Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
I would argue that MPs on both sides have not covered themselves in glory.
As I've said before, if well known Remain MPs like Ann Soubry think that Brexit is so bad for the UK and that Britain needs to stay in the EU, then why do they keep backing the government on Brexit? Why not stand down or defect to another party?
Remain supporters on dakka don't need allies like that who put party before country.
Well of course equidistance in this issue was to be expected from you but it's pretty clear at this point which platform ran on a hot-air balloon and which one had at least some grounding. I will take ineptitude over wilful deception any time.
It is interesting that you think a pro-Remain Labour MP and a pro-Remain Tory MP should leave and form their own single-issue party. Are British politics really that dire or do you just want them to end up like UKIP and LibDems and weed the government of dissenters?
I would argue that MPs on both sides have not covered themselves in glory.
As I've said before, if well known Remain MPs like Ann Soubry think that Brexit is so bad for the UK and that Britain needs to stay in the EU, then why do they keep backing the government on Brexit? Why not stand down or defect to another party?
Remain supporters on dakka don't need allies like that who put party before country.
Well of course equidistance in this issue was to be expected from you but it's pretty clear at this point which platform ran on a hot-air balloon and which one had at least some grounding. I will take ineptitude over wilful deception any time.
It is interesting that you think a pro-Remain Labour MP and a pro-Remain Tory MP should leave and form their own single-issue party. Are British politics really that dire or do you just want them to end up like UKIP and LibDems and weed the government of dissenters?
Why shouldn't Remain MPs form a single issue party if that single issue is deemed to be the greatest challenge facing the nation?
On a daily basis, people like yourself, reds8n, Kilkrazy, whirlwind, Herzlos et al are posting bar graphs, pie charts, articles, memoirs, biographies, phd papers, whatever, on the problems of Brexit.
The newspapers are full of stories about EU reports, government reports, business experts, economy experts etc etc warning on the dangers of Brexit.
Japan has issued a warning, GDP is going to shrink 900% or something, and Britain will suffer.
That is the daily narrative on dakka and in the media. Let's assume for argument's sake that it's true.
Clearly, the UK is in grave danger, the British people are in danger of suffering, and yet, here I am saying that Remain MPs should put the nation first ahead of party, if they claim to care about the nation as they constantly claim they do.
The response? It's complicated. It's not a single issue thing. There are lots of issues at General Elections, as though building new bus stops in Banbury was on a par with the UK's GDP contracting by 10% or whatever.
You lot can't have it both ways.
A less polite person than myself might call this hypocrisy...
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/02/15 15:57:24
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
Back in the 1970s, the number of MPs supporting EEC membership reflected the support in the nation for EEC membership.
Back in the 1950s the British people backed the government's stance on Suez.
Back in the 1940s, the landslide for Labour reflected the huge support for the welfare state in the UK.
Back in the 1930s, the nation backed Baldwin and Chamberlin's appeasement approach. Had Chamberlain called an election after Munich, it would have been a landslide victory for him.
There's a pattern here
There really isn't. Unless you consider the populace supporting 2 good things (EEC and Welfare State) and 2 bad things (Appeasement, though it was an understandable stance, and Suez) some kind of correlation that you need parliament and the populace united to do stuff? Which doesn't really say anything?
And parties get landslide victories without having to offer up a grand vision, sometimes just because people think "it's the other teams turn now".
Why shouldn't Remain MPs form a single issue party if that single issue is deemed to be the greatest challenge facing the nation?
Because people don't vote on single issues, at least in large enough numbers in enough constituencies to make it worthwhile. There's no point shouting about a single issue from the sidelines as you have no power to do anything about it. Unless, of course, you're pulling support from the Tories but then they'll just take your ideological stance and absorb all your voters.
On a daily basis, people like yourself, reds8n, Kilkrazy, whirlwind, Herzlos et al are posting bar graphs, pie charts, articles, memoirs, biographies, phd papers, whatever, on the problems of Brexit.
The newspapers are full of stories about EU reports, government reports, business experts, economy experts etc etc warning on the dangers of Brexit.
Japan has issued a warning, GDP is going to shrink 900% or something, and Britain will suffer.
That is the daily narrative on dakka and in the media. Let's assume for argument's sake that it's true.
Clearly, the UK is in grave danger, the British people are in danger of suffering, and yet, here I am saying that Remain MPs should put the nation first ahead of party, if they claim to care about the nation as they constantly claim they do.
The response? It's complicated. It's not a single issue thing. There are lots of issues at General Elections, as though building new bus stops in Banbury was on a par with the UK's GDP contracting by 10% or whatever.
You lot can't have it both ways.
A less polite person than myself might call this hypocrisy...
Putting nation ahead of party means they need to be in parliament to have any actual impact. It is no use saying "I put the nation ahead of my party" from outside the system whilst your party replacement just drives the country off the cliff.
And, again, people in Banbury may not understand what effect a 10% in GDP will have but they will understand the effect that a new road/bus stop/etc. will have.
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2018/02/15 16:13:15
The Laws of Thermodynamics:
1) You cannot win. 2) You cannot break even. 3) You cannot stop playing the game.
Colonel Flagg wrote:You think you're real smart. But you're not smart; you're dumb. Very dumb. But you've met your match in me.
I would argue that MPs on both sides have not covered themselves in glory.
As I've said before, if well known Remain MPs like Ann Soubry think that Brexit is so bad for the UK and that Britain needs to stay in the EU, then why do they keep backing the government on Brexit? Why not stand down or defect to another party?
Remain supporters on dakka don't need allies like that who put party before country.
Well of course equidistance in this issue was to be expected from you but it's pretty clear at this point which platform ran on a hot-air balloon and which one had at least some grounding. I will take ineptitude over wilful deception any time.
It is interesting that you think a pro-Remain Labour MP and a pro-Remain Tory MP should leave and form their own single-issue party. Are British politics really that dire or do you just want them to end up like UKIP and LibDems and weed the government of dissenters?
Why shouldn't Remain MPs form a single issue party if that single issue is deemed to be the greatest challenge facing the nation?
Did leave MPs get their seat through UKIP? No, they did not.
The issue of representativity is always a red herring. Men, higher income, higher education, etc. are all overrepresented in parliament. Would you support that 2/3 of MPs did not have higher education? Or require a certain % of MPs to oppose gay marriage?
NI govt has hired a whopping 6 new border officers, bringing the whole force to an impressive 63 people. That's for 200+ crossing points along 300+ miles, several ports and 2 or 3 airports.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/02/15 16:38:37
How many would be re-elected as an independent, if the Tories replaced them with someone else?
Given that a lot of voters will vote for the party irrespective of the MP or politics, I suspect leaving a major party to join a single issue fringe or run as an independent means losing the seat in a lot of cases.
That being the case, if you want to stop Brexit, are you better being an elected Tory MP, or an unelected independent?
That we aren't charging straight down the hard Brexit route is directly attributable to Tory MP's who are against it.
When you're talking about standing for election on a single issue, you're really just talking about a hugely unreliable version of having a referendum. Why not just ask the country about Brexit again, instead of moving politicians around?
In Wales some years ago Labour attempted to parachute a female MP into ‘the safest seat in Wales’ using all-women shortlists. Their reliance on the belief that the locals would unquestioningly vote Labour was misplaced as the previous established member stood as independent and won.
I've said before that obviously, 52% of voters voted for Brexit, but 70% of our MPs back EU membership.
This disconnect between voters and MPs is obviously not a good thing, and it's not just on the EU. Immigration is another issue where the voters and the politicians seem to be miles apart.
That depends on how you spin the numbers. Out of the total voting populace approx 36% voted to leave, 34% voted to Remain and 30% didn't turn up. If we assume the 30% that didn't turn up were just happy with the status quo then in actuality parliament does represent the population.
As for immigration people's perceptions are tainted by what they read/watch. If you only hear the bad news stories then you can become disconnected in reality. Largely in this case that immigrants are sponging off the system when in reality they are working damn hard for the country. Now that some people have acted out of 'fear of people not being from around here they then happily disconnect from reality when the issues encouraging such people to leave are thrown up. Or they start proposing slavery of the younger generation so they can happily retire (as per the earlier article).
Kilkrazy wrote: The problem is that while 18 months ago nearly 52% of the UK population were for leaving the EU, no-one knew what that meant, and no-one knows now, and we don't know how many people have changed their minds, or might change their minds once the shape of the final proposition is defined.
Cough...general election summer 2017...cough...main parties had Brexit manifestoes...cough...nation's views clear...cough...
That's not an even comparison. As you have noted I am clearly pro staying in the EU. However I voted Labour. I did that because it was the best chance of removing a Tory crony (very little chance though). I wouldn't have voted that way if it was PR but felt little choice was there because of the FPTP system. Surveys seem to suggest that this happened across the board. Those that voted remain headed towards Labour/LD and those that voted Wrexit headed for Tories (in general and in England). As such you can argue that 60% of the populace voted for at most a soft Wrexit yet because of the system we have its full stream ahead to trying to wreck the younger generations future to ensure people like Boris, Tories and their donors can get even richer whilst exploiting the poor.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/02/15 18:59:37
"Because while the truncheon may be used in lieu of conversation, words will always retain their power. Words offer the means to meaning, and for those who will listen, the enunciation of truth. And the truth is, there is something terribly wrong with this country, isn't there? Cruelty and injustice, intolerance and oppression. And where once you had the freedom to object, to think and speak as you saw fit, you now have censors and systems of surveillance coercing your conformity and soliciting your submission. How did this happen? Who's to blame? Well certainly there are those more responsible than others, and they will be held accountable, but again truth be told, if you're looking for the guilty, you need only look into a mirror. " - V
I've just supported the Permanent European Union Citizenship initiative. Please do the same and spread the word!
"It's not a problem if you don't look up." - Dakka's approach to politics
... "If you believe," he shouted to them, "clap your hands; don't let Tink Brexit die."
Stirring stuff.
The poor man really has a stake in the country. The rich man hasn't; he can go away to New Guinea in a yacht. The poor have sometimes objected to being governed badly; the rich have always objected to being governed at all
We love our superheroes because they refuse to give up on us. We can analyze them out of existence, kill them, ban them, mock them, and still they return, patiently reminding us of who we are and what we wish we could be.
"the play's the thing wherein I'll catch the conscience of the king,
Why on earth do the BBC keep giving this arsehole air time?
How is he even still relevant to anything at all, including Brexit? What is their fascination with this bug eyed, chinless, wide boy? Why am I still seeing Nigel fething Farage on the TV?!
"All their ferocity was turned outwards, against enemies of the State, foreigners, traitors, saboteurs, thought-criminals" - Orwell, 1984
Howard A Treesong wrote: In Wales some years ago Labour attempted to parachute a female MP into ‘the safest seat in Wales’ using all-women shortlists. Their reliance on the belief that the locals would unquestioningly vote Labour was misplaced as the previous established member stood as independent and won.
This is why I think it should be a legal requirement for any candidate MP to have been resident in the area for at least 5-years prior to standing for election. That would stop the whole parachuting in of party apparatchiks to super safe seats and improve representation in the House of Commons.
Zed wrote: *All statements reflect my opinion at this moment. if some sort of pretty new model gets released (or if I change my mind at random) I reserve the right to jump on any bandwagon at will.
Kilkrazy wrote: Local people can stand for election if they want to ensure candidates are local.
Yes, but that falls into the same trap as DINLT's "remain MPs should leave their party", namely that a large majority of people in this country vote on the basis of what party logo is next to the box on the ballot paper, not the individual candidate. So a local independent candidate is barely going to get their deposit back and the main parties are more interested in finding safe seats for slick, upper-middle class grads from Oxford to start their political career than providing local representation.
Zed wrote: *All statements reflect my opinion at this moment. if some sort of pretty new model gets released (or if I change my mind at random) I reserve the right to jump on any bandwagon at will.
A lot of people seem unconvinced by my argument about a disconnect between voters and MPs, which is fair enough. Nobody's perfect.
But there's another aspect to this gulf between voters and MPs and that's political parties themselves.
I make it my business to read widely and often on politics, be it left, centre, or right.
As much as I loathe the Conservative party, I always follow their allies in the media, to see what the 'enemy' is thinking.
For example if you go to Conservative Home, there's a recurrent theme there that's been going on for years: the grassroots members feel ignored by party top brass.
Candidates seem to be parachuted into safe seats, local organisations and branches are often ignored, and when it comes to policy making, Cameron made sure the grassroots were kept miles away from having any say on formulating policy or ideas.
To have a disconnect between MPs and average voters on the street is one thing, but if a party is ignoring its own base i.e people who actively pay money to associate and campaign for the Tory party,
then you have to wonder what the hell is the point of a political party.
People seem to have overlooked how hollowed out UK politics actualy is. Forget Brexit here for a minute, because our body politic, public participation, and civic society, are going to the dogs!
Why on earth do the BBC keep giving this arsehole air time?
How is he even still relevant to anything at all, including Brexit? What is their fascination with this bug eyed, chinless, wide boy? Why am I still seeing Nigel fething Farage on the TV?!
I barely watch TV thee days, apart from the rugby or the football world cup.
Turn off and start painting more miniatures, or reading books, or 100+ more useful things that need to be done. That's my advice.
95% of TV content these days is utter horsegak IMO.
... "If you believe," he shouted to them, "clap your hands; don't let Tink Brexit die."
Stirring stuff.
You're just worried that your home county will be transformed into a giant, 100 square mile lorry park or something
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/02/16 12:53:13
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
‘Middle income’ might as well be low income when it comes to housing. No wonder home ownership is falling so much. Renting and buying homes is just out of reach for many, and £30k income isn’t to be sniffed at. Teaching will never pay enough for me to buy a home in London, so like many others I’ll have to leave when I want to settle down with someone. Similarly for all those in essential services like nursing. The public and authorities desperately want nurses and teachers in their areas, but nothing addresses that wages and housing costs are woefully mismatched.
‘Middle income’ might as well be low income when it comes to housing. No wonder home ownership is falling so much. Renting and buying homes is just out of reach for many, and £30k income isn’t to be sniffed at. Teaching will never pay enough for me to buy a home in London, so like many others I’ll have to leave when I want to settle down with someone. Similarly for all those in essential services like nursing. The public and authorities desperately want nurses and teachers in their areas, but nothing addresses that wages and housing costs are woefully mismatched.
It's not good. For many years I have complained about this to my wife. We have never been truly poor, but we have never been well off. We have always felt lost in the middle. We just get by most of the time (at least until recently, about 18 months ago, when things changed for us). We never had any support from anyone. All of the support is aimed at the poorest, which is fine, and as it should be. However it results in us seeing people around us being able to access social housing at affordable rents, or part buy part affordable rent, people around us getting support with nursery fees. Therefore resulting in those less well off than us able to access things we cannot afford. I do not blame them, it is a structural issue that is failing to be addresses. Whilst we worry about areas becoming unaffordable and not removing the low paid the middle are being forgotten. You just need to look at somewhere like London. The city has a combination of multimillionaires and social housing with nothing in the middle.
What makes it worse is that it is our middle class parents that are doing it. They are the ones who vote tory time and again. The ones who are NIMBYS. The ones who protect their pensions at the cost to us. Those who say things like (quoting my 59 year old mother in law just yesterday) "I'm not going to be able to retire until I am 68. It's not fair. They should make the young ones work longer"... A woman who has not worked half her live, now works part time for just over minimum wage, owns a small house and two cars (thanks to a divorce settlement) and had the audacity to complain that her state pension will not be enough for her to go on holiday as she has not had enough NI payment years.
insaniak wrote: Sometimes, Exterminatus is the only option.
And sometimes, it's just a case of too much scotch combined with too many buttons...
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: A lot of people seem unconvinced by my argument about a disconnect between voters and MPs, which is fair enough. Nobody's perfect.
But there's another aspect to this gulf between voters and MPs and that's political parties themselves.
I make it my business to read widely and often on politics, be it left, centre, or right.
As much as I loathe the Conservative party, I always follow their allies in the media, to see what the 'enemy' is thinking.
For example if you go to Conservative Home, there's a recurrent theme there that's been going on for years: the grassroots members feel ignored by party top brass.
Candidates seem to be parachuted into safe seats, local organisations and branches are often ignored, and when it comes to policy making, Cameron made sure the grassroots were kept miles away from having any say on formulating policy or ideas.
To have a disconnect between MPs and average voters on the street is one thing, but if a party is ignoring its own base i.e people who actively pay money to associate and campaign for the Tory party,
then you have to wonder what the hell is the point of a political party.
People seem to have overlooked how hollowed out UK politics actualy is. Forget Brexit here for a minute, because our body politic, public participation, and civic society, are going to the dogs!
If they feel their party isn't listening to them, then don't vote for that candidate. They could vote for Labour, Lib-Dem, whoever. Even if the Tory still wins, the party will take notice of a dramatic swing towards other parties and will have to ask the members about why it is happening.
Alternatively, they could group together and effect change by voting for a leader who more represents their views, even if they are constantly told not to by the party itself. It worked for Momentum and Jeremy Corbyn, twice.
I have no sympathy for them if they continue to reward the behaviour they are complaining about by paying their party membership and voting for the people the party drops in to represent them, despite being cut off from all actual decision making.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/02/16 13:59:35
The Laws of Thermodynamics:
1) You cannot win. 2) You cannot break even. 3) You cannot stop playing the game.
Colonel Flagg wrote:You think you're real smart. But you're not smart; you're dumb. Very dumb. But you've met your match in me.
It's an open secret that the Conservative party top brass are embarrassed by their own members
They despise their members, but their unwavering loyalty brings in membership subs for the party's coffers, so they are 'tolerated.'
From my reading, following the disaster of 1997, steps were taken to keep the grassroots at arms length from the higher echelons - hence the election of a used car salesman by the name of David Cameron.
People have to remember that 95% of Conservative MPs, with the notable exception of rare individuals such as Rees-Mogg, aren't Conservative. They're Blairites to the core.
So you have a base that is staunchly Conservative, but MPs who loathe and despise them.
Now, personally, I couldn't give two hoots for the Tories, and I take great delight at their imminent destruction, but I make this point to show that voter apathy to political engaement is not only restricted to The Commons.
Even long established political parties are clueless to their own mission and purpose.
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
The poor man really has a stake in the country. The rich man hasn't; he can go away to New Guinea in a yacht. The poor have sometimes objected to being governed badly; the rich have always objected to being governed at all
We love our superheroes because they refuse to give up on us. We can analyze them out of existence, kill them, ban them, mock them, and still they return, patiently reminding us of who we are and what we wish we could be.
"the play's the thing wherein I'll catch the conscience of the king,
Further education fees have made a surprise appearance in the latest news cycle, possibly due to Labour having promised to can student loans, which put the Tories on the back foot.
It's a topic I"m very interested in, as the "average" salaried father of an 18-year-old daughter who is currently trying to sort out her offers for entry this autumn.
Frankly I think the whole thing is a pig's ear.
The crucial point is that May insists that education has to be fair to tax payers. feth tax payers, I say, I"m a tax payer, my daughter will be a tax payer, what you really mean is you don't want to tax the rich more.
Student loans should match interest rates. Doing otherwise is an admission it’s a profit making exercise, but we’ve been told for years it to fund the university courses.
Student loans are a mess, over the last 10+ years there have been so many different deals with the amounts borrowed, the interest, when you have to start paying it back and how much for how long. Some people have to pay when they earn £18K, others £25K, some get it written off in later life but others carry it forever. And it’s all people who benefited from free university who are screwing the younger generations. Just like with housing, jobs and pensions. Sigh.
I hadn't noticed, what with Komrade Corbyn apparently selling the UK to some Czech spy, who definitely isn't talking out of his hoop.
How these "diplomats" managed to take time out of their busy spying schedule to organise Live Aid behind Bob Geldofs back without him noticing is just incredible. These ex-soviet types are truly a talented bunch. Definitely not some doddery old loon, making gak up.
I mean, his claims that he received intelligence from Corbyn passed to him from the MoD via his contacts in the CND movement about Margaret Thatcher's eating and clothing schedules seem completely reasonable.
No sensible, balanced editor would ever dare publish outrageous slurs in an attempt to defame an MP based on the ravings of a single dubious source. I mean, you'd have to call into question their journalistic integrity.
If you could find any evidence that they possessed any.
[/Sarcasm]
"All their ferocity was turned outwards, against enemies of the State, foreigners, traitors, saboteurs, thought-criminals" - Orwell, 1984
I’d love to support abolishing fees entirely, but given the vast increase in numbers* from when university was free, I’m not sure it’s a viable proposition.
Having said that, we have known skills shortages in engineering, nursing, teaching, etc., so we should definitely be abolishing fees for those courses, to encourage take-up. There also ought to be fee-free scholarships or similar for a certain number of students for other courses (e.g. history, art), so that the most talented in their respective fields can get the education they deserve, regardless of their background.
But if you’re only an average student who wants to do a course that is not going to be of any real benefit to the country, then you have to make a contribution. Possibly not as much as currently and certainly with interest rates capped.
I also think that anyone who hasn’t been into higher education before should have the same access to fee-free / scholarships as above; this would help people develop or re-train later in their careers and should also reduce the pressure to go to university even if your a clueless teenager who’ll pick a random course because you have to take the opportunity now, or lose it. (Not a dig at teenagers, I think it’s perfectly reasonable not to know what the hell you want to do at 17 and stupid of society to expect you to make such a massive commitment with no alternative).
* note that there is no evidence that increased numbers has affected graduate earnings. You are still much more likely to earn a lot more with a degree, even if there are 10x as many people with degrees as 20 years ago.
Zed wrote: *All statements reflect my opinion at this moment. if some sort of pretty new model gets released (or if I change my mind at random) I reserve the right to jump on any bandwagon at will.
I'd broadly agree, however I believe that all higher education should be freely available and that the skill sets developed are not always wasted. A degree, after all demonstrates capability, and ability to analyse and structure thought. Even a degree in those often derided subjects provide some level of higher abstraction.
I also agree that our timetable for the young is somewhat forced, but it must be balanced with the knowledge that the absorption and retention of knowledge becomes more challenging as you age. From experience I know this too be true, however people in their 20s and 30s can easily master new skills when challenged. Those of us who are a little older can still manage a change in direction, but it's a bit more effort.
"All their ferocity was turned outwards, against enemies of the State, foreigners, traitors, saboteurs, thought-criminals" - Orwell, 1984
I've long been of the opinion that a degree should be free. There is always a debate about wether the tax payers or the students should foot the bill. What is never pointed out is that today's students ARE tomorrows tax payers. And because of their education, on average will pay an awful lot more tax throughout their lifetimes.
I was more fortunate than today's students because my fees were only 1k, and was covered anyway because I come from a low income family. Students graduating with at least £27k of debt is crazy.
I was more fortunate than today's students because my fees were only 1k, and was covered anyway because I come from a low income family. Students graduating with at least £27k of debt is crazy.
I'm currently at £55k. 3 years at 9k fees plus one year at 6k (foundation year), plus ~3k a year in maintenance loan plus 10k postgrad loan.
Oh and 10k from the co-op in the form of a career development loan.
So 55k from the government and 10k from the co-op.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/02/20 08:45:35
The Laws of Thermodynamics:
1) You cannot win. 2) You cannot break even. 3) You cannot stop playing the game.
Colonel Flagg wrote:You think you're real smart. But you're not smart; you're dumb. Very dumb. But you've met your match in me.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: ...Why shouldn't Remain MPs form a single issue party if that single issue is deemed to be the greatest challenge facing the nation?
.....
The response? It's complicated. It's not a single issue thing. There are lots of issues at General Elections, as though building new bus stops in Banbury was on a par with the UK's GDP contracting by 10% or whatever.
You lot can't have it both ways.
A less polite person than myself might call this hypocrisy...
Ask, and you shall receive. With luck they'll be a centre right, neo-liberal party. That would really cause a ruckus.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Herbington wrote: ... There is always a debate about wether the tax payers or the students should foot the bill. What is never pointed out is that today's students ARE tomorrows tax payers. And because of their education, on average will pay an awful lot more tax throughout their lifetimes....
There is also this rather unpleasant and patronising right wing mantra that it is unfair that a factory worker should pay for the education of a student who will go onto earn more than them. They are attempting to use the politics of envy here, as if that factory worker will not benefit from living in a country full of UK educated engineers, doctors, teachers, social workers and the myriad other trades and careers that require specialist learning.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/02/20 08:52:45
"All their ferocity was turned outwards, against enemies of the State, foreigners, traitors, saboteurs, thought-criminals" - Orwell, 1984
Glad to see we're still setting the bar so high here.
On the other hand it seems likely that significant segments of the UK population voted for deadly clashes over petrol, cool looking leather outfits and, if we're lucky, Tina Turner ruling over us as some form of Queen, so who are these elites to stand in the way of the people eh ?
Of course Tina Turner is now a Swiss citizen so, once again, the hard working and slightly irradiated workers of the UK have yet another unelected European ruling over us/our water.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/02/20 09:00:50
The poor man really has a stake in the country. The rich man hasn't; he can go away to New Guinea in a yacht. The poor have sometimes objected to being governed badly; the rich have always objected to being governed at all
We love our superheroes because they refuse to give up on us. We can analyze them out of existence, kill them, ban them, mock them, and still they return, patiently reminding us of who we are and what we wish we could be.
"the play's the thing wherein I'll catch the conscience of the king,
but it's pretty clear at this point which platform ran on a hot-air balloon and which one had at least some grounding. I will take ineptitude over wilful deception any time.
uh huh...
