Trump administration welcomes Tommy Robinson to Washington
The hard-right agitator said he was ‘making alliances and friendships’, including during a meeting at the State Department in Washington
The Trump administration has hosted Tommy Robinson, the British hard-right extremist, for a meeting at the State Department in Washington.
Robinson, whose real name is Stephen Yaxley-Lennon, said he was in America “making alliances and friendships”.
The former football hooligan, who has convictions for assault, using a fake passport, mortgage fraud and contempt of court, was hosted by Joe Rittenhouse, a senior adviser at the State Department.
“Honoured to have free speech warrior @TRobinsonNewEra at Department of State today,” Rittenhouse wrote on X. “The world and the West is a better place when we fight for freedom of speech and no one has been on the front lines more than Tommy. Good to see you my friend!”
I was looking at this this afternoon on my phone. It just leaps out as odd, the system allows to be gamekeeper and poacher at the same time? Or better put than that, the nation’s game keeper, in role for all the parliament and all the party’s, in for the country, yet somehow acceptable to be in position to put your own party first and foremost, whatever coverup or “partial” advice is best for your own leader and administration, you wear both wigs, in both gowns, the impartial and partial one?
Isn’t the set up at Westminster identical?
No, Tone sorted all that out in the 1990s.
Are you sure? It strikes me Starmer has appointed a poisonous toad as Attorney General, and in same fashion, Boris Attorney General was Suella Braverman.
How about a government can have a legal debt headed up by Cabinet Attendee, responsible for legal council to government, but the Nations Attorney General is an appointment by Parliament and Head of State, possibly sits as cross bench peer?
If a PM and government needs advice from an Attorney General, sometimes it needs to be what they don’t want to hear.
While becoming a doctor, a surgeon, a lawyer, a teacher, an academic, a vicar even a nurse or senior police officer requires a degree universities will not be doomed. Even the likes of Goldman Sachs have student only internships.
Her article states 54% of graduates still immediately enter the workforce.
The graduate earnings premium may have declined but is still there:
Subtract the 9% loan repayments, and they are a whopping 2% better off.
Assuming (fairly reasonably) that the university intake trends towards being the brigher/more motivated 50% of the population, you'd kind of expect them to average more than 2% higher earnings than the other half of the population whether they went to uni or not - indeed I wouldn't be shocked if the whole 11% differential would have existed between the two groups had none of them gone to university.
(I personally am probably ancidata that points to this - I had offers from several reputable universities to do STEM subjects, including a full fees paid scholarship to Aberystwyth for physics, turned them all down and didn't go to university at all. I've done just fine for myself without wasting three years of my life on a degree, thank you very much.)
This all points to the root problem. For the average uni student on an average course, there is simply no value added - it's an utter waste of time and money.
I'm an employer. My experience is that university degrees below the exceptional (a 1st in Maths from Oxford is still worth something) are completely worthless. Nothing has been learned, no useful abilities have been gained, no meaningful hard or soft skills acquired. It's just £50k and three of the best years of life burnt to start at a place no better than people who roll up to work with me with decent STEM focused A levels at 18.
Top 5-10% of the population should be going to really tough elite grade universities and doing STEM subjects. The rest of them should be joining the workforce at 16 or 18.
Had you gone to uni, you might have escaped the proletariat
Yes, a large part of why the populist right is so anti-university is because they do not want a population that thinks critically and challenges authority. If any one is to go at all it is for technical skills or to do Business Studies.
They have no souls.
The PB massiv seem to be keen on returning university education to the wealthiest 7%.
Keep the scumbag filth down where they belong. Keep social mobility in its box.
I don't know whether I'm in the bloc you mention but far from being anti-university I'm anti young people getting into huge debt with no prospects to make it worthwhile.
The rot set in with Blair's 50% target, which led to grade inflation and the destruction of the filter mechanism that a properly classified degree offered. Now on top of that there's AI
There's a good piece of analysis in the FT on this, arguing that the decline in the university premium is quite unique to the UK and reflects a general collapse in productivity growth in the economy. Having fewer folks going to uni would probably make things worse.
While becoming a doctor, a surgeon, a lawyer, a teacher, an academic, a vicar even a nurse or senior police officer requires a degree universities will not be doomed. Even the likes of Goldman Sachs have student only internships.
Her article states 54% of graduates still immediately enter the workforce.
The graduate earnings premium may have declined but is still there:
Will there be any point in paying for a degree once AI has taken over all the entry-level jobs, though?
Well given you will still be unemployed even with no degree you may as well do a degree for the fun of it while in between full time jobs and living off your by then inevitable robot tax funded universal basic income.
If you want to become a lawyer or doctor or teacher you will also still need a degree unless AI is doing all those jobs too
But then you end up with £50,000 debt. Age 22. And no job
You talk like being a 3 year undergrad student is a freebie
It's awful.
I particularly dislike the life-long 'being in debt' thing.
Back to free education for the talented.
What did mediocre people do back then? Asking for a friend.
Got a job. Started a career. There were a lot more opportunities for non-graduates then, just as there were job opportunities for less-than-mediocre people.
Yep, that's the real story behind more UGs, 4 years courses and PostGrads. "Maybe if I was better qualified there'll be a job". Worked for me, though the real break was my employer going into receivership just as there was an upturn in my industry. There are senior managers at my current company who came through the graduate training scheme and think they're worth it, but they are no better than the people who graduated in the years before or after them when there was no graduate recruitment, they just got lucky with timing.
FPT: What time do you all expect the results of that by-election to be announced?
(Incidentally, I like the little ceremonies that you use for the announcements. To me, those ceremonies say that you think you are so good at elections that you can announce the results without any big fuss.)
FPT: What time do you all expect the results of that by-election to be announced?
(Incidentally, I like the little ceremonies that you use for the announcements. To me, those ceremonies say that you think you are so good at elections that you can announce the results without any big fuss.)
It's reckoned 2-3 am. However that depends on no recounts. And not only do we have a three way photo finish. There's also the possibility of the Tories needing a recount for their 5% deposit.
FPT: What time do you all expect the results of that by-election to be announced?
(Incidentally, I like the little ceremonies that you use for the announcements. To me, those ceremonies say that you think you are so good at elections that you can announce the results without any big fuss.)
I doubt anyone thinks we're 'so good at elections' - it's just the time honoured system.
FPT: What time do you all expect the results of that by-election to be announced?
(Incidentally, I like the little ceremonies that you use for the announcements. To me, those ceremonies say that you think you are so good at elections that you can announce the results without any big fuss.)
It depends if there’s a recount or if there’s higher turnout than normal . Generally around 2 to 3 am UK time .
Trump administration welcomes Tommy Robinson to Washington
The hard-right agitator said he was ‘making alliances and friendships’, including during a meeting at the State Department in Washington
The Trump administration has hosted Tommy Robinson, the British hard-right extremist, for a meeting at the State Department in Washington.
Robinson, whose real name is Stephen Yaxley-Lennon, said he was in America “making alliances and friendships”.
The former football hooligan, who has convictions for assault, using a fake passport, mortgage fraud and contempt of court, was hosted by Joe Rittenhouse, a senior adviser at the State Department.
“Honoured to have free speech warrior @TRobinsonNewEra at Department of State today,” Rittenhouse wrote on X. “The world and the West is a better place when we fight for freedom of speech and no one has been on the front lines more than Tommy. Good to see you my friend!”
Does anyone think Labour will win the by-election tomorrow?
When the Gorton & Denton by-election was called I looked at the constituency and decided because it was only 57% white (2021 census) and has a fairly high number of students there so I dismissed it as a Reform gain. I had it down as a Labour hold with a reduced majority but when Andy Burnham was rejected as the candidate I still thought a Labour hold but more reduced majority. However the Workers Party decided not to field a candidate that I thought changes everything - adding their 10% to the Greens 13% of the 2024 Election gave them a good chance in my opinion. Anti Reform/Labour voters now had a party to vote for. So my betting strategy has been to bet for a Green victory - little but fairly often.
However the Labour Party has held the seat (and its predecessors) for many a year including the vast majority of its wards so they must be very experienced in knowing all the Labour supporters and getting them out to vote. I think this "professionalism" could be very important on the day and ensuring postal votes are returned - whether this beats the anger towards the current government is the moot point.
I therefore decided that Labour would come second, beating Reform into third and have a few small bets on this.
My prediction is therefore: 1 Green 34% 2. Labour 30% 3. Reform 26% 4. Conservatives 5% 5. Lib Dems 3% Others 2%
I do wish Reform would learn to tactical vote as they could cause chaos - betting with my heart here as a Green win would lead to another battle front for Labour.
See. It's the lack of the Workers Party 10% that makes me say Labour hold. Assuming most of them are socially Conservative Muslims. You can't just add them to the pro trans pro drugs Greens en masse. They certainly aren't going Reform. They may not vote. But I'd be surprised if at least 3 of the 10% if not more don't vote Labour to stop the other two.
Position: Andy Burnham was appointed Secretary of State for Health in June 2009 during Gordon Brown's premiership and served until May 2010. Key Initiatives: During his time in office, Burnham launched an independent inquiry into high mortality rates at Stafford Hospital, which revealed systemic failures in care provided by the Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust. This inquiry was critical in highlighting the need for reforms in patient safety and care standards within the NHS.
High Mortality rates were found up to and including 2008 in earlier report
While becoming a doctor, a surgeon, a lawyer, a teacher, an academic, a vicar even a nurse or senior police officer requires a degree universities will not be doomed. Even the likes of Goldman Sachs have student only internships.
Her article states 54% of graduates still immediately enter the workforce.
The graduate earnings premium may have declined but is still there:
Subtract the 9% loan repayments, and they are a whopping 2% better off.
Assuming (fairly reasonably) that the university intake trends towards being the brigher/more motivated 50% of the population, you'd kind of expect them to average more than 2% higher earnings than the other half of the population whether they went to uni or not - indeed I wouldn't be shocked if the whole 11% differential would have existed between the two groups had none of them gone to university.
(I personally am probably ancidata that points to this - I had offers from several reputable universities to do STEM subjects, including a full fees paid scholarship to Aberystwyth for physics, turned them all down and didn't go to university at all. I've done just fine for myself without wasting three years of my life on a degree, thank you very much.)
This all points to the root problem. For the average uni student on an average course, there is simply no value added - it's an utter waste of time and money.
I'm an employer. My experience is that university degrees below the exceptional (a 1st in Maths from Oxford is still worth something) are completely worthless. Nothing has been learned, no useful abilities have been gained, no meaningful hard or soft skills acquired. It's just £50k and three of the best years of life burnt to start at a place no better than people who roll up to work with me with decent STEM focused A levels at 18.
Top 5-10% of the population should be going to really tough elite grade universities and doing STEM subjects. The rest of them should be joining the workforce at 16 or 18.
Had you gone to uni, you might have escaped the proletariat
Yes, a large part of why the populist right is so anti-university is because they do not want a population that thinks critically and challenges authority. If any one is to go at all it is for technical skills or to do Business Studies.
They have no souls.
Much of the present authority in this country is statist, globalist and leftist.
I don't see much challenge to that from anything coming out of universities.
Good God. The leader of the free world is a fascist and the right are in the ascendency in Europe. Oh and the media , be that press, broadcast or social are wholly owned by the right.
Give your head a wobble.
You do have a strange persecution complex.
As I remember you insisted that Labour weren't going to win the last general election.
Does anyone think Labour will win the by-election tomorrow?
When the Gorton & Denton by-election was called I looked at the constituency and decided because it was only 57% white (2021 census) and has a fairly high number of students there so I dismissed it as a Reform gain. I had it down as a Labour hold with a reduced majority but when Andy Burnham was rejected as the candidate I still thought a Labour hold but more reduced majority. However the Workers Party decided not to field a candidate that I thought changes everything - adding their 10% to the Greens 13% of the 2024 Election gave them a good chance in my opinion. Anti Reform/Labour voters now had a party to vote for. So my betting strategy has been to bet for a Green victory - little but fairly often.
However the Labour Party has held the seat (and its predecessors) for many a year including the vast majority of its wards so they must be very experienced in knowing all the Labour supporters and getting them out to vote. I think this "professionalism" could be very important on the day and ensuring postal votes are returned - whether this beats the anger towards the current government is the moot point.
I therefore decided that Labour would come second, beating Reform into third and have a few small bets on this.
My prediction is therefore: 1 Green 34% 2. Labour 30% 3. Reform 26% 4. Conservatives 5% 5. Lib Dems 3% Others 2%
I do wish Reform would learn to tactical vote as they could cause chaos - betting with my heart here as a Green win would lead to another battle front for Labour.
See. It's the lack of the Workers Party 10% that makes me say Labour hold. Assuming most of them are socially Conservative Muslims. You can't just add them to the pro trans pro drugs Greens en masse. They certainly aren't going Reform. They may not vote. But I'd be surprised if at least 3 of the 10% if not more don't vote Labour to stop the other two.
You could be right - Green or Labour - anger or acceptance
It wasn't that long ago when this was seen as a normal thing to do:
James, 23 and from Great Stukeley, was educated at pounds 4,500-a-year Kimbolton School, near Peterborough. He left with three A-levels to become a management trainee at Marks & Spencer.
Bonus point for anyone who can guess who James is.
Does anyone think Labour will win the by-election tomorrow?
When the Gorton & Denton by-election was called I looked at the constituency and decided because it was only 57% white (2021 census) and has a fairly high number of students there so I dismissed it as a Reform gain. I had it down as a Labour hold with a reduced majority but when Andy Burnham was rejected as the candidate I still thought a Labour hold but more reduced majority. However the Workers Party decided not to field a candidate that I thought changes everything - adding their 10% to the Greens 13% of the 2024 Election gave them a good chance in my opinion. Anti Reform/Labour voters now had a party to vote for. So my betting strategy has been to bet for a Green victory - little but fairly often.
However the Labour Party has held the seat (and its predecessors) for many a year including the vast majority of its wards so they must be very experienced in knowing all the Labour supporters and getting them out to vote. I think this "professionalism" could be very important on the day and ensuring postal votes are returned - whether this beats the anger towards the current government is the moot point.
I therefore decided that Labour would come second, beating Reform into third and have a few small bets on this.
My prediction is therefore: 1 Green 34% 2. Labour 30% 3. Reform 26% 4. Conservatives 5% 5. Lib Dems 3% Others 2%
I do wish Reform would learn to tactical vote as they could cause chaos - betting with my heart here as a Green win would lead to another battle front for Labour.
See. It's the lack of the Workers Party 10% that makes me say Labour hold. Assuming most of them are socially Conservative Muslims. You can't just add them to the pro trans pro drugs Greens en masse. They certainly aren't going Reform. They may not vote. But I'd be surprised if at least 3 of the 10% if not more don't vote Labour to stop the other two.
Nah, they will go Green. We have seen it elsewhere.
Gaza and Starmer's reaction to it has cleaved off what was once a solid Labour vote. Trans and drug policy are far outweighed by that.
6 police forces are understood to be investigating whether potentially scores of victims were trafficked on Epstein's privare jet into UK commercial airports as well as RAF bases including Northolt
Does anyone think Labour will win the by-election tomorrow?
When the Gorton & Denton by-election was called I looked at the constituency and decided because it was only 57% white (2021 census) and has a fairly high number of students there so I dismissed it as a Reform gain. I had it down as a Labour hold with a reduced majority but when Andy Burnham was rejected as the candidate I still thought a Labour hold but more reduced majority. However the Workers Party decided not to field a candidate that I thought changes everything - adding their 10% to the Greens 13% of the 2024 Election gave them a good chance in my opinion. Anti Reform/Labour voters now had a party to vote for. So my betting strategy has been to bet for a Green victory - little but fairly often.
However the Labour Party has held the seat (and its predecessors) for many a year including the vast majority of its wards so they must be very experienced in knowing all the Labour supporters and getting them out to vote. I think this "professionalism" could be very important on the day and ensuring postal votes are returned - whether this beats the anger towards the current government is the moot point.
I therefore decided that Labour would come second, beating Reform into third and have a few small bets on this.
My prediction is therefore: 1 Green 34% 2. Labour 30% 3. Reform 26% 4. Conservatives 5% 5. Lib Dems 3% Others 2%
I do wish Reform would learn to tactical vote as they could cause chaos - betting with my heart here as a Green win would lead to another battle front for Labour.
Does anyone think Labour will win the by-election tomorrow?
When the Gorton & Denton by-election was called I looked at the constituency and decided because it was only 57% white (2021 census) and has a fairly high number of students there so I dismissed it as a Reform gain. I had it down as a Labour hold with a reduced majority but when Andy Burnham was rejected as the candidate I still thought a Labour hold but more reduced majority. However the Workers Party decided not to field a candidate that I thought changes everything - adding their 10% to the Greens 13% of the 2024 Election gave them a good chance in my opinion. Anti Reform/Labour voters now had a party to vote for. So my betting strategy has been to bet for a Green victory - little but fairly often.
However the Labour Party has held the seat (and its predecessors) for many a year including the vast majority of its wards so they must be very experienced in knowing all the Labour supporters and getting them out to vote. I think this "professionalism" could be very important on the day and ensuring postal votes are returned - whether this beats the anger towards the current government is the moot point.
I therefore decided that Labour would come second, beating Reform into third and have a few small bets on this.
My prediction is therefore: 1 Green 34% 2. Labour 30% 3. Reform 26% 4. Conservatives 5% 5. Lib Dems 3% Others 2%
I do wish Reform would learn to tactical vote as they could cause chaos - betting with my heart here as a Green win would lead to another battle front for Labour.
AnneJGP - I hope you don't mind me saying this, but I think you in the UK are good at elections, certainly better than the citizens of most nations.
(Incidentally, the different US states differ greatly in how good they are at elections.)
That's good to hear. The system was probably worked out by some Yes Minister Sir Humphrey type goodness knows how many years ago. Some PB expert will be along shortly to give us the name(s) and dates!
PB seems to be dominated by successful men who work in IT, business, law, science and other similar professions. So I feel very lonely in advocating the continuing merits of a liberal education, of learning for learning's sake, and of the huge value of a higher education in history, philosophy, social sciences (including politics), literature, classics, languages, art history, media studies, and so on. Such subjects enhance us as individuals, but also enhance our collective culture in a huge number of intangible ways. And, despite the naysayers, the skills acquired in such subjects are hugely transferable and make such graduates, who can learn specific skills on the job, highly employable. So, there's my advocacy for the humanities.
Trump administration welcomes Tommy Robinson to Washington
The hard-right agitator said he was ‘making alliances and friendships’, including during a meeting at the State Department in Washington
The Trump administration has hosted Tommy Robinson, the British hard-right extremist, for a meeting at the State Department in Washington.
Robinson, whose real name is Stephen Yaxley-Lennon, said he was in America “making alliances and friendships”.
The former football hooligan, who has convictions for assault, using a fake passport, mortgage fraud and contempt of court, was hosted by Joe Rittenhouse, a senior adviser at the State Department.
“Honoured to have free speech warrior @TRobinsonNewEra at Department of State today,” Rittenhouse wrote on X. “The world and the West is a better place when we fight for freedom of speech and no one has been on the front lines more than Tommy. Good to see you my friend!”
The Speaker should invite Stormy Daniels. She could speak to both sides of parliament and give her thoughts on adultury with the President and cover-ups.
PB seems to be dominated by successful men who work in IT, business, law, science and other similar professions. So I feel very lonely in advocating the continuing merits of a liberal education, of learning for learning's sake, and of the huge value of a higher education in history, philosophy, social sciences (including politics), literature, classics, languages, art history, media studies, and so on. Such subjects enhance us as individuals, but also enhance our collective culture in a huge number of intangible ways. And, despite the naysayers, the skills acquired in such subjects are hugely transferable and make such graduates, who can learn specific skills on the job, highly employable. So, there's my advocacy for the humanities.
Definitely too many IT wonks on PB.
I did an engineering degree to set me up on a career.
If memory serves, you sent your child, Big_G_NorthWales sent their grandchild, and no doubt many other PBers sent their children/grandchildren to university too. Degrees have become peacock's tails: things that are attractive in and of themselves rather than increasing employability. For the upper- and upper-middle classes, this is not a problem because they can afford to pay their children/grandchildren's way indefinitely. But for the lower-middle classes and the working class - the squeezed middle - it'll be a huge problem.
Obviously, the problem with University is that there are too many of other people's children going.
If any child has to pay through the nose for 3 years before competing for the usual minimum wage jobs, I'd rather they weren't any of my relations. Of course, it would be much better if no child was in that position.
I have to say my own personal experience of this rather colours my views about the benefits of the expansion of University education.
By all reports I was bright, but not particularly academically-strong, child. Smart but lazy might be the generous term. I got pretty average GCSEs and pretty woeful A-levels.
My first (and only, as it happened) choice of University accepted me. To me this was transformative. I went on to study for a PhD in my field and worked for many years as a researcher. Now I am taking a dip back into University to study Law and have secured a training contract to qualify as a solicitor.
When people say we are sending too many people to University, on any measure going into it, I would be numbered in that too many. The University I attended was a middle-ranker and to some people perhaps ought not to have existed. And yet a University education has enabled me to achieve so much and has enriched my life.
On an economic cost-benefit analysis was it all worth it? I'm not sure, probably not on that sole metric, but in the round I would say it was definitely worth it for me.
Full disclosure, I paid £3000 fees, rather than the £9000.
Given you are going to end up as a lawyer, can we really say society benefited from your education?
Touché! It was actually my aspiration to join the PB Legal Eagles that did it and they are nothing but a force for good, or so I hear.
While becoming a doctor, a surgeon, a lawyer, a teacher, an academic, a vicar even a nurse or senior police officer requires a degree universities will not be doomed. Even the likes of Goldman Sachs have student only internships.
Her article states 54% of graduates still immediately enter the workforce.
The graduate earnings premium may have declined but is still there:
Subtract the 9% loan repayments, and they are a whopping 2% better off.
Assuming (fairly reasonably) that the university intake trends towards being the brigher/more motivated 50% of the population, you'd kind of expect them to average more than 2% higher earnings than the other half of the population whether they went to uni or not - indeed I wouldn't be shocked if the whole 11% differential would have existed between the two groups had none of them gone to university.
(I personally am probably ancidata that points to this - I had offers from several reputable universities to do STEM subjects, including a full fees paid scholarship to Aberystwyth for physics, turned them all down and didn't go to university at all. I've done just fine for myself without wasting three years of my life on a degree, thank you very much.)
This all points to the root problem. For the average uni student on an average course, there is simply no value added - it's an utter waste of time and money.
I'm an employer. My experience is that university degrees below the exceptional (a 1st in Maths from Oxford is still worth something) are completely worthless. Nothing has been learned, no useful abilities have been gained, no meaningful hard or soft skills acquired. It's just £50k and three of the best years of life burnt to start at a place no better than people who roll up to work with me with decent STEM focused A levels at 18.
Top 5-10% of the population should be going to really tough elite grade universities and doing STEM subjects. The rest of them should be joining the workforce at 16 or 18.
Had you gone to uni, you might have escaped the proletariat
Yes, a large part of why the populist right is so anti-university is because they do not want a population that thinks critically and challenges authority. If any one is to go at all it is for technical skills or to do Business Studies.
They have no souls.
The PB massiv seem to be keen on returning university education to the wealthiest 7%.
Keep the scumbag filth down where they belong. Keep social mobility in its box.
I don't know whether I'm in the bloc you mention but far from being anti-university I'm anti young people getting into huge debt with no prospects to make it worthwhile.
The rot set in with Blair's 50% target, which led to grade inflation and the destruction of the filter mechanism that a properly classified degree offered. Now on top of that there's AI
There's a good piece of analysis in the FT on this, arguing that the decline in the university premium is quite unique to the UK and reflects a general collapse in productivity growth in the economy. Having fewer folks going to uni would probably make things worse.
The relative lack of premium jobs in the UK is a business and economy issue, not an oversupply of graduates issue.
PB seems to be dominated by successful men who work in IT, business, law, science and other similar professions. So I feel very lonely in advocating the continuing merits of a liberal education, of learning for learning's sake, and of the huge value of a higher education in history, philosophy, social sciences (including politics), literature, classics, languages, art history, media studies, and so on. Such subjects enhance us as individuals, but also enhance our collective culture in a huge number of intangible ways. And, despite the naysayers, the skills acquired in such subjects are hugely transferable and make such graduates, who can learn specific skills on the job, highly employable. So, there's my advocacy for the humanities.
Indeed so. One man whose writings have enriched my life tremendously is CS Lewis. I was staggered to learn that he's now considered an indicator of far-right radicalisation. Given myself away properly!
PB seems to be dominated by successful men who work in IT, business, law, science and other similar professions. So I feel very lonely in advocating the continuing merits of a liberal education, of learning for learning's sake, and of the huge value of a higher education in history, philosophy, social sciences (including politics), literature, classics, languages, art history, media studies, and so on. Such subjects enhance us as individuals, but also enhance our collective culture in a huge number of intangible ways. And, despite the naysayers, the skills acquired in such subjects are hugely transferable and make such graduates, who can learn specific skills on the job, highly employable. So, there's my advocacy for the humanities.
I do think there's a great deal of value in education for education's sake and for the humanities.
I do not think £50k in debt is a good burden to put upon those who study that.
I do not think those who study should face a 9% higher income tax rate, even if they end their humanity degree (or a STEM one to be fair) with a minimum wage job, which is how Plan 5 operates . . . and if the others thresholds remain frozen for much longer, and NMW continues to rise, it will apply to them before long too.
Everyone who earns the same amount should pay the same amount of tax.
The issue for me is not people studying, it is the punitive tax system after they have.
Trump administration welcomes Tommy Robinson to Washington
The hard-right agitator said he was ‘making alliances and friendships’, including during a meeting at the State Department in Washington
The Trump administration has hosted Tommy Robinson, the British hard-right extremist, for a meeting at the State Department in Washington.
Robinson, whose real name is Stephen Yaxley-Lennon, said he was in America “making alliances and friendships”.
The former football hooligan, who has convictions for assault, using a fake passport, mortgage fraud and contempt of court, was hosted by Joe Rittenhouse, a senior adviser at the State Department.
“Honoured to have free speech warrior @TRobinsonNewEra at Department of State today,” Rittenhouse wrote on X. “The world and the West is a better place when we fight for freedom of speech and no one has been on the front lines more than Tommy. Good to see you my friend!”
The Speaker should invite Stormy Daniels. She could speak to both sides of parliament and give her thoughts on adultury with the President and cover-ups.
If you're going to have an affair then covering up is probably the safest option.
I would be pretty shocked if Reform gets significantly more than 30% tomrrow given that two-thirds of the constituency are about as unpromising territory for the party as you could imagine.
PB seems to be dominated by successful men who work in IT, business, law, science and other similar professions. So I feel very lonely in advocating the continuing merits of a liberal education, of learning for learning's sake, and of the huge value of a higher education in history, philosophy, social sciences (including politics), literature, classics, languages, art history, media studies, and so on. Such subjects enhance us as individuals, but also enhance our collective culture in a huge number of intangible ways. And, despite the naysayers, the skills acquired in such subjects are hugely transferable and make such graduates, who can learn specific skills on the job, highly employable. So, there's my advocacy for the humanities.
Indeed so. One man whose writings have enriched my life tremendously is CS Lewis. I was staggered to learn that he's now considered an indicator of far-right radicalisation. Given myself away properly!
Oh blimey, I’m currently listening to The Great Divorce!!!
I listened to his ‘Great Lives’ the other day, and thought I’d read (listen to) one of his books… it was inevitable I suppose
Drawing several strands together we need to have a conversation about what education is for? And what does it consist of? At the moment nothing other than academic learning is valued till the age of 18. Then folk are astonished that those who thrived under such a regimen want to go to University rather than learn a trade when they have no idea whether they have the aptitude. And that those who didn't aren't somehow incredibly motivated to learn summat different. But instead utterly disillusioned.
Drawing several strands together we need to have a conversation about what education is for? And what does it consist of? At the moment nothing other than academic learning is valued till the age of 18. Then folk are astonished that those who thrived under such a regimen want to go to University rather than learn a trade. And that those who didn't aren't somehow incredibly motivated to learn summat different. But instead utterly disillusioned.
But what if you get a child who doesn't know if they should use an integral or differential to solve for the area under a curve?
Drawing several strands together we need to have a conversation about what education is for? And what does it consist of? At the moment nothing other than academic learning is valued till the age of 18. Then folk are astonished that those who thrived under such a regimen want to go to University rather than learn a trade. And that those who didn't aren't somehow incredibly motivated to learn summat different. But instead utterly disillusioned.
But what if you get a child who doesn't know if they should use an integral or differential to solve for the area under a curve?
They'll probably be able to tell you that you can't start a sentence with a coordinating conjunction, Mr Roberts. So that's all right.
While becoming a doctor, a surgeon, a lawyer, a teacher, an academic, a vicar even a nurse or senior police officer requires a degree universities will not be doomed. Even the likes of Goldman Sachs have student only internships.
Her article states 54% of graduates still immediately enter the workforce.
The graduate earnings premium may have declined but is still there:
50 years ago you did not need a degree to become a nurse, you trained on the job
@HYUFD That’s historically correct. But what is your point? You have not expressed a view as to whether or not, or why, you think it is a good thing that nurses now need to be graduates.
Drawing several strands together we need to have a conversation about what education is for? And what does it consist of? At the moment nothing other than academic learning is valued till the age of 18. Then folk are astonished that those who thrived under such a regimen want to go to University rather than learn a trade. And that those who didn't aren't somehow incredibly motivated to learn summat different. But instead utterly disillusioned.
But what if you get a child who doesn't know if they should use an integral or differential to solve for the area under a curve?
“what education is for?”
Set people up for life, so they can earn well, live well, communicate well, be mature and live a life well lived. Everyone born deserves this opportunity because as families, communities and society’s it is going to make us stronger if everyone has this opportunity.
It wasn't that long ago when this was seen as a normal thing to do:
James, 23 and from Great Stukeley, was educated at pounds 4,500-a-year Kimbolton School, near Peterborough. He left with three A-levels to become a management trainee at Marks & Spencer.
Bonus point for anyone who can guess who James is.
Why does Mandelson think that not being motivated by monetary gain excuses his passing on price sensitive information to Wall Street financiers?
I find it quite probable that he thinks that because he didn’t actually get directly paid the briefcase of cash (see movies) that he did nothing wrong.
That he was bartering power, influence (and ultimately money) is not the same, to him.
They say that all great grifters and conmen have to sell *to themselves* first.
While becoming a doctor, a surgeon, a lawyer, a teacher, an academic, a vicar even a nurse or senior police officer requires a degree universities will not be doomed. Even the likes of Goldman Sachs have student only internships.
Her article states 54% of graduates still immediately enter the workforce.
The graduate earnings premium may have declined but is still there:
50 years ago you did not need a degree to become a nurse, you trained on the job
@HYUFD That’s historically correct. But what is your point? You have not expressed a view as to whether or not, or why, you think it is a good thing that nurses now need to be graduates.
If they want to but it should not be mandatory, you also of course have nursing associates now
PB seems to be dominated by successful men who work in IT, business, law, science and other similar professions. So I feel very lonely in advocating the continuing merits of a liberal education, of learning for learning's sake, and of the huge value of a higher education in history, philosophy, social sciences (including politics), literature, classics, languages, art history, media studies, and so on. Such subjects enhance us as individuals, but also enhance our collective culture in a huge number of intangible ways. And, despite the naysayers, the skills acquired in such subjects are hugely transferable and make such graduates, who can learn specific skills on the job, highly employable. So, there's my advocacy for the humanities.
I agree, otherwise a university just becomes a vocational college
While becoming a doctor, a surgeon, a lawyer, a teacher, an academic, a vicar even a nurse or senior police officer requires a degree universities will not be doomed. Even the likes of Goldman Sachs have student only internships.
Her article states 54% of graduates still immediately enter the workforce.
The graduate earnings premium may have declined but is still there:
50 years ago you did not need a degree to become a nurse, you trained on the job
@HYUFD That’s historically correct. But what is your point? You have not expressed a view as to whether or not, or why, you think it is a good thing that nurses now need to be graduates.
If they want to but it should not be mandatory, you also of course have nursing associates now
Healthcare Assistants do what the public thinks that Nurses do. Of course they do not need a degree
PB seems to be dominated by successful men who work in IT, business, law, science and other similar professions. So I feel very lonely in advocating the continuing merits of a liberal education, of learning for learning's sake, and of the huge value of a higher education in history, philosophy, social sciences (including politics), literature, classics, languages, art history, media studies, and so on. Such subjects enhance us as individuals, but also enhance our collective culture in a huge number of intangible ways. And, despite the naysayers, the skills acquired in such subjects are hugely transferable and make such graduates, who can learn specific skills on the job, highly employable. So, there's my advocacy for the humanities.
Indeed so. One man whose writings have enriched my life tremendously is CS Lewis. I was staggered to learn that he's now considered an indicator of far-right radicalisation. Given myself away properly!
Given “The Abolition of Man” the idea that CS Lewis would be a guru to the modern far right is… interesting.
Why does Mandelson think that not being motivated by monetary gain excuses his passing on price sensitive information to Wall Street financiers?
I find it quite probable that he thinks that because he didn’t actually get directly paid the briefcase of cash (see movies) that he did nothing wrong.
That he was bartering power, influence (and ultimately money) is not the same, to him.
They say that all great grifters and conmen have to sell *to themselves* first.
He was just doing the job of managing private sector stakeholders that Tony Blair and Gordon Brown asked him to do.
While becoming a doctor, a surgeon, a lawyer, a teacher, an academic, a vicar even a nurse or senior police officer requires a degree universities will not be doomed. Even the likes of Goldman Sachs have student only internships.
Her article states 54% of graduates still immediately enter the workforce.
The graduate earnings premium may have declined but is still there:
Subtract the 9% loan repayments, and they are a whopping 2% better off.
Assuming (fairly reasonably) that the university intake trends towards being the brigher/more motivated 50% of the population, you'd kind of expect them to average more than 2% higher earnings than the other half of the population whether they went to uni or not - indeed I wouldn't be shocked if the whole 11% differential would have existed between the two groups had none of them gone to university.
(I personally am probably ancidata that points to this - I had offers from several reputable universities to do STEM subjects, including a full fees paid scholarship to Aberystwyth for physics, turned them all down and didn't go to university at all. I've done just fine for myself without wasting three years of my life on a degree, thank you very much.)
This all points to the root problem. For the average uni student on an average course, there is simply no value added - it's an utter waste of time and money.
I'm an employer. My experience is that university degrees below the exceptional (a 1st in Maths from Oxford is still worth something) are completely worthless. Nothing has been learned, no useful abilities have been gained, no meaningful hard or soft skills acquired. It's just £50k and three of the best years of life burnt to start at a place no better than people who roll up to work with me with decent STEM focused A levels at 18.
Top 5-10% of the population should be going to really tough elite grade universities and doing STEM subjects. The rest of them should be joining the workforce at 16 or 18.
Had you gone to uni, you might have escaped the proletariat
Yes, a large part of why the populist right is so anti-university is because they do not want a population that thinks critically and challenges authority. If any one is to go at all it is for technical skills or to do Business Studies.
They have no souls.
The PB massiv seem to be keen on returning university education to the wealthiest 7%.
Keep the scumbag filth down where they belong. Keep social mobility in its box.
I don't know whether I'm in the bloc you mention but far from being anti-university I'm anti young people getting into huge debt with no prospects to make it worthwhile.
The rot set in with Blair's 50% target, which led to grade inflation and the destruction of the filter mechanism that a properly classified degree offered. Now on top of that there's AI
There's a good piece of analysis in the FT on this, arguing that the decline in the university premium is quite unique to the UK and reflects a general collapse in productivity growth in the economy. Having fewer folks going to uni would probably make things worse.
The relative lack of premium jobs in the UK is a business and economy issue, not an oversupply of graduates issue.
I think that one of the bigger problems is the cultural separation between the knowledge class(es) and the managerial class.
The later are taught to fear and despise in depth knowledge.
See the comments from the BritVolt saga about how they will buy in technical knowledge like a bag of turnips. And the statements that it was so good to work with a company run by proper managers, rather than ghastly techies.
PB seems to be dominated by successful men who work in IT, business, law, science and other similar professions. So I feel very lonely in advocating the continuing merits of a liberal education, of learning for learning's sake, and of the huge value of a higher education in history, philosophy, social sciences (including politics), literature, classics, languages, art history, media studies, and so on. Such subjects enhance us as individuals, but also enhance our collective culture in a huge number of intangible ways. And, despite the naysayers, the skills acquired in such subjects are hugely transferable and make such graduates, who can learn specific skills on the job, highly employable. So, there's my advocacy for the humanities.
Indeed so. One man whose writings have enriched my life tremendously is CS Lewis. I was staggered to learn that he's now considered an indicator of far-right radicalisation. Given myself away properly!
He's somebody I always wanted to get into, but never seemed to have the time. I did listen to a BBC Radio adaptation of That Hideous Strength: there's probably a copy in YouTube somewhere.
Iran. After much talk it appears the Iranians have, at least for now, persuaded the US that talks should be about the nuclear issue and nothing else.
If, after the next round, the US brings in other topics again such as ballistic missiles or IRGC international activities & proxies, its a very strong pointer that conflict is going to break out.
It seems the main sticking point is over the 60%+ uranium, Iran has. Despite suggestions that the demand was Iran would stop new enrichment above the civil nuclear 3.5-20% range and then handover its 60%+ stocks, possibly to a 3rd party country, the rumour is Iran is determined to keep some of that stock. Couple of hundred kilos of that kind of level and you got yourself a few nuclear weapons if you have the delivery mechanism to carry it. No one knows how much they have but further enrich to weapons grade and you have more nukes for the same amount of uranium.
Its insurance, Iran knows it. They fear losing it just as much as the consequences of not budging. They are in a difficult spot but so is the US, or at least their President is. He wants a certainty of return of military action, quick and very low home casualties. He might get but the risk managers in the US military have explained that kind of result is possible & not probable and that goes against Trump's style so far. If it goes to a proper dust up Trump is going to have to be willing to break his own history and risk tolerance level.
It's this the Iranians see as their only out, i.e. Trump is depserate to avoid a fight and will tout any old load of shite agreement. The other options for Iran are lose-lose.
If they are wrong in their thinking the Iranian regime is going to take a lot of damage. A reasonable amount is known about where plenty of senior people hide out. Some will go to bunkers if a conflict breaks out but plenty of senior IRGC figures, for example, are now staying in hospitals or in regular tower blocks overnight to give them a chance of getting through a first strike. The orders have gone down the chain about what many units should do if they are left without a comms link to the higher ups. They have prepped but whether it withstands the pressure that can be brought to bear by the US and Israelis for a day, a few days or weeks, no one knows.
PB seems to be dominated by successful men who work in IT, business, law, science and other similar professions. So I feel very lonely in advocating the continuing merits of a liberal education, of learning for learning's sake, and of the huge value of a higher education in history, philosophy, social sciences (including politics), literature, classics, languages, art history, media studies, and so on. Such subjects enhance us as individuals, but also enhance our collective culture in a huge number of intangible ways. And, despite the naysayers, the skills acquired in such subjects are hugely transferable and make such graduates, who can learn specific skills on the job, highly employable. So, there's my advocacy for the humanities.
Absolutely agree with you as somebody who is in both categories (if I count as successful, not for me to say really) - geography degree and ended up in IT without any plan to do that. In fact when I graduated with a BA and not a STEM degree it wasn't a route open to me so I found my way in by accident really. But I had skills all those scientist lacked - being able to talk to people and write in sentences - so had a fairly open path once I worked out where my strengths lay. And I haven't lost my curiosity about the world around me. I'm sure I'm a more rounded person for it.
Iran. After much talk it appears the Iranians have, at least for now, persuaded the US that talks should be about the nuclear issue and nothing else.
If, after the next round, the US brings in other topics again such as ballistic missiles or IRGC international activities & proxies, its a very strong pointer that conflict is going to break out.
It seems the main sticking point is over the 60%+ uranium, Iran has. Despite suggestions that the demand was Iran would stop new enrichment above the civil nuclear 3.5-20% range and then handover its 60%+ stocks, possibly to a 3rd party country, the rumour is Iran is determined to keep some of that stock. Couple of hundred kilos of that kind of level and you got yourself a few nuclear weapons if you have the delivery mechanism to carry it. No one knows how much they have but further enrich to weapons grade and you have more nukes for the same amount of uranium.
Its insurance, Iran knows it. They fear losing it just as much as the consequences of not budging. They are in a difficult spot but so is the US, or at least their President is. He wants a certainty of return of military action, quick and very low home casualties. He might get but the risk managers in the US military have explained that kind of result is possible & not probable and that goes against Trump's style so far. If it goes to a proper dust up Trump is going to have to be willing to break his own history and risk tolerance level.
It's this the Iranians see as their only out, i.e. Trump is depserate to avoid a fight and will tout any old load of shite agreement. The other options for Iran are lose-lose.
If they are wrong in their thinking the Iranian regime is going to take a lot of damage. A reasonable amount is known about where plenty of senior people hide out. Some will go to bunkers if a conflict breaks out but plenty of senior IRGC figures, for example, are now staying in hospitals or in regular tower blocks overnight to give them a chance of getting through a first strike. The orders have gone down the chain about what many units should do if they are left without a comms link to the higher ups. They have prepped but whether it withstands the pressure that can be brought to bear by the US and Israelis for a day, a few days or weeks, no one knows.
“ a few days or weeks”
The professor geezer on Sky tells us, Trump can’t get enough oomph into the game, to keep it up for more than a week. Is this true?
How long you can keep it going must surely depend how hard and fast you set off, and continue to go about it?
Iran. After much talk it appears the Iranians have, at least for now, persuaded the US that talks should be about the nuclear issue and nothing else.
If, after the next round, the US brings in other topics again such as ballistic missiles or IRGC international activities & proxies, its a very strong pointer that conflict is going to break out.
It seems the main sticking point is over the 60%+ uranium, Iran has. Despite suggestions that the demand was Iran would stop new enrichment above the civil nuclear 3.5-20% range and then handover its 60%+ stocks, possibly to a 3rd party country, the rumour is Iran is determined to keep some of that stock. Couple of hundred kilos of that kind of level and you got yourself a few nuclear weapons if you have the delivery mechanism to carry it. No one knows how much they have but further enrich to weapons grade and you have more nukes for the same amount of uranium.
Its insurance, Iran knows it. They fear losing it just as much as the consequences of not budging. They are in a difficult spot but so is the US, or at least their President is. He wants a certainty of return of military action, quick and very low home casualties. He might get but the risk managers in the US military have explained that kind of result is possible & not probable and that goes against Trump's style so far. If it goes to a proper dust up Trump is going to have to be willing to break his own history and risk tolerance level.
It's this the Iranians see as their only out, i.e. Trump is depserate to avoid a fight and will tout any old load of shite agreement. The other options for Iran are lose-lose.
If they are wrong in their thinking the Iranian regime is going to take a lot of damage. A reasonable amount is known about where plenty of senior people hide out. Some will go to bunkers if a conflict breaks out but plenty of senior IRGC figures, for example, are now staying in hospitals or in regular tower blocks overnight to give them a chance of getting through a first strike. The orders have gone down the chain about what many units should do if they are left without a comms link to the higher ups. They have prepped but whether it withstands the pressure that can be brought to bear by the US and Israelis for a day, a few days or weeks, no one knows.
“ a few days or weeks”
The professor geezer on Sky tells us, Trump can’t get enough oomph into the game, to keep it up for more than a week. Is this true?
How long you can keep it going must surely depend how hard and fast you set off, and continue to go about it?
The story is that the US is a bit short on munitions. Depends on what munitions. Attack-wise not sure they are short at all, air-defence possibly but that assumes they are going to have a big ongoing task. Iran can have hundreds of ballistic missiles but if you dont have launchers then the missiles are as much use as a chocolate teapot. One of the reasons for such a heavy air force presence (assuming combined Israeli and US forces) is the potential for constant strike capacity over Iran to attack the TELS as they trundle out of hiding. Thus by design you mitigate the supply issue, if one exists.
The person familiar with discussions said two key considerations include the risks of depleting U.S. munition stockpiles, which the administration worries could give China an opening to take Taiwan, and the likelihood of American casualties should the U.S. go for the most aggressive option.
While becoming a doctor, a surgeon, a lawyer, a teacher, an academic, a vicar even a nurse or senior police officer requires a degree universities will not be doomed. Even the likes of Goldman Sachs have student only internships.
Her article states 54% of graduates still immediately enter the workforce.
The graduate earnings premium may have declined but is still there:
Subtract the 9% loan repayments, and they are a whopping 2% better off.
Assuming (fairly reasonably) that the university intake trends towards being the brigher/more motivated 50% of the population, you'd kind of expect them to average more than 2% higher earnings than the other half of the population whether they went to uni or not - indeed I wouldn't be shocked if the whole 11% differential would have existed between the two groups had none of them gone to university.
(I personally am probably ancidata that points to this - I had offers from several reputable universities to do STEM subjects, including a full fees paid scholarship to Aberystwyth for physics, turned them all down and didn't go to university at all. I've done just fine for myself without wasting three years of my life on a degree, thank you very much.)
This all points to the root problem. For the average uni student on an average course, there is simply no value added - it's an utter waste of time and money.
I'm an employer. My experience is that university degrees below the exceptional (a 1st in Maths from Oxford is still worth something) are completely worthless. Nothing has been learned, no useful abilities have been gained, no meaningful hard or soft skills acquired. It's just £50k and three of the best years of life burnt to start at a place no better than people who roll up to work with me with decent STEM focused A levels at 18.
Top 5-10% of the population should be going to really tough elite grade universities and doing STEM subjects. The rest of them should be joining the workforce at 16 or 18.
Had you gone to uni, you might have escaped the proletariat
Yes, a large part of why the populist right is so anti-university is because they do not want a population that thinks critically and challenges authority. If any one is to go at all it is for technical skills or to do Business Studies.
They have no souls.
The PB massiv seem to be keen on returning university education to the wealthiest 7%.
Keep the scumbag filth down where they belong. Keep social mobility in its box.
Brightest, not wealthiest.
Select on merit. Probably fund it with loans similar to now - possibly even with grants.
The hardest part of the problem is probably designing ways of testing for ability / brightness which can't be gamed by the private school sector, but without resorting to crude measures like quotas.
As for socal mobility, how does it help the (litterally) average kid to go and spend three years (and ~£50k) on death by PowerPoint doing Tiddlywinks Studies at Nowhereshire University (formerly Dumpofatown Pollytechnic) before resuming their career stacking shelves in their local supermarket?
If universities actually produced graduates capable of critical thinking or people willing to challenge authority, I might be more sympathetic, but the reality is that most of them just churn out brainless sheeple. I know of what I speak - I employ some victims of modern uni, and have interviewed plenty more, and I've yet to meet one where they wouldn't have been better off in terms of both cash and knowledge by skipping uni and working for me straight from school.
The Greens are now the favourites in the betting markets and the polls. Though Labour have a better GOTV and canvass data operation I suspect and more postal votes in the bag most likely and Reform could also win with a split left of centre vote
I suspect that like in most rock-solid seats, the canvass data is patchy at best. Since when has there been a need here to GOTV? Not until this by-election.
Labour in particular has been canvassing hard all campaign
Remember many moons ago on pb after the Crewe byelection, Nick Palmer explaining how he was horrified that Labour didn't have any historic canvas records at all as Gwyneth Dunwoody had always won easily. They had lots of volunteers canvassing that byelection, but no history to know who was reliable, how solid they were etc so the value of the canvassing was very much reduced. Enthusiasm doesn't make up for a lack of historical data.
That said I doubt the Greens or Reform in Gorton have that much in the way of historic constituency wide canvas data either so all in the same boat.
While becoming a doctor, a surgeon, a lawyer, a teacher, an academic, a vicar even a nurse or senior police officer requires a degree universities will not be doomed. Even the likes of Goldman Sachs have student only internships.
Her article states 54% of graduates still immediately enter the workforce.
The graduate earnings premium may have declined but is still there:
Subtract the 9% loan repayments, and they are a whopping 2% better off.
Assuming (fairly reasonably) that the university intake trends towards being the brigher/more motivated 50% of the population, you'd kind of expect them to average more than 2% higher earnings than the other half of the population whether they went to uni or not - indeed I wouldn't be shocked if the whole 11% differential would have existed between the two groups had none of them gone to university.
(I personally am probably ancidata that points to this - I had offers from several reputable universities to do STEM subjects, including a full fees paid scholarship to Aberystwyth for physics, turned them all down and didn't go to university at all. I've done just fine for myself without wasting three years of my life on a degree, thank you very much.)
This all points to the root problem. For the average uni student on an average course, there is simply no value added - it's an utter waste of time and money.
I'm an employer. My experience is that university degrees below the exceptional (a 1st in Maths from Oxford is still worth something) are completely worthless. Nothing has been learned, no useful abilities have been gained, no meaningful hard or soft skills acquired. It's just £50k and three of the best years of life burnt to start at a place no better than people who roll up to work with me with decent STEM focused A levels at 18.
Top 5-10% of the population should be going to really tough elite grade universities and doing STEM subjects. The rest of them should be joining the workforce at 16 or 18.
Had you gone to uni, you might have escaped the proletariat
Yes, a large part of why the populist right is so anti-university is because they do not want a population that thinks critically and challenges authority. If any one is to go at all it is for technical skills or to do Business Studies.
They have no souls.
The PB massiv seem to be keen on returning university education to the wealthiest 7%.
Keep the scumbag filth down where they belong. Keep social mobility in its box.
Brightest, not wealthiest.
Select on merit. Probably fund it with loans similar to now - possibly even with grants.
The hardest part of the problem is probably designing ways of testing for ability / brightness which can't be gamed by the private school sector, but without resorting to crude measures like quotas.
As for socal mobility, how does it help the (litterally) average kid to go and spend three years (and ~£50k) on death by PowerPoint doing Tiddlywinks Studies at Nowhereshire University (formerly Dumpofatown Pollytechnic) before resuming their career stacking shelves in their local supermarket?
If universities actually produced graduates capable of critical thinking or people willing to challenge authority, I might be more sympathetic, but the reality is that most of them just churn out brainless sheeple. I know of what I speak - I employ some victims of modern uni, and have interviewed plenty more, and I've yet to meet one where they wouldn't have been better off in terms of both cash and knowledge by skipping uni and working for me straight from school.
The state of Texas has a system whereby if you are in the top 5% of your high school class you get automatic admission to the University of Texas in Austin and in top 10% get automatic admission for any other Texas university sponsored by the state. So it puts a student from the roughest part of Houston on the same footing as a student from a upmarket suburb. Whatever school you are in you have to be top of the class. Helped social mobility as well and targeted the clever kids.
While becoming a doctor, a surgeon, a lawyer, a teacher, an academic, a vicar even a nurse or senior police officer requires a degree universities will not be doomed. Even the likes of Goldman Sachs have student only internships.
Her article states 54% of graduates still immediately enter the workforce.
The graduate earnings premium may have declined but is still there:
Subtract the 9% loan repayments, and they are a whopping 2% better off.
Assuming (fairly reasonably) that the university intake trends towards being the brigher/more motivated 50% of the population, you'd kind of expect them to average more than 2% higher earnings than the other half of the population whether they went to uni or not - indeed I wouldn't be shocked if the whole 11% differential would have existed between the two groups had none of them gone to university.
(I personally am probably ancidata that points to this - I had offers from several reputable universities to do STEM subjects, including a full fees paid scholarship to Aberystwyth for physics, turned them all down and didn't go to university at all. I've done just fine for myself without wasting three years of my life on a degree, thank you very much.)
This all points to the root problem. For the average uni student on an average course, there is simply no value added - it's an utter waste of time and money.
I'm an employer. My experience is that university degrees below the exceptional (a 1st in Maths from Oxford is still worth something) are completely worthless. Nothing has been learned, no useful abilities have been gained, no meaningful hard or soft skills acquired. It's just £50k and three of the best years of life burnt to start at a place no better than people who roll up to work with me with decent STEM focused A levels at 18.
Top 5-10% of the population should be going to really tough elite grade universities and doing STEM subjects. The rest of them should be joining the workforce at 16 or 18.
Had you gone to uni, you might have escaped the proletariat
Yes, a large part of why the populist right is so anti-university is because they do not want a population that thinks critically and challenges authority. If any one is to go at all it is for technical skills or to do Business Studies.
They have no souls.
The PB massiv seem to be keen on returning university education to the wealthiest 7%.
Keep the scumbag filth down where they belong. Keep social mobility in its box.
Brightest, not wealthiest.
Select on merit. Probably fund it with loans similar to now - possibly even with grants.
The hardest part of the problem is probably designing ways of testing for ability / brightness which can't be gamed by the private school sector, but without resorting to crude measures like quotas.
As for socal mobility, how does it help the (litterally) average kid to go and spend three years (and ~£50k) on death by PowerPoint doing Tiddlywinks Studies at Nowhereshire University (formerly Dumpofatown Pollytechnic) before resuming their career stacking shelves in their local supermarket?
If universities actually produced graduates capable of critical thinking or people willing to challenge authority, I might be more sympathetic, but the reality is that most of them just churn out brainless sheeple. I know of what I speak - I employ some victims of modern uni, and have interviewed plenty more, and I've yet to meet one where they wouldn't have been better off in terms of both cash and knowledge by skipping uni and working for me straight from school.
The state of Texas has a system whereby if you are in the top 5% of your high school class you get automatic admission to the University of Texas in Austin and in top 10% get automatic admission for any other Texas university sponsored by the state. So it puts a student from the roughest part of Houston on the same footing as a student from a upmarket suburb. Whatever school you are in you have to be top of the class. Helped social mobility as well and targeted the clever kids.
While that's a good system, it's also open to gaming: send your kid to an expensive private school, until the last year of High School, then move him to a sink school so he's the kid with the best SATs from South Houston High.
The whole story is absurd. Never mind that Long Haul Lindsay should maybe have thought twice about going to the British Virgin Islands given his nickname rhymes with Air Miles Andy, surely we have an extradition treaty with them. Surely the clue is in the name.
I'm calling for everyone to resign.
Just because a country have an extradition treaty with the U.K. doesn’t make going there anymore or less doing a runner.
I get that some of Mandy’s friends are upset that he is being treated just like everyone else. Rather than arrest-by-appointment when he decides to return from holiday.
As I recall, in government, Mandy backed the policy of taking passports from fathers who had family court judgements against them, relating to divorce.
And now Mandelson has been arrested, the government is using this as an excuse for delaying the release of documents. Turned out nice again!
This farce does not diminish my suspicion that the police used the power of arrest needlessly in the cases of both Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor and Mandelson. John Rentoul, Independent email.
The whole story is absurd. Never mind that Long Haul Lindsay should maybe have thought twice about going to the British Virgin Islands given his nickname rhymes with Air Miles Andy, surely we have an extradition treaty with them. Surely the clue is in the name.
I'm calling for everyone to resign.
Just because a country have an extradition treaty with the U.K. doesn’t make going there anymore or less doing a runner.
I get that some of Mandy’s friends are upset that he is being treated just like everyone else. Rather than arrest-by-appointment when he decides to return from holiday.
As I recall, in government, Mandy backed the policy of taking passports from fathers who had family court judgements against them, relating to divorce.
And now Mandelson has been arrested, the government is using this as an excuse for delaying the release of documents. Turned out nice again!
This farce does not diminish my suspicion that the police used the power of arrest needlessly in the cases of both Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor and Mandelson. John Rentoul, Independent email.
The story I heard was that they had to arrest Mandy, in order to give him bail conditions that prevented him from leaving the country.
I’m sure both men could have gone with their lawyers to a police station by appointment though, rather than police turning up to their homes. Neither was going to put up a physical fight.
The cynic in me says that the ‘authorities’ wanted the publicity of the two arrests.
While becoming a doctor, a surgeon, a lawyer, a teacher, an academic, a vicar even a nurse or senior police officer requires a degree universities will not be doomed. Even the likes of Goldman Sachs have student only internships.
Her article states 54% of graduates still immediately enter the workforce.
The graduate earnings premium may have declined but is still there:
Subtract the 9% loan repayments, and they are a whopping 2% better off.
Assuming (fairly reasonably) that the university intake trends towards being the brigher/more motivated 50% of the population, you'd kind of expect them to average more than 2% higher earnings than the other half of the population whether they went to uni or not - indeed I wouldn't be shocked if the whole 11% differential would have existed between the two groups had none of them gone to university.
(I personally am probably ancidata that points to this - I had offers from several reputable universities to do STEM subjects, including a full fees paid scholarship to Aberystwyth for physics, turned them all down and didn't go to university at all. I've done just fine for myself without wasting three years of my life on a degree, thank you very much.)
This all points to the root problem. For the average uni student on an average course, there is simply no value added - it's an utter waste of time and money.
I'm an employer. My experience is that university degrees below the exceptional (a 1st in Maths from Oxford is still worth something) are completely worthless. Nothing has been learned, no useful abilities have been gained, no meaningful hard or soft skills acquired. It's just £50k and three of the best years of life burnt to start at a place no better than people who roll up to work with me with decent STEM focused A levels at 18.
Top 5-10% of the population should be going to really tough elite grade universities and doing STEM subjects. The rest of them should be joining the workforce at 16 or 18.
Had you gone to uni, you might have escaped the proletariat
Yes, a large part of why the populist right is so anti-university is because they do not want a population that thinks critically and challenges authority. If any one is to go at all it is for technical skills or to do Business Studies.
They have no souls.
The PB massiv seem to be keen on returning university education to the wealthiest 7%.
Keep the scumbag filth down where they belong. Keep social mobility in its box.
Brightest, not wealthiest.
Select on merit. Probably fund it with loans similar to now - possibly even with grants.
The hardest part of the problem is probably designing ways of testing for ability / brightness which can't be gamed by the private school sector, but without resorting to crude measures like quotas.
As for socal mobility, how does it help the (litterally) average kid to go and spend three years (and ~£50k) on death by PowerPoint doing Tiddlywinks Studies at Nowhereshire University (formerly Dumpofatown Pollytechnic) before resuming their career stacking shelves in their local supermarket?
If universities actually produced graduates capable of critical thinking or people willing to challenge authority, I might be more sympathetic, but the reality is that most of them just churn out brainless sheeple. I know of what I speak - I employ some victims of modern uni, and have interviewed plenty more, and I've yet to meet one where they wouldn't have been better off in terms of both cash and knowledge by skipping uni and working for me straight from school.
The state of Texas has a system whereby if you are in the top 5% of your high school class you get automatic admission to the University of Texas in Austin and in top 10% get automatic admission for any other Texas university sponsored by the state. So it puts a student from the roughest part of Houston on the same footing as a student from a upmarket suburb. Whatever school you are in you have to be top of the class. Helped social mobility as well and targeted the clever kids.
While that's a good system, it's also open to gaming: send your kid to an expensive private school, until the last year of High School, then move him to a sink school so he's the kid with the best SATs from South Houston High.
Comments
L'Etat c'est moi.
How about a government can have a legal debt headed up by Cabinet Attendee, responsible for legal council to government, but the Nations Attorney General is an appointment by Parliament and Head of State, possibly sits as cross bench peer?
If a PM and government needs advice from an Attorney General, sometimes it needs to be what they don’t want to hear.
Worked for me, though the real break was my employer going into receivership just as there was an upturn in my industry.
There are senior managers at my current company who came through the graduate training scheme and think they're worth it, but they are no better than the people who graduated in the years before or after them when there was no graduate recruitment, they just got lucky with timing.
(Incidentally, I like the little ceremonies that you use for the announcements. To me, those ceremonies say that you think you are so good at elections that you can announce the results without any big fuss.)
King Andy would have pissed the by election
However that depends on no recounts.
And not only do we have a three way photo finish.
There's also the possibility of the Tories needing a recount for their 5% deposit.
If labour lose they will have a problem from the right and left
Assuming most of them are socially Conservative Muslims.
You can't just add them to the pro trans pro drugs Greens en masse.
They certainly aren't going Reform.
They may not vote.
But I'd be surprised if at least 3 of the 10% if not more don't vote Labour to stop the other two.
Position: Andy Burnham was appointed Secretary of State for Health in June 2009 during Gordon Brown's premiership and served until May 2010.
Key Initiatives: During his time in office, Burnham launched an independent inquiry into high mortality rates at Stafford Hospital, which revealed systemic failures in care provided by the Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust. This inquiry was critical in highlighting the need for reforms in patient safety and care standards within the NHS.
High Mortality rates were found up to and including 2008 in earlier report
As I remember you insisted that Labour weren't going to win the last general election.
James, 23 and from Great Stukeley, was educated at pounds 4,500-a-year Kimbolton School, near Peterborough. He left with three A-levels to become a management trainee at Marks & Spencer.
Bonus point for anyone who can guess who James is.
Gaza and Starmer's reaction to it has cleaved off what was once a solid Labour vote. Trans and drug policy are far outweighed by that.
Epstein used UK as hub to traffic scores of women
6 police forces are understood to be investigating whether potentially scores of victims were trafficked on Epstein's privare jet into UK commercial airports as well as RAF bases including Northolt
(Incidentally, the different US states differ greatly in how good they are at elections.)
That would have been a brilliant strategy.
So I feel very lonely in advocating the continuing merits of a liberal education, of learning for learning's sake, and of the huge value of a higher education in history, philosophy, social sciences (including politics), literature, classics, languages, art history, media studies, and so on. Such subjects enhance us as individuals, but also enhance our collective culture in a huge number of intangible ways. And, despite the naysayers, the skills acquired in such subjects are hugely transferable and make such graduates, who can learn specific skills on the job, highly employable.
So, there's my advocacy for the humanities.
I did an engineering degree to set me up on a career.
I did a PPE degree to broaden my mind.
There's the difference.
I do not think £50k in debt is a good burden to put upon those who study that.
I do not think those who study should face a 9% higher income tax rate, even if they end their humanity degree (or a STEM one to be fair) with a minimum wage job, which is how Plan 5 operates . . . and if the others thresholds remain frozen for much longer, and NMW continues to rise, it will apply to them before long too.
Everyone who earns the same amount should pay the same amount of tax.
The issue for me is not people studying, it is the punitive tax system after they have.
I listened to his ‘Great Lives’ the other day, and thought I’d read (listen to) one of his books… it was inevitable I suppose
And what does it consist of?
At the moment nothing other than academic learning is valued till the age of 18.
Then folk are astonished that those who thrived under such a regimen want to go to University rather than learn a trade when they have no idea whether they have the aptitude.
And that those who didn't aren't somehow incredibly motivated to learn summat different. But instead utterly disillusioned.
So that's all right.
Set people up for life, so they can earn well, live well, communicate well, be mature and live a life well lived. Everyone born deserves this opportunity because as families, communities and society’s it is going to make us stronger if everyone has this opportunity.
That he was bartering power, influence (and ultimately money) is not the same, to him.
They say that all great grifters and conmen have to sell *to themselves* first.
The later are taught to fear and despise in depth knowledge.
See the comments from the BritVolt saga about how they will buy in technical knowledge like a bag of turnips. And the statements that it was so good to work with a company run by proper managers, rather than ghastly techies.
If, after the next round, the US brings in other topics again such as ballistic missiles or IRGC international activities & proxies, its a very strong pointer that conflict is going to break out.
It seems the main sticking point is over the 60%+ uranium, Iran has. Despite suggestions that the demand was Iran would stop new enrichment above the civil nuclear 3.5-20% range and then handover its 60%+ stocks, possibly to a 3rd party country, the rumour is Iran is determined to keep some of that stock. Couple of hundred kilos of that kind of level and you got yourself a few nuclear weapons if you have the delivery mechanism to carry it. No one knows how much they have but further enrich to weapons grade and you have more nukes for the same amount of uranium.
Its insurance, Iran knows it. They fear losing it just as much as the consequences of not budging. They are in a difficult spot but so is the US, or at least their President is. He wants a certainty of return of military action, quick and very low home casualties. He might get but the risk managers in the US military have explained that kind of result is possible & not probable and that goes against Trump's style so far. If it goes to a proper dust up Trump is going to have to be willing to break his own history and risk tolerance level.
It's this the Iranians see as their only out, i.e. Trump is depserate to avoid a fight and will tout any old load of shite agreement. The other options for Iran are lose-lose.
If they are wrong in their thinking the Iranian regime is going to take a lot of damage. A reasonable amount is known about where plenty of senior people hide out. Some will go to bunkers if a conflict breaks out but plenty of senior IRGC figures, for example, are now staying in hospitals or in regular tower blocks overnight to give them a chance of getting through a first strike. The orders have gone down the chain about what many units should do if they are left without a comms link to the higher ups. They have prepped but whether it withstands the pressure that can be brought to bear by the US and Israelis for a day, a few days or weeks, no one knows.
The professor geezer on Sky tells us, Trump can’t get enough oomph into the game, to keep it up for more than a week. Is this true?
How long you can keep it going must surely depend how hard and fast you set off, and continue to go about it?
The person familiar with discussions said two key considerations include the risks of depleting U.S. munition stockpiles, which the administration worries could give China an opening to take Taiwan, and the likelihood of American casualties should the U.S. go for the most aggressive option.
Select on merit. Probably fund it with loans similar to now - possibly even with grants.
The hardest part of the problem is probably designing ways of testing for ability / brightness which can't be gamed by the private school sector, but without resorting to crude measures like quotas.
As for socal mobility, how does it help the (litterally) average kid to go and spend three years (and ~£50k) on death by PowerPoint doing Tiddlywinks Studies at Nowhereshire University (formerly Dumpofatown Pollytechnic) before resuming their career stacking shelves in their local supermarket?
If universities actually produced graduates capable of critical thinking or people willing to challenge authority, I might be more sympathetic, but the reality is that most of them just churn out brainless sheeple. I know of what I speak - I employ some victims of modern uni, and have interviewed plenty more, and I've yet to meet one where they wouldn't have been better off in terms of both cash and knowledge by skipping uni and working for me straight from school.
That said I doubt the Greens or Reform in Gorton have that much in the way of historic constituency wide canvas data either so all in the same boat.
John Rentoul, Independent email.
https://x.com/wallstreetmav/status/2026697374790242326
I’m sure both men could have gone with their lawyers to a police station by appointment though, rather than police turning up to their homes. Neither was going to put up a physical fight.
The cynic in me says that the ‘authorities’ wanted the publicity of the two arrests.