trump doesn't.
The question is where is is on the spectrum between "enormous hubris" and "intends to nail things down with himself as permagod". And it's not that difficult a question- a bunch of politicians this awful daren't risk nemesis. If they look like losing, they will have to try to fiddle the next elections.
This is one of the speeches where he explores his ideas about encouraging more children, and brought up the idea of parents having more influence than single adults - by giving children votes cast by their parents.
So, crudely, a parent with 3 children gets 4 votes. There are questions around who gets to vote, or is excluded, and so on. (35 minute speech.) Another policy proposed aiui is that loans (like student loans) be given to couples who cannot afford to setup house which prevents them having a family, to be written off later if they have children.
When we say the Democratic Party leadership is supine, here's what is hard for a British person to understand.
A politic party in the UK has a leader and the general expectation is that party electees broadly at least try to speak in the terms laid out by that leader, else it is branded disloyalty.
Without a president or presidential candidate, the leadership of a US party is much more diffuse, leaders in the house and senate, not necessarily with the same scope, party donors and men in grey suit types. How does a coherent Democratic Party line possibly emerge in all this, in short, how does opposition crystallise within the US political system?
They hold their primary next year, row in behind them and spend the next few years hammering Trump along the party line.
If they could pull it off, it could reap huge rewards but it would involve a lot of people subordinating their ambition to an individual. Many of those highly ambitious people might well lose their chance at the top job because of it. I imagine a lot of potential Dem candidates are instead thinking of keeping their powder dry for the bloodletting that will be their Primary in 2028. Instead, they need to put all that powder together and attack the GOP using it for the next four years.
Run the Primary now, get it all out, and then hammer the Republicans over anything and everything.
Primary timelines are determined (in part) by state laws, aren’t they? They can’t just decide to run the primary early.
Yes, which is why there was chaos over the South Carolina/Iowa primary/caucus for the Dems and the Republican primary for Nevada in 2024.
What will happen to Democratic candidates’ accounts as we approach the US midterms?
The "titans of free speech" who had the nerve to come to Europe and lecture us. It is just sickening to observe the maga hypocrisy.
And yes, the mid-terms are going to be a nail biter when it comes to the prospects for constitutional democracy vs authoritarianism in the US. I think it is 50/50 between overriding and supreme court decision and tanking the midterms as the definitive moment. I mean ignoring court orders on deportation due process is bad enough. But I think the other two will be the flash point for a serious crisis in America.
A thread I have planned is that the crisis could come much sooner than the mid terms.
With special elections/defection it is possible the Dems take control of the House this year.
I would like to believe this but with the Democrats even less popular than the Republicans right now, I'm doubtful.
Unpopular for being supine.
Those speaking out like Bernie and AOC are getting vast support.
AOC would be a great president, assuming that there are further US elections.
What would make her a good president ?
I'm no fan at all of AOC but she couldn't possibly be as bad as this one. Even if she can be just as arrogant she is at least possessed of a functioning brain.
A more potentially immediate question is what we make of the VP, given Trump's age. I can't judge whether he's seriously unhinged or merely a politician who adjusts his message to suit the moment. What do others make of him?
As my attempt at a serious answer, I think that philosophically and politically he has a narrow base to his views, and he treats it as an intellectual citadel from which to defend and attack, and not as a centre from which to engage and explore.
And I think he has an exaggerated Trump-like view of America the Dominant (which is untrue), and seems to share something of Trump's callous disregard of weaker human beings, which is in line with a belief in ""the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must". It will perhaps be a shock when he discovers that he is out of line with what is actually out there.
I don't know what his attitude is to expert advisers, or if - unlike Trump - he is temperamentally capable of accepting that other people may know better about their knowledge domains, and it is better to have those around him than a parade of empty-headed yes-men.
That makes him fragile and defensive to challenge, and he operates from his strong assumptions about others rather than read the background and ask them what they actually think. His sharp disagreements are characterised by responses of fear and contempt, not of engagement and wanting to collaborate / learn. He has a megaphone but also needs an ear trumpet.
Given that he is a creature of Peter Thiel, that makes it very very awkward for anyone.
This piece is his explanation of his philosophical journey to Catholicism, which is instructive. He is very clear about what he has rejected, but I don't think see that he has explored what he has professed - especially around the social and human vales and obligations. That is the hole at his centre.
“The strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must” is actually a very stupid outlook. Because there will always come a time when you need allies and supporters (as Athens ultimately did).
Unlike the Greeks, the Romans were good diplomats who always left something on the table, for their clients.
Though that only matters if you forsee a time when you need allies and supporters. It's pretty clear that Trump doesn't.
The question is where is is on the spectrum between "enormous hubris" and "intends to nail things down with himself as permagod". And it's not that difficult a question- a bunch of politicians this awful daren't risk nemesis. If they look like losing, they will have to try to fiddle the next elections.
This is one of the speeches where he explores his ideas about encouraging more children, and brought up the idea of parents having more influence than single adults - by giving children votes cast by their parents.
So, crudely, a parent with 3 children gets 4 votes. There are questions around who gets to vote, or is excluded, and so on. (35 minute speech.) Another policy proposed aiui is that loans (like student loans) be given to couples who cannot afford to setup house which prevents them having a family, to be written off later if they have children.
Really shocking story in the ST today about Franchise colleges and the hundreds of millions that have been stolen for non existent students from Romania in the main signing on to get student loans and, of course, grants which are then shared between the colleges, the lead Universities and the providers of the students.
The scale of it is almost beyond belief. Those involved in both the franchise colleges and indeed in the Universities have surely acted illegally and dishonestly. Hundreds of them really need to go to jail and the franchise colleges involved need to be closed. What this does to a sector already struggling, god alone knows.
"Leaked government figures show that the number of Romanian nationals living in the UK applying for a student loan increased from 5,000 in 2015-16 to 84,000 in 2023-24, suggesting 15 per cent of the Romanian population in Britain was paid a student loan last year."
We are being taken for fools and a corrupt public sector is just looking the other way.
BTW, that 15% suggests that there are currently 560k Romanians living in the UK. I mean, how?
The overall number of Romanian-born people in the UK looks based on the 2021 census which claimed 557,000 (approx). Apparently Romanian is now the UK's third language after English and Polish. Certainly in Newham there are a lot of Romanians who have established a community here.
Rather than bump the rest of the field up can't they just reallocate Hamilton, Leclerc and Gasley's original points tally to Max?
F1 has become as authentic as the Kent Walton wrestling on World of Sport.
Verstappen gains zero points from this. The plank's always had to be a certain thickness to stop cars running dangerously low. it's a tedious technicality, but not the first time this has happened.
Bet Hamilton is not a happy bunny with his technical team. Any chance it could affect his sprint win too? Presumably it didn't comply then either.
Really shocking story in the ST today about Franchise colleges and the hundreds of millions that have been stolen for non existent students from Romania in the main signing on to get student loans and, of course, grants which are then shared between the colleges, the lead Universities and the providers of the students.
The scale of it is almost beyond belief. Those involved in both the franchise colleges and indeed in the Universities have surely acted illegally and dishonestly. Hundreds of them really need to go to jail and the franchise colleges involved need to be closed. What this does to a sector already struggling, god alone knows.
It must have been pretty bad if it was so blatant even the SLC noticed something bad was going on.
Indeed. But what on earth was the mindset of those who had proper jobs in real Universities who thought this was a good way of getting huge amounts of money into their institutions? As I say, they really should be prosecuted for fraud on an epic scale and that is essential if we are to ensure that people in the public sector are never tempted to do this again.
Most of this is at franchised colleges working with ex-polys, so not what you might think when you first think of “real Universities”.
UKTV industry apparently in crisis, although from the article it is the Beeb and itv.
The solution to this non problem is, of course, more money from taxpayers rather than finding new streams of income, nice timing too given the current debate on future funding of the BBC.
The BBC seems to favour a sliding scale with wealthier homes paying more than less well off homes.
It’s time to get rid of the license fee, fund the network from general taxation, and let the BBC seek its funding in the open market.
That would be really short sighted. The BBC is one of the best institutions in this country and has been responsible for nurturing some extraorinary talent. The media is one area where the UK punches well above it's weight and much of this is down to the BBC. Holywood is full of talent originally nurtured by the BBC The Scott brothers to name but two but if you add those lower down the scale the British expertise and influence thanks to the BBC is everywhere
I agree with that to an extent; but the media market has changed so much in the last couple of decades, keeping the licence fee is a bit like a government mandating horse-drawn ploughs.
I like the BBC, but it just isn't a mainstay of people's viewing habits in the way it was. There are too many very rich competitors.
The BBC was the Oxford and Cambridge of those wanting a career in media. Everyone's first application out of education was to one of the BBCs training schemes. I know so many people who are now in the business thanks to the BBC. Ad agencies are full of them as are film studios post production houses Costume designers editors cameramen model makers writers continuity art directors grips gaffers actors producers. It is a huge industry though obviously under the radar to most on here. It will not simply leave a hole that will be easily filled by GB News and Netflix
Rather than bump the rest of the field up can't they just reallocate Hamilton, Leclerc and Gasley's original points tally to Max?
F1 has become as authentic as the Kent Walton wrestling on World of Sport.
Verstappen gains zero points from this. The plank's always had to be a certain thickness to stop cars running dangerously low. it's a tedious technicality, but not the first time this has happened.
Bet Hamilton is not a happy bunny with his technical team. Any chance it could affect his sprint win too? Presumably it didn't comply then either.
Not necessarily - it may have become damaged or worn during the race.
What will happen to Democratic candidates’ accounts as we approach the US midterms?
The "titans of free speech" who had the nerve to come to Europe and lecture us. It is just sickening to observe the maga hypocrisy.
And yes, the mid-terms are going to be a nail biter when it comes to the prospects for constitutional democracy vs authoritarianism in the US. I think it is 50/50 between overriding and supreme court decision and tanking the midterms as the definitive moment. I mean ignoring court orders on deportation due process is bad enough. But I think the other two will be the flash point for a serious crisis in America.
A thread I have planned is that the crisis could come much sooner than the mid terms.
With special elections/defection it is possible the Dems take control of the House this year.
I would like to believe this but with the Democrats even less popular than the Republicans right now, I'm doubtful.
Unpopular for being supine.
Those speaking out like Bernie and AOC are getting vast support.
AOC would be a great president, assuming that there are further US elections.
What would make her a good president ?
I'm no fan at all of AOC but she couldn't possibly be as bad as this one. Even if she can be just as arrogant she is at least possessed of a functioning brain.
I know little of her aside from the more superficial stuff. I don’t think the ‘she can’t be any worse’ argument cuts it really. She could easily.
The Dems need to look outside of DC and outside of coastal liberalism for their next candidate
Why?
In normal times, picking a candidate to eke out a few more swing voters in swing states might make sense. These times aren't normal, and Republicans lost the right to complain about the other lot's candidate choice when they fell in behind DJT.
It always makes sense to chose a candidate who can connect with swing voters in swing states.
And the DC Dems will forever be tainted with supporting an 82 year old senile man as presidential candidate.
You are gaslighting again.
Other than four years what is the difference between a senile 82 year old and a senile 78 year old?
The 78 year old still has enough marbles left to be vindictive...
I would argue the other way.
Trump imagines Rosie O'Donnell has hidden his diapers out of spite so he has to s*** the bed. He then spends the morning plotting his revenge against Rosie O'Donnell. And all because Trump forgot to ask his carer to replace the last soiled diaper with a fresh one.
Can someone fill me in as to who the f is this Rosie O'Donnell people keep going on about?
She's an actress and chat show host. She has been an outspoken critic of Trump for decades. He hates her with a ferocity difficult to comprehend. She put her money where her mouth is, and on 15th January she relocated to Ireland. When Trump was with the Taoiseach (Teasock for all you Liz Truss fans) a MAGA reporter asked why Ireland were allowing her to apply for citizenship, to which Trump exploded.
Really shocking story in the ST today about Franchise colleges and the hundreds of millions that have been stolen for non existent students from Romania in the main signing on to get student loans and, of course, grants which are then shared between the colleges, the lead Universities and the providers of the students.
The scale of it is almost beyond belief. Those involved in both the franchise colleges and indeed in the Universities have surely acted illegally and dishonestly. Hundreds of them really need to go to jail and the franchise colleges involved need to be closed. What this does to a sector already struggling, god alone knows.
"Leaked government figures show that the number of Romanian nationals living in the UK applying for a student loan increased from 5,000 in 2015-16 to 84,000 in 2023-24, suggesting 15 per cent of the Romanian population in Britain was paid a student loan last year."
We are being taken for fools and a corrupt public sector is just looking the other way.
BTW, that 15% suggests that there are currently 560k Romanians living in the UK. I mean, how?
The overall number of Romanian-born people in the UK looks based on the 2021 census which claimed 557,000 (approx). Apparently Romanian is now the UK's third language after English and Polish. Certainly in Newham there are a lot of Romanians who have established a community here.
Well, lets start extraditing everyone who applied for one of these fraudulent loans and their dependents. My guess is that will be at least 150k people, very probably more, and it will probably reduce the benefits bill, our housing bills, our legal aid bills etc etc by low billions. This is really low hanging fruit stuff.
Really shocking story in the ST today about Franchise colleges and the hundreds of millions that have been stolen for non existent students from Romania in the main signing on to get student loans and, of course, grants which are then shared between the colleges, the lead Universities and the providers of the students.
The scale of it is almost beyond belief. Those involved in both the franchise colleges and indeed in the Universities have surely acted illegally and dishonestly. Hundreds of them really need to go to jail and the franchise colleges involved need to be closed. What this does to a sector already struggling, god alone knows.
"Leaked government figures show that the number of Romanian nationals living in the UK applying for a student loan increased from 5,000 in 2015-16 to 84,000 in 2023-24, suggesting 15 per cent of the Romanian population in Britain was paid a student loan last year."
We are being taken for fools and a corrupt public sector is just looking the other way.
BTW, that 15% suggests that there are currently 560k Romanians living in the UK. I mean, how?
It seems odd to phrase this in terms of a “corrupt public sector”, but we should look at who was in charge of education and immigration over that period. Oh. It was the Conservative Party. Let’s pull some of the relevant ministers up for questioning by the media and by Parliament, for starters.
F1: Hamilton knew what he was signing up for. Fozza have all of the history and prestige as *the* elite team in the sport, but in recent years have been gaffe-prone.
UKTV industry apparently in crisis, although from the article it is the Beeb and itv.
The solution to this non problem is, of course, more money from taxpayers rather than finding new streams of income, nice timing too given the current debate on future funding of the BBC.
The BBC seems to favour a sliding scale with wealthier homes paying more than less well off homes.
It’s time to get rid of the license fee, fund the network from general taxation, and let the BBC seek its funding in the open market.
That would be really short sighted. The BBC is one of the best institutions in this country and has been responsible for nurturing some extraorinary talent. The media is one area where the UK punches well above it's weight and much of this is down to the BBC. Holywood is full of talent originally nurtured by the BBC The Scott brothers to name but two but if you add those lower down the scale the British expertise and influence thanks to the BBC is everywhere
I agree with that to an extent; but the media market has changed so much in the last couple of decades, keeping the licence fee is a bit like a government mandating horse-drawn ploughs.
I like the BBC, but it just isn't a mainstay of people's viewing habits in the way it was. There are too many very rich competitors.
The BBC was the Oxford and Cambridge of those wanting a career in media. Everyone's first application out of education was to one of the BBCs training schemes. I know so many people who are now in the business thanks to the BBC. Ad agencies are full of them as are film studios post production houses Costume designers editors cameramen model makers writers continuity art directors grips gaffers actors producers. It is a huge industry though obviously under the radar to most on here. It will not simply leave a hole that will be easily filled by GB News and Netflix
I can see that, and sympathise with it. But it does nothing to change the underlying problem: the market has fundamentally changed, and is unlikely to turn back.
I want the BBC to continue, and am happy I get my money's worth from the licence fee. But I am going to be amongst a decreasing number of people, especially amongst the young. And as that happens, the licence fee as it currently stands becomes increasingly difficult to defend.
Rather than bump the rest of the field up can't they just reallocate Hamilton, Leclerc and Gasley's original points tally to Max?
F1 has become as authentic as the Kent Walton wrestling on World of Sport.
Verstappen gains zero points from this. The plank's always had to be a certain thickness to stop cars running dangerously low. it's a tedious technicality, but not the first time this has happened.
Bet Hamilton is not a happy bunny with his technical team. Any chance it could affect his sprint win too? Presumably it didn't comply then either.
If it wasn't tested and found wanting post-sprint then that should be fine.
Mr. Pioneers, if I were Tsunoda I'd rather be in a Racing than a Red Bull.
I hope Perez has a suitable stockpile of popcorn for watching Lawson's implosion.
What will happen to Democratic candidates’ accounts as we approach the US midterms?
The "titans of free speech" who had the nerve to come to Europe and lecture us. It is just sickening to observe the maga hypocrisy.
And yes, the mid-terms are going to be a nail biter when it comes to the prospects for constitutional democracy vs authoritarianism in the US. I think it is 50/50 between overriding and supreme court decision and tanking the midterms as the definitive moment. I mean ignoring court orders on deportation due process is bad enough. But I think the other two will be the flash point for a serious crisis in America.
A thread I have planned is that the crisis could come much sooner than the mid terms.
With special elections/defection it is possible the Dems take control of the House this year.
I would like to believe this but with the Democrats even less popular than the Republicans right now, I'm doubtful.
Unpopular for being supine.
Those speaking out like Bernie and AOC are getting vast support.
AOC would be a great president, assuming that there are further US elections.
What would make her a good president ?
I'm no fan at all of AOC but she couldn't possibly be as bad as this one. Even if she can be just as arrogant she is at least possessed of a functioning brain.
A more potentially immediate question is what we make of the VP, given Trump's age. I can't judge whether he's seriously unhinged or merely a politician who adjusts his message to suit the moment. What do others make of him?
As my attempt at a serious answer, I think that philosophically and politically he has a narrow base to his views, and he treats it as an intellectual citadel from which to defend and attack, and not as a centre from which to engage and explore.
And I think he has an exaggerated Trump-like view of America the Dominant (which is untrue), and seems to share something of Trump's callous disregard of weaker human beings, which is in line with a belief in ""the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must". It will perhaps be a shock when he discovers that he is out of line with what is actually out there.
I don't know what his attitude is to expert advisers, or if - unlike Trump - he is temperamentally capable of accepting that other people may know better about their knowledge domains, and it is better to have those around him than a parade of empty-headed yes-men.
That makes him fragile and defensive to challenge, and he operates from his strong assumptions about others rather than read the background and ask them what they actually think. His sharp disagreements are characterised by responses of fear and contempt, not of engagement and wanting to collaborate / learn. He has a megaphone but also needs an ear trumpet.
Given that he is a creature of Peter Thiel, that makes it very very awkward for anyone.
This piece is his explanation of his philosophical journey to Catholicism, which is instructive. He is very clear about what he has rejected, but I don't think see that he has explored what he has professed - especially around the social and human vales and obligations. That is the hole at his centre.
I'm interested in his attitude to undermining liberal democratic structures in order to impose his version of a postliberal settlement, whatever that turns out to be. The piece discusses the combination of a Catholic-Right traditionalist social policy, with a controlling big Government setup.
That sounds to me more like the Catholic Right in Europe that were fellow-travellers with regimes such as Mussolini's in Italy, or perhaps more recently in Hungary (I don't know Hungary well), or the pre-Tusk Government in Poland that tried to control the judiciary.
I'd welcome any comment.
Shades of de Valera during WWII?
Somewhere between that (possibly not so bad) and the Opus Dei technocrats of late-era Francoist Spain. Though the Opus Dei crew were reasonably technically competent (as such things go).
Opus Dei have been fingered as a group who's members have been active in packing the Supreme Court with conservatives - eg via the Federalist Society under Leonard Leo, a conservative society of lawyers with a widespread network of chapters in Universities. As ever with all such pieces, reading all of it, and other pieces with a different view, matters, to avoid just getting one facet out of context.
Backed by a cabal of wealthy conservative patrons like industrialist David Koch, banker Richard Mellon Scaife, and the devout Catholic entrepreneur Frank Hanna, the Federalist Society under (Leonard) Leo became a breeding ground for conservative judges who were recruited at law school, groomed through the society’s program of events and talks, and then bound together through their careers.
“The key was to figure out how to develop what I call a ‘pipeline’ — basically, where you recruit students in law school, you get them through law school, they come out of law school, and then you find ways of continuing to involve them in legal policy,” Leo later explained.
In 2005, the Federalist Society began openly advocating for John Roberts — a former member — to be nominated to fill a vacant seat at the Supreme Court, the first time it had campaigned publicly for a particular candidate. A few months later, its sway had grown so much that it torpedoed President George W. Bush’s own preferred candidate for another vacant seat on the Supreme Court — Harriet Miers, a judge and close friend of the president who wasn’t a member of the Federalist Society — and pressured him to nominate Samuel Alito, one of its members, in her place.
Really shocking story in the ST today about Franchise colleges and the hundreds of millions that have been stolen for non existent students from Romania in the main signing on to get student loans and, of course, grants which are then shared between the colleges, the lead Universities and the providers of the students.
The scale of it is almost beyond belief. Those involved in both the franchise colleges and indeed in the Universities have surely acted illegally and dishonestly. Hundreds of them really need to go to jail and the franchise colleges involved need to be closed. What this does to a sector already struggling, god alone knows.
"Leaked government figures show that the number of Romanian nationals living in the UK applying for a student loan increased from 5,000 in 2015-16 to 84,000 in 2023-24, suggesting 15 per cent of the Romanian population in Britain was paid a student loan last year."
We are being taken for fools and a corrupt public sector is just looking the other way.
BTW, that 15% suggests that there are currently 560k Romanians living in the UK. I mean, how?
It seems odd to phrase this in terms of a “corrupt public sector”, but we should look at who was in charge of education and immigration over that period. Oh. It was the Conservative Party. Let’s pull some of the relevant ministers up for questioning by the media and by Parliament, for starters.
They should certainly be held to account for their neglect and want of attention but the fraud is at the level of those in University admission offices and, of course, these fake franchise colleges, claiming public money for their institutions under false pretences.
And I agree about immigration ministers too. Those who served in those roles in the Johnson government in particular where immigration got completely out of control. They were either completely asleep at the wheel, failing to notice clear and obvious trends or being wilfully blind in the hope immigration would boost growth.
UKTV industry apparently in crisis, although from the article it is the Beeb and itv.
The solution to this non problem is, of course, more money from taxpayers rather than finding new streams of income, nice timing too given the current debate on future funding of the BBC.
The BBC seems to favour a sliding scale with wealthier homes paying more than less well off homes.
It’s time to get rid of the license fee, fund the network from general taxation, and let the BBC seek its funding in the open market.
That would be really short sighted. The BBC is one of the best institutions in this country and has been responsible for nurturing some extraorinary talent. The media is one area where the UK punches well above it's weight and much of this is down to the BBC. Holywood is full of talent originally nurtured by the BBC The Scott brothers to name but two but if you add those lower down the scale the British expertise and influence thanks to the BBC is everywhere
I agree with that to an extent; but the media market has changed so much in the last couple of decades, keeping the licence fee is a bit like a government mandating horse-drawn ploughs.
I like the BBC, but it just isn't a mainstay of people's viewing habits in the way it was. There are too many very rich competitors.
The BBC was the Oxford and Cambridge of those wanting a career in media. Everyone's first application out of education was to one of the BBCs training schemes. I know so many people who are now in the business thanks to the BBC. Ad agencies are full of them as are film studios post production houses Costume designers editors cameramen model makers writers continuity art directors grips gaffers actors producers. It is a huge industry though obviously under the radar to most on here. It will not simply leave a hole that will be easily filled by GB News and Netflix
I can see that, and sympathise with it. But it does nothing to change the underlying problem: the market has fundamentally changed, and is unlikely to turn back.
I want the BBC to continue, and am happy I get my money's worth from the licence fee. But I am going to be amongst a decreasing number of people, especially amongst the young. And as that happens, the licence fee as it currently stands becomes increasingly difficult to defend.
My son currently works for the BBC as a assistant producer/runner on a popular show. He earns a living wage hourly rate.
Laura Kuennsberg, Chris Mason and about X x100 other presenters are all on £350,000 a year. They are not indispensible, sack 'em all and pay the living hourly rate. The quality will be no worse.
Rather than bump the rest of the field up can't they just reallocate Hamilton, Leclerc and Gasley's original points tally to Max?
F1 has become as authentic as the Kent Walton wrestling on World of Sport.
Verstappen gains zero points from this. The plank's always had to be a certain thickness to stop cars running dangerously low. it's a tedious technicality, but not the first time this has happened.
Bet Hamilton is not a happy bunny with his technical team. Any chance it could affect his sprint win too? Presumably it didn't comply then either.
Unlikely. The plank wears during the race. It would have been compliant during the race.
What will happen to Democratic candidates’ accounts as we approach the US midterms?
The "titans of free speech" who had the nerve to come to Europe and lecture us. It is just sickening to observe the maga hypocrisy.
And yes, the mid-terms are going to be a nail biter when it comes to the prospects for constitutional democracy vs authoritarianism in the US. I think it is 50/50 between overriding and supreme court decision and tanking the midterms as the definitive moment. I mean ignoring court orders on deportation due process is bad enough. But I think the other two will be the flash point for a serious crisis in America.
A thread I have planned is that the crisis could come much sooner than the mid terms.
With special elections/defection it is possible the Dems take control of the House this year.
I would like to believe this but with the Democrats even less popular than the Republicans right now, I'm doubtful.
Unpopular for being supine.
Those speaking out like Bernie and AOC are getting vast support.
AOC would be a great president, assuming that there are further US elections.
What would make her a good president ?
I'm no fan at all of AOC but she couldn't possibly be as bad as this one. Even if she can be just as arrogant she is at least possessed of a functioning brain.
A more potentially immediate question is what we make of the VP, given Trump's age. I can't judge whether he's seriously unhinged or merely a politician who adjusts his message to suit the moment. What do others make of him?
As my attempt at a serious answer, I think that philosophically and politically he has a narrow base to his views, and he treats it as an intellectual citadel from which to defend and attack, and not as a centre from which to engage and explore.
And I think he has an exaggerated Trump-like view of America the Dominant (which is untrue), and seems to share something of Trump's callous disregard of weaker human beings, which is in line with a belief in ""the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must". It will perhaps be a shock when he discovers that he is out of line with what is actually out there.
I don't know what his attitude is to expert advisers, or if - unlike Trump - he is temperamentally capable of accepting that other people may know better about their knowledge domains, and it is better to have those around him than a parade of empty-headed yes-men.
That makes him fragile and defensive to challenge, and he operates from his strong assumptions about others rather than read the background and ask them what they actually think. His sharp disagreements are characterised by responses of fear and contempt, not of engagement and wanting to collaborate / learn. He has a megaphone but also needs an ear trumpet.
Given that he is a creature of Peter Thiel, that makes it very very awkward for anyone.
This piece is his explanation of his philosophical journey to Catholicism, which is instructive. He is very clear about what he has rejected, but I don't think see that he has explored what he has professed - especially around the social and human vales and obligations. That is the hole at his centre.
What will happen to Democratic candidates’ accounts as we approach the US midterms?
The "titans of free speech" who had the nerve to come to Europe and lecture us. It is just sickening to observe the maga hypocrisy.
And yes, the mid-terms are going to be a nail biter when it comes to the prospects for constitutional democracy vs authoritarianism in the US. I think it is 50/50 between overriding and supreme court decision and tanking the midterms as the definitive moment. I mean ignoring court orders on deportation due process is bad enough. But I think the other two will be the flash point for a serious crisis in America.
A thread I have planned is that the crisis could come much sooner than the mid terms.
With special elections/defection it is possible the Dems take control of the House this year.
I would like to believe this but with the Democrats even less popular than the Republicans right now, I'm doubtful.
Unpopular for being supine.
Those speaking out like Bernie and AOC are getting vast support.
AOC would be a great president, assuming that there are further US elections.
What would make her a good president ?
I'm no fan at all of AOC but she couldn't possibly be as bad as this one. Even if she can be just as arrogant she is at least possessed of a functioning brain.
A more potentially immediate question is what we make of the VP, given Trump's age. I can't judge whether he's seriously unhinged or merely a politician who adjusts his message to suit the moment. What do others make of him?
As my attempt at a serious answer, I think that philosophically and politically he has a narrow base to his views, and he treats it as an intellectual citadel from which to defend and attack, and not as a centre from which to engage and explore.
And I think he has an exaggerated Trump-like view of America the Dominant (which is untrue), and seems to share something of Trump's callous disregard of weaker human beings, which is in line with a belief in ""the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must". It will perhaps be a shock when he discovers that he is out of line with what is actually out there.
I don't know what his attitude is to expert advisers, or if - unlike Trump - he is temperamentally capable of accepting that other people may know better about their knowledge domains, and it is better to have those around him than a parade of empty-headed yes-men.
That makes him fragile and defensive to challenge, and he operates from his strong assumptions about others rather than read the background and ask them what they actually think. His sharp disagreements are characterised by responses of fear and contempt, not of engagement and wanting to collaborate / learn. He has a megaphone but also needs an ear trumpet.
Given that he is a creature of Peter Thiel, that makes it very very awkward for anyone.
This piece is his explanation of his philosophical journey to Catholicism, which is instructive. He is very clear about what he has rejected, but I don't think see that he has explored what he has professed - especially around the social and human vales and obligations. That is the hole at his centre.
Interesting and difficult. Certainly very unlike Trump, and hard to sum up. Your comments are very helpful.
On Catholics in public life generally, Roman Catholicism can be selectively adapted to almost any predisposition. Both socially conservative and socially liberal types can select what they want, as can others. There is a lot of doctrine around, and very few know it well. They can all be fooled.
In general, ethically Roman Catholic formal doctrine is very socially conservative about individual lives and relationships (no sex please), and very liberal about social and communal ethics (Good Samaritan is good example for people and governments).
Most ordinary catholics pick and choose sensibly and don't expect to be perfect. Extremists pick and choose and judge others but not themselves.
The new right wing catholics in the USA will be much quieter on RC's total ban on contraception, remarriage, sex before marriage and faithful gay relationships than they will about abortion, trans and so on. They are just populists under cover of religion.
As to catholic communitarianism, which is very leftish, the silence will be deafening.
Really shocking story in the ST today about Franchise colleges and the hundreds of millions that have been stolen for non existent students from Romania in the main signing on to get student loans and, of course, grants which are then shared between the colleges, the lead Universities and the providers of the students.
The scale of it is almost beyond belief. Those involved in both the franchise colleges and indeed in the Universities have surely acted illegally and dishonestly. Hundreds of them really need to go to jail and the franchise colleges involved need to be closed. What this does to a sector already struggling, god alone knows.
"Leaked government figures show that the number of Romanian nationals living in the UK applying for a student loan increased from 5,000 in 2015-16 to 84,000 in 2023-24, suggesting 15 per cent of the Romanian population in Britain was paid a student loan last year."
We are being taken for fools and a corrupt public sector is just looking the other way.
BTW, that 15% suggests that there are currently 560k Romanians living in the UK. I mean, how?
Really shocking story in the ST today about Franchise colleges and the hundreds of millions that have been stolen for non existent students from Romania in the main signing on to get student loans and, of course, grants which are then shared between the colleges, the lead Universities and the providers of the students.
The scale of it is almost beyond belief. Those involved in both the franchise colleges and indeed in the Universities have surely acted illegally and dishonestly. Hundreds of them really need to go to jail and the franchise colleges involved need to be closed. What this does to a sector already struggling, god alone knows.
"Leaked government figures show that the number of Romanian nationals living in the UK applying for a student loan increased from 5,000 in 2015-16 to 84,000 in 2023-24, suggesting 15 per cent of the Romanian population in Britain was paid a student loan last year."
We are being taken for fools and a corrupt public sector is just looking the other way.
BTW, that 15% suggests that there are currently 560k Romanians living in the UK. I mean, how?
The overall number of Romanian-born people in the UK looks based on the 2021 census which claimed 557,000 (approx). Apparently Romanian is now the UK's third language after English and Polish. Certainly in Newham there are a lot of Romanians who have established a community here.
Well, lets start extraditing everyone who applied for one of these fraudulent loans and their dependents. My guess is that will be at least 150k people, very probably more, and it will probably reduce the benefits bill, our housing bills, our legal aid bills etc etc by low billions. This is really low hanging fruit stuff.
Anyone who suggests that Government spending is too high here is treated to an instant withering response of 'What savings?' 'People are used to tax and spend!' 'How many hospitals would you close?' - and then we read stuff like this.
Thankfully the dots are being joined, and there are now good organisations looking at where this money is going.
Every so often, a television drama comes along that has the power to change things. Last year, it was ITV’s Mr Bates vs The Post Office, in which the plight of subpostmasters was rendered with such success that it actually hastened in real-world legislation to compensate them.
And now we have Netflix’s Adolescence, which looks at the online radicalisation of young boys by men’s rights activists (MRAs) such as Andrew Tate. Last week, Keir Starmer told the Commons he had been watching the series with his family and that it portrayed an “emerging and growing problem” that needed to be tackled. Now MPs are examining ideas to address the issue with greater urgency.
If I were acting on behalf of Lucy Letby, I'd be tapping up every tv station and production company possible. Get one of those on side and she's as good as free.
Really shocking story in the ST today about Franchise colleges and the hundreds of millions that have been stolen for non existent students from Romania in the main signing on to get student loans and, of course, grants which are then shared between the colleges, the lead Universities and the providers of the students.
The scale of it is almost beyond belief. Those involved in both the franchise colleges and indeed in the Universities have surely acted illegally and dishonestly. Hundreds of them really need to go to jail and the franchise colleges involved need to be closed. What this does to a sector already struggling, god alone knows.
"Leaked government figures show that the number of Romanian nationals living in the UK applying for a student loan increased from 5,000 in 2015-16 to 84,000 in 2023-24, suggesting 15 per cent of the Romanian population in Britain was paid a student loan last year."
We are being taken for fools and a corrupt public sector is just looking the other way.
BTW, that 15% suggests that there are currently 560k Romanians living in the UK. I mean, how?
It seems odd to phrase this in terms of a “corrupt public sector”, but we should look at who was in charge of education and immigration over that period. Oh. It was the Conservative Party. Let’s pull some of the relevant ministers up for questioning by the media and by Parliament, for starters.
They should certainly be held to account for their neglect and want of attention but the fraud is at the level of those in University admission offices and, of course, these fake franchise colleges, claiming public money for their institutions under false pretences.
And I agree about immigration ministers too. Those who served in those roles in the Johnson government in particular where immigration got completely out of control. They were either completely asleep at the wheel, failing to notice clear and obvious trends or being wilfully blind in the hope immigration would boost growth.
Listening to the Tories including Kemi on Trigonometry it is clear that they dont yet understand what a complete mess they made of the basics of government. I run a manufacturing company and there is a basic tool called root cause analysis which we use to understand why things go wrong. The Tories made promises which they spectacularly failed to deliver but have yet to truly understand why they did not deliver.
Trotting out phrases such as COVID or Ukraine War is just lazy. Yes these were factors but not the full answer. It is like saying I turned up late for work because it was raining. I am not sure the Tory party has the intellectual rigour or processes to even ask the right questions let alone find the solutions. Maybe Jenerick is just starting some of this work at the edges.
Thus week there was a byelection in Shettleston in my backyard. (Glasgow North East). Anyone who knows this area knows it is a drug infested ghetto where almost no-one works. The right wing got almost 30% of the vote up from 10% 3 years ago yet the Tories had only 4% and were fighting UKIP for second place of the right wing parties. The country is swinging right very fast but the Tories risk becoming irrelevant unless they stop thinking they are the natural party of the right and realise they are in the fight of their life.
Really shocking story in the ST today about Franchise colleges and the hundreds of millions that have been stolen for non existent students from Romania in the main signing on to get student loans and, of course, grants which are then shared between the colleges, the lead Universities and the providers of the students.
The scale of it is almost beyond belief. Those involved in both the franchise colleges and indeed in the Universities have surely acted illegally and dishonestly. Hundreds of them really need to go to jail and the franchise colleges involved need to be closed. What this does to a sector already struggling, god alone knows.
"Leaked government figures show that the number of Romanian nationals living in the UK applying for a student loan increased from 5,000 in 2015-16 to 84,000 in 2023-24, suggesting 15 per cent of the Romanian population in Britain was paid a student loan last year."
We are being taken for fools and a corrupt public sector is just looking the other way.
BTW, that 15% suggests that there are currently 560k Romanians living in the UK. I mean, how?
It seems odd to phrase this in terms of a “corrupt public sector”, but we should look at who was in charge of education and immigration over that period. Oh. It was the Conservative Party. Let’s pull some of the relevant ministers up for questioning by the media and by Parliament, for starters.
My recollection is that you were very quick to defend the independence and non-political nature of bodies like the sentencing council when we've discussed these issues. But now there's a major problem with one such organisation it's suddenly 'blame the Tories'.
So which is it? Should Ministers be responsible for every detail of the day-to-day running of the services under their purview, or should we have independent, non-political agencies that are not subject to Ministerial whims?
Really shocking story in the ST today about Franchise colleges and the hundreds of millions that have been stolen for non existent students from Romania in the main signing on to get student loans and, of course, grants which are then shared between the colleges, the lead Universities and the providers of the students.
The scale of it is almost beyond belief. Those involved in both the franchise colleges and indeed in the Universities have surely acted illegally and dishonestly. Hundreds of them really need to go to jail and the franchise colleges involved need to be closed. What this does to a sector already struggling, god alone knows.
"Leaked government figures show that the number of Romanian nationals living in the UK applying for a student loan increased from 5,000 in 2015-16 to 84,000 in 2023-24, suggesting 15 per cent of the Romanian population in Britain was paid a student loan last year."
We are being taken for fools and a corrupt public sector is just looking the other way.
BTW, that 15% suggests that there are currently 560k Romanians living in the UK. I mean, how?
It seems odd to phrase this in terms of a “corrupt public sector”, but we should look at who was in charge of education and immigration over that period. Oh. It was the Conservative Party. Let’s pull some of the relevant ministers up for questioning by the media and by Parliament, for starters.
They should certainly be held to account for their neglect and want of attention but the fraud is at the level of those in University admission offices and, of course, these fake franchise colleges, claiming public money for their institutions under false pretences.
And I agree about immigration ministers too. Those who served in those roles in the Johnson government in particular where immigration got completely out of control. They were either completely asleep at the wheel, failing to notice clear and obvious trends or being wilfully blind in the hope immigration would boost growth.
Listening to the Tories including Kemi on Trigonometry it is clear that they dont yet understand what a complete mess they made of the basics of government. I run a manufacturing company and there is a basic tool called root cause analysis which we use to understand why things go wrong. The Tories made promises which they spectacularly failed to deliver but have yet to truly understand why they did not deliver.
Trotting out phrases such as COVID or Ukraine War is just lazy. Yes these were factors but not the full answer. It is like saying I turned up late for work because it was raining. I am not sure the Tory party has the intellectual rigour or processes to even ask the right questions let alone find the solutions. Maybe Jenerick is just starting some of this work at the edges.
Thus week there was a byelection in Shettleston in my backyard. (Glasgow North East). Anyone who knows this area knows it is a drug infested ghetto where almost no-one works. The right wing got almost 30% of the vote up from 10% 3 years ago yet the Tories had only 4% and were fighting UKIP for second place of the right wing parties. The country is swinging right very fast but the Tories risk becoming irrelevant unless they stop thinking they are the natural party of the right and realise they are in the fight of their life.
Yep, I agree with pretty much all of that. Things were pretty reasonable in the coalition/Cameron years but after that things really fell apart with no real focus on the actual administration of government. There may be some excuses in the area of Covid where speed was of the essence but the administration of the bounce back loans, the furlough schemes, the utterly ridiculous track and trace organisation, set new levels of administrative incompetence and indifference which seem to have become endemic.
I am not seeing much sign of improvement under Labour either (although I have some hopes for Streeting) but we simply cannot afford to blow many tens of billions like this. We need results for our spend and anyone who can deliver that is or even the perception that they can deliver that has a massive political advantage. I am not holding my breath.
Really shocking story in the ST today about Franchise colleges and the hundreds of millions that have been stolen for non existent students from Romania in the main signing on to get student loans and, of course, grants which are then shared between the colleges, the lead Universities and the providers of the students.
The scale of it is almost beyond belief. Those involved in both the franchise colleges and indeed in the Universities have surely acted illegally and dishonestly. Hundreds of them really need to go to jail and the franchise colleges involved need to be closed. What this does to a sector already struggling, god alone knows.
"Leaked government figures show that the number of Romanian nationals living in the UK applying for a student loan increased from 5,000 in 2015-16 to 84,000 in 2023-24, suggesting 15 per cent of the Romanian population in Britain was paid a student loan last year."
We are being taken for fools and a corrupt public sector is just looking the other way.
BTW, that 15% suggests that there are currently 560k Romanians living in the UK. I mean, how?
The ‘corrupt public sector’ is not looking the other way. It is the ‘corrupt public sector’ that has unearthed this.
Going off at a tangent, one reason there are so many non-traditional degree-level colleges, or whatever you want to call them, is that Conservative administrations encouraged them because competition in education is good. In @Sunil_Prasannan's manor, there must be half a dozen within a mile of Wes Streeting's constituency office.
What will happen to Democratic candidates’ accounts as we approach the US midterms?
The "titans of free speech" who had the nerve to come to Europe and lecture us. It is just sickening to observe the maga hypocrisy.
And yes, the mid-terms are going to be a nail biter when it comes to the prospects for constitutional democracy vs authoritarianism in the US. I think it is 50/50 between overriding and supreme court decision and tanking the midterms as the definitive moment. I mean ignoring court orders on deportation due process is bad enough. But I think the other two will be the flash point for a serious crisis in America.
A thread I have planned is that the crisis could come much sooner than the mid terms.
With special elections/defection it is possible the Dems take control of the House this year.
I would like to believe this but with the Democrats even less popular than the Republicans right now, I'm doubtful.
Unpopular for being supine.
Those speaking out like Bernie and AOC are getting vast support.
AOC would be a great president, assuming that there are further US elections.
What would make her a good president ?
I'm no fan at all of AOC but she couldn't possibly be as bad as this one. Even if she can be just as arrogant she is at least possessed of a functioning brain.
A more potentially immediate question is what we make of the VP, given Trump's age. I can't judge whether he's seriously unhinged or merely a politician who adjusts his message to suit the moment. What do others make of him?
As my attempt at a serious answer, I think that philosophically and politically he has a narrow base to his views, and he treats it as an intellectual citadel from which to defend and attack, and not as a centre from which to engage and explore.
And I think he has an exaggerated Trump-like view of America the Dominant (which is untrue), and seems to share something of Trump's callous disregard of weaker human beings, which is in line with a belief in ""the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must". It will perhaps be a shock when he discovers that he is out of line with what is actually out there.
I don't know what his attitude is to expert advisers, or if - unlike Trump - he is temperamentally capable of accepting that other people may know better about their knowledge domains, and it is better to have those around him than a parade of empty-headed yes-men.
That makes him fragile and defensive to challenge, and he operates from his strong assumptions about others rather than read the background and ask them what they actually think. His sharp disagreements are characterised by responses of fear and contempt, not of engagement and wanting to collaborate / learn. He has a megaphone but also needs an ear trumpet.
Given that he is a creature of Peter Thiel, that makes it very very awkward for anyone.
This piece is his explanation of his philosophical journey to Catholicism, which is instructive. He is very clear about what he has rejected, but I don't think see that he has explored what he has professed - especially around the social and human vales and obligations. That is the hole at his centre.
Interesting and difficult. Certainly very unlike Trump, and hard to sum up. Your comments are very helpful.
On Catholics in public life generally, Roman Catholicism can be selectively adapted to almost any predisposition. Both socially conservative and socially liberal types can select what they want, as can others. There is a lot of doctrine around, and very few know it well. They can all be fooled.
In general, ethically Roman Catholic formal doctrine is very socially conservative about individual lives and relationships (no sex please), and very liberal about social and communal ethics (Good Samaritan is good example for people and governments).
Most ordinary catholics pick and choose sensibly and don't expect to be perfect. Extremists pick and choose and judge others but not themselves.
The new right wing catholics in the USA will be much quieter on RC's total ban on contraception, remarriage, sex before marriage and faithful gay relationships than they will about abortion, trans and so on. They are just populists under cover of religion.
As to catholic communitarianism, which is very leftish, the silence will be deafening.
Roman Catholicism and the Vatican tend to be pro big state on economics and pro charity and faith schools but socially conservative on divorce, abortion, LGBT etc but also anti death penalty and supportive of immigrants.
It covers a big range so Biden and JFK and Kerry but also Vance and DeSantis are Roman Catholics.
Whereas atheists and Muslims and US Jews tend to be Democrats and Protestant evangelicals Republicans.
Really shocking story in the ST today about Franchise colleges and the hundreds of millions that have been stolen for non existent students from Romania in the main signing on to get student loans and, of course, grants which are then shared between the colleges, the lead Universities and the providers of the students.
The scale of it is almost beyond belief. Those involved in both the franchise colleges and indeed in the Universities have surely acted illegally and dishonestly. Hundreds of them really need to go to jail and the franchise colleges involved need to be closed. What this does to a sector already struggling, god alone knows.
"Leaked government figures show that the number of Romanian nationals living in the UK applying for a student loan increased from 5,000 in 2015-16 to 84,000 in 2023-24, suggesting 15 per cent of the Romanian population in Britain was paid a student loan last year."
We are being taken for fools and a corrupt public sector is just looking the other way.
BTW, that 15% suggests that there are currently 560k Romanians living in the UK. I mean, how?
The ‘corrupt public sector’ is not looking the other way. It is the ‘corrupt public sector’ that has unearthed this.
Going off at a tangent, one reason there are so many non-traditional degree-level colleges, or whatever you want to call them, is that Conservative administrations encouraged them because competition in education is good. In @Sunil_Prasannan's manor, there must be half a dozen within a mile of Wes Streeting's constituency office.
My favourite being "Empire College London". No, sir, not a spoof of Imperial, never
Really shocking story in the ST today about Franchise colleges and the hundreds of millions that have been stolen for non existent students from Romania in the main signing on to get student loans and, of course, grants which are then shared between the colleges, the lead Universities and the providers of the students.
The scale of it is almost beyond belief. Those involved in both the franchise colleges and indeed in the Universities have surely acted illegally and dishonestly. Hundreds of them really need to go to jail and the franchise colleges involved need to be closed. What this does to a sector already struggling, god alone knows.
"Leaked government figures show that the number of Romanian nationals living in the UK applying for a student loan increased from 5,000 in 2015-16 to 84,000 in 2023-24, suggesting 15 per cent of the Romanian population in Britain was paid a student loan last year."
We are being taken for fools and a corrupt public sector is just looking the other way.
BTW, that 15% suggests that there are currently 560k Romanians living in the UK. I mean, how?
The ‘corrupt public sector’ is not looking the other way. It is the ‘corrupt public sector’ that has unearthed this.
Going off at a tangent, one reason there are so many non-traditional degree-level colleges, or whatever you want to call them, is that Conservative administrations encouraged them because competition in education is good. In @Sunil_Prasannan's manor, there must be half a dozen within a mile of Wes Streeting's constituency office.
After how many years? 13? This seems to have really started in 2011. How many hundreds of millions? The last government had a purge of colleges that weren't actually teaching. How did these franchise colleges avoid scrutiny at that time? Or was this yet another example of us being promised that something was being done but it actually wasn't?
I am not sure that changing the names of colleges to Universities changed much by itself although local experience is that they tended to move from more technical courses to more admin courses that were no doubt cheaper to teach.
Every so often, a television drama comes along that has the power to change things. Last year, it was ITV’s Mr Bates vs The Post Office, in which the plight of subpostmasters was rendered with such success that it actually hastened in real-world legislation to compensate them.
And now we have Netflix’s Adolescence, which looks at the online radicalisation of young boys by men’s rights activists (MRAs) such as Andrew Tate. Last week, Keir Starmer told the Commons he had been watching the series with his family and that it portrayed an “emerging and growing problem” that needed to be tackled. Now MPs are examining ideas to address the issue with greater urgency.
If I were acting on behalf of Lucy Letby, I'd be tapping up every tv station and production company possible. Get one of those on side and she's as good as free.
Bates vs the Post Office hasn't changed much. Yes it fasttracked legislation to provide compensation, but more importantly it has completely failed to fasttrack the actual compensation which is kinda the important bit.
Really shocking story in the ST today about Franchise colleges and the hundreds of millions that have been stolen for non existent students from Romania in the main signing on to get student loans and, of course, grants which are then shared between the colleges, the lead Universities and the providers of the students.
The scale of it is almost beyond belief. Those involved in both the franchise colleges and indeed in the Universities have surely acted illegally and dishonestly. Hundreds of them really need to go to jail and the franchise colleges involved need to be closed. What this does to a sector already struggling, god alone knows.
"Leaked government figures show that the number of Romanian nationals living in the UK applying for a student loan increased from 5,000 in 2015-16 to 84,000 in 2023-24, suggesting 15 per cent of the Romanian population in Britain was paid a student loan last year."
We are being taken for fools and a corrupt public sector is just looking the other way.
BTW, that 15% suggests that there are currently 560k Romanians living in the UK. I mean, how?
It seems odd to phrase this in terms of a “corrupt public sector”, but we should look at who was in charge of education and immigration over that period. Oh. It was the Conservative Party. Let’s pull some of the relevant ministers up for questioning by the media and by Parliament, for starters.
They should certainly be held to account for their neglect and want of attention but the fraud is at the level of those in University admission offices and, of course, these fake franchise colleges, claiming public money for their institutions under false pretences.
And I agree about immigration ministers too. Those who served in those roles in the Johnson government in particular where immigration got completely out of control. They were either completely asleep at the wheel, failing to notice clear and obvious trends or being wilfully blind in the hope immigration would boost growth.
Listening to the Tories including Kemi on Trigonometry it is clear that they dont yet understand what a complete mess they made of the basics of government. I run a manufacturing company and there is a basic tool called root cause analysis which we use to understand why things go wrong. The Tories made promises which they spectacularly failed to deliver but have yet to truly understand why they did not deliver.
Trotting out phrases such as COVID or Ukraine War is just lazy. Yes these were factors but not the full answer. It is like saying I turned up late for work because it was raining. I am not sure the Tory party has the intellectual rigour or processes to even ask the right questions let alone find the solutions. Maybe Jenerick is just starting some of this work at the edges.
Thus week there was a byelection in Shettleston in my backyard. (Glasgow North East). Anyone who knows this area knows it is a drug infested ghetto where almost no-one works. The right wing got almost 30% of the vote up from 10% 3 years ago yet the Tories had only 4% and were fighting UKIP for second place of the right wing parties. The country is swinging right very fast but the Tories risk becoming irrelevant unless they stop thinking they are the natural party of the right and realise they are in the fight of their life.
Shettleston wasn’t included in the Glasgow NE ward, hence precisely zero votes were cast there for the right in the by election.
What I do agree on is that the SCons should be shitting themselves, and they don’t seem to have the slightest clue what to do about it.
UKTV industry apparently in crisis, although from the article it is the Beeb and itv.
The solution to this non problem is, of course, more money from taxpayers rather than finding new streams of income, nice timing too given the current debate on future funding of the BBC.
The BBC seems to favour a sliding scale with wealthier homes paying more than less well off homes.
It’s time to get rid of the license fee, fund the network from general taxation, and let the BBC seek its funding in the open market.
That would be really short sighted. The BBC is one of the best institutions in this country and has been responsible for nurturing some extraorinary talent. The media is one area where the UK punches well above it's weight and much of this is down to the BBC. Holywood is full of talent originally nurtured by the BBC The Scott brothers to name but two but if you add those lower down the scale the British expertise and influence thanks to the BBC is everywhere
I agree with that to an extent; but the media market has changed so much in the last couple of decades, keeping the licence fee is a bit like a government mandating horse-drawn ploughs.
I like the BBC, but it just isn't a mainstay of people's viewing habits in the way it was. There are too many very rich competitors.
The BBC was the Oxford and Cambridge of those wanting a career in media. Everyone's first application out of education was to one of the BBCs training schemes. I know so many people who are now in the business thanks to the BBC. Ad agencies are full of them as are film studios post production houses Costume designers editors cameramen model makers writers continuity art directors grips gaffers actors producers. It is a huge industry though obviously under the radar to most on here. It will not simply leave a hole that will be easily filled by GB News and Netflix
I can see that, and sympathise with it. But it does nothing to change the underlying problem: the market has fundamentally changed, and is unlikely to turn back.
I want the BBC to continue, and am happy I get my money's worth from the licence fee. But I am going to be amongst a decreasing number of people, especially amongst the young. And as that happens, the licence fee as it currently stands becomes increasingly difficult to defend.
My son currently works for the BBC as a assistant producer/runner on a popular show. He earns a living wage hourly rate.
Laura Kuennsberg, Chris Mason and about X x100 other presenters are all on £350,000 a year. They are not indispensible, sack 'em all and pay the living hourly rate. The quality will be no worse.
Is it true the CEO of Heathrow is on £5 MILLION a year?
UKTV industry apparently in crisis, although from the article it is the Beeb and itv.
The solution to this non problem is, of course, more money from taxpayers rather than finding new streams of income, nice timing too given the current debate on future funding of the BBC.
The BBC seems to favour a sliding scale with wealthier homes paying more than less well off homes.
It’s time to get rid of the license fee, fund the network from general taxation, and let the BBC seek its funding in the open market.
That would be really short sighted. The BBC is one of the best institutions in this country and has been responsible for nurturing some extraorinary talent. The media is one area where the UK punches well above it's weight and much of this is down to the BBC. Holywood is full of talent originally nurtured by the BBC The Scott brothers to name but two but if you add those lower down the scale the British expertise and influence thanks to the BBC is everywhere
I agree with that to an extent; but the media market has changed so much in the last couple of decades, keeping the licence fee is a bit like a government mandating horse-drawn ploughs.
I like the BBC, but it just isn't a mainstay of people's viewing habits in the way it was. There are too many very rich competitors.
The BBC was the Oxford and Cambridge of those wanting a career in media. Everyone's first application out of education was to one of the BBCs training schemes. I know so many people who are now in the business thanks to the BBC. Ad agencies are full of them as are film studios post production houses Costume designers editors cameramen model makers writers continuity art directors grips gaffers actors producers. It is a huge industry though obviously under the radar to most on here. It will not simply leave a hole that will be easily filled by GB News and Netflix
I can see that, and sympathise with it. But it does nothing to change the underlying problem: the market has fundamentally changed, and is unlikely to turn back.
I want the BBC to continue, and am happy I get my money's worth from the licence fee. But I am going to be amongst a decreasing number of people, especially amongst the young. And as that happens, the licence fee as it currently stands becomes increasingly difficult to defend.
My son currently works for the BBC as a assistant producer/runner on a popular show. He earns a living wage hourly rate.
Laura Kuennsberg, Chris Mason and about X x100 other presenters are all on £350,000 a year. They are not indispensible, sack 'em all and pay the living hourly rate. The quality will be no worse.
What the BBC don't seem to either understand or care about is that being a top BBC presenter leads to such significant earning potential both on the side and in future jobs, that they really don't need to pay top dollar to attract top talent.
Even if they worked for free during a 3-5 year stint at the BBC a presenter would earn more over their lifetime doing that than shunning the beeb. I'd suggest a cap on presenter earnings somewhere around the PM salary, possibly less.
In general, Americans have preferred presidents with military experience, success as elected executives, or both. AOC has no experience as an executive, if you don't count her time heading a small publication -- which failed. And no military experience.
She appears to have all the fashionable left ideas on foreign policy -- and not to be particularly bothered by the genocides in Iraq and Rwanda.
(And her election successes so far? Best explained, not by her ideas, but by ethnic succession.)
What will happen to Democratic candidates’ accounts as we approach the US midterms?
The "titans of free speech" who had the nerve to come to Europe and lecture us. It is just sickening to observe the maga hypocrisy.
And yes, the mid-terms are going to be a nail biter when it comes to the prospects for constitutional democracy vs authoritarianism in the US. I think it is 50/50 between overriding and supreme court decision and tanking the midterms as the definitive moment. I mean ignoring court orders on deportation due process is bad enough. But I think the other two will be the flash point for a serious crisis in America.
A thread I have planned is that the crisis could come much sooner than the mid terms.
With special elections/defection it is possible the Dems take control of the House this year.
I would like to believe this but with the Democrats even less popular than the Republicans right now, I'm doubtful.
Unpopular for being supine.
Those speaking out like Bernie and AOC are getting vast support.
AOC would be a great president, assuming that there are further US elections.
What would make her a good president ?
I'm no fan at all of AOC but she couldn't possibly be as bad as this one. Even if she can be just as arrogant she is at least possessed of a functioning brain.
A more potentially immediate question is what we make of the VP, given Trump's age. I can't judge whether he's seriously unhinged or merely a politician who adjusts his message to suit the moment. What do others make of him?
As my attempt at a serious answer, I think that philosophically and politically he has a narrow base to his views, and he treats it as an intellectual citadel from which to defend and attack, and not as a centre from which to engage and explore.
And I think he has an exaggerated Trump-like view of America the Dominant (which is untrue), and seems to share something of Trump's callous disregard of weaker human beings, which is in line with a belief in ""the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must". It will perhaps be a shock when he discovers that he is out of line with what is actually out there.
I don't know what his attitude is to expert advisers, or if - unlike Trump - he is temperamentally capable of accepting that other people may know better about their knowledge domains, and it is better to have those around him than a parade of empty-headed yes-men.
That makes him fragile and defensive to challenge, and he operates from his strong assumptions about others rather than read the background and ask them what they actually think. His sharp disagreements are characterised by responses of fear and contempt, not of engagement and wanting to collaborate / learn. He has a megaphone but also needs an ear trumpet.
Given that he is a creature of Peter Thiel, that makes it very very awkward for anyone.
This piece is his explanation of his philosophical journey to Catholicism, which is instructive. He is very clear about what he has rejected, but I don't think see that he has explored what he has professed - especially around the social and human vales and obligations. That is the hole at his centre.
Interesting and difficult. Certainly very unlike Trump, and hard to sum up. Your comments are very helpful.
On Catholics in public life generally, Roman Catholicism can be selectively adapted to almost any predisposition. Both socially conservative and socially liberal types can select what they want, as can others. There is a lot of doctrine around, and very few know it well. They can all be fooled.
In general, ethically Roman Catholic formal doctrine is very socially conservative about individual lives and relationships (no sex please), and very liberal about social and communal ethics (Good Samaritan is good example for people and governments).
Most ordinary catholics pick and choose sensibly and don't expect to be perfect. Extremists pick and choose and judge others but not themselves.
The new right wing catholics in the USA will be much quieter on RC's total ban on contraception, remarriage, sex before marriage and faithful gay relationships than they will about abortion, trans and so on. They are just populists under cover of religion.
As to catholic communitarianism, which is very leftish, the silence will be deafening.
Roman Catholicism and the Vatican tend to be pro big state on economics and pro charity and faith schools but socially conservative on divorce, abortion, LGBT etc but also anti death penalty and supportive of immigrants.
It covers a big range so Biden and JFK and Kerry but also Vance and DeSantis are Roman Catholics.
Whereas atheists and Muslims and US Jews tend to be Democrats and Protestant evangelicals Republicans.
Classical liberalism is of course small state
Radical Right Lunatics got 50.3% of the vote in November (Dems plus other left) Radical Left Lunatics got 49.1% of the vote (Reps plus other right) Radical Centrist Dads/Moms got 0.6%
In general, Americans have preferred presidents with military experience, success as elected executives, or both. AOC has no experience as an executive, if you don't count her time heading a small publication -- which failed. And no military experience.
She appears to have all the fashionable left ideas on foreign policy -- and not to be particularly bothered by the genocides in Iraq and Rwanda.
(And her election successes so far? Best explained, not by her ideas, but by ethnic succession.)
Obama was a lawyer and Senator with no executive experience and JFK was a journalist and Senator with no executive background either.
If she won it would be the failures of the Trump administration and the less charismatic Vance as her opponent that won it for her more than her policies albeit she is more charismatic than Harris
In general, Americans have preferred presidents with military experience, success as elected executives, or both. AOC has no experience as an executive, if you don't count her time heading a small publication -- which failed. And no military experience.
She appears to have all the fashionable left ideas on foreign policy -- and not to be particularly bothered by the genocides in Iraq and Rwanda.
(And her election successes so far? Best explained, not by her ideas, but by ethnic succession.)
Although to be fair, those drawbacks haven't stopped Trump.
What will happen to Democratic candidates’ accounts as we approach the US midterms?
The "titans of free speech" who had the nerve to come to Europe and lecture us. It is just sickening to observe the maga hypocrisy.
And yes, the mid-terms are going to be a nail biter when it comes to the prospects for constitutional democracy vs authoritarianism in the US. I think it is 50/50 between overriding and supreme court decision and tanking the midterms as the definitive moment. I mean ignoring court orders on deportation due process is bad enough. But I think the other two will be the flash point for a serious crisis in America.
A thread I have planned is that the crisis could come much sooner than the mid terms.
With special elections/defection it is possible the Dems take control of the House this year.
I would like to believe this but with the Democrats even less popular than the Republicans right now, I'm doubtful.
Unpopular for being supine.
Those speaking out like Bernie and AOC are getting vast support.
AOC would be a great president, assuming that there are further US elections.
What would make her a good president ?
I'm no fan at all of AOC but she couldn't possibly be as bad as this one. Even if she can be just as arrogant she is at least possessed of a functioning brain.
A more potentially immediate question is what we make of the VP, given Trump's age. I can't judge whether he's seriously unhinged or merely a politician who adjusts his message to suit the moment. What do others make of him?
As my attempt at a serious answer, I think that philosophically and politically he has a narrow base to his views, and he treats it as an intellectual citadel from which to defend and attack, and not as a centre from which to engage and explore.
And I think he has an exaggerated Trump-like view of America the Dominant (which is untrue), and seems to share something of Trump's callous disregard of weaker human beings, which is in line with a belief in ""the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must". It will perhaps be a shock when he discovers that he is out of line with what is actually out there.
I don't know what his attitude is to expert advisers, or if - unlike Trump - he is temperamentally capable of accepting that other people may know better about their knowledge domains, and it is better to have those around him than a parade of empty-headed yes-men.
That makes him fragile and defensive to challenge, and he operates from his strong assumptions about others rather than read the background and ask them what they actually think. His sharp disagreements are characterised by responses of fear and contempt, not of engagement and wanting to collaborate / learn. He has a megaphone but also needs an ear trumpet.
Given that he is a creature of Peter Thiel, that makes it very very awkward for anyone.
This piece is his explanation of his philosophical journey to Catholicism, which is instructive. He is very clear about what he has rejected, but I don't think see that he has explored what he has professed - especially around the social and human vales and obligations. That is the hole at his centre.
Interesting and difficult. Certainly very unlike Trump, and hard to sum up. Your comments are very helpful.
On Catholics in public life generally, Roman Catholicism can be selectively adapted to almost any predisposition. Both socially conservative and socially liberal types can select what they want, as can others. There is a lot of doctrine around, and very few know it well. They can all be fooled.
In general, ethically Roman Catholic formal doctrine is very socially conservative about individual lives and relationships (no sex please), and very liberal about social and communal ethics (Good Samaritan is good example for people and governments).
Most ordinary catholics pick and choose sensibly and don't expect to be perfect. Extremists pick and choose and judge others but not themselves.
The new right wing catholics in the USA will be much quieter on RC's total ban on contraception, remarriage, sex before marriage and faithful gay relationships than they will about abortion, trans and so on. They are just populists under cover of religion.
As to catholic communitarianism, which is very leftish, the silence will be deafening.
Roman Catholicism and the Vatican tend to be pro big state on economics and pro charity and faith schools but socially conservative on divorce, abortion, LGBT etc but also anti death penalty and supportive of immigrants.
It covers a big range so Biden and JFK and Kerry but also Vance and DeSantis are Roman Catholics.
Whereas atheists and Muslims and US Jews tend to be Democrats and Protestant evangelicals Republicans.
UKTV industry apparently in crisis, although from the article it is the Beeb and itv.
The solution to this non problem is, of course, more money from taxpayers rather than finding new streams of income, nice timing too given the current debate on future funding of the BBC.
The BBC seems to favour a sliding scale with wealthier homes paying more than less well off homes.
It’s time to get rid of the license fee, fund the network from general taxation, and let the BBC seek its funding in the open market.
That would be really short sighted. The BBC is one of the best institutions in this country and has been responsible for nurturing some extraorinary talent. The media is one area where the UK punches well above it's weight and much of this is down to the BBC. Holywood is full of talent originally nurtured by the BBC The Scott brothers to name but two but if you add those lower down the scale the British expertise and influence thanks to the BBC is everywhere
I agree with that to an extent; but the media market has changed so much in the last couple of decades, keeping the licence fee is a bit like a government mandating horse-drawn ploughs.
I like the BBC, but it just isn't a mainstay of people's viewing habits in the way it was. There are too many very rich competitors.
The BBC was the Oxford and Cambridge of those wanting a career in media. Everyone's first application out of education was to one of the BBCs training schemes. I know so many people who are now in the business thanks to the BBC. Ad agencies are full of them as are film studios post production houses Costume designers editors cameramen model makers writers continuity art directors grips gaffers actors producers. It is a huge industry though obviously under the radar to most on here. It will not simply leave a hole that will be easily filled by GB News and Netflix
I can see that, and sympathise with it. But it does nothing to change the underlying problem: the market has fundamentally changed, and is unlikely to turn back.
I want the BBC to continue, and am happy I get my money's worth from the licence fee. But I am going to be amongst a decreasing number of people, especially amongst the young. And as that happens, the licence fee as it currently stands becomes increasingly difficult to defend.
My son currently works for the BBC as a assistant producer/runner on a popular show. He earns a living wage hourly rate.
Laura Kuennsberg, Chris Mason and about X x100 other presenters are all on £350,000 a year. They are not indispensible, sack 'em all and pay the living hourly rate. The quality will be no worse.
That doesn't seem to add up.
On the published "star salary" list for 23-24 there are only 30 above 250k, rather than "hundreds" on 350k.
UKTV industry apparently in crisis, although from the article it is the Beeb and itv.
The solution to this non problem is, of course, more money from taxpayers rather than finding new streams of income, nice timing too given the current debate on future funding of the BBC.
The BBC seems to favour a sliding scale with wealthier homes paying more than less well off homes.
It’s time to get rid of the license fee, fund the network from general taxation, and let the BBC seek its funding in the open market.
That would be really short sighted. The BBC is one of the best institutions in this country and has been responsible for nurturing some extraorinary talent. The media is one area where the UK punches well above it's weight and much of this is down to the BBC. Holywood is full of talent originally nurtured by the BBC The Scott brothers to name but two but if you add those lower down the scale the British expertise and influence thanks to the BBC is everywhere
I agree with that to an extent; but the media market has changed so much in the last couple of decades, keeping the licence fee is a bit like a government mandating horse-drawn ploughs.
I like the BBC, but it just isn't a mainstay of people's viewing habits in the way it was. There are too many very rich competitors.
The BBC was the Oxford and Cambridge of those wanting a career in media. Everyone's first application out of education was to one of the BBCs training schemes. I know so many people who are now in the business thanks to the BBC. Ad agencies are full of them as are film studios post production houses Costume designers editors cameramen model makers writers continuity art directors grips gaffers actors producers. It is a huge industry though obviously under the radar to most on here. It will not simply leave a hole that will be easily filled by GB News and Netflix
I can see that, and sympathise with it. But it does nothing to change the underlying problem: the market has fundamentally changed, and is unlikely to turn back.
I want the BBC to continue, and am happy I get my money's worth from the licence fee. But I am going to be amongst a decreasing number of people, especially amongst the young. And as that happens, the licence fee as it currently stands becomes increasingly difficult to defend.
It is becoming impossible to defend. Fifteen years ago I still held the same view on the license fee but I used the BBC far more. Both radio and TV. Now, I watch and listen to very little. I watch more YouTube and listen to more Spotify. Since Radio 2 said a hearty fuck off to my generation I’ve moved to a couple of other stations in the car. Or Spotify.
And asking people to pay more based on their ability to pay won’t change that. It will just make people more resentful.
You’ve got a son. How does he and his friends consume their media ? Our friends children are on stuff like tik tok.
UKTV industry apparently in crisis, although from the article it is the Beeb and itv.
The solution to this non problem is, of course, more money from taxpayers rather than finding new streams of income, nice timing too given the current debate on future funding of the BBC.
The BBC seems to favour a sliding scale with wealthier homes paying more than less well off homes.
It’s time to get rid of the license fee, fund the network from general taxation, and let the BBC seek its funding in the open market.
That would be really short sighted. The BBC is one of the best institutions in this country and has been responsible for nurturing some extraorinary talent. The media is one area where the UK punches well above it's weight and much of this is down to the BBC. Holywood is full of talent originally nurtured by the BBC The Scott brothers to name but two but if you add those lower down the scale the British expertise and influence thanks to the BBC is everywhere
I agree with that to an extent; but the media market has changed so much in the last couple of decades, keeping the licence fee is a bit like a government mandating horse-drawn ploughs.
I like the BBC, but it just isn't a mainstay of people's viewing habits in the way it was. There are too many very rich competitors.
The BBC was the Oxford and Cambridge of those wanting a career in media. Everyone's first application out of education was to one of the BBCs training schemes. I know so many people who are now in the business thanks to the BBC. Ad agencies are full of them as are film studios post production houses Costume designers editors cameramen model makers writers continuity art directors grips gaffers actors producers. It is a huge industry though obviously under the radar to most on here. It will not simply leave a hole that will be easily filled by GB News and Netflix
I can see that, and sympathise with it. But it does nothing to change the underlying problem: the market has fundamentally changed, and is unlikely to turn back.
I want the BBC to continue, and am happy I get my money's worth from the licence fee. But I am going to be amongst a decreasing number of people, especially amongst the young. And as that happens, the licence fee as it currently stands becomes increasingly difficult to defend.
My son currently works for the BBC as a assistant producer/runner on a popular show. He earns a living wage hourly rate.
Laura Kuennsberg, Chris Mason and about X x100 other presenters are all on £350,000 a year. They are not indispensible, sack 'em all and pay the living hourly rate. The quality will be no worse.
What the BBC don't seem to either understand or care about is that being a top BBC presenter leads to such significant earning potential both on the side and in future jobs, that they really don't need to pay top dollar to attract top talent.
Even if they worked for free during a 3-5 year stint at the BBC a presenter would earn more over their lifetime doing that than shunning the beeb. I'd suggest a cap on presenter earnings somewhere around the PM salary, possibly less.
The silly thing is they sack Lineker on £1m a year and replace him with Kelly Cates on £1m a year. They could have replaced Lineker with a reasonable journeyman host on £75k a year and everyone would be happy. The fact that run of the mill time served BBC News hacks are on £150,000 a year is absurd. They should be on the same rate as a correspondent for the Birmingham Post.
In general, Americans have preferred presidents with military experience, success as elected executives, or both. AOC has no experience as an executive, if you don't count her time heading a small publication -- which failed. And no military experience.
She appears to have all the fashionable left ideas on foreign policy -- and not to be particularly bothered by the genocides in Iraq and Rwanda.
(And her election successes so far? Best explained, not by her ideas, but by ethnic succession.)
By that reasoning Trump would never have got elected.
UKTV industry apparently in crisis, although from the article it is the Beeb and itv.
The solution to this non problem is, of course, more money from taxpayers rather than finding new streams of income, nice timing too given the current debate on future funding of the BBC.
The BBC seems to favour a sliding scale with wealthier homes paying more than less well off homes.
It’s time to get rid of the license fee, fund the network from general taxation, and let the BBC seek its funding in the open market.
That would be really short sighted. The BBC is one of the best institutions in this country and has been responsible for nurturing some extraorinary talent. The media is one area where the UK punches well above it's weight and much of this is down to the BBC. Holywood is full of talent originally nurtured by the BBC The Scott brothers to name but two but if you add those lower down the scale the British expertise and influence thanks to the BBC is everywhere
I agree with that to an extent; but the media market has changed so much in the last couple of decades, keeping the licence fee is a bit like a government mandating horse-drawn ploughs.
I like the BBC, but it just isn't a mainstay of people's viewing habits in the way it was. There are too many very rich competitors.
The BBC was the Oxford and Cambridge of those wanting a career in media. Everyone's first application out of education was to one of the BBCs training schemes. I know so many people who are now in the business thanks to the BBC. Ad agencies are full of them as are film studios post production houses Costume designers editors cameramen model makers writers continuity art directors grips gaffers actors producers. It is a huge industry though obviously under the radar to most on here. It will not simply leave a hole that will be easily filled by GB News and Netflix
I can see that, and sympathise with it. But it does nothing to change the underlying problem: the market has fundamentally changed, and is unlikely to turn back.
I want the BBC to continue, and am happy I get my money's worth from the licence fee. But I am going to be amongst a decreasing number of people, especially amongst the young. And as that happens, the licence fee as it currently stands becomes increasingly difficult to defend.
My son currently works for the BBC as a assistant producer/runner on a popular show. He earns a living wage hourly rate.
Laura Kuennsberg, Chris Mason and about X x100 other presenters are all on £350,000 a year. They are not indispensible, sack 'em all and pay the living hourly rate. The quality will be no worse.
What the BBC don't seem to either understand or care about is that being a top BBC presenter leads to such significant earning potential both on the side and in future jobs, that they really don't need to pay top dollar to attract top talent.
Even if they worked for free during a 3-5 year stint at the BBC a presenter would earn more over their lifetime doing that than shunning the beeb. I'd suggest a cap on presenter earnings somewhere around the PM salary, possibly less.
The silly thing is they sack Lineker on £1m a year and replace him with Kelly Cates on £1m a year. They could have replaced Lineker with a reasonable journeyman host on £75k a year and everyone would be happy. The fact that run of the mill time served BBC News hacks are on £150,000 a year is absurd. They should be on the same rate as a correspondent for the Birmingham Post.
I doubt Cates is going to be on £1m a year. That said, between Cates, Chapman and Logan, they'll probably be on over that combined.
What will happen to Democratic candidates’ accounts as we approach the US midterms?
The "titans of free speech" who had the nerve to come to Europe and lecture us. It is just sickening to observe the maga hypocrisy.
And yes, the mid-terms are going to be a nail biter when it comes to the prospects for constitutional democracy vs authoritarianism in the US. I think it is 50/50 between overriding and supreme court decision and tanking the midterms as the definitive moment. I mean ignoring court orders on deportation due process is bad enough. But I think the other two will be the flash point for a serious crisis in America.
A thread I have planned is that the crisis could come much sooner than the mid terms.
With special elections/defection it is possible the Dems take control of the House this year.
I would like to believe this but with the Democrats even less popular than the Republicans right now, I'm doubtful.
Unpopular for being supine.
Those speaking out like Bernie and AOC are getting vast support.
AOC would be a great president, assuming that there are further US elections.
What would make her a good president ?
Her unwavering support for Senile Joe:
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez reaffirmed her commitment to President Joe Biden as the presumptive Democratic nominee on Monday evening amid heightened tensions within the party over his mental fitness.
“Joe Biden is our nominee, he is not leaving this race, he is in this race and I support him,” Ocasio-Cortez told a group of reporters outside of the Capitol.
The New York rep’s assertion comes as Democratic lawmakers scramble to find consensus on whether or not to support Biden, 81, as the presidential nominee.
At least six House Democrats have publicly called for the president to withdraw from the race following his disappointing and concerning debate performance at the end of June. The president’s failure to confidently debate his political opponent has led to concerns that he is not well enough to run a campaign or defeat Donald Trump.
UKTV industry apparently in crisis, although from the article it is the Beeb and itv.
The solution to this non problem is, of course, more money from taxpayers rather than finding new streams of income, nice timing too given the current debate on future funding of the BBC.
The BBC seems to favour a sliding scale with wealthier homes paying more than less well off homes.
It’s time to get rid of the license fee, fund the network from general taxation, and let the BBC seek its funding in the open market.
That would be really short sighted. The BBC is one of the best institutions in this country and has been responsible for nurturing some extraorinary talent. The media is one area where the UK punches well above it's weight and much of this is down to the BBC. Holywood is full of talent originally nurtured by the BBC The Scott brothers to name but two but if you add those lower down the scale the British expertise and influence thanks to the BBC is everywhere
I agree with that to an extent; but the media market has changed so much in the last couple of decades, keeping the licence fee is a bit like a government mandating horse-drawn ploughs.
I like the BBC, but it just isn't a mainstay of people's viewing habits in the way it was. There are too many very rich competitors.
The BBC was the Oxford and Cambridge of those wanting a career in media. Everyone's first application out of education was to one of the BBCs training schemes. I know so many people who are now in the business thanks to the BBC. Ad agencies are full of them as are film studios post production houses Costume designers editors cameramen model makers writers continuity art directors grips gaffers actors producers. It is a huge industry though obviously under the radar to most on here. It will not simply leave a hole that will be easily filled by GB News and Netflix
I can see that, and sympathise with it. But it does nothing to change the underlying problem: the market has fundamentally changed, and is unlikely to turn back.
I want the BBC to continue, and am happy I get my money's worth from the licence fee. But I am going to be amongst a decreasing number of people, especially amongst the young. And as that happens, the licence fee as it currently stands becomes increasingly difficult to defend.
My son currently works for the BBC as a assistant producer/runner on a popular show. He earns a living wage hourly rate.
Laura Kuennsberg, Chris Mason and about X x100 other presenters are all on £350,000 a year. They are not indispensible, sack 'em all and pay the living hourly rate. The quality will be no worse.
That doesn't seem to add up.
On the published "star salary" list for 23-24 there are only 30 above 250k, rather than "hundreds" on 350k.
UKTV industry apparently in crisis, although from the article it is the Beeb and itv.
The solution to this non problem is, of course, more money from taxpayers rather than finding new streams of income, nice timing too given the current debate on future funding of the BBC.
The BBC seems to favour a sliding scale with wealthier homes paying more than less well off homes.
It’s time to get rid of the license fee, fund the network from general taxation, and let the BBC seek its funding in the open market.
That would be really short sighted. The BBC is one of the best institutions in this country and has been responsible for nurturing some extraorinary talent. The media is one area where the UK punches well above it's weight and much of this is down to the BBC. Holywood is full of talent originally nurtured by the BBC The Scott brothers to name but two but if you add those lower down the scale the British expertise and influence thanks to the BBC is everywhere
I agree with that to an extent; but the media market has changed so much in the last couple of decades, keeping the licence fee is a bit like a government mandating horse-drawn ploughs.
I like the BBC, but it just isn't a mainstay of people's viewing habits in the way it was. There are too many very rich competitors.
The BBC was the Oxford and Cambridge of those wanting a career in media. Everyone's first application out of education was to one of the BBCs training schemes. I know so many people who are now in the business thanks to the BBC. Ad agencies are full of them as are film studios post production houses Costume designers editors cameramen model makers writers continuity art directors grips gaffers actors producers. It is a huge industry though obviously under the radar to most on here. It will not simply leave a hole that will be easily filled by GB News and Netflix
I can see that, and sympathise with it. But it does nothing to change the underlying problem: the market has fundamentally changed, and is unlikely to turn back.
I want the BBC to continue, and am happy I get my money's worth from the licence fee. But I am going to be amongst a decreasing number of people, especially amongst the young. And as that happens, the licence fee as it currently stands becomes increasingly difficult to defend.
My son currently works for the BBC as a assistant producer/runner on a popular show. He earns a living wage hourly rate.
Laura Kuennsberg, Chris Mason and about X x100 other presenters are all on £350,000 a year. They are not indispensible, sack 'em all and pay the living hourly rate. The quality will be no worse.
That doesn't seem to add up.
On the published "star salary" list for 23-24 there are only 30 above 250k, rather than "hundreds" on 350k.
Really shocking story in the ST today about Franchise colleges and the hundreds of millions that have been stolen for non existent students from Romania in the main signing on to get student loans and, of course, grants which are then shared between the colleges, the lead Universities and the providers of the students.
The scale of it is almost beyond belief. Those involved in both the franchise colleges and indeed in the Universities have surely acted illegally and dishonestly. Hundreds of them really need to go to jail and the franchise colleges involved need to be closed. What this does to a sector already struggling, god alone knows.
"Leaked government figures show that the number of Romanian nationals living in the UK applying for a student loan increased from 5,000 in 2015-16 to 84,000 in 2023-24, suggesting 15 per cent of the Romanian population in Britain was paid a student loan last year."
We are being taken for fools and a corrupt public sector is just looking the other way.
BTW, that 15% suggests that there are currently 560k Romanians living in the UK. I mean, how?
The ‘corrupt public sector’ is not looking the other way. It is the ‘corrupt public sector’ that has unearthed this.
Going off at a tangent, one reason there are so many non-traditional degree-level colleges, or whatever you want to call them, is that Conservative administrations encouraged them because competition in education is good. In @Sunil_Prasannan's manor, there must be half a dozen within a mile of Wes Streeting's constituency office.
After how many years? 13? This seems to have really started in 2011. How many hundreds of millions? The last government had a purge of colleges that weren't actually teaching. How did these franchise colleges avoid scrutiny at that time? Or was this yet another example of us being promised that something was being done but it actually wasn't?
I am not sure that changing the names of colleges to Universities changed much by itself although local experience is that they tended to move from more technical courses to more admin courses that were no doubt cheaper to teach.
If they were franchises of universities, then those universities should be on the hook for the quality and attendance of the courses, and if they cannot establish bonfires, to repay the SLC.
UKTV industry apparently in crisis, although from the article it is the Beeb and itv.
The solution to this non problem is, of course, more money from taxpayers rather than finding new streams of income, nice timing too given the current debate on future funding of the BBC.
The BBC seems to favour a sliding scale with wealthier homes paying more than less well off homes.
It’s time to get rid of the license fee, fund the network from general taxation, and let the BBC seek its funding in the open market.
That would be really short sighted. The BBC is one of the best institutions in this country and has been responsible for nurturing some extraorinary talent. The media is one area where the UK punches well above it's weight and much of this is down to the BBC. Holywood is full of talent originally nurtured by the BBC The Scott brothers to name but two but if you add those lower down the scale the British expertise and influence thanks to the BBC is everywhere
I agree with that to an extent; but the media market has changed so much in the last couple of decades, keeping the licence fee is a bit like a government mandating horse-drawn ploughs.
I like the BBC, but it just isn't a mainstay of people's viewing habits in the way it was. There are too many very rich competitors.
The BBC was the Oxford and Cambridge of those wanting a career in media. Everyone's first application out of education was to one of the BBCs training schemes. I know so many people who are now in the business thanks to the BBC. Ad agencies are full of them as are film studios post production houses Costume designers editors cameramen model makers writers continuity art directors grips gaffers actors producers. It is a huge industry though obviously under the radar to most on here. It will not simply leave a hole that will be easily filled by GB News and Netflix
I can see that, and sympathise with it. But it does nothing to change the underlying problem: the market has fundamentally changed, and is unlikely to turn back.
I want the BBC to continue, and am happy I get my money's worth from the licence fee. But I am going to be amongst a decreasing number of people, especially amongst the young. And as that happens, the licence fee as it currently stands becomes increasingly difficult to defend.
My son currently works for the BBC as a assistant producer/runner on a popular show. He earns a living wage hourly rate.
Laura Kuennsberg, Chris Mason and about X x100 other presenters are all on £350,000 a year. They are not indispensible, sack 'em all and pay the living hourly rate. The quality will be no worse.
That doesn't seem to add up.
On the published "star salary" list for 23-24 there are only 30 above 250k, rather than "hundreds" on 350k.
Really shocking story in the ST today about Franchise colleges and the hundreds of millions that have been stolen for non existent students from Romania in the main signing on to get student loans and, of course, grants which are then shared between the colleges, the lead Universities and the providers of the students.
The scale of it is almost beyond belief. Those involved in both the franchise colleges and indeed in the Universities have surely acted illegally and dishonestly. Hundreds of them really need to go to jail and the franchise colleges involved need to be closed. What this does to a sector already struggling, god alone knows.
"Leaked government figures show that the number of Romanian nationals living in the UK applying for a student loan increased from 5,000 in 2015-16 to 84,000 in 2023-24, suggesting 15 per cent of the Romanian population in Britain was paid a student loan last year."
We are being taken for fools and a corrupt public sector is just looking the other way.
BTW, that 15% suggests that there are currently 560k Romanians living in the UK. I mean, how?
The ‘corrupt public sector’ is not looking the other way. It is the ‘corrupt public sector’ that has unearthed this.
Going off at a tangent, one reason there are so many non-traditional degree-level colleges, or whatever you want to call them, is that Conservative administrations encouraged them because competition in education is good. In @Sunil_Prasannan's manor, there must be half a dozen within a mile of Wes Streeting's constituency office.
After how many years? 13? This seems to have really started in 2011. How many hundreds of millions? The last government had a purge of colleges that weren't actually teaching. How did these franchise colleges avoid scrutiny at that time? Or was this yet another example of us being promised that something was being done but it actually wasn't?
I am not sure that changing the names of colleges to Universities changed much by itself although local experience is that they tended to move from more technical courses to more admin courses that were no doubt cheaper to teach.
If they were franchises of universities, then those universities should be on the hook for the quality and attendance of the courses, and if they cannot establish bonfires, to repay the SLC.
Is that an epic autocorrect fail?
I can think of many academics of my acquaintances who definitely couldn't have established a bonfire. In a riot...
UKTV industry apparently in crisis, although from the article it is the Beeb and itv.
The solution to this non problem is, of course, more money from taxpayers rather than finding new streams of income, nice timing too given the current debate on future funding of the BBC.
The BBC seems to favour a sliding scale with wealthier homes paying more than less well off homes.
It’s time to get rid of the license fee, fund the network from general taxation, and let the BBC seek its funding in the open market.
That would be really short sighted. The BBC is one of the best institutions in this country and has been responsible for nurturing some extraorinary talent. The media is one area where the UK punches well above it's weight and much of this is down to the BBC. Holywood is full of talent originally nurtured by the BBC The Scott brothers to name but two but if you add those lower down the scale the British expertise and influence thanks to the BBC is everywhere
I agree with that to an extent; but the media market has changed so much in the last couple of decades, keeping the licence fee is a bit like a government mandating horse-drawn ploughs.
I like the BBC, but it just isn't a mainstay of people's viewing habits in the way it was. There are too many very rich competitors.
The BBC was the Oxford and Cambridge of those wanting a career in media. Everyone's first application out of education was to one of the BBCs training schemes. I know so many people who are now in the business thanks to the BBC. Ad agencies are full of them as are film studios post production houses Costume designers editors cameramen model makers writers continuity art directors grips gaffers actors producers. It is a huge industry though obviously under the radar to most on here. It will not simply leave a hole that will be easily filled by GB News and Netflix
I can see that, and sympathise with it. But it does nothing to change the underlying problem: the market has fundamentally changed, and is unlikely to turn back.
I want the BBC to continue, and am happy I get my money's worth from the licence fee. But I am going to be amongst a decreasing number of people, especially amongst the young. And as that happens, the licence fee as it currently stands becomes increasingly difficult to defend.
My son currently works for the BBC as a assistant producer/runner on a popular show. He earns a living wage hourly rate.
Laura Kuennsberg, Chris Mason and about X x100 other presenters are all on £350,000 a year. They are not indispensible, sack 'em all and pay the living hourly rate. The quality will be no worse.
What the BBC don't seem to either understand or care about is that being a top BBC presenter leads to such significant earning potential both on the side and in future jobs, that they really don't need to pay top dollar to attract top talent.
Even if they worked for free during a 3-5 year stint at the BBC a presenter would earn more over their lifetime doing that than shunning the beeb. I'd suggest a cap on presenter earnings somewhere around the PM salary, possibly less.
The BBC does understand and does not pay top dollar, which is why every now and then ITV poaches their top presenters who typically then fade away because it was the programme that mattered. Likewise commercial radio.
If there is a problem with presenters' salaries, it is at the marzipan layer.
But in any case, who cares? If there are 100 presenters each paid £200,000 too much, that's only £20 million; how many Adolescences is that?
UKTV industry apparently in crisis, although from the article it is the Beeb and itv.
The solution to this non problem is, of course, more money from taxpayers rather than finding new streams of income, nice timing too given the current debate on future funding of the BBC.
The BBC seems to favour a sliding scale with wealthier homes paying more than less well off homes.
It’s time to get rid of the license fee, fund the network from general taxation, and let the BBC seek its funding in the open market.
That would be really short sighted. The BBC is one of the best institutions in this country and has been responsible for nurturing some extraorinary talent. The media is one area where the UK punches well above it's weight and much of this is down to the BBC. Holywood is full of talent originally nurtured by the BBC The Scott brothers to name but two but if you add those lower down the scale the British expertise and influence thanks to the BBC is everywhere
But the license fee is becoming less and less tenable. Why should I pay £15 a month to fund it when the majority goes to the BBC just for the privilege of receiving live TV signals. An institution I rarely watch and don’t really value. If the change to license fee comes and wealthier homes have to pay more, as some beeboid has suggested, how is that fair ?
Pay for the distribution system from general taxation but let the BBC compete for its funds.
By all means use taxpayers money to subsidise apprenticeships and trainee schemes that helps people. As they do in other industries. I’ve never heard of the Scott Brothers but good luck to them.
Really shocking story in the ST today about Franchise colleges and the hundreds of millions that have been stolen for non existent students from Romania in the main signing on to get student loans and, of course, grants which are then shared between the colleges, the lead Universities and the providers of the students.
The scale of it is almost beyond belief. Those involved in both the franchise colleges and indeed in the Universities have surely acted illegally and dishonestly. Hundreds of them really need to go to jail and the franchise colleges involved need to be closed. What this does to a sector already struggling, god alone knows.
"Leaked government figures show that the number of Romanian nationals living in the UK applying for a student loan increased from 5,000 in 2015-16 to 84,000 in 2023-24, suggesting 15 per cent of the Romanian population in Britain was paid a student loan last year."
We are being taken for fools and a corrupt public sector is just looking the other way.
BTW, that 15% suggests that there are currently 560k Romanians living in the UK. I mean, how?
The ‘corrupt public sector’ is not looking the other way. It is the ‘corrupt public sector’ that has unearthed this.
Going off at a tangent, one reason there are so many non-traditional degree-level colleges, or whatever you want to call them, is that Conservative administrations encouraged them because competition in education is good. In @Sunil_Prasannan's manor, there must be half a dozen within a mile of Wes Streeting's constituency office.
After how many years? 13? This seems to have really started in 2011. How many hundreds of millions? The last government had a purge of colleges that weren't actually teaching. How did these franchise colleges avoid scrutiny at that time? Or was this yet another example of us being promised that something was being done but it actually wasn't?
I am not sure that changing the names of colleges to Universities changed much by itself although local experience is that they tended to move from more technical courses to more admin courses that were no doubt cheaper to teach.
If they were franchises of universities, then those universities should be on the hook for the quality and attendance of the courses, and if they cannot establish bonfires, to repay the SLC.
I wonder how the companies that have bought tranches of debt from the SLC feel. Probably they have to sign the mother of all waivers, but maybe there is room for action.
UKTV industry apparently in crisis, although from the article it is the Beeb and itv.
The solution to this non problem is, of course, more money from taxpayers rather than finding new streams of income, nice timing too given the current debate on future funding of the BBC.
The BBC seems to favour a sliding scale with wealthier homes paying more than less well off homes.
It’s time to get rid of the license fee, fund the network from general taxation, and let the BBC seek its funding in the open market.
That would be really short sighted. The BBC is one of the best institutions in this country and has been responsible for nurturing some extraorinary talent. The media is one area where the UK punches well above it's weight and much of this is down to the BBC. Holywood is full of talent originally nurtured by the BBC The Scott brothers to name but two but if you add those lower down the scale the British expertise and influence thanks to the BBC is everywhere
I agree with that to an extent; but the media market has changed so much in the last couple of decades, keeping the licence fee is a bit like a government mandating horse-drawn ploughs.
I like the BBC, but it just isn't a mainstay of people's viewing habits in the way it was. There are too many very rich competitors.
The BBC was the Oxford and Cambridge of those wanting a career in media. Everyone's first application out of education was to one of the BBCs training schemes. I know so many people who are now in the business thanks to the BBC. Ad agencies are full of them as are film studios post production houses Costume designers editors cameramen model makers writers continuity art directors grips gaffers actors producers. It is a huge industry though obviously under the radar to most on here. It will not simply leave a hole that will be easily filled by GB News and Netflix
I can see that, and sympathise with it. But it does nothing to change the underlying problem: the market has fundamentally changed, and is unlikely to turn back.
I want the BBC to continue, and am happy I get my money's worth from the licence fee. But I am going to be amongst a decreasing number of people, especially amongst the young. And as that happens, the licence fee as it currently stands becomes increasingly difficult to defend.
It is becoming impossible to defend. Fifteen years ago I still held the same view on the license fee but I used the BBC far more. Both radio and TV. Now, I watch and listen to very little. I watch more YouTube and listen to more Spotify. Since Radio 2 said a hearty fuck off to my generation I’ve moved to a couple of other stations in the car. Or Spotify.
And asking people to pay more based on their ability to pay won’t change that. It will just make people more resentful.
You’ve got a son. How does he and his friends consume their media ? Our friends children are on stuff like tik tok.
We generally don't allow him on TikTok unsupervised. A fair bit of YouTube kids on his own devices; full YouTube on the TV when we can see what he's watching, and some BBC. But nowhere near as much as he would watch when he was younger, when it was CBBC all the way.
Most people I know—Ukrainians, Americans, and my social media crowd—dislike or even hate Trump. They’re afraid he’ll cut a deal with Putin and sell out Ukraine.
I disagree. Trump could offer Ukraine a real chance to end the war.
Most people I know—Ukrainians, Americans, and my social media crowd—dislike or even hate Trump. They’re afraid he’ll cut a deal with Putin and sell out Ukraine.
I disagree. Trump could offer Ukraine a real chance to end the war.
What will happen to Democratic candidates’ accounts as we approach the US midterms?
The "titans of free speech" who had the nerve to come to Europe and lecture us. It is just sickening to observe the maga hypocrisy.
And yes, the mid-terms are going to be a nail biter when it comes to the prospects for constitutional democracy vs authoritarianism in the US. I think it is 50/50 between overriding and supreme court decision and tanking the midterms as the definitive moment. I mean ignoring court orders on deportation due process is bad enough. But I think the other two will be the flash point for a serious crisis in America.
A thread I have planned is that the crisis could come much sooner than the mid terms.
With special elections/defection it is possible the Dems take control of the House this year.
I would like to believe this but with the Democrats even less popular than the Republicans right now, I'm doubtful.
Unpopular for being supine.
Those speaking out like Bernie and AOC are getting vast support.
AOC would be a great president, assuming that there are further US elections.
What would make her a good president ?
I'm no fan at all of AOC but she couldn't possibly be as bad as this one. Even if she can be just as arrogant she is at least possessed of a functioning brain.
A more potentially immediate question is what we make of the VP, given Trump's age. I can't judge whether he's seriously unhinged or merely a politician who adjusts his message to suit the moment. What do others make of him?
As my attempt at a serious answer, I think that philosophically and politically he has a narrow base to his views, and he treats it as an intellectual citadel from which to defend and attack, and not as a centre from which to engage and explore.
And I think he has an exaggerated Trump-like view of America the Dominant (which is untrue), and seems to share something of Trump's callous disregard of weaker human beings, which is in line with a belief in ""the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must". It will perhaps be a shock when he discovers that he is out of line with what is actually out there.
I don't know what his attitude is to expert advisers, or if - unlike Trump - he is temperamentally capable of accepting that other people may know better about their knowledge domains, and it is better to have those around him than a parade of empty-headed yes-men.
That makes him fragile and defensive to challenge, and he operates from his strong assumptions about others rather than read the background and ask them what they actually think. His sharp disagreements are characterised by responses of fear and contempt, not of engagement and wanting to collaborate / learn. He has a megaphone but also needs an ear trumpet.
Given that he is a creature of Peter Thiel, that makes it very very awkward for anyone.
This piece is his explanation of his philosophical journey to Catholicism, which is instructive. He is very clear about what he has rejected, but I don't think see that he has explored what he has professed - especially around the social and human vales and obligations. That is the hole at his centre.
Interesting and difficult. Certainly very unlike Trump, and hard to sum up. Your comments are very helpful.
Read his autobiography. He’s clearly intelligent, and was, like Streeting, rescued from the usual fate of his class by a mother who believed in education. It’s a good read and while you don’t finish it agreeing with him any the more, it does give you an insight as to where he’s come from.
Really shocking story in the ST today about Franchise colleges and the hundreds of millions that have been stolen for non existent students from Romania in the main signing on to get student loans and, of course, grants which are then shared between the colleges, the lead Universities and the providers of the students.
The scale of it is almost beyond belief. Those involved in both the franchise colleges and indeed in the Universities have surely acted illegally and dishonestly. Hundreds of them really need to go to jail and the franchise colleges involved need to be closed. What this does to a sector already struggling, god alone knows.
"Leaked government figures show that the number of Romanian nationals living in the UK applying for a student loan increased from 5,000 in 2015-16 to 84,000 in 2023-24, suggesting 15 per cent of the Romanian population in Britain was paid a student loan last year."
We are being taken for fools and a corrupt public sector is just looking the other way.
BTW, that 15% suggests that there are currently 560k Romanians living in the UK. I mean, how?
It seems odd to phrase this in terms of a “corrupt public sector”, but we should look at who was in charge of education and immigration over that period. Oh. It was the Conservative Party. Let’s pull some of the relevant ministers up for questioning by the media and by Parliament, for starters.
They should certainly be held to account for their neglect and want of attention but the fraud is at the level of those in University admission offices and, of course, these fake franchise colleges, claiming public money for their institutions under false pretences.
And I agree about immigration ministers too. Those who served in those roles in the Johnson government in particular where immigration got completely out of control. They were either completely asleep at the wheel, failing to notice clear and obvious trends or being wilfully blind in the hope immigration would boost growth.
Listening to the Tories including Kemi on Trigonometry it is clear that they dont yet understand what a complete mess they made of the basics of government. I run a manufacturing company and there is a basic tool called root cause analysis which we use to understand why things go wrong. The Tories made promises which they spectacularly failed to deliver but have yet to truly understand why they did not deliver.
Trotting out phrases such as COVID or Ukraine War is just lazy. Yes these were factors but not the full answer. It is like saying I turned up late for work because it was raining. I am not sure the Tory party has the intellectual rigour or processes to even ask the right questions let alone find the solutions. Maybe Jenerick is just starting some of this work at the edges.
Thus week there was a byelection in Shettleston in my backyard. (Glasgow North East). Anyone who knows this area knows it is a drug infested ghetto where almost no-one works. The right wing got almost 30% of the vote up from 10% 3 years ago yet the Tories had only 4% and were fighting UKIP for second place of the right wing parties. The country is swinging right very fast but the Tories risk becoming irrelevant unless they stop thinking they are the natural party of the right and realise they are in the fight of their life.
Indeed.
Half of the stuff the Tories promised to address, they didn’t really understand and hence f***ed up big time.
The other half of the stuff the Tories promised to address, they never even tried, hoping that we wouldn’t notice.
UKTV industry apparently in crisis, although from the article it is the Beeb and itv.
The solution to this non problem is, of course, more money from taxpayers rather than finding new streams of income, nice timing too given the current debate on future funding of the BBC.
The BBC seems to favour a sliding scale with wealthier homes paying more than less well off homes.
It’s time to get rid of the license fee, fund the network from general taxation, and let the BBC seek its funding in the open market.
That would be really short sighted. The BBC is one of the best institutions in this country and has been responsible for nurturing some extraorinary talent. The media is one area where the UK punches well above it's weight and much of this is down to the BBC. Holywood is full of talent originally nurtured by the BBC The Scott brothers to name but two but if you add those lower down the scale the British expertise and influence thanks to the BBC is everywhere
I agree with that to an extent; but the media market has changed so much in the last couple of decades, keeping the licence fee is a bit like a government mandating horse-drawn ploughs.
I like the BBC, but it just isn't a mainstay of people's viewing habits in the way it was. There are too many very rich competitors.
The BBC was the Oxford and Cambridge of those wanting a career in media. Everyone's first application out of education was to one of the BBCs training schemes. I know so many people who are now in the business thanks to the BBC. Ad agencies are full of them as are film studios post production houses Costume designers editors cameramen model makers writers continuity art directors grips gaffers actors producers. It is a huge industry though obviously under the radar to most on here. It will not simply leave a hole that will be easily filled by GB News and Netflix
I can see that, and sympathise with it. But it does nothing to change the underlying problem: the market has fundamentally changed, and is unlikely to turn back.
I want the BBC to continue, and am happy I get my money's worth from the licence fee. But I am going to be amongst a decreasing number of people, especially amongst the young. And as that happens, the licence fee as it currently stands becomes increasingly difficult to defend.
My son currently works for the BBC as a assistant producer/runner on a popular show. He earns a living wage hourly rate.
Laura Kuennsberg, Chris Mason and about X x100 other presenters are all on £350,000 a year. They are not indispensible, sack 'em all and pay the living hourly rate. The quality will be no worse.
That doesn't seem to add up.
On the published "star salary" list for 23-24 there are only 30 above 250k, rather than "hundreds" on 350k.
I don't earn anything like that, but 250k is "only" £10000 per month after tax. It's hardly yacht money.
Huw was on £500k a year, so easily top 0.5% of earners so I doubt the BBC are too depressed he had to go after being naughty
If you still harbour any aspirations to a career in politics (despite your patent unsuitability), I’d strongly advise against going around describing child pornography offences as being “naughty”.
Really shocking story in the ST today about Franchise colleges and the hundreds of millions that have been stolen for non existent students from Romania in the main signing on to get student loans and, of course, grants which are then shared between the colleges, the lead Universities and the providers of the students.
The scale of it is almost beyond belief. Those involved in both the franchise colleges and indeed in the Universities have surely acted illegally and dishonestly. Hundreds of them really need to go to jail and the franchise colleges involved need to be closed. What this does to a sector already struggling, god alone knows.
"Leaked government figures show that the number of Romanian nationals living in the UK applying for a student loan increased from 5,000 in 2015-16 to 84,000 in 2023-24, suggesting 15 per cent of the Romanian population in Britain was paid a student loan last year."
We are being taken for fools and a corrupt public sector is just looking the other way.
BTW, that 15% suggests that there are currently 560k Romanians living in the UK. I mean, how?
It seems odd to phrase this in terms of a “corrupt public sector”, but we should look at who was in charge of education and immigration over that period. Oh. It was the Conservative Party. Let’s pull some of the relevant ministers up for questioning by the media and by Parliament, for starters.
They should certainly be held to account for their neglect and want of attention but the fraud is at the level of those in University admission offices and, of course, these fake franchise colleges, claiming public money for their institutions under false pretences.
And I agree about immigration ministers too. Those who served in those roles in the Johnson government in particular where immigration got completely out of control. They were either completely asleep at the wheel, failing to notice clear and obvious trends or being wilfully blind in the hope immigration would boost growth.
Listening to the Tories including Kemi on Trigonometry it is clear that they dont yet understand what a complete mess they made of the basics of government. I run a manufacturing company and there is a basic tool called root cause analysis which we use to understand why things go wrong. The Tories made promises which they spectacularly failed to deliver but have yet to truly understand why they did not deliver.
Trotting out phrases such as COVID or Ukraine War is just lazy. Yes these were factors but not the full answer. It is like saying I turned up late for work because it was raining. I am not sure the Tory party has the intellectual rigour or processes to even ask the right questions let alone find the solutions. Maybe Jenerick is just starting some of this work at the edges.
Thus week there was a byelection in Shettleston in my backyard. (Glasgow North East). Anyone who knows this area knows it is a drug infested ghetto where almost no-one works. The right wing got almost 30% of the vote up from 10% 3 years ago yet the Tories had only 4% and were fighting UKIP for second place of the right wing parties. The country is swinging right very fast but the Tories risk becoming irrelevant unless they stop thinking they are the natural party of the right and realise they are in the fight of their life.
Shettleston wasn’t included in the Glasgow NE ward, hence precisely zero votes were cast there for the right in the by election.
What I do agree on is that the SCons should be shitting themselves, and they don’t seem to have the slightest clue what to do about it.
The Scottish Conservatives don’t have the intelligence to fight more than one battle. They have decided that fighting the SNP is their battle. They can’t fight Reform for their own survival as well. They may wake up when they are the fourth or fifth largest party in the next Scottish Parliament, but I wouldn’t count on it.
Most people I know—Ukrainians, Americans, and my social media crowd—dislike or even hate Trump. They’re afraid he’ll cut a deal with Putin and sell out Ukraine.
I disagree. Trump could offer Ukraine a real chance to end the war.
The two are hardly mutually exclusive.
To conclude, there is of course an alternative - continue to put pressure on Russia and hope it will collapse. I think this is what Reagan did. But I don’t see any appetite for that between the US and Europe, although Europe is willing to go some on that direction.
But that might not be enough. If Russia collapses, it is due to its internal processes and political forces, but this is a risky strategy. And I don’t want to bet Ukraine’s future on that.
UKTV industry apparently in crisis, although from the article it is the Beeb and itv.
The solution to this non problem is, of course, more money from taxpayers rather than finding new streams of income, nice timing too given the current debate on future funding of the BBC.
The BBC seems to favour a sliding scale with wealthier homes paying more than less well off homes.
It’s time to get rid of the license fee, fund the network from general taxation, and let the BBC seek its funding in the open market.
That would be really short sighted. The BBC is one of the best institutions in this country and has been responsible for nurturing some extraorinary talent. The media is one area where the UK punches well above it's weight and much of this is down to the BBC. Holywood is full of talent originally nurtured by the BBC The Scott brothers to name but two but if you add those lower down the scale the British expertise and influence thanks to the BBC is everywhere
But the license fee is becoming less and less tenable. Why should I pay £15 a month to fund it when the majority goes to the BBC just for the privilege of receiving live TV signals. An institution I rarely watch and don’t really value. If the change to license fee comes and wealthier homes have to pay more, as some beeboid has suggested, how is that fair ?
Pay for the distribution system from general taxation but let the BBC compete for its funds.
By all means use taxpayers money to subsidise apprenticeships and trainee schemes that helps people. As they do in other industries. I’ve never heard of the Scott Brothers but good luck to them.
The licence fee is now a completely indefensible system as is the ridiculous infrastructure in place to enforce the payment of the TV tax with their threatening letters and tough-guy tactics. The idea that we have to pay a fee for the privilege of owning a bit of technology in our homes that has been around since the 1950s, when we are all possessed of laptops, smartphones and watches, and far more advanced kit, is ridiculously anachronistic.
I have also yet to hear a decent argument about why the BBC needs to be funded that way to preserve “quality” programming.
Let it compete in the market for subscribers on its own merits. I can - with a bit of persuasion - see the advantages of retaining an independent, free to air news function and coverage of national events, which can be funded through general taxation. If we think that there is still a place for incubating future talent etc, then there are far better ways of funding and broadcasting this now than through the BBC model.
Most people I know—Ukrainians, Americans, and my social media crowd—dislike or even hate Trump. They’re afraid he’ll cut a deal with Putin and sell out Ukraine.
I disagree. Trump could offer Ukraine a real chance to end the war.
The two are hardly mutually exclusive.
To conclude, there is of course an alternative - continue to put pressure on Russia and hope it will collapse. I think this is what Reagan did. But I don’t see any appetite for that between the US and Europe, although Europe is willing to go some on that direction.
But that might not be enough. If Russia collapses, it is due to its internal processes and political forces, but this is a risky strategy. And I don’t want to bet Ukraine’s future on that.
Worth quoting the middle passage you have missed out:
Everyone is afraid that Trump will sell Ukraine out, but I don’t think it will happen.
Neither Russia nor Ukraine will like the conditions of peace, but Ukraine will be able to move on and develop 9/
Ukraine is in a much better condition than Finland after the Soviets imposed reparations on it, political conditions, and took its territory. And Finland is a winner in that war because people in Finland today leave much better than in Russia 10/
So, this assumption that Trump will be able to secure conditions for Ukraine that will allow it to develop and stay independent is why I believe Trump is a better deal than Biden 11/
If this assumption is wrong, then, of course course, my analysis is wrong.
But what is true that there is no alternative to Trump now. There is no world in which Trump can be convinced, by words, to act differently.
I agree with that last point.
But his assumption is a nonsense. Trump doesn't care about Ukraine and he admires Putin as he admires Russia. All of his actions have either been designed to further Putin's agenda or so wilfully stupid even British Gas would fire him for incompetence.
The whole analysis is therefore, on his own admission, wrong. It's wishful thinking and smoke and mirrors. No wonder he's an economist.
Really shocking story in the ST today about Franchise colleges and the hundreds of millions that have been stolen for non existent students from Romania in the main signing on to get student loans and, of course, grants which are then shared between the colleges, the lead Universities and the providers of the students.
The scale of it is almost beyond belief. Those involved in both the franchise colleges and indeed in the Universities have surely acted illegally and dishonestly. Hundreds of them really need to go to jail and the franchise colleges involved need to be closed. What this does to a sector already struggling, god alone knows.
"Leaked government figures show that the number of Romanian nationals living in the UK applying for a student loan increased from 5,000 in 2015-16 to 84,000 in 2023-24, suggesting 15 per cent of the Romanian population in Britain was paid a student loan last year."
We are being taken for fools and a corrupt public sector is just looking the other way.
BTW, that 15% suggests that there are currently 560k Romanians living in the UK. I mean, how?
I recall that about 10 years ago the government of the day (I think Cameron) tried to crack down on these dodgy colleges and the left / media went full bore on evil Tories depriving kids of the chance to get a decent education…
The Obama and Trump presidencies both provide evidence that Americans have been right to prefer candidates for president with political experience. In general, as I said.
Life expectancy fell under Obama, because he failed to address the fentanyl problem; life expectancy fell during COVID because Trump failed in many ways to dress that problem.
Really shocking story in the ST today about Franchise colleges and the hundreds of millions that have been stolen for non existent students from Romania in the main signing on to get student loans and, of course, grants which are then shared between the colleges, the lead Universities and the providers of the students.
The scale of it is almost beyond belief. Those involved in both the franchise colleges and indeed in the Universities have surely acted illegally and dishonestly. Hundreds of them really need to go to jail and the franchise colleges involved need to be closed. What this does to a sector already struggling, god alone knows.
"Leaked government figures show that the number of Romanian nationals living in the UK applying for a student loan increased from 5,000 in 2015-16 to 84,000 in 2023-24, suggesting 15 per cent of the Romanian population in Britain was paid a student loan last year."
We are being taken for fools and a corrupt public sector is just looking the other way.
BTW, that 15% suggests that there are currently 560k Romanians living in the UK. I mean, how?
I recall that about 10 years ago the government of the day (I think Cameron) tried to crack down on these dodgy colleges and the left / media went full bore on evil Tories depriving kids of the chance to get a decent education…
Other way round. It was the Tories who wanted increased competition.
Most people I know—Ukrainians, Americans, and my social media crowd—dislike or even hate Trump. They’re afraid he’ll cut a deal with Putin and sell out Ukraine.
I disagree. Trump could offer Ukraine a real chance to end the war.
The two are hardly mutually exclusive.
To conclude, there is of course an alternative - continue to put pressure on Russia and hope it will collapse. I think this is what Reagan did. But I don’t see any appetite for that between the US and Europe, although Europe is willing to go some on that direction.
But that might not be enough. If Russia collapses, it is due to its internal processes and political forces, but this is a risky strategy. And I don’t want to bet Ukraine’s future on that.
Russia's experience in Afghanistan puts a lie to that. It is perfectly possible for a 'superpower' (and Russia is hardly one of those any more) to be beaten in countries far poorer than Ukraine. Also witness the American experience in Afghanistan, Vietnam and Iraq.
Sadly, the sort of shite being spoken in the quotes above just gives Putin and Russia hope that their political shenanigans are working, where their military is failing.
The Obama and Trump presidencies both provide evidence that Americans have been right to prefer candidates for president with political experience. In general, as I said.
Life expectancy fell under Obama, because he failed to address the fentanyl problem; life expectancy fell during COVID because Trump failed in many ways to dress that problem.
The Obama and Trump presidencies both provide evidence that Americans have been right to prefer candidates for president with political experience. In general, as I said.
Life expectancy fell under Obama, because he failed to address the fentanyl problem; life expectancy fell during COVID because Trump failed in many ways to dress that problem.
I think we will learn from those mistakes.
That would make a great history exam question.
“America has always learned from its mistakes…discuss”
Really shocking story in the ST today about Franchise colleges and the hundreds of millions that have been stolen for non existent students from Romania in the main signing on to get student loans and, of course, grants which are then shared between the colleges, the lead Universities and the providers of the students.
The scale of it is almost beyond belief. Those involved in both the franchise colleges and indeed in the Universities have surely acted illegally and dishonestly. Hundreds of them really need to go to jail and the franchise colleges involved need to be closed. What this does to a sector already struggling, god alone knows.
"Leaked government figures show that the number of Romanian nationals living in the UK applying for a student loan increased from 5,000 in 2015-16 to 84,000 in 2023-24, suggesting 15 per cent of the Romanian population in Britain was paid a student loan last year."
We are being taken for fools and a corrupt public sector is just looking the other way.
BTW, that 15% suggests that there are currently 560k Romanians living in the UK. I mean, how?
I recall that about 10 years ago the government of the day (I think Cameron) tried to crack down on these dodgy colleges and the left / media went full bore on evil Tories depriving kids of the chance to get a decent education…
I don't recall any left wing outcry about dodgy colleges.
Could you substantiate your claim with some sources that the left/media went "full bore".
Most people I know—Ukrainians, Americans, and my social media crowd—dislike or even hate Trump. They’re afraid he’ll cut a deal with Putin and sell out Ukraine.
I disagree. Trump could offer Ukraine a real chance to end the war.
The two are hardly mutually exclusive.
To conclude, there is of course an alternative - continue to put pressure on Russia and hope it will collapse. I think this is what Reagan did. But I don’t see any appetite for that between the US and Europe, although Europe is willing to go some on that direction.
But that might not be enough. If Russia collapses, it is due to its internal processes and political forces, but this is a risky strategy. And I don’t want to bet Ukraine’s future on that.
Russia's experience in Afghanistan puts a lie to that. It is perfectly possible for a 'superpower' (and Russia is hardly one of those any more) to be beaten in countries far poorer than Ukraine. Also witness the American experience in Afghanistan, Vietnam and Iraq.
Sadly, the sort of shite being spoken in the quotes above just gives Putin and Russia hope that their political shenanigans are working, where their military is failing.
Securing the best outcome for Ukraine doesn't seem to matter in this analysis. They are simply a proxy to inflict damage on Russia.
Most people I know—Ukrainians, Americans, and my social media crowd—dislike or even hate Trump. They’re afraid he’ll cut a deal with Putin and sell out Ukraine.
I disagree. Trump could offer Ukraine a real chance to end the war.
The two are hardly mutually exclusive.
To conclude, there is of course an alternative - continue to put pressure on Russia and hope it will collapse. I think this is what Reagan did. But I don’t see any appetite for that between the US and Europe, although Europe is willing to go some on that direction.
But that might not be enough. If Russia collapses, it is due to its internal processes and political forces, but this is a risky strategy. And I don’t want to bet Ukraine’s future on that.
Russia's experience in Afghanistan puts a lie to that. It is perfectly possible for a 'superpower' (and Russia is hardly one of those any more) to be beaten in countries far poorer than Ukraine. Also witness the American experience in Afghanistan, Vietnam and Iraq.
Sadly, the sort of shite being spoken in the quotes above just gives Putin and Russia hope that their political shenanigans are working, where their military is failing.
Securing the best outcome for Ukraine doesn't seem to matter in this analysis. They are simply a proxy to inflict damage on Russia.
Correction: I meant to say "political executive", not just "political experience". And I suppose I should add "successful". Illinois Governor Pritzker certainly has experience, but when almost half of Illinois citizens are considering leaving the state, he can hardly be considered a success.
The Obama and Life expectancy fell under Obama, because he failed to address the fentanyl problem; life expectancy fell during COVID because Trump failed in many ways to dress that problem.
I think we will learn from those mistakes.
That would make a great history exam question.
“America has always learned from its mistakes…discuss”
Here’s the AI attempt, as a starter for ten:
The idea that the US has always learned from its mistakes is an optimistic but overly simplistic view of history. While the country has often adapted and improved in response to past failures, there are many instances where the same mistakes have been repeated, sometimes with even greater consequences. A more accurate assessment is that while the US can learn from its mistakes, this process is often slow, incomplete, or undermined by political, social, and economic pressures.
One clear example of the US failing to learn from past mistakes is its approach to financial regulation. After the stock market crash of 1929 and the ensuing Great Depression, the government enacted strict financial regulations, such as the Glass-Steagall Act, to prevent reckless speculation. However, many of these safeguards were dismantled in the late 20th century, contributing to the 2008 financial crisis. The cycle of deregulation, crisis, and delayed reform suggests that the US has not fully internalized the lessons of past economic collapses.
Another major area where the US has failed to learn from history is foreign military intervention. The Vietnam War demonstrated the dangers of entering conflict without clear objectives or understanding of local conditions. Despite this, the US repeated many of the same mistakes in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. In both cases, the government underestimated the difficulty of imposing democracy through military force and misjudged local resistance, leading to prolonged, costly conflicts with unclear outcomes.
Similarly, racial and social injustices have shown a pattern of repeated mistakes. After the Civil War, Reconstruction policies aimed at securing rights for Black Americans were abandoned, leading to the rise of Jim Crow laws and racial segregation. Although the civil rights movement of the 1960s made significant progress, issues such as voter suppression, police brutality, and systemic discrimination persist today. The continued struggle for racial equality suggests that America has not fully learned from its past failures in addressing deep-seated racial injustices.
Climate policy is another area where the US has struggled to learn from past mistakes. Despite clear warnings about environmental degradation and climate change since at least the 1970s, American policymakers have repeatedly prioritized short-term economic growth over long-term environmental sustainability. The US withdrew from international climate agreements, delayed meaningful action, and continued heavy reliance on fossil fuels, exacerbating the climate crisis rather than mitigating it.
These examples demonstrate that while the US can learn from mistakes, it does not always do so. Often, change occurs only after repeated failures, public pressure, or crises. Understanding this pattern is crucial to ensuring that past mistakes are not continuously repeated in the future.
Most people I know—Ukrainians, Americans, and my social media crowd—dislike or even hate Trump. They’re afraid he’ll cut a deal with Putin and sell out Ukraine.
I disagree. Trump could offer Ukraine a real chance to end the war.
The two are hardly mutually exclusive.
To conclude, there is of course an alternative - continue to put pressure on Russia and hope it will collapse. I think this is what Reagan did. But I don’t see any appetite for that between the US and Europe, although Europe is willing to go some on that direction.
But that might not be enough. If Russia collapses, it is due to its internal processes and political forces, but this is a risky strategy. And I don’t want to bet Ukraine’s future on that.
Russia's experience in Afghanistan puts a lie to that. It is perfectly possible for a 'superpower' (and Russia is hardly one of those any more) to be beaten in countries far poorer than Ukraine. Also witness the American experience in Afghanistan, Vietnam and Iraq.
Sadly, the sort of shite being spoken in the quotes above just gives Putin and Russia hope that their political shenanigans are working, where their military is failing.
Securing the best outcome for Ukraine doesn't seem to matter in this analysis. They are simply a proxy to inflict damage on Russia.
It doesn't matter to you, obviously.
Using them as a proxy doesn't matter to me. Correct.
Most people I know—Ukrainians, Americans, and my social media crowd—dislike or even hate Trump. They’re afraid he’ll cut a deal with Putin and sell out Ukraine.
I disagree. Trump could offer Ukraine a real chance to end the war.
The two are hardly mutually exclusive.
To conclude, there is of course an alternative - continue to put pressure on Russia and hope it will collapse. I think this is what Reagan did. But I don’t see any appetite for that between the US and Europe, although Europe is willing to go some on that direction.
But that might not be enough. If Russia collapses, it is due to its internal processes and political forces, but this is a risky strategy. And I don’t want to bet Ukraine’s future on that.
Russia's experience in Afghanistan puts a lie to that. It is perfectly possible for a 'superpower' (and Russia is hardly one of those any more) to be beaten in countries far poorer than Ukraine. Also witness the American experience in Afghanistan, Vietnam and Iraq.
Sadly, the sort of shite being spoken in the quotes above just gives Putin and Russia hope that their political shenanigans are working, where their military is failing.
Securing the best outcome for Ukraine doesn't seem to matter in this analysis. They are simply a proxy to inflict damage on Russia.
Russia invaded Ukraine. Peace through the defeat of Russia seems the best, and most ethical, result
Most people I know—Ukrainians, Americans, and my social media crowd—dislike or even hate Trump. They’re afraid he’ll cut a deal with Putin and sell out Ukraine.
I disagree. Trump could offer Ukraine a real chance to end the war.
The two are hardly mutually exclusive.
To conclude, there is of course an alternative - continue to put pressure on Russia and hope it will collapse. I think this is what Reagan did. But I don’t see any appetite for that between the US and Europe, although Europe is willing to go some on that direction.
But that might not be enough. If Russia collapses, it is due to its internal processes and political forces, but this is a risky strategy. And I don’t want to bet Ukraine’s future on that.
Russia's experience in Afghanistan puts a lie to that. It is perfectly possible for a 'superpower' (and Russia is hardly one of those any more) to be beaten in countries far poorer than Ukraine. Also witness the American experience in Afghanistan, Vietnam and Iraq.
Sadly, the sort of shite being spoken in the quotes above just gives Putin and Russia hope that their political shenanigans are working, where their military is failing.
Securing the best outcome for Ukraine doesn't seem to matter in this analysis. They are simply a proxy to inflict damage on Russia.
Russia invaded Ukraine. Peace through the defeat of Russia seems the best, and most ethical, result
Anything short of Russia achieving its original objectives counts as a defeat. Unless you think that Ukraine and the West's war aim should be unconditional surrender then you have to accept a deal with Russia at some point.
Really shocking story in the ST today about Franchise colleges and the hundreds of millions that have been stolen for non existent students from Romania in the main signing on to get student loans and, of course, grants which are then shared between the colleges, the lead Universities and the providers of the students.
The scale of it is almost beyond belief. Those involved in both the franchise colleges and indeed in the Universities have surely acted illegally and dishonestly. Hundreds of them really need to go to jail and the franchise colleges involved need to be closed. What this does to a sector already struggling, god alone knows.
"Leaked government figures show that the number of Romanian nationals living in the UK applying for a student loan increased from 5,000 in 2015-16 to 84,000 in 2023-24, suggesting 15 per cent of the Romanian population in Britain was paid a student loan last year."
We are being taken for fools and a corrupt public sector is just looking the other way.
BTW, that 15% suggests that there are currently 560k Romanians living in the UK. I mean, how?
It seems odd to phrase this in terms of a “corrupt public sector”, but we should look at who was in charge of education and immigration over that period. Oh. It was the Conservative Party. Let’s pull some of the relevant ministers up for questioning by the media and by Parliament, for starters.
Do you really think that ministers knew this was going on and didn’t stop it?
Or are you just trying to deflect attention from your public sector colleagues?
Of course she does. Some animals are more equal than others.
Interestingly, and perhaps cynically, Reeves uses the Starmer freebie defence that large security details make the cheap seats unsuitable.
I find the criticism really petty. Is anyone suggesting she would care less paying a few hundred quid for a ticket? She probably didn't even want to go.
We can be very small minded in this country. It isn't one of our more attractive features
Most people I know—Ukrainians, Americans, and my social media crowd—dislike or even hate Trump. They’re afraid he’ll cut a deal with Putin and sell out Ukraine.
I disagree. Trump could offer Ukraine a real chance to end the war.
The two are hardly mutually exclusive.
To conclude, there is of course an alternative - continue to put pressure on Russia and hope it will collapse. I think this is what Reagan did. But I don’t see any appetite for that between the US and Europe, although Europe is willing to go some on that direction.
But that might not be enough. If Russia collapses, it is due to its internal processes and political forces, but this is a risky strategy. And I don’t want to bet Ukraine’s future on that.
Worth quoting the middle passage you have missed out:
Everyone is afraid that Trump will sell Ukraine out, but I don’t think it will happen.
Neither Russia nor Ukraine will like the conditions of peace, but Ukraine will be able to move on and develop 9/
Ukraine is in a much better condition than Finland after the Soviets imposed reparations on it, political conditions, and took its territory. And Finland is a winner in that war because people in Finland today leave much better than in Russia 10/
So, this assumption that Trump will be able to secure conditions for Ukraine that will allow it to develop and stay independent is why I believe Trump is a better deal than Biden 11/
If this assumption is wrong, then, of course course, my analysis is wrong.
But what is true that there is no alternative to Trump now. There is no world in which Trump can be convinced, by words, to act differently.
I agree with that last point.
But his assumption is a nonsense. Trump doesn't care about Ukraine and he admires Putin as he admires Russia. All of his actions have either been designed to further Putin's agenda or so wilfully stupid even British Gas would fire him for incompetence.
The whole analysis is therefore, on his own admission, wrong. It's wishful thinking and smoke and mirrors. No wonder he's an economist.
Just delusional stuff if he thinks it unlikely Trump would sell out Ukraine.
And there's a clear alternative to Trump: Europe getting its act together.
Comments
"Leaked government figures show that the number of Romanian nationals living in the UK applying for a student loan increased from 5,000 in 2015-16 to 84,000 in 2023-24, suggesting 15 per cent of the Romanian population in Britain was paid a student loan last year."
We are being taken for fools and a corrupt public sector is just looking the other way.
BTW, that 15% suggests that there are currently 560k Romanians living in the UK. I mean, how?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/articles/cn0j7gvnk89o
Excellent news for Ocon, and I imagine Sainz must be feeling a certain schadenfreude...
F1 has become as authentic as the Kent Walton wrestling on World of Sport.
Take the key issue of the day for many - immigration. There's an economic argument for immigration (not in terms of an "open door" but for controlled legal migration to cover shortages in key working areas, provide specialisms and a tertiary argument around training and upskilling) but the immigration argument has become cultural whether it's framed in religious terms, national identity terms or cultural cohesion terms.
As a result, the Conservatives are on the wrong side of a significant strand of public opinion which seems to want not only a much harsher line on migration but is looking to see voluntary (or perhaps non-voluntary) repatriation especially of illegal migrants but in some cases legal migrants as well.
Glen O'Hara @gsoh31.bsky.social
·
3h
This article is a hit job, and an extremely misleading one. Fraud is very serous and must be rooted out, but franchising *in total* is less than 1% of university teaching income, and it's presented like it's a key part of the burgeoning debt stock. (1/2)
Glen O'Hara @gsoh31.bsky.social
·
3h
The *real* scandal is that the whole system is set up as incentives for this sort of behaviour. And getting the OfS to intervene! Reader, I laughed, if bitterly. Take a look at the real (and growing) problem - cloud on the horizon that's getting bigger. (2/2)
https://bsky.app/profile/gsoh31.bsky.social/post/3lkzu2moqqs2d
John Morgan @johnmorgan3.bsky.social
The Alan Turing Institute, the UK's national institute for data science and AI, is shutting down around a quarter of its research projects.
Via
@annamckie.bsky.social
. www.researchprofessionalnews.com/rr-news-uk-r...
So, crudely, a parent with 3 children gets 4 votes. There are questions around who gets to vote, or is excluded, and so on. (35 minute speech.) Another policy proposed aiui is that loans (like student loans) be given to couples who cannot afford to setup house which prevents them having a family, to be written off later if they have children.
"JD Vance on our Civilizational Crisis"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jBrEng3xQYo
'You know who else gave married couples loans and wrote them off if they had children?'
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FbGydNsBsjA
The true comedy is this: https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/red-bull-swap-lawson-tsunoda-japanese-gp/10706330/
lololol. And with Doohan not long for the grid either we could see a succession of lineup changes this year.
I want the BBC to continue, and am happy I get my money's worth from the licence fee. But I am going to be amongst a decreasing number of people, especially amongst the young. And as that happens, the licence fee as it currently stands becomes increasingly difficult to defend.
Mr. Pioneers, if I were Tsunoda I'd rather be in a Racing than a Red Bull.
I hope Perez has a suitable stockpile of popcorn for watching Lawson's implosion.
eg https://archive.is/20240929001214/https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/opus-dei-leonard-leo-supreme-court-moneybags-kid-1235115538/
Backed by a cabal of wealthy conservative patrons like industrialist David Koch, banker Richard Mellon Scaife, and the devout Catholic entrepreneur Frank Hanna, the Federalist Society under (Leonard) Leo became a breeding ground for conservative judges who were recruited at law school, groomed through the society’s program of events and talks, and then bound together through their careers.
“The key was to figure out how to develop what I call a ‘pipeline’ — basically, where you recruit students in law school, you get them through law school, they come out of law school, and then you find ways of continuing to involve them in legal policy,” Leo later explained.
In 2005, the Federalist Society began openly advocating for John Roberts — a former member — to be nominated to fill a vacant seat at the Supreme Court, the first time it had campaigned publicly for a particular candidate. A few months later, its sway had grown so much that it torpedoed President George W. Bush’s own preferred candidate for another vacant seat on the Supreme Court — Harriet Miers, a judge and close friend of the president who wasn’t a member of the Federalist Society — and pressured him to nominate Samuel Alito, one of its members, in her place.
And I agree about immigration ministers too. Those who served in those roles in the Johnson government in particular where immigration got completely out of control. They were either completely asleep at the wheel, failing to notice clear and obvious trends or being wilfully blind in the hope immigration would boost growth.
Laura Kuennsberg, Chris Mason and about X x100 other presenters are all on £350,000 a year. They are not indispensible, sack 'em all and pay the living hourly rate. The quality will be no worse.
The plank wears during the race. It would have been compliant during the race.
In general, ethically Roman Catholic formal doctrine is very socially conservative about individual lives and relationships (no sex please), and very liberal about social and communal ethics (Good Samaritan is good example for people and governments).
Most ordinary catholics pick and choose sensibly and don't expect to be perfect. Extremists pick and choose and judge others but not themselves.
The new right wing catholics in the USA will be much quieter on RC's total ban on contraception, remarriage, sex before marriage and faithful gay relationships than they will about abortion, trans and so on. They are just populists under cover of religion.
As to catholic communitarianism, which is very leftish, the silence will be deafening.
Thankfully the dots are being joined, and there are now good organisations looking at where this money is going.
Every so often, a television drama comes along that has the power to change things. Last year, it was ITV’s Mr Bates vs The Post Office, in which the plight of subpostmasters was rendered with such success that it actually hastened in real-world legislation to compensate them.
And now we have Netflix’s Adolescence, which looks at the online radicalisation of young boys by men’s rights activists (MRAs) such as Andrew Tate. Last week, Keir Starmer told the Commons he had been watching the series with his family and that it portrayed an “emerging and growing problem” that needed to be tackled. Now MPs are examining ideas to address the issue with greater urgency.
If I were acting on behalf of Lucy Letby, I'd be tapping up every tv station and production company possible. Get one of those on side and she's as good as free.
Listening to the Tories including Kemi on Trigonometry it is clear that they dont yet understand what a complete mess they made of the basics of government. I run a manufacturing company and there is a basic tool called root cause analysis which we use to understand why things go wrong. The Tories made promises which they spectacularly failed to deliver but have yet to truly understand why they did not deliver.
Trotting out phrases such as COVID or Ukraine War is just lazy. Yes these were factors but not the full answer. It is like saying I turned up late for work because it was raining. I am not sure the Tory party has the intellectual rigour or processes to even ask the right questions let alone find the solutions. Maybe Jenerick is just starting some of this work at the edges.
Thus week there was a byelection in Shettleston in my backyard. (Glasgow North East). Anyone who knows this area knows it is a drug infested ghetto where almost no-one works. The right wing got almost 30% of the vote up from 10% 3 years ago yet the Tories had only 4% and were fighting UKIP for second place of the right wing parties. The country is swinging right very fast but the Tories risk becoming irrelevant unless they stop thinking they are the natural party of the right and realise they are in the fight of their life.
So which is it? Should Ministers be responsible for every detail of the day-to-day running of the services under their purview, or should we have independent, non-political agencies that are not subject to Ministerial whims?
I am not seeing much sign of improvement under Labour either (although I have some hopes for Streeting) but we simply cannot afford to blow many tens of billions like this. We need results for our spend and anyone who can deliver that is or even the perception that they can deliver that has a massive political advantage. I am not holding my breath.
Going off at a tangent, one reason there are so many non-traditional degree-level colleges, or whatever you want to call them, is that Conservative administrations encouraged them because competition in education is good. In @Sunil_Prasannan's manor, there must be half a dozen within a mile of Wes Streeting's constituency office.
It covers a big range so Biden and JFK and Kerry but also Vance and DeSantis are Roman Catholics.
Whereas atheists and Muslims and US Jews tend to be Democrats and Protestant evangelicals Republicans.
Classical liberalism is of course small state
I am not sure that changing the names of colleges to Universities changed much by itself although local experience is that they tended to move from more technical courses to more admin courses that were no doubt cheaper to teach.
What I do agree on is that the SCons should be shitting themselves, and they don’t seem to have the slightest clue what to do about it.
Even if they worked for free during a 3-5 year stint at the BBC a presenter would earn more over their lifetime doing that than shunning the beeb. I'd suggest a cap on presenter earnings somewhere around the PM salary, possibly less.
She appears to have all the fashionable left ideas on foreign policy -- and not to be particularly bothered by the genocides in Iraq and Rwanda.
(And her election successes so far? Best explained, not by her ideas, but by ethnic succession.)
Radical Left Lunatics got 49.1% of the vote (Reps plus other right)
Radical Centrist Dads/Moms got 0.6%
If she won it would be the failures of the Trump administration and the less charismatic Vance as her opponent that won it for her more than her policies albeit she is more charismatic than Harris
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rteacn-awAg (20 minutes)
(I admit I did not know that they call Constituencies, "Ridings". Dickie Bird would be proud.)
On the published "star salary" list for 23-24 there are only 30 above 250k, rather than "hundreds" on 350k.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c0w4xqlwr1ro
And asking people to pay more based on their ability to pay won’t change that. It will just make people more resentful.
You’ve got a son. How does he and his friends consume their media ? Our friends children are on stuff like tik tok.
I can think of many academics of my acquaintances who definitely couldn't have established a bonfire. In a riot...
If there is a problem with presenters' salaries, it is at the marzipan layer.
But in any case, who cares? If there are 100 presenters each paid £200,000 too much, that's only £20 million; how many Adolescences is that?
Usually it's the other way around.
An institution I rarely watch and don’t really value. If the change to license fee comes and wealthier homes have to pay more, as some beeboid has suggested, how is that fair ?
Pay for the distribution system from general taxation but let the BBC compete for its funds.
By all means use taxpayers money to subsidise apprenticeships and trainee schemes that helps people. As they do in other industries. I’ve never heard of the Scott Brothers but good luck to them.
And that shows the problem quite well.
https://x.com/mylovanov/status/1903794404520812694
Most people I know—Ukrainians, Americans, and my social media crowd—dislike or even hate Trump. They’re afraid he’ll cut a deal with Putin and sell out Ukraine.
I disagree. Trump could offer Ukraine a real chance to end the war.
Half of the stuff the Tories promised to address, they didn’t really understand and hence f***ed up big time.
The other half of the stuff the Tories promised to address, they never even tried, hoping that we wouldn’t notice.
But that might not be enough. If Russia collapses, it is due to its internal processes and political forces, but this is a risky strategy. And I don’t want to bet Ukraine’s future on that.
I have also yet to hear a decent argument about why the BBC needs to be funded that way to preserve “quality” programming.
Let it compete in the market for subscribers on its own merits. I can - with a bit of persuasion - see the advantages of retaining an independent, free to air news function and coverage of national events, which can be funded through general taxation. If we think that there is still a place for incubating future talent etc, then there are far better ways of funding and broadcasting this now than through the BBC model.
Everyone is afraid that Trump will sell Ukraine out, but I don’t think it will happen.
Neither Russia nor Ukraine will like the conditions of peace, but Ukraine will be able to move on and develop 9/
Ukraine is in a much better condition than Finland after the Soviets imposed reparations on it, political conditions, and took its territory. And Finland is a winner in that war because people in Finland today leave much better than in Russia 10/
So, this assumption that Trump will be able to secure conditions for Ukraine that will allow it to develop and stay independent is why I believe Trump is a better deal than Biden 11/
If this assumption is wrong, then, of course course, my analysis is wrong.
But what is true that there is no alternative to Trump now. There is no world in which Trump can be convinced, by words, to act differently.
I agree with that last point.
But his assumption is a nonsense. Trump doesn't care about Ukraine and he admires Putin as he admires Russia. All of his actions have either been designed to further Putin's agenda or so wilfully stupid even British Gas would fire him for incompetence.
The whole analysis is therefore, on his own admission, wrong. It's wishful thinking and smoke and mirrors. No wonder he's an economist.
I recall that about 10 years ago the government of the day (I think Cameron) tried to crack down on these dodgy colleges and the left / media went full bore on evil Tories depriving kids of the chance to get a decent education…
Life expectancy fell under Obama, because he failed to address the fentanyl problem; life expectancy fell during COVID because Trump failed in many ways to dress that problem.
I think we will learn from those mistakes.
Sadly, the sort of shite being spoken in the quotes above just gives Putin and Russia hope that their political shenanigans are working, where their military is failing.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cg70k2l5759o
Of course she does. Some animals are more equal than others.
Interestingly, and perhaps cynically, Reeves uses the Starmer freebie defence that large security details make the cheap seats unsuitable.
That would make a great history exam question.
“America has always learned from its mistakes…discuss”
Could you substantiate your claim with some sources that the left/media went "full bore".
The idea that the US has always learned from its mistakes is an optimistic but overly simplistic view of history. While the country has often adapted and improved in response to past failures, there are many instances where the same mistakes have been repeated, sometimes with even greater consequences. A more accurate assessment is that while the US can learn from its mistakes, this process is often slow, incomplete, or undermined by political, social, and economic pressures.
One clear example of the US failing to learn from past mistakes is its approach to financial regulation. After the stock market crash of 1929 and the ensuing Great Depression, the government enacted strict financial regulations, such as the Glass-Steagall Act, to prevent reckless speculation. However, many of these safeguards were dismantled in the late 20th century, contributing to the 2008 financial crisis. The cycle of deregulation, crisis, and delayed reform suggests that the US has not fully internalized the lessons of past economic collapses.
Another major area where the US has failed to learn from history is foreign military intervention. The Vietnam War demonstrated the dangers of entering conflict without clear objectives or understanding of local conditions. Despite this, the US repeated many of the same mistakes in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. In both cases, the government underestimated the difficulty of imposing democracy through military force and misjudged local resistance, leading to prolonged, costly conflicts with unclear outcomes.
Similarly, racial and social injustices have shown a pattern of repeated mistakes. After the Civil War, Reconstruction policies aimed at securing rights for Black Americans were abandoned, leading to the rise of Jim Crow laws and racial segregation. Although the civil rights movement of the 1960s made significant progress, issues such as voter suppression, police brutality, and systemic discrimination persist today. The continued struggle for racial equality suggests that America has not fully learned from its past failures in addressing deep-seated racial injustices.
Climate policy is another area where the US has struggled to learn from past mistakes. Despite clear warnings about environmental degradation and climate change since at least the 1970s, American policymakers have repeatedly prioritized short-term economic growth over long-term environmental sustainability. The US withdrew from international climate agreements, delayed meaningful action, and continued heavy reliance on fossil fuels, exacerbating the climate crisis rather than mitigating it.
These examples demonstrate that while the US can learn from mistakes, it does not always do so. Often, change occurs only after repeated failures, public pressure, or crises. Understanding this pattern is crucial to ensuring that past mistakes are not continuously repeated in the future.
Or are you just trying to deflect attention from your public sector colleagues?
We can be very small minded in this country. It isn't one of our more attractive features
And there's a clear alternative to Trump: Europe getting its act together.