I think that the conclusion we can all draw is that both Abbot and Johnson are total liabilities for their respective parties, however it does seem to me that the Tories seem to inundated with incompetence at the moment. Cameron started the ball rolling in recent times calling for an EU referendum with the view that the remainers would walk it, it cost him his job and his integrity, Johnson then tried to become PM, but was stabbed in the back by other members of his party, so we are we left with May, who lets face it, is not fit to hold Thatchers handbag (and I thought Thatch was an appalling piece of work), she called this election thinking, again they would walk it but they are finding it tough again. They just dont seem to understand or care about how the general public think outside London.
So far we have:
May Corbyn Abbott Johnson
all being called liabilities. These are 4 of our main politicians from the 2 Party leadership race!
Not Corbyn, look at the support he has now, following the last 3 weeks of electioneering. I think he will be a breath of fresh air from the Tory freeloaders that have wrecked those country. For The Many - Not The Few.
It's votes that count, not vociferous rent-a-mobs at debates/question time.
@PragueAddick on university fees, see earlier pages in this post. In short, my argument is that if you accept that some of the benefits of a university education accrue to the overall country and some accrue to the individual, why should 100% of the burden be borne by the taxpayer?
Moreover if the taxpayer pays for 100%, how does one control the supply of university places so that only those who are truly bright enough go (thus providing at least some benefit to the country)?
We need to get away from this idea that something is 'free' just because it isn't paid for at source.
Well the reason for my overlong prologue was to invite the question: How and WHY do the Scandis do it that way? And why do you - presumably - think they have worse outcomes both for students and society as a whole?
At some stage in your career, did your employer invest a significant amount of money in training for you? Did they make you pay for it, or make you agree to pay for it if you left within x years.
As for the "bright enough" argument, I seriously don't get it. When I went, my choices were limited by my A level results. What's wrong with that? And how does making the poor kids saddle themselves with debt ensure that only the bright ones get in? That's a massive non- sequitur. My nephew got a 1st, but like I said, without my support, he might have been tempted to say, sod that.
@PragueAddick on university fees, see earlier pages in this post. In short, my argument is that if you accept that some of the benefits of a university education accrue to the overall country and some accrue to the individual, why should 100% of the burden be borne by the taxpayer?
Moreover if the taxpayer pays for 100%, how does one control the supply of university places so that only those who are truly bright enough go (thus providing at least some benefit to the country)?
We need to get away from this idea that something is 'free' just because it isn't paid for at source.
Well the reason for my overlong prologue was to invite the question: How and WHY do the Scandis do it that way? And why do you - presumably - think they have worse outcomes both for students and society as a whole?
At some stage in your career, did your employer invest a significant amount of money in training for you? Did they make you pay for it, or make you agree to pay for it if you left within x years.
As for the "bright enough" argument, I seriously don't get it. When I went, my choices were limited by my A level results. What's wrong with that? And how does making the poor kids saddle themselves with debt ensure that only the bright ones get in? That's a massive non- sequitur. My nephew got a 1st, but like I said, without my support, he might have been tempted to say, sod that.
@LenGlover re your point about Abbott possibly being ill, I think you may be on to something. What was that late night politics show she used to do with Andrew Neil and Portillo? I never liked her but there she at least was coherent and set out distinctive views.
But if you are right, how on earth can Corbyn and co not see this?
I think that the conclusion we can all draw is that both Abbot and Johnson are total liabilities for their respective parties, however it does seem to me that the Tories seem to inundated with incompetence at the moment. Cameron started the ball rolling in recent times calling for an EU referendum with the view that the remainers would walk it, it cost him his job and his integrity, Johnson then tried to become PM, but was stabbed in the back by other members of his party, so we are we left with May, who lets face it, is not fit to hold Thatchers handbag (and I thought Thatch was an appalling piece of work), she called this election thinking, again they would walk it but they are finding it tough again. They just dont seem to understand or care about how the general public think outside London.
So far we have:
May Corbyn Abbott Johnson
all being called liabilities. These are 4 of our main politicians from the 2 Party leadership race!
I don't think Corbyn would be a liability personally, he's just ultra principled and socialist. Most times I have heard him speak he comes across as quite level headed and articulate. The other 3 are incredulous.
The thing is, we do have some decent politicians in this country imo. Simon Hughes and Vince Cable I have a lot of respect for. I like Chuck Uwanna and Keir Starmer seems to speak sense. There may be the odd decent tory politican, but that inner sanctum is pure evil
@LenGlover re your point about Abbott possibly being ill, I think you may be on to something. What was that late night politics show she used to do with Andrew Neil and Portillo? I never liked her but there she at least was coherent and set out distinctive views.
But if you are right, how on earth can Corbyn and co not see this?
For what it's worth, I have just had a call from Labour Party fundraisers. At the end of the call, the guy asked me if there is anything I wanted to ask. I said "yes, how is Dianne Abbott".
The guy paused for some time before answering me. Then he said, in a slightly resigned way, "several people have asked me that today. To be honest, we don't know. I am hoping we'll find out in the next couple of hours".
@PragueAddick on university fees, see earlier pages in this post. In short, my argument is that if you accept that some of the benefits of a university education accrue to the overall country and some accrue to the individual, why should 100% of the burden be borne by the taxpayer?
Moreover if the taxpayer pays for 100%, how does one control the supply of university places so that only those who are truly bright enough go (thus providing at least some benefit to the country)?
We need to get away from this idea that something is 'free' just because it isn't paid for at source.
Well the reason for my overlong prologue was to invite the question: How and WHY do the Scandis do it that way? And why do you - presumably - think they have worse outcomes both for students and society as a whole?
At some stage in your career, did your employer invest a significant amount of money in training for you? Did they make you pay for it, or make you agree to pay for it if you left within x years.
As for the "bright enough" argument, I seriously don't get it. When I went, my choices were limited by my A level results. What's wrong with that? And how does making the poor kids saddle themselves with debt ensure that only the bright ones get in? That's a massive non- sequitur. My nephew got a 1st, but like I said, without my support, he might have been tempted to say, sod that.
If you are referring to accountancy, the big audit firms are happy to pay for training because in return they get thousands of hours per year of educated but relatively cheap labour to undertake challenging but mind-numbingly dull work on behalf of their clients (same true of law firms). They also know that a handful will stick around and become the partners of tomorrow.
What are the dustmen and street cleaners of the UK getting in return for a 100% subsidy of university education? (again I emphasise that they perhaps unknowingly benefit from having an educated/cultured workforce, hence why I wouldn't defend a zero subsiday).
I think we've done the whole Scandinavian thing to death on this thread - I agree their societies seem relatively at ease with themselves from the outside**, but I don't think one can just extrapolate their model onto another such as ours without considering all of the legacy cultural norms that make up our own 'social contract' with the state. In short to use the old phrase, if you were trying to get there then you 'wouldn't start from here'.
(**I recommend a good easy book called 'The Almost Nearly Perfect People - Behind The Myth of the Scandinavian Utopia' by Michael Booth)
We all know how politics work (on either side of the fence). Labour HQ know they have a difficult situation and they will have a difficult decision to make to try and flip this situation round. I don't want to sound harsh (it's just a reality of politics) but they will look at whether this can be flipped into a positive. Either:
a) Corbyn will fire her before the election and deliver a clear indication that he has the "balls" for the job - appealing to the right side of labour voters
b) Abbott will be revealed to be ill (possibly mentally / stress related) and they will protect her and take her out the firing line with a comforting arm - evoking sympathy and appealing to the left side of the Labour voters
@PragueAddick on university fees, see earlier pages in this post. In short, my argument is that if you accept that some of the benefits of a university education accrue to the overall country and some accrue to the individual, why should 100% of the burden be borne by the taxpayer?
Moreover if the taxpayer pays for 100%, how does one control the supply of university places so that only those who are truly bright enough go (thus providing at least some benefit to the country)?
We need to get away from this idea that something is 'free' just because it isn't paid for at source.
Well the reason for my overlong prologue was to invite the question: How and WHY do the Scandis do it that way? And why do you - presumably - think they have worse outcomes both for students and society as a whole?
At some stage in your career, did your employer invest a significant amount of money in training for you? Did they make you pay for it, or make you agree to pay for it if you left within x years.
As for the "bright enough" argument, I seriously don't get it. When I went, my choices were limited by my A level results. What's wrong with that? And how does making the poor kids saddle themselves with debt ensure that only the bright ones get in? That's a massive non- sequitur. My nephew got a 1st, but like I said, without my support, he might have been tempted to say, sod that.
If you are referring to accountancy, the big audit firms are happy to pay for training because in return they get thousands of hours per year of educated but relatively cheap labour to undertake challenging but mind-numbingly dull work on behalf of their clients (same true of law firms). They also know that a handful will stick around and become the partners of tomorrow.
What are the dustmen and street cleaners of the UK getting in return for a 100% subsidy of university education? (again I emphasise that they perhaps unknowingly benefit from having an educated/cultured workforce, hence why I wouldn't defend a zero subsiday).
I think we've done the whole Scandinavian thing to death on this thread - I agree their societies seem relatively at ease with themselves from the outside**, but I don't think one can just extrapolate their model onto another such as ours without considering all of the legacy cultural norms that make up our own 'social contract' with the state. In short to use the old phrase, if you were trying to get there then you 'wouldn't start from here'.
(**I recommend a good easy book called 'The Almost Nearly Perfect People - Behind The Myth of the Scandinavian Utopia' by Michael Booth)
Well we are miles apart obviously. I wasn't referring to accountancy. I was referring to the broad mass of companies who invest in training because they know they will then have more effective people. Most European States, not just the Scandis, look at investment in education the same way.
As for your dustmen, I thought the idea was that the "bright" son or daughter of a dustman can make it to uni more easily, under this system. Seriously?
My mate is the first to agree that Scandi isn't a Utopia (he could spend an hour ranting about Norway, and about the sex "equality", and is in fact half German) but what we've both learnt from our time in Central Europe surrounded by people and businesses from all over, is that you can learn a great deal by considering how others do things. That goes for business and for society and politics. You reject the concept (I guess because of what seems to be a US oriented approach to society), but I've got a feeling that 70% of the people on this thread had no idea that other largely successful European countries don't make their students pay such grotesque fees.
People can support the Tory party and still be ordinary voters. Voters wearing a rosette (one of which looks home made frankly) doesnt have to mean they are paid up members.
People can support the Tory party and still be ordinary voters. Voters wearing a rosette (one of which looks home made frankly) doesnt have to mean they are paid up members.
Yeah, you're probably right. They're probably not Tory supporters at all. And she's probably asking them where they got the rosettes.
People can support the Tory party and still be ordinary voters. Voters wearing a rosette (one of which looks home made frankly) doesnt have to mean they are paid up members.
But equally they are unlikely be too tough on her or to spoil the photo opportunity by sticking two fingers up behind her head.
They all do it - it's all staged. The pity is that a large number of gullible people believe that this picture (like many others involving politicians of all colours) is displaying May as someone who connects with ordinary people.
People can support the Tory party and still be ordinary voters. Voters wearing a rosette (one of which looks home made frankly) doesnt have to mean they are paid up members.
But equally they are unlikely be too tough on her or to spoil the photo opportunity by sticking two fingers up behind her head.
They all do it - it's all staged. The pity is that a large number of gullible people believe that this picture (like many others involving politicians of all colours) is displaying May as someone who connects with ordinary people.
People can support the Tory party and still be ordinary voters. Voters wearing a rosette (one of which looks home made frankly) doesnt have to mean they are paid up members.
Right, I'm just off down the café for a nice cup of tea. Now where did I leave my rosette?
People can support the Tory party and still be ordinary voters. Voters wearing a rosette (one of which looks home made frankly) doesnt have to mean they are paid up members.
Right, I'm just off down the café for a nice cup of tea. Now where did I leave my rosette?
Happens all the time.
I would describe anyone that turned up at the cafe wearing a rosette as far from ordinary.
I know @cabbles has already mentioned it and I know that it is irrelevant to a persons competency but god I hate Theresa May's shoes.
I agree entirely. I also hate the fact John snow wears novelty ties and socks too. He delivers sombre news about terror attacks, war, famine, disease all the while looking like a TV test card from the 80s.
It flies in the face of my liberal wet lettuceness but I think people should dress appropriately.
I know @cabbles has already mentioned it and I know that it is irrelevant to a persons competency but god I hate Theresa May's shoes.
I agree entirely. I also hate the fact John snow wears novelty ties and socks too. He delivers sombre news about terror attacks, war, famine, disease all the while looking like a TV test card from the 80s.
It flies in the face of my liberal wet lettuceness but I think people should dress appropriately.
At least we haven't seen her disgusting £1000 leather trousers so far in this election. She might be 60 but she has the body of a 90 year old and should dress appropriately!
At least we haven't seen her disgusting £1000 leather trousers so far in this election. She might be 60 but she has the body of a 90 year old and should dress appropriately!
Comments
At some stage in your career, did your employer invest a significant amount of money in training for you? Did they make you pay for it, or make you agree to pay for it if you left within x years.
As for the "bright enough" argument, I seriously don't get it. When I went, my choices were limited by my A level results. What's wrong with that? And how does making the poor kids saddle themselves with debt ensure that only the bright ones get in? That's a massive non- sequitur. My nephew got a 1st, but like I said, without my support, he might have been tempted to say, sod that.
Another Eltham boy.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=youtu.be&v=p7iUYWMD77w
But if you are right, how on earth can Corbyn and co not see this?
The thing is, we do have some decent politicians in this country imo. Simon Hughes and Vince Cable I have a lot of respect for. I like Chuck Uwanna and Keir Starmer seems to speak sense. There may be the odd decent tory politican, but that inner sanctum is pure evil
The guy paused for some time before answering me. Then he said, in a slightly resigned way, "several people have asked me that today. To be honest, we don't know. I am hoping we'll find out in the next couple of hours".
What are the dustmen and street cleaners of the UK getting in return for a 100% subsidy of university education? (again I emphasise that they perhaps unknowingly benefit from having an educated/cultured workforce, hence why I wouldn't defend a zero subsiday).
I think we've done the whole Scandinavian thing to death on this thread - I agree their societies seem relatively at ease with themselves from the outside**, but I don't think one can just extrapolate their model onto another such as ours without considering all of the legacy cultural norms that make up our own 'social contract' with the state. In short to use the old phrase, if you were trying to get there then you 'wouldn't start from here'.
(**I recommend a good easy book called 'The Almost Nearly Perfect People - Behind The Myth of the Scandinavian Utopia' by Michael Booth)
http://www.primeeconomics.org/articles/guws3cyv3ctq9g7vg754p2zyymvc2f
a) Corbyn will fire her before the election and deliver a clear indication that he has the "balls" for the job - appealing to the right side of labour voters
b) Abbott will be revealed to be ill (possibly mentally / stress related) and they will protect her and take her out the firing line with a comforting arm - evoking sympathy and appealing to the left side of the Labour voters
As for your dustmen, I thought the idea was that the "bright" son or daughter of a dustman can make it to uni more easily, under this system. Seriously?
My mate is the first to agree that Scandi isn't a Utopia (he could spend an hour ranting about Norway, and about the sex "equality", and is in fact half German) but what we've both learnt from our time in Central Europe surrounded by people and businesses from all over, is that you can learn a great deal by considering how others do things. That goes for business and for society and politics. You reject the concept (I guess because of what seems to be a US oriented approach to society), but I've got a feeling that 70% of the people on this thread had no idea that other largely successful European countries don't make their students pay such grotesque fees.
But I will check out the book - thanks.
They all do it - it's all staged. The pity is that a large number of gullible people believe that this picture (like many others involving politicians of all colours) is displaying May as someone who connects with ordinary people.
By the way - what the f**k does ordinary mean?
Happens all the time.
Worse if it is home made!
It flies in the face of my liberal wet lettuceness but I think people should dress appropriately.