politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Now the talk is of a Donald Trump Sarah Palin ticket

Scott_P said:

@BBCNormanS: Corbyn aide on Falklands "There shd be a dialogue (with Argentina ) about sovereignty with no preconditions "

Scott_P said:

@BBCNormanS: Corbyn aide on Falklands "There shd be a dialogue (with Argentina ) about sovereignty with no preconditions

Scott_P said:

@BBCNormanS: Corbyn aide on Falklands "There shd be a dialogue (with Argentina ) about sovereignty with no preconditions "

RobD said:

Alanbrooke said:

Charles said:

Alanbrooke said:

Charles said:

MaxPB said:

RobD said:

Pulpstar said:

I think Uni when I went had it about right, fees of ~ £3000 a year, ~£12k of debt on graduation. High recovery rate.

You are making me feel old. Only paid the ~£1k a year, although had ~£12k of debt at the end because of a four year course. The loans were not just for the fees, but also living expenses (beer).

I know me too!

I was pre-fees... but it was ludicrous that the taxpayer paid up for me to spend 3 years educating myself.

Why ?

Don't you believe in a knowledge economy ?

Is it equally ludicrous that the taxpayer paid for primary education ?

The taxpayer makes his money back from more of us educated folk paying higher rate taxes.

Sure. But my parents would have paid for me to go to university anyway so effectively I was a free rider. I'm all in favour of subsidising value added courses as a way of encouraging people to study things that are useful for the economy.

I'm afraid Charles the issue for you is your background, you had options which werent open to most people. My view remains we should fund tertiry education and that the loans system is a huge screw up which impoverishes the young and the bill for which will still come back to the taxpayer.

Would you have it paid for solely out of general taxation?

TheWhiteRabbit said:

Pulpstar said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

An Iraqi lawyer is being paid £150 an hour by the Government to help build war crimes cases against British troops, it has emerged.

British-trained Zainab Al Qurnawi is representing the families of Iraqi civilians who were allegedly wrongfully killed during the Western invasion of the country.

She is claiming money from the State as part of the investigation into UK soldiers - even though all of the troops involved have been cleared of any wrongdoing.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3408249/Iraqi-lawyer-paid-150-hour-build-cases-against-British-troops.html

Mrs Bucket will be pleased...

Probably be inundated with work now everyone knows he's only charging £150 an hour.

I, as a paralegal, bill out at £210...

taffys said:

The bottom line is: if you're a higher-rate taxpayer, make whatever pension contributions you can before April. It ain't gonna get more generous, that's for sure

The measure itself is inconsequential to me, though I am a higher rate taxpayer and do stand to lose money.

I post the article because of the wider issue. What drives Osborne's budgets is nothing more than short term publicity for Osborne.The article suggests the penny is dropping with conservative backbenchers. They now realise that Osborne does not have a conservative bone in his body, and that the house is being re mortgaged to support his personal ambitions and nothing else.

SimonStClare said:

Scott_P said:

@BBCNormanS: Corbyn aide on Falklands "There shd be a dialogue (with Argentina ) about sovereignty with no preconditions "

The Falkland Isles are a British Overseas Territory – which bit does Jeremy not understand?

RobD said:

viewcode said:

RobD said:

Charles said:

MaxPB said:

RobD said:

Pulpstar said:

I think Uni when I went had it about right, fees of ~ £3000 a year, ~£12k of debt on graduation. High recovery rate.

You are making me feel old. Only paid the ~£1k a year, although had ~£12k of debt at the end because of a four year course. The loans were not just for the fees, but also living expenses (beer).

I know me too!

I was pre-fees... but it was ludicrous that the taxpayer paid up for me to spend 3 years educating myself.

It was for the greater good.

...the greater good

Snap! lol

MaxPB said:

Alanbrooke said:

Charles said:

MaxPB said:

RobD said:

Pulpstar said:

I think Uni when I went had it about right, fees of ~ £3000 a year, ~£12k of debt on graduation. High recovery rate.

You are making me feel old. Only paid the ~£1k a year, although had ~£12k of debt at the end because of a four year course. The loans were not just for the fees, but also living expenses (beer).

I know me too!

I was pre-fees... but it was ludicrous that the taxpayer paid up for me to spend 3 years educating myself.

Why ?

Don't you believe in a knowledge economy ?

Is it equally ludicrous that the taxpayer paid for primary education ?

The taxpayer makes his money back from more of us educated folk paying higher rate taxes.

It doesn't make sense with 50% of all people ending up at university. When attendance was 25% or below then grants made sense as the courses held a much higher value, therefore the graduate would go one to earn a higher amount of money and repay it. I can't say the same for London Met students doing marketing studies though.

taffys said:

''Probably be inundated with work now everyone knows he's only charging £150 an hour.''

Apparently, David Cameron is 'deeply concerned' by this.

Whilst the campaign to persecute our troops intensifies....

MarqueeMark said:

SimonStClare said:

Scott_P said:

@BBCNormanS: Corbyn aide on Falklands "There shd be a dialogue (with Argentina ) about sovereignty with no preconditions "

The Falkland Isles are a British Overseas Territory – which bit does Jeremy not understand?

Jeremy Corbyn still believes, deep down, that he can run the country.

It's just that the country is Argentina....

DavidL said:

viewcode said:

DavidL said:

rottenborough said:

Labour may look utterly unelectable now, but what if some of the doom-sayers at Davos are right and another gigantic, asset-bubble fuelled crash is about to hit us?

You've been reading AEP again. Really, its not a good idea.

Is AEP actually rubbish? He writes *terribly* (consistently using overcomplex phrasing, obscure references, non-English tags) but I find if you sit down and work you what he's actually saying it's quite interesting. But I am a bear of very little brain and I have no idea whether his wideranging worldview and sweeping conclusions are actually gibberish or not. I know he's been wrong on the collapse of the Euro, but that was a common mistake of the Anglophone commentariat. Has he been wrong on other things as well?

He was, and continues to be wrong about deflation, inflation, sovereign solvency, the German Constitutional Court and the Euro and many other matters (Robert will no doubt give the details if he is around, some of them are quite bizarre). But to be honest it is his writing style that bugs me the most. Prices never fall, they "crash". Every movement or even non movement is hyperbolically described.

Today's effort is pretty typical. He has found a kindred spirit who thinks we now have a worse debt bubble than we had in 2008. This is rubbish but it is not enough for it to be a concern; it has to be the end of the world as we know it. All counter-measures are "exhausted". Presumably that means that no more QE, for example is possible?

Sometimes, I will admit, it is possible to extract some interesting statistical information from his pieces. But he really needs to calm down.

Alanbrooke said:

Charles said:

Alanbrooke said:

Charles said:

MaxPB said:

RobD said:

Pulpstar said:

I think Uni when I went had it about right, fees of ~ £3000 a year, ~£12k of debt on graduation. High recovery rate.

You are making me feel old. Only paid the ~£1k a year, although had ~£12k of debt at the end because of a four year course. The loans were not just for the fees, but also living expenses (beer).

I know me too!

I was pre-fees... but it was ludicrous that the taxpayer paid up for me to spend 3 years educating myself.

Why ?

Don't you believe in a knowledge economy ?

Is it equally ludicrous that the taxpayer paid for primary education ?

The taxpayer makes his money back from more of us educated folk paying higher rate taxes.

Sure. But my parents would have paid for me to go to university anyway so effectively I was a free rider. I'm all in favour of subsidising value added courses as a way of encouraging people to study things that are useful for the economy.

I'm afraid Charles the issue for you is your background, you had options which werent open to most people. My view remains we should fund tertiry education and that the loans system is a huge screw up which impoverishes the young and the bill for which will still come back to the taxpayer.

JosiasJessop said:

I *so* want this:

http://www.outdoorhub.com/news/2016/01/18/photos-heckler-koch-ar500-builds-mandalorian-ballistic-armor/

TheWhiteRabbit said:

Pulpstar said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

An Iraqi lawyer is being paid £150 an hour by the Government to help build war crimes cases against British troops, it has emerged.

British-trained Zainab Al Qurnawi is representing the families of Iraqi civilians who were allegedly wrongfully killed during the Western invasion of the country.

She is claiming money from the State as part of the investigation into UK soldiers - even though all of the troops involved have been cleared of any wrongdoing.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3408249/Iraqi-lawyer-paid-150-hour-build-cases-against-British-troops.html

Mrs Bucket will be pleased...

Probably be inundated with work now everyone knows he's only charging £150 an hour.

I, as a paralegal, bill out at £210...

MarqueeMark said:

Scrapheap_as_was said:

Falklands sovereignty - now there's a vote-winning front for Labour to move on to.

There are no votes for Labour to be won over the Falklands. And large numbers to be lost. Even the most disinterested voter will have sussed that only three sheep and two penguins on the islands think his position has any attractions. The Falkland islanders have decided that whatever Corbyn might want for them, they want to stay British. That should be end of. STFU. Go away.

But he keeps picking at the scab, determinedly ensuring it will leave a scar for Labour.

Alanbrooke said:

MaxPB said:

Alanbrooke said:

Charles said:

MaxPB said:

RobD said:

Pulpstar said:

I think Uni when I went had it about right, fees of ~ £3000 a year, ~£12k of debt on graduation. High recovery rate.

You are making me feel old. Only paid the ~£1k a year, although had ~£12k of debt at the end because of a four year course. The loans were not just for the fees, but also living expenses (beer).

I know me too!

I was pre-fees... but it was ludicrous that the taxpayer paid up for me to spend 3 years educating myself.

Why ?

Don't you believe in a knowledge economy ?

Is it equally ludicrous that the taxpayer paid for primary education ?

The taxpayer makes his money back from more of us educated folk paying higher rate taxes.

It doesn't make sense with 50% of all people ending up at university. When attendance was 25% or below then grants made sense as the courses held a much higher value, therefore the graduate would go one to earn a higher amount of money and repay it. I can't say the same for London Met students doing marketing studies though.

Your simply saying the whole premise of degrees leading onto higher slaries is a con. I agree.

However currently we have a government which wants to let the problem roll and dupe the young into acquiring £40k of debt.

Richard_Nabavi said:

MarqueeMark said:

Well quite. But don't let a bit of law get in the way of Labour making feeble excuses for their own inadequacies.

More likely, even if Labour had spent three times what the Tories spent, it would not have been enough to convince the voters that Ed Miliband should be their Prime Minister. Putting forward lots more posters and pumping literature into all letter boxes - all with the purpose to promote the idea of Prime Minister Ed Miliband - would probably have led Labour to an even worse defeat...

They could have afforded a much bigger Edstone, though. That would surely have clinched it for them.

MaxPB said:

Alanbrooke said:

MaxPB said:

Alanbrooke said:

Charles said:

MaxPB said:

RobD said:

Pulpstar said:

I think Uni when I went had it about right, fees of ~ £3000 a year, ~£12k of debt on graduation. High recovery rate.

You are making me feel old. Only paid the ~£1k a year, although had ~£12k of debt at the end because of a four year course. The loans were not just for the fees, but also living expenses (beer).

I know me too!

I was pre-fees... but it was ludicrous that the taxpayer paid up for me to spend 3 years educating myself.

Why ?

Don't you believe in a knowledge economy ?

Is it equally ludicrous that the taxpayer paid for primary education ?

The taxpayer makes his money back from more of us educated folk paying higher rate taxes.

It doesn't make sense with 50% of all people ending up at university. When attendance was 25% or below then grants made sense as the courses held a much higher value, therefore the graduate would go one to earn a higher amount of money and repay it. I can't say the same for London Met students doing marketing studies though.

Your simply saying the whole premise of degrees leading onto higher slaries is a con. I agree.

However currently we have a government which wants to let the problem roll and dupe the young into acquiring £40k of debt.

I'm in favour of reducing fees for proper courses and uncapping them (with no loans) for the guff.

MarqueeMark said:

RobD said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

MarqueeMark said:

Well quite. But don't let a bit of law get in the way of Labour making feeble excuses for their own inadequacies.

More likely, even if Labour had spent three times what the Tories spent, it would not have been enough to convince the voters that Ed Miliband should be their Prime Minister. Putting forward lots more posters and pumping literature into all letter boxes - all with the purpose to promote the idea of Prime Minister Ed Miliband - would probably have led Labour to an even worse defeat...

They could have afforded a much bigger Edstone, though. That would surely have clinched it for them.

Has the original been tracked down? Or has it been smashed up and hidden in the four corners of the realm?

A plucky team of constituency workers from Doncaster are currently lugging it towards Mount Doom, the only place it can be safely destroyed....

MarqueeMark said:

Scrapheap_as_was said:

Falklands sovereignty - now there's a vote-winning front for Labour to move on to.

But he keeps picking at the scab, determinedly ensuring it will leave a scar for Labour.

taffys said:

''Certainly not Maggie, by your reasoning.''

Well maybe, but there's the thing. Maggie inherited an economy akin to that of a former eastern block. It took decades to turn it around.

The modern British economy is (thanks to her entirely) a money machine. Any conservative chancellor worth his salt should be able to balance its books and its not unreasonable to expect the books to be balanced after almost six years in the job.

Alanbrooke said:

Charles said:

Alanbrooke said:

Charles said:

Alanbrooke said:

Charles said:

MaxPB said:

RobD said:

Pulpstar said:

I think Uni when I went had it about right, fees of ~ £3000 a year, ~£12k of debt on graduation. High recovery rate.

You are making me feel old. Only paid the ~£1k a year, although had ~£12k of debt at the end because of a four year course. The loans were not just for the fees, but also living expenses (beer).

I know me too!

I was pre-fees... but it was ludicrous that the taxpayer paid up for me to spend 3 years educating myself.

Why ?

Don't you believe in a knowledge economy ?

Is it equally ludicrous that the taxpayer paid for primary education ?

The taxpayer makes his money back from more of us educated folk paying higher rate taxes.

Sure. But my parents would have paid for me to go to university anyway so effectively I was a free rider. I'm all in favour of subsidising value added courses as a way of encouraging people to study things that are useful for the economy.

I'm afraid Charles the issue for you is your background, you had options which werent open to most people. My view remains we should fund tertiry education and that the loans system is a huge screw up which impoverishes the young and the bill for which will still come back to the taxpayer.

And my view is that we should fund worthwhile courses at quality institutions for students for whom it makes sense. At the same time we need to find a way to rebuild the vocational sector without the historical stigma. There are a lot of people for who 3 years at a pseudo-academic institution makes no sense in terms of personal development - and it makes no sense for the government to fund it either.

If you can reduce the scope of the obligation, then funding should be generous.

Yes I'd agree on the vocational route. Germany has a much better way of linking vocational and academic with a system that allows all to progress through it. The "stigma" as you call it tends to be an english class thing regrettably which does the country no favours.

Richard_Nabavi said:

taffys said:

''Certainly not Maggie, by your reasoning.''

Well maybe, but there's the thing. Maggie inherited an economy akin to that of a former eastern block. It took decades to turn it around.

The modern British economy is (thanks to her entirely) a money machine. Any conservative chancellor worth his salt should be able to balance its books and its not unreasonable to expect the books to be balanced after almost six years in the job.

It's entirely unreasonable, given the size of the inherited deficit combined the poor world economic conditions. The simple fact of the matter is that, by any standard, Osborne has done astonishingly well: the UK is one of the very few success stories amongst major economies, from an initial position of being amongst the worst. His macro-economic judgement has been perfect (an upgrade from my tentative 'near-perfect' assessment of around 2012). The deficit is half what it was as a share of GDP, growth is amongst the best of the bunch, unemployment has fallen dramatically, living standards are now rising nicely. Any one or two of those would be good; to achieve all of them simultaneously is a major achievement, making him clearly one of the best Chancellors of the post-war years.

Richard_Nabavi said:

taffys said:

''Certainly not Maggie, by your reasoning.''

Well maybe, but there's the thing. Maggie inherited an economy akin to that of a former eastern block. It took decades to turn it around.

The modern British economy is (thanks to her entirely) a money machine. Any conservative chancellor worth his salt should be able to balance its books and its not unreasonable to expect the books to be balanced after almost six years in the job.

It's entirely unreasonable, given the size of the inherited deficit combined the poor world economic conditions. The simple fact of the matter is that, by any standard, Osborne has done astonishingly well: the UK is one of the very few success stories amongst major economies, from an initial position of being amongst the worst. His macro-economic judgement has been perfect (an upgrade from my tentative 'near-perfect' assessment of around 2012). The deficit is half what it was as a share of GDP, growth is amongst the best of the bunch, unemployment has fallen dramatically, living standards are now rising nicely. Any one or two of those would be good; to achieve all of them simultaneously is a major achievement, making him clearly one of the best Chancellors of the post-war years.

DavidL said:

Alanbrooke said:

Charles said:

Alanbrooke said:

Charles said:

Alanbrooke said:

Charles said:

MaxPB said:

RobD said:

Pulpstar said:

I think Uni when I went had it about right, fees of ~ £3000 a year, ~£12k of debt on graduation. High recovery rate.

You are making me feel old. Only paid the ~£1k a year, although had ~£12k of debt at the end because of a four year course. The loans were not just for the fees, but also living expenses (beer).

I know me too!

I was pre-fees... but it was ludicrous that the taxpayer paid up for me to spend 3 years educating myself.

Why ?

Don't you believe in a knowledge economy ?

Is it equally ludicrous that the taxpayer paid for primary education ?

The taxpayer makes his money back from more of us educated folk paying higher rate taxes.

Sure. But my parents would have paid for me to go to university anyway so effectively I was a free rider. I'm all in favour of subsidising value added courses as a way of encouraging people to study things that are useful for the economy.

I'm afraid Charles the issue for you is your background, you had options which werent open to most people. My view remains we should fund tertiry education and that the loans system is a huge screw up which impoverishes the young and the bill for which will still come back to the taxpayer.

And my view is that we should fund worthwhile courses at quality institutions for students for whom it makes sense. At the same time we need to find a way to rebuild the vocational sector without the historical stigma. There are a lot of people for who 3 years at a pseudo-academic institution makes no sense in terms of personal development - and it makes no sense for the government to fund it either.

If you can reduce the scope of the obligation, then funding should be generous.

Yes I'd agree on the vocational route. Germany has a much better way of linking vocational and academic with a system that allows all to progress through it. The "stigma" as you call it tends to be an english class thing regrettably which does the country no favours.

I thought the idea floated at PMQs today of graduate level apprenticeships being highlighted through the UCCA portal was an interesting idea.

I seem to recall at school reading government reports from the 1870s admiring the German vocational training system. We might catch up one day!

MaxPB said:

Alanbrooke said:

MaxPB said:

Alanbrooke said:

MaxPB said:

Alanbrooke said:

Charles said:

MaxPB said:

RobD said:

Pulpstar said:

I think Uni when I went had it about right, fees of ~ £3000 a year, ~£12k of debt on graduation. High recovery rate.

You are making me feel old. Only paid the ~£1k a year, although had ~£12k of debt at the end because of a four year course. The loans were not just for the fees, but also living expenses (beer).

I know me too!

I was pre-fees... but it was ludicrous that the taxpayer paid up for me to spend 3 years educating myself.

Why ?

Don't you believe in a knowledge economy ?

Is it equally ludicrous that the taxpayer paid for primary education ?

The taxpayer makes his money back from more of us educated folk paying higher rate taxes.

It doesn't make sense with 50% of all people ending up at university. When attendance was 25% or below then grants made sense as the courses held a much higher value, therefore the graduate would go one to earn a higher amount of money and repay it. I can't say the same for London Met students doing marketing studies though.

Your simply saying the whole premise of degrees leading onto higher slaries is a con. I agree.

However currently we have a government which wants to let the problem roll and dupe the young into acquiring £40k of debt.

I'm in favour of reducing fees for proper courses and uncapping them (with no loans) for the guff.

You then get in to a debate about what is proper. Years ago games design courses would have been described as guff, now they're part of our world leading creative industries.

Allegedly.

Games design courses are still guff (I say this having worked in the industry). The people serious about going into the games industry would study ComSci, AI, physics and such. There may be modules on games design within some of these courses, but to specifically do a degree in it is a poor idea. When I was hiring people with a degree in games design would get their CVs thrown thrown in the digital bin and we instructed agencies not to send us applicants who didn't have a speciality. My point is that guff tends to always be guff no matter how much the proponents try and dress it up. Most of the people who did game design at university ended up in QA/testing, not exactly the most fulfilling career.

DavidL said:

MaxPB said:

DavidL said:

viewcode said:

DavidL said:

rottenborough said:

Labour may look utterly unelectable now, but what if some of the doom-sayers at Davos are right and another gigantic, asset-bubble fuelled crash is about to hit us?

You've been reading AEP again. Really, its not a good idea.

Is AEP actually rubbish? He writes *terribly* (consistently using overcomplex phrasing, obscure references, non-English tags) but I find if you sit down and work you what he's actually saying it's quite interesting. But I am a bear of very little brain and I have no idea whether his wideranging worldview and sweeping conclusions are actually gibberish or not. I know he's been wrong on the collapse of the Euro, but that was a common mistake of the Anglophone commentariat. Has he been wrong on other things as well?

He was, and continues to be wrong about deflation, inflation, sovereign solvency, the German Constitutional Court and the Euro and many other matters (Robert will no doubt give the details if he is around, some of them are quite bizarre). But to be honest it is his writing style that bugs me the most. Prices never fall, they "crash". Every movement or even non movement is hyperbolically described.

Today's effort is pretty typical. He has found a kindred spirit who thinks we now have a worse debt bubble than we had in 2008. This is rubbish but it is not enough for it to be a concern; it has to be the end of the world as we know it. All counter-measures are "exhausted". Presumably that means that no more QE, for example is possible?

Sometimes, I will admit, it is possible to extract some interesting statistical information from his pieces. But he really needs to calm down.

I think he is really trying to "predict" the next major crash, so all of his articles are about a future crash, so when one does come he can come across as "prescient". Vince Cable did this to great effect. What takes real nous is doing what Peter Lilley did in 1997 and predict the exact failures (almost to the last detail) of the new regulatory system being brought in by Brown and Balls 10 years ahead of time.

You are probably right. I am pretty sure we used to have a poster on here who used to predict stock market crashes with great precision if little accuracy.

FrancisUrquhart said:

MaxPB said:

Games design courses are still guff (I say this having worked in the industry). The people serious about going into the games industry would study ComSci, AI, physics and such. There may be modules on games design within some of these courses, but to specifically do a degree in it is a poor idea. When I was hiring people with a degree in games design would get their CVs thrown thrown in the digital bin and we instructed agencies not to send us applicants who didn't have a speciality. My point is that guff tends to always be guff no matter how much the proponents try and dress it up. Most of the people who did game design at university ended up in QA/testing, not exactly the most fulfilling career.

It is the same as uni's who offer "computer programming" rather than Computer Science.

JosiasJessop said:

Generally the best programmers and engineers did not from comp sci courses. For some reason, I know a number of excellent programmers who have geography-related degrees. I can understand physicists making good programmers, but geographers?

Alanbrooke said:

DavidL said:

Alanbrooke said:

Charles said:

Alanbrooke said:

Charles said:

Alanbrooke said:

Charles said:

MaxPB said:

RobD said:

Pulpstar said:

I think Uni when I went had it about right, fees of ~ £3000 a year, ~£12k of debt on graduation. High recovery rate.

You are making me feel old. Only paid the ~£1k a year, although had ~£12k of debt at the end because of a four year course. The loans were not just for the fees, but also living expenses (beer).

I know me too!

I was pre-fees... but it was ludicrous that the taxpayer paid up for me to spend 3 years educating myself.

Why ?

Don't you believe in a knowledge economy ?

Is it equally ludicrous that the taxpayer paid for primary education ?

The taxpayer makes his money back from more of us educated folk paying higher rate taxes.

Sure. But my parents would have paid for me to go to university anyway so effectively I was a free rider. I'm all in favour of subsidising value added courses as a way of encouraging people to study things that are useful for the economy.

I'm afraid Charles the issue for you is your background, you had options which werent open to most people. My view remains we should fund tertiry education and that the loans system is a huge screw up which impoverishes the young and the bill for which will still come back to the taxpayer.

And my view is that we should fund worthwhile courses at quality institutions for students for whom it makes sense. At the same time we need to find a way to rebuild the vocational sector without the historical stigma. There are a lot of people for who 3 years at a pseudo-academic institution makes no sense in terms of personal development - and it makes no sense for the government to fund it either.

If you can reduce the scope of the obligation, then funding should be generous.

Yes I'd agree on the vocational route. Germany has a much better way of linking vocational and academic with a system that allows all to progress through it. The "stigma" as you call it tends to be an english class thing regrettably which does the country no favours.

I thought the idea floated at PMQs today of graduate level apprenticeships being highlighted through the UCCA portal was an interesting idea.

I seem to recall at school reading government reports from the 1870s admiring the German vocational training system. We might catch up one day!

Never.

In England Education is simply class war by other means.

FrancisUrquhart said:

NFL plans permanent UK-based franchise 'in six years'

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/american-football/35360989

Sandpit said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

NFL plans permanent UK-based franchise 'in six years'

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/american-football/35360989

The plans for the new Spurs stadium were designed with an NFL team in mind.

London is an awful long way to come and go from the West Coast every week though, it will be interesting in seeing how the logistics of having a permanent 'franchise' rather than a one-off match would work out.

DavidL said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

JosiasJessop said:

Generally the best programmers and engineers did not from comp sci courses. For some reason, I know a number of excellent programmers who have geography-related degrees. I can understand physicists making good programmers, but geographers?

Presumably because geography is so tedious that they are pathetically grateful for the opportunity to do something else, and so work harder.

Or just maybe (speaking up for friends in the Edinburgh University Geography Department) because modern geography requires such complicated computer models they get quite good at it!

My 12 year old son had me helping him with his geography homework last night. The geography of crime and murder rates around the world. Really quite interesting and not a damn contour line in sight!